Le CATO Institute prendrait-il fait et cause pour Fred Thompson?

[Roniberal]

http://www.freemarketnews.com/WorldNews.asp?nid=50869

Libertarian CATO Again Favor Thompson Over Ron Paul

CATO has seemingly done it again. In what is turning into one of the more bizarre stories of the GOP primary season, the Libertarian CATO Institute continues to run articles favoring big government conservative and GOP presidential candidate Fred Thompson.

It is no small matter to Libertarians in the country who have long seen CATO as a free-market bastion in the Washington DC swamp of entitlements and handouts.

CATO is founded by Ed Crane, a legendary founder of the Libertarian party itself. GOP presidential candidate Ron Paul is, in fact, a former Libertarian candidate for president, and thus was once the leader of Ed Crane's party.

It's all very strange, according to some supporters who are considering withdrawing their support from the venerable free-market institute. They don’t understand why there is not more overt support for “one of their own.”

FMNN recently ran a story on CATO’s support here:

=====

CATO’s Tanner: Thompson Support Small Gov – What of Ron Paul?

http://www.freemarketnews.com/WorldNews.asp?nid=50416

=====

Here is the latest CATO Daily Dispatch on Fred Thompson, dated October 29.

http://www.cato.org/view_ddispatch.php?viewdate=20071029#1

Thompson Alone Tackles Entitlements

"As baby boomers enter the starting gate into retirement, the cost of America's entitlement programs -- foremost, Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid -- is projected to balloon to levels that are unsustainable," reports The Christian Science Monitor. "Already, those three programs make up 40 percent of the federal budget. … In the hyperpartisan atmosphere of the 2008 presidential campaign, the topic of entitlement programs is also a matter of dispute between parties. Former Sen. Fred Thompson ® of Tennessee, the most impassioned candidate on entitlement spending, suggests that it's the nation's most important domestic problem -- and, alone among the top-tier Republican candidates, is willing to take the risky step of discussing cuts in benefits."

In "At Last a Small-Government Conservative?" Michael D. Tanner, Cato's director of health and welfare studies, writes:

"Republicans have been increasingly split between traditional small-government conservatives in the Reagan and Goldwater molds and a new breed of big-government conservatives who believe in using an activist government to achieve conservative ends -- even if it means increasing the size, cost, and power of government in the process. … Most of the current candidates fall squarely into the big-government camp. … Does Fred Thompson, then, offer an alternative for small-government conservatives? While he is not quite the second coming of Barry Goldwater or Ronald Reagan, a look at his record shows that he has generally supported limited government."

=====

FMNN previously summarized Fred Thompson’s record this way:

http://www.freemarketnews.com/WorldNews.asp?nid=42649

Fred Thompson Vs. Ron Paul

While in congress, Thompson, reportedly a good friend of Senator John McCain, (R-AZ) supported two obviously anti-free market bills: the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform act and the Shays-Meehan bill restricting issue ads. He is also a member of Council on Foreign Relations, a main think-tank behind the idea of a North American Union that would eventually dissolve borders between Mexico, Canada and the United States to create one big super-nation. Thompson also seems to believe in a robust military presence worldwide and apparently advocates continued US military involvement in Iraq.

=====

Here is a bio of Ed Crane from Wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ed_Crane

Edward H. Crane is the founder and president of the Cato Institute. In the 1970s, he was one of the most active leaders of the Libertarian Party. He was the Party's national chairman from 1974 to 1977, and managed Ed Clark's high-profile 1978 campaign to be Governor of California. In 1977, with the funding of Charles Koch and the assistance of Murray Rothbard, Crane established the Cato Institute, which would grow into the best-known libertarian think-tank in the world.

Si tel est le cas:

[Rincevent]

Bof. Entre supporter A qui n'a aucune chance de remporter l'investiture mais est "pur" à 90 %, et soutenir B qui a 10 % de chances de remporter cette investiture mais est "pur" à 25 %, je comprend qu'on se tâte. De plus, peut-être le soutien sans faille du LvMI à Paul lui donne-t-il une odeur de soufre.

[ts69]

Bof. Entre supporter A qui n'a aucune chance de remporter l'investiture mais est "pur" à 90 %, et soutenir B qui a 10 % de chances de remporter cette investiture mais est "pur" à 25 %, je comprend qu'on se tâte. De plus, peut-être le soutien sans faille du LvMI à Paul lui donne-t-il une odeur de soufre.

à force de compromis on reste sur un statu quo.

Sinon le LVMI c'est le mises institute? C'est quoi le problème avec eux?

[Roniberal]

Entre supporter A qui n'a aucune chance de remporter l'investiture mais est "pur" à 90 %, et soutenir B qui a 10 % de chances de remporter cette investiture mais est "pur" à 25 %, je comprend qu'on se tâte.

Malgré tout mon respect, ce que tu nous racontes là, c'est du beau blabla politicien.

Soit, on ne soutient personne, soit on soutient le plus pur, si tel n'est pas le cas, on est une belle raclure.

Par ailleurs, si tu lisais la suite de l'article, tu verrais que de nombreux "supporters" de l'organisation ne semblent guère goûter à ces prises de position pro-Thompson et je les comprends.

De plus, peut-être le soutien sans faille du LvMI à Paul lui donne-t-il une odeur de soufre.

Et alors?

Sinon le LVMI c'est le mises institute? C'est quoi le problème avec eux?

Une rivalité qui remonte à la nuit des temps…

[Chitah]

Malgré tout mon respect, ce que tu nous racontes là, c'est du beau blabla politicien.

