Cato Event Podcast

Supporters claim the dependent-coverage mandate is one of the most popular provisions of the Affordable Care Act. This provision requires employer-based insurance plans that offer dependent coverage to cover dependents up to age 26. Scholars are just beginning to measure the benefits and costs of this mandate. In a forthcoming study, Stanford University economist Jay Bhattacharya examines the effect of this mandate on wages, finding it has reduced cash compensation by $1,200 per covered worker. Asako S. Moriya from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality has measured the effect of the mandate on inpatient hospitalizations among young adults, emergency department use, and other measures. We hope you’ll join our expert panel to discuss new research on this still-controversial law. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In 2015 Japan passed landmark reforms of its national security laws, including a reinterpretation of its constitutional prohibition against collective security activities. Now Japan can legally cooperate with the United States in defensive military operations, leading many observers to declare that Japan has abandoned its post–World War II “pacifist principles.”Are such pronouncements correct? Or are the national security reforms simply the most recent recalibration of Japan’s postwar grand strategy? In her new analysis, Jennifer Lind argues the latter, stating that cries of “Japan is abandoning pacifism” are not only misleading, but distort the magnitude of recent changes. According to Lind, while Japan prefers to buck-pass to the United States, it has historically accepted more responsibility in the alliance when its threat environment grows increasingly dangerous and uncertainty exists about the U.S. commitment.But what are the implications for U.S. security of a more assertive Japan? And does Japan’s acceptance of more responsibility suggest that other U.S. allies would act accordingly if Washington were to step back? Lind along with a distinguished panel will discuss these and other important questions. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Every year, federal, state, and local governments spend nearly $1 trillion to fight poverty, yet millions of Americans remain trapped in poverty with little hope for the future. Could the welfare system itself be part of the problem? Phil Harvey and Lisa Conyers make the case that our current welfare system has failed the poor, hurting the very people it is supposed to help. They suggest that good intentions are not enough and that if we truly want to reduce poverty, we need to understand the limits of government and radically reform our approach to welfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Domestic minerals and metals are a cornerstone of the U.S. economy, but data just published by the Energy Information Agency (EIA) show that investment in U.S. mining and exploration declined an incredible 35 percent last year—from $135 billion in 2014 to $88 billion in 2015—representing the second largest decline since 1948. The withdrawal of federal lands, often with permanent restrictions on mining force manufacturers to look elsewhere, and the permitting process is long and drawn out. Federal holdings used to be called the “land of many uses,” but increasingly Washington has decided that one of those uses is no longer the mining of coal and minerals. Millions of acres, largely in the West, are now zoned for no mining, no matter how remote or rich they might be.Mamula, a PhD geologist with extensive experience in both private industry and government (with the U.S. Geological Survey and the Central Intelligence Agency), will discuss the causes of and the solutions for this problem which is increasing in strategic importance for the United States. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Between January and March 2015, U.S. Special Operations forces deployed to over 80 countries. Although many of these deployments focused on training exercises or advisory roles, it is an astounding measure of the scope of the U.S. military's involvement around the world. U.S. forces are engaged in active conflict in at least 6 countries, ranging from the well-known (Iraq; Afghanistan) to the largely invisible (Somalia; Yemen).The public often seems blissfully unaware of America's wars, reflecting a blurring of the line between war and peace. The ubiquity of the "Global War on Terror," the emergence of non-state actors, and technological advances have contributed to a situation in which the United States is involved in a range of conflicts around the world, most of which are invisible to the people who pay for them.What is the nature and scope of America's involvement in these conflicts? Does lack of public awareness impact U.S. national security debates? And does U.S. involvement actually serve U.S. interests? Join our panelists for a discussion of these questions in the context of three "invisible" wars: Yemen, Pakistan, and Somalia. