Archive for March, 2009
‘Health Status Insurance’ Provides Real Alternative to Universal Care
So screams the headline of John Cochrane’s oped in today’s Investor’s Business Daily. An excerpt:
Markets can provide long-term, secure health insurance while enhancing choice and competition. Given the chance, they will…
This is not pie in the sky. The market for individual health insurance is already innovating to provide better long-term insurance. Well before it was required by law, insurance companies started offering “guaranteed renewable” policies.
Once you buy in, you have the right to continue coverage even if you get sick, and your premiums do not rise if you get sick.
UnitedHealth Group recently announced a product that gives customers the right to buy medical insurance in the future, at a premium that depends only on their current health status.
For a small premium, you can protect yourself against the risk that your health premiums will escalate. This is only a small step away from full health-status insurance.
The oped is based on Cochrane’s recent Cato policy analysis, “Health-Status Insurance: How Markets Can Provide Health Security.”
You can also hear Cochrane and Johns Hopkins University health economist Brad Herring discussing health-status insurance at this Cato policy forum, held today.
Filed under: Cato Publications; Health, Welfare & Entitlements
Shuffle, Shuffle, Shuffle…
This morning I attended a federal student aid event at the New America Foundation. The big topic? Not the effect of aid on out-of-control college prices, by far the most important concern from the contexts of economic growth, affordability, fairness to taxpayers, etc. No, it was the Obama Administration’s “bold” (NAF’s word) proposal to kill the federal guaranteed student loan program and do all lending directly from Washington. It was just the kind of debate folks in DC love, one that sounds really important but leaves the government-created problem almost totally untouched.
Here’s the critical reality that was completely ignored: taxpayer-furnished financial aid – whether coming directly from DC or delivered by “private” institutions completely backed by DC – appears to be a very big enabler of rampant tuition inflation. Quite simply, as I lay out in the most recent Cato Handbook for Policy, when government ensures that customers can pay more, students demand more and colleges raise prices.
Of course, the argument that aid drives prices is not without its critics, but they’ve got a tough case to make both in terms of economic theory and college cost reality. In Washington, however, this isn’t even being discussed. In DC, it’s all about the deck chairs and nothing about the sinking ship. But then, as we’ve learned oh-so-clearly over the last several months, politicians gain little from averting disasters they’ve helped cause, and lots from handing out life jackets.
Fortunately, Cato is here to remind politicians about the important stuff, not just to bicker over which special interest gets the biggest tax-dollar windfall. On April 7 we will address the fundamental problems with student aid, hosting a Capitol Hill Briefing on the effects not just of switching from guaranteed lending to direct lending, but of all federal student aid. It’ll be just the kind of discussion Washington so desperately needs but so rarely has.
Register here to attend, or watch online the day of the event.
Court Embraces the Spirit of Aloha
Today the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the resolution Congress passed in 1993 to apologize for U.S. involvement in the overthrow of the Hawaiian monarchy—a determination that remains controversial among historians—did not affect Hawaii’s sovereign authority to sell or transfer the lands that the United States had granted to the State at the time of its admission to the Union. In an opinion by Justice Alito, the Court correctly explained that the words of the Apology Resolution were conciliatory and hortatory, creating no substantive rights—and indeed the resolution’s operative clauses differ starkly from those which provided compensation to, for example, the Japanese-Americans interned during World War II.
Importantly, the Court also noted that it would “raise grave constitutional concerns” if any act of Congress purported to cloud Hawaii’s title to sovereign lands so long after its admission to the Union. This last point is perhaps most important to the ongoing debate over the “Akaka Bill,” which would create a race-based entity to extract political and economic concessions from the state and federal governments on behalf of ill-defined “native Hawaiians.” It is delicious irony that Hawaii’s attorney general, Mark Bennett, an Akaka Bill supporter, secured this victory.
Just as Hawaii is now allowed to develop state lands for the benefit of all its citizens, hopefully Congress will in future refrain from inflaming racial divisions and instead treat all Hawaiians, regardless of race, with the legal equality to which they are entitled.
Further Cato materials on the above: Here’s our brief in the case, Hawaii v. Office of Hawaiian Affairs. Here are articles I wrote on the case and on the on the Akaka Bill. Here is a write-up of a debate I had at the University of Hawaii last month. Finally, here is a podcast I did for the Grassroot Institute (Hawaii’s free-market think tank) — where, among other things, I correctly predicted the Court’s vote today and the scope of its opinion.
