• SUPPORT CATO
• FOR STUDENTS
• FOR MEDIA
• FREE NEWSLETTERS

• HOME

• ABOUT

• BLOG

• BOOKSTORE

• EVENTS

• EXPERTS

• MULTIMEDIA

• PUBLICATIONS

Books

Reviews & Journals

Public Filings

Policy Studies

Opinion & Commentary

• RESEARCH AREAS

• SPEAKERS BUREAU

• SUPPORT CATO

• CATO UNBOUND

• DOWNSIZING
  GOVERNMENT.ORG

• ELCATO.ORG

Cato Dispatch for July 26, 2007

Subscribe to the Cato 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.)

Farm Subsidies Seem Immune to Overhaul

"For the many critics of farm subsidies, including President Bush and Speaker Nancy Pelosi, this seemed like the ideal year for Congress to tackle the federal payments long criticized as enriching big farm interests, violating trade agreements and neglecting small family farms," reports The New York Times.

"But as the latest farm bill heads to the House floor on Thursday, farm-state lawmakers seem likely to prevail in keeping the old subsidies largely in place, drawing a veto threat on Wednesday from the White House."

In "End It, Don't Mend It," Sallie James, policy analyst at Cato's Center for Trade Policy Studies, writes: "Unfortunately the very political power that keeps farmers on the government payroll means that an outright and overnight end to farm programs is unlikely without 'financial inducement.' An up-front buyout of existing trade barriers and farm subsidies, based on (but less than) the present discounted value of seven years of expected payments -- 5 years representing the approximate tenure of a farm bill, plus two bonus years -- might do the trick. Based on current spending projections, that could cost somewhere in the vicinity of $75 billion.

"That's a lot of money, even in Washington. But it is significantly less than the $1.7 trillion that a recent Cato Institute study estimated was lost to taxpayers and consumers over the last 20 years of farm programs. And if it would ensure permanent freedom for farmers, consumers and taxpayers, it would be a worthwhile investment indeed."

Senators Battle Over Border Security

"Just weeks after the Senate decisively shelved a comprehensive immigration overhaul, senators surprisingly were back on the floor Wednesday trading jabs about amnesty for undocumented immigrants and border security," reports the Houston Chronicle.

"The tensions over illegal immigration, which dominated Senate debate in May and June, erupted anew as Republicans sought to offer an amendment to the homeland security spending bill adding $3 billion for enhanced security at the U.S.-Mexico border and reviving proposed restrictions such as mandatory jail time for visa overstayers." 

In "Getting Immigration Reform Right," Daniel T. Griswold, director of Cato's Center for Trade Policy Studies, writes: "Because of the cost and risk of crossing the border, the still-large number of illegal immigrants who make it across are more likely to stay for an extended period once inside the country. Enforcement efforts intended to reduce illegal immigration have perversely increased the illegal population by reducing what had historically been a circular flow of migration from and back to Mexico.

"Opponents of immigration will label any legalization plan as 'amnesty,' but the smear is inaccurate for most ideas on the table. Those gaining legal status would be required to pay a fine and back taxes, and they could also be required to return briefly to their home countries to apply for legal entry. Waiting won't make the problem go away. If the new Congress fails to enact comprehensive immigration reform, the alternative will be two more years of widespread illegal immigration, and no one but the smugglers at the border will benefit by it."

Obesity Spreads in Social Circles

"Obesity appears to spread from one person to another like a virus or a fad, researchers reported yesterday in a first-of-its-kind study that helps explain -- and could help fight -- one of the nation's biggest public health problems," reports The Washington Post.

"The study, involving more than 12,000 people tracked over 32 years, found that social networks play a surprisingly powerful role in determining an individual's chances of gaining weight, transmitting an increased risk of becoming obese from wives to husbands, from brothers to brothers and from friends to friends."

In "Does Obesity Justify Big Government?" former Cato policy analyst Radley Balko writes: "The bizarre thing about the obesity debate is that less than a decade ago, the very thought of it was often discussed only in parody, or in a reductio ad absurdum context. Opponents of the tobacco lawsuits often invoked the idea of trial lawyers suing fast food restaurants as one example of the 'parade of horribles' that might follow should the tobacco suits be allowed to go forward.

"Well, we're here now. This is post-reductio America. If the anti-obesity proposals currently up for debate become law, it's difficult to come up with any aspect of our lives that's out of the reach of the public health activists. Or, as one advocacy group that represents the food industry has put it, the question will no longer be 'what's next?' ...but 'what's left?'"

Jacob Grier, editor, jgrier@cato.org