Author: Heritage

On 03.26.10 12:30 PM posted by Morgan Roach

Back in January, <ahref="http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0110/31329.html">President Obama said that he has no intention of sending U.S. troops into terrorist havens. However, in addition to <ahref="http://www.internationalrelations.house.gov/111/car032410.pdf">working with regional partners to support the Dijbouti Peace Process, the administration is currently playing a direct role in providing Somalia’s Transitional Federal Government (TFG) with increased support in an effort to stabilize the country against insurgent groups, many connected to the terrorist organization, al-Shabaab.

In an effort to beef up the U.S. counter-terrorism strategy, the United States is committed to denying al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations safe haven in Somalia. According to the <ahref="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/06/world/africa/06somalia.html">New York Times, the U.S. is currently providing training to Somali intelligence officers, support to peacekeepers, fuel for military maneuvers, surveillance information concerning insurgent positioning, and funding for arms. While the vast majority of American assistance to the TFG has gone to training and supporting African Union peacekeepers, it is believed that the U.S. could become more heavily involved, including launching air strikes and “Special Ops moving in, hitting, and getting out,” according to a <ahref="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/06/world/africa/06somalia.html">source cited by the New York Times.

<spanid="more-29985"></span>This engagement with Somalia must be carefully monitored by Congress and the American public. Currently, Somalia lacks a legitimate and viable government. At present, the TFG’s span of authority is measured in city blocks and has a limited reach outside the scarred capital of the nation. The TFG is the fifteenth attempt to create a stable government in Somalia since the fall of Muhammad Siyad Barre’s dictatorship. It is also important to note as Africa expert Peter Pham has <ahref="http://worlddefensereview.com/pham/032310.shtml">pointed out, that while the United States has never technically severed relations with Somalia, it has never recognized any of the fifteen governments, including the current TFG. Furthermore, the Somali people have little faith in the TFG and it is <ahref="http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2009/04/Piracy-A-Symptom-of-Somalias-Deeper-Problems">regarded as a weak institution yet to prove itself capable of defending its citizens.

Investment in Somalia is being wasted. The TFG is rife with corruption and criminal activity. <ahref="http://reliefweb.int/rw/rwb.nsf/db900SID/MUMA-83N2WN">According to the UN, “Despite infusions of foreign training and assistance, government security forces remain ineffective, disorganized and corrupt- a composite of independent militias loyal to senior government officials and military officers who profit from the business of war and resist their integration under a single command.” Furthermore, the TFG “has never deployed regimental or brigade-sized units on the battlefield,” and yet, the United States continues put money towards training security forces that fail to do the job they are set out to do. There is grave concern that while the U.S. must stand firm against al-Qaeda and go after international terrorism ; it must be wary of being sucked into yet another doomed effort to stand-up a Somali government

http://blog.heritage.org/2010/03/26/…orism-funding/

On 03.26.10 12:36 PM posted by Conn Carroll

<ahref="http://blog.heritage.org/wp-content/uploads/taxes.jpg"></p>“AT&T Inc. will take a $1 billion non-cash charge in the first quarter” the <ahref="http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_TEC_ATT_HEALTH_CARE?SITE=VARIT&SECTION=BUSINESS &TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2010-03-26-14-42-16">Associated Press reported today. And by “take a non-cash charge” what they really mean is that President Barack Obama’s health spending plan just ate $1 billion out of AT&T’s bottom line. And that’s to pay for just one of the tax hikes wrought by Obamacare.

AT&T is just one of many companies that subsidize Medicare drug coverage for their retirees. The new health law slaps a tax on those subsidies, effective next year. In addition to costing the communications giant a cool billion, the tax is likely to cost workers and retirees a cherished benefit. AP notes that, because of the legislation, AT&T is now “looking into changing the health care benefits it offers to active and retired workers.”

So much for the promise about being able to keep the health care you have!

AT&T is not the first company warning stockholders to expect earnings to plunge due to the new law. Yesterday, as President Obama celebrated his health “triumph” by taking a victory lap in Des Moines, Iowa’s largest manufacturer, Deere & Co, <ahref="http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20100325/NEWS09/100325023/1007/news05/Obama-in-Iowa-City-President-lauds-Dems-health-care-bill">announced it would have to take a first-quarter charge of $150 million. Caterpillar Inc. and AK Steel Holding Corp have <ahref="http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-03-26/at-t-to-take-1-billion-charge-on-health-care-reform-update1-.html">announced similar charges as well.<spanid="more-29987"></span>

Many more earnings “shoes” will be dropped next week. Keep checking The Foundry for up-dates about this and other troublesome “Side Effects” of Obamacare.

http://blog.heritage.org/2010/03/26/…-one-employer/

On 03.26.10 05:24 AM posted by Conn Carroll

<ahref="http://blog.heritage.org/wp-content/uploads/Dodd-Obama-10-03-26.jpg"></p>In mid-October 2008, at the height of the Presidential campaign, Heritage Foundation analyst Rea Hederman <ahref="http://article.nationalreview.com/print/?q=MzQ0MjAzNjEyZTA4ODEyZjQ4MWY5ZmZlY2M1NmUzZjI=">b egan receiving emails alerting him that he was a star in a new multimillion-dollar ad campaign for then-candidate Barack Obama. The ads claimed that Hederman believed the middle class would be better off under the Obama tax plan. Nothing could have been further from the truth. In fact, Hederman’s <ahref="http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2008/10/The-Obama-and-McCain-Tax-Plans-How-Do-They-Compare">analysis of the Obama tax plan found the exact opposite: that Sen. John McCain’s (R-AZ) tax plan would produce twice as many jobs as then-candidate Obama’s plan and leave middle-class families with, on average, $1,500 more in after-tax disposable income.

Now President Obama’s minions are at again, blatantly misquoting Heritage Foundation analysts in a desperate attempt to make their far left big government agenda appear to be centrist. This time the culprit is Deputy Secretary of the Treasury Neal Wolin, who <ahref="http://www.treasury.gov/press/releases/tg606.htm">told a U.S. Chamber of Commerce summit this week:<spanid="more-29871"></span>

On Monday evening, we took an important step towards final enactment of financial reform. The Senate Banking Committee has now voted out a comprehensive bill. Along with the bill passed by the House last December, it represents a strong foundation on which to build a safer financial system.
…
This should not be a partisan or ideological debate. As David John of the Heritage Foundation has said, “Taxpayers should never again be forced repeatedly to bail out financial services firms like AIG because a company poses a risk to the entire financial system and regulators lack the necessary tools to close the company safely.”

The <ahref="http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2009/11/Using-Bankruptcy-and-Capital-Standards-to-Address-Financial-Institutions-That-Are-Too-Big-to-Fail">quote is accurate; The Heritage Foundation does believe that we need financial reform that will ensure taxpayers never again have to bail out Wall Street, but it is 100% false to insinuate that Heritage believes the bill written by Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT) and passed out of committee this week is the solution to that problem.

Here is, in fact, what John <ahref="http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2010/03/Dodd-Financial-Regulation-Bill-Super-Regulators-Not-the-Answer">has written about the Dodd bill:

The Senate Banking bill proposes to create a new $50 billion fund to be used in “emergencies” to close or restructure failing financial institutions or those perceived as being in danger of default. This fund is certain to be used for bailing out any politically significant financial institution and is nothing less than a permanent TARP program.
…
Despite rhetoric about using bankruptcy for most failures, the draft makes it clear that this is to be handled through a bureaucracy subject to political pressures, since the bill also does not include language adapting the bankruptcy process to the special needs of complex international financial institutions.

