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.
New Cato Study Debunks Decades of Conventional Wisdom on State Funding and Rising Tuition
English Summary
The Cato Institute study refutes the long-held assumption that rising college tuition is a necessary response to state disinvestment in higher education. Analysis of 1980–2025 data shows that, contrary to belief, states have actually increased funding per student over the past decades. Crucially, the report finds a very weak correlation between changes in state funding and subsequent increases in tuition revenue, debunking the notion that tuition rises to offset perceived cuts. Policymakers should note that attempts by states to significantly boost funding merely to lower tuition are economically inefficient, as the return on investment is negligible.
中文摘要
凱托學會（Cato Institute）的研究反駁了長期以來普遍的假設，即大學學費的上升是州政府削減高等教育投資所必須採取的應對措施。根據 1980 年至 2025 年的數據分析顯示，與普遍認知相反，各州在過去幾十年中每位學生獲得的資金實際上有所增加。更重要的是，該報告發現州政府資金變動與學費收入增長之間存在極為微弱的相關性，駁斥了「學費上漲以彌補感知到的削減」這一觀念。政策制定者應注意，如果各州試圖大幅增加資金投入僅為降低學費，從經濟角度來看是低效的，因為其投資回報率可忽略不計。
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.