Author: Heritage

On 04.14.10 01:02 PM posted by Ed Feulner

The day after the House voted to pass Obamacare, the New York Times declared “<ahref="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/22/opinion/22mon5.html?pagewanted=all">a triumph.” A few days later, President Obama told Iowa liberals that Obamacare is a “<ahref="http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/remarks-president-health-insurance-reform-university-iowa-field-house-iowa-city-iow">victory” and said the left has prevailed “after a century of trying.”

But how can a policy that buries the nation further into debt, strengthens the federal government, and undermines the very essence of our national character be labeled anything other than a dismal failure? It cannot. Obamacare fails the American people.

And it won’t end with health care. The left will use their so-called “victory” as an engine to plow through their progressive agenda. Their “victory” lap will likely include costly cap and tax energy programs, amnesty for illegal immigrants, and other big government proposals that all spell out one thing for each American — more money out of your pocket.

Here at The Heritage Foundation, we believe this is wrong. And we’re doing something about it.

<ahref="http://www.askheritage.org/TaxDay/?utm_source=foundry&utm_medium=blog&utm_content=ej fpost0414&utm_campaign=2010taxday">We’re conducting a Tax Day Money Bomb tomorrow to send our elected officials a message that their reckless spending ways must end. Our goal is to raise $150,000 — money that, unlike your tax dollars, won’t be wasted.<spanid="more-31302"></span>

Conservatives will not be silenced, especially if we’re expected to help foot the bill for these contentious policies. With our 633,000 members, The Heritage Foundation *is your voice in Washington. And our Tax Day Money Bomb is our way of turning up the volume!

My colleagues Ed Meese, Matt Spalding and Stuart Butler explain why the <ahref="http://www.askheritage.org/TaxDay/?utm_source=foundry&utm_medium=blog&utm_content=ej fpost0414&utm_campaign=2010taxday">Tax Day Money Bomb is so important in this video:

<ahref="http://www.askheritage.org/TaxDay/?utm_source=foundry&utm_medium=blog&utm_content=ej fpost0414&utm_campaign=2010taxday">Your donation tomorrow will help provide the resources necessary for our experts to mount an aggressive new effort to offer arguments with real research to make the case for lower taxes and limited government.

The fight for limited government requires constant vigilance and persistence. The Heritage Foundation will not back down, and I’m thankful to all of our members and supporters for standing with us.

http://blog.heritage.org/2010/04/14/…ay-money-bomb/

On 04.14.10 11:00 AM posted by Anthony B. Kim

<ahref="http://blog.heritage.org/wp-content/uploads/iPad.jpg"></p><ahref="http://www.professorbainbridge.com/professorbainbridgecom/">Professor Stephen Bainbridge, who is the William D. Warren Professor of Law at UCLA, shares the following insight on economic freedom:

I’m happy to acknowledge that the free market economy has produced profound blessings. But I’m not willing to swap my birthright of economic freedom for a “PDA” (how technologically quaint). Nor am I willing to stand by without protest while ever larger chunks of the American economy are turned over to the Obamabots–the very definition of “Social Engineers, who seek to adjust mankind to conform with scientific utopias.” After all, if we rely today on government to provide us with bread and circuses, what will we rely on government to provide tomorrow?

Readhis entire post <ahref="http://www.professorbainbridge.com/professorbainbridgecom/2010/04/swapping-their-birthright-of-freedom-for-an-ipad.html">Swapping their Birthright of Freedom for an iPad, <ahref="http://www.professorbainbridge.com/professorbainbridgecom/2010/04/swapping-their-birthright-of-freedom-for-an-ipad.html">here.

http://blog.heritage.org/2010/04/14/…nomic-freedom/

On 04.14.10 09:00 AM posted by Ariel Cohen

<ahref="http://blog.heritage.org/wp-content/uploads/Kyrgyz.jpg"></p>The Obama administration has been caught flat-footed once again—this time in Kyrgyzstan. The administration didn’t anticipate the spring riots escalating and sweeping away corrupt President Kurmanbek Bakiyev and his clan. The U.S. was perceived as being too close to Mr Bakiyev, yet it did not move fast enough to distance itself from him and recognize the temporary government led by Roza Otunbayeva.

