Author: Heritage

On 03.24.10 01:40 PM posted by Bob Moffit

That was what Speaker Pelosi said on March 10, 2010.

One day after the Senate’s mammoth, 2,700-page health bill became law, the Associated Press has*discovered the <atitle="http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Gap-in-health-care-laws-apf-4272209396.html?x=0&.v=1" href="blocked::http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Gap-in-health-care-laws-apf-4272209396.html?x=0&.v=1">legislation doesn’t deliver on a key promise.

Despite*repeated*assurances that the measure would provide immediate health coverage for children with pre-existing medical conditions, it doesn’t.

Just two days before the crucial House vote,*at*his*nationally televised pep rally for the bill, President Obama promised: “Starting this year, insurance companies will be banned forever from denying coverage to children with pre-existing conditions.”<spanid="more-29732"></span>

Meeting with House Democrats the next day, he forcefully reiterated the claim:

This year … parents who are worried about getting coverage for their children with pre-existing conditions now are assured that insurance companies have to give them coverage — this year.

You’ll recall that, on March 10, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced:

We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it.

It seems even the president had to wait until after passage to find out what was really in the bill.* Turns out,*some kids with pre-existing conditions will have to wait, too.* Another four years.**The iron-clad guarantee of coverage*won’t kick in until then.

Notes the Associated Press:* “Full protection for children would not come until 2014, said Kate Cyrul, a spokeswoman for the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee…. That’s the same year when insurance companies could no longer deny coverage to any person on account of health problems.”

For more on the false promises and flawed premises of Obamacare, please visit <ahref="blocked::http://fixhealthcarepolicy.com/">FixHealthCarePolicy.com.

http://blog.heritage.org/2010/03/24/…-it-%e2%80%9d/

On 03.24.10 05:26 AM posted by Conn Carroll

On April 6, 2009, Secretary Arne Duncan’s Department of Education sent <ahref="http://www.edexcellence.net/doc/DoEdReinoso%20Letter.pdf">letters to the families of 216 low-income children in the District of Columbia informing them that the <ahref="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/10/AR2009041003073.html">$7,500 scholarships they had been awarded by the Department are now being rescinded. Instead of being able to send their children to the school of their choice, these DC parents now have no other option but schools that they believe are too violent and too disorganized to properly educate their child. Education Secretary Arne Duncan simply did not care what the parents of these 216 children thought was best for their child.

But now we find out that when Secretary Duncan was CEO of the Chicago Public Schools, he took a decidedly different approach to the wishes of Chicago’s politically powerful families. <ahref="http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/education/ct-met-cps-admissions-0323–20100322,0,5656688.story">The Chicago Tribune reported yesterday that while he was Chicago schools chief, Secretary Duncan maintained a log of politicians and influential business people who sought better placement for their children in Chicago’s public schools. From the <ahref="http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/education/ct-met-cps-admissions-0323–20100322,0,5656688.story">Tribune:

It includes 25 aldermen, Mayor Richard Daley’s office, House Speaker Michael Madigan, his daughter Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan, former White House social secretary Desiree Rogers and former U.S. Sen. Carol Moseley Braun.

<spanid="more-29607"></span>The Tribune goes on to note that parents of special-needs children also appear on the list, but that “the politically connected make up about three-quarters of those making requests.” The Tribune also notes that the powerful parents did not always get their top school of choice, but did manage to get their kids moved to “still desirable schools such as Lane Technical High School.”

What makes the disparity between how Secretary Duncan treats the parents of the powerful on the one hand, and low-income D.C. parents on the other, is that the D.C. Opportunity scholarship program that Secretary Duncan has worked so hard to kill has been proven effective by his own Department of Education. On April 3, 2009, the Department of Education’s Institute of Education Sciences released the results of the three-year evaluation of the program. Specifically, <ahref="http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2009/04/DC-Opportunity-Scholarships-Boost-Reading-Scores-Family-Satisfaction">students who had been offered vouchers were performing at statistically higher levels in reading – approximately three months of additional learning. The study also found that <ahref="http://www.heritage.org/Research/Education/wm2391.cfm">students in the scholarship program the longest performed at reading level approximately 1.5 to 2 full school years ahead of students who applied but were not lucky enough to be admitted to the program. You can watch the 30 minute documentary on the proven success of the DC Opportunity scholarship program, <ahref="http://www.voicesofschoolchoice.org/">Let Me Rise, <ahref="http://www.voicesofschoolchoice.org/">here.

But we do not even need to examine the data to know that the powerful in the Obama administration already believe that school choice, while not appropriate for others, is best for their children. All we have to do is look at their actions. <ahref="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/02/AR2009010202325.html">Growing up in Hawaii, President Obama attended <ahref="http://www.punahou.edu/page.cfm?p=11">a private school. Growing up <ahref="http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/09/09/the-rantings-of-a-pta-mom/">first in Chicago, and <ahref="http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5g7MVgFxvtwtkAoROPeyRVTPz_nWA">now in Washington, Obama’s two daughters <ahref="http://www.ucls.uchicago.edu/">attended and still attend <ahref="http://www.sidwell.edu/">a private school. <ahref="http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/obama/2009/01/07/10-things-you-didnt-know-about-arne-duncan.html">Growing up in Chicago, Secretary Duncan attended <ahref="http://www.ucls.uchicago.edu/">a private school. And when he moved to DC, Secretary Duncan chose to live in Arlington, where good schools for his children are assumed. And according to the <ahref="http://www.heritage.org/Research/Education/bg2257.cfm">annual Heritage Foundation survey of Congress and school choice, 38% of Members of the 111th Congress sent one of their own children to private school at one time.

Just last week, the leftist majority in the Senate <ahref="http://blog.heritage.org/2010/03/17/senate-votes-against-school-choice/">defeated yet another bi-partisan amendment seeking to save the D.C. Opportunity scholarship program. The left has to kill this program because of studies like the one from the Department of Education mentioned above. The left cannot allow a body of evidence to exist that shows America works best when Americans are given the opportunity to make their own choices. Whether it’s education, health care, energy, food or housing, the left believes the American people are incapable of making their own choices. They believe the federal government must be empowered so that it can step-in to limit and make those choices for them.

It’s time to give all American families the freedom to offer their kids a good education rather than be held captive by union special interests.

Quick Hits:

• Mere minutes after President Barack Obama signed his health care scheme into law, Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli filed suit in federal court claiming an Old Dominion law enacted earlier this month <ahref="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/23/AR2010032304224.html">prohibiting the government from requiring people to buy health insurance creates an “immediate, actual controversy” between Virginia law and Obamacare.
• Attorneys general in <ahref="http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2010/0323/Attorneys-general-in-14-states-sue-to-block-healthcare-reform-law">13 other states, led by Florida AG Bill McCollum, filed suit in federal court claiming that Obamacare exceeds Congress’ powers to regulate commerce, violates 10th Amendment protections of state sovereignty, and imposes an unconstitutional direct tax.
• America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP), <ahref="http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1974757,00.html">the health-insurance industry trade group, is already working with the Obama administration on how they can best capitalize on the millions of new Americans who are now forced by law to buy their products.
• According to a <ahref=" http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/23/AR2010032304589.html">new report from the TARP inspector general, the Obama administration’s marquee foreclosure-prevention program is helping far fewer homeowners than President Obama promised.
• Economists, business officials and others say <ahref="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/23/AR2010032304133.html">the Obama administration’s U.S. export five-year plan will fail to boost employment as promised as trade disputes threaten to crimp American sales abroad.

http://blog.heritage.org/2010/03/24/…or-the-people/

On 03.24.10 06:25 AM posted by Kiki Bradley

<ahref="http://blog.heritage.org/wp-content/uploads/welfare1.jpg"></p>Today the U.S. House of Representatives will take up a new “jobs” bill, HR4849, that includes a $2.5 billion provision to expand the size of welfare rolls and pay states when they add people to their caseloads. The Senate defeated a similar amendment by Senator Patty Murray (D-WA) earlier this month. However, it has been resurrected in the Ways and Means Committee and added to the “jobs” bill now before the House.

