Cato Event Podcast

A new documentary, Corporate Welfare: Where’s the Outrage?, tells the personal stories of how people are affected by the tax exemptions, subsidies, government regulations, and bailouts used to help big business. Hosted by Free to Choose Executive Editor and Cato Institute Senior Fellow Johan Norberg and featuring former CEO of BB&T John Allison, the documentary reveals the government’s role in the 2008 financial crash.Please join us for an engaging and thought‐​provoking conversation with Norberg and Allison. A short segment of Corporate Welfare: Where’s the Outrage? will be shown during the program.The documentary examines America’s system of farm subsidies, Tax Increment Financing (TIF), Big Oil subsidies, government policies, bailouts, and tax breaks for big business. The program takes viewers across America to talk with individuals whose lives and livelihood have been directly affected by the outrages of corporate welfare.“Many government programs begin with good intentions, but they result in unintended consequences,” says Norberg. “From what I’ve observed…it’s better to let the economy evolve in its own natural way, bumps and all, rather than to rely on government intervention.”Corporate Welfare: Where’s the Outrage? was inspired by the book, Welfare for the Rich: How Your Tax Dollars End Up in Millionaires’ Pockets — and What You Can Do about It, by Phil Harvey and Lisa Conyers. It is airing on public television (check local listings) and streaming on the PBS App, YouTube, Roku, Venmo and on Free To Choose Network. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The Civil War and its aftermath were a turning point in American history. Starting near the end of the war and then continuing during Reconstruction, Congress set to work drafting three constitutional amendments that would fundamentally alter our founding document. The Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth amendments, collectively known as the Reconstruction Amendments, aimed to protect the liberties that had previously been denied in much of the country. Together, these amendments abolished slavery, established the rights to due process and equal protection, and banned racial discrimination in voting laws.Today, the Reconstruction Amendments remain at the heart of some of our most contentious legal controversies: Does equal protection mandate equality of outcome or equality of opportunity? To what extent does due process carry with it substantive rights of personal autonomy? And do the “privileges or immunities” guaranteed to all citizens encompass a broader set of rights than courts have been willing to protect?To help us answer these questions, it is crucial to understand what those who drafted, debated, and ratified the Reconstruction Amendments thought and said. University of Richmond law professor Kurt Lash’s epic two‐​volume work is the most comprehensive source ever compiled of the key speeches, debates, and public dialogues that accompanied the drafting and ratification of these amendments. In this book forum, Professor Lash will comment on his work and the importance of primary historical sources to constitutional study. Professors Christopher Green and Richard Primus will also offer their thoughts on the work and its implications. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The social‐​distancing measures required to address the COVID-19 pandemic led to a newfound appreciation for the use of telehealth, a technological advance that has been available for several decades. State licensing laws for health care practitioners have impeded widespread use of telemedicine. Most states only permit health care practitioners to provide telehealth services to patients in the state in which the practitioners are licensed, a barrier to the free flow of health care services across state lines. Patients can travel to another state to receive medical treatment and even surgery from a doctor licensed in that state, but those doctors cannot provide telehealth services to the same patients unless they are licensed in the states in which the patients reside.While the pandemic led many states to suspend the barriers to movement of health care practitioners and to the delivery of telemedicine across state lines, these were only temporary emergency measures. Fortunately, some states are taking steps to avoid a return to the status quo ante. In May 2021, Arizona’s governor signed into law House Bill (HB) 2454, which allows the state’s residents to receive telehealth services from providers who hold licenses outside the state but within any of the other states or the District of Columbia. In 2019, Florida’s governor signed HB 23 into law, similarly liberalizing telehealth regulations. On the federal level, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services expanded permanent coverage for telehealth services. Experts on telehealth regulations will compare recent state‐​level reforms and discuss the prospects for further reform on both the state and federal levels. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Ever since Congress created the income tax in 1913, workers have been able to avoid paying tax on income they receive in the form of fringe benefits, such as health insurance. The flip side of this feature is that Congress effectively threatens workers with higher taxes unless they allow their employer to control a large portion of their income and their health insurance. As marginal income‐​tax rates grew, so did that implicit penalty. As health insurance premiums grew, the amount of workers’ money this feature allows employers to control directly has grown to roughly $900 billion per year.Eighty‐​three years later, on August 22, 1996, President Bill Clinton signed a law creating tax‐​free Archer Medical Savings Accounts (MSAs). Archer MSAs freed workers to receive a small portion of their health benefits as cash—without a tax penalty. Later, President George W. Bush signed a law creating tax‐​free health savings accounts (HSAs), which allow workers to take more of their health benefits as cash without negative tax consequences. Even so, HSAs have reclaimed for workers less than 5 percent of that $900 billion.At this virtual forum, leading health policy scholars will commemorate the 25th anniversary of this milestone event and discuss how to return to workers every penny of that $900 billion. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

