The article argues that recent executive overreach and politicization have severely undermined established norms of U.S. civil-military relations. To restore professional standards, the incoming Congress must actively exercise its oversight powers, moving beyond mere criticism to demanding transparency in defense policy and personnel decisions. Key reforms include enforcing meritocratic promotion processes, requiring documented justification for senior officer removals, and preventing the partisan use of the military. These actions are crucial for bolstering public trust and ensuring the military remains a nonpartisan instrument of civilian control.
Raising the Federal Minimum Wage Is a Solution in Search of a Problem
English Summary
This CATO Institute analysis argues against raising the federal minimum wage, asserting that the premise of a ‘problem’ is flawed. The effective minimum wage faced by most American workers is significantly higher than the current $7.25 federal rate, averaging $12.13 due to rising state and local minimums and productivity growth. A higher federal floor would disproportionately harm low-productivity sectors and rural areas where wage floors are already relatively high, potentially leading to widespread job losses. The analysis highlights that the size of the ‘bite’ – the ratio of the minimum wage to median wages – is a more critical factor in determining employment impacts, and that larger increases would be particularly disruptive. Ultimately, the report concludes that existing state and local minimum wage policies effectively address wage concerns, rendering a federal hike unnecessary and potentially detrimental.
中文摘要
本 Cato Institute 的分析認為，提高聯邦最低工資的論點是站不住腳的。大多數美國工人的實際最低工資遠高於當前的 7.25 美元，平均為 12.13 美元，這主要歸因於州和地方最低工資的提高以及生產力增長。 提高聯邦最低工資將不成比例地損害低生產力部門和工資地板已經相對較高的鄉村地區，可能導致大規模失業。 分析指出，最低工資與中位工資的比例（即「咬合」大小）是決定就業影響的更關鍵因素，更大的提高將尤其擾亂經濟。 最終，報告結論認為，現有的州和地方最低工資政策有效地解決了工資問題，因此聯邦提高不必要也不可能帶來益處，反而可能造成危害。
Related Entries
-
1.
-
2.
The article argues that Donald Trump's unique and prolonged lame-duck period, coupled with domestic political pressures, makes him dangerously prone to international instability. Having exhausted major diplomatic gambits, Trump is expected to channel his energy into high-stakes, unilateral actions, primarily targeting adversaries such as Iran and Cuba. These potential actions—ranging from fresh strikes in the Persian Gulf to attempts at regime change—carry a significant risk of destabilizing regional security and triggering a global economic crisis. Policymakers must anticipate this pivot to high-risk foreign policy to mitigate potential international flare-ups.
-
3.
The Blue Wave signals significant voter frustration with cost of living and inflation, giving Congress a mandate to prioritize affordability and cost-reduction measures. Economically, the rapid build-out of AI data centers is creating localized stress, driving up skilled labor wages and straining resources, while also facing constraints from power grids and potential local regulatory backlash. Policymakers must manage this 'sequencing issue'—addressing rising costs before full productivity gains from AI can materialize—and anticipate shifts in global data center infrastructure as the market matures.
-
4.
The built environment workforce, comprising 15.3 million workers across 95 occupations, is foundational to modern infrastructure and economic stability. While highly paid, the workforce suffers from significant demographic imbalances, being disproportionately white and male, and often lacking clear career progression pathways. To prevent project delays and cost overruns, policy must mandate that capital asset owners treat labor market forecasting as core to project planning. Strategic interventions are required to strengthen career pipelines through robust apprenticeships, improve retention, and actively recruit younger and more diverse workers.
-
5.
The U.S. is drastically reducing core funding to multilateral institutions, withdrawing from numerous bodies due to perceived misalignment with national interests. While multilateral channels offer critical advantages—such as pooling resources for global public goods and managing risk in fragile settings—the U.S.'s funding remains heavily 'earmarked,' which effectively 'bilateralizes' the system and undermines shared burden-sharing. This practice, coupled with deep cuts, diminishes the multilateral system's effectiveness and efficiency, particularly in humanitarian aid. Policy recommendations suggest the U.S. must adopt a systematic, published strategy for aid channel choice and shift from restrictive project-level earmarking to broader thematic funding to restore global cooperation.