Cato Daily Dispatch for November 16, 2005
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.)
Stay What Course?Separation of Government and Journalism
F.D.A's Morning-After Pill Decision Reviewed
Stay What Course?
"The Senate voted on Tuesday to press the Bush administration to provide more public information about the course of the war in Iraq as lawmakers of both parties made it clear they wanted chief responsibility for securing the country shifted to the Iraqi government within the next year," The New York Times reports.
"Lawmakers voted 79 to 19 for a Republican plan to seek new quarterly reports on matters like the number of Iraqi troops ready to take the lead in combat operations. The proposal expressed the Senate view that '2006 should be a period of significant transition to full Iraqi sovereignty.'"
In "Stay What Course?" Gene Healy, senior editor at the Cato Institute, and Justin Logan, a Cato foreign policy analyst, write: "The president and other proponents of the current 'stay the course' strategy have noted that withdrawal from Iraq could bring with it serious costs in terms of American credibility and Iraqi lives. They're right. But they've been silent on what price America should be willing to pay to avoid those costs. Any serious conversation about what to do in Iraq cannot focus simply on the costs of exit; it must consider the costs of staying. How long will it take? How many soldiers is the mission worth sacrificing? And can the mission be accomplished?
"If the administration has a strategy for going forward, it needs to convey to the American people -- with numbers and measurable goals -- how to define victory, and what we intend to change to help us get there. It needs to show that there is a plan, and that we are not simply engaged in a slow bleed, with little hope of success."
Separation of Government and Journalism
"The former chairman of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting broke federal law and repeatedly violated the organization's rules and code of ethics in his efforts to promote conservatives in the system, an endeavor that included consultation with White House officials, according to the findings of an internal investigation made public Tuesday," the Los Angeles Times reports.
In "Free PBS," David Boaz, executive vice president of the Cato Institute, writes: "If anything should be kept separate from government and politics, it's the news and public affairs programming that informs Americans about government and its policies. When government brings us the news -- with all the inevitable bias and spin -- the government is putting its thumb on the scales of democracy. Journalists should not work for the government. Taxpayers should not be forced to subsidize news and public-affairs programming."
F.D.A's Morning-After Pill Decision Reviewed
"Top federal drug officials decided to reject an application to allow over-the-counter sales of the morning-after pill months before a government scientific review of the application was completed, according to accounts given to Congressional investigators," The New York Times reports.
"Top agency officials were deeply involved in the decision, which was 'very, very rare,' a top F.D.A. review official told investigators. The officials' decision to ignore the recommendation of an independent advisory committee as well as the agency's own scientific review staff was unprecedented, the report found. And a top official's 'novel' rationale for rejecting the application contradicted past agency practices, it concluded."
In "The FDA Can Be Dangerous to Your Health," Cato senior fellow Doug Bandow writes: "Congress should restrict FDA oversight to safety, leaving efficacy up to the marketplace, or allow firms to opt out of agency efficiency reviews with appropriate labeling. Evaluation of devices could be similarly liberalized. Another option, suggests Sam Kazman of the Competitive Enterprise Institute: 'Change [the] FDA's veto power over new drugs to a system of certification. Let the agency continue to review safety and efficacy, but allow unapproved drugs, clearly labeled as such, to be available by prescription.' Patients, doctors, hospitals, and insurers could choose to rely on FDA approval, foreign certification, industry recommendation, or private sanction."
Kristen Kestner, editor, kkestner@cato.org