September 13, 1999

by Peter J.M. Orvetti, Manager of Editorial Services

Dr. Gore Will See You Now
Casualties Of The War On Drugs
Moscow Goes Ballistic
A Waste Of Space?

Dr. Gore Will See You Now

Vice President Al Gore has proposed broad changes to health policy. Gore's plan, which has the goal of providing government insurance for the uninsured, is centered on a guarantee that every American child would have access to health care by 2005. As president, Gore would expand the Children's Health Insurance Program. Currently, states can use the federal CHIP money to cover children in families that earn up to 200 percent of the poverty level; Gore would raise that cap to 250 percent. Gore would also allow families that do not qualify for the program to buy into the program.

But a universal tax credit, not universal health care, is the way to go, wrote Sue A. Blevins of the Institute for Health Freedom in the Cato Policy Analysis "Restoring Health Freedom: The Case for a Universal Tax Credit for Health Insurance": "The United States can help restore health freedom in the 21st century--without mandates--by changing the current tax law. The universal tax credit policy would give Americans the freedom to choose their own health insurance, whether fee-for-service plans, [health maintenance organizations], or [medical savings accounts]. Individuals would also be free to purchase their health insurance individually; through their employers; or through professional associations, churches, or labor unions. No existing health reform proposal or government mandate comes close to restoring that amount of freedom to health care." In the days before ClintonCare, "Health Care Reform: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly" was examined by Michael Tanner in a Cato Policy Analysis which addressed universal care proposals.

Casualties Of The War On Drugs

CNN ran a report on the failing war on drugs late last week: "Is America's so-called 'War on Drugs' being won or lost? The federal government says that roughly 6 percent of the U.S. population -- some 13 million people -- have used an illegal drug in the last month. Each year, 52,000 Americans die due to drug use, which also causes tens of billions of dollars in damage to the U.S. economy. And yet, according to Barry McCaffrey, head of the National Drug Policy Office, overall drug use in America is down 50 percent since 1979. Cocaine use has dropped 70 percent, and adolescent drug use 'has just turned the corner and is starting down,' he says... Despite the declining numbers, though, drugs keep coming into the country -- several hundred tons of cocaine and heroin each year, according to the government. And while government figures indicate that fewer people abuse drugs now than 20 years ago, the Drug Enforcement Administration increased its number of agents by 5 percent between 1993 and 1996, from 2,813 agents to 2,946."

The failure of the war on drugs is at the heart of the Cato Institute conference Beyond Prohibition: An Adult Approach to Drug Policies in the 21st Century, to be held October 5 in Washington. That event will feature pro-decriminalization Gov. Gary Johnson of New Mexico, about whom Cato Institute Executive Vice President David Boaz wrote "Gary Johnson Is Right" in a commentary last month. In June, Boaz testified before Congress on federal drug policy: "Congress should withdraw from the war on drugs and let the states set their own policies with regard to currently illegal drugs. The states would be well advised to treat marijuana, cocaine, and heroin the way most states now treat alcohol: It should be legal for licensed stores to sell such drugs to adults. Drug sales to children, like alcohol sales to children, should remain illegal. Driving under the influence of drugs should be illegal. With such a policy, Congress would acknowledge that our current drug policies have failed. It would restore authority to the states, as the Founders envisioned. It would save taxpayers' money. And it would give the states the power to experiment with drug policies and perhaps devise more successful rules. Repeal of prohibition would take the astronomical profits out of the drug business and destroy the drug kingpins that terrorize parts of our cities. It would reduce crime even more dramatically than did the repeal of alcohol prohibition. Not only would there be less crime; reform would also free police to concentrate on robbery, burglary, and violent crime. The War on Drugs has lasted longer than Prohibition, longer than the War in Vietnam. But there is no light at the end of this tunnel. Prohibition has failed, again, and should be repealed, again."

Moscow Goes Ballistic

A U.S. delegation led by Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbott wrapped up two days of talks Thursday on nuclear arms reduction and possible amendments to the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty, but no progress was reported, according to AP. Talbott did not comment on the outcome of the arms talks, while the Russian Foreign Ministry issued a statement saying that Moscow insists that previous arms control agreements should be strictly observed.

