CATO Institute Commentary: 'Mosque' Debate Is a Red Herring

[Modbert]

'Mosque' Debate Is a Red Herring | Gene Healy | Cato Institute: Commentary

All this posturing is getting tiresome. The "mosque" controversy isn't about property rights or religious freedom. It's a bogus issue seized by the GOP establishment to distract the rank-and-file from the party's reluctance to shrink government.

From all the caterwauling, you'd think the Park51 group planned to fashion a mock Kaaba out of trade center ashes and mount it atop the wreckage. But you can't see Ground Zero from the Park51 site — it's separated by two canyonlike city blocks, occupying the former site of a Burlington Coat Factory. "Hallowed ground," indeed.

The plans include building a large mosque — and a 500-seat theater, swimming pool and food court — which makes calling it a "mosque" just slightly more accurate than calling a YMCA a "church."

Republicans pose as the party of decentralization, yet here they are reversing Tip O'Neill's dictum, insisting that "all politics is national."

There's plenty of hypocrisy to go around, though. It's insulting to hear New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg, who has persecuted bar owners for the crime of displaying ashtrays, wax rhapsodic about private property.

In a recent (pre-campaign?) appearance in Des Moines, Iowa, Newt Gingrich denounced Obama's "secular socialist machine," but, when asked, he declined to specify federal programs he would cut.

You see, cutting government is hard, and often unpopular. No surprise, then, that Boehner would rather play urban planner than embrace Wisconsin Republican Rep. Paul Ryan's "road map" for shrinking middle-class entitlements.

John Cornyn, R-Texas, head of GOP efforts to take back the Senate this fall, plans to make the Park51 "mosque" a major campaign issue. It's all too typical: Feed the rubes conservative identity politics, and, with luck, they'll be too distracted to notice you've grafted a Republican "K Street Project" atop the same old edifice of Big Government.

The establishment Right wants to play the Tea Party movement for suckers. It remains to be seen whether they'll play along.

 

[uscitizen]

And I thought right wingers were so fond of quoting the Cato Institute?



LMAO

 

[Sinatra]

Much to agree with the CATO assessment - though the pathetic posturing by the left now in regards to defending "religious freedom" in support of the Mosque is equally bereft of sincerity.

And by your own use of the CATO response, you are indicating the need for legitimate and widespread reductions of government at all levels, correct? This would include of course the revoking of Obamacare, a monstrosity of Big Government control that the CATO Institute finds appalling at every level of its inception...

Obamacare was conceived around three goals: (1) provide health insurance coverage for all Americans; (2) reduce insurance costs for individuals, businesses, and government; and (3) in crease the quality of health care and the value received for each dollar of health care spending.

Just over 100 days after the law was signed, the evidence shows it is failing on each and every one of those goals.

...Meanwhile, the legislation is a disaster when it comes to controlling costs.

The administration's own chief health care actuary reports that the law will actually increase U.S. health care spending. Accurately measured, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act will cost more than $2.7 trillion over its first 10 years of full operation. This does not even include more than $4.3 trillion in costs shifted to businesses, individuals, and state governments.

It is not just government that will face higher costs under this law. In fact, most American workers and businesses will see little or no change in their skyrocketing insurance costs, while millions of others — including younger and healthier workers and those who buy insurance on their own through the nongroup market — will see their premiums go up even faster under the legislation.

Before health care reform passed, the Congressional Budget Office warned that health insurance premiums could double in the next six years. As a result of this bill, CBO's latest analysis warns that health insurance premiums will ... double in the next six years.



Early Returns on ObamaCare Are Disappointing | Michael D. Tanner | Cato Institute: Commentary

 

[Modbert]

Odd Sinatra, this thread isn't about Obamacare. Try to stay on topic and stop shilling for once, thanks.

 

[uscitizen]

Obamacare?

 

[Coyote]

Interesting from the Cato Institute....what the Republicans are doing reminds me of the grandstanding over Terry Schiavo.

 

[Toro]

I like the Cato Institute.

 

[Tom Clancy]

Much to agree with the CATO assessment - though the pathetic posturing by the left now in regards to defending "religious freedom" in support of the Mosque is equally bereft of sincerity.

And by your own use of the CATO response, you are indicating the need for legitimate and widespread reductions of government at all levels, correct? This would include of course the revoking of Obamacare, a monstrosity of Big Government control that the CATO Institute finds appalling at every level of its inception...

