Foundations
Here's a look at documents from U.S. foundations
Featured Stories
Health Foundation Responds to HSSIB Report on Corridor Care
LONDON, England, Jan. 9 -- The Health Foundation issued the following statement on Jan. 8, 2026, by Assistant Director of Policy Tim Gardner:
* * *
Health Foundation responds to HSSIB report on corridor care
Commenting on Health Services Safety Investigation Body (HSSIB) Report on corridor care, Assistant Director of Policy, Tim Gardner, said:
'Today's report from the Health Services Safety Investigation Body (HSSIB) brings into sharp focus the stark realities facing some patients and staff in NHS hospitals. Routinely resorting to corridor care for managing emergency pressures is not a safe
... Show Full Article
LONDON, England, Jan. 9 -- The Health Foundation issued the following statement on Jan. 8, 2026, by Assistant Director of Policy Tim Gardner:
* * *
Health Foundation responds to HSSIB report on corridor care
Commenting on Health Services Safety Investigation Body (HSSIB) Report on corridor care, Assistant Director of Policy, Tim Gardner, said:
'Today's report from the Health Services Safety Investigation Body (HSSIB) brings into sharp focus the stark realities facing some patients and staff in NHS hospitals. Routinely resorting to corridor care for managing emergency pressures is not a safeway to run a health service, putting patients at risk of avoidable harm and taking a major toll on NHS staff.
'Trolley waits in A&E - one measure of the problems in emergency care - are set to hit record levels in 2025, with over half a million patients having already waited over 12 hours for admission to a hospital bed. Such delays were uncommon before the pandemic but are now the worst since record-keeping started in 2011. They reflect an NHS exhausted by the pandemic and a decade of underfunding before that.
'While the HSSIB highlights the efforts made by NHS hospitals to mitigate the risks to patient safety, the proliferation of corridor care is symptomatic of wider problems where there are no quick or easy solutions. Action is required throughout the entire health system, including investing in additional capacity for primary and acute care, implementing new technology and skills to improve service efficiency and productivity, and undertaking much-needed reform and investment in social care.'
* * *
Original text here: https://www.health.org.uk/press-office/press-releases/health-foundation-responds-to-hssib-report-on-corridor-care
Staffing surges and student outcomes: Rethinking unions, resource allocation, and school choice in American education
LOS ANGELES, California, Jan. 8 (TNSrpt) -- The Reason Foundation issued the following news:
* * *
Staffing surges and student outcomes: Rethinking unions, resource allocation, and school choice in American education
*
Executive summary
Despite declining student enrollment in many U.S. school districts, K-12 education spending and staffing particularly in non-instructional roles have grown substantially over the past two decades.
This paper investigates the political and institutional drivers of this trend, focusing on the influence of teachers' unions in shaping staffing decisions, resisting
... Show Full Article
LOS ANGELES, California, Jan. 8 (TNSrpt) -- The Reason Foundation issued the following news:
* * *
Staffing surges and student outcomes: Rethinking unions, resource allocation, and school choice in American education
*
Executive summary
Despite declining student enrollment in many U.S. school districts, K-12 education spending and staffing particularly in non-instructional roles have grown substantially over the past two decades.
This paper investigates the political and institutional drivers of this trend, focusing on the influence of teachers' unions in shaping staffing decisions, resistingreform, and reallocating resources in ways that often fail to improve student outcomes. Using longitudinal data from the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), the study reviews evidence showing that staffing growth is concentrated in non-right-to-work states where union density is higher.
These increases are further concentrated in non-teaching roles and are not associated with gains in student achievement. Empirical evidence suggests that strong union presence tends to prioritize employment protections and compensation structures that inhibit performance-based pay and flexibility in resource allocation.
During the COVID-19 pandemic, unionized school districts were also slower to return to in-person learning, exacerbating academic and mental health setbacks for students and parents alike.
The paper also reviews education reform efforts, such as performance pay for teachers and school choice programs, that can help improve educational outcomes by aligning incentives and improving the efficacy of spending.
The evidence broadly suggests that the effectiveness of additional funding depends less on its amount than on its use. Systems with weak accountability or entrenched union influence are more likely to channel resources toward administrative expansion rather than classroom quality.