The provision is actually a one-year extension of a new welfare program created as part of last year’s infamous stimulus package. Known as the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Emergency Fund, it was a new $5 billion program intended to be a “temporary” measure for a one-year period. However, the President’s 2011 Budget requests an expansion of the program and Congress has readily acted to fulfill the request.<spanid="more-29630"></span>

This anti-reform fund actually pays states ‘bonus” money for increasing the size of their welfare caseloads without any incentives to place people into jobs and move them off of the dole. The fund <ahref="http://www.heritage.org/Research/Family/wm2819.cfm">undermines the great success of the 1996 welfare reform law, which gave states incentives to move people into jobs and job preparation activities by allowing them to keep the savings generated from moving people off of welfare and into jobs.

Welfare reform ended the practice of reimbursing states on a per capita basis and instead gave a fixed block grant to the states that didn’t fluctuate according to caseload size. Strong work requirements turned welfare offices into job placement offices. As a result, the national caseload shrunk by over 2.8 million families between 1996 and 2009. In addition, <ahref="http://heritage.org/Research/Welfare/wm1183.cfm">child poverty dropped and employment increased for never married mothers.

The TANF Emergency Fund being extended by President Obama and Congress will have the effect of reversing welfare reform. Caseloads will increase as states pad the rolls with more recipients at the cost of billions of taxpayer dollars. The welfare state will grow decisively and lead to tens of thousands of more people dependent on the government.

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

On 03.24.10 07:04 AM posted by Rory Cooper

</p>Yesterday, President Obama signed his health spending bill into law promising the American people: “These reforms won’t give the government <ahref="http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2010/03/obama_and_biden_remarks_on_new.html">more control over your health care.” This statement is simply untrue, otherwise over <ahref="http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/now_the_TVLRWxc94TliCHb1UBYeBJ">16,000 new IRS agents wouldn’t need to be hired to enforce the mandates. And if this was the case, Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) wouldn’t need to introduce an amendment to the reconciliation bill that would “<ahref="http://dailycaller.com/2010/03/24/tom-coburn-health-care-amendments-demand-tough-votes-from-democrats/">limit the amount of discretion given to the Secretary of Health and Human Services under the current bill to determine acceptable levels of coverage and services.”<spanid="more-29631"></span>

And if government wasn’t exerting control of your life, then you could keep the health insurance you have now with zero changes, but sadly that won’t be the case for many Americans. But don’t take our word for it. Here is audio of Congressman John Dingell (D-MI), a champion of this legislation telling radio host <ahref="http://www.wjr.com/Article.asp?id=1742921&spid=34612">Paul Smith on WJR in Detroit: “It takes a long time to do the necessary administrative steps that have to be taken to put the legislation together to control the people.” Rep. Dingell has held his seat in Michigan for over 55 years. That is certainly a long time before he finally achieved his goals to “control the people.”

http://blog.heritage.org/2010/03/24/…ol-the-people/

On 03.24.10 08:00 AM posted by Hans Von Spakovsky

<ahref="http://blog.heritage.org/wp-content/uploads/census031210.jpg"></p>Mark Krikorian of the Center for Immigration Studies and I have been talking on at <ahref="http://corner.nationalreview.com/">NRO’s The Corner about the Census form and the particularly obnoxious Question 9 asking the person’s “race.” Mark sent his form in after marking the option for “Some other race” and writing in “American” and he had a column in USA Today about it. As I <ahref="http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MjU1YTE0ZjQ5YTYwMWVkMzlmMTc5MTIxY2I2ODQyY2I=">p ointed out, federal law specifies that you can be fined if you either don’t answer ($100 per question) or provide a false answer ($500 per question). So the question arises whether Mark’s answer could get him in trouble.

There is no question that the bureaucrats at the Census Bureau will not like that answer. It is likely that one of their temporary workers will call Mark or actually pay a visit to his residence if they cannot get hold of him or he refuses to change his answer on the phone. If they still can’t get the kind of answer they want, they apparently will just impute his race based on what he looks like or where he lives – a practice that means the Census will be filled with questionable, inaccurate data. It is also highly-offensive racial stereotyping and profiling in a society where so many of us are of mixed race and ancestry. In a report it issued on the 2010<spanid="more-29645"></span> Census, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights recommended that the race question be made voluntary like religious affiliation questions (see 13 U.S.C. § 221(c)) and that individuals be able to provide whatever answer they think is most appropriate for their race, ethnicity or ancestry.

Under current law, the real question that arises is whether the Census Bureau could win a case against someone it decides to prosecute for answering “American.” This is a very interesting issue and it may be one the Bureau really does not want to face in court. Why? Because their question on race and the choices provided is a conglomeration of political correctness and half-baked, liberal social policy theories and assumptions that have absolutely nothing to do with hard science, biology and genetics.

For example, the question asks for your race, yet it then gives you a number of choices like Japanese, Korean and Vietnamese that are nationalities based on ancestry, not racial categories. Or they are geographically-based terms – one of the choices is “Guamanian or Chamorro,” terms that refer to the residents of the Mariana Islands, which includes the American territory of Guam and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Island in Micronesia. Question 8 on the Census form, which asks whether a person is “of Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish origin,” even uses totally made-up terms like “Chicano,” which has no scientifically-based meaning. It is just an ethnic label that became popular in the 1960’s as part of the radical Chicano movement.

The Encyclopedia Britannica says that scientists do not agree on the number of races that exist, nor “the features to be used in the identification of races, or the meaning of race itself…Thus, race has never in the history of its use had a precise meaning…[and] modern researchers have concluded that the concept of race has no biological validity.” So if your official choice on the form includes different kinds of nationalities in the answer to Question 9, then one could try to convince a judge that being “American” is just as valid a choice of nationalities. This is particularly true since the Census relies on self-identification.

Most people have no idea what their real “race” is since that would require genetic research and tracking back your ancestors through many generations. If I look white but have a great-great-great-grandmother who was an American Indian, can the Census Bureau contest my marking the American Indian category? If I have ancestors that were white, black, and American Indian, what am I supposed to choose? “American” seems the best way to describe the polyglot background that so many of us have. Or is the Census Bureau going to analyze how many drops of my blood are traceable to a particular racial or ethnic category the way Southern states did during Jim Crow?

