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 Government Can't Mandate Ideological Views in Professional Education
English Summary
The article argues that state mandates, such as California's requirement for 'implicit bias' training in continuing medical education (CME), violate the First Amendment by compelling private speech. The key reasoning is that the government-speech doctrine cannot be used to transform private educational content into state-owned speech merely by attaching it to professional licensing requirements. If allowed, this precedent could enable states to censor and dictate professional knowledge across numerous fields (e.g., law, accounting) through occupational licensing regimes. Policy-wise, the authors urge the Supreme Court to limit this doctrine, preventing states from using professional education requirements as a tool to enforce specific ideological viewpoints.
中文摘要
本文論點指出，州政府的規定，例如加州要求在持續醫學教育（CME）中進行「潛在偏見」培訓，構成強制私人言論，從而違反了《美國憲法》第一修正案。其核心論據是，政府言論原則不能被用來將私人教育內容轉化為國家所有言論，僅僅因為將其與專業執照要求掛鉤。若允許此類先例，州政府可能會透過職業執照制度，對眾多領域（例如法律、會計）的專業知識進行審查和規定。從政策角度來看，作者呼籲最高法院限制此一原則，以防止州政府將專業教育要求作為工具，來強制執行特定的意識形態觀點。
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.