Cato Daily Dispatch for June 25, 2003
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.)
U.S., EU to Begin Talks on Opening Aviation MarketsSenate Republicans Look to Break Filibusters on Nominations
Senate Rejects Medicare Drug Benefit Amendment
U.S., EU to Begin Talks on Opening Aviation Markets
"The United States has agreed to begin negotiations to relax aviation rules with the European Union, which seeks to form one common U.S.-European aviation market to replace a hodgepodge of treaties between individual countries," The Washington Post reports.
"Under current rules, European airlines can fly to the United States only from their home countries. A German carrier, for example, may not stop in Paris to pick up passengers on the way to New York. No European airline can carry passengers from one U.S. city to another U.S. city, although a handful of U.S.-European treaties allow limited intra-country travel in Europe by U.S. airlines."
In "Toward Truly Open Skies," Kenneth J. Button, professor of public policy at George Mason University, argues that while liberalizing aviation rules is a good idea, European carriers, at least initially, would have difficulty competing in an open transatlantic situation.
"First, EU airlines have higher costs and productive inefficiencies than U.S. airlines," Button writes. "Second, even if EU airlines reduce their production costs, they may still be at a significant disadvantage compared to American carriers in terms of feeder networks. Third, the likelihood of EU carriers making significant inroads into the American domestic market through cabotage activities seems small given U.S. airlines' domination of many major American hubs."
Senate Republicans Look to Break Filibusters on Nominations
"Senate Republicans stepped up the maneuvering on federal judicial candidates and future Supreme Court vacancies today when the Rules Committee approved a proposal to make it easier to break filibusters that prevent votes on administration nominations," reports The New York Times.
"With no Democrats at the morning meeting, 10 Republicans agreed to a proposal by the majority leader, Bill Frist of Tennessee, that would gradually reduce to a simple majority of 51 the number of votes needed to end debate over executive branch nominations. Sixty votes are now required. Minority Democrats are using the procedure to block consideration of two of President Bush's federal court choices, though the Senate has confirmed 132 others."
In "Minority Rules: Filibustering the Constitution," by James L. Swanson, editor in chief of the Cato Supreme Court Review writes, "First, the Constitution requires only a simple majority of 51 senators to confirm a judicial nomination. Second, any Senate rule or procedure -- filibuster included -- that allows the minority of the body to prevent the majority from consenting to a judicial nomination is in conflict with the Constitution. Third, in such a conflict, the Constitution is supreme. Thus, finally, any Senate rule that contradicts the Constitution by denying the majority its right to consent to a judicial appointment cannot stand."
Senate Rejects Medicare Drug Benefit Amendment
"Senators yesterday rejected a Democratic amendment aimed at filling in the 'coverage gap' in the massive Medicare drug benefit, a controversial element in the plan that means some people will exhaust benefits but still have to keep paying premiums," Reuters reports.
"The $64 billion amendment by California Democrat Barbara Boxer to close that gap was defeated by a largely party-line 54-42 procedural vote. Democrats may revisit the issue on a somewhat smaller scale, trying to provide extra coverage for people of relatively modest means."
In "The Medicare Drug Benefit War," Tom Miller, Cato Institute director of health policy studies, makes some recommendations for Congress regarding prescription drugs. He argues: "Instead of merely competing to hand out other (younger) people's money to seniors to buy lower-priced drugs, they need to expand private competitive insurance choices that incorporate affordable prescription drug options into integrated benefits packages.
"If Congress cannot resist the impulse to 'do something' short of fundamental reform, it should at least do less harm by emphasizing higher deductibles, catastrophic loss protection, targeted assistance to lower income seniors, reformed individual Medigap coverage and a deregulated Medicare+Choice program," he adds.
Jonathan Block, editor, jblock@cato.org