There may have been a reason to collect racial information in 1850 when many nonwhites were only counted as 3/5’s of a person for reapportionment and tax purposes, but it is questionable whether the data should be collected today. On the one hand, there is no doubt the racial information will be used for pernicious reasons during redistricting and the distribution of federal largesse. On the other hand, it can also be used as evidence to combat those who claim that this nation has made no racial progress over the past 40 years, a claim that is completely untrue. As with a lot of things, it is a very mixed bag of bad and good. But I agree with Ward Connerly when he testified before the Commission on Civil Rights that classifying and subdividing Americans is “repugnant, ‘inhuman’ to use the characterization of Nelson Mandela, and socially regressive for a nation that proclaims as its creed ‘one nation, indivisible.’”

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

On 03.24.10 09:00 AM posted by Mike Brownfield

</p>One of the more controversial – and unconstitutional – components of health care reform President Barack Obama signed into law yesterday is Congress’ mandate that individuals purchase health insurance or face a fine.

The Heritage Foundation has documented that*<ahref="http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2009/12/Why-the-Personal-Mandate-to-Buy-Health-Insurance-Is-Unprecedented-and-Unconstitutional">there is no provision in the Constitution empowering Congress to force Americans to buy a good or service. What’s more, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office agrees*<ahref="http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/48xx/doc4816/doc38.pdf">the mandate is entirely unprecedented.

So where does Congress get the authority to justify that provision? On Friday, <ahref="http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/63182">CNSNews.com went to House Judiciary Committee Chairman Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) for answers:

<spanid="more-29656"></span>

CNSNEWS: “What part of the Constitution do you think gives Congress the authority to mandate individuals to purchase health insurance?”

Rep. Conyers: “Under several clauses. The good and welfare clause, and a couple others.”

The “Good and Welfare” clause simply doesn’t exist. It’s nowhere to be found in the Constitution. CNSNews.com reports:

The word “good” only appears once in the Constitution, in Article 3, Section 1, which deals with the Judicial Branch, not the powers of Congress. Article 3, Section 1 says in part: “The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.”

As an aside, Rep. Conyers <ahref="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Conyers">has a law degree, and his committee is responsible for overseeing the federal court system, which in turn interprets and applies the law of the land.

http://blog.heritage.org/2010/03/24/…0-years-later/

On 03.24.10 10:00 AM posted by Dean Cheng

<ahref="http://blog.heritage.org/wp-content/uploads/lbj-obama.jpg"></p>A President presides over an unpopular war, while pursuing domestic goals that are the centerpiece of his actual interest. He is forced to choose between focusing his attention on developments overseas, and pushing through major domestic programs that will dramatically expand the purview of government. Which does he choose?

Barack Obama in 2010? Or Lyndon Baines Johnson in 1965?<spanid="more-29668"></span>

In the 1960s, LBJ became consumed with the Vietnam War, even going so far as to have a model of the firebase at Khe Sanh built to allow him to track events there and ensure that there would be “no damn Din Bin Phoo.” While he pushed for, and got “Great Society,” it was not as broad as he’d hoped (including the lack of state-run healthcare).

Fifty years later, another Democratic President, confronted with a war in Afghanistan and Iraq, a growing Chinese economy, and global terrorism — while pursuing health care reform — has chosen to follow the exact opposite path. Rather than focus on American foreign policy, the President’s announcement that he was cancelling his trip to Indonesia and Australia makes clear that, for President Obama, his focus is on domestic issues.

The problem is that, while there are 435 members of Congress who will happily engage in domestic broadsides and policy-wonking, there is only one person who truly encapsulates American power abroad, and that is the President of the United States. For the President to postpone his foreign obligations in favor of what is hardly a domestic crisis (recalling that he had demanded the health care bill be on his desk for signing over six months ago) suggests a failure to understand the American role in the world.

Worse, the range of foreign policy issues that are confronting this President, from Iranian nuclear proliferation to continuing global economic weakness to growing threats to basic global governance (e.g., piracy, cyber-crime), are receiving short shrift, and this delay only shouts that from the roof-tops. How can the President continue to claim that Asia is a priority when a six-month late domestic reform measure trumps ties to a close ally and strategic partner in the making?

The most worrisome part is that pursuing both an expansive spending/regulatory domestic program and a major war resulted in a permanent loss of economic growth. The Obama administration may not be spending as much on the war, but their unprecedented deficits and debilitating regulatory agenda raise the specter that the coming decades will reveal persistently high unemployment and slow wage growth.

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

On 03.24.10 10:30 AM posted by Rob Bluey

<ahref="http://blog.heritage.org/wp-content/uploads/senate-judiciary-press-conference.jpg"></p>Rumors of a possible Supreme Court retirement this summer have Washington buzzing with anticipation. Adding to the intrigue is the <ahref="http://article.nationalreview.com/429125/unsound-and-unfit/edward-whelan">controversial nomination of Goodwin Liu for the 9th U.S.*Circuit Court of Appeals.

Senate Republicans <ahref="http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/03/24/republicans-use-objections-stall-senate-hearings-force-votes-health-care/">used a procedural move Wednesday to postpone Liu’s hearing. But the delay will likely do little to lower the stakes surrounding his nomination. Liu’s outspoken opposition to the nominations of <ahref="http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=alGK4Jy5eXwc&refer=column ist_liu-redirectoldpage">Chief Justice John Roberts and <ahref="http://judiciary.senate.gov/hearings/testimony.cfm?id=1725&wit_id=4902">Justice Samuel Alito made him a hero of the far left. And his stance on issues ranging from <ahref="http://blog.heritage.org/2010/03/23/goodwin-liu-obama%E2%80%99s-most-radical-judicial-nominee/">welfare rights to the death penalty would make him one of the most activist judges, if confirmed, on the left-leaning 9th Circuit.

“Obama has decided, in a bow to the left wing, to nominate a poster child from Berkeley who checks off every radical liberal ideological box,” said Gary Marx, executive director of the <ahref="http://judicialnetwork.com/">Judicial Crisis Network. “Goodwin Liu is their dream to have on the Supreme Court someday. They are desperately looking for a liberal counterweight to [Justice Antonin] Scalia on the court.”

<spanid="more-29681"></span>The wildcard, of course, is the*<ahref="http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jp9jrwkjig6vQnONc-Zyk9lChX8wD9EFDT783">recent announcement from Justice John Paul Stevens that he will step down before President Obama’s first term ends. Stevens could leave as early as this summer (he’s hired only one clerk), particularly if the political climate continues to threaten liberal incumbents in the Senate.

Even if Liu is confirmed to the 9th Circuit seat, it’s unclear if he would <ahref="http://bench.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NzgzZTMwMTZjNTkxM2FmZTkzY2E0NmQ3YmQxNTA2OTU=">h ave the qualifications for the Supreme Court. There would be precedent, however, for elevating an appellate court judge in such short order. David Souter was confirmed for the 1st*U.S. Circuit*Court of Appeals on April 27, 1990. Three months later, on July 25, 1990, President George H.W. Bush nominated Souter for the Supreme Court.

Just as liberals feared that a young Miguel Estrada was destined for the high court when President George W. Bush nominated him to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in 2001, those same feelings exist about Liu. The left pulled out all the stops to oppose Estrada, eventually prompting him to <ahref="http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/09/04/estrada.withdraws/">withdraw his nomination in 2003.

In addition to his potential grooming for the Supreme Court, there are other reasons the left is salivating at the prospect of Liu’s confirmation. Obama’s nomination of Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court was <ahref="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/21/AR2010032102581_pf.html">viewed by liberals as a pragmatic choice. There have also been <ahref="http://www.latimes.com/news/nation-and-world/la-na-obama-judges15-2010mar15,0,118526.story">grumblings on the left about Obama’s*commitment*to reshaping the judiciary.