For an entire generation, at home and abroad, the United States has waged a war on terror. Fighting it has produced neither peace nor victory, but it has transformed America. A politically divided country turned the war on terror into a cultural and then tribal struggle, first on the ideological fringes and ultimately expanding to open a door for today’s nationalist, exclusionary resurgence.In Reign of Terror, journalist Spencer Ackerman argues that war on terror policies laid a foundation for American authoritarianism. In Ackerman’s account, Barack Obama’s failure to end the war on terror after the killing of Osama Bin Laden allowed cultural polarization to progress and set the groundwork for Donald Trump’s rise to power. As we approach the 20th anniversary of 9/11, please join us for a discussion of how the war on terror transformed the United States and the prospects for moving away from its divisive excesses. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In June, the Food and Drug Administration gave marketing approval to the Alzheimer’s drug Aduhelm, against the unanimous advice of its advisory panel. Three of the panel’s five members resigned in protest. The panel’s members and many other medical experts claim there is no convincing evidence that the drug provides clinical benefit. Other critics complain that what they see as a useless drug will now cost Medicare (and taxpayers) $56,000 per patient per year.The Aduhelm controversy brings into focus long‐​standing arguments against efficacy requirements for FDA drug approval, especially when the FDA also permits practitioners to prescribe any approved drugs “off label,” deferring to their expertise and clinical judgment. The controversy also directs attention to federal laws that require Medicare to cover most FDA‐​approved drugs and prohibit Medicare from negotiating drug prices.Experts on health care, health and regulatory law, and health economics will explore these and related issues in what promises to be a lively discussion. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In his new book, New Way to Care: Social Protections That Put Families First, author John Goodman argues that our most important social insurance institutions are in desperate need of reform. Goodman proposes a simple idea. People of any age should have the choice to opt out of social insurance in favor of alternatives that better meet their individual and family needs. In particular, people should be able to substitute the assets and arrangements they own for the insurance systems that the government currently forces people to participate in.Join us to hear Goodman discuss ways to reform health insurance with commentary from Cato Director of Health Policy Studies Michael F. Cannon. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

For years there has been an ongoing debate about the causes of medical malpractice liability insurance premium spikes and their impact on access to care and defensive medicine. State legislatures responded to premium spikes by enacting damages caps on noneconomic, punitive, or total damages, and Congress has periodically debated the merits of a federal cap on damages in medical malpractice cases.Yet, there has been a shortage of evidence in support of the narrative that excessive damage awards are responsible for such premium spikes. What did cause those premium spikes? What effect did state‐​level medical malpractice reform have? Did it reduce frivolous litigation? Did it improve access to health care and/​or reduce defensive medicine? Both sides in the debate have strong opinions, but their positions are mostly based on anecdotes.In a new book, Medical Malpractice Litigation: How It Works, Why Tort Reform Hasn’t Helped, a politically diverse team of researchers provide an accessible, fact‐​based response to the questions that ordinary Americans and policymakers have about the performance of the medical malpractice litigation system.Join us to hear coauthor Dr. David A. Hyman, adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute; Dr. Richard Anderson, chairman and CEO of The Doctors Company; and Dr. Bill Frist, a former U.S. senator, hold a lively discussion on the medical malpractice litigation system and the effects of limiting the right of malpractice victims to recover. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

