Editing Cato Institute (section)

===Domestic policies===
Cato scholars have consistently called for the privatization of many government services and institutions,<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/privatize-almost-everything|title=Privatize Almost Everything|date=April 30, 2013|work=cato.org|access-date=February 15, 2016|archive-date=February 22, 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160222122014/http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/privatize-almost-everything|url-status=live}}</ref> including [[NASA]],<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/time-privatize-nasa|title=Time to Privatize NASA|date=January 26, 1998|work=cato.org|access-date=February 15, 2016|archive-date=November 23, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181123053940/https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/time-privatize-nasa|url-status=live}}</ref> [[Social Security (United States)|Social Security]],<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.cato.org/publications/social-security-choice-paper/privatizing-social-security-big-boost-poor|title=Privatizing Social Security: A Big Boost for the Poor|date=July 26, 1996|work=cato.org|access-date=February 15, 2016|archive-date=November 20, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181120031741/https://www.cato.org/publications/social-security-choice-paper/privatizing-social-security-big-boost-poor|url-status=live}}</ref> the [[United States Postal Service]],<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.cato.org/publications/congressional-testimony/postal-service-privatization|title=Postal Service Privatization|date=April 30, 1996|work=cato.org|access-date=February 15, 2016|archive-date=February 22, 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160222171553/http://www.cato.org/publications/congressional-testimony/postal-service-privatization|url-status=live}}</ref> the [[Transportation Security Administration]],<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.cato.org/blog/after-another-failure-time-privatize-tsa|title=After Another Failure, Time to Privatize TSA|date=June 2, 2015|work=cato.org|access-date=February 15, 2016|archive-date=November 7, 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171107060430/https://www.cato.org/blog/after-another-failure-time-privatize-tsa|url-status=live}}</ref> [[public schooling]], [[public transportation]] systems,<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.cato.org/publications/policy-analysis/fixing-transit-case-privatization|title=Fixing Transit: The Case for Privatization|date=November 10, 2010|work=cato.org|access-date=February 15, 2016|archive-date=December 9, 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191209141747/https://www.cato.org/publications/policy-analysis/fixing-transit-case-privatization|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/privatize-faa|title=Privatize the FAA!|date=April 24, 2013|work=cato.org|access-date=February 15, 2016|archive-date=August 2, 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190802143452/https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/privatize-faa|url-status=live}}</ref> and [[public broadcasting]].<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/top-ten-reasons-privatize-public-broadcasting|title=Top Ten Reasons to Privatize Public Broadcasting|date=July 25, 2005|work=cato.org|access-date=February 15, 2016|archive-date=November 5, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181105191142/https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/top-ten-reasons-privatize-public-broadcasting|url-status=live}}</ref> The institute opposes [[minimum wage]] laws, saying that they violate the freedom of contract and thus private property rights, and increase unemployment.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/minimum-wage-cruelest-those-who-cant-find-job|title=The Minimum Wage Is Cruelest to Those Who Can't Find a Job|date=July 22, 2013|work=cato.org|access-date=February 15, 2016|archive-date=February 12, 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160212055146/http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/minimum-wage-cruelest-those-who-cant-find-job|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>William Niskanen, [http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2006/06/14/house-faces-the-dumbest-bill-of-the-year-so-far-a-210-increase-in-the-minimum-wage/ "House Faces the Dumbest Bill of the Year (So Far): A $2.10 Increase in the Minimum Wage"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20071031065456/http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2006/06/14/house-faces-the-dumbest-bill-of-the-year-so-far-a-210-increase-in-the-minimum-wage/ |date=October 31, 2007 }}, ''Cato@Liberty'', June 14, 2006</ref> 