While Ms. Otunbayeva—who has served as Kyrgyzstan’s foreign minister three times, as well as its ambassador to Washington and London—is a moderate, she is also close to Moscow. Once in office, she immediately sent her deputy to meetings in the Kremlin. One likely topic at those talks was the future of America’s Manas base—no small annoyance to Russia, which also has a military outpost in Kyrgyzstan.

Russia supported “Roza’s Revolution” despite its past opposition to the 2003 Rose Revolution in Georgia, the 2004 Orange Revolution in Ukraine, and the 2005 revolt in Kyrgyzstan. The reason is likely because Mr. Bakiyev, like the leaders of those other uprisings, was too close to the U.S. and China for Moscow’s comfort.<spanid="more-31277"></span>

Mr. Bakiyev’s rampant corruption and nepotism included appointing his young son, Maksim, as head of the nation’s development agency. For a while, the opposition and the media were free to protest Mr. Bakiyev’s regime. But in the last couple of years he has been on a rampage against opposition leaders. Because of the war in Afghanistan, Washington had to hold its nose and deal with Mr. Bakiyev and his predecessor.

In 2007 and 2008, Russia put significant pressure on Kyrgyzstan to kick the U.S. out of the Manas air base, which is crucial to resupplying troops in Afghanistan. Moscow handed Mr. Bakiyev a $2 billion assistance package in credit and loans. In January 2009, however, Mr. Bakiyev signed a deal with the Americans anyway.

This spring Moscow retaliated by hiking tariffs for energy supplies and blasting Mr. Bakiyev on Kremlin-controlled TV channels as a tyrant. In addition to the continuous U.S. military presence, Moscow was also miffed by Mr. Bakiyev’s growing ties with Beijing, which included roads and railway projects.

Immediately following last week’s revolution, Vladimir Putin distanced himself from Mr. Bakiyev and offered help in quelling unrest. That, coupled with the provisional Kyrgyz government’s publicly expressed “gratitude” to Moscow for its “assistance” to the revolution, indicates that there may be deeper Russian involvement than meets the eye.

The main short-term challenge for the Obama administration will be to put distance between itself and Mr. Bakiyev. To that end, the U.S. can offer the provisional government assistance in putting the deposed president on trial for embezzlement and the murder of dozens of demonstrators. As this provisional government in Bishkek is constituted, the State Department and the Pentagon would do well to work closely with it.

The main long-term challenge for the U.S. will be to keep the Manas base open, even if Moscow disapproves and offers an alternative route with a higher level of Russian control. Ms. Otunbayeva already has said that Manas will continue to function “until the current contracts expire”—which will happen this summer.

The White House should provide Ms. Otunbayeva an opportunity to visit the Washington, D.C., which she knows so well, to discuss the future of U.S.-Kyrgyz relations. Manas should remain America’s top priority, but for impoverished Kyrgyzstan, developing small- and medium-sized businesses and fighting corruption are paramount. The State Department should signal that the assistance package for Kyrgyzstan will be generous. The administration need not worry that Ms. Otunbayeva—Kyrgyzstan’s “Ms. Clean”—will inappropriately benefit from U.S. taxpayer help.

In the last couple of years, Russia has scored some points in its “roll-back” of George W. Bush’s Eurasian advances. First, the Georgian war and the European reaction to it all but froze Georgia’s chances for NATO membership. Second, Mr. Yanukovich’s victory in the Ukrainian presidential elections moved Kiev from a pro-Western orientation to neutrality. Now, the U.S. presence in Central Asia, and in Eurasia as a whole, may be at stake.

<ahref="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303828304575180041042112102.html?m od=WSJ_Opinion_LEFTTopOpinion">Cross-posted on <ahref="http://online.wsj.com/public/page/news-opinion-commentary.html">The Wall Street Journal op-ed page.

http://blog.heritage.org/2010/04/14/…in-kyrgyzstan/

On 04.14.10 06:27 AM posted by Nicolas Loris

From the Monthly Weather Review:

The Arctic seems to be warming up. Reports from fishermen, seal hunters, and explorers who sail the seas about Sitzbergen and the eastern Arctic, all point to a radical change in climatic conditions, and hitherto unheard-of high temperatures in that part of the earth’s surface.