National debates over policies that affect the flow of digital information are heating up as censorship, surveillance, control over personal data, and requirements to store data locally have emerged as contentious political issues. At the same time, governments are negotiating international agreements that constrain their ability to regulate domestically. What exactly are the problems that have been caused by domestic regulation of the flow of digital information? And can international agreements help solve them? Please join us for a discussion of these timely issues. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

You’ve heard the hype: Quantum technologies will supposedly disrupt cybersecurity and revolutionize computers, communications, and sensors. Perhaps they will. Perhaps not. Accurate or not, technology hype is common and consequential. This discourse does work. Evoking exceptional expectations about future tech can shape military research and development, as well as threat perceptions. The future is difficult to predict, however. Hype isn’t all bad, but it can mask important gaps between the imagined and actual performance of quantum technologies. It can also draw attention away from less flashy but more significant social and technical change.  Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Thomas Sowell is one of the great social theorists of our age. In a career spanning more than half a century, few scholars have matched his combination of range, rigor, and accessibility. He has written more than 30 books covering topics including economic history, social inequality, political philosophy, race, migration, and culture. His bold and unsentimental assaults on liberal orthodoxy have endeared him to many but enraged most of his fellow intellectuals, the civil rights establishment, and much of the mainstream media. As a result, critics preoccupied with political correctness have demeaned, downplayed, or ignored his important contributions.In this first‐​ever biography of Sowell, Wall Street Journal columnist Jason L. Riley gives this iconic thinker his due, responds to the detractors, and explains their motives. Maverick: A Biography of Thomas Sowell (Basic Books, May 2021) not only showcases Sowell’s most significant writings but also vividly traces the life events that shaped his ideas and resulted in a black orphan from the Jim Crow South going on to graduate from Harvard University, earn a PhD under Milton Friedman at the University of Chicago, teach economics at Cornell University and the University of California, Los Angeles, and spend the past four decades as one of America’s foremost public intellectuals.Drawing on firsthand conversations with Sowell, and interviews with close friends and colleagues, Riley offers a nuanced portrait of one of America’s leading conservative intellectuals. Maverick shines a light on the extraordinary scope and depth of Sowell’s work, exploring where he has distinguished himself and how he is likely to be remembered.Riley is a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute and the author of several books, including Please Stop Helping Us: How Liberals Make It Harder for Blacks to Succeed. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

What is American identity? How people answer that question has implications for their views on policy and politics in the United States. The current era has seen the growth of explicit nationalism in American politics. In After Nationalism, Samuel Goldman examines whether the United States has ever had a stable vision of shared identity and purpose. Examining the country from its founding to the modern day, Goldman highlights recurring contestation over what it means to be an American and shows how the coercive Americanization efforts of prior eras are unlikely to pass muster in modern America.Rejecting romantic notions of the past, Goldman urges a more pluralistic approach: “Rather than trying to restore an elusive consensus, I propose that we strengthen institutions of contestation.” Please join Goldman and Anatol Lieven, author of America Right or Wrong: An Anatomy of American Nationalism, for a discussion of what America was, is, and should be. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

President Biden came into office promising to end U.S. support for the Saudi bombing campaign in Yemen. Since then, he has announced the end of American support for “offensive” Saudi operations in Yemen and designated Timothy Lenderking as U.S. Special Envoy for Yemen, although attempts to mediate talks between the warring parties have so far failed to make progress. Meanwhile, the ongoing conflict in Yemen remains an acute humanitarian crisis and the administration’s support of Riyadh does not appear to have dramatically changed. Join us as a panel of experts clarify and discuss constructive paths forward. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

F. A. Hayek’s work made the case for individual freedom of choice, in part because third parties or planners tend to lack the knowledge that individuals hold about their true preferences, or of the traditions and norms that underpin choices. Interferences with evolved market practices and personal freedom, then, will tend to make choosers worse off.Behavioral economists hold, though, that some choices are driven by a lack of information or else psychological, cognitive, or social phenomena that make such decisions irrational or undesirable. If so, the question is what can be done about it, given the evident limits and disruption of top‐​down decisionmaking by planners.Cass Sunstein believes that a neo‐​Hayekian behavioral approach to policymaking would recognize choosers’ biases but also acknowledge the downsides of imposing the preferences of planners. Ideally, he suggests, empirical research should seek to identify what choosers truly want under “epistemically favorable conditions” such that policy can be put into the service of our own preferences.Does the work of behavioral economists land a killer blow against free choice? And is Hayekian behavioral economics, in practice, an oxymoron? Please join us for this informative conversation. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