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Two years ago, in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, the Supreme Court ruled that regulations implementing Obamacare’s “preventive care” mandate violated the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) for certain closely held corporations. Employers with religious objections to some of the contraceptives that the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) required them to cover had to be exempt from that regulation. They thus joined churches and their “auxiliaries,” which HHS had exempted from the contraceptive mandate after public outrage at the scope of the initial regulation. But what about nonprofits that HHS considered insufficiently religious to merit exemption? Religious schools, charities, and the like were instead offered an “accommodation”: These employers had to give the government information about their insurers and sign forms allowing their health plan to provide contraceptives. The only justification for this differential treatment was that employees of organizations that aren’t houses of worship are less likely to share their employer’s faith. In other words, HHS refused to exempt people who work for groups like Little Sisters of the Poor — a group of nuns who vow obedience to the Pope! — because they’re less committed to a religious mission. Thus the Supreme Court has taken up the issue of whether the contraceptive mandate and its “accommodation” violate RFRA by forcing religious nonprofits to act in violation of their sincerely held religious beliefs when the government has not proven that this compulsion is the least restrictive means of advancing any compelling interest. Please join us for a discussion of all the issues these cases raise, including what to look for at oral argument the following week. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

American public schools often censor controversial student speech that the Constitution protects. Lessons in Censorship brings clarity to a bewildering array of court rulings that define the speech rights of young citizens in the school setting. Ross examines disputes that have erupted in our schools and courts over the civil rights movement; war and peace; rights for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender individuals (LGBT); abortion; immigration; evangelical proselytizing; and the Confederate flag. She argues that the failure of schools to respect civil liberties betrays their educational mission and threatens democracy.From the 1940s through the Warren years, the Supreme Court celebrated free expression and emphasized the role of schools in cultivating liberty. But the Burger, Rehnquist, and Roberts courts retreated from that vision, curtailing certain categories of student speech in the name of order and authority. Drawing on hundreds of lower court decisions, Ross shows how some judges either misunderstand the law or decline to rein in censorship that is clearly unconstitutional, and she powerfully demonstrates the continuing vitality of the Supreme Court's initial affirmation of students' expressive rights.Lessons in Censorship was named the best book of 2015 on the First Amendment by Concurring Opinions (First Amendment News 91). More reviews of the work may be found at catherinejrosslawprof.com. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Less than 18 months ago, a cover story for the New York Times Magazine asked, “Has the ‘libertarian moment’ finally arrived?” From public suspicion of the surveillance state, to increasing tolerance for marijuana legalization, to marriage equality, to weariness with war—the article argued that after years of intellectual work, “for perhaps the first time,” libertarianism has “genuine political momentum on its side.” However, the Rand Paul presidential campaign failed to catch fire. The two breakout candidates of the presidential campaign have been a socialist and an authoritarian. The idea of tolerance seems increasingly quaint, as Mexicans and Muslims have become the target of public frustrations. And the public seems to have forgotten its weariness with war, as the Islamic State continues its brutal terrorism. Was all this talk of the libertarian moment simply wishful thinking? Or was the libertarian moment never about politics in the first place? Join David Boaz, Matt Welch, Ramesh Ponnuru, and Conor Friedersdorf for a wide-ranging conversation on the future of libertarianism. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Four years ago, in Sackett v. EPA (2012), the Supreme Court unanimously rejected the EPA's effort to deny judicial review of its determination that a rural lot where an Idaho couple was building their home was a federal wetland. The Army Corps of Engineers makes tens of thousands of similar wetlands determinations each year under the Clean Water Act (CWA), but it claims that Sackett doesn't apply because these determinations are legally different from the EPA's orders. On March 30, the Supreme Court will hear argument in U.S. Army Corps of Engineers v. Hawkes Co. to decide whether landowners have access to court to challenge agency rulings that their property contains wetlands that are subject to federal regulation. While 30 states are now suing to overturn the newest CWA rule expanding power over "waters of the United States," invalidating that rule won't change existing federal control over individual landowners if the agencies continue to assert similarly overbroad authority. What recourse do landowners have when federal agencies decide that private property contains wetlands? According to the Obama administration, landowners first must spend hundreds of thousands of dollars and many years seeking a permit from the same officials who may not have the proper regulatory authority to begin with. The Supreme Court rejected that approach in Sackett. A win for Hawkes here would provide much broader relief from abusive agency rulings and procedures. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Libertarians and conservatives held high hopes for a return to limited, constitutional government and fiscal responsibility with the arrival of the Tea Party movement in 2008 and 2009. Today, Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders are making credible runs for the White House. What happened? Was the commitment to Founding Era principles weakly held, after all? Join us on March 10th at 4 p.m. for a discussion about what, exactly, happened to the Tea Party.Ask your questions to the panel using the hashtag #CatoConnects. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.