Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
L.W.M.
Published Letters: 6225 Editor's Choice: 5
I second Ondolette Re: your clarification. As you may have noticed, Mona has a difficult time understanding how I can support Cato's stance on individual civil liberties but be concerned about Cato's support for privatization of certain government functions, Social Security in particular, and other corporate interests. Cato helped the tobacco industry skate on billions of dollars they owed the states. That's corporate welfare. As right wing tanks go, it's far from the worst. I have not read either of those books on corporations. Perhaps this one may interest you, it's more recent. You can read it on-line. Nace made his millions as a CEO in desk top publishing a few years back.
http://www.gangsofamerica.com/
The Cato Institute has been a long-time advocate of Social Security privatization. A chief early architect of Cato's thinking on private accounts was Peter J. Ferrara. The Washington Post's Thomas Edsall wrote in February 2005: "The emergence of the center-right phalanx backing the Social Security proposal is a major victory for the Cato Institute, a prominent libertarian group. In the late 1970s and early 1980s, Cato was almost alone in its willingness to challenge the legitimacy of the existing Social Security system, a politically sacrosanct retirement program. Recognizing the wariness of other conservatives to tackle Social Security, Cato in 1983 published an article calling for privatization of the system. The article argued that companies that stand to profit from privatization -- 'the banks, insurance companies and other institutions that will gain' -- had to be brought into alliance. Second, the article called for initiation of 'guerrilla warfare against both the current Social Security system and the coalition that supports it.'"
By early 2005, business groups such as the Business Roundtable and the National Association of Manufacturers and political groups like Progress for America were devoting millions of dollars to the campaign to get rid of the existing Social Security program. It is worth noting that the website SocialSecurity.org is run by the Cato Institute, under the heading Project on Social Security Choice...
Like most think tanks, Cato receives support from a variety of corporations, but corporations are a relatively minor source of support for the Institute. In 2005, for example, corporate donations accounted for only two percent of its budget.
The relative paucity of corporate funding may be one reason the Institute has struck an independent stance in its policy research. In 2004, the Institute angered the pharmaceutical industry by published a paper arguing in favor of "drug re-importation." A 2006 study attacked the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, a law that is widely viewed as benefiting large media companies at the expense of ordinary consumers. Cato has published numerous studies criticizing what it calls "corporate welfare," the practice of funneling taxpayer money to politically connected corporate interests. For example, in 2002, Cato president Ed Crane and Sierra Club executive director Carl Pope teamed up to write an op-ed in the Washington Post calling for the abandonment of the Republican energy bill, arguing that it had become little more than a gravy train for Washington lobbyists. And in 2005, Cato scholar Jerry Taylor teamed up with Daniel Becker of the Sierra Club to attack the Republican Energy Bill as a give-away to corporate interests.
Known corporate funders include ExxonMobil, who gave $30,000 during 2002—about a fifth of a percent of the Institute's revenues that year. Media mogul Rupert Murdoch previously served on the board of directors of Cato, which has numerous ties to the Republican Party. Despite these connections, the Cato's scholars regularly and vigorously criticize Republican officeholders—especially President Bush. Cato scholars have criticized such the 2003 decision by U.S. President George W. Bush to go to war with Iraq, prosecution of the war on drugs, giving federal money to faith-based organizations, and the decision of President George H.W. Bush to fight the first Gulf war. Cato has also criticized the 1998 settlement that many U.S. states signed with the tobacco industry. The Cato Institute has argued repeatedly against the Republican party on spending issues.
In their book No Mercy, University of Colorado Law School scholars Stefancic and Delgado describe a shift in Cato's patron base over the years. Cato's main philanthropic backing has come from the right-wing Koch, Lambe and Sarah Scaife foundations. But today, Cato "receives most of its financial support from entrepreneurs, securities and commodities traders, and corporations such as oil and gas companies, Federal Express, and Philip Morris that abhor government regulation."
Financial firms now contributing generously to Cato include American Express, Chase Manhattan Bank, Chemical Bank, Citicorp/Citibank, Commonwealth Fund, Prudential Securities and Salomon Brothers. Energy conglomerates include: Chevron Companies, Exxon Company, Shell Oil Company and Tenneco Gas, as well as the American Petroleum Institute, Amoco Foundation and Atlantic Richfield Foundation. Cato's pharmaceutical donors include Eli Lilly & Company, Merck & Company and Pfizer, Inc.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Cato_Institute
Qua Elvis... Sure, and while the concept of realpolitik is generally applied to international relations, I don't see why it can't be applied domestically as well...
This is news to you why, exactly? It only dawns on you now that while the neocons were busy achieving total American dominance over the planet, movement conservatives and the GOP have been working to establish one party dominance here in America and have been since the 70s?
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
219 Democrats and one Republican join in favor of the legislation, which passed by a narrow margin
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Salon headlines in your mailbox