In other words, not only does the Dodd bill not prevent future taxpayer-funded Wall Street bailouts, it virtually guarantees them forever. Just as the original $700 billion TARP fund quickly devolved into <ahref="http://blog.heritage.org/2010/02/03/morning-bell-the-presidents-permanent-political-slush-fund/">President Obama’s personal slush fund, the Dodd bill empowers the Treasury Secretary to take over and liquidate any financial firm at any time, and no one can stop him. The Independent Institute’s Peter Klein <ahref="http://www.csmonitor.com/Money/ThinkMarkets/2010/0319/Dodd-financial-reform-bill-goes-too-far">adds:

Perish the thought, but suppose a secretary of the Treasury has a crony who really wants to buy an investment bank on the cheap—and will provide some future quid pro quo. Pick a time when equities are down and you could make a case that a financial company is wobbly. Voila, it gets liquidated in a fire sale.

And so it is business as usual in the Obama White House. The empowerment of big government, the enrichment of cronies, all justified by phony bi-partisanship and centrist rhetoric. Don’t be fooled. The Dodd bill and the Obama agenda take the worst of our current financial system and puts it on steroids.

Quick Hits:

• Weak demand at three U.S. Treasury note auctions has investors wondering if <ahref="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704094104575144244213486742.html?m od=WSJ_hpp_LEADNewsCollection">interest rates are about to start rising.
• According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), from 1998 to 2008 <ahref="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704281204575003101210295246.html"> public employee compensation grew by 28.6%, compared with 19.3% for private workers.
• Politico reports that nearly 2,000 House of Representative staffers make at least <ahref="http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0310/35050.html">$100,000 or more.
• A nine-month Government Accountability Office study found that the Energy Department/EPA EnergyStar program was <ahref="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/26/science/earth/26star.html?ref=todayspaper">highly vulnerable to fraud.
• Osama bin Laden has threatened that al-Qaeda will kill American captives if the <ahref=" http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/25/AR2010032503168.html">United States executes Khalid Sheik Mohammed or other members of the terrorist network in U.S. custody.

http://blog.heritage.org/2010/03/26/…an-quote-that/

On 03.26.10 06:14 AM posted by Conn Carroll

</p>Yesterday* Attorney General Eric Holder <ahref="http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/03/25/1547410/us-to-appeal-release-order-for.html">announced that the Obama Justice Department would appeal a U.S. District Court Judge James Robertson’s order to release 9/11 terrorist operative Mohamedou Ould Slahi.

This is a good decision by Holder. Our nation would be less safe if Slahi was released from U.S. custody. But the very need for the appeal, underscores how the Obama administration’s larger approach to detainee treatment is seriously undermining our national security. former Assistant United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York and current National Review Institute senior fellow Andrew McCarthy <ahref="http://article.nationalreview.com/print/?q=Zjc3MDkxZGVlM2ExZjM2ODRmMjY1YWQxZGE5ZDEzOWE=">e xplains:<spanid="more-29901"></span>

The courts are institutionally incompetent when it comes to matters of national security, particularly the prosecution of war.

The Framers intended it that way. National-security decisions are the most important ones a political community makes, so our system of government was designed to have them made by the political branches — by those who answer to the voters, to the people whose lives are at stake. When the political branches abdicate this first responsibility of government, sitting by as it is usurped by politically insulated judges, they deny us the freedom to decide for ourselves what our security requires. We are then the subjects of judges rather than masters of our own destiny.
…
Now, we’ve somehow made it the job of Judge James Robertson, a progressive civil-rights activist appointed to the bench by President Clinton in 1994. Robertson is the district judge who started it all, the first to rule — back in 2003 — that Salim Hamdan, Osama bin Laden’s personal bodyguard and driver, had Geneva Convention rights and could not be subjected to a military-commission trial. He later quit the FISA court in apparent protest over the president’s wartime effort to penetrate our enemies’ international communications without asking permission from federal judges. Now, he is ready to spring Slahi, the terrorist who set 9/11 in motion.

Mohamedou Ould Slahi and Judge Robertson are exactly why Heritage fellow Cully Stimson <ahref="http://blog.heritage.org/2009/09/25/punting-national-security-to-the-judiciary/">has been calling for the President and Congress to establish “a durable, long-term, and sustainable framework for legal detention, not just for detainees currently at Guantanamo, but for future high-value captures outside of Afghanistan.” <ahref="http://blog.heritage.org/2009/12/28/the-judiciary-is-no-place-to-make-national-security-decisions/">The Judiciary is just the wrong body to be making these key national security decisions.

http://blog.heritage.org/2010/03/26/…ity-decisions/

On 03.25.10 09:00 AM posted by Conn Carroll

<ahref="http://blog.heritage.org/wp-content/uploads/treasury_081024.jpg"></p>Speaking yesterday to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s Fourth Annual Capital Markets Summit, Deputy Secretary of the Treasury Neal S. Wolin <ahref="http://www.treasury.gov/press/releases/tg606.htm">made the case for Sen. Chris Dodd’s (D-CT), including this:

This should not be a partisan or ideological debate. As David John of the Heritage Foundation has said, “Taxpayers should never again be forced repeatedly to bail out financial services firms like AIG because a company poses a risk to the entire financial system and regulators lack the necessary tools to close the company safely.”

We are happy to learn that President Barack Obama’s Treasury Department is reading our financial markets analysis, but we are also somewhat alarmed by the misquote used to support the Dodd financial regulation bill. Here is the conclusion to <ahref="http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2009/11/Using-Bankruptcy-and-Capital-Standards-to-Address-Financial-Institutions-That-Are-Too-Big-to-Fail">the paper that Wolin asserts supports the Obama financial regulatory scheme:<spanid="more-29777"></span>

Regrettably, the Obama proposal exhibits both flaws by assigning the FDIC a role that it is unprepared to play and giving the Federal Reserve and other regulators such broad powers that a constitutional challenge would be inevitable. Far from a solution, the Obama plan practically guarantees that regulators will need to back up their poor decisions with massive taxpayer bailouts of firms that followed regulators’ directives and got into serious trouble anyway.

A better approach to preventing another crisis is to modify U.S. bankruptcy law to accommodate the special problems of resolving huge financial firms and to allow the courts to appoint receivers with the specialized knowledge necessary to best deal with their failure. By creating an open process controlled by an impartial judiciary guided by established statutory rules, financial firms, investors, taxpayers, and others would have the advance knowledge that large financial firms that were once known as “too big to fail” can now be closed if necessary without risking disaster. In addition, requiring all larger financial services firms to hold significant amounts of capital to cover losses would greatly reduce the systemic risk that they could pose to the financial system. Higher capital levels would enable many firms that would fail under today’s capital levels to survive a crisis, saving shareholders and bondholders their investments, employees their jobs, and taxpayers billions of dollars in federal bailouts. Congress and the Administration need to learn and heed the lessons of 2008, or a repeat crisis will just be a matter of time.

