Topic: Cato Publications

Deamonte Didn’t Have to Die

The other day, I was at CNN’s Washington studio to comment on proposals to improve dental care for the poor following the tragic case of Deamonte Driver, 12, who died in Maryland this week for lack of routine dental care

My case was twofold.  First, having the government throw more money at the problem would just leave even more people with lously access to dental care.  That is true of government programs targeted solely at the poor (read: Medicaid), as well as universal programs such as the U.K.’s National Health Service, described by the New York Times as a “state-financed dental service, which, stretched beyond its limit, no longer serves everyone and no longer even pretends to try.”  Unfortunately, throwing money at the problem is exactly the solution proposed by U.S. Senators Ben Cardin (D-Md.) and Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.), as well as Maryland Del. Nathaniel T. Oaks (D-Baltimore) and Sen. Thomas Middleton (D-Calvert County). 

Second, Deamonte might have gotten the care he needed if not for regulations that restrict access to basic dental care for poor families.  As the American Dental Hygienists’ Association notes:

In the greater Washington D.C. area, patients currently do not have direct access to dental hygienists because of restrictive public health policies. In many other states patients are allowed direct access to dental hygienists for preventive procedures, which has been an effective model in increasing access to care.

Those “public health” policies are regulations that define the scope of practice for dental hygienists and require them to work under the supervision of a dentist.  Requiring licensed hygienists to work out of a dentist’s office makes it impossible for them to strike out on their own, providing basic and preventive dental care that is affordable to low-income families. 

Were it not for those “public health” policies, intervention by a dental hygienist could have caught Deamonte’s problem well before it threatened his life.  Even if the hygienist could not have extracted the abscessed tooth, at a minimum she could have bought Deamonte’s family more time to fix the problem.

Something unrelated also happened while I was at CNN, about which I blogged elsewhere.

Government Identity Programs in Collapse?

Government Computer News has had a number of articles recently about the problems besieging the Transportation Worker Identity Card (or TWIC), one of a number of government identification systems nominally responding to the post-9/11 threat environment.  It should be no surprise to government watchers that a service provider for TWIC, viewed by many as unqualified, happens to be in the district of the former Chairman of the House Appropriations Committee’s Homeland Security Subcommittee.

The REAL ID Act is a bigger government identity control project, by far, which attempts to force states to convert their drivers’ licenses into a national ID card.  Regulations implementing REAL ID are widely expected to be released this week.  

Even while the architects of the surveillance state gather to talk about implementation, the Washington Post has an article out today that is probably best taken as the first post mortem on REAL ID

The headline (“As Bush’s ID Plan Was Delayed, Coalition Formed Against It”) wrongly attributes REAL ID to the Bush Administration, which was not a proponent of REAL ID, though the President did accept it as part of a military spending bill.  The article correctly attributes responsibility to Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-WI), the former Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee.

Though the Bush Administration has room to distance itself from this colossal unfunded national surveillance mandate, a prominent member of the Administration appears to have consumed the REAL ID Koolaid - in quantity.

“If we don’t get it done now, someone’s going to be sitting around in three or four years explaining to the next 9/11 commission why we didn’t do it,” Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff told the Senate’s Homeland Security Committee on Feb. 13.

Secretary Chertoff’s shameless terror-pandering is matched only by his ignorance of identification’s utility as a security tool.  People who understand identification know that it does not provide security against committed threats.

It’s unfortunate that government works by trial and error, but this trial may soon show that a national ID is error.

Scared Stiff? Watch John Stossel

Tonight, John Stossel of ABC News offers a special report entitled “Scared Stiff: Worried in America.” The two-hour program, which is a special report of ABC News’ “20/20” and airs at 9pm Eastern, is a follow-up to Stossel’s very first special 12 years ago, “Are We Scaring You to Death?”

Among Stossel’s interviewees tonight are two familiar faces for Cato fans: adjunct fellow Veronique de Rugy (of AEI) and former visiting fellow John Mueller (of Ohio State University). Vero will discuss her research into the billions of dollars wasted in the name of “terrorism defense” and John will put the terrorism risk into context by comparing it to the far-more likely risk of drowning in a bathtub or being struck by a deer.

New at Cato Unbound: Inequality Denialism = Global Warming Denialism?

The Earth is heating up, and so is the conversation on income inequality at Cato Unbound! University of Oregon economist and proprietor of the popular econo-blog, Economist’s View, writes:

This debate reminds me of the debate over global warming, though using the word “debate” implies there is more disagreement than there really is.


The inequality debate appears to be unfolding similarly with those who would like to avoid policies to address inequality, policies such as more progressive taxation, hoping to keep the first question open as long as possible or claiming that the rise in inequality is the inevitable result of natural market forces and we should not interfere.

Cornell University economist Richard Burkhauser takes exception:

I give Mark Thoma high marks for raising the rhetorical stakes in this debate to the point where those who remain more skeptical of the evidence for substantial increases in income inequality since 1989 are relegated to the status of contrarian ideologues unwilling to sign onto Mr. Gore’s “Inconvenient Truth.” But isn’t this a bit much, even for a true believer?

Burkhauser goes on to argue that there has been no detectable increase in inequality within the bottom 99 percent of the income distribution. But, “what about that other 1 percent?” Burkhauser inquires:

Here Reynolds and [Gary] Burtless strongly disagree. Reynolds argues that even including that 1 percent in the mix there has been no great increase in income inequality since 1988 and Burtless offers counter proof based on other data sets. I am not yet sure who is right between them, but I am very sure that Thoma is wrong. It is still reasonable to be skeptical of both arguments.

Stay tuned for more from Burtless, Reynolds, and Krueger and Perri.

How Big-Government Conservatism Brought Down the Republican Revolution

For conservatives generally and the Republican Party in particular, now is a time of intense soul-searching. For the first time in a dozen years, Republicans have lost control of Congress. As a result, they are being forced to reexamine who they are and what they stand for. Leviathan on the Right: How Big-Government Conservatism Brought Down the Republican Revolution, a new book by Cato scholar Michael D. Tanner, provides an incisive analysis of the roots and core beliefs of big-government conservatism and the major currents that fueled its growth—neoconservatism, the Religious Right, supply-side economics, national greatness conservatism, and Newt Gingrich–style technophilia—and offers a detailed critique of its policies on a wide range of issues.  Leviathan on the Right is a clear warning that, unless conservatives return to their small-government roots, the electoral defeat of 2006 is just the beginning.

Why the United States Must Leave Iraq

The U.S. military occupation of Iraq has already cost more than 3,000 American lives and $350 billion. In “Escaping the Trap: Why the United States Must Leave Iraq,” Cato scholar Ted Galen Carpenter argues for a rapid and comprehensive withdrawal from Iraq. “It is time to admit that the Iraq mission has failed and cut our losses. We need an exit strategy that is measured in months, not years.” Carpenter also examines alternative prescriptions offered by opponents of immediate withdrawal—gradual or partial withdrawal, escalation, and partitioning—and concludes that they are unrealistic, expensive, and insufficient to stem the violence in Iraq.