How would you describe the Cato Institute?

[JanMichael]

Poll question: How would you describe the Cato Institute?

I see them get mentioned here every so often and even though they are called "impartial" commentators on many of the "news" shows, they don't always seem that way to me.

Hmm, who are these people that take the name of the loyal butler of Inspector Clouseo?

Let's see shall we?

Here's their site: http://www.cato.org/

Seems harmless enough, no?

I'll be! Here's an unkind review: http://world.std.com/~mhuben/cato.html

"Cato is one of the most blatant examples of "simulated rationality", as described in Phil Agre's The Crisis of Public Reason. Arguments need only be plausibly rational to an uninformed listener."

And another:

http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=Cato_Institute

Funding

Between 1985 and 2001, the Institute received $15,633,540 in 108 separate grants from only nine different foundations:

*Castle Rock Foundation: Coors Family Conservatives

*Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation:
Koch Industries, the "nation's largest privately held energy company, with annual revenues of more than $25 billion. ... Koch Industries is now the second largest family-owned business in the U.S., with annual sales of over $20 billion.""The company is owned by two of the richest men in America," David H. Koch and Charles G. Koch (described as 'reclusive billionaires'), who have a combined personal fortune estimated at more than $3 billion and who have emerged as major Republican contributors in recent years. ... Both David and Charles Koch are ranked among the 50 richest people in the country by 'Forbes'."

Heh, real "Free Marketers"...Sorry...<snicker>

* Earhart Foundation:

On just about every neo-Con wish list for X-mas. Was Amelia a neo-Con too? Sheesh...Nah, no way.

* JM Foundation: Another conservative foundation.

I wish that we didn't share the same initials.

* John M. Olin Foundation, Inc.:

Classic neo-Cons?

In 2001, the Foundation expended $20,482,961 to fund right-wing think tanks including the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), the Brookings Institution, the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), the Claremont Institute for the Study of Statesmanship and Political Philosophy, the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), the Heritage Foundation, the Hoover Institute for War, Revolution, and Peace, the Hudson Institute, the Independent Women's Forum, the Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS) at Johns Hopkins University, the Manhattan Institute for Public Policy Research, and the Project for the New American Century (PNAC). "The Foundation also gives large sums of money to promote conservative programs in the country's most prestigious colleges and universities."<3><4><5>

* Claude R. Lambe Charitable Foundation:

A Koch front.

* Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation:

"To further this objective, Bradley supports the organizations and individuals that promote the deregulation of business, the rollback of virtually all social welfare programs, and the privitization of government services. As a result, the list of Bradley grant recipients reads like a Who's Who of the U.S. Right ... Heritage Foundation ... Madison Center for Educational Affairs ... American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, literary home for such racist authors as Charles Murray (The Bell Curve) and Dinesh D'Souza (The End of Racism), former conservative officeholders Jeane J. Kirkpatrick, Jack Kemp and William J. Bennett, and arch-conservative jurists Robert Bork and Antonin Scalia...."

"Other Bradley grantees include ... Hoover Institute on War, Revolution, and Peace; and the Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation" ... Potomac Foundation."

Bwah! Awesome list of "causes".

"* Scaife Foundations (Sarah Mellon Scaife, Carthage):"

Run by hard working Richard who started his business career with only a few hundred dollars to his name...Er, $200,000,000 inheritance http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=Scaife_Foundations
======================================

What's condfusing to some is that they, at times, criticise someone on the Right, big deal, look who funds them and the majority of their "work". Decide for yourself:

What is the Cato Institute anyway?

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

1. They tend to rely on an ideologic sub set of limited authors who are

easily debunked. IT is Cato's tilted figures that are usually cited on matters concerning taxation....they are dishinest more by OMISSION of facts (such as factoring in payroll taxes and social security funds tapped)when it comes to who the tax burden falls on.

[blm]

16. I can't believe there are 10 people on this board

who think they are honest libertarians.

[sangh0]

22. I do

For some strange reason, we ban Republicans but we allow their even more deceitful cousins, the Libertarians, to run free.

[Liberal Classic]

24. You're welcome

If you think we don't belong, then do something about it. If you're adamant, feel free to flag the moderators when you see my posts and petition the owners to remove accounts of avowed libertarians. I've made no bones about having libertarian leanings, but I think I have something to offer nonetheless.

