• SUPPORT CATO
• FOR STUDENTS
• FOR MEDIA
• FREE NEWSLETTERS

• HOME

• ABOUT

• BLOG

• BOOKSTORE

• EVENTS

• EXPERTS

• MULTIMEDIA

• PUBLICATIONS

Books

Reviews & Journals

Public Filings

Policy Studies

Opinion & Commentary

• RESEARCH AREAS

• SPEAKERS BUREAU

• SUPPORT CATO

• CATO UNBOUND

• DOWNSIZING
  GOVERNMENT.ORG

• ELCATO.ORG

Cato Daily Dispatch for January 12, 2005

Subscribe to the Daily Dispatch via email

(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.)

Ownership Society Includes Property Confiscation?

"On the campaign trail last year, President Bush said a priority of his second term would be to 'build an ownership society, because ownership brings security, and dignity, and independence.' Sounds good to us," reads a Wall Street Journal editorial today. "But the rhetoric doesn't square with news that the administration may file an amicus brief against property owners in an upcoming Supreme Court case concerning eminent domain."

The Cato Institute also filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the case Kelo v. City of New London, except Cato's brief is on behalf of the property owners. It argues that the city has violated the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause. That provision permits government to take private property only for "public" use -- such as roads or hospitals -- after paying just compensation. But in this case, the city wants to seize property for the benefit of private developers -- simply because government accountants believe the new owner's proposed hotel and office buildings will generate more revenue for the city.

The University of Chicago's Richard A. Epstein, author of Cato's brief, carefully dissects the city's argument, showing it to be without constitutional merit. This case, he adds, puts the spotlight on the "financial ruin" and "psychological devastation" that follow from the confiscation of private homes.

WMD Search Ends in Iraq without Weapons

"The hunt for biological, chemical and nuclear weapons in Iraq has come to an end nearly two years after President Bush ordered U.S. troops to disarm Saddam Hussein. The top CIA weapons hunter is home, and analysts are back at Langley," the Washington Post reports.

"Four months after Charles A. Duelfer, who led the weapons hunt in 2004, submitted an interim report to Congress that contradicted nearly every prewar assertion about Iraq made by top Bush administration officials, a senior intelligence official said the findings will stand as the [Iraq Survey Group's] final conclusions and will be published this spring."

In "Bush Must Account for WMD Allegations," Cato senior fellow Doug Bandow writes: "The point is not that the administration is necessarily guilty of misbehavior, but that it should be forced to defend its decision-making process.

"Pointing to substitute justifications for the war just won't do. Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz notes that the alleged al-Qaeda connection divided the administration internally, and humanitarian concerns did not warrant risking American lives. Only fear over Iraqi possession of WMD unified the administration, won the support of allies, particularly Britain, and served as the centerpiece of the administration's case. If the WMD didn't exist, or were ineffective, Washington's professed case for war collapses."

Bush Will Push Immigration Reform

"President Bush yesterday said he plans to spend political capital this year to force a debate in Congress on his immigration-reform proposal, and boldly predicted that he will prevail," the Washington Times reports.

"Asked whether he will move forward this year with his immigration-reform plan which critics say amounts to amnesty for an estimated 8 million illegal aliens in the United States Bush said: 'Yes. Yes, I will.'"

In "Legalization is the Way," Daniel Griswold, director of the Cato Institute's Center for Trade Policy Studies, argues that "legalization would not equal 'amnesty.' Legalized workers would not get automatic citizenship or even permanent residency. They would receive only a temporary visa renewable for a limited time. They would have to pay a fine that would not be chump change for low-skilled workers. And they would have to get in line with everybody else to apply for permanent status under existing law."

Wyatt DuBois, editor, wdubois@cato.org