If the actual body of the paper was too opaque to discern our views on the subject, the Obama Treasury might have been tipped off about our very different view on the subject by the title of that paper: <ahref="http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2009/11/Using-Bankruptcy-and-Capital-Standards-to-Address-Financial-Institutions-That-Are-Too-Big-to-Fail">Using Bankruptcy and Capital Standards to Address Financial Institutions That Are “Too Big to Fail”

And just so there is no future confusion, here is the latest paper, titled <ahref="http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2010/03/Dodd-Financial-Regulation-Bill-Super-Regulators-Not-the-Answer">Dodd Financial Regulation Bill: Super Regulators Not the Answer, from David John on the subject:

The Senate Banking bill proposes to create a new $50 billion fund to be used in “emergencies” to close or restructure failing financial institutions or those perceived as being in danger of default. This fund is certain to be used for bailing out any politically significant financial institution and is nothing less than a permanent TARP program.

If the Treasury, Federal Reserve, and FDIC agree, failing financial institutions would be turned over to the FDIC for resolution. Three bankruptcy judges must also agree, but this appears to be more window-dressing than any substantive requirement, since the closing or restructuring would be handled by the FDIC and not through bankruptcy courts.

Despite rhetoric about using bankruptcy for most failures, the draft makes it clear that this is to be handled through a bureaucracy subject to political pressures, since the bill also does not include language adapting the bankruptcy process to the special needs of complex international financial institutions.

A far better approach would be to create a special section of the bankruptcy code and use it to handle the failures of all major financial institutions. In addition, the FDIC has neither experience with complex international financial failures nor the expertise to handle the failure of these financial institutions.

http://blog.heritage.org/2010/03/25/…ture-bailouts/

On 03.25.10 10:00 AM posted by Edmund Haislmaier

The U.S. Senate is currently debating H.R. 4872, which amends the Obamacare bill passed by the House Sunday evening and signed into law by the President on Tuesday. This second piece of legislation is advertised as necessary to “fix” problems with the basic Obamacare legislation — such as by deleting the notorious “Cornhusker Kickback” and by altering the timing and scope of the new penalty tax on “high-cost” health insurance plans.

However, other parts of H.R. 4872 actually make the original bill worse — for example, the provision that would increase the separate, new premium tax on commercial health insurance coverage and the one that expands the new tax on medical devices.

Yet another provision would change the federal Medicaid funding formula such that Obamacare will cost taxpayers in 28 states and the District of Columbia even more money. That means that 56 senators will have yet another opportunity to once more vote against the interests of their constituents back home by approving H.R. 4872.<spanid="more-29800"></span>

The Obamacare legislation (now designated Public Law 111-148) will cover the uninsured mainly by dumping 20 million of them into the Federal/State Medicaid program. While the federal government will pick up most of the extra cost, state taxpayers will still be left holding the bag for the rest of the expense.

As the table below shows, H.R. 4872 would change the Medicaid funding formula in Obamacare such that taxpayers in 22 states will pay less — but taxpayers in 28 states will pay more — of those additional Medicaid costs.

So, when voting on the Obamacare “fix” bill, U.S. Senators will have yet another opportunity to “fix” their constituents a bit more. Doubtless, their constituents will be grateful.
<ahref="http://blog.heritage.org/wp-content/uploads/special_obamacare_medicaid_by_state.jpg">

http://blog.heritage.org/2010/03/25/…-eight-states/

On 03.25.10 11:00 AM posted by Thomas DeCaro

<ahref="http://blog.heritage.org/wp-content/uploads/Obama-10-03-25.jpg"></p>Now that that the massive healthcare bill has been signed into law, President Obama can no longer make excuses for neglecting foreign affairs.* Just last week, he postponed an upcoming trip to Indonesia and Australia for one final push to pass Obamacare—a trip he had already pushed off a year ago for the same reason.* <ahref="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/now-we-know-were-off-barack-obamas-radar/story-e6frg6so-1225843015461">Australians are among many foreign publics complaining that Obama is taking their support of the U.S. “for granted” and wonder if they are still on Obama’s foreign policy radar.

For the recent Iranian new year, President Obama attempted to renew engagement with Iran on the nuclear issue by<ahref="http://www.whitehouse.gov/photos-and-video/video/2010-nowruz-p"> stating in another video message to the Iranian people that “our offer of comprehensive diplomatic contacts and dialogue [still] stands.”* But in response, Iranian President Ahmadinejad <ahref="http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/middle-east/Obama-not-trustworthy-despite-new-year-message-Khamenei/articleshow/5710283.cms">rebuked his overture, promising to “continue our work faster and with more decisiveness,” undoubtedly pointing toward its nuclear ambitions.* Obama’s public diplomacy effort once again failed to persuade Iran from halting its nuclear ambitions, yet he appears to have no other tactic prepared.

<spanid="more-29729"></span>It reaffirmed what Kim Holmes, Vice President of Foreign and Defense Policy Studies at the Heritage Foundation, <ahref="http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/mar/18/no-silver-bullets-on-iran/">pointed out just a few days earlier: “President Obama’s attempt to make nice with the mullahs has borne no fruit.”

On issue after issue, Obama’s lack of global leadership—even with our nation’s best allies—is becoming all too obvious. Giles Whittell of Times London, for example, describes U.S.–Israeli relations as hitting a “<ahref="http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article7073332.ece">new low.”

Now that Obama’s healthcare push is over, he would do well to pivot his attention to critical national security issues and the serious matter of protecting America and her friends and allies from those who wish it harm.

Co-authored by Chris Archambault.

Thomas and Chris are currently members of the Young Leaders Program at the Heritage Foundation. For more information on interning at Heritage, please visit: <ahref="http://www.heritage.org/About/Internships-Young-Leaders/The-Heritage-Foundation-Internship-Program">http://www.heritage.org/About/Intern…rnship-Program

http://blog.heritage.org/2010/03/25/…oreign-policy/

On 03.25.10 11:30 AM posted by Kathryn Nix

<ahref="http://blog.heritage.org/wp-content/uploads/100212-sen-reid-wistful.jpg"></p>The Senate’s health care bill became law earlier this week, but that does not mean the <ahref="../2010/03/22/morning-bell-repeal">fight against a government overhaul of our nation’s health system is over.* This week, the Senate will consider amendments to the reconciliation bill passed by the House alongside the Senate health bill, H.R. 3590.* This process will provide a chance to ameliorate the numerous shortcomings of the passed legislation, and will provide Americans with a glimpse at the true intentions of their elected officials as they are forced to take a stance on difficult questions regarding changes to the bill.* Here, we outline some of the amendments put forth and the Senate’s verdict:

Protecting Medicare Savings. Senator Judd Gregg (R-NH) offered an amendment to protect new savings from Medicare from being used to fund new entitlements.* The passed legislation and the reconciliation package would create a combined <ahref="http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/113xx/doc11379/Manager%27sAmendmenttoReconciliationProposal.pdf"> $529 billion in cuts to Medicare spending over ten years.* Lawmakers claim these cuts will be applied to increase the program’s solvency, which will otherwise cause <ahref="http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2008/03/Taking-Back-our-Fiscal-Future">$38 trillion in unfunded liabilities to the taxpayers. <spanid="more-29840"></span> Unfortunately, this is unlikely to be the case: proponents of the bill tried to have it both ways by <ahref="http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2010/01/The-Real-Budgetary-Impact-of-the-House-and-Senate-Health-Bills">double counting savings from Medicare, but according to the <ahref="http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/108xx/doc10868/12-23-Trust_Fund_Accounting.pdf">Congressional Budget Office, “…the savings to the HI trust fund under the PPACA would be received by the government only once, so they cannot be set aside to pay for future Medicare spending and, at the same time, pay for current spending on other parts of the legislation or on other programs.”* Sen. Gregg’s amendment would have ensured prolonged fiscal sustainability of Medicare; however, the Senate voted to table the amendment with a vote of 56-42.

