Content deleted Content added
→Positions: removing some headings over small sections |
→Positions: moving some specific sentences into Domestic policies section; chronological order |
||
Line 151:
== Positions ==
The Cato Institute advocates policies that advance "individual [[liberty]], [[limited government]], [[free markets]], and [[peace]]". They are libertarian in their policy positions, typically advocating diminished government intervention in domestic, social, and economic policies and decreased military and political intervention worldwide. Cato was cited by columnist [[Ezra Klein]] as nonpartisan, saying that it is "the foremost advocate for small-government principles in American life" and it "advocates those principles when Democrats are in power, and when Republicans are in power";<ref>{{cite news|last=Klein|first=Ezra|title=Why Do the Kochs Want to Kill the Cato Institute?|publisher=Bloomberg L.P.|url=https://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-03-08/why-do-the-kochs-want-to-kill-the-cato-institute-ezra-klein.html|date=March 7, 2012|access-date=July 12, 2012|archive-date=July 10, 2012|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120710132132/http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-03-08/why-do-the-kochs-want-to-kill-the-cato-institute-ezra-klein.html|url-status=live}}</ref> and [[Eric Lichtblau]] called Cato "one of the country's most widely cited research organizations."<ref name=Lichtblau /> Nina Eastman reported in 1995 that "on any given day, House Majority Whip [[Tom DeLay]] of Texas might be visiting for lunch. Or Cato staffers might be plotting strategy with House Majority Leader [[Dick Armey]], another Texan, and his staff."<ref>{{cite news|last=Easton|first=Nina J.|title=Making America Work : RED WHITE AND SMALL : Ed Crane's Cato Institute Is a Think Tank That Believes the Country Would Work Better if There Was Less Government|publisher=Los Angeles Times.|url=http://articles.latimes.com/print/1995-07-09/magazine/tm-21827_1_ed-crane|date=July 9, 1995|access-date=November 9, 2017|archive-date=March 10, 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200310135755/http://articles.latimes.com/print/1995-07-09/magazine/tm-21827_1_ed-crane|url-status=live}}</ref>
In 2004, the institute published a paper arguing in favor of "drug reimportation".<ref>{{cite web | url=https://www.cato.org/policy-analysis/drug-reimportation-free-market-solution-0 | title=Drug Reimportation: The Free Market Solution | last=Pilon | first=Roger | date=4 August 2004 | website=Cato Institute | access-date=25 May 2021 | archive-date=May 25, 2021 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210525134921/https://www.cato.org/policy-analysis/drug-reimportation-free-market-solution-0 | url-status=live }}</ref> Cato has published numerous studies criticizing what it calls "[[corporate welfare]]", the practice of public officials funneling taxpayer money, usually via targeted budgetary spending, to politically connected corporate interests.<ref>James Bovard, [http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-241.html "Archer Daniels Midland: A Case Study In Corporate Welfare"] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070711092430/http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-241.html |date=July 11, 2007 }}, ''Policy Analysis'' no. 241, September 26, 1995</ref><ref>{{cite web | url=https://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/pa225.pdf | title=Ending Corporate Welfare as We Know It | last1=Moore | first1=Stephen | last2=Stansel | first2=Dean | date=12 May 1995 | website=Cato Institute | access-date=25 May 2021 | archive-date=October 23, 2016 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161023114508/http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa225.html | url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{cite web | url=https://www.cato.org/policy-analysis/corporate-welfare-budget-bigger-ever | title=The Corporate Welfare Budget: Bigger Than Ever | last=Slivinski | first=Stephen | date=10 October 2001 | website=Cato Institute | access-date=25 May 2021 | archive-date=May 25, 2021 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210525135912/https://www.cato.org/policy-analysis/corporate-welfare-budget-bigger-ever | url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{cite web | url=https://www.cato.org/policy-analysis/corporate-welfare-state-how-federal-government-subsidizes-us-businesses | title=The Corporate Welfare State: How the Federal Government Subsidizes U.S. Businesses | last=Slivinski | first=Stephen | date=14 May 2007 | website=Cato Institute | access-date=25 May 2021 | archive-date=May 25, 2021 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210525135913/https://www.cato.org/policy-analysis/corporate-welfare-state-how-federal-government-subsidizes-us-businesses | url-status=live }}</ref>▼
Cato president Ed Crane and [[Sierra Club]] executive director [[Carl Pope (environmentalist)|Carl Pope]] co-wrote a 2002 [[op-ed]] piece 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, D.C., lobbyists.<ref>{{cite news |last=Pope |first=Carl |author2=Crane, Ed |title=Fueled by Pork |newspaper=The Washington Post |date=July 30, 2002 |page=A.17 |url=https://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/washingtonpost/doc/409300838.html?FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT&date=Jul+30%2C+2002&author=Carl+Pope+and+Ed+Crane&desc=Fueled+by+Pork |access-date=August 21, 2013 |archive-date=March 17, 2017 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170317104245/http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/washingtonpost/doc/409300838.html?FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT&date=Jul+30,+2002&author=Carl+Pope+and+Ed+Crane&desc=Fueled+by+Pork |url-status=live }}{{Subscription required}}. [http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=4090 Cato's link] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20071116112152/http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=4090 |date=November 16, 2007 }}</ref> Again in 2005, Cato scholar Jerry Taylor teamed up with Daniel Becker of the Sierra Club to attack the Republican [[Energy Policy Act of 2005|Energy Bill]] as a give-away to corporate interests.<ref>{{cite web | url=https://www.cato.org/commentary/energy-bill-blues | title=Energy Bill Blues | last1=Taylor | first1=Jerry | last2=Becker | first2=Daniel | date=30 July 2005 | website=Cato Institute | access-date=25 May 2021 | archive-date=May 25, 2021 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210525135912/https://www.cato.org/commentary/energy-bill-blues | url-status=live }}</ref>▼