The ABM treaty is discussed in the March Cato Policy Analysis "National Missile Defense: Examining the Options": "[T]he debate surrounding national missile defense (NMD) has been dominated by political rhetoric. Supporters (usually conservatives) often paint a 'doom-and-gloom' picture, pointing out that the United States is vulnerable to an attack by ballistic missiles. Critics (usually liberals) defend the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty as the cornerstone of deterrence and stability and argue that any defensive deployment would upset the balance between the offensive strategic nuclear forces of the United States and Russia. Opponents of NMD, who use the ABM treaty as an argument not to deploy a defense, need to acknowledge that the threat of attack by long-range ballistic missiles from rogue states may become real. They also need to recognize that the United States can build a limited NMD without disrupting the strategic nuclear balance. Supporters of NMD need to acknowledge that NMD is not a panacea for the full spectrum of threats from rogue states-that long-range ballistic missiles are only one of the options available to those states to strike America." The rationale for a missile defense is outlined in the Cato Policy Analysis "Theater Missile Defense: A Limited Capability Is Needed".

The Cato Policy Report discussed a 1995 Cato Policy Forum in an article entitled "Is an ABM System Feasible?" At the forum, Sven F. Kraemer, former director of arms control for the National Security Council, called ballistic missile defense "the highest single national security imperative of our country and… the highest ethical imperative." The Cato Institute's Ted Galen Carpenter "called on Congress to restore the funds for ABM defense that were eliminated under pressure from the Clinton administration. 'The long-range goal should be the deployment of a comprehensive ABM system within eight years,' he wrote. 'Congress should insist on modifications to the ABM treaty that would permit such a deployment. If Russia refuses to agree to such revisions, the United States should give the required notice and renounce the treaty.'"

A Waste Of Space?

A proposed billion-dollar cut in NASA's budget is drawing ire from members of Congress who support the space administration. The House killed an amendment to restore $100 million of the proposed cut by shifting money from the Environmental Protection Agency. NASA's $13 billion budget is part of a $92 billion spending bill the House was considering to run several federal agencies next fiscal year that starts Oct 1. "Enacting these cuts is irresponsible and unacceptable... We are in the midst of great economic times and rather than investing in our nation's priorities and current commitments, the Republicans in Congress are pushing for a huge risky tax cut scheme of nearly $1 trillion over 10 years and are slashing away at science, research and technology programs," said Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-Md.).

Edward Hudgins of the Cato Institute testified before Congress about NASA in 1995: "It is time to rethink the government's role in science in general and non-defense space efforts in particular. Easing government out of the space business could start with canceling the space station. Phasing out the Shuttle and contracting with the private sector for all travel or deliveries into space would also be necessary. NASA itself might be broken up. Where no private sector option is immediately available, some functions might, temporarily, be performed other government agencies. The Jet Propulsion Laboratory in California, technically part of NASA but with much autonomy, could continue unmanned planetary probes. The Langley Research Center in Hampton, Virginia could conduct basic research in spacecraft design and aeronautics without NASA. Those who believe that mankind has a future in space should think deeply and seriously about how to ease the government out of civilian space activities. Only by approaching this challenge with the same honesty and clarity of mind that was needed to put men on the Moon can we honor their spirit made that feat possible two and a half decades ago."

Hudgins made similar observations in a commentary, "Celebrating the Lunar Landing", that ran this summer on the 30th anniversary of the July 20, 1969, moon landing: "In the 1970s there were private companies like American Rocket Co. and Conestoga competing for business against NASA. But the federal government subsidized NASA and regulated its competitors, resulting in their demise. Yet today there is renewed private-sector interest in providing launch services to meet demands for satellites to handle telecommunications and Internet needs as well as to provide other pioneering services. Rotary Rocket Co. and Kistler Aerospace each have designs for totally reusable private rockets. Moonwalker Buzz Aldrin is promoting an innovative rocket design as well as championing space tourism. If such ventures are to succeed, NASA's activities must be further curtailed and a strategy followed to back the government out of civilian space activities. Only then, in the realm of space, can that first small step for man on the moon become one giant leap for mankind."