Liu makes no secret about his judicial philosophy and liberal interpretation of the U.S. Constitution. In a September 2009 article for the <ahref="http://www.acslaw.org/node/14041">American Constitution Society, Liu and Pamela Karlan wrote:

For too long, liberals, progressives … have been defensive about how the Constitution should be interpreted. But an examination of the document itself and the way its principles have been applied over time reveals that the progressive view is in fact the one that has prevailed.

He told <ahref="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eY1F07YqJRY">The Brennan Center For Justice in May 2009: “I would hope that the Obama administration would appoint judges who are broad-minded in their view of the kinds of sources that are legitimate to take into account in reading, especially the Constitution, but broadly legal texts of all sorts.”

As Heritage’s Debbie O’Malley wrote yesterday on <ahref="http://blog.heritage.org/2010/03/23/goodwin-liu-obama%E2%80%99s-most-radical-judicial-nominee/">The Foundry:

Judges are not interpreters of ’social meaning.’ They are interpreters of the Constitution and laws. Regrettably, it is just this sort of loose theory that allows judges to ignore the plain and ordinary meaning of the Constitution and statutes, and to instead replace it with what they personally think is best based upon their subjective interpretation of ’social meaning.’

For the left, however, this is precisely the type of justice they want on the bench.

http://blog.heritage.org/2010/03/24/…n-liu-matters/

On 03.24.10 11:00 AM posted by Nicholas Hamisevicz

<ahref="http://blog.heritage.org/wp-content/uploads/Sheikh-Hasina.jpg"></p>Bangladeshi Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina’s recent trip to China, following close on the heels of her January trip to India, demonstrates Bangladeshi leaders are leveraging the country’s increasingly important geostrategic position vis-à-vis Asia’s two rising powers. *India is watching closely and with a certain degree of concern China’s growing interest in establishing links to South Asia, India’s traditional sphere of influence. *The U.S., too, must find new ways to partner with Bangladesh – a country with the world’s third largest Muslim population – to encourage democratic trends, steady development of the country’s economy, and <ahref="http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2010/03/Bangladesh-Checking-Islamist-Extremism-in-a-Pivotal-Democracy">efforts to keep Islamist extremists at bay.<spanid="more-29683"></span>

According to Bangladeshi Foreign Minister Dipu Moni, during Sheikh Hasina’s trip to China, <ahref="http://in.reuters.com/article/economicNews/idINIndia-47119120100322">she gained pledges from China to finance further development of the Chittagong sea port as well as rail links from Chittagong through Burma to Yunnan province in China.* Though not specifically in the joint statement between the two countries, this move will give Bangladesh the upgrades it needs to increase productivity and capabilities in Chittagong and give China an access route to the Indian Ocean for its goods. The port of Chittagong in Bangladesh, along with ports in Pakistan, Sri Lanka, and Burma, is <ahref="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/16/business/global/16port.html?scp=3&sq=Sri%20Lanka&st=cse">often cited as a new outlet for China’s strategic and commercial purposes, giving it access to the Indian Ocean, a counter to Indian influence, and an alternative to the Malacca Straits route.

Yet, in her trip to India in January, Prime Minister Hasina also <ahref="http://www.mofa.gov.bd/index.php?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=549">agreed to the opening up of the Chittagong port to goods shipped to and from India, Nepal, and Bhutan. In addition, the United States has been active in Chittagong with the USS Patriot, a mine countermeasures ship, finishing a week long part call there on March 19.* <ahref="http://dhaka.usembassy.gov/uploads/images/ejxUxdCdW9NbsCUyoSNeAQ/11_mar_10_USS_Patriot_Arrival_En.Bn.pdf">The USS Patriot is already the third U.S. naval vessel to visit Chittagong this year.* Thus, it seems Bangladesh is seeking to leverage its strategically located port to bring in as much business, partnerships, and naval visits as possible to increase the country’s economic and political status.

At a multilateral level, press reports indicate Prime Minister Hasina appealed to China to be more active in its observer role in the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC).* In the <ahref="http://www.fmprc.gov.cn/eng/zxxx/t674421.htm">joint statement, Bangladesh “expressed support for Chinese efforts to enhance cooperation with the SAARC community.”

The U.S. must also remain closely engaged in promoting South Asia regional cooperation, serving as an active observer within the SAARC. Asian allies Japan, South Korea, and Australia also have observer status within the SAARC.* In coordination with these Asian allies, the U.S. should encourage South Asia countries to continue to lower barriers to trade, increase mechanisms for consolidating democracy, and improve counterterrorism cooperation efforts.

The increased Chinese engagement in South Asia and visits like that of the Bangladeshi PM to Beijing highlight the need for the U.S. to demonstrate the benefits of its own leadership and influence in the region and to collaborate <ahref="http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2008/11/US-India-Relations-The-China-Factor">more closely with India on initia*tives that strengthen economic development and democratic trends in the region.

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

On 03.24.10 11:14 AM posted by Nick Loris

One of the common arguments made against wind power is that without government subsidies, mandates or tax credits, wind turbines would not be built. But even when companies do receive preferential treatment to build windmills, just because they’re built doesn’t mean they’re going to work. For that, there needs to be (drum roll, please)…wind! A <ahref="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1259573/More-20-wind-farms-operating-fifth-power-breezy-enough.html">report from Britain says:

“The analysis of power output found that more than 20 wind farms are operating at less than one-fifth of their full capacity. Experts say many turbines are going up on sites that are simply not breezy enough. They also accuse developers of ‘grossly exaggerating’ the amount of energy they will generate in order to get their hands on subsidies designed to boost the production of green power.

While it is possible some of the results were skewed by breakdowns, the revelation that so many are under-performing will be of great interest to those who argue that wind farms are little more than expensive eyesores. The analysis was carried out by Michael Jefferson, an environmental consultant and a professor of international business and sustainability. He believes that financial incentives designed to help Britain meet is green energy targets are encouraging firms to site their wind farms badly.”

<spanid="more-29702"></span>

In other wind farm news, although the event was <ahref="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1260115/Europes-largest-windfarm-shut-turbine-blade-snaps.html">called “exceptionally rare and highly unusual”, Europe’s largest wind farm had to be shut down because a <ahref="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1260115/Europes-largest-windfarm-shut-turbine-blade-snaps.html">14-ton turbine snapped. It’s not the first time a windmill broke and fortunately no one was hurt. A turbine snapping is no reason to stop building windmills just as coal mining accidents are not reason to completely cut off our coal supply. Accidents happen in any industry and it’s a company’s job to learn from them and improve both quality and safety.

If businesses find it profitable to build supply energy in a variety of ways without government handouts, increased competition will only benefit the consumer. Yet, we’re being told we need to transition to a clean energy economy and that the United States needs to be the leader in building these technologies <ahref="http://environment.about.com/b/2010/01/27/obama-state-of-the-union.htm">because, “the nation that leads the clean energy economy will be the nation that leads the global economy. And America must be that nation,” said President Obama in his State of the Union address. If renewable energy eventually competes in the marketplace, economist Don Boudreaux <ahref="http://cafehayek.com/2010/02/whats-the-goal.html">says, “So what if the Chinese are world-leading producers of such equipment? Specializing in the production of other goods and services – things that we produce more efficiently than the Chinese – we Americans can then buy solar panels and wind turbines from the Chinese for use in our homes and offices. The latitudinal and longitudinal coordinates of the factories where the final assembly of such equipment occurs are irrelevant.” That’s not to say U.S. can’t be a leader in wind mill production, but market-based policies are the best way to ensure that America’s renewable energy production is as competitive as possible.