Getting Rid of Special Deals. When President Obama took office, he promised to introduce transparency to the legislative process.* Instead, the White House and congressional leadership resorted to backroom deals and shady tactics to pass the monumentally unpopular health care bill.* Senator John McCain (R-AZ) offered an amendment that would remove all the sweetheart deals added to lure needed votes for the bill.* These include, but are not limited to, increases in Medicaid Disproportionate Share Hospital payments for Tennessee and Hawaii, the “Louisiana Purchase”, Medicare coverage for Libby, Montana residents exposed to environmental hazards, and $100 million for hospitals in Connecticut.* Sen. McCain’s amendment was tabled with a vote of 54-43, leaving taxpayers to foot the bill for these special deals used to pass legislation they didn’t like in the first place.

Removing Taxes on the Middle Class. Another of the President’s campaign promises was that he would not increase taxes on individuals making under $200,000 or families making $250,000.* But the health bill the President signed this week carries with it a <ahref="http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2009/11/Taxes-Proposed-to-Pay-for-Health-Care-Reform">handful of new taxes that would affect all Americans, regardless of income, including a penalty for failure to purchase a government-approved health plan, taxes on high-cost insurance plans, and taxes on medical necessities such as prescription drugs and medical devices.* Senator Mike Crapo (R-ID) offered a motion to commit the health bill to the Finance committee to ensure that it met the President’s promise not to increase taxes on the middle class.* The Senate voted to table this amendment with a vote of 56-43.

Protecting Jobs and the Economy. The health bill includes an employer mandate that will punish employers for failing to offer insurance to their workers.* <ahref="http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2010/03/The-House-Health-Fix-Even-Higher-Tax-Penalties-for-Employers">The unintended consequences of this provision will be multitudinous: it will encourage employers to avoid hiring low-income workers, it will encourage employers who must hire a high proportion of low-income workers to drop the coverage they currently offer, and it will result in loss of jobs and lower wages.* To combat this, Senator Mike Enzi (R-WY) offered a motion to commit the bill to the Finance Committee to strike the employer mandate and replace it with other offsets.* The Senate voted 58-41 to table this amendment.

Preventing Premium Increases. Our nation’s health care system faces out-of-control growth in health spending, and will continue to do so after enactment of the liberals’ health care package.* The bill does nothing to <ahref="http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2010/02/Bending-the-Curve-What-Really-Drives-Health-Care-Spending">bend the cost curve, instead increasing total national health expenditures.* Moreover, provisions in the bill such as federally-mandated benefits and <ahref="http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2010/01/How-Health-Care-Reform-Will-Affect-Young-Adults">the combination of guaranteed access to insurance with an individual mandate that is significantly less expensive than a health plan, will cause premiums to rise.* CBO has found that H.R.3590 would increase premiums in the individual market by as much as <ahref="http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/107xx/doc10781/11-30-Premiums.pdf">13 percent, and the effects expected by <ahref="http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2010/01/How-Health-Care-Reform-Will-Affect-Young-Adults">our analysts are even more severe.* Senator John Barrasso (R-WY) offered an amendment requiring that no provisions in the bill would result in premium increases—this amendment was tabled with a vote of 57-41.

Subjecting Lawmakers to Obamacare. The President has indicated that the care Americans will receive under his health care package will rival the popular Federal Employee Health Benefits Program (FEHBP) through which members of Congress and other federal employees purchase insurance.* Senator Charles Grassley (R-IA) offered an amendment which would force proponents of the package to put this claim to the test by requiring that the President and all members of Congress and their staff receive health care through the newly-created exchanges rather than through the FEHBP.* Was the Senate willing to take the plunge?* It appears not—the amendment failed by a vote of 56-43.

http://blog.heritage.org/2010/03/25/…e-vote-o-rama/

On 03.25.10 12:00 PM posted by Sarah Torre

<ahref="http://blog.heritage.org/wp-content/uploads/floridaschool.jpg"></p>The recently released <ahref="http://nationsreportcard.gov/reading_2009/reading_2009_report/ ">2009 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) reading results for grades 4 and 8 suggest that the sweeping education reforms implemented in Florida since 1998 have led to gains in achievement. One of the concerns raised by NAEP evaluators at a press conference to announce the test’s results was the varying exclusion rates among states of learning disabled students from NAEP participation.

Dr. Steven Paine, a member of the National Assessment Governing Board and the president-elect of the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) commented on his concern regarding states’ exclusion rates:<spanid="more-29774"></span>

According to the new Reading Report Card, West Virginia tests almost all the students selected for its NAEP reading samples. Our exclusion rate is just 2 percent of the sample in both the fourth and eight grades, compared to 9, 11, and 12 percent in some other jurisdictions. These discrepancies do not seem fair.

<ahref="http://www.visualwebcaster.com/NAEP/67280/event.html">David Gordon, Sacramento Superintendent, responded to the discussion of varying exclusion rates, suggesting that the Common Core State Standards Initiative led by the CCSSO could play a role in leveling the supposedly unfair playing field of state exclusion rates:

…this whole issue is coming to a head around the common core standards because as you may recall NAEP did a study of mapping the state standards, the current state standards onto the NAEP scale and there was huge variance in the level of performance expected so I think all of this is coming together as a discussion and I really commend the governing board [National Assessment Governing Board] and the committee for moving on this.

Before implementing additional accountability mandates on already overburdened states and suggesting common standards as a solution to the alleged problem, the NAGB, CCSSO, and the public should look more closely at the exclusion rate data. Only Maryland and the District of Columbia, each with 9 percent exclusion for 4th grade, have rates as high as Paine suggests. The current national average exclusion rate of public school students with disabilities in both 4th and 8th grades is 4 percent and many states have remained at their current levels for over a decade.

Even those states with high exclusion rates in the past have moved to not only include more disabled children in NAEP testing, but have simultaneously increased student performance. Of the nine states that saw achievement gains in 8th grade reading on the NAEP, Florida decreased it’s exclusion rate from 7 percent in 1992 to just 3 percent in 2009. Including more learning disabled children in the testing population while continuing to achieve performance gains is a testament to the school reforms taking place in the Sunshine State. With no common core to direct curriculum and no governing board to mandate disabled students’ testing participation, Florida has made gains on the nation’s report card.

Sarah Torre currently is a member of the Young Leaders Program at the Heritage Foundation. For more information on interning at Heritage, please visit: http://www.heritage.org/About/Intern…rnship-Program

http://blog.heritage.org/2010/03/25/…d-achievement/

On 03.25.10 01:00 PM posted by Chuck Donovan

<ahref="http://blog.heritage.org/wp-content/uploads/Classroom.jpg"></p>A Seattle area mother is <ahref="http://www.myballard.com/2010/03/24/mother-says-ballard-high-school-health-clinic-facilitated-abortion/">distraught because a school-based clinic at her daughter’s high school arranged for the girl to have an abortion, <ahref="http://abcnews.go.com/Health/teen-abortion-high-school/story?id=10189694">even providing a taxicab to the clinic, without notice to her parents. A spokesman for the King County Health Department summarized the situation simply when he commented, “At any age in the state of Washington, an individual can consent to a termination of pregnancy.”