When the country went on lockdown in March 2020, schools of all types were forced to close their doors, while families, businesses, and others braced for a major economic hit. This combination seemed especially dangerous for private schools, which, unlike public schools, rely on paying families and other voluntary financial support. Since the first announcement of a private school closing permanently due to the pandemic, Cato’s Center for Educational Freedom has monitored private schooling’s condition. In this forum, we’ll give our assessment of the health of private K–12 education, and speakers representing three major parts of the private schooling spectrum will discuss how their institutions have fared and what the future holds. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Would the plan improve U.S. infrastructure? What would be the effect of the tax increase? Will the plan gain congressional support? What alternative reforms would work better for the nation’s highways, transit, rail, and water systems? Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Featuring Joel Kotkin, Chapman University and Michael Tanner, Cato InstituteThis conference, part of Cato’s Project on Poverty and Inequality in California, will bring together a diverse group of political, business, and academic leaders to discuss regulatory and other barriers to rebuilding economic opportunity in poor and minority communities ravaged by COVID-19.Full Conference Here Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Featuring Anastasia P. Boden, Pacific Legal Foundation; Chris Cate, Councilman, City of San Diego; Steven Greenhut, R Street.This conference, part of Cato’s Project on Poverty and Inequality in California, will bring together a diverse group of political, business, and academic leaders to discuss regulatory and other barriers to rebuilding economic opportunity in poor and minority communities ravaged by COVID-19.Full Conference Here Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Featuring Julian Cañete, California Hispanic Chambers of Commerce; Jay King, California Black Chamber of Commerce; Rob Lapsley, California Business Roundtable.This conference, part of Cato’s Project on Poverty and Inequality in California, will bring together a diverse group of political, business, and academic leaders to discuss regulatory and other barriers to rebuilding economic opportunity in poor and minority communities ravaged by COVID-19.Full Conference Here Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Featuring Michael Tanner, Cato Institute and Chris Edwards, Cato Institute.This conference, part of Cato’s Project on Poverty and Inequality in California, will bring together a diverse group of political, business, and academic leaders to discuss regulatory and other barriers to rebuilding economic opportunity in poor and minority communities ravaged by COVID-19.Full Conference Here Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The Biden Administration is reportedly considering a federal mandate to lower nicotine levels in cigarettes to nonaddictive levels. Is that just back door prohibition? Tom Firey and Jeff Singer comment. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Featuring Ben Scafidi (@edeconKSU1), Professor of Economics and Director of the Education Economics Center, Kennesaw State University; Martin Lueken, Director, Fiscal Research and Education Center, EdChoice; moderated by Neal McCluskey (@NealMcCluskey), Director, Center for Educational Freedom, Cato Institute. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Featuring Nita A. Farahany, JD, PhD (@NitaFarahany), Robinson O. Everett Professor of Law, Professor of Philosophy, Duke Law School; Jessica Flanigan, PhD (@missjessica), Associate Professor of Leadership Studies and Philosophy, Politics, Economics, and Law, Richard L. Morrill Chair in Ethics and Democratic Values, University of Richmond; moderated by Jeffrey A. Singer, MD (@dr4liberty), Senior Fellow, Cato Institute. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Featuring Jason Bedrick (@JasonBedrick), Coeditor; Director of Policy, EdChoice; Adjunct Scholar, Cato Institute; Rita Koganzon, Contributor; Assistant Professor of Politics, University of Virginia; Kevin Vallier (@kvallier), Contributor; Associate Professor of Philosophy, Bowling Green State University; moderated by Neal McCluskey (@NealMcCluskey), Director, Center for Educational Freedom, Cato Institute. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.