In addition, the cleanliness in the President’s mission to green our economy may be a bit over hyped. We not only use fossil fuels to make turbines but also provide back up power when the windmills don’t spin. Since it’s too costly to stop and start a power plant, wind simply creates more emissions. Or, as Todd Wynn of the Cascade Policy Institute <ahref="http://www.katu.com/news/local/87439577.html?">points out, in some instances wind replaces CO2-free sources of energy, like hydroelectricity: “So when the wind blows, the dams stop generating electricity, and when the wind stops, the dams continue to generate electricity. So, in fact, wind power is just offsetting another renewable energy source. It’s not necessarily offsetting any fossil fuel generation.”

Wind may be economically viable in some parts of the United States, but we should let businesses and electricity consumers, not the government, decide that.

http://blog.heritage.org/2010/03/24/…-wind-to-work/

On 03.24.10 12:00 PM posted by Morgan Roach

</p>While Moscow has contributed to much of the Russian public’s distaste towards the United States, Washington has focused on resetting relations with Russia’s government rather that its people. Yesterday, a panel hosted by The Heritage Foundation, “<ahref="http://www.heritage.org/Events/2010/03/Russian-Anti-Americanism">Russian Anti-Americanism: A Priority Target for U.S. Public Diplomacy,” focused on U.S. public diplomacy efforts in Russia.<spanid="more-29695"></span>

According to a <ahref="http://pewglobal.org/reports/pdf/267.pdf">Pew Foundation 2009 public opinion poll, 62 percent of Russians regard the influence of the United States as bad, compared to 15 percent who regard it as good. While Kremlin-supported youth organizations, think tanks, documentaries and movies, and a robust media campaigns according to Daniel Kimmage, Senior Fellow at the <ahref="http://www.homelandsecurity.org/Default.aspx?AspxAutoDetectCookieSupport=1">Homela nd Security Policy Institute, often blame the United States for Russia’s declining international power, the United States has done very little to counter these measures.* The first step towards addressing this problem should be to <ahref="http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2010/02/Russian-Anti-Americanism-A-Priority-Target-for-US-Public-Diplomacy#_ftn12">create an account of Russian information operations in the United States.

In other words, the State Department needs to conduct extensive research on Russia’s activities and find out how effective they are. Once this is completed, according to Kimmage the U.S. must push back and counter these efforts.* It also must be kept in mind that reaching out and engaging the Russian public, rather than the Kremlin is the public diplomacy objective.* The U.S. should focus on launching internet campaigns, increasing international broadcasting and print media as well as revamping academic, student and business exchange programs.* Furthermore, as U.S. public diplomacy is meant to promote democratic values abroad, the Obama administration should continue to fund those programs committed to promoting liberty and equality. **The U.S. should work with an audience willing to listen rather than one which merely rebuffs advances in relations.

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

On 03.24.10 04:00 AM posted by Rob Bluey

A*jubilant*President Obama put his signature on health care legislation yesterday, but the work isn’t done quite yet. The U.S. Senate must pass the Reconciliation Act of 2010, making a number of tax changes to current law.

By signing the legislation, Obama already broke his campaign promise not to raise “any form” of taxes on families making less than $250,000 per year. The reconciliation bill adds even more taxes for Americans — an estimated $52.3 billion over 10 years, according to a new analysis from Americans for Tax Reform.

ATR’s Ryan Ellis spoke at The Bloggers Briefing yesterday*about the reconciliation measure:*”We lost a major fight on Sunday. That fight is lost; President Obama has signed it into law. Rather than wallowing … and waiting until the election, we have a fight this week on the floor in the Senate. Do we want to have an additional tax increase on top of the tax increase that has just been signed into law?”

Heritage’s Robert Book, Guinevere Nell and Paul Winfree have been documenting these tax changes, noting how the legislation imposes new taxes on employers, the sick, and low-income and moderate-income workers.

Below is a table showing taxes that apply to everyone regardless of income.

http://blog.heritage.org/2010/03/24/…en-more-taxes/

On 03.23.10 08:00 AM posted by Brandon Stewart

</p>In the final hours before the passage of Obamacare, Rep. Bart Stupak (D-MI) and his*like-minded*Democratic colleagues <ahref="http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20000845-503544.html">announced that they would vote for the legislation after President Barack Obama agreed to sign an executive order purporting to prevent the federal government from funding abortions. But one of the problem’s with this approach is that the President isn’t bound to preserve the executive order for any length of time. The President could wake up the day after signing this executive order and rescind it. Stupak himself acknowledged this in an interview with Fox News’ Megyn Kelly:<spanid="more-29480"></span>

Kelly: What is to stop this openly pro-choice President from reversing himself on this? We’ve seen him on the other deals that were offered to get Senator’s votes in connection with this bill. What is to stop him from reversing himself on this executive order now that he has got your vote?

Stupak: Well that’s why we have asked for it to be public. We will have a public signing of this …

Kelly: The Senate deals were public too …

Stupak: I know. And you’re right, Megyn, there is nothing that would stop this President from a month from now, a year from now, 10 years from now, [from] repealing this executive order.

The plain truth is that an executive order is simply not the same as enshrining these pro-life protections into the health care bill.

http://blog.heritage.org/2010/03/23/…axpayer-money/

On 03.23.10 09:28 AM posted by Conn Carroll

<ahref="http://blog.heritage.org/wp-content/uploads/MICKEY-MOUSE.jpg"></p>The<ahref="http://blog.heritage.org/2010/02/16/morning-bell-dont-celebrate-first-failed-stimulus-with-a-second-one/"> failures of President Barack Obama’s $862 billion stimulus <ahref="http://blog.heritage.org/2010/02/18/stimulus-fail-green-your-home-for-57000/">are <ahref="http://blog.heritage.org/2010/02/12/ap-obamas-jobs-bill-wont-create-many-jobs/">legend, but the $8 billion the Obama administration will waste on high-speed rail is particularly galling. The New York Times <ahref="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/23/us/23train.html?ref=todayspaper">reports today:

The drive from Orlando to Tampa takes only 90 minutes or so. Despite the short distance, the Obama administration awarded Florida $1.25 billion in stimulus money to link the cities with a fast train to help kick off its efforts to bring high-speed rail service to the United States.
…
Proponents of high-speed rail worry that the new line, which is scheduled to be up and running in 2015, might hurt rather than help their cause, if it comes to be seen as little more than an expensive way to whisk tourists from Orlando International Airport to Walt Disney World, which is slated to get its own stop.

<spanid="more-29537"></span>Heritage fellow Ron Utt has <ahref="http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2010/03/America-s-Coming-High-Speed-Rail-Financial-Disaster">written extensively on why high-speed rail is such a financial disaster:

In 2008, Amtrak’s inspector general published an analysis of government subsidies to passenger rail in Europe and compared them to Amtrak’s subsidies. One purpose of the review was to address the contention that passenger rail in other countries, especially HSR, operates at a profit (i.e., without subsidies). For 1995-2006, the study found that the governments of Germany, France, the United Kingdom, Spain, Denmark, and Austria spent “a combined total of $42 billion annually on their national passenger railroads.” The $42 billion that these six countries, which have a combined population of 269 million, spent on just passenger rail in 2006is roughly proportionate to the $54.8 billion (most of which was funded by user fees) that the government of the United States (population of 309 million) spent on all forms of transportation, including highways, rail, aviation, water transport, and mass transit.