Filed under: Government and Politics; Law and Civil Liberties
Government Motors
Washingtonpost.com collected and posted sundry opinions about Rick Wagoner’s dismissal as GM CEO yesterday. Those opinions, including mine, are posted here. But to spare you the click, here’s what I wrote:
President Obama’s newly discovered prudence with taxpayer money and his tough-love approach to GM and Chrysler would both have more credibility if he hadn’t demanded Rick Wagoner’s resignation, as well. By imposing operational conditions normally reserved for boards of directors, the administration is now bound to the infamous “Pottery Barn” rule: you break it, you buy it. If things go further south, the government is now complicit.
It also means that Wagoner was perceived as an obstacle to whatever plans the administration has for GM. And that’s the real source of concern. If getting these companies back on their feet is the objective, a bankruptcy judge can make a determination pretty quickly about the viability of the firms and the steps necessary to get there. But if the objective is something more grandiose, such as transforming the industry into a model of green production, government oversight and close scrutiny of operations will be necessary. CEOs must be compliant and pliant. It is worth noting that a return to profitability and the metamorphosis of the industry according to a government script work at cross purposes.
Filed under: Government and Politics; Regulatory Studies; Trade and Immigration
A Mind Is a Terrible Thing to Waste (after High School)
The South Carolina NAACP is among the most strident opponents of a new education tax credit proposal in that state that would make it easier for families — especially poor families — to choose private schools for their kids.
But the NAACP’s national platform states that:
The NAACP is a leading advocate of equal access to quality education. In an effort to promote and ensure education opportunities for minority youth, the NAACP offers the following national scholarships: Earl G. Graves Scholarship, Agnes Jones Scholarship, …. These awards help eliminate financial difficulties that may hinder students’ education goals.
Doesn’t that put the SC NAACP’s position into clear conflict with its parent organization? Actually, no. I deleted the qualifier “higher” before the word “education” in the block quote above. The NAACP strongly supports scholarships for poor kids to attend private schools, so long as the kids are over 18 or so.
A few years ago I debated this bizarre inconsistency with a very candid and pleasant NAACP representative, and his response boiled down to this: ”I lived through the Jim Crow South and I don’t trust a bunch of white Republicans to have our best interests in mind.” Fair enough. We shouldn’t trust politicians of any stripe to have the public’s interests in mind on any issue. We should instead look at what actually works best both here and around the world, and do that.
From the largest shanty town in Africa, to the slums of Hyderabad, India, to the remote rural villages of in-land China, the poor are already choosing private schools in vast numbers. And those schools are significantly outperforming their public sector counterparts at a fraction of the cost. Their stories are told in The Beautiful Tree, a compelling new narrative non-fiction book by scholar and world-traveler James Tooley. Cato is launching the book at noon on April 15th at our DC headquarters. I hope someone from the NAACP will attend.
Oh, and in case it matters to anyone, the lead advocate of SC’s tax credit school choice program is state senator Robert Ford, an African American Democrat. For some reason the NAACP still opposes it.
Af-Pak and the U.S.
The violence ripping across Afghanistan will not be stopped unless the problems in nuclear armed Pakistan are addressed, says Cato scholar Malou Innocent, who traveled to Pakistan late last year.
In a new Cato video, Innocent explains what the United States can do to protect its interests and return stability to the region.
Her forthcoming paper, “Pakistan and the Future of U.S. Policy” will be released next month.
Monday Podcast ‘The Politics of Medical Marijuana’
As of this writing, 13 states have passed legislation legalizing medical marijuana. President Obama’s pledge to stop raiding medical marijuana facilities was met with praise from opponents of the drug war, but what does it mean for the future of drug policy?
In Monday’s Cato Daily Podcast, Rob Kampia, executive director of the Marijuana Policy Project, explains his organization’s goals and strategies for ending marijuana prohibition in the United States.
Our society is not quite ready yet to completely end marijuana prohibition. So what we want to do is keep as many people from being arrested and put in jail as possible in the short run. One way of doing that is to legalize medical marijuana state by state.
Kampia spoke at a policy forum on medical marijuana at the Cato Institute in March.