The institute is opposed to expanding [[overtime]] regulations, arguing that it will benefit some employees in the short term, while costing jobs or lowering wages of others, and have no meaningful long-term impact.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.cato.org/blog/overtime-regulation-feel-good-economics|title=Overtime Regulation|date=July 2, 2015|work=cato.org|access-date=February 16, 2016|archive-date=March 31, 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160331074710/http://www.cato.org/blog/overtime-regulation-feel-good-economics|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.cato.org/blog/obamas-overtime-edict-anything-free-lunch|title=Obama's Overtime Edict: Anything But a Free Lunch|date=March 13, 2014|work=cato.org|access-date=February 16, 2016|archive-date=February 23, 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160223093241/http://www.cato.org/blog/obamas-overtime-edict-anything-free-lunch|url-status=live}}</ref> It opposes [[child labor]] prohibitions,<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.cato.org/publications/economic-development-bulletin/case-against-child-labor-prohibitions|title=A Case against Child Labor Prohibitions|date=July 29, 2014|work=cato.org|access-date=February 16, 2016|archive-date=February 11, 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160211213812/http://www.cato.org/publications/economic-development-bulletin/case-against-child-labor-prohibitions|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/child-labor-or-child-prostitution|title=Child Labor or Child Prostitution?|date=October 8, 2002|work=cato.org|access-date=February 16, 2016|archive-date=February 8, 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160208180420/http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/child-labor-or-child-prostitution|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.cato.org/blog/bans-child-labor|title=Bans on Child Labor|date=November 18, 2013|work=cato.org|access-date=February 16, 2016|archive-date=February 23, 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160223041018/http://www.cato.org/blog/bans-child-labor|url-status=live}}</ref> opposes public sector [[trade union|unions]], and supports [[right-to-work law]]s.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.cato.org/blog/labor-unions-against-public-interest|title=Labor Unions Against the Public Interest|date=July 2, 2013|work=cato.org|access-date=February 15, 2016|archive-date=February 22, 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160222155948/http://www.cato.org/blog/labor-unions-against-public-interest|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |last1=Vedder |first1=Richard |title=171 Right-to-Work Laws: Liberty, Prosperity, and Quality of Life |url=https://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/serials/files/cato-journal/2010/1/cj30n1-9.pdf |publisher=Cato Institute |access-date=9 March 2019 |archive-date=April 12, 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190412122943/https://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/serials/files/cato-journal/2010/1/cj30n1-9.pdf |url-status=live }}</ref> It opposes [[universal health care]], arguing that it is harmful to patients and an intrusion onto individual liberty.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.cato.org/research/universal-health-care|title=Universal Health Care|work=cato.org|access-date=February 15, 2016|archive-date=December 9, 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191209031905/https://www.cato.org/research/universal-health-care|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/universal-health-care-not-best-option|title=Universal Health Care Not Best Option|date=February 23, 2009|work=cato.org|access-date=February 15, 2016|archive-date=December 25, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181225151858/https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/universal-health-care-not-best-option|url-status=live}}</ref> It is against [[affirmative action]].<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=3722 |title=The Affirmative Action Myth |first=Marie |last=Gryphon |publisher=Cato Institute |access-date=November 20, 2010 |archive-date=November 23, 2010 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20101123173511/http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=3722 |url-status=live }}</ref> It has also called for total abolition of the [[welfare state]], and has argued that it should be replaced with reduced business regulations to create more jobs, and argues that private charities are fully capable of replacing it.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.cato.org/blog/welfare-private-charity|title=Welfare and Private Charity|date=April 13, 2012|work=cato.org|access-date=February 15, 2016|archive-date=February 22, 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160222171717/http://www.cato.org/blog/welfare-private-charity|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/welfare-state-needs-abolition-not-reform|title=The Welfare State Needs Abolition, Not "Reform"|date=May 5, 2015|work=cato.org|access-date=February 15, 2016|archive-date=February 22, 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160222171605/http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/welfare-state-needs-abolition-not-reform|url-status=live}}</ref> Cato has also opposed antitrust laws.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/case-against-antitrust|title=The Case Against Antitrust|date=November 17, 2004|work=cato.org|access-date=May 16, 2016|archive-date=December 29, 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191229080357/https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/case-against-antitrust|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/its-time-reexamine-antitrust-legislation|title=It's Time To Reexamine Antitrust Legislation|date=November 13, 1997|work=cato.org|access-date=May 16, 2016|archive-date=September 24, 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170924140508/https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/its-time-reexamine-antitrust-legislation|url-status=live}}</ref>