[TheBigGuy]

2. Cato is widely accepted as a libertarian think tank, similar to Reason

...however, I've heard that either Reason, or Cato, does not fund research that questions their underlying libertarian philosophy, so I voted dishonest as they only fund research that supports the ideology...they are not really "objective".

[acerbic]

3. Since the poll didn't include "Kook-Libertarian Wingnuts",

had to select Dis-Honest Libertarian "Scholars"...

[sendero]

4. same here....

.... as I think Libertarianism is as ridiculous a political philosophy as communism.

[TheBigGuy]

5. When you think it about Libertarianism is anti-democratic.

Their utopia of a totally free an unfettered market would mean the idea of representative or even direct democracy would have to be jettisoned.

In our history when there where problems with market failure the response was to use the legislative means to correct the problems...and these ranged from lack of captial for railway construction, technical colleges, commercial regulation, antitrust, pure food and drug laws, labor law, etc....

This method of redress would be shut down in a libertarian utopia...which might be pretty repressive in its own way.

[sendero]

8. Or as I like to say....

.... Libertarianism is a solution to a problem that is simple, elegant and wrong.

I actually think Communism and Libertarianism have a lot in common. Communists think the gov't should plan the economy and control everything, Libs think the gov't should plan and do nothing.

Each is equally delusional that human behavior is such that either method could really work. They are both simple, nay simplistic, and seek to toss off the horrible burden of solving a problem using joint effort and compromise. One places that whole burden on gov't, the other on the public.

My favorite question for Libs is "how would Libertarianism have prevented a mess like Enron?" It is not one they can truthfully answer, because in their world there would be an Enron every week, not just every few years. :)

There is also no doubt that a lot of people who are really simply arch-conservatives call themselves Libertarians. Sounds nicer.

[oasis]

6. check in

[Orangepeel]

7. "Libertarian propaganda machine"

[Woodstock]

15. They aren't straight libertarian

the bottom line for CATO is to benefit corporations - anything else is secondary

[goobergunch]

9. Dis-Honest Libertarian "Scholars"

because they oppose the Patriot Act.

[Patriot_Spear]

10. The Brooking's Institute seems to take a fairly straight tack...

They pretty much skewered Bush* on the 'Missile Shield' nonsense.

[imhotep]

11. There is no such thing as

"honest libertarian scholar"

[Character Assassin]

12. As a donor and someone involved with CATO......

First off, there really is no pure objectivity, but rather degrees that approach a Platonic Ideal. This applies to all analysis and organizational bodies.

That said, what I find amusing is the superficial nature of of the complaints I hear registered against CATO that refuse to see what is plainly there before them.

Do they take money from sources considered right wing? You bet.

However, do they/did they also:

A. Oppose the Invasion of Iraq.
B. Oppose the WOD and actively seek dismantle it.
C. Oppose the PATRIOT Act
D. Oppose the Deparment of Homeland Security
E. Oppose military brinksmanship with North Korea
F. Oppose Stars Wars defense programs
G. Oppose the IMF and its policies

You bet.

The names on the donor list do not necessarily equal its policy stances, and it is simply foolishness to maintain that they do.

[JanMichael]

13. You think it's "foolish" to examine the supporters of a well funded group?

Right back at ya'.

Seriously man, you don't find it the slightest bit of a concern that it's biggest donars are far Right wingnut "foundations"?

You honestly expect people to ignore the darlings of the Koch Family or the Schaifes?

Really? That's preposterous IMHO.

Yes some of their writers didn't agree with the most aggregious acts of a lunatic Administration but they also oppose:

1. Public Schools through support of Vouchers.
2. Most Environmental Policies.
3. Developmental Foreign Aid.
4. SS through Privatisation.
5. They want to remove more Very Low Income people from MediCaid eligibilty and (I believe) Means Test MediCare.
6. Privatize Amtrak by selling the passenger rail service, including
operations, maintenance, stations, rails, and trains, as a single
unit and ending all federal subsidies;
7. Privatize air traffic control by moving all operations to a private
nonprofit corporation similar to Canada’s;
8. Privatize federal electric utilities by selling the Tennessee Valley Authority and the four power marketing administrations to pri-vate investors.
10. Outsourcing most Federal Employees.
11. Privatize military support services.
12. They're Anti-Union, period.
13. Anti-OSHA/Safety in the Work Place.

note: 6-13 taken from the Cato "Handbook for Congress".