Washington is one of a handful of states that do not have a parental notice or consent law, according to <ahref="http://www.aul.org/">Americans United for Life. In fact, the group’s rankings of the 50 states on the extent to which they provide for such policies as informed consent, parental notice, and conscience protection ranks Washington at a very low 42nd nationally. In states where parental notice/consent laws exist, they typically also <ahref="http://www.lifenews.com/state217.html">require judicial bypasses for minors who can demonstrate, independent of their parents, that they are “mature” or that the abortion would be in their “best interest.”<spanid="more-29832"></span>

As a result, it’s possible that the school-based clinic might have been able to arrange a clandestine abortion for the girl even if Washington had a consent or notice law. In the larger picture, <ahref="http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/custom/portlets/recordDetails/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchVa lue_0=ED304750&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno =ED304750">school-based clinics have been controversial for some time. While they provide many helpful medical services, offering basic physicals and mental health services to low-income students, they also bring birth control devices and, on occasion it seems, abortion referrals into the schoolhouse.

Parents are asked to sign consent forms for their children to use the clinics, but these are not always itemized and consent on specific matters like abortion is determined by state law not particular clinic policies. Moreover, teenagers who attend the clinics and are Medicaid-eligible are covered by a provision of federal law that says the teen must consent before information about their accessing contraceptives can be shared with the parent or guardian. Liberals in Congress blocked Bush Administration attempts to reduce fraud and strengthen parental prerogatives by <ahref="http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2008/05/Blocking-Medicaid-Rules-Hurting-Families-and-Taxpayers-Alike">barring the use of Medicaid funds for school-based services, including the cost of medical referrals.

Interestingly, the mammoth health care reform bill just signed into law by President Obama includes authorization for a major expansion of federal financing of school-based clinics. The <ahref="http://www.nasbhc.org/site/c.jsJPKWPFJrH/b.2554077/k.BEE7/Home.htm">National Assembly of School-Based Health Centers hailed the bill’s signing because of the $50 million it provides over five years for a new federal grant program and the “emergency appropriation” of $200 million it makes for the clinics over the next two years.

Unlike community health centers in the bill, which <ahref="http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2010/03/23/a-final-faq-on-healthcare-and-abortion/">were not covered by a specific abortion limitation, the health reform bill bars funds from going to any school-based clinic that “performs abortions” and funds may not be used to “provide abortions.” It also specifies that the clinic shall not provide services to an individual without the consent of a parent or guardian if the individual is “considered a minor under applicable state law.”

Which is well and good, except that the “applicable state law” in the area of abortion and birth control services may not exist, may authorize judicial bypass, or even mandate confidentiality for minors when the service is contraceptives. As for abortion referrals and taxicabs to the abortion clinic, whether funding them or entities that offer them is permitted will turn on whether the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services regards these acts as part of what it means to “provide abortions.” Until proved otherwise, a parent would be prudent to assume that the Obama administration’s HHS will conclude that the referral and the taxicab are just fine with Washington.

http://blog.heritage.org/2010/03/25/…-and-abortion/

On 03.25.10 02:00 PM posted by Mike Brownfield

<ahref="http://blog.heritage.org/wp-content/uploads/Castro-10-3-25.jpg"></p>As President Barack Obama embarks on a <ahref="http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/63146">high profile campaign to bolster public opinion of his health care plan, there is one man who is already convinced that Obamacare is the right move for America – Fidel Castro, the Cuban revolutionary leader and first secretary of the Cuban Communist Party.

According to an Associated Press report, <ahref="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/25/AR2010032501309.html">Castro hailed Obamacare as “a miracle” and “an important battle and a success of (Obama’s) government.”

Castro went on to <ahref="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/25/AR2010032501309.html">favorably compare President Obama’s health care plan to the one Cuba enacted a half century ago. Ironically, it was <ahref="http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/world/stories/DN-cuba_02int.ART.State.Edition2.4bf18c4.html">report ed last year that Cuban President Raul Castro said his country’s spending on health care was “simply unsustainable.”

<spanid="more-29853"></span>In the Land of the Free, Americans remain unconvinced that Obama’s health care reforms are right for the United States. A <ahref="http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20001117-503544.html">CBS News poll released Wednesday shows that 62% of Americans want Republicans to continue challenging the health care bill that President Obama signed into law this week.

http://blog.heritage.org/2010/03/25/…-is-a-miracle/

On 03.25.10 02:30 PM posted by Todd Thurman

The Saudi Interior Ministry announced yesterday that it had <ahref="http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/LDE62N1S1.htm">uncovered a plot to attack Saudi oil facilities and arrested 113 suspected members of al-Qaeda.* The 113 militants reportedly were organized into three cells and had been planning suicide attacks on oil and security facilities in Saudi Arabia’s oil-producing Eastern Province.* Fifty two of the suspects were from Yemen, which has <ahref="http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2010/01/Yemen-and-the-Resurgent-Al-Qaeda-Threat">become the primary base for Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula after many cells based in Saudi Arabia were uprooted in previous Saudi crackdowns.

Al-Qaeda long has been focused on attacking oil-related targets in Saudi Arabia. In May 2003 it launched car bomb attacks against the housing compounds of foreign oil workers. In February 2006 al-Qaeda terrorists <ahref="http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/templateC05.php?CID=2446">launched a failed attack on a vital Saudi oil processing facility at Abqaiq. Such attacks not only weaken the perceived power of the Saudi government, but if successful could help to drive up oil prices, punishing western oil-importing countries, particularly the United States, the world’s leading oil importer.

In 2008, the Heritage Foundation’s Center for Data Analysis <ahref="http://www.heritage.org/research/NationalSecurity/upload/cda_08-11.pdf">conducted a simulation of a major al-Qaeda attack on Saudi oil facilities, combined with attacks on oil tankers, that produced a massive oil price spike that almost doubled world oil prices and triggered a loss to the United States of $119 billion of Gross Domestic Product and 1.5 million jobs in the first year after the attack. Let’s hope that the Saudi security services have successfully blunted the al-Qaeda threat to Saudi oil facilities and continue to do so in the future.

http://blog.heritage.org/2010/03/25/…ets-is-foiled/

On 03.25.10 03:00 PM posted by Michael Powell

<ahref="http://blog.heritage.org/wp-content/uploads/Che-Guevara-10-3-25.jpg"></p>The Cold War is supposed to be over, and the murderous ideology of Marxist-Leninist revolution either tempered by capitalism and consumerism in China or Vietnam, or confined behind the grim ramparts of communist throwbacks like Cuba and North Korea. If that’s the case, Bolivian leader Evo Morales must not have gotten the memo.

In a sharp contrast with Bolivia’s history – it was in fact Bolivian troops which executed the violently homicidal Cuban Communist leader Che Guevara in 1967 for attempting an ill-fated repeat of Cuba’s communist revolution – the country’s leftist President Evo Morales has now ordered the Bolivian army to adopt a chant popularized by Guevara and Cuban dictator Fidel Castro, “Patria o muerte, venceremos (Fatherland or death, we shall overcome!)”

<spanid="more-29861"></span>From Havana, via Caracas, where the Hugo Chavez variant of the chant is “Partia, socialismo, o muerte!” (Fatherland, Socialism, or Death), to La Paz, Bolivia the revolutionary ideals and practices of ‘El Che” are again in vogue. A new generation of populist political leaders is seeking to mobilize the masses with exhortations to martyrdom, self-sacrifice, and hatred of foreign and domestic enemies.