Obama’s First Tax Hike Hits the Poor
It is curious that President Obama keeps claiming that he is not raising taxes on lower-income Americans, yet a tax hike that will impose a disproportionately large burden on the poor goes into effect Wednesday.
In February, Obama signed into law a large tax hike on cigarette consumers. The federal tax on cigarette consumers is jumping from 39 cents per pack to $1.01 per pack — a huge 159 percent increase. If you smoke two packs per day, President Obama has raised your taxes by a $453 annually.
Next on the Obama low-income tax hike agenda: global warming taxes of about $80 billion per year, as revealed in the Obama budget, which equals an annual tax boost of $700 for every household in the United States.
Amusing, but Tragically Accurate, Video on Ag Subsidies from the U.K.’s Taxpayers Alliance
It is unclear whether European Union agriculture policy is more absurd or less absurd than American agriculture policy. Both systems reward special interests. Both systems distort markets. Both systems deprive people in the developing world. Both systems are bad news for taxpayers. The real issue is whether it is possible to reverse these terrible policies. Maybe a bit of satire will do the trick. Our friends at the Taxpayers Alliance in England have put together a video which uses humor to explain the absurdity of Europe’s so-called common agricultural policy.
After watching this video, I’m feeling a bit envious. My mini-documentaries on economic issues (see examples here, here, and here) have received some good feedback, but perhaps we could change more minds in America by using mockery instead of wonkery.
Filed under: General; International Economics and Development; Trade and Immigration
Events This Week
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
POLICY FORUM – Can the Market Provide Choice and Secure Health Coverage Even for High-Cost Illnesses?
12:00 PM (Luncheon to Follow)
In a study recently published by the Cato Institute, economist John Cochrane argues that the market can solve a huge piece of the health care puzzle: providing secure, life-long health insurance and a choice of health plans to even the sickest patients. The key, Cochrane explains, is to eliminate government policies that force the healthy to subsidize the sick, such as the tax preference for employer-sponsored coverage and other attempts to impose price controls on health insurance premiums.
Featuring John H. Cochrane, Myron S. Scholes Professor of Finance, University of Chicago Booth School of Business Research Associate, National Bureau of Economic Research; Bradley Herring, Assistant Professor, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health; moderated by Michael F. Cannon, Director of Health Policy Studies, Cato Institute.
Please register to attend this event, or watch free online.
Friday, April 3, 2009
P
OLICY FORUM – Drug Decriminalization in Portugal
12:00 PM (Luncheon to Follow)
In 2001, Portugal began a remarkable policy experiment, decriminalizing all drugs, including cocaine and heroin.
In a new paper for the Cato Institute, attorney and author Glenn Greenwald closely examines the Portugal experiment and concludes that the doomsayers were wrong. There is now a widespread consensus in Portugal that decriminalization has been a success. The debate in Portugal has shifted rather dramatically to minor adjustments in the existing arrangement. There is no real debate about whether drugs should once again be criminalized. Join us for a discussion about Glenn Greenwald’s field research in Portugal and what lessons his findings may hold for drug policies in other countries.
Featuring Glenn Greenwald, Attorney and Best-selling Author; with comments by Peter Reuter, Department of Criminology, University of Maryland; moderated by Tim Lynch, Director, Project on Criminal Justice, Cato Institute.
Please register to attend this event, or watch free online.