And I'll mention last, but certainly not least, their desire to bring back the Trusts! Gee do you think Koch, Schaife & other Family/Industry Foundations aren't smacking their teeth at that?

repeal the Sherman Act of 1890;
repeal the Clayton Act of 1914;
repeal the Federal Trade Commission Act of 1914;
repeal the Robinson-Patman Act of 1936;
repeal the Celler-Kefauver Act of 1950;
repeal the Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act of 1975;
repeal the Hart-Scott-Rodino Act of 1976; and
pending repeal, strip the states’ authority to enforce federal
antitrust laws.

The most anti-Small Business mentality that I've ever seen. Throw in the opposition to Unions and y'all want the US to traipse back to 1900. Amazing, really.

Trust Enablers. That's what they are.

I'll just agree to disagree, vehemently, how about that?

[Character Assassin]

17. No, that's not what I said, now is it?

Quite plainly, what I said was: "The names on the donor list do not necessarily equal its policy stances, and it is simply foolishness to maintain that they do." That's not quite the same thing as "You think it's "foolish" to examine the supporters of a well funded group?", now is it?

Seriously man, you don't find it the slightest bit of a concern that it's biggest donars are far Right wingnut "foundations"?

Oh, sure, they need to have an eye kept on them; no one is disputing that.

You honestly expect people to ignore the darlings of the Koch Family or the Schaifes?

Really? That's preposterous IMHO.

The 'darlings'? Perhaps you find it preposterous since it's not representative of how things really are. There is, as far as I have seen, no red telephone that's a hotline to Scaife's offices.

Yes some of their writers didn't agree with the most aggregious acts of a lunatic Administration but they also oppose:

Quite the understatement. From the list I posted, and I can easily post more, they are at odds with almost the entirety of the social agenda of this administration, and most of the foreign policy.

1. Public Schools through support of Vouchers.

Yes, that's something I support as well.

2. Most Environmental Policies.

You'd do well to be more specific, but I tend to agree with them here as well.

3. Developmental Foreign Aid.

Ditto.

4. SS through Privatisation.

Ditto

5. They want to remove more Very Low Income people from MediCaid eligibilty and (I believe) Means Test MediCare.

That's a rather debatable way of stating their position.

6. Privatize Amtrak by selling the passenger rail service, including
operations, maintenance, stations, rails, and trains, as a single
unit and ending all federal subsidies;

Ab-so-frickin-lutely. You have a problem with this?

7. Privatize air traffic control by moving all operations to a private
nonprofit corporation similar to Canada’s;

Yes? And?

8. Privatize federal electric utilities by selling the Tennessee Valley Authority and the four power marketing administrations to pri-vate investors.

That's not necessarily a position I agree with. No biggie.

10. Outsourcing most Federal Employees.

Good idea in principle.

11. Privatize military support services.

Very bad idea without further specifics.

12. They're Anti-Union, period.

So am I.

13. Anti-OSHA/Safety in the Work Place.

Yep.

note: 6-13 taken from the Cato "Handbook for Congress".

And I'll mention last, but certainly not least, their desire to bring back the Trusts! Gee do you think Koch, Schaife & other Family/Industry Foundations aren't smacking their teeth at that?

You need to detail that rather ridiculous, broad-based generalization before I can seriously address it.

repeal the Sherman Act of 1890;
repeal the Clayton Act of 1914;
repeal the Federal Trade Commission Act of 1914;
repeal the Robinson-Patman Act of 1936;
repeal the Celler-Kefauver Act of 1950;
repeal the Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act of 1975;
repeal the Hart-Scott-Rodino Act of 1976; and
pending repeal, strip the states’ authority to enforce federal
antitrust laws.

Simply stating that 'they', as in the whole institute', want to bring back trusts by the repeal of arguably outdated laws doesn't suffice.

The most anti-Small Business mentality that I've ever seen. Throw in the opposition to Unions and y'all want the US to traipse back to 1900. Amazing, really.

That is a mischaracterization.

Trust Enablers. That's what they are.

Wrong.

I'll just agree to disagree, vehemently, how about that?

Sure, please do.

[JanMichael]

18. Undefendable positions. They oppose all anti-Trust Legislation...

...as well as anything resembling Unions or Collective Bargaining.

That, my Libertarian (Mis-spelled that twice...sheesh) friend, is the recipe to re-generate the Trusts.

How can you claim that it isn't?

Me: Trust Enablers. That's what they are.

You: Wrong.

