Cato Institute
1000 Massachusetts Ave, NW
Washington, DC 20001-5403
Phone (202) 842 0200
Fax (202) 842 3490
 Contact Us
Support Cato

Cato Daily Dispatch for August 4, 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.)

Deadly Week in Iraq
Go Alabama!
Big Money, Big Government

Deadly Week in Iraq

"The explosion that killed 14 marines in Haditha yesterday was powerful enough to flip the 25-ton amphibious assault vehicle they were riding in, in keeping with an increasingly deadly trend, American military officers say," reports the New York Times.

The story continues: "In recent months the roadside bombs favored by insurgents in Iraq have grown significantly in size and sophistication, the officers say, adding to their deadliness and defeating efforts to increase troops' safety by adding armor to vehicles."

The Cato Handbook on Policy states, "The primary concern for U.S. policymakers should be defending Americans from known threats. An expeditious end of the military occupation of Iraq serves that end because a withdrawal would free crucial resources for fighting known terrorists and at the same time remove a source of grievance for future terrorists. In the meantime, the presence of U.S. forces in Iraq is costly, in terms of both in lives lost and dollars spent.

"Bringing an end to the occupation and withdrawing militarily from Iraq will maximize America's ability to refocus its military and intelligence assets on the fight against those terrorists who present the gravest danger to American security -- specifically, Al Qaeda and other anti-American terrorist groups with global reach -- while minimizing the risks to vital U.S. national security interests."

In his latest book Sandstorm: Policy Failure in the Middle East, Leon Hadar, a research fellow in foreign policy studies at the Cato Institute, writes that the time has come for a serious debate on the future involvement of the United States in the Middle East. "American national interests are actually being damaged by our continuing involvement in the Middle East while most of the benefits are extracted by global as well as regional players and domestic interest groups that thrive on American intervention in that area of the world," argues Hadar.

Go Alabama!

"Alabama yesterday became the first state to enact new protections against local-government seizure of property allowed under a Supreme Court ruling that has triggered an explosive grass-roots counteroffensive across the country," according to the Washington Times.

"Republican Gov. Bob Riley signed a bill that was passed unanimously by a special session of the Alabama Legislature, which would prohibit governments from using their eminent-domain authority to take privately owned properties for the purpose of turning them over to retail, industrial, office or residential developers."

In "Legal Plunder," Cato senior fellow Doug Bandow writes, "Eminent domain was long thought to be justified for a genuine 'public use,' that is, something used by the public. That's why the framers of the Constitution included a limited power to take property in the Fifth Amendment. Yet today the public use requirement has almost disappeared, as officials, with judicial approval, regularly take property from Peter to give to Paul. Only if officials forget to invoke an alleged public interest could it be stopped.

"Although the courts have been more willing to enforce the provision requiring payment of compensation, they too often have allowed governments to take advantage of property owners. Moving expenses, business goodwill, advantageous locations, as well as real values often are lost or minimized when figuring compensation.

"The result would still be rank injustice even if the property was taken for a real public purpose. Instead, more often than not eminent domain is now used as a form of corporate welfare, intended to enrich billionaire retailers like Costco and millionaire real estate moguls like Donald Trump. Other favored beneficiaries are owners of hotels, race tracks, and sports franchises."

Big Money, Big Government

"Having skirted budget restraints and approved nearly $300 billion in new spending and tax breaks before leaving town, Republican lawmakers are now determined to claim full credit for the congressional spending. Far from shying away from their accomplishments, lawmakers are embracing the pork, including graffiti eradication in the Bronx, $277 million in road projects for Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.), and a $200,000 deer-avoidance system in New York," the Washington Post reports.

In the Cato Policy Analysis "The Grand Old Spending Party: How Republicans Became Big Spenders," Stephen Slivinski, director of budget studies at the Cato Institute, writes that "President Bush has presided over the largest overall increase in inflation-adjusted federal spending since Lyndon B. Johnson. Even after excluding spending on defense and homeland security, Bush is still the biggest-spending president in 30 years. His 2006 budget doesn't cut enough spending to change his place in history, either."

"Republicans could reform the budget rules that stack the deck in favor of more spending," continues Slivinski. "Unfortunately, senior House Republicans are fighting the changes. The GOP establishment in Washington today has become a defender of big government."

Holiday Dmitri, editor, hdimtri@cato.org