Tax Havens Have Stronger Governance Standards
Congratulations to The Economist for reporting on a new study showing that so-called tax havens actually have the strongest laws to weed out shady money. The article cites new research by an Australian political scientist, who conducted real-world tests to confirm that it is much easier to set up anonymous structures in nations such as the United States and United Kingdom than it is to set up similar structures in places such as Bermuda and Switzerland:
…with a budget of $10,000 and little more than Google (and the ads at the back of this paper), [Jason Sharman, a political scientist at Australia’s Griffith University] showed how easy it was to circumvent prohibitions on banking secrecy, forming anonymous shell companies and secret bank accounts across the world. In doing so he has uncovered an uncomfortable truth for many of the leaders of Group of 20 nations meeting on April 2nd to discuss, among other things, sanctions against offshore tax havens. The most egregious examples of banking secrecy, money laundering and tax fraud are found not in remote alpine valleys or on sunny tropical isles but in the backyards of the world’s biggest economies. …A money-laundering threat assessment in 2005 by the federal government found that corporate anonymity offered by Delaware, Nevada and Wyoming rivalled that of familiar offshore financial centres. For foreigners, America is a particularly attractive place to stash cash, because it does not tax the interest income they earn. Thus with both anonymity and no taxation, America offers them all the elements of a tax haven. …America is not the only rich nation Mr Sharman tested. He tried to open anonymous shell companies and bank accounts 45 times across the world. These were successful in 17 cases, of which 13 were in OECD countries. One example was Britain, where in 45 minutes on the internet he formed a company without providing identification, was issued with bearer shares (which have been almost universally outlawed because they confer completely anonymous ownership) as well as nominee directors and a secretary. …In contrast, when trying to open accounts in Bermuda and Switzerland, he was asked for documentation such as notarised copies of his birth certificate. “In practice OECD countries have much laxer regulation on shell corporations than classic tax havens,” Mr Sharman concludes.
Filed under: International Economics and Development; Tax and Budget Policy
Jim Webb and Criminal Justice
Senator Jim Webb (D-Va) is calling for a national commission to review the American criminal justice system from top to bottom. Good for him. With more than seven million people under criminal justice supervision (prison, parole, probation), a thorough review is desperately needed. You can tell that Webb is new to the Congress because he is raising a subject that most of the long term incumbents would rather not discuss. As Glenn Greenwald observes:
For a Senator like Webb to spend his time trumpeting the evils of excessive prison rates, racial disparities in sentencing, the unjust effects of the Drug War, and disgustingly harsh conditions inside prisons is precisely the opposite of what every single political consultant would recommend that he do. There’s just no plausible explanation for what Webb’s actions other than the fact that he’s engaged in the noblest and rarest of conduct: advocating a position and pursuing an outcome because he actually believes in it and believes that, with reasoned argument, he can convince his fellow citizens to see the validity of his cause. And he is doing this despite the fact that it potentially poses substantial risks to his political self-interest and offers almost no prospect for political reward. Webb is far from perfect — he’s cast some truly bad votes since being elected — but, in this instance, not only his conduct but also his motives are highly commendable.
Read the whole thing.
And speaking of Glenn Greenwald, he will be here at Cato this Friday to discuss his new study for Cato, Drug Decriminalization in Portugal. Portugal is treating drug use as a health problem, not a crime problem, and it is working rather well. When Senator Webb’s commission gets assembled, this report ought to be at the top of its reading list.
To register for the Greenwald forum, go here. For a discussion on mass incarceration, go here. For more Cato work on crime and drugs, go here and here.
How Progressive Are You?
I’m two weeks late coming to this, but the “Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party” Obama Administration Farm Team Center for American Progress has developed a quiz aiming to answer the question, “How Progressive Are You?“ The quiz asks you to rank, on a 10-point scale, how much you agree with 40 different statements. Now, I won’t quibble here with the misuse of the word “progressive” — having debased the term “liberal” (which in any other country pretty much means what Cato supports), the Left moves on to its next target — but the quiz highlights the false dichotomy between “progressive” and “conservative.”
The fallacy of this linear political spectrum forces people to wring their hands and call themselves “socially liberal, fiscally conservative” — does anyone call themselves “fiscally liberal” even if they are? — or “moderate” (no firm views on anything, huh?) or anything else that adds no descriptive meaning to a political discussion. Where do you put a Jim Webb? A Reagan Democrat? A Ross Perot voter? A gay Republican? A deficit hawk versus a supply-sider? Let alone Crunchy Cons, Purple Americans, Wal-Mart Republicans, South Park Conservatives, NASCAR dads, soccer moms, and, oh yes, libertarians.
And the statements the quiz asks you to evaluate are just weird. I mean, yes, “Lower taxes are generally a good thing” (I paraphrase) gets you somewhere, but what does “Talking with rogue nations such as Iran or with state-sponsored terrorist groups is naive and only gives them legitimacy” get you? Or “America has taken too large a role in solving the world’s problems and should focus more at home”? What is the “progressive” response to these statements? The “conservative” one? I think I know what the Bush response and the Obama response would be to the first one, but how does either fit into any particular ideology?