Bringing back the ghost of Guevara is a great way to shore up support for Morales not only in Latin America but throughout the world. Despite many penetrating books revealing Guevara’s dark side, Che remains a chic, radical symbol of violent and disruptive change around the world. While the politically naïve rush to purchase T-shirts and posters that forever freeze the face of youthful rebellion or consider propaganda films such as The Motorcycle Diaries and Che to be the unvarnished truth, the beneficiaries and manipulators of the image squash human rights, stifle public debate with slogans, and arrogate to themselves and the favored few power and control. The Orwellian process of re-writing history, turning individuals into shouting automatons lost in the masses, and extolling the superior qualities of a visionary authoritarian is alive and well in Bolivia.

Michael Orion Powell is currently a member of the Young Leaders Program at the Heritage Foundation. For more information on interning at Heritage, please visit: http://www.heritage.org/About/Intern…rnship-Program

http://blog.heritage.org/2010/03/25/…ost-of-el-che/

On 03.25.10 05:42 AM posted by Conn Carroll

Yesterday the Kremlin announced that the Obama administration and Russia had reached agreement on a new nuclear arms agreement intended to replace the 1991 Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START). The declaration appeared to <ahref="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/24/AR2010032401535.html">surprise the White House, as Press Secretary Robert Gibbs could only confirm that the two sides were “close” to a treaty. But U.S. officials confirm that “all major obstacles” in negotiations with Moscow have been cleared.

Russian approval of a new START agreement has been the cornerstone of President Barack Obama’s <ahref="http://www.nationaljournal.com/njmagazine/nj_20090530_1512.php">“long road toward eliminating nuclear weapons” policy. President Obama’s desire to appease Russia is why he began negotiations by <ahref="http://blog.heritage.org/2009/09/17/morning-bell-surrender-and-betrayal-do-not-make-us-safer/">unilaterally surrendering to Kremlin demands that the United States betray our Czech Republic and Polish allies by going back on our promise to build ballistic missile defense facilities in Eastern Europe. Russians took President Obama’s easy and early capitulation on missile defense as a sign of naivete and weakness and concluded that the Obama administration was far more desperate for a new nuclear treaty than they were and, as <ahref="http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-us-russia25-2010mar25,0,6864189.story">The Los Angeles Times reports, “used that fact in negotiations.”

The full text of the new agreement has not been released, but early reports indicate that it will not adequately address three key issues and would therefore compromise U.S. national security:<spanid="more-29742"></span>

Verification: The Russians have a long and well documented history of violating arms control agreements. By focusing intently on the reduction in each nation’s strategic arsenal, the U.S. has lost some negotiating ground on the issue of verification. The Senate must ensure that the new treaty is adequately verifiable. There is no reason to sign the treaty if the verification mechanisms fall by the wayside.

Nuclear Modernization: Some arms control advocates insist that the U.S. has a robust nuclear modernization program. This claim is simply inaccurate. The truth is that America’s nuclear infrastructure is rapidly aging, in deep atrophy, and is losing its reliability and effectiveness. The U.S. is not producing new nuclear weapons, and its ICBM force is shrinking and not being modernized. In contrast, Russia and China are engaged in a major modernization effort. On December 16, 41 U.S. Senators voiced their concerns and signed a letter saying they will oppose the new treaty if it does not include specific plans for U.S. nuclear modernization as stipulated in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010.

Missile Defense: It is absolutely imperative that a new START agreement not undermine our post-Cold War defensive posture by linking offensive weapons with missile defense. But early reports indicate that the treaty does exactly that. <ahref="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/25/world/europe/25start.html?ref=todayspaper">The New York Times reports: “Administration officials describing the draft treaty said its preamble recognized the relationship between offensive weapons and missile defense, but that the language was not binding.” But the Times goes on to quote retired major general Vladimir Dvorkin who says Moscow will scrap the treaty if the U.S. pursues missile defense: “If, for example, the U.S. unilaterally deploys considerable amounts of missile defense, then Russia has the right to withdraw from the agreement because the spirit of the preamble has been violated.”

<ahref="http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2010/01/Arms-Control-One-Year-Later-the-Obama-Administration-Needs-a-New-Strategy">The Obama Administration’s arms control strategy has been deeply flawed. It is based on outdated 1970s arms control strategy and 1960s idealism and naivete. It will not work because it does not account for <ahref="http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2009/11/Dangerous-Trajectories-Obamas-Approach-to-Arms-Control-Misreads-Russian-Nuclear-Strategy">Russian nuclear strategy, which is based on approximate parity between the two sides, Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD), denial of missile defenses to the U.S., and nuclear warfighting capability. The U.S. needs to reset the reset before the Obama administration is allowed to seriously undermine our national security.

Quick Hits:

• A <ahref="http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20001117-503544.html">new poll by CBS News finds that 62% of all Americans, including 90% of Republicans and 66% of Independents, want Congressional Republicans to keep challenging Obamacare.
• Now that the Senate parliamentarian has ruled 16 lines of text on Pell Grants can not be included reconciliation bill, <ahref="http://www.politico.com/livepulse/0310/BREAKING__Reconciliation_bill_will_have_to_go_back _to_the_House_.html">it will have to go back to the House again, for final passage.
• Contrary to President Barack Obama’s many promises, <ahref="http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Gap-in-health-care-laws-apf-4272209396.html?x=0&.v=1">Obamacare does not stop insurance companies from denying coverage to children based on pre-existing medical conditions.
• Big businesses like <ahref="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703312504575141642402986422.html"> Caterpillar and Verizon are already downgrading their earnings by hundreds of millions of dollars and telling their employees that health insurance costs will rise, all thanks to Obamacare.
• The National Federation of Independent Business says <ahref="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703312504575142021536942614.html"> Obamacare’s punitive employer mandates is already discouraging small business from hiring since firms with fewer than 50 employees that expand past that threshold are hit with higher taxes.

http://blog.heritage.org/2010/03/25/…lear-security/

On 03.25.10 06:22 AM posted by Lindsey Burke

<ahref="http://blog.heritage.org/wp-content/uploads/FloridaNAEP.jpg"></p>Results from the 2009 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) reading assessment have just been released and are, well, uninspiring. Reading achievement, despite significant increases in spending over the past few decades and increasing federal policy intervention in the past decade, has remained flat.

The lackluster results indicate that the top-down approach of federal policy, characterized by No Child Left Behind and the current administration’s policy, has not led to significant increases in student achievement.

But, despite the bad news, there is an outlier among the states– Florida. The Sunshine State’s results are a bright ray:

Reading scores for all students. While 4th grade reading across the country remained flat, 4th grade reading in Florida rose two points and 8th grade reading role 4 points over 2007 figures.
Although these gains are good, the improvements made by sub-groups (special needs students, African American students, Hispanic students, English language learners, and low-income students) are the most impressive.<spanid="more-29760"></span>

Special needs students. Special needs students in The Sunshine State made tremendous gains in reading. Gains in 8th grade reading were impressive, with special needs students scoring 11 points higher than they did in 2007. 8th grade special needs students in Florida are now a full 10 points ahead of the national average of special needs students. 4th grade special needs students also made impressive progress, scoring 9 points above 2007 levels in reading. Florida 4th graders with special needs are now 15 points ahead of the national average in reading for special needs students. But special needs students in Florida have an advantage over many other special needs students in most states – McKay Scholarships, which allow them to attend a private school of their choice.

