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 November 18, 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.)

House Approves Budget 'Cuts'
Global Warming Death Toll Is a 'Predictable Distortion'
Democrat Veteran Calls for Troop Withdrawal

House Approves Budget 'Cuts'

"The House narrowly approved a broad five-year budget plan early this morning that squeezes programs for the poor, for college students and for farmers, handing Republican leaders a hard-fought victory after weeks of resistance in GOP ranks," The Washington Post reports.

Stephen Slivinski, director of budget studies at the Cato Institute, comments: "Only by the pretzel logic of Washington can this bill be considered a 'cut.' Here's what's really going to happen: Spending will still grow, but only slightly slower. Instead of spending a total of $7.8 trillion in entitlement programs over the next five years, the GOP proposes to spend $7.75 trillion. That's a total difference of 0.6 percent. This is not starving the beast. This isn't even a tummy rumble.

"And because this is a five-year endeavor, it requires discipline by Congress to keep these savings intact during the entire five-year period. If they change course at any time during that period, the savings evaporate. If there's anything the Republicans have proven over the past five years it's that they have real commitment problems when it comes to spending restraint."

In "The Grand Old Spending Party: How Republicans Became Big Spenders," Slivinski writes: "The Republican spending binge has been assisted by a budget-writing process on Capitol Hill that stacks the deck in favor of ever-growing government. Changing how the budget process works in Congress could reverse the adverse incentives of the appropriations process and give more power to those who want to restrain government spending.

"The current system reinforces the ridiculous notion, for instance, that a 2 percent increase in spending can be called a 'cut' if the expected baseline budget increase was 3 percent. Zero-based budgeting would assume that every government program starts the year with zero taxpayer money and must justify its budget request from the bottom up. It would also make it difficult for politicians hostile to spending cuts to use budget rules as a way to demonize publicly those who want to tame the federal budget."

Global Warming Death Toll Is a 'Predictable Distortion'

"Earth's warming climate is estimated to contribute to more than 150,000 deaths and 5 million illnesses each year, according to the World Health Organization, a toll that could double by 2030," The Washington Post reports. "The data, being published today in the journal Nature, indicate that climate change is driving up rates of malaria, malnutrition and diarrhea throughout the world."

Patrick J. Michaels, senior fellow in environmental studies at the Cato Institute, comments: "[The claim that] global warming is causing the deaths of 150,000 people per year worldwide is a typical example of what I call a 'predictable distortion' in my book Meltdown: The Predictable Distortion of Global Warming by Scientists, Politicians, and the Media.

"In fact, the technological development associated with the combustion of fossil fuels has doubled life expectancy in the last 100 years. This results in a 'saving' of approximately 1,000,000,000 lives. Because human-induced warming is roughly 35 years in length, a very liberal estimate of the number of 'deaths' would be around 2,500,000. In other words, the net result is a saving, accompanied by global warming, of 997,500,000 lives."

Democrat Veteran Calls for Troop Withdrawal

"Rep. John P. Murtha, a hawkish Marine Corps veteran and one of the Democratic Party's most respected military experts, called yesterday for immediately withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq, pushing the debate over President Bush's war policies to new heights of intensity and vitriol," The Philadelphia Inquirer reports.

In "U.S. Should Call It a Wrap after Iraq Elections," Christopher Preble, Cato's director of foreign policy studies, writes: "Now is the time to chart a new course. The first step should be a firm pledge to begin the withdrawal of American troops soon after the December 2005 elections. The Bush administration should further commit to have all U.S. troops out of Iraq by the end of 2007 at the latest. By taking these steps to end the U.S. military presence in Iraq, we will reaffirm that the elections are the culmination of a political process that Americans started, but that Iraqis must finish."

Kristen Kestner, editor, kkestner@cato.org