The oceanographic observations have, however, been even more interesting. Ice conditions were exceptional. In fact, so little ice has never before been noted. The expedition all but established a record, sailing as far north as 81 degrees 29′ in ice-free water. This is the farthest north ever reached with modern oceanographic apparatus.

[I]t is of interest to note the unusually warm summer in Arctic Norway and the observations of Capt. Martin Ingebrigsten, who has sailed the eastern Arctic for 54 years past. He says that he first noted warmer conditions […] that since that time it has steadily gotten warmer, and that today the Arctic of that region is not recognizable as the same region […] Many old landmarks are so changed as to be unrecognizable. Where formerly great masses of ice were found there are now often moraines, accumulations of earth and stones. At many points where glaciers formerly extended far into the sea they have entirely disappeared.

The change in temperature, says Captain Ingebrigsten, has also brought about great change in the flora and fauna of the Arctic. This summer he sought for white fish in Spitzbergen waters. Formerly great shoals of them were found there. This year he saw none, although he visited all the old fishing grounds.”

These stories are among the common battle cries for climate change legislation. Warming, changing landscapes, vanishing ice and changes to animal or marine life. Here’s the kicker. The article is from November…1922! Over 87 years ago. It must have been due to all of those Cadillac five-passenger coups and Page seven-passenger touring cars on the road.

The Monthly Weather Review should reinforce two important points. When it comes to climate change, it seems the more we find out, the less we know. There are countless studies offering different empirical data on how the climate is changing, why the climate is changing and how fast the climate is changing. The warming and cooling debate is well over a century old with new evidence and new anecdotes suggesting one or the other. A Business & Media Institute report references a 1975 New York Times article with the headline: “A Major Cooling Widely Considered to Be Inevitable.”

Secondly, policies put in place to address climate change and reduce carbon dioxide are not only costly but difficult to repeal. Ethanol has turned out to be a bust (both economically and environmentally) but is nowhere close to being repealed. Billions of dollars have been spent by our federal government in the name of fighting global warming. This problem becomes much more costly when you consider the economic effects of cap and trade and Environmental Protection Agency regulations to cap carbon dioxide emissions. Even if we had implemented policies to cool the planet in the 1970s, we would most likely be coping with warming and cooling policies.

http://blog.heritage.org/2010/04/14/…d-prohibition/

On 04.14.10 07:05 AM posted by Brandon Stewart

As we mentioned yesterday, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich stopped by The Heritage Foundation for Tuesday’s Blogger Briefing.

Afterward, he sat down for a short interview In the Green Room. He discussed the prospects for*repealing Obamacare and the need for something like a new Contract with America, even listing a few conservative principles that should be prominent in such a document. He also talked about his remarks during a recent speech at the Southern Republican Leadership conference where he criticized President Obama as “the most radical president in American history”. As he says in the interview,

“When you go down item by item … by any reasonable standard this is far and away the most radical Administration in American history.”

Watch the full interview for more.

http://blog.heritage.org/2010/04/14/…cal-president/

On 04.14.10 08:00 AM posted by Kathryn Nix

College seniors are eagerly ordering caps and gowns for May graduation ceremonies.* But graduation day often brings loss as well as gain.* Many graduates will lose coverage under their parents’ health plans as soon as they get their diplomas.

It wasn’t supposed to be that way.* Obamacare promised to let “children” remain on their parents’ health plan until the age of 26. It was one of the few provisions in the law to attract bipartisan support.* Yet the hastily drafted legislation managed to botch even this seemingly simple reform.

Young adults constitute “one of the biggest groups of the uninsured,” according to the Fiscal Times.* The paper cites a Commonwealth Fund survey of 2,002 young adults that found that nearly half (45 percent) of those aged 19 – 29 lacked coverage for at least part of 2009.

The coverage gap often starts when young people graduate college.* The survey found more than three of every four college students carried coverage while in school, but 28 percent lost it upon graduation.* Close to half of those who wind up with coverage after graduation experience a temporary gap in coverage.

It promises to be no better this May.* The extended “child coverage” provision of Obamacare doesn’t kick in until months after this year’s spring graduation ceremonies. So, yes, there is a coverage gap. No problem, unless you get sick or have an accident. Those with pre-existing conditions can find it all but impossible to purchase coverage on the individual market.