Ultimately, improving educational outcomes requires aligning incentives, empowering parents with real choices, and ensuring transparency in how funds are spent. Education reforms that prioritize instructional quality, flexible governance, and accountability, rather than mere staffing, will produce meaningful gains for students.
Introduction
Over the past two decades, K-12 education in the United States has seen a striking increase in staffing and public funding, despite enrollment declines in many districts. This phenomenon has provoked growing concern among policymakers, parents, and researchers alike: Why, in districts that serve fewer students, are school systems simultaneously hiring additional non-instructional staff?
While modest expansions in school administrators or support personnel may reflect growing student needs or regulatory requirements, the scale of these staffing surges raises questions about whether limited educational resources are being optimally deployed to boost student achievement. Indeed, while expenditures and staff-to-student ratios have soared, academic outcomes particularly in reading and math have remained disappointingly flat.
A leading hypothesis for this apparent misalignment is the influence of teachers' unions on local budget decisions and staffing patterns. Historically, unions have sought higher wages and smaller class sizes, but a new wave of research suggests they may also lobby for broader personnel expansions that are unrelated, or weakly related, with driving educational outcomes.
Drawing on data from the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), my research finds that states without right-to-work laws (RTW)where unions can require membership are far more likely to exhibit robust staffing growth relative to states that weaken collective bargaining. Unions are involved in other facets of district management, from school reopening decisions during the COVID-19 pandemic to the distribution of any incremental funding that flows into schools. While strong unions can serve teacher interests and potentially enhance job quality, critics argue they also impede certain reforms such as performance-based pay and reinforce a "one-size-fits-all" salary schedule that may crowd out more-effective uses of resources.
Against this backdrop, this study synthesizes findings on how union influence, evolving staffing patterns, and student performance intersect in the U.S. K-12 landscape.
Building on the decades-long "staffing surge," the policy brief examines how expansions of non-teaching roles can persist even when student enrollments decline, highlighting both the organizational challenges and union-driven motivations that drive this growth. It also explores the empirical literature on reform strategies spanning performance-pay policies, school choice options such as charters, vouchers, and education savings accounts (ESAs), and shifting accountability regimes that aim to re-align resource allocation to improve student outcomes.
Recent debates on COVID-19 school closures further illustrate how collective bargaining powers can shape schooling decisions in ways that are not always aligned with empirical evidence on academic and mental health trade-offs.
Ultimately, the evidence underscores that, while more funding may sometimes have slightly positive effects, the magnitude is small and depends much more heavily on the composition of spending, accountability structures, and degree of competition in the ecosystem.
* * *
REPORT: https://reason.org/wp-content/uploads/education-staffing-student-outcomes-resource-allocation.pdf
***
Original text here: https://reason.org/policy-study/staffing-surges-student-outcomes-unions-resource-allocation-school-choice-education/
Security Guards at Vogtle Nuclear Power Plant Demand Vote to Remove SPFPA Union Officials
SPRINGFIELD, Virginia, Jan. 8 -- The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation posted the following news release:
* * *
Security Guards at Vogtle Nuclear Power Plant Demand Vote to Remove SPFPA Union Officials
*
Guards collect enough signatures to prompt federal labor board to administer union removal vote
Waynesboro, GA (January 8, 2026) - Security guards working for Southern Nuclear Operating Company have recently filed a petition asking the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) to hold a vote to remove the Security, Police and Fire Professionals of America (SPFPA) union from their
... Show Full Article
SPRINGFIELD, Virginia, Jan. 8 -- The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation posted the following news release:
* * *
Security Guards at Vogtle Nuclear Power Plant Demand Vote to Remove SPFPA Union Officials
*
Guards collect enough signatures to prompt federal labor board to administer union removal vote
Waynesboro, GA (January 8, 2026) - Security guards working for Southern Nuclear Operating Company have recently filed a petition asking the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) to hold a vote to remove the Security, Police and Fire Professionals of America (SPFPA) union from theirworkplace. The guards, who filed the petition with assistance from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys, work at Plant Vogtle, a major nuclear power plant in Waynesboro, Georgia.
The NLRB is the federal agency responsible for enforcing federal labor law, a task that includes administering votes to install (or "certify") and remove (or "decertify") unions in workplaces. Under NLRB rules, the Board should administer a decertification election if employees submit a petition in which a required number of workers in a work unit demand such an election. The Southern Nuclear Operating Company workers' petition, which Dallas Howard submitted on behalf of his coworkers, met this threshold.