The Institute for Humane Studies at least gives you a two-dimensional quiz, so you can see how much government intervention you want in economic and social affairs (the “progressive” view presumably being lots of intervention in the economy, none on social issues). And IHS poses classical debates in political philosophy rather than thinly veiled leading questions relating to current affairs.
In any event, when you finish the quiz, it tells you your score and that the average score for Americans is 209.5. How do they get this number? A selectively biased survey of people who frequent the CAP website would surely score much higher on the progressive scale. No, it’s based on a “National Study of Values and Beliefs.” Well, ok, but, again, if those are the types of questions you ask people — or, even worse, the quiz designers code the survey responses – I’m not sure how much I care about the result. (Incidentally, the survey reveals that “the potential for true progressive governance is greater than at any point in decades.” Great, that’s either a banal formulation of the fact that Democrats have retaken the political branches or a self-serving conclusion. Or both.)
In case anyone cares, I scored 100 out of 400, which makes me “very conservative.” I suppose that won’t come as a surprise to my “progressive” friends, but then I’m always talking to them about how bad the bailouts/stimuli are for the economy, how we should actually follow the Constitution, etc. All the folks who over the years have called me a libertine or hedonist, however, will not be amused to learn that I’m actually one of them…
The State of Play in the Bomb-Iran Debate
Via Philip Weiss, I see that last week Karim Sadjadpour and Martin Indyk debated Elliott “Get Down Out of Those Trees and Be Democrats” Abrams and Joshua Muravchik on the proposition: “America cannot tolerate a nuclear Iran and must go to any lengths to prevent it.” It’s a topic that’s been of interest to me for some time now.
Indyk and Sadjadpour acquitted themselves rather well, but it made me chuckle to see Abrams and Muravchik throwing some very familiar-smelling handfuls of argument into the discussion. I thought it might be worth passing a few of them along.
Translation: “No”
On Fox News Sunday this week, Chris Wallace asked Secretary of Defense Robert Gates about the capability of Al Qaeda to mount attacks on the United States:
The President said that Al Qaeda is actively planning attacks against the U.S. homeland. Does Al Qaeda still have that kind of operational capability to plan and pull off those kinds of attacks?
Gates: They certainly have the capability to plan . . . .
Gates went on to discuss how Al Qaeda has arguably “metastasized,” with elements appearing elsewhere in the world, uncontrolled by Al Qaeda in Western Pakistan, but trained and inspired from there. He told Wallace that he thought Al Qaeda is “a very serious threat.”
But, the “capability to plan”? Who in the world doesn’t have the “capability to plan”? The better answer to Wallace’s question would have been “No.”
What Gates described is an Al Qaeda very different from the one that attacked the United States on 9/11. It’s more an idea than an organization, an idea that America-haters the world over are drawn to when American leaders tout Al Qaeda as a top threat. Anyone around the world can declare themselves a part of “Al Qaeda” and most of our media and political leaders will believe it, becoming needlessly fearful just because of the label.
With the focus on Afghanistan and Pakistan this week, President Obama and Secretary Gates had to discuss Al Qaeda. But they could have done more to show world audiences that Al Qaeda is weakened, and that terrorism is a weaker tool against the United States and the West than it was.
While maintaining the vigilance necessary to prevent any attack, issuing these more moderate kinds of communications would reduce the attractiveness of terrorism to potential terrorists. Smarter, more subdued communications is as important a part of strategic counterterrorism as directly fighting today’s terrorists.
Later in the interview, Gates smartly deflected Wallace’s questions about how the new administration eschews “war on terror” rhetoric. Nicely done.
Who’s Blogging about Cato
A few bloggers who wrote about Cato this week:
- New York Times blogger Andrew C. Revkin wrote about Cato’s forthcoming full-page ad on climate change that will run in newspapers around the country next week.
- Wes Messamore helped set the record straight: Cato scholars have criticized the growth of government regardless of who’s in power.
- Law blogger Kenneth Lammers reviewed Tim Lynch’s new book, In the Name of Justice.
- Jim Harper’s blog post on government transparency made the cut on Bruce McQuain’s “Quote of the Day” segment at QandO.
- Brandon Dutcher posted Cato’s Monday podcast with Adam Schaeffer on universal pre-school.
- John Hood discussed Jagadeesh Gokhale’s new paper on the financial crisis at The Corner.
