• 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

• ELCATO.ORG

• FREETRADE.ORG

Cato Daily Dispatch for January 29, 2003

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.)

Bush Wants to Spend, Spend, Spend

The New York Times reports that last night President Bush vowed "that he would not burden future generations with the nation's pressing domestic problems: growing budget deficits, a lagging economy and a crisis in health care.... In a State of the Union address intended to show his attentiveness to the home front, Mr. Bush reminded his audience of the 'compassionate conservatism' that was at the core of his presidential campaign."

"President Bush promised to 'show some spending discipline'--and then proceeded to promise $1.2 billion for the automobile industry, $450 million for mentors, $15 billion for AIDS in Africa, and $400 billion for Medicare," says Cato Institute Executive Vice President David Boaz. "He did not propose elimination of a single federal program or a single reduction in spending for any program. And in a time of sharply rising deficits and new needs for defense, he pledged to work with Congress to create a massive new entitlement program, prescription drugs for the elderly."

Boaz continued: "There was one bright spot in the speech: the president's insistence that 'we must offer younger workers a chance to invest in retirement accounts that they will control and they will own.' Cato Institute scholars are eager to work with the president to give younger workers more control over their retirement. We hope President Bush and members of Congress will move quickly toward that goal.

"Overall, however, from government databases to restrictions on civil liberties to an expanded federal role in education and energy to a sharply climbing federal budget, the Bush administration is increasing the size, scope, and power of government in far too many areas. A president who campaigned on the theme that 'my opponent trusts government, I trust you' should promise to reverse these trends and begin the process of bringing the federal government back inside the bounds of the Constitution and of fiscal responsibility."

In State of the Union, Bush Pushes On Against Iraq

According to USA Today, "President Bush left little doubt in his State of the Union speech Tuesday that war with Iraq is imminent, warning that 'trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy and it is not an option.'"

Monday, Ted Galen Carpenter, Cato's vice president for defense and foreign policy, said in a statement, "The administration has not made its case that Iraq poses a serious threat either directly or indirectly. It is highly improbable that Iraq would directly attack the United States, knowing that there would be an annihilating counterstroke."

Carpenter goes on to say, "And it is barely more plausible that Iraq would attack the United States by using Al Qaeda as a proxy. The administration has not been able to provide credible evidence of any connection between Baghdad and Al Qaeda."

According to David Boaz, "Instead of launching a new war, he should have promised to 'clear the decks for war against al Qaeda'--ending the obsolete troop presence in Europe, Japan, and South Korea, swearing off new military undertakings, and focusing clearly on tracking down the terrorists who attacked us."

U.S. Investigating Military Occupation Oil Rights in Iraq

The Wall Street Journal reports that, "If U.S. forces find themselves in control of Iraq, international law would give them a large degree of leeway in managing the country's oil fields. Some analysts expect Washington--eager to avoid accusations of going to war for oil--to refrain from making big decisions about the industry in the early days of any Iraqi occupation. But international treaties concerning military occupation and precedents dating to the early 1800s give the administration ammunition to press for a more aggressive role in Iraq's oil patch."

"Senior officials claim that the administration is preoccupied with military planning, not with oil. But this is not the same thing as the administration not understanding the perceived importance of oil in its decision-making about Iraq," writes Cato Senior Defense Policy Analyst Charles Peņa, in "It's Not About Oil?," a Cato Daily Commentary.

Peņa goes on to say: "Even if going to war against Iraq is not completely about oil (weapons of mass destruction are much scarier), it's impossible to ignore and even more foolish to think it's not an important factor: Would this debate be taking place if the country in question was in sub-Saharan Africa? After all, the Defense Department claims 12 nations with nuclear weapons programs, 13 with biological weapons, 16 with chemical weapons, and 28 with ballistic missiles as existing and emerging threats to the United States. But only one of those countries sits atop the second largest oil reserves in the world. Just remember the adage: Follow the money ... or in this case, the oil."

Wyatt Dubois, editor, wdubois@cato.org