Security Guards Dissatisfied with Union 'Representation'
Georgia is a Right to Work state, meaning that SPFPA officials cannot enforce union contracts that require workers to pay union dues or fees to keep their jobs. In non-Right to Work states, union bosses can have workers fired solely for refusing to financially support union officials' activities.
However, in both Right to Work and non-Right to Work states, union officials can wield exclusive "representation" power over every employee in a workplace, even those that don't want to be represented by the union. A successful decertification election would strip SPFPA union bosses of exclusive bargaining power over these 250 security guards, enabling the workers to negotiate for themselves.
SPFPA Union Officials Continue to Ignore Worker Interests
The Foundation has seen a history of unwanted "representation" by the SPFPA. In 2024, the Foundation provided free legal aid to security guards in Delaware after the SPFPA negotiated a contract behind their backs. In Las Vegas, security guards scored a settlement returning thousands of dollars in illegally-seized union dues after SPFPA officials failed to acknowledge many employees' attempts to revoke their union memberships and cut off dues deductions.
"SPFPA union officials have repeatedly shown that they care little about workers they claim to 'represent.' They only care about maintaining control and power, and we are proud to assist these security guards as they try to restore their individual freedom," said National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. "While Georgia's Right to Work law guards employees from the forced-dues demands of union officials, no worker should be forced under the control of union chiefs who are self-interested or simply aren't doing a good job."
Facebook Twitter LinkedIn Email Print Share
The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation is a nonprofit, charitable organization providing free legal aid to employees whose human or civil rights have been violated by compulsory unionism abuses. The Foundation, which can be contacted toll-free at 1-800-336-3600, assists thousands of employees in about 200 cases nationwide per year.
Posted on Jan 8, 2026 in News Releases
***
Original text here: https://www.nrtw.org/news/vogtle-plant-georgia-decertification-01082026/
Reason Foundation Issues Commentary: Cannabusiness lawsuit highlights need for Congress to clarify federal treatment of marijuana
LOS ANGELES, California, Jan. 8 -- The Reason Foundation issued the following commentary on Jan. 7, 2026:
* * *
Cannabusiness lawsuit highlights need for Congress to clarify federal treatment of marijuana
Without reform, lawsuits like this may force federal courts toward decisions that destabilize existing state markets or that effectively go around Congress.
By Geoffrey Lawrence, Research Director
A chain of Michigan marijuana retailers is exploiting the federal marijuana ban to attempt to void its contract obligations with a supplier. A supplier alleges that it failed to pay for marijuana
... Show Full Article
LOS ANGELES, California, Jan. 8 -- The Reason Foundation issued the following commentary on Jan. 7, 2026:
* * *
Cannabusiness lawsuit highlights need for Congress to clarify federal treatment of marijuana
Without reform, lawsuits like this may force federal courts toward decisions that destabilize existing state markets or that effectively go around Congress.
By Geoffrey Lawrence, Research Director
A chain of Michigan marijuana retailers is exploiting the federal marijuana ban to attempt to void its contract obligations with a supplier. A supplier alleges that it failed to pay for marijuanathe retailer had contractually agreed to buy, and the retail chain says courts can't enforce a contract involving illegal activity. If successful, this argument could massively disrupt state-regulated marijuana markets. It's another example of why Congress needs to resolve this discrepancy in federal and state marijuana laws.
Cura MI, a Michigan subsidiary of Massachusetts-based Curaleaf Holdings, signed a contract in 2020 agreeing to purchase the 2020 and 2021 harvests of its local supplier and cultivator, Hello Farms. Cura MI accepted roughly 53,000 pounds of this marijuana, but now says it doesn't have to pay its supplier because federal courts can't enforce a contract that involves illegal activity.
By early 2021, Cura MI was already allegedly failing to make payments, and Hello Farms sued Cura MI in a Michigan court, hoping to collect roughly $32 million that the retailer had agreed to pay. Michigan's marijuana laws make clear that contracts between licensed marijuana businesses are enforceable in Michigan (see MCL SS 333.27960 ). So, an observer might assume that none of this is a federal matter. However, because Cura MI is owned by a Massachusetts-based parent company, Curaleaf Holdings was able to petition in March 2021 to remove the proceeding to federal court because the dispute is between residents of different states.