Sorry but I think you're terribly wrong on this count. Unless you're a Utopianist there's little to support your objejtion to my contention that Cato is ultimately a Trust Enabler.

They as musch as admit it: http://www.stevenxue.com/ref_32.htm

Hell they almost exist as is but doing what you want:

1. No Health/Safety Regulations in the Workplace.

2. No Union Protection.

3. Abolition of the Anti-Trust Legislation.


Is most certainly the return to the same Labor/Management problem of the early 20th Century. Except this time communications and travel have been improved so the response by the Working Class will be much more organized.

What got you involved with them anyway? Just curious.

[Character Assassin]

21. Quite incorrect....

Undefendable positions. They oppose all anti-Trust Legislation...

They defend that position quite well, and their statements to that position are available at their website. Have you read them?

...as well as anything resembling Unions or Collective Bargaining.

Perhaps you noticed that while they are not pro-union, they are not advocated making unions or unionizing illegal.

That, my Libertarian (Mis-spelled that twice...sheesh) friend, is the recipe to re-generate the Trusts.

I don't know how many times I'll have to repeat this, but I am not a Libertarian. I am a libertarian.

How can you claim that it isn't?

Read CATO's position on it. It is not necessarily mine, but they defend it quite well.

Me: Trust Enablers. That's what they are.

You: Wrong.

Newp.

Sorry but I think you're terribly wrong on this count. Unless you're a Utopianist there's little to support your objejtion to my contention that Cato is ultimately a Trust Enabler.

Sure there is. Dig in, brother: http://www.cato.org/current/corporate-governance/index.html

They as musch as admit it: http://www.stevenxue.com/ref_32.htm

Hell they almost exist as is but doing what you want:

1. No Health/Safety Regulations in the Workplace.

2. No Union Protection.

3. Abolition of the Anti-Trust Legislation.

So you did read that link you posted, right? Seems quite a well-reasoned piece to me.

Is most certainly the return to the same Labor/Management problem of the early 20th Century. Except this time communications and travel have been improved so the response by the Working Class will be much more organized.

What got you involved with them anyway? Just curious.

Look back at my prior posts in this thread. They advocate positions consisent with the libertarian philosophy, esp. in regards to social policies and constitutionally consistent liberties and gov't powers.

[Rich Hunt]

34. Erm...Koch = Cato

Charles Koch founded it.

There's a great bit in The Best Democracy Money Can Buy on the nastiness of the Koch brothers.

Plenty of stuff online, too - I think you can find some things on the Media Transparency stuff.

: Here ya go:

http://www.mediatransparency.org/funders/koch_family_foundations.htm

[TreasonousBastard]

14. You say...

"First off, there really is no pure objectivity, but rather degrees that approach a Platonic Ideal. This applies to all analysis and organizational bodies."

This is true, but my objection to Cato, as well as AEI, Hertitage, and a few others, is that they start from a philosophical position and spend most of their time as apologists for it. Objectivity is not even considered. This is ideology.

That they agree with us on certain issues is largely irrelevent. There will always be a certain overlapping on issues, and strange bedfellows are not always so strange. Their reasons for agreeing with us on certain issues, however, are based on their libertarian ideology and not on practical government.

Of course, we are often just as guilty of this ourselves.

Just not as often as they are.

[Bridget Burke]

19. Other: "Whited Sepulchre"

Fake answers to fake questions.

Reminds me of guys in the High School A/V Club. Sliderules hanging off their belts & "Atlas Shrugged" at the ready.

[DemBones DemBones]

20. I believe that Inspector Clouseau's houseboy was Kato, not Cato.

Kato's name was appropriated by O J Simpson's houseguest.

The Cato Institute was likely named after the Roman known as Cato the Younger.

Trivia aside, the Cato Institute is conservative. They interpret things differently because they have a different worldview. Critical reading & critical listening is essential.

[Touchdown]

38. No, he was Cato.

The actor's name was Burt Kwok. On "Return of the Pink Panther" it does say "Burt Kwok as Cato" and then the cartoon "O" karate chops the cartoon inspector.

I have all the DVDs. Sellers is (was) a genius!

[Liberal Classic]

23. You don't have to like them

But the Republicans don't really like them either. They're libertarian, and being libertarian guarantees a certian about animosity from both major political parties. Since I am a nigh-libertarian, I wish both parties would pay a litte more attention, especially because they produce position papers on issues that interest both Democrats and Republicans. If you think I am kidding, then search for some of their papers on corporate welfare.