To put the European commitment to passenger rail in perspective, rail ridership (high speed, conventional intercity, and metropolitan commuter rail) in these six countries accounted for just 7.9 percent of all surface transportation modes on a per passenger, per billion kilometer basis. This suggests that these countries received a poor return on their money given that more than 90 percent of passengers in these countries chose other travel modes– mostly auto–despite the subsidies.

In addition to the $8 billion the Obama administration is wasting on high speed rail, Rep. James Oberstar (D-WI) wants to blow another $50 billion on HSR over the next five years. That’s a lot of trips to the Enchanted Kingdom on the taxpayers dime.

http://blog.heritage.org/2010/03/23/…ulus-spending/

On 03.23.10 10:18 AM posted by Conn Carroll

As we <ahref="http://blog.heritage.org/2010/03/23/reagan-missile-defense-speech-matters-more-than-ever/">mentioned earlier this morning, today is the 27th anniversary of President Ronald Reagan’s Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) speech; the speech that paved the way for our nation’s successful missile defense program. However, America faces another threat, one that requires Congress’s immediate attention: an electromagnetic pulse (EMP) attack. Heritage fellow Jen McNeill <ahref="http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2010/03/Time-for-an-EMP-Recognition-Day">makes the case for raising recognition of this new threat by making March 23rd EMP Recognition Day:

The likelihood of an EMP attack is disconcerting. Nearly 30 countries currently possess ballistic missile capabilities. Indeed, some have extensive knowledge of EMP and its effects. North Korea currently possesses a large arsenal of missiles and has been publicly testing its ballistic weapons. It has also been reported that Russian scientists have worked with North Korea on developing an EMP weapon. Countries and non-state actors are also exploring improvised or non-nuclear EMPs as a means of harnessing the destructive power of EMP without the need for missile capabilities. EMP has even been seen to occur naturally during a solar flare event (the last of which happened in the late 1800s).<spanid="more-29548"></span>

Despite such concerns and repeated warnings from the congressionally mandated EMP Commission, the President’s budget does not place a great enough emphasis on missile defense, let alone the EMP threat. For instance, the President’s Fiscal Year (FY) 2011 budget requested $9.9 billion for missile defense, a $600 million decrease from FY 2009 (although a $900 million increase over FY 2010). Neither Congress nor the White House has looked extensively at hardening critical infrastructure against EMP or revising recovery plans or disaster planning scenarios to be reflective of this unique threat.

Given the increased likelihood that the U.S. could suffer an EMP attack in the near future, the time has come for Congress to recognize the danger that EMP poses and act to address this threat. If, just for one day, Congress simulated even a fraction of the impact such an attack would have, the scope of the danger would be clear. To do so, Congress should establish an EMP Recognition Day.

You can read McNeill’s full WebMemo, <ahref="http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2010/03/Time-for-an-EMP-Recognition-Day">here.

http://blog.heritage.org/2010/03/23/…cognition-day/

On 03.23.10 11:00 AM posted by Nicholas Hamisevicz

<ahref="http://blog.heritage.org/wp-content/uploads/GoogleChina.jpg"></p>After trying to work with Chinese authorities and live up to its announcement in January that it would not longer censor its searches in China, Google <ahref="http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2010/03/new-approach-to-china-update.html">redirected its Google.cn website to Google.com.hk.* Google argues that this move would help its mainland China users get uncensored searches via Hong Kong servers.* Nevertheless, using Hong Kong does not solve Google’s China problem, and the connection with Hong Kong will not be free and easy.

<ahref="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/23/AR2010032301250.html?hpid=topnews">The Washington Post has already reported that sensitive searches on the Hong Kong site have been blocked.* China is not worried about the small number of people in Hong Kong looking to the mainland for information, but it is concerned about those on the mainland looking out.* Hong Kong authorities do not have to do anything.* The Great Firewall in China just has to prevent users from accessing information in Hong Kong, which the Post has said is already happening.

It is important to remember that Hong Kong’s political set-up is also in China’s favor.* The Chief Executive of Hong Kong is chosen by 800 electors, <ahref="http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2008/03/Hong-Kong-in-a-Box">all of whom are selected because they will vote as Beijing instructs.* <spanid="more-29556"></span>The Legislative Council is split between those who are freely elected and those chosen by China.* Thus, if China perceives a threat to its information security stemming from Hong Kong, it has an outlet to check that threat.* Moreover, if there were those in Hong Kong politics that supported more Internet freedom, they would not have the votes necessary to make laws supporting great access to information for mainland Chinese citizens.

Google is in a tough situation and this redirection of their Google.cn site is probably the best move they can make in order to maintain their pledge to stop censoring its searches in China.* Google’s move could help some by providing a direct link to a search engine that should have fewer censorship issues than the original Google.cn. However, such measures ultimately will not expand Chinese internet freedom appreciably. Connecting through Google is now one more difficult step away for those inside China.* Furthermore, China’s relationship with, and influence on, Hong Kong is strong enough that there will still be a very difficult struggle for access to complete information located beyond the Great Firewall.

http://blog.heritage.org/2010/03/23/…y-as-it-seems/

On 03.23.10 11:50 AM posted by Deborah O’Malley

It is difficult to imagine the Ninth Circuit as any more radically liberal than it already is. Despite a few stellar judges, the Court is full of liberal activists who have earned it the reputation of having the highest Supreme Court reversal rate of any court in the nation.* But, with his latest judicial nominee, President Obama just may do what seemed impossible.

There are many red flags in the judicial record of Ninth Circuit nominee Goodwin Liu, who is Associate Dean at the University of California Berkeley Law School.* Here are just a few highlights.

• Judicial Philosophy: Though Liu has stressed “constitutional fidelity” in several articles, he has also stated that he “envisions the judiciary…as a culturally situated interpreter of social meaning.”* While this statement makes it ever so clear that Liu is an academic, it also makes clear that he does not understand the judiciary’s role.* Judges are not interpreters of “social meaning.”* They are interpreters of the Constitution and laws.* Regrettably, it is just this sort of loose theory that allows judges to ignore the plain and ordinary meaning of the Constitution and statutes, and to instead replace it with what they personally think is best based upon their subjective interpretation of “social meaning.”<spanid="more-29563"></span>

• Constitutional Welfare Rights: Liu has a strong penchant for redistribution, and it is clear that he believes judges should play a role in it.* In an article titled, “Rethinking Constitutional Welfare Rights,” he lays out his vision for the creation of a constitutional right to welfare.* He desires a “reinvigorated public dialogue” about “our commitments to mutual aid and distributive justice across a broad range of social goods.”* Once this dialogue takes place among policymakers, Liu wants the courts to recognize “a fundamental right to education or housing or medical care…as an interpretation and consolidation of the values we have gradually internalized as a society.”

In another article, he stated that “negative rights against government oppression” and “positive rights to government assistance” have “equal constitutional status” because “both are essential to liberty.”