African American students. African American students in Florida made significant gains in 4th grade reading, and now exceed or tie the statewide average for all students in eight states: Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Louisiana, Mississippi, Nevada and New Mexico.

Hispanic students. Hispanic students have made the most impressive progress in reading of all subgroups. Hispanic students in Florida now outpace or tie the statewide average of all students in 30 states. (As of 2007 Hispanic students outscored the statewide average of all students in 15 states).

Achievement in Florida started to trend upward in 2000 – two years after a set of sweeping education reforms were introduced by then governor Jeb Bush. Under Bush’s tenure – and prior to NCLB – Florida implemented the following reforms:

• Performance pay. Schools began receiving bonuses for student improvement, which go directly to principals and teachers and circumvent collective bargaining.
• Alternative teacher certification. Florida now allows reciprocity with other state teaching certificates, as well as on the job training and alternative routes to the classroom.
• Ended social promotion. Third grade students who fail to score at least 1 out of 5 on the Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test (FCAT) are not passed on to the 4th grade.
• State standards. Florida implemented rigorous state standards and corresponding assessments, testing students each year in grades 3-10.
• Grading schools. Florida moved to a more direct and comprehensible way of grading schools, transitioning from a I-V grading scale to an A-F grading scale. Not only does the A-F scale provide transparency for parents, it attracts tremendous media attention each year when grades are released.
• Options out of failing schools. Florida didn’t just demonstrate through the grading system whether a child was in a failing school, Florida gave parents options to act on that information. Florida parents have access to vouchers for special needs students, corporate tax credits, charter schools, and the largest online learning school in the country.

Unlike the administration’s plan for reauthorization of NCLB, Florida’s actions provide a much more reasonable blueprint for how to successfully raise student achievement. As reauthorization moves forward, conservatives need to push for policies that allow for the flexibility to innovate that Florida has made so successful.

Florida’s strong ‘09 NAEP scores continue an impressive trend—a trend that began well before No Child Left Behind was implemented, which should be a lesson about the limits of federal policy for lawmakers moving forward on its reauthorization this year.

http://blog.heritage.org/2010/03/25/…ading-results/

On 03.25.10 07:00 AM posted by Jim Roberts

<ahref="http://blog.heritage.org/wp-content/uploads/Cargo_Cranes0902041.jpg"></p>The latest outbreak of creeping global protectionism is in Brazil, which announced March 8 that it intends to levy nearly USD$600 million in increased import duties on more than <ahref="http://www.strtrade.com/wti/2010/march/17/brazil_cross_retaliation_list.pdf">100 products made in the U.S. <ahref="http://www.strtrade.com/wti/2010/march/17/brazil_cross_retaliation_list.pdf">in retaliation for the United States’ failure to comply with a World Trade Organization (WTO) ruling against its subsidies for cotton producers and exporters.

According to “<ahref="http://www.strtrade.com/wti/search_article.asp?pub=0&wti=yes&asia=&latin=yes&s earch=Brazil&keyword_article=title&starting_date=2/24/2010&ending_date=3/24/2010&company">World Trade\INTERACTIVE,” the Brazilian government also plans to impose the first-ever WTO-legal <ahref="http://www.strtrade.com/wti/2010/march/17/brazil_cross_retaliation_list.pdf">cross-retaliation measures on U.S. intellectual property rights holders that could lead to more than USD$200 million in losses for U.S. companies in the pharmaceuticals, chemicals, biotechnology, and entertainment sectors.* To avoid the sanctions, the U.S. Government must settle the WTO case with Brazil before April 7.<spanid="more-29766"></span>

The Obama Administration’s much-ballyhooed “National Export Initiative,” which is focused solely on exports and does not promote the two-way, cross-border trade and investment through which open economies have prospered, seems not to have impressed the Brazilians at all.* In fact, they announced the new tariffs just as U.S. Secretary of Commerce Gary Locke*<ahref="http://www.economist.com/business-finance/displaystory.cfm?story_id=15656630"> arrived in Brasilia on a tour to promote exports in the USA’s 10th largest foreign market.

Meanwhile three already-negotiated Free Trade Agreements (with Colombia, Panama, and South Korea), FTAs that actually would increase American exports, sit in Washington—un-pushed by President Obama and un-approved by Congress

http://blog.heritage.org/2010/03/25/…tive%e2%80%9d/

On 03.25.10 08:00 AM posted by Baker Spring

<ahref="http://blog.heritage.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/missile_defense090603.jpg"></p>Yesterday, The New York Times ran an editorial titled “<ahref="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/24/opinion/24wed3.html">Fixing Missile Defense.” Given the editors’ clear track record of opposing missile defense, they must mean “fix” it in the sense of neutering it.* Ostensibly, the editors are pointing to recent public complaints by the Director of the Missile Defense Agency about poor quality-control practices by several unidentified defense contractors.* Predictably, the editorial calls for punishing the contractors.

What is important here, however, is that the criticism does not stop there.* The editorial also warns against adopting a missile defense testing program that produces a long string of successes.* This warning has merit if it is intended to prevent the missile defense program from failing to advance the technology.* It does not have merit, however, if it is designed to result in some number of test failures only as a means for justifying the termination the program.* All weapons development programs that seek to advance the level of technology will experience failures from time to time.* In many cases, more can be learned from test failures than successes.<spanid="more-29782"></span>

In the end, The New York Times editorialists are offering their criticisms of missile defense in bad faith.* Simultaneously, they want the missile defense program to follow a testing regime that both increases the risk of an occasional failure and punishes the program for a failure by terminating it.* Clearly, the criticism is offered with only the goal of termination in mind.

http://blog.heritage.org/2010/03/25/…ssile-defense/

On 03.25.10 08:10 AM posted by Jeff Witt

As the Obama administration makes it clear they want to pursue a carbon capping policy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, the French government <ahref="http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/1b000010-3686-11df-8151-00144feabdc0.html">announced that it would abandon plans to impose a similar carbon tax on domestic energy and transportation fuels.

The reason for the French government’s change of tune is obvious. Sarkozy’s party knows that the carbon tax, which would have raised gasoline prices by 17 cents per gallon and domestic gas bills by 7 percent, would have significantly harmed the intra-continental and international competitiveness of French businesses and would have raised considerably the cost of living for the French people. Indeed, Prime Minister Francois Fillon told fellow center-right politicians at a meeting on Tuesday that, “All decisions taken on the issue of sustainable development must be analyzed in the light of our competitiveness.” So, the move is designed to quell the evident consternation of the French people by adopting growth-inducing economic policies rather than growth-killing policies.

David Kreutzer, Research Fellow in Energy Economics and Climate Change, says a carbon tax is the most humane way to execute an innocent person. Taxing a substance that has debatable effects on climate change comes with a high price tag and will do little, if anything, to reduce global temperatures. France is already part of the European Union’s Emission Trading System (ETS), a multinational cap and trade program to reduce greenhouse emissions wrought with its own problems. The House of Representatives passed a cap and trade legislation last year in hopes that the Senate will act this year, but Europe’s experience suggests we should pull the reigns back. The Wall Street Journal <ahref="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704896104575139673240771564.html?m od=WSJ_latestheadlines">details the fraud involved with Europe’s ETS.