A 2006 study criticized the [[Digital Millennium Copyright Act]].<ref>Gigi Sohn, [http://www.publicknowledge.org/node/166 "A Welcome Voice on the Right"] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070511001717/http://www.publicknowledge.org/node/166 |date=May 11, 2007 }}, Public Knowledge, March 21, 2006</ref>▼
=== Defense and foreign policy ===
Line 174 ⟶ 168:
Cato is an opponent of [[Campaign finance reform in the United States|campaign finance reform]], arguing that government is the ultimate form of potential corruption and that such laws undermine democracy by undermining competitive elections. Cato also supports the repeal of the [[Federal Election Campaign Act]].<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/why-campaign-finance-reform-never-works|title=Why Campaign Finance Reform Never Works|date=March 20, 1997|work=cato.org|access-date=February 16, 2016|archive-date=October 7, 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161007235145/http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/why-campaign-finance-reform-never-works|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.cato.org/research/campaign-finance|title=Campaign Finance|work=cato.org|access-date=February 16, 2016|archive-date=December 10, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181210194023/https://www.cato.org/research/campaign-finance|url-status=live}}</ref>
▲
Cato has published strong criticisms of the [[Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement|1998 settlement]] which many U.S. states signed with the [[tobacco industry]].<ref>Thomas C. O'Brien, [http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-371es.html "Constitutional and Antitrust Violations of the Multistate Tobacco Settlement"] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20031203065542/http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-371es.html |date=December 3, 2003 }}, ''Policy Analysis'' no. 371, Cato Institute, May 18, 2000</ref> ▼
▲Cato has published strong criticisms of the [[Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement|1998 settlement]] which many U.S. states signed with the [[tobacco industry]].<ref>Thomas C. O'Brien, [http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-371es.html "Constitutional and Antitrust Violations of the Multistate Tobacco Settlement"] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20031203065542/http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-371es.html |date=December 3, 2003 }}, ''Policy Analysis'' no. 371, Cato Institute, May 18, 2000</ref>
▲Cato president Ed Crane and [[Sierra Club]] executive director [[Carl Pope (environmentalist)|Carl Pope]] co-wrote a 2002 [[op-ed]] piece 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, D.C., lobbyists.<ref>{{cite news |last=Pope |first=Carl |author2=Crane, Ed
In 2003, Cato filed an [[Amicus curiae|amicus brief]] in support of the Supreme Court's decision in ''[[Lawrence v. Texas]]'', which struck down the remaining state laws that made private, non-commercial homosexual relations between consenting adults illegal. Cato cited the [[Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution|14th Amendment]], among other things, as the source of their support for the ruling. The amicus brief was cited in Justice Kennedy's majority opinion for the Court.<ref>{{cite web
In 2004, Cato scholar Daniel Griswold wrote in support of President George W. Bush's failed proposal to grant temporary work visas to otherwise undocumented laborers which would have granted limited residency for the purpose of employment in the U.S.<ref name="reason" />
In
In 2006, the Cato Institute published a study proposing a Balanced Budget [[Veto#United States|Veto]] [[United States Constitution#Amendments|Amendment]] to the [[United States Constitution]].<ref>Anthony Hawks, [http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=1346 "The Balanced Budget Veto: A New Mechanism to Limit Federal Spending"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060622192900/http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=1346 |date=June 22, 2006 }}, ''Policy Analysis'' no. 487, Cato Institute, September 4, 2003</ref>
▲In 2003, Cato filed an [[Amicus curiae|amicus brief]] in support of the Supreme Court's decision in ''[[Lawrence v. Texas]]'', which struck down the remaining state laws that made private, non-commercial homosexual relations between consenting adults illegal. Cato cited the [[Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution|14th Amendment]], among other things, as the source of their support for the ruling. The amicus brief was cited in Justice Kennedy's majority opinion for the Court.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/US/539/539.US.558.02-102.html |title=539 U.S. 558 LAWRENCE et al. v. TEXAS No. 02-102. Supreme Court of United |publisher=bulk.resource.org |access-date=November 20, 2010 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20101031091144/http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/US/539/539.US.558.02-102.html |archive-date=October 31, 2010 |df=mdy-all }}</ref>
In 2006, Cato published a Policy Analysis criticising the [[Federal Marriage Amendment]] as unnecessary, anti-federalist, and anti-democratic.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=6379 |title=The Federal Marriage Amendment: Unnecessary, Anti-Federalist, and Anti-Democratic |first=Dale |last=Carpenter |date=June 1, 2006 |publisher=Cato Institute |access-date=November 20, 2010 |archive-date=November 22, 2010 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20101122182237/http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=6379 |url-status=live }}</ref> The amendment would have changed the United States Constitution to prohibit [[same-sex marriage]]; the amendment failed in both houses of Congress.
A 2006 Cato report by [[Radley Balko]] strongly criticized U.S. drug policy and the perceived growing militarization of U.S. law enforcement.<ref>{{cite web |first=Radley |last=Balko |url=http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=6476 |title=Overkill: The Rise of Paramilitary Police Raids in America |publisher=Cato Institute |date=July 17, 2006 |access-date=September 28, 2006 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100409110428/http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=6476 |archive-date=April 9, 2010 |url-status=dead }}</ref>
▲A 2006 study criticized the [[Digital Millennium Copyright Act]].<ref>Gigi Sohn, [http://www.publicknowledge.org/node/166 "A Welcome Voice on the Right"] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070511001717/http://www.publicknowledge.org/node/166
===Environmental policy===
| |||