Cato Daily Dispatch for October 8, 2003
Subscribe to the Daily Dispatch via email
Subscribe to the Daily Dispatch via PDA (AvantGo)
(Links to outside sources were active as of the date of this dispatch; however, not all news sources maintain links to current stories indefinitely. Some links also may require registration.)
Hasta la Vista, Davis! Schwarzenegger Wins RecallAfghanistan Envoy Warns of Taliban and Al Qaeda Attacks
Bush May Shelve Request for U.N. Aid in Iraq
Hasta la Vista, Davis! Schwarzenegger Wins Recall
"Seething over taxes and red ink, California voters dumped the unpopular Gov. Gray Davis and replaced him with political novice Arnold Schwarzenegger," The Associated Press reports.
"Schwarzenegger will need to turn in a budget plan by Jan. 10, giving him just a few months to deliver on campaign-trail promises not to raise taxes or cut education spending, which consumes roughly 40 percent of California's budget. Throughout the campaign, Schwarzenegger refused to say what he would cut and promised to repeal this year's tripling of the state vehicle license fee, although he has not said how he would make up the $4 billion that would cost."
In "The Silver Lining in California's Recall Cloud," Patrick Basham, senior fellow in Cato's Center for Representative Government, writes: "Conservative recall critics should appreciate that recall is not just another pro-government, Progressive-era invention. The American experience with recall dates to the Articles of Confederation (1781-89) that provided for the recall and replacement of delegates appointed by the states. At the behest of Virginia's Patrick Henry, among others, the Constitutional Convention of 1787 and a number of subsequent ratifying state conventions strongly considered including recall in the text of the new Constitution. Importantly, the recall provides a safety valve for intense grassroots sentiment. Californians agree that this instrument of direct democracy rests upon a simple, Jeffersonian premise: Occasional popular protest, properly vented, can improve the quality of government."
Afghanistan Envoy Warns of Taliban and Al Qaeda Attacks
"The Bush administration's special envoy to Afghanistan, Zalmay Khalilzad, warned yesterday that the Taliban and Al Qaeda might be planning 'larger' or 'more spectacular attacks' in Afghanistan as part of a campaign against the reconstruction process," according to The New York Times.
"Khalilzad indicated a tough line against Pakistan, saying that the first priority was for the government there to stop border crossings and stop providing sanctuary to Taliban and al Qaeda members."
In "At a Crossroads in Afghanistan: Should the United States Be Engaged in Nation Building?" Subodh Atal, an independent foreign affairs analyst, writes: "The U.S. military forces currently operating in Afghanistan should concentrate on smashing the Taliban and al Qaeda remnants who are regrouping along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border. Once this goal is achieved, U.S. forces need not remain in the nation. Following the end of military operations, the focus could then shift to monitoring Afghanistan and its neighbors to ensure that forces that threaten the United States are not resurrected."
Bush May Shelve Request for U.N. Aid in Iraq
"The Bush administration has run into such stiff opposition at the United Nations Security Council to its plan for the future government of Iraq that it has pulled back from seeking a quick vote endorsing the proposal and may shelve it altogether, administration officials said yesterday," The New York Times reports.
"Two weeks after President Bush appealed at the United Nations for help in securing and reconstructing Iraq, administration officials said, his top aides will decide soon whether it is worth the effort to get a United Nations endorsement."
In "Missing the Point: Iraq and the U.N. Panacea," Vice President for Defense and Foreign Policy Studies Ted Galen Carpenter writes: "Few countries are beating down the door to help the United States. That's not likely to change merely because Washington is willing to give the United Nations a modestly greater role. The majority of the costs and risks will be America's as long as we have forces in Iraq. Moreover, even if the United States ceded the leading role to the U.N., it would not solve a fundamental problem: The longer U.S. forces stay in Iraq, the more America will be seen as an occupier rather than a liberator."
Jonathan Block, editor, jblock@cato.org