Once in federal district court, Curaleaf ultimately argued the court could not enforce contract provisions involving marijuana because trafficking in marijuana is a federal crime. Many U.S. Supreme Court rulings have held that courts cannot use their equitable powers to facilitate criminal activity, so litigants ultimately have no legal recourse to enforce contracts involving illegal acts.
But U.S. District Judge Matthew Leitman developed a novel interpretation of Supreme Court precedent by pointing to prior U.S. Supreme Court rulings, such as McMullen v. Hoffman and Continental Wallpaper v. Voight & Sons, in which the illegality defense hinged on the action being contrary to public policy. In both cases, the Supreme Court ruled the disputes involved illegal contracts and therefore courts could not lend their assistance, but the language used in these rulings said things like, "In such cases, the aid of the court is denied not for the benefit of the defendant, but because public policy demands that it should be denied...."
Leitman interpreted these rulings to mean the intent of public policy may be the more appropriate lens through which to view a contract dispute than per se illegality, and public policy regarding marijuana is ambiguous. In particular, although Congress declared marijuana commerce criminal in passing the Controlled Substances Act, it has also protected state medical marijuana markets from federal intervention through the budget process. In every year since 2014, the Rohrabacher-Farr amendments to federal appropriations legislation have prohibited the U.S. Justice Department from using any resources to prosecute medical marijuana companies in compliance with state law.
During 2020, all of Hello Farms' marijuana was grown under a medical license, and the cultivator remained in compliance with state regulations, so Leitman's so-called "public-policy doctrine" implied the contract could be enforceable even under federal law. However, Leitman acknowledged that, "[U]nder a straightforward application of the... [Controlled Substances Act]... there's a very serious argument to be made that this contract is not enforceable."
Leitman's legal analysis was critical to establishing whether the court held the authority to intervene in the Curaleaf case, and it ultimately allowed a federal jury to render a decision in 2025 holding Curaleaf in breach of contract and awarded $32 million in damages in Hello Farms.
This isn't the first time a federal court has interpreted the Rohrabacher-Farr amendments as a Congressional acknowledgment of legitimacy of state-regulated marijuana markets. In 2022, the First Circuit Court of Appeals struck down Maine's in-state residency requirements for cannabis licensure by pointing, in part, to these provisions. The judges there concluded that Congress had expressly recognized a market for marijuana through the amendments, and therefore it alone held the power to regulate interstate commerce within that market.
However, Leitman's novel ruling is not settled. In November 2025, Curaleaf appealed the district court's decision to the Sixth Circuit, arguing, "Under black-letter law, this contract to violate federal law is void and unenforceable, and both parties should have known it." Whether the Sixth Circuit (and, perhaps, eventually the Supreme Court) accepts Leitman's creative rationale or applies the law strictly could have a massive impact on state-regulated marijuana markets.
As legal cannabis markets have matured, consolidation has resulted in a few large companies holding licenses across numerous states and becoming dominant buyers and sellers of marijuana. If these multi-state operators can abandon their financial commitments to local operators and to each other by removing any claim to federal court and then claiming illegality, then a large share of contractual arrangements would ultimately become unenforceable. Licensed marijuana businesses would then be forced to rely solely on the goodwill of their counterparty to any exchange, exactly as occurs in purely illicit markets.
Marijuana licensees that also issue securities traded on public markets, like Curaleaf, may face additional complications arising from a need to disclose in their filings with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission or foreign regulatory agencies that all of their contractual rights are also unenforceable. That might force them to impair key assets like accounts receivable or leasehold improvements to remain in compliance with legal and accounting standards.
The progression of this case highlights the urgent need for Congress to clarify its position on marijuana. As Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in 2021 in response to the Court's denial of a writ of certiorari relating to a marijuana case: "The federal government's current approach is a half-in, half-out regime that simultaneously tolerates and forbids local use of marijuana." His observation presciently preceded federal courts' development of rationales for intervening in marijuana cases.