Unfortunately for Liu, our Constitution’s Framers disagree.* They recognized that these two concepts are indeed mutually exclusive: if we allow the government to “assist us” by giving it a redistributive power over our personal property and the power to control health care, education, etc., individual liberty will necessarily erode. Indeed the Framers sought to prevent such redistribution by limiting government’s power and providing what Liu considers as “negative” property rights.* These protections have already been eroded by activist judges, and it is clear that Liu would like to erode those protections still further.

• Radical on Death Penalty: Liu has been outspoken in his opposition to the death penalty.* Kent Scheidegger of the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation has <ahref="http://www.crimeandconsequences.com/crimblog/2010/02/moving-usca9-in-the-wrong-dire.html">stated that, “To anyone familiar with the death penalty debate, it is painfully evident that Professor Liu takes the murderers’ side on every debatable point.* If confirmed, there is no doubt in my mind that he will be a vote to obstruct the enforcement of capital punishment in virtually every case.”

Reasonable people can disagree on death penalty policy, but it is not up to judges to determine that policy or undermine it through judicial obstruction.* The American people decide through the democratic process whether their respective states will utilize the death penalty.* The judge’s role in capital habeas corpus cases in the federal court of appeals system is predominantly to assure that grave errors were not made in the process—the questions of guilt or innocence and sentencing are reserved first and foremost for juries and are decided by multiple state and federal appeals before a federal appeals court judge takes a first look at the case.* But too many activist federal court of appeals judges treat death penalty cases like they are hearing them de novo—like it is their job to put themselves in the place of the jury, so that they can impose their own preferences, rather than simply review for actual legal errors.* Given Mr. Scheidegger’s warning, there is little doubt that Liu would be just this sort of judge.

• Racial Preferences and School Choice: <ahref="http://bench.nationalreview.com/post/?q=Y2JmNWRmYzFhOTkyZWZjNjI5OGM1YmI1M2IwOTcwMWY=">E d Whelan has pointed out that, in an article titled “<ahref="http://www.insidebayarea.com/crime-courts/ci_14520220?source=rss">School Choice to Achieve Desegregation,” Liu never embraces or even states his agreement with the Supreme Court’s 2002 ruling in Zelman v. Simmons-Harris that school-choice programs that include religious schools are constitutional.* However, Liu is willing to embrace school choice if it is directed to the illegal end of ensuring racial quotas in schools.* For example, Liu advocates “a funding set-aside in federal and state charter programs to create and reward charter schools that reflect the racial and socioeconomic diversity of the metropolitan area…where they are located.”* These set aside programs should “use the racial composition of the broader metropolitan area as the reference point for measuring and rewarding diversity.”

Liu’s other writings also make clear that he would impose racial preferences directly if he could.

• Lacking Experience: <ahref="http://bench.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NzgzZTMwMTZjNTkxM2FmZTkzY2E0NmQ3YmQxNTA2OTU=">E d Whelan and <ahref="http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/mar/03/a-constitutional-right-to-welfare/">The Washington Times have noted that Liu does not even meet the standard for federal judgeships outlined by the American Bar Association, which includes substantial courtroom and trial experience and at least 12 years practicing law.* Thirty-nine year old Liu has no experience as a trial lawyer and has not even been out of law school for twelve years.* (The fact that the ABA nonetheless rated him “well-qualified” suggests that their ratings are perhaps based on something other than qualification.)

Many pundits are speculating that the Ninth Circuit may be Liu’s stepping stone to the Supreme Court. *If this is the case, he could potentially be one of the most activist justices the High Court has seen yet.* Even the <ahref="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/21/AR2010032102581.html">Washington Post admits that Obama’s other federal nominees have been “more moderate” than Liu.

Liu’s confirmation hearing before the Senate is tomorrow.

http://blog.heritage.org/2010/03/23/…icial-nominee/

On 03.23.10 12:46 PM posted by Rob Bluey

U.S. Education Secretary Arne Duncan, while serving as Chicago Public Schools chief, maintained a list of special requests from politically connected*individuals for children to attend the city’s best schools. The information, reported today by the <ahref="http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2010/03/duncans-staff-kept-list-of-politicians-school-requests.html">Chicago Tribune and <ahref="http://www.suntimes.com/news/education/2116854,cps-duncan-list-political-school-requests-032210.article">Chicago Sun-Times, is the focus of a federal probe and investigation by the school district inspector general.

According to the <ahref="http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2010/03/duncans-staff-kept-list-of-politicians-school-requests.html">Tribune:

Whispers have long swirled that some children get spots in the city’s premier schools based on whom their parents know. But a list maintained over several years in Duncan’s office and obtained by the Tribune lends further evidence to those charges. … The log is a compilation of politicians and influential business people who interceded on behalf of children during Duncan’s tenure. It includes 25 aldermen, Mayor Richard Daley’s office, House Speaker Michael Madigan, his daughter Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan, former White House social secretary Desiree Rogers and former U.S. Sen. Carol Moseley Braun.

<spanid="more-29571"></span>Duncan’s role comes amid growing concerns in the District of Columbia over the fate of the <ahref="http://voicesofschoolchoice.org/">D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program, a signature school choice initiative that benefits low-income families. As education secretary, Duncan has overseen the dismantling of the program, which the Obama Administration has essentially left to die after strident opposition from Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) and teacher unions.

Obama’s fiscal 2011 budget <ahref="http://blog.heritage.org/2010/03/04/possible-action-today-on-the-d-c-opportunity-scholarship-program/">cuts funding for the program, leaving just $8 million for scholarship recipients for the remainder of their time in the program. And despite appeals from D.C. parents last August, <ahref="http://blog.heritage.org/2009/08/20/secretary-duncan-save-the-216/">Duncan withdrew the scholarships of 216 students who had been admitted to the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program. Those students are attending lower-performing schools as a result.

The irony, of course, is that Duncan himself <ahref="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arne_Duncan">attended the exclusive University of Chicago Lab Schools from kindergarten through 12th grade.

One has to wonder: What does Arne Duncan have against low-income students who, for the first time in decades, have found an effective education in the District of Columbia? Shouldn’t these students have the same opportunities as the rich and powerful who appealed to him for help in Chicago?

http://blog.heritage.org/2010/03/23/…-and-powerful/

On 03.23.10 01:00 PM posted by Chuck Donovan

<ahref="http://blog.heritage.org/wp-content/uploads/Stupak-10-03-23.jpg"></p>Sunday’s partisan vote for health care legislation in the House signals the likely end of longtime cross-party cooperation among Members opposed to abortion. The last-minute collapse of the Stupak 7, pro-life Democrats who voted for the Stupak-Pitts abortion funding limitation amendment on November 7, 2009, as well as for the House bill passed that same day, made the Democratic leaders’ retreat on the Hyde Amendment bicameral. It followed the defections last December of Senators Ben Nelson (D-NE) and Bob Casey (D-PA), who engineered much of the abortion language opposed by the<ahref="http://www.nrlc.org/ahc/CaseyProposalNRLCOppositionLetter.pdf"> National Right to Life Committee and other groups as “a political hoax.”

