Cato Daily Dispatch for December 19, 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.)
Bush Presses Nation to Resolve to Win in IraqCongress Approves Cuts to Budget
2013: The Year to End Farm Subsidies
Bush Presses Nation to Resolve to Win in Iraq
"President Bush last night hailed Thursday's Iraqi elections as a vital step toward stabilizing that nation, but warned that despite the political progress more violence lies ahead as Iraq struggles to establish a democracy amid a raging insurgency," The Washington Post reports.
"Speaking in a nationally televised prime-time address, Bush made a direct appeal to war opponents, conveying a more humble tone in saying he understands their arguments but asserting that there is no choice but to forge on. 'I have heard your disagreement and I know how deeply it is felt,' Bush said. 'Yet now there are only two options before our country: victory or defeat.'"
In "U.S. Should Call It a Wrap after Iraq Elections," Chris Preble, director of foreign policy studies at the Cato Institute, writes: "The elections represent the last best hope, a narrow -- and closing -- window of opportunity, to leave Iraq on our terms. The United States got rid of Saddam Hussein's government, the Iraqis drafted and ratified a constitution, and in December they will elect a parliament under that constitution. The next political benchmark may not come along for years; as currently written, the Iraqi constitution does not require the government to hold another parliamentary election until near the end of 2009.
"Now is the time to chart a new course. The first step should be a firm pledge to begin the withdrawal of American troops soon after the December 2005 elections. The Bush administration should further commit to have all U.S. troops out of Iraq by the end of 2007 at the latest. By taking these steps to end the U.S. military presence in Iraq, we will reaffirm that the elections are the culmination of a political process that Americans started, but that Iraqis must finish."
Congress Approves Cuts to Budget
"Meeting in a marathon weekend session, Congressional leaders reached agreement Sunday on a nearly $42 billion budget-cutting plan that Republicans hoped to force through before adjourning, along with a military spending measure that would open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling," reports The New York Times.
The article continues: "Congressional negotiators also put the finishing touches on a $29 billion hurricane recovery package for the Gulf Coast and a $3.8 billion proposal to prepare for a potential flu pandemic and added them to the Pentagon spending bill."
In a new book, Downsizing the Federal Government, Cato Institute budget expert Chris Edwards provides policymakers with solutions to the growing federal budget mess. Edwards identifies more than 100 federal programs that should be terminated, transferred to the states, or privatized in order to balance the budget and save hundreds of billions of dollars.
Edwards proposes a balanced reform package of cuts to entitlements, domestic programs, and excess defense spending. He argues that these cuts would not only eliminate the deficit, but also strengthen the economy, enlarge personal freedom, and leave a positive fiscal legacy for the next generation.
2013: The Year to End Farm Subsidies
"World Trade Organization governments pledged to cut farm subsidies and open markets to more products from the world's poorest nations in an effort to steer negotiations toward a final accord next year. After six days of talks in Hong Kong, the European Union said it would scrap export payments for farm goods by 2013 and the U.S., under pressure from four West African nations, agreed to accelerate cuts in payments to cotton producers," according to The Daily Journal.
In "Who Pays for Farm Subsidies?," Marian L. Tupy, assistant director of the Project on Global Economic Liberty at the Cato Institute, writes, "Farm subsidies are, of course, a form of corporate welfare. As the OECD [Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development] documents, the wealthiest 20 percent of farmers in Europe receive 80 percent of the subsidies. In the United Kingdom, those wealthy farmers include Britain's richest man, the Duke of Westminster, as well as other rich noblemen, including the Dukes of Marlborough and Bedford, and the Earl of Leicester. Prince Albert of Monaco also received common agricultural policy (CAP) money, as did four Danish cabinet ministers and several members of the Danish Parliament. The Dutch agriculture minister, Cees Veerman, was also on the CAP payroll.
"Likewise, in the United States, it is the wealthiest farmers who receive the most in agricultural grants. In 1999, for example, 45 percent of agricultural subsidies went to the largest 7 percent of farms in the United States. According to the Environmental Working Group's Farm Subsidy Database, a Washington-based non-profit organization, one of the more prominent recipients of U.S. agricultural subsidies is Senate Minority Whip Dick J. Durbin."
Holiday Dmitri, editor, hdmitri@cato.org
/div>