Particularly in the wake of President Donald Trump's recent order for the attorney general to move marijuana to Schedule III under the Controlled Substances Act, the momentum has shifted for Congress to at least clarify its recognition of state laws so courts have clearer guidance. Proposals such as the STATES Act 2.0 or the States Reform Act would do so by federally legalizing any marijuana products grown in compliance with state law.
Failure to clarify this issue could force federal courts to render decisions that are either massively destabilizing for existing state markets or that effectively go around Congress to enshrine those markets.
***
Original text here: https://reason.org/commentary/cannabusiness-lawsuit-highlights-need-for-congress-to-clarify-federal-treatment-of-marijuana/
Ethical Concerns Leads Scientific Journal to Retract Glyphosate Safety Study
OAKLAND, California, Jan. 8 -- As You Sow Foundation posted the following news release:
* * *
Ethical Concerns Leads Scientific Journal to Retract Glyphosate Safety Study
*
Media Contact: Ryon Harms, ryon@asyousow.org, (310) 730-9407
EL CERRITO, CALIFORNIA - January 8, 2026 - A prominent scientific journal recently retracted a landmark study claiming that glyphosate, the active ingredient in the herbicide Roundup, is safe for human health. There remains substantial research and evidence linking glyphosate to cancer exists across a range of studies.
Since Bayer acquired Monsanto (the manufacturer
... Show Full Article
OAKLAND, California, Jan. 8 -- As You Sow Foundation posted the following news release:
* * *
Ethical Concerns Leads Scientific Journal to Retract Glyphosate Safety Study
*
Media Contact: Ryon Harms, ryon@asyousow.org, (310) 730-9407
EL CERRITO, CALIFORNIA - January 8, 2026 - A prominent scientific journal recently retracted a landmark study claiming that glyphosate, the active ingredient in the herbicide Roundup, is safe for human health. There remains substantial research and evidence linking glyphosate to cancer exists across a range of studies.
Since Bayer acquired Monsanto (the manufacturerof Roundup) in 2018, over 177,000 lawsuits have been filed related to glyphosate; Monsanto recently paid $2.1 billion in damages in a case that connected the plaintiff's non-Hodkin's lymphoma to glyphosate exposure.
The retraction of the widely cited paper on glyphosate safety occurred based on a recommendation by two Harvard scientists urging the Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology journal to re-examine the study. After reviewing the study, the journal's editor in chief stated that the article was being retracted due to "serious ethical concerns" after discovering that Monsanto's scientists played a major role in developing and influencing the study.
"For years, shareholders have raised concerns to large food companies about the risks from their reliance on pesticides harmful to human health," said Cailin Dendas, Senior Environmental Health Coordinator at As You Sow. "Companies that fail to address these issues are exposing shareholders to avoidable and growing risk, while farmworkers and fenceline communities continue getting sick."
As You Sow evaluates major food companies' efforts to minimize or eliminate their reliance on harmful pesticides through its Pesticides in the Pantry and From the Ground Up reports, finding that reliance on harmful pesticides remains the norm for most large food companies.
Nate Powell-Palm, Montana Grain Farmer said "With this news I'm grateful that so many farmers before me invested in learning how to produce high yielding organic crops. As inputs like glyphosate and synthetic fertilizers rob American farmers of their profits, we have a ready-made solution to meet the demand for good food while ensuring a strong farmer livelihood organic farming."
As You Sow is the nation's leading shareholder representative, with a 30+ year track record promoting environmental and social corporate responsibility. As You Sow addresses a range of issues that affect shareholder value including climate change, ocean plastics, toxins in the food system, biodiversity, racial justice, and workplace diversity. See As You Sow 's shareholder resolution tracker.
***
Original text here: https://www.asyousow.org/press-releases/2026/1/8/ethical-concerns-leads-scientific-journal-to-retract-glyphosate-safety-study
Foundation for Economic Education Posts Commentary: Couto Mixto
DETROIT, Michigan, Jan. 7 -- The Foundation for Economic Education posted the following news:
* * *
The Couto Mixto
A forgotten case of order without the state.
By Claudia Ascensao Nunes
It is a deeply rooted belief in the Western political tradition, from Thomas Hobbes to contemporary interventionist currents, that a successful political community requires a strong central authority capable of imposing rules and guaranteeing order. According to this view, in the absence of such authority, society would inevitably collapse into chaos.
History, however, offers a particularly intriguing counterexample.