Filed under: Education and Child Policy; Finance, Banking & Monetary Policy; General; Government and Politics
Friday Podcast: ‘Obama’s Afghanistan Strategy’
President Obama has unveiled his plan for the war in Afghanistan, taking a more regional approach than the U.S. has in the past.
In Friday’s Cato Daily Podcast, foreign policy analyst Malou Innocent says it’s a critical step in the right direction, but stabilizing Afghanistan and fighting an insurgency can’t be accomplished while killing the livelihoods of so many Afghan farmers by destroying opium poppy.
In the future we should take Afghanistan as it is, rather than what we want it to be. So not only does that mean having a decreased reliance on a central state government from Kabul, but also understanding that many of the farms from these rural areas rely on the opium poppy crop for their own livelihood. So we should focus our efforts to targeting those who are in cahoots with insurgent groups and not simply those who are depending on it for their livelihood.
Her forthcoming paper, “Pakistan and the Future of U.S. Policy” will be released next month.
Federal Debt Per Household
This afternoon, a congressional office asked me what the estimated national debt in President Obama’s fiscal year 2010 budget submission would be on a per-U.S.-household basis. I think the answer is worth sharing with C@L readers:
According to the president’s budget, the estimated national debt (debt held by the public) in fiscal year 2010 would equal approximately $81,000 per U.S. household.
But no worries, “we owe it to ourselves“!
Trying Harder in Afghanistan
President Obama today gave a statement about his strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan. The first thing to say here is that, according to those who attended a White House briefing, the strategy is not complete: the goals are not defined.
Second, there seems to be a gap between rhetoric and reality. On the one hand, the White House is rhetorically embracing the idea that, at least as far as Afghanistan is concerned, the problem is insufficient U.S. effort. That is consistent with what Obama has said all along: that we are failing in Afghanistan because U.S. efforts there are starved of resources that went to Iraq.
So we need more trainers for the Afghan army (a brigade from the 82nd Airborne gets that job), more combat troops (although only the 17,000 already committed), more U.S. government civilians to aid local development, and more drug eradication (on the folly of this, read Ted Carpenter and David Rittgers). As an enthusiastic Robert Kagan points out, this seems to be a stronger embrace of the nation-building strategy. The partial departure is the willingness to try to buy off elements of the Taliban.
On the other hand, the trainers being sent were requested long ago, and the troop increase is not new. The other shifts are minor. So, in terms of action, little has changed. There seems be a compromise here between the so-called minimalists and maximalists, which caused essentially a stalemate.
If you agree that the trouble in Afghanistan is that we weren’t trying hard enough, you should wonder why we aren’t trying even harder — doubling down on troops and effort, not just saying so. If you think, as I do, that we need a new strategy of radically reduced objectives, you have the opposite concern.
National ID Promoted by Anti-Immigrant Group — Sorta
If it was ever in doubt that REAL ID and the push for national ID systems are a project of anti-immigrant groups, this should dispel it.
The Center for Immigration Studies has a page up on its website in which REAL ID lobbyist Janice Kephart trots out videos of Bush administration Department of Homeland Security officials sort of making the case for REAL ID. Or at least for all the different ID programs they had. Or something.
Frankly, it’s not clear what this piece is getting at. The material is rather meandering, and neither the videos nor the text provide a coherent argument for a national ID, much less defeat the arguments against one. (The featured former officials are former, and not involved with the current administration, because voters rejected the fear-mongering of the former DHS and administration in the most recent election.)
What the text does say is that the Obama administration is cool on a national ID because it “gained many votes from those who support mass, illegal and unchecked immigration into the US.” This is inaccurate in many respects. Nobody supports illegal immigration, but many people do recognize that balanced and generous immigration rules would reduce it. This country has a long history of being immigrant friendly and of favoring liberty over things like national ID systems. If those kinds of policies win votes, so be it! It’s nice to see a group like CIS admit that their agenda is politically unpopular.
Whatever the case, if you had any doubt about what motivates national ID advocacy in the country, it’s anti-immigrant groups. Their amateurish interest in terrorism and national security is motivated by their fixation on preventing free movement of people. The great irony is that the Center for Immigration Studies would put native-born American citizens into a national ID system to try to get at their anti-immigrant goals.
Cato on Facebook
Cato on Twitter
Cato on YouTube
Cato Tweets