The Stupak Stumble follows the course of a long-term trajectory. For many years it has been nearly impossible for a Democrat with strong pro-life convictions to secure nomination to statewide federal office, much less the Presidency. Meanwhile, the number of pro-life Democrats in the U.S. House steadily declined for a generation, but there appeared to be a core group of more senior Members, <ahref="http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Columns/2010/March/031910Donovan.aspx">led by Bart Stupak (D-MI) and other Midwest Democrats, that would hold out against the blandishments of the Democratic leadership. That illusion was all but shattered Sunday, as the latest in a series of <ahref="http://blog.heritage.org/2010/03/16/piecrust-promises-part-two/">piecrust promises, <ahref="http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/03/21/stupak-says-health-care-deal-looming-abortion-funding/">a Presidential executive order, was enough to cover the Stupak 7’s vote for a bill they <ahref="http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1209/30811.html">had labeled “unacceptable” for months.

<spanid="more-29574"></span>It should be noted that another 19 Democrats both opposed the health care bill and supported a last-gasp motion to recommit the bill for inclusion of the original pro-life language. These members held fast and one of them – Rep. Dan Lipinski of suburban Chicago – flipped from a “yea” last November to a “nay” now solely because of the omission of Stupak-Pitts from the final bill. If there is a base for rebuilding the Democratic tradition on the abortion issue, it will have to come from this remnant.

At a deeper level, however, Sunday’s vote marks a profound philosophical Rubicon. The Democratic majority enacted a bill that is likely, combined with future actions on the “doc fix” in Medicare and other spending drivers, to cause <ahref="http://blog.heritage.org/2010/03/19/obamacares-delusional-deficit-reduction-claims/">the federal deficit and national debt to continue rising. This disregard for the next generation is part and parcel of the obtuseness that disregards the crumbling of family indicators (an out-of-wedlock birth rate likely to pass 40% of all births in the next report from the <ahref="http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/09newsreleases/unmarriedbirths.htm">National Center for Health Statistics and the<ahref="http://hotair.com/archives/2009/12/22/quinnipiac-americans-oppose-obamacare-abortion-funding-3-1/"> moral basis of millions of Americans’ concerns about publicly financed abortion.

Stupak’s abandonment of those concerns may have helped advance one major piece of legislation, but it has left a field of opportunity for advocates of a unified vision of the nation’s future. That vision is one that would recognize the fundamental integrity of policies that buttress civil society and foster the personal character and individual enterprise that are a nation’s greatest resources. The advantage will go to those public officials who give more <ahref="http://www.culture4freedom.com/indivisible/">attention to the indivisibility of such virtues as thrift and fidelity and the deferred gratification they require. But to coax these virtues forth, they must first be reinvigorated in <ahref="http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch13s36.html">those who elect our leaders.

Passage of the Democratic leadership’s health care bill may be historic, but so also is Stupak’s Stumble. And on both of these subjects, the <ahref="http://www.bartleby.com/73/762.html">American people will have the last word.

http://blog.heritage.org/2010/03/23/…-and-abortion/

On 03.23.10 02:00 PM posted by Kathryn Nix

</p>At the signing of the Senate health bill today, President Barack Obama said: “<ahref="http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2010/03/23/president-obama-signs-and-celebrates-his-partisan-victory">In a few moments, when I sign this bill, all of the overheated rhetoric over reform will finally confront the reality of reform.” Let’s review some of the “overheated rhetoric” that is about to get tested by reality.

Over the past months, the President and Congress have promised: that <ahref="http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2010/01/How-Health-Care-Reform-Will-Affect-Young-Adults">premiums would drop by $2500 per family; that if you like what you’ve got, <ahref="../2010/01/19/obamacare-the-raw-and-undeniable-facts">you can keep it; that it would <ahref="http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2010/02/Bending-the-Curve-What-Really-Drives-Health-Care-Spending">bend the cost curve down; that it would <ahref="../2010/03/18/obamacare-will-break-the-bank-not-cut-the-deficit">decrease the federal deficit.* The fact of the matter is, none of these things will become reality once the bill is implemented—these claims are nothing but the rhetoric attached to an unpopular piece of legislation in the hopes of creating support that has yet to materialize.

The truth about the bill is already becoming evident as effected parties become vocal with their concerns.* Some highlights just from today’s headlines include:<spanid="more-29573"></span>

State Medicaid Programs Worry About Cost of Expansion: The bill will increase coverage among the uninsured largely through the expansion of Medicaid, a low quality, poorly structured government health care program which is paid for jointly by the federal and state governments.* Though the bill will cover the cost of the benefits expansion, it will not cover the added administrative costs, <ahref="http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2010/01/Expanding-Medicaid-The-Real-Costs-to-the-States">which Heritage analyst Ed Haislmaier has highlighted. <ahref="http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=adgxwrGbvNUU">According to an article on Bloomberg.com, “States faced with unprecedented declines in tax collections are cutting benefits and payments to hospitals and doctors in Medicaid, the health program for the poor paid jointly by state and U.S. governments. The costs to hire staff and plan for the average 25 percent increase in Medicaid rolls may swamp budgets.”

<ahref="http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2010/01/Expanding-Medicaid-The-Real-Costs-to-the-States">Haislmaier projects the added administrative cost to the states would total $9.6 billion between 2014, when the provision is implemented, and 2019.* This extra burden comes at a time when states are trying to tighten their budgets to account for decreasing revenues.* **<ahref="http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2009/11/Medicaid-Meltdown-Dropping-Medicaid-Could-Save-States-1-Trillion">Research by former Heritage analyst Dennis Smith and Ed Haislmaier shows that, as the fiscal burden of the Medicaid expansion grows, it would be in states’ interests to drop the program entirely: “The savings to state budgets are so enormous that failure to leave Medicaid might be viewed as irresponsible on the part of elected state officials. The federal government, however, would be left holding a trillion-dollar-plus tab.”

Businesses that Offer Already Offer Insurance Face Growth-Stifling Expenses: <ahref="http://www.chicagobreakingbusiness.com/2010/03/caterpillar-health-care-bill-would-cost-it-100m.html">Caterpillar Inc. recently addressed a letter to House leadership claiming that the health care legislation passed Sunday would result in over $100 million in new costs for the company in the first year of implementation alone, due to the increase in Medicare taxes and mandated benefits.* Said the letter, “We can ill-afford cost increases that place us at a disadvantage versus our global competitors.”* Effects of the bill’s provisions will include job loss, wage reductions, and reduced hours, as testified by more than 130 economists in a <ahref="http://gopleader.gov/UploadedFiles/Economists_Letter_to_Obama_and_Congress_March.pdf" >letter to President Obama and members of Congress.

<ahref="http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2010/02/The-Presidents-Health-Proposal-Taxing-Investments-Undermines-Economic-Recovery">In recent research, Heritage analysts Karen Campbell and Guinevere Nell further demonstrate that the economic impact of taxing investments to pay for the bill will be disastrous.* In recent months, Americans have made it adamantly clear that their top priority is jobs and the economy—instead, Congress has delivered a health bill that will harm both and burden the ability of American companies to compete globally.

And this is just the tip of the iceberg.* <ahref="http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2010/03/What-House-Passage-of-the-Senate-Health-Bill-Means-for-America">The negative unintended consequences of the Senate bill will be quick to surface now that the bill has been signed into law.* Americans must remain aware of the direction in which this legislation will lead our nation such that <ahref="../2010/03/22/morning-bell-repeal">the requisite change will be swift and sure.

http://blog.heritage.org/2010/03/23/…-meet-reality/