... Show Full Article
DETROIT, Michigan, Jan. 7 -- The Foundation for Economic Education posted the following news:
* * *
The Couto Mixto
A forgotten case of order without the state.
By Claudia Ascensao Nunes
It is a deeply rooted belief in the Western political tradition, from Thomas Hobbes to contemporary interventionist currents, that a successful political community requires a strong central authority capable of imposing rules and guaranteeing order. According to this view, in the absence of such authority, society would inevitably collapse into chaos.
History, however, offers a particularly intriguing counterexample.For nearly seven centuries, the Couto Mixto, a small microterritory composed of the villages of Santiago de Rubias, Rubias, and Meaus, existed along the border between Portugal and Spain without a permanent sovereign or centralized governmental authority. Despite this absence of formal state power, it developed a stable social order grounded in voluntary self-government and an extensive regime of free trade.
The existence of the Couto Mixto arose from a juridical and territorial ambiguity between Portugal and Spain that was never fully resolved. This ambiguity created a space in which political authority was diffuse, power was limited, and social organization emerged primarily from custom and mutual convenience. It constituted a concrete historical example of spontaneous order, in the sense described by Friedrich Hayek, standing in contrast to the rationalist constructions of central planning.
This spontaneous order took shape through a practical and functional institutional system that entirely dispensed with the state monopoly on violence and taxation. Local administration was carried out by an Honorary Judge, or Alcaide, elected annually on a rotating basis from among the heads of households of the three villages, known as homens-bons. The judge was assisted by a council of homens-bons one representative from each settlementwho made decisions by consensus in an assembly open to all heads of household. This arrangement constituted one of the clearest historical examples of direct democracy in Europe.
An ingenious mechanism symbolized this decentralization. Essential documents of the territory, including royal privileges, records of decisions, official seals, and communal archives, were kept in a wooden chest secured by three separate locks. Each homem de acordo, a respected representative chosen by common consent, held one key, making unilateral access impossible for any individual, including the judge himself. Opening the chest required the simultaneous consent of all three representatives, providing a practical safeguard against abuses of power and a striking illustration of voluntary checks and balances without the need for a coercive state.
There was no standing army, no state police force, and no coercive fiscal bureaucracy. Order was maintained through customary norms and voluntary cooperation. This model of radical direct democracy and extreme decentralization functioned peacefully for centuries.
Beyond its distinctive political organization, the inhabitants of the Couto Mixto enjoyed a set of privileges that would today be readily recognized as concrete expressions of classical liberal principles. They could freely own and carry arms at a time when this was forbidden to the general population. They were exempt from military service and enjoyed complete freedom to attend Portuguese and Spanish fairs and markets without paying taxes or customs duties.
The territory also preserved the right of asylum that had underpinned its original formation, preventing external authorities from entering in pursuit of fugitives, except in cases of homicide.
The economic heart of the Couto Mixto was its unparalleled regime of free trade. One of its most emblematic privileges was the Caminho Privilegiado, a road approximately six kilometers long, marked by stone boundary markers engraved with crosses, along which no state authority, Spanish or Portuguese, could search individuals or inspect goods. This immunity was not enforced through local armed power, but through a long-standing tacit recognition by neighboring kingdoms, for whom violating the privilege would have entailed diplomatic conflict, frontier instability, and political costs outweighing any immediate gains.
The physical marking of the road itself functioned as a visible juridical boundary, transforming it into a genuine neutral corridor where state authority was suspended by mutual convenience.
This protected corridor turned what mercantilist states labeled "smuggling" into legitimate voluntary exchange, illustrating in practice how free trade flourishes when direct state intervention is absent.
In a feudal and mercantilist Europe, these privileges, including total tax exemption, freedom to cultivate monopolized products such as salt and tobacco, and protected commercial routes, transformed a remote and mountainous region into a genuine enclave of economic liberty. They enabled a level of relative prosperity markedly superior to that of neighboring communities burdened by heavy taxation, monopolies, and state regulation.
Historians such as Luis Manuel Garcia Mana, in his work Couto Mixto: Unha republica esquecida, note that the cultivation and sale of tobacco, prohibited or monopolized in neighboring kingdoms, generated substantial incomes and even permitted the formation of local fortunes. At the same time, the Caminho Privilegiado sustained constant exchanges that raised living standards in a traditionally poor agrarian area.
