• 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 August 6, 2009

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.)

Reforming Health Care "Reform"

Health care legislation will now have to wait until after Labor Day, as Congress concludes its final week in session before summer recess. The New York Times reports that moderate Democrats are optimistic that Republicans will sign onto a compromise bill. Details on how it will be paid for, however, are scarce. As Cato senior fellow Michael Cannon writes in Investor's Business Daily, "How can congressional Democrats claim their health care plan would cover all — or even most — of the uninsured for just $1.2 trillion? Easy — they're hiding the cost."

In a bizarre move, the White House, on its official blog, is asking people to report information on health insurance that "seems fishy:"

There is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform out there, spanning from control of personal finances to end of life care. These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation. Since we can't keep track of all of them here at the White House, we're asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov.

By asking Americans to report "disinformation" by their fellow citizens, the White House is attempting to stifle important debate.

In his IBD piece, Michael Cannon puts it best: "Indeed, Democrats aren't reforming anything. They're just throwing more money at a broken health care sector. And they'd prefer you not know how much."

Clunkers in Congress

Government underestimates cost of a program; dog bites man. The popularity and steep price tag of Cash for Clunkers %u2014 the government program that heavily subsidizes trading in old cars for more fuel-efficient ones %u2014 should not come as a surprise to anyone who understands elementary economics. Congress, though, was shocked. Of course, to a man, politicians have been triumphantly hailing the program; for his part, President Obama declared it "an overwhelming success."

Cooler heads, however, continue to explain just how destructive the program is. Here's Cato senior fellow and Harvard economist Jeffrey Miron writing on CNN's website:

[U]nder the terms of the program, any used car that is traded in must be scrapped, and key parts like the engine and drive train destroyed. Thus the program pays people to junk cars that still have economic value%u2026 How can it make any sense for policy to encourage the destruction of working cars?... Government policy should not favor some industries at the expense of others, but that is exactly what cash for clunkers does. The program helps consumers who can take advantage, and it increases profit and employment in the auto industry. But funding for the program comes from all other taxpayers, so it harms the consumers and industries not supported by the program.

Unfortunately, Congress isn't taking this wisdom to heart, with the Senate approving an extension of funds for the program Thusday.

Sonia Sotomayor, the Supreme Court, and the Second Amendment

Sonia Sotomayor was easily confirmed Thursday to replace Associate Justice David H. Souter on the Supreme Court. The largely party-line vote was 68–31.

The question that remains, of course, is how the nation's first Hispanic justice will vote once she ascends to the high Court. In her confirmation hearing, Sotomayor was circumspect at best, vaguely declaring her judicial philosophy as "simple: fidelity to the law."

Writing in FindLaw, Cato chairman Robert Levy attempts to alleviate libertarian concerns about Sotomayor on one issue:

[T]here may be good reasons to oppose Judge Sotomayor's confirmation as Supreme Court justice, but her recent holding on the right to keep and bear arms is not one of them%u2026 Some gun rights advocates criticize Sotomayor's Maloney opinion for stating that the right to nunchakus in the home is not a "fundamental right." But that statement had nothing to do with the Second Amendment. Instead, it concerned a different claim by the plaintiff under a doctrine known as substantive due process, which pertains to unenumerated constitutional rights, not those expressly listed in the Bill of Rights.

Cato scholars Roger Pilon and Ilya Shapiro, however, have been more critical of Judge Sotomayor, arguing that she failed to distinguish or prove herself during her testimony. Reacting to her confirmation, Shapiro discusses Sotomayor's confirmation conversion and the judicial philosophy he hopes for in a judge:

Judges are to interpret the Constitution as written text. If they set aside the text and rule based on their own notions of fairness, then they act as unelected legislators or, worse, extra-constitutional amenders of our founding document.

Nominee Sotomayor knew all this, which is why the testimony she gave at her confirmation hearings disclaimed many of her previous speeches and writings, even going so far as to reject President Obama's "empathy" standard.

Chris Moody, editor, cmoody@cato.org