Soit, on ne soutient personne, soit on soutient le plus pur, auquel cas on est une belle raclure.

On pourrait te rétorquer qu'en ce cas, tu n'aurais même pas voté pour Thatcher en UK.

Ou même que le mieux est l'ennemi du bien.

[Roniberal]

On pourrait te rétorquer qu'en ce cas, tu n'aurais même pas voté pour Thatcher en UK.

Déjà, comparer Thompson à Thatcher est une insulte humiliante pour la "Dame de Fer"

Ensuite, je n'étais même pas né en 1979 et je ne connais pas les forces en présence.

S'il y avait un candidat plus libéral que Thatcher à l'époque, oui, j'aurais voté pour lui, c'est bien normal.

[Hakill]

Soit, on ne soutient personne, soit on soutient le plus pur, auquel cas on est une belle raclure.

+1000

Sinon, je suis vraiment surpris de cette apparente prise de position du Cato Institute. D'ailleurs si l'on va dans la section "About us" du site, on peut trouver des positions proches, voire identiques à celles de RP (notamment la référence constante aux Pères Fondateurs).

[Invité jabial]

Soit, on ne soutient personne, soit on soutient le plus pur, auquel cas on est une belle raclure.

Il y a un problème de français dans ta phrase.

[Roniberal]

+1000

Merci pour le +1000 ( ), ceci dit, je viens de me rendre compte que j'ai fait une jolie faute de français, je voulais bien sûr dire "si tel n'est pas le cas" et non "auquel cas".

Il y a un problème de français dans ta phrase.

Oui, désolé.

[Rincevent]

Soit, on ne soutient personne, soit on soutient le plus pur, auquel cas on est une belle raclure.

Il y a un problème de français dans ta phrase.

Non non, elle est parfaitement cohérente avec le reste de ses dires sur le forum.

[Roniberal]

Un exemple:

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=8701

FREDeralism!

There has been a void in the Republican presidential race. The GOP candidates have spoken about immigration, taxes, social issues, and the war in Iraq. Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani, and John McCain have also spoken frequently about Ronald Reagan in order to position themselves as the political heirs to the great president.

The candidates, however, have overlooked a central idea that animated Reagan's view of government. That was federalism, the constitutional principle that the federal government's responsibilities are "few and defined" as James Madison put it.

Reagan believed that the federal government had grown too big and swallowed up too many activities that, in the words of the 10th Amendment, should be left to the states and the people. Education, welfare, food stamps, and other such activities were not properly federal roles in his view. Here is Reagan kicking off his run for the presidency on November 13, 1979:

The federal government should do only those things specifically called for in the Constitution. All others shall remain with the states or the people … The federal government has taken on functions it was never intended to perform and which it does not perform well. There should be a planned, orderly transfer of such functions to states and communities.

When in office, Reagan worked to effect that "orderly transfer." He took aim at the massive system of "grants-in-aid" for the states that had been built up in the 1960s. He managed to cut the number of these subsidy programs from 434 in 1980 to 335 by 1985, and to shrink aid spending by 24 percent relative to the size of the economy. He also killed "revenue sharing," which was a no-strings-attached spigot of federal cash for the states.

Unfortunately, state aid soared after Reagan left office because his successor, George H.W. Bush, had no interest in federalism. The Republican Congress of the mid-1990s briefly revived federalism with its reform of welfare, which was one of the most wasteful state aid programs.

But since the late 1990s, subsidies for the states have risen rapidly including subsidies for health, education, and highways. In a recent study, I calculated that the number of grant-in-aid programs jumped from 653 in 2000 to 814 by 2006.

Sadly, the Bush administration has buried federalism. Consider that Ronald Reagan wanted to abolish the Department of Education, and he at least succeeded in roughly freezing the department's budget.The current president, by contrast, has doubled the department's budget and increased federal regulations imposed on the nation's schools.

If elected, would today's GOP candidates be Bush Republicans or Reagan Republicans? Romney, McCain, and Giuliani talk about cutting federal "waste" and "pork." But the problem with the $2.8 trillion federal budget is not $30 billion in pork, it is $2 trillion of spending that violates the 10th Amendment to the Constitution as properly the responsibility of the states and the people.

What about presidential candidate Ron Paul? Paul is certainly a strong believer in the 10th Amendment, but he has been mainly occupied by the war in Iraq and hasn't focused his campaign on cutting domestic spending.

That's why I'm pleased that Fred Thompson has thrown his hat into the ring. Thompson has been talking and writing about his belief in federalism. In a recent speech, he argued that "centralized government is not the solution to all our problems…this was among the great insights of 1787, and it is just as vital in 2007."

Thompson rightly argues that the abandonment of federalism has caused a range of pathologies including a lack of government accountability, the squelching of policy diversity between the states, and the overburdening of federal policymakers with local matters when they should be focusing on national security issues.

Federalism "is a tool to promote freedom" as Thompson puts it. So for the supposed heirs to Ronald Reagan who are running for president, let's hear more about expanding our freedom by cutting the federal government down to constitutional size.

Outre qu'il est contestable que Reagan ait vraiment baissé le budget alloué à l'Education, je trouve qu'il n'en faut pas beaucoup à Chris Edwards pour s'émerveiller pour Fred Thompson.

J'ai bien aimé également le passage sur Ron Paul, lequel "ne s'intéresse pas à la baisse des dépenses":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul

he has long advocated ending the federal income tax and reducing government spending by abolishing most federal agencies.