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 is a fierce foe of the [[war on drugs]], arguing that consenting adults have the right to put any substance they wish to in their bodies and that drug prohibition drives [[Incarceration in the United States|mass incarceration]] while fueling violent competition between gangs and failing to prevent drug abuse.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Burrus |first=Trevor |title=The War on Drugs |url=https://www.cato.org/cato-handbook-policymakers/cato-handbook-policymakers-9th-edition-2022/war-drugs |access-date=August 28, 2024 |website=Cato Institute}}</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 |last1=Moore |first1=Stephen |last2=Stansel |first2=Dean |date=12 May 1995 |title=Ending Corporate Welfare as We Know It |url=https://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/pa225.pdf |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161023114508/http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa225.html |archive-date=October 23, 2016 |access-date=25 May 2021 |website=Cato Institute}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |last=Slivinski |first=Stephen |date=10 October 2001 |title=The Corporate Welfare Budget: Bigger Than Ever |url=https://www.cato.org/policy-analysis/corporate-welfare-budget-bigger-ever |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210525135912/https://www.cato.org/policy-analysis/corporate-welfare-budget-bigger-ever |archive-date=May 25, 2021 |access-date=25 May 2021 |website=Cato Institute}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |last=Slivinski |first=Stephen |date=14 May 2007 |title=The Corporate Welfare State: How the Federal Government Subsidizes U.S. Businesses |url=https://www.cato.org/policy-analysis/corporate-welfare-state-how-federal-government-subsidizes-us-businesses |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210525135913/https://www.cato.org/policy-analysis/corporate-welfare-state-how-federal-government-subsidizes-us-businesses |archive-date=May 25, 2021 |access-date=25 May 2021 |website=Cato Institute}}</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 |date=July 30, 2002 |title=Fueled by Pork |url=https://www.proquest.com/docview/409300838 |url-status=live |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 |archive-date=March 17, 2017 |access-date=August 21, 2013 |newspaper=The Washington Post |page=A.17|id={{ProQuest|409300838}} }}{{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 |last1=Taylor |first1=Jerry |last2=Becker |first2=Daniel |date=30 July 2005 |title=Energy Bill Blues |url=https://www.cato.org/commentary/energy-bill-blues |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210525135912/https://www.cato.org/commentary/energy-bill-blues |archive-date=May 25, 2021 |access-date=25 May 2021 |website=Cato Institute}}</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 |title=539 U.S. 558 LAWRENCE et al. v. TEXAS No. 02-102. Supreme Court of United |url=http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/US/539/539.US.558.02-102.html |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 |access-date=November 20, 2010 |publisher=bulk.resource.org |df=mdy-all}}</ref> 

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 2004, the institute published a paper arguing in favor of "drug reimportation".<ref>{{cite web |last=Pilon |first=Roger |date=4 August 2004 |title=Drug Reimportation: The Free Market Solution |url=https://www.cato.org/policy-analysis/drug-reimportation-free-market-solution-0 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210525134921/https://www.cato.org/policy-analysis/drug-reimportation-free-market-solution-0 |archive-date=May 25, 2021 |access-date=25 May 2021 |website=Cato Institute}}</ref>

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 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|date=May 11, 2007}}, Public Knowledge, March 21, 2006</ref>

Cato supports same-sex marriage and filed an ''amicus'' brief in the case of ''[[Obergefell v. Hodges]]'' supporting a constitutional right to same-sex marriage.<ref>{{Cite web |last1=Shapiro |first1=Ilya |last2=Pilon |first2=Roger |last3=Eskridge |first3=William |last4=Burrus |first4=Trevor |date=March 6, 2015 |title=Obergefell v. Hodges |url=https://www.cato.org/legal-briefs/obergefell-v-hodges |access-date=Aug 28, 2024 |website=Cato Institute}}</ref>

Cato does not formally oppose [[capital punishment]]; however, they have frequently criticized the practice.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Follett |first=Chelsea |date=July 29, 2019 |title=Despite Federal Return, Capital Punishment Is Dying Out |url=https://www.cato.org/blog/despite-federal-return-capital-punishment-dying-out |access-date=Aug 28, 2024 |website=Cato Institute}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Meany |first=Paul |date=January 15, 2020 |title=Cesare Beccaria was a trailblazer on capital punishment |url=https://www.libertarianism.org/columns/cesare-beccaria-trail-blazer-capital-punishment |access-date=Aug 28, 2024 |website=Libertarianism.org}}</ref>