Obamacare was conceived around three goals: (1) provide health insurance coverage for all Americans; (2) reduce insurance costs for individuals, businesses, and government; and (3) in crease the quality of health care and the value received for each dollar of health care spending.

Just over 100 days after the law was signed, the evidence shows it is failing on each and every one of those goals.

...Meanwhile, the legislation is a disaster when it comes to controlling costs.

The administration's own chief health care actuary reports that the law will actually increase U.S. health care spending. Accurately measured, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act will cost more than $2.7 trillion over its first 10 years of full operation. This does not even include more than $4.3 trillion in costs shifted to businesses, individuals, and state governments.

It is not just government that will face higher costs under this law. In fact, most American workers and businesses will see little or no change in their skyrocketing insurance costs, while millions of others — including younger and healthier workers and those who buy insurance on their own through the nongroup market — will see their premiums go up even faster under the legislation.

Before health care reform passed, the Congressional Budget Office warned that health insurance premiums could double in the next six years. As a result of this bill, CBO's latest analysis warns that health insurance premiums will ... double in the next six years.



Early Returns on ObamaCare Are Disappointing | Michael D. Tanner | Cato Institute: Commentary

Dude, you're just like rdean.. holy shit.

 

[Toro]

Dude, you're just like rdean.. holy shit.

Yup.

Alter ego.

 

[johnrocks]

I've been defending them based on property rights but this article makes a lot of sense to me. "Keep your eyes on the BS while I shove this hot coal up your ass called more government" type magic act the GOP seems to have become so good at these past several years.

 

[Yurt]

why didn't the article mention reid? it seems to only slam republicans....have to question the integrity of this article...

 

[Sinatra]

I've been defending them based on property rights but this article makes a lot of sense to me. "Keep your eyes on the BS while I shove this hot coal up your ass called more government" type magic act the GOP seems to have become so good at these past several years.

And Cato could be quite right on some level - the established leadership of the Republican Party is almost as much the problem as the Democrat leadership in creating the current fiscal and international mess facing America.

That is why the Tea Party Movement is such a fascinating and truly grassroots entity - a wide ranging but loosely affiliated movement of basic common themes regarding smaller less intrusive government and fiscal responsibility. These themes cut across party affiliation, showing up among many Democrats, Independents, and Republicans. It is forcing the Republican Party to reconnect with those themes not only in word, but deed. Some within the party are fighting this - they have become establishment figures, comfortable in the ways of Washington DC and all the perks contained therein.

BUT, the dismay/anger/outrage that many Americans feel in having a Muslim Mosque erected within the shadow of Ground Zero, in a building that was damaged by large debris from one of the planes, is very real - and like the Tea Party Movement, those feelings cut across party lines. The CATO article stops short of delving into the reality of these feelings and Obama's yet again clumsy and self-involved handling of a very sensitive subject. The Republicans are benefiting from this no doubt - aided greatly by Obama and his overt stupidity...

 

[Modbert]

why didn't the article mention reid? it seems to only slam republicans....have to question the integrity of this article...

Because Michael Bloomberg is a Republican.

Fail.

 

[Modbert]

Notice how Sinatra doesn't give a real answer, her bosses don't pay her to do that.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

why didn't the article mention reid? it seems to only slam republicans....have to question the integrity of this article...

Because we all know how Liberal the Cato Institute is, right?

 

[Modbert]

Because we all know how Liberal the Cato Institute is, right?

That Liberal CATO! Always backing Obama and his socialist plans!

 

[Sheldon]

Yep, op link nailed it. This mosque hysteria is just more trivial shit being used as ammunition in the trench warfare that goes on here and throughout the partisan groups in the electorate.

 

[dilloduck]

The only thing that politicians spew is red herrings.

 

[Yurt]

why didn't the article mention reid? it seems to only slam republicans....have to question the integrity of this article...

Because Michael Bloomberg is a Republican.

Fail.

yes, you did fail.....he is a registered independent since 2007....do you like being wrong so much?

 

[Yurt]

why didn't the article mention reid? it seems to only slam republicans....have to question the integrity of this article...

Because we all know how Liberal the Cato Institute is, right?

odd...you can't seem to seperate the article from the institution...care to address my point or are you just going spout nonsense....?