Cato Daily Dispatch for December 22, 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.)
Budget Cuts: Not Cutting ItSix More Months of PATRIOT Act
Padilla Ruling: Sharp Rebuke to Bush Administration
Budget Cuts: Not Cutting It
"The Senate yesterday passed nearly $40 billion in spending reductions in a furious pre-Christmas finish marked by testy floor debate and a rare tie-breaking vote cast by Vice President Dick Cheney," Knight Ridder reports. Chris Edwards, director of tax policy studies at the Cato Institute, comments: "Passage of the bill is an important symbolic victory for fiscal conservatives in Congress, but the bill would reduce baseline spending by just a microscopic 0.3%. Note also that the bill would not actually 'cut' spending, it would just slightly reduce the explosive growth in programs such as Medicare and Medicaid.
"Critics have complained about cuts for low-income programs in the bill. But many of the cuts are for unjustified middle-class giveaways such as student loan interest rate subsidies and nursing home benefits for middle and higher-income households."
In Downsizing the Federal Government, Edwards argues that Congress should pass this year's small spending reductions, and proceed to tackle bigger spending problems next year.
Six More Months of PATRIOT Act
"In a major setback for the White House on a top domestic priority, the Senate on Wednesday passed a six-month extension of the Patriot Act, due to expire Dec. 31, even though President Bush had demanded that most of the law become permanent," The Los Angeles Times reports.
"The move effectively killed a House-Senate compromise that would have made permanent 14 of the 16 provisions of the statute, which gives law enforcement officials sweeping power to track and prosecute suspected terrorists. The House adopted the compromise last week."
In "Why Reward Failure," Tim Lynch, director of the Cato Institute's Project on Criminal Justice, writes: "[In October], a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit revealed that the [FBI] is presently investigating hundreds of potential violations relating to its use of secret surveillance operations. Hundreds? Had this lawsuit not been filed, it is highly unlikely that the FBI would have ever brought these problems to the attention of Congress or the press.
"The inspector general and other watchdog groups have exposed a disturbing pattern of problems at the FBI, but our policymakers remain aloof. The politicians will pretend to be shocked by more bureaucratic shenanigans, but they let it go on. Shame on them for their indifference to both our security and our liberty."
Padilla Ruling: Sharp Rebuke to Bush Administration
"A government request to transfer terrorism suspect Jose Padilla from military to civilian custody was rejected by an appeals court that said the administration's shifting tactics in the case threatens its credibility with the courts," the Associated Press reports.
"The three-judge panel of the Richmond-based 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals also refused on Wednesday the administration's request to vacate a September ruling that gave President Bush wide authority to detain 'enemy combatants' indefinitely without charges on U.S. soil."
Tim Lynch, director of the Cato Institute's Project on Criminal Justice, had the following comments:
"Wednesday's ruling is a sharp rebuke to the Bush administration. The decision means that Jose Padilla will remain in military custody and his petition to the Supreme Court challenging the legality of his military detention will be considered in the ordinary course of business.
"Judge Michael Luttig's opinion said there was no valid reason given by the government to warrant a transfer of Padilla at this time -- and that to approve the government's request would, at the least, create an appearance of impropriety. Judge Luttig also chided the Bush administration for 'underestimating' the toll that these recent actions have taken upon the government's 'credibility before the courts.'
"Just before Thanksgiving, Attorney General Gonzalez tried to move Mr. Padilla from military custody in South Carolina to civilian custody in Florida, where he was to be prosecuted for certain crimes. The timing of that move raised questions because Padilla had a petition pending before the Supreme Court--and the move seemed to be an attempt to keep Padilla's case from being heard by that Court, where an adverse precedent would likely be set.
"The Supreme Court will soon decide whether to hear Jose Padilla's case, in which he challenges the President's authority to hold him in military custody as an enemy combatant without formal criminal charges."
Kristen A. Kestner, editor, kkestner@cato.org
/div>