The Cato Institute warns that the USPS's current handling of mail balloting poses a significant risk of systemic failure ahead of major elections. Key concerns include whistleblower allegations regarding 'batch rejection protocols,' which could invalidate thousands of legitimate ballots, coupled with documented slowdowns in delivery speed and increased rejections for lateness. This instability suggests potential operational or political interference aimed at undermining mail voting integrity. Consequently, the article advises that voters and state election officials must plan to bypass the USPS system by utilizing alternative secure methods, such as drop boxes or early in-person voting, to ensure timely ballot submission.
The Adverse Effects of Zoning Restrictions: Evidence from Boston
English Summary
The analysis of Boston's housing market argues that strict zoning regulations are adverse, limiting long-term housing supply and driving up both rents and prices by increasing the average size of units. Key evidence shows that loosening density restrictions significantly increases the number of available housing units per lot, while height limits have no measurable effect on supply or price. Policy implications suggest that removing these market distortions is crucial for achieving better, more efficient, and truly market-driven housing outcomes.
中文摘要
這份針對波士頓房地產市場的分析指出，嚴格的區域劃分管制規定具有負面影響，限制了長期住房供應，並透過增加單位平均尺寸，推高了租金和價格。關鍵證據顯示，放寬容積限制能顯著增加每塊土地可用的住宅單元數量；而高度限制對供需或價格則沒有可測量的影響。政策意涵表明，移除這些市場扭曲是實現更優、更有效率且真正由市場驅動的住房成果所至關重要的。
Related Entries
-
1.
-
2.
The article argues that the United States' aggressive use of tariffs and economic coercion is counterproductive, inspiring international partners to actively circumvent US markets. Instead of increasing dependency on American trade, major global players are deepening cooperation by establishing new free trade agreements (e.g., EU-India, ACFTA, CPTPP) that explicitly exclude the U.S. This trend signals a significant shift toward increased global economic integration outside of US influence. Policymakers should recognize this accelerating decoupling, as it suggests that the traditional American model of trade leverage is rapidly diminishing unless the U.S. commits to upholding multilateral rules and reducing protectionism.
-
3.
The article argues that passing a Continuing Resolution (CR), while preventing an immediate government shutdown, merely preserves an unsustainable fiscal status quo rather than addressing underlying budgetary crises. Congress is criticized for using the CR as an escape route from difficult choices—such as cutting programs or tackling massive deficits—while simultaneously planning to increase debt through reconciliation packages for defense and agriculture. The core problem remains mandatory spending (Social Security, Medicare) driving debt unsustainably. For genuine fiscal stability, the author advises that Congress must move beyond short-term funding measures, prioritize essential functions, and establish a dedicated process to impose discipline on mandatory programs.
-
4.
The article argues that inheritance and estate taxes are detrimental to economic growth, investment, and productivity. Citing Sweden's experience after abolishing the gift and inheritance tax in 2005, the author notes subsequent increases in firm profitability, net sales, and asset values. The core reasoning suggests that removing these taxes allows owner-managers to reinvest capital directly into their companies rather than withdrawing funds for anticipated future tax liabilities. This increased internal investment has been shown to boost corporate financial health and higher corporate income tax payments.
-
5.
The CATO article argues that the US-Venezuela oil deal is deeply problematic due to significant governance and ethical concerns. Key criticisms include a lack of transparency in negotiations, the expansion of state corporatism through government involvement in resource extraction, and questionable legality since it bypasses Venezuelan constitutional requirements. Furthermore, the agreement utilizes a notoriously corrupt private partner and sidelines the democratic opposition, severely undermining US credibility and future diplomatic efforts. Strategically, the deal is viewed as an ill-advised 'imperial resource grab' that risks damaging long-term American influence in Latin America.