[piece sine]

27. DU can be very depressing...

Littleroom in these threads for much contrarian orLibertarian viewpoints, even for purposes of lively debate and 360-degree thinking. We protest the Republican lock-step but there's a vein of PC thinking at DC that damn-near immovable.

Once a thread get rolling, anybody who - -even for argument's sake -- shades an issue with a point not made by everyone in the pack, gets flamed and disparaged.

Cato's a case in point. Roundedly reviled in DC as both TOO LEFT and TOO RIGHT -- depends upon whose grousing -- there's little tolerance for thosenot in lock-step. That's standard operating procedure for the Right Wing, but progresivism is attractive because it is based upon having an open mind. Fat chance around here!

relatively new poster like myself can only get flamed so often for injected a different perspective because it just makes sense to stop trying to contribute.

It seems such a waste -- or at worse, a flagrant case of boosterism --to just go-along and get-along at the home-team pep rally rather than purposefully stimulate potentially productive debate.

I think Cato thinks that way -- it instigates troublesome questions neither side has easy answers for.

[Liberal Classic]

33. I got the same thing

If you're under a couple of hundred posts the first thing out of people's when you say something they don't like is disruptor or pubbie.

And as far as people go around here, I am probably one of the more disagreeable types. But I'm nice about it. :)

[IrateCitizen]

29. I very much appreciate the things they've put out on corporate welfare!

As well as the war on drugs, Pentagon spending, empire-building, civil liberties, etc.

It's just that fundamentalist belief in the "invisible hand of the free market" to solve all our troubles that I can't get past, nor will I ever. :shrug:

That, of course, does NOT discount many of the positive contributions they make in any way, shape or form.

[Liberal Classic]

32. I believe rational people may politely disagree

And you don't have to believe in laizzes faire to be my friend. Even Adam Smith talked about the negative aspects of greed, which is not the argument I want to get into now.

[Rich Hunt]

36. ...but the Republicans seem to like the Koch brothers

http://www.mediawhoresonline.com/koch.htm

[IrateCitizen]

25. They are idealists, which makes them patently unobjective

People involved with CATO start out with a certain ideology, and all of their studies work BACKWARD from that fact, seeking to reinforce that ideology. Any claim of pure "objectivity" coming from them is completely false, just as it is coming from AEI or the Sierra Club.

That being said, I find them to be considerably less offensive than the neocons at AEI or elitists at Heritage (not to mention the bastards at the Federalist society!), because their ideology is a bit more "consistent". What I cannot accept from them, however, is their unabiding faith in the myth of the "free market" -- and this will always stop me short of calling them a true ally in spite of their stances on the war on drugs, Pentagon spending and empire building.

And as much as they try to maintain themselves as ideologically pure, it is impossible for all of that dirty, sweaty money to not end up affecting their studies in SOME way....

[Character Assassin]

26. Indeed. Have you seen the paper they use? Totally top shelf.

And as much as they try to maintain themselves as ideologically pure, it is impossible for all of that dirty, sweaty money to not end up affecting their studies in SOME way....

And the quality of the envelopes they mail out is really, really good.

[IrateCitizen]

28. You can try to provoke me, CA...

But I've learned to appreciate your biting sense of humor. :D

While you may agree with their stances on things (and I think that's fine), personally I find their takes on the myth of the free market to be about as viable as those who say that the moon is made of cheese.

I still believe that business must be regulated, as much as I believe that the moon is made out of dead rock rather than brie. And that is the one reason that I will always see CATO as a bit wacky.

[Character Assassin]

30. Naaaaah, just funnin' ya.

While you may agree with their stances on things (and I think that's fine), personally I find their takes on the myth of the free market to be about as viable as those who say that the moon is made of cheese.

Some business should be regulated. History is clear on that, but not nearly as much as it is today, and not nearly as many.

I still believe that business must be regulated, as much as I believe that the moon is made out of dead rock rather than brie. And that is the one reason that I will always see CATO as a bit wacky.

Understood.

[mitchum]

31. Evidence of "Randian nonsense...it's not just for teenagers!"

[buddhamama]

35. definitely dishonest

they try and pass themselves off as libertarians but i am not convinced. either way, libertarian or right-wing (sometimes you just can't tell the difference) i don't like `em.

[Touchdown]

37. Where's the "Social Darwinist, trickle down cultists" option?

That would make it more fair and balanced.