The autonomy of the Couto Mixto came to an end in 1868 with the practical application of the Treaty of Lisbon of 1864, which formally divided the territory between Portugal and Spain and abolished its historic privileges. Though internally successful, its existence became incompatible with the centralizing, fiscal, and territorial logic of the modern nation-state.
* * *
Claudia Ascensao Nunes is a Portuguese writer and political commentator. She is the President of Ladies of Liberty Alliance - Portugal and a columnist featured in both national and international publications. Claudia collaborates with Young Voices and focuses on economic freedom, European policy, and transatlantic cooperation. She has over 20,000 followers on X (formerly Twitter), where she shares insights on politics, liberalism, and cultural issues.
***
Original text here: https://fee.org/articles/the-couto-mixto/
2026 Begins with U.S. Fiscal Confidence Lower than a Year Ago
NEW YORK, Jan. 7 -- The Peter G. Peterson Foundation posted the following news release:
* * *
2026 Begins with U.S. Fiscal Confidence Lower than a Year Ago
*
Following a year that saw the highest interest costs ever, and the most expensive reconciliation bill and longest government shutdown in history, U.S. fiscal confidence is in worse shape now than at the start of 2025. The latest monthly Index sponsored by the nonpartisan Peter G. Peterson Foundation is 51 (100 is neutral) six points lower than January 2025 indicating that voters want to address the unsustainable national debt and budget
... Show Full Article
NEW YORK, Jan. 7 -- The Peter G. Peterson Foundation posted the following news release:
* * *
2026 Begins with U.S. Fiscal Confidence Lower than a Year Ago
*
Following a year that saw the highest interest costs ever, and the most expensive reconciliation bill and longest government shutdown in history, U.S. fiscal confidence is in worse shape now than at the start of 2025. The latest monthly Index sponsored by the nonpartisan Peter G. Peterson Foundation is 51 (100 is neutral) six points lower than January 2025 indicating that voters want to address the unsustainable national debt and budgetoutlook.
The December survey shows that 82% of voters agree lawmakers should spend more time addressing the national debt. Additionally, 79% of voters believe reducing the debt should be a top-three priority for the president and Congress, including 75% of Democrats, 70% of independents, and 89% of Republicans.
"As the new year begins, voters are understandably concerned about America's fiscal direction," said Michael A. Peterson, CEO of the Peterson Foundation. "The rapidly rising debt puts upward pressure on inflation and interest rates, driving up the cost of living and harming economic growth. Looking ahead to this election year, it will be critically important for candidates to engage voters on solutions that will help stabilize the debt and build a stronger, more prosperous 2026 and beyond."
The Fiscal Confidence Index measures public opinion about the national debt by asking six questions in three key areas:
* CONCERN: Level of concern and views about the direction of the national debt.
* PRIORITY: How high a priority addressing the debt should be for elected leaders.
* EXPECTATIONS: Expectations about whether the debt situation will get better or worse in the next few years.
The survey results from these three areas are weighted equally and averaged to produce the Fiscal Confidence Index value. The Fiscal Confidence Index, like the Consumer Confidence Index, is indexed on a scale of 0 to 200, with a neutral midpoint of 100. A reading above 100 indicates positive sentiment. A reading below 100 indicates negative sentiment.
Fiscal Confidence Index Key Data Points:
* The December 2025 Fiscal Confidence Index value is 51. (The November value was 50. The October value was 46.)
* The current Fiscal Confidence Index score for CONCERN about the debt is 49, indicating deep concern about the debt. The score for debt as a PRIORITY that leaders must address is 22, indicating that Americans want elected leaders to make addressing long-term debt a high priority. The score for EXPECTATIONS about progress on the debt is 80. The Fiscal Confidence Index is the average of these three sub-category scores.
The Peter G. Peterson Foundation commissioned this poll by Democratic firm Global Strategy Group and Republican firm North Star Opinion Research. The online poll surveyed 1,004 registered voters nationwide between December 15 and December 17, 2025. It has a margin of error of +/- 3.1%.
Detailed results can be found online at www.pgpf.org/FiscalConfidenceIndex.
***
Original text here: https://www.pgpf.org/press/2025-12-fci-press-release/