<spanid="more-29795"></span>

Last week, spot trading on the ETS ground to a complete halt for three days after a scandal erupted over players gaming the system. In this case, the government of Hungary admitted to reselling “certified emission reduction” credits that companies had already relinquished, or “spent.” These credits mark out a project, such as reforesting, to counteract a company’s carbon emissions. Once such a CER has already been counted in the EU, regulators would prefer that it not be resold and, hence, risk being double-counted. By reselling the credits, the Hungarian government was, in effect, being rewarded for planting the same tree twice.

This is just the latest in a string of embarrassments that have plagued the system almost from the beginning. European authorities admitted last year that in certain countries, 90% of the trading volume was taken up by value-added tax fraud.”

Yet Carol Browner, the White House’s climate czar stressed that the government still stands adamantly behind carbon caps. She <ahref="http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/677-e2-wire/88789-browner-says-white-house-seeking-senate-action-this-year-demurs-on-gas-tax">told a U.S. News & World Report energy forum, “It is our hope the Senate will act this year and we will do everything in our power to support that.”

Basic economic logic is universal, and the lesson of France applies equally to the United States: carbon taxes <ahref="http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2009/08/The-Economic-Consequences-of-Waxman-Markey-An-Analysis-of-the-American-Clean-Energy-and-Security-Act-of-2009">destroy wealth and jobs in an economy. And absent a compelling reason to intentionally hinder economic growth, such as a lack of conclusive evidence of anthropogenic global warming, governments should allow market forces to create jobs and grow the economy – what the American people really want to see.

And yet, even now as the international community grapples with the recent revelations of misinformation contained in the UN Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change’s 2007 report that made the “unequivocal” case for man-made global warming, and as Americans find themselves still at the outset of an incipient economic recovery, Senators Kerry, Graham, and Lieberman are proposing legislation that would slap energy consumption taxes, sector by sector, on major portions of the American economy. The consequence of such a bill would be <ahref="http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2009/08/The-Economic-Consequences-of-Waxman-Markey-An-Analysis-of-the-American-Clean-Energy-and-Security-Act-of-2009">enormously negative for Americans.

Let’s give some credit to the French for their discursive (in both senses of the word) arrival at a good policy. And then let’s ourselves bid adieu to the idea of a carbon tax in any shape or form in America.

<ahref="http://blog.heritage.org/author/jwitt/">Jeff Witt, a member of the Young Leaders Program at the Heritage Foundation, co-authored this post.

http://blog.heritage.org/2010/03/25/29795/

On 03.24.10 12:00 PM posted by Ken McIntyre

<ahref="http://blog.heritage.org/wp-content/uploads/LetMeRise_comps3-8_100324.jpg"></p>An eighth-grader named Shaketa is on the move. She’s representing thousands of her peers in the nation’s capital in the effort to save D.C. Opportunity Scholarships from the indefensible end imposed by Congress.

Shaketa, along with seven other children among the program’s 1,700 current enrollees appear in provocative print <ahref="http://s3.amazonaws.com/thf_media/2010/pdf/LetMeRise_ads.pdf">advertisements displayed in Metro’s busy Union Station subway stop on 225 buses traveling every Metro route in the District.

The four-week ad campaign, sponsored by The Heritage Foundation, began Monday evening, when the chalkboard-themed ads greeted commuters along the Metro platform at Union Station. The public service ads, 42 in all, also are grouped at station exits and entrances.<spanid="more-29739"></span>

Each ad is a portrait of Shaketa, fourth-grader Nico or one of the other six smiling, bright-eyed girls and boys. The children stand behind a slogan that looks to be stenciled with chalk: “<ahref="http://www.voicesofschoolchoice.org">Let Me Rise!“.

Rise is what Shaketa and the others have done as real-life recipients of D.C. Opportunity Scholarships of up to $7,500, which allowed them to attend a private school of their parents’ choosing.

Their message is aimed at members of the House and Senate — whose staff routinely ride Metro to and from Union Station. But the cry also is designed to catch the eye of parents and taxpayers – tourists as well as locals* – who believe kids, regardless of family income, should have an alternative to failing public schools in the District and elsewhere.

One ad pictures seventh-grader Fransoir, grinning and his arms folded, under the headline “Kids vs. Congress” and alongside a chalk drawing of the U.S. Capitol. The text gets to the point: “38% of members of Congress have sent a child to private school. Now, Congress wants to phase out a scholarship that gives children in D.C. the same opportunity.”

Despite the program’s track record of success since 2004, Democratic lawmakers in the House and Senate last year cut off future funding for the scholarships at the behest of President Barack Obama, Education Secretary Arne Duncan and powerful teachers unions.

The most recent setback came March 16. In a 55-42 vote, the Senate* rejected an amendment by Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.) to <ahref="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/16/AR2010031604034.html">reauthorize the program for another five years.

Three variations of the ad show a thought balloon chalked alongside a student’s cocked head, posing one of these tough questions:

• Maybe they don’t know the President is a scholarship success story?
• Maybe they don’t know we have higher test scores?
• Maybe they don’t know our scholarships cost less than D.C. public schools?

Federally mandated evaluations of the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program <ahref="http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pubs/20094050/pdf/20094050.pdf">concluded

Few wrongs are greater than the inequality that endures in American education,” says Virginia Walden Ford, a Heritage Foundation visiting fellow and mother of a past scholarship recipient, who has made saving the scholarship program the cause of her life. “More than a half century after the Supreme Court rejected segregation in our nation’s schools, minority children are still less likely to receive a quality education

Berman and Company, a Washington-based communications and advertising firm, created the ads. They direct readers to the effort’s Web site, <ahref="http://www.voicesofschoolchoice.org/">VoicesofSchoolChoice.org and carry the disclaimer: “Brought to you by The Heritage Foundation.”

Featured schoolchildren also appear with Ms. Walden Ford in the Heritage-produced documentary, “Let Me Rise: The Struggle to Save School Choice in the Nation’s Capital,” a powerful 30-minute film narrated by NPR correspondent Juan Williams.

http://blog.heritage.org/2010/03/24/…-scholarships/

On 03.24.10 12:56 PM posted by Conn Carroll

<ahref="http://blog.heritage.org/wp-content/uploads/LetMeRise_comps3-8_100324.jpg"></p>Last week the leftist majorities in Congress again rejected a <ahref="http://blog.heritage.org/2010/03/22/bipartisan-group-of-senators-support-the-d-c-opportunity-scholarship-program/">bi-partisan attempt to save the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program from annihilation thanks to pressure from powerful teachers unions. The left is desperate to kill this school choice program because it is already showing <ahref="http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2009/04/DC-Opportunity-Scholarships-Boost-Reading-Scores-Family-Satisfaction">proven success at improving academic achievement.

To help raise the profile of the issue, The Heritage Foundation is sponsoring a four-week ad campaign featuring <ahref="http://s3.amazonaws.com/thf_media/2010/pdf/LetMeRise_ads.pdf">42 chalkboard-themed ads showcased along the Metro platform at Union Station. You can help spread the word by directing your family and friends to <ahref="http://www.voicesofschoolchoice.org/">VoicesforSchoolChoice.org. There, they can watch <ahref="http://www.voicesofschoolchoice.org/">Let Me Rise; a 30-minute film produced by The Heritage Foundation about the future of the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program as told through the voices of the children whose educational futures hang in the balance.<spanid="more-29723"></span>

In addition to our President, his two children, and his Education Secretary, almost 40% of all members of Congress have used their wealth to send their own children to private school. Why does the left refuse to give that same opportunity to D.C. school children?

http://blog.heritage.org/2010/03/24/kids-vs-congress/