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.)
Bush Vetoes Child Health Bill Privately"President Bush on Wednesday made good on his promise to veto a bill that would have expanded government health insurance for children, but then said he was open to compromising with Congress by spending more money on the program than his budget has proposed," reports The New York Times. "'I do want Republicans and Democrats to come together to support a bill that focuses on the poor children.' ... He added, 'And if they need a little more money to help us meet the objective of getting help for poorer children, I'm more than willing to sit down with the leaders and find a way to do so.' But Mr. Bush did not make a specific offer, and his plan, to spend $5 billion more on the program over the next five years, falls far short of the $35 billion expansion that passed with bipartisan support in Congress."
In "Sink this SCHIP," Michael F. Cannon, Cato's director of health policy studies, writes:
"SCHIP is senseless. Like its much larger sibling, Medicaid ... both programs force taxpayers to subsidize people who don't need help, discourage low-income families from climbing the economic ladder - and make private insurance more expensive for everyone else. ... All told, SCHIP is a very costly way of helping targeted families obtain health coverage...Some will complain that scrapping SCHIP would leave dependent families in the lurch. As a transitional step, Congress could convert federal Medicaid and SCHIP funding into a smaller, lump-sum payment to each state. That would serve as a halfway point toward eliminating these payments and simultaneously cutting taxes. States that want to maintain their current spending levels could raise the tax revenue themselves."
"Rep. Ron Paul disclosed more than $5 million in third-quarter fund raising for his insurgent Republican presidential bid, the only Republican in the field so far to report increased donations," reports The Wall Street Journal. "While the Texas lawmaker remains a second-tier candidate in a party field dominated by the likes of Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney, his grass-roots campaign continues to build steam, thanks to thousands of small donors over the Internet. ... [Paul's campaign spokesman] said the ranks of Paul supporters include Republicans attracted by his libertarian conservatism and opposition to the Iraq war."
David Boaz, Cato's executive vice president, comments on Ron Paul's fundraising:
"Ron Paul's amazing fundraising success -- with no support from the Republican establishment and little attention from the mainstream media -- is an indication of the wide appeal of his message of constitutionalism, reduced spending, and an end to the Iraq war. In some ways Ron Paul is the antidote for every problem that plagued Republicans in 2006: Voters were tired of Republican corruption, and Ron Paul has never succumbed to the temptations of Washington. They were fed up with overspending, and he's the original anti-spender. They're disillusioned by the seemingly endless war in Iraq, and Ron Paul opposed that war from the beginning. He's appealing to fed-up traditional Republicans and to younger voters who haven't yet been Republicans.
"The fact that he raised $5 million mostly in small donations and over the Internet means two things: that his donors aren't 'maxed out' and could still give more, and that he's reaching a broad range of new contributors, not the standard big donors who have filled the coffers of the leading candidates in both parties.
"Ron Paul isn't likely to be the Republican nominee, but Republican leaders should think about what his surprising appeal is telling them."
In "The Libertarian Vote," David Boaz, Cato's executive vice president, and David Kirby, executive director of America's Future Foundation, write:
"The main theme of political commentary in this decade is polarization. Since the battles over the impeachment of President Clinton and the Florida vote in 2000, pundits have been telling us that we're a country split down the middle, red vs. blue, liberal vs. conservative. Political analysts talk about base motivation and the shrinking of the swing vote. But the evidence says they are wrong.
Not all Americans can be classified as liberal or conservative. For those on the trail of the elusive swing voter, it may be most notable that the libertarian vote shifted sharply in 2004. ... If that trend continues into 2006 and 2008, Republicans will lose elections they would otherwise win. The libertarian vote is in play. At some 13 percent of the electorate, it is sizable enough to swing elections. Pollsters, political strategists, candidates, and the media should take note of it."
"Lawmakers in two California cities are casting votes this month on unprecedented legislation that would widen a growing voluntary movement by landlords and resident associations to ban smoking inside apartments and condos," reports USA Today. "Today in Calabasas, the City Council plans to vote on expanding its anti-smoking law to bar renters from lighting up inside existing apartments. It would exempt current resident smokers until they moved but would require all new buildings with at least 15 units, including condos, to be smoke-free. ... The legislative push, which has triggered death threats against council members, is a controversial part of a mostly voluntary effort to prod landlords and condo associations to adopt smoke-free policies."
Tom Firey, managing editor of Cato's Regulation Magazine, comments on this ban:
"All across the country, proprietors, landlords and residents associations are privately, voluntarily implementing smoking bans. Because those actions are voluntary and private, market forces will lead to the provision of establishments and housing for both nonsmokers and smokers. This is fitting in a free society that values choice and respects the individual. It also protects public health -- people who don't want to be around tobacco smoke, whether out of health concerns or dislike of the smell and nuisance, don't have to be around tobacco smoke.
"This legislation does not respect individual choice and it is not motivated by concern for public health. It is social conservatism pure and simple -- some politicians want to use their office to impose their personal morality on other people.
"Despite their claim that 'science' supports their position, it's pretty clear that they have little understanding of, or interest in, the science and risk of tobacco smoke."
Laura Osio, editor, losio@cato.org