Cato Event Podcast

The Iran deal may not survive the Trump administration. The 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action requires Iran to limit its nuclear program and allow International Atomic Energy Agency inspections in exchange for sanctions relief from the United States, the European Union, and the UN Security Council. As a candidate, Trump said he would dismantle the deal. He now claims that Iran violated the deal’s “spirit” and has initiated a White House review of it. Trump’s skepticism matches that of several U.S. allies in the region and the mood of Republican majorities in Congress. Meanwhile, ahead of their coming election, Iranian hardliners criticize President Hassan Rouhani for not getting better terms.Advocates of the deal point out that it’s working. Even the Trump administration has formally recognized Iran’s compliance. Freezing Iran’s program, some argue, upsets hawks on both sides precisely because it limits tensions and lowers the odds of war.To discuss the deal and its prospects, Cato is hosting Ambassador

Public schools were created with a mission to bring diverse people together and inculcate shared values thought necessary for democracy. But teaching children about politically, religiously, racially, or otherwise highly charged topics has turned out to be very difficult, driven by fear of igniting explosive conflicts. The result has been that potential flashpoints—but also crucial topics—have often been soft-pedaled or skipped entirely in schools. Which raises a fundamental question: Can a public education system encompassing very diverse people ever teach all children about highly controversial topics? Join a panel of experts as they tackle a critical question that is, itself, highly contentious. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

The Trump administration and Republicans in Congress are pushing ahead with major tax reforms. There is broad agreement on the need to simplify the tax code and to cut tax rates to improve America’s competitiveness. The administration’s tax plan would slash the top business tax rate to 15 percent, while simplifying and reducing individual income tax brackets. The House reform blueprint would cut individual and corporate tax rates and allow for expensing of capital investment. The blueprint also suggests creating Universal Savings Accounts. However, there is still disagreement among experts and political leaders over changes to the business tax base, the need for revenue neutrality, and other aspects of reform.Join our panel of experts who will discuss the economics of tax reform and comment on the policy process in the months ahead. We will explore the proposed changes to individual taxes outlined in the Trump and House plans, and further, examine U.S. business taxation in light of dramatic reforms undertaken

See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

The idea of regional or state-based visas is not a new one. Indeed, Canada and Australia have each implemented successful variations that provide some valuable lessons and hint at the major economic benefits possible for us in the United States. Adoption of a state-based visa program in America would permit our 50-state governments to craft rules for work visa programs that are more adaptable to local economic conditions than the present one-size-fits-all system run from Washington, D.C. While state governors and state and federal lawmakers are warming to the idea, all that stands in the way here is congressional approval.Join us as we discuss the merits of such a plan, the implications for federalism, immigration, and labor markets, and the possibility of it gaining traction in this Congress. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Unlike most other people around the world, even in democracies such as Canada and England, we Americans are free to speak our minds without government approval or oversight. The Constitution’s First Amendment and the law that has grown up under it ensures that right, even when the speech is politically controversial or otherwise offensive. Yet the battle to protect free speech is never finally won, as our campuses and courtrooms attest. And no one has done more in that battle to defend that right than Floyd Abrams, who has gone before the Supreme Court in cases ranging from the struggle over the Pentagon Papers to Citizens United and more, much more. With this new, accessible book, The Soul of the First Amendment, Abrams draws on a lifetime of experience defending our right to speak freely. Please join us for a discussion of this bedrock principle in our constitutional order. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Is it time to end the U.S. Department of Education? With bipartisan support, the Every Student Succeeds Act curbed much of the federal control that reached its apogee with the No Child Left Behind Act, Race to the Top, and NCLB waivers. Now, with the Trump administration considering federal influence to spread school choice, even many of the biggest advocates of a robust federal role may be rethinking federal power. Join us as we debate whether it is time, politically and educationally, to eliminate the Department of Education, and if so, what should happen to its programs and functions. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

There is a growing consensus that America imprisons too many people.  Americans constitute 5 percent of the world’s population and yet we hold nearly one quarter of its prisoners. In his new book, Locked In: The True Causes of Mass Incarceration and How to Achieve Real Reform, law professor John Pfaff argues that the War on Drugs and other federal policies receive outsized attention in the popular movements for criminal justice reform while local institutional actors go virtually unmentioned. According to Pfaff, the charging decisions of local prosecutors have been a key driver of prison growth since the early 1990s. Please join us for a lively discussion about police, prosecutors, sentencing, and our burgeoning prison population. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

