Talk:Mercatus Center

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


I've reverted a redirect to George Mason University, not so much because I think this entity deserves a separate article (I'd want to see arguments on that), but because the appropriate action if this entity does not deserve it's own article is to propose merging this article into that one, get feedback, and only then to create a redirect.

I also might not have objected if the contents of this article had been added into the George Mason University article, but that wasn't done. No attempt was made to do so; in fact, the GMU article still had (and has) a wikilink to this article, which thus became a circular link. John Broughton | 02:38, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Material transfered from article[edit]

These two lines seem to be taken straight from the New Yorker article, and don't seem to stand alone well without more information/context:

  • In 2008 Mercatus released a report saying that Obama’s stimulus-spending measures had been directed disproportionately toward Democratic districts and was forced to correct it later.[1]
  • According to the Wall Street Journal fourteen of the twenty-three regulations that former President George W. Bush placed on a “hit list” had been suggested first from the staff of Mercatus.[1]

This seems to include some synthesis of ideas from a somewhat biased source.

  • According to at least one critic, the Mercatus Center has helped Koch Industries financially. Thomas McGarity, a law professor at the University of Texas who specializes in environmental issues, has stated Koch Industries “has been constantly in trouble with the EPA, and Mercatus has constantly hammered” on the EPA.[1] In a New Yorker article on the Koch brothers and Koch Industries, journalist Jane Mayer describes the successful challenging by an economist and top official at the Center, (Susan Dudley), of a proposed EPA air pollution rule that would have affected emissions from oil refineries. (Koch industries refineries have a total capacity of 800,000 barrels per day.[2]) Dudley argued that clearer skies would result in more cases of skin cancer. In 1999, the [United States Circuit Court of the District of Columbia|District of Columbia Circuit Court]] agreed with Dudley, ruling that the EPA had overstepped its authority and “explicitly disregarded” the “possible health benefits of ozone.”[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caduon (talkcontribs) 11:34, 27 November 2011 (UTC)