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.
Extortionate Fees to Convert Property Usage Violate the Fifth Amendment
English Summary
The article argues that exorbitant monetary fees imposed by local governments for converting property usage may constitute an unconstitutional taking under the Fifth Amendment. Using the Takings Clause, the authors assert that such fees fail to meet the Nollan/Dolan standard, which requires the government's demand to have both an essential nexus and rough proportionality to the land use. They contend that the massive fees cited in the New York case lack this proportionality, effectively amounting to an unconstitutional seizure of property. The policy implication is that the Supreme Court must rule on whether such excessive monetary demands, absent a direct property interest, can trigger a Fifth Amendment violation, potentially limiting municipal regulatory power.
中文摘要
本文主張，地方政府為改變物業用途而徵收的過高金錢費用，可能構成《憲法》第五修正案下的違憲徵收。作者援引徵收條款（Takings Clause）指出，此類費用未能符合 Nollan/Dolan 標準，該標準要求政府的要求必須具備必要關聯性（essential nexus）和大致比例性（rough proportionality）的雙重條件。他們認為，在紐約案例中引用的鉅額費用缺乏此種比例性，實質上等同於違憲的財產沒收。其政策意涵是，最高法院必須裁定，在缺乏直接財產權益的情況下，是否會觸發第五修正案的違規行為，這或將限制地方政府的監管權力。
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.