The 2016 presidential campaign represented a break from the past in many ways, perhaps nowhere more so than in foreign policy. Donald Trump’s insurgent campaign did not draw advisers from the established foreign policy community — the voices that Barack Obama once disparagingly referred to as "the Blob" — and the candidate himself often seemed willing to challenge foreign policy orthodoxy, from NATO spending to U.S. Middle East interventionism.As such, the Trump administration offers a unique opportunity for voices outside the traditional Washington foreign policy community. Thus far, the incoming administration has engaged leaders in the business world and recruited from the military and the corporate sector for key posts. Yet foreign policy and international relations researchers at universities around the country form another untapped pool of expert knowledge on foreign affairs. From grand strategy to cybersecurity, and nuclear posture to democratic stability, political scientists study the key

National decline often arises from special interests corrupting a country’s institutions. Such narrow interests include crony capitalists, consumer activists, economic elites, and labor unions. Less attention is given to government insiders — rulers, elected officials, bureaucrats, and public employees. In autocracies and democracies, government insiders have the motive, means, and opportunity to co-opt political power for their benefit and at the expense of national well-being. Many storied empires have succumbed to such inside jobs. Today, they imperil countries as different as China and the United States. Democracy — government by the people — does not ensure government for the people. Understanding how government insiders use their power to subvert the public interest — and how these negative consequences can be mitigated — will be front and center at this intriguing book forum. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Third-party payers, private and public, have difficulty restraining healthcare prices, which are typically opaque and all over the place. A new insurance feature — known as “reference pricing” or “reverse deductibles” — has dramatically reduced prices, made prices more transparent to consumers, and spurred consumers to switch to lower-cost providers, all by making consumers cost-conscious. Please join us as we discuss this new innovation and direction in health-care pricing. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Since 1994 public polling has looked at the popularity of many of the existing goals and provisions of Obamacare (like universal coverage and community rating) and has found that these provisions, when decoupled from costs, enjoy majority support among Americans. Yet again, today in 2017, our pollsters have replicated the same pattern but with a twist: what happens if the other side of the equation, the cost, is factored into the question? What happens to public support for the most popular provisions of Obamacare and further, how did this massive transformation of the health insurance markets affect the quality of healthcare people thought they were going to get as a result?Join us as we dig into this new research and take the true measure of public attitudes toward the full implications of this legislation. Furthermore, we’ll examine how mandatory insurance irreparably undermines the very goal of insurance by destroying what Americans want more than anything from health insurance reform: quality healthcare.

What is the proper global role for the United States in the 21st Century? Since World War II, the United States, as the most powerful state, has chosen to be deeply engaged in the world. It has assumed responsibility for global peace and stability, guaranteed the security of dozens of foreign nations, promoted free trade, and posed as the policeman of the world by intervening in distant disputes with little direct relevance for core U.S. interests.The bi-partisan consensus in support of this role has recently shown signs of wear. President Donald Trump criticized it, and won. Public opinion polls for the first time in recent years show significant support for pulling back from this activist foreign policy and pursuing a more modest, less costly approach to the world.In America Abroad: The United States’ Global Role in the 21st Century, Stephen G. Brooks and William C. Wohlforth make a powerful case that America should continue its strategy of deep engagement. But what are the merits of an alternative app

On March 20 the Supreme Court will finally hear oral arguments in Murr v. Wisconsin, a property rights case it agreed to take up in January 2016. We don’t know why the Court waited almost 14 months to schedule the case for argument and did not wait an additional month — when Judge Gorsuch might be on the Court — but better now than never. Joseph Murr and his siblings own two side-by-side lakeside lots, one with a recreational cabin and the other left vacant as an investment. Due to land-use restrictions, they allege that Wisconsin has “taken” the vacant lot, which would require the state to pay just compensation under the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause. Wisconsin courts rejected this claim by considering the economic use of the two lots combined. The Murr case thus asks how courts should define the “relevant parcel” of land when evaluating regulatory takings. Cato filed a brief in this case, arguing that current regulatory-takings jurisprudence is unclear and puts a thumb on the scale for the go