Cato Daily Podcast

Ideological commitments shouldn't harm your ability to receive medical treatment. Erec Smith and Jeff Singer discuss a troubling evolution in how medical education is delivered in the US.

There aren't big, glaring differences between Trump and Biden on giving Americans maximum freedom to trade across the globe, but the style of the candidates' protectionism differs somewhat. Scott Lincicome explains.

Medicare represents a massive fraction of the federal budget, and its spending is effectively on autopilot. That needs to change sooner than later. Paragon Health Institute chief Brian Blase and Cato's Michael Cannon comment.

New regulations under consideration would hold financial advisors accountable to elements of the Bank Secrecy Act, which currently compels banks to turn over certain financial data to the feds. How would that change your relationship with that advisor? Jennifer Schulp comments.

The DEA is likely to change its federal designation for cannabis in the coming months. It's a good sign for research and for the ability of Americans to receive medical treatments involving the plant, but descheduling and ending federal prohibition is still a worthy goal. Jeff Singer explains.

How productive is federal spending to advance early childhood education? Following her testimony on Capitol Hill, Cato's Colleen Hroncich says there are several problems with the assumptions about its benefits.

What does the case of Peru have to teach us about state capacity to foster (or hamper) human flourishing? Edwar Escalante of Angelo State University discusses the upsides and downsides of increasing state capacity.

The Heroes Act was insufficient authority for the President to cancel massive amounts of student debt. The Biden White House has instead been moving to cancel (transfer) smaller amounts of student debt using different executive authority. Neal McCluskey explains the issues.

Former President Trump's lawyers argued before the US Supreme Court that the President ought to be broadly immune against misdeeds committed in office, even many that are clearly criminal. The Supreme Court is now weighing where to draw the lines both for this former President and future former Presidents. Clark Neily discusses the oral argument at the high court.