Bipartisan or not, it’s hardly a triumph of enlightened social policy to have adult “ children” on their parents’ insurance, or sleeping in the basement apartment when they should be out—yes, out of the house—and on their own. Rather than pursue systemic reform that would remove the difficulty of purchasing insurance on the individual market due to pre-existing conditions, the new law creates hastily crafted “fixes” that only exacerbate existing problems.

http://blog.heritage.org/2010/04/14/…-young-adults/

On 04.14.10 05:43 AM posted by Conn Carroll

There is no person more central to Washington’s bailouts of Wall Street than Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner. As President of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, he oversaw the federal bailout of Bear Stearns and under former Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson, Getihner designed the original bailout plan for the American International Group (AIG). As Treasury Secretary, Geithner has enthusiastically assumed full authority over the $700 billion TARP fund first secured by Paulson under President Bush and he has continued to wield it in the same haphazard manner as his predecessor.

Considering these facts, one might think that the Obama administration would be shy about making the personification of Washington’s Wall Street bailouts the front man for their supposed financial reforms. But no, Secretary Geithner took to the op-ed pages of The Washington Post yesterday to make the case for the President’s version of finance reform. After a brief defense of his TARP management, Secretary Geithner writes:

As the Senate bill moves to the floor, we must all fight loopholes that would weaken it and push to make sure the government has real authority to help end the problem of “too big to fail.”
…
Crucially, if a major firm does mismanage itself into failure, the Senate bill gives the government the authority to wind down the firm with no exposure to the taxpayer. No more bailouts. Instead, we will have a bankruptcy-like regime where equityholders will be wiped out and the assets will be sold.

But does the Senate bill’s “bankruptcy-like regime” solve the “too big to fail” problem? No. In fact it makes it worse. What the Dodd bill actually does is create a new $50 billion fund to be used in “emergencies” for restructuring firms deemed too close to bankruptcy. And who gets to decide when there is an emergency and which firms are too close to bankruptcy?* You guessed it: Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner. The Dodd bill is thus nothing but a permanent extension of Secretary Geithner’s TARP powers.

But not only does the Obama administration’s finance plan further empower the exact same bureaucrats who failed to prevent the last crisis, it also makes it more likely that those same institutions that made risky bad bets before will make the exact same mistakes again. MIT professor and 13 Bankers: The Wall Street Takeover and the Next Financial Meltdown author Simon Johnson explains how promised government bailouts increase the moral hazard that leads to “too big to fail” policies: “Creditors had only limited incentives to watch over major banks. Ordinarily, creditors should demand high interest rates on loans to highly leveraged institutions. However, the expectation that large banks would not be allowed to fail made creditors more willing to lend to them.” By establishing a permanent Geithner-controlled “emergency” fund, Wall Street creditors will know they never have to watch over their counterparts: if things go bad, their buddy Geithner will have their backs.

Responding to conservative arguments that their finance reform plan encourages, not discourages, future bailouts, White House blogger Jen Psaki wrote yesterday: “The reality is that there’s a clear choice in this debate: to stand with American families or stand on the side of the big Wall Street banks and their lobbyists who are defending the status quo.” Problem is, it is “the big Wall Street banks” that are supporting the Geithner permanent bailout plan. In their annual letter, current Goldman Sach’s CEO Lloyd Blankfein and President Gary Cohn make the case for more Washington regulation. And as The Washington Examiner’s Tim Carney documents, Obama raised about a million dollars from Goldman Sachs employees and executives in 2008, the most any politician has raised from a single company since McCain-Feingold. And the Obama administration employs many Goldman alumni/lobbyists including Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, White House economic advisor Larry Summers, and Treasury Chief of Staff Mark Patterson. So who is really on the side of the American people and who really is doing the work of Wall Street lobbyists?

Quick Hits:

• The agreement signed by 46 countries at the end of the White House’s Nuclear Security Summit yesterday is completely voluntary and President Obama later admitted that despite his efforts, he could not promise that China and other major powers would enforce sanctions on Iran.
• Defense Secretary Robert Gates disputed claims that Iran was mere months away from a nuclear weapon, instead reassuring Americans that the Iranian regime was “at least a year” from becoming a nuclear state.
• Israeli and U.S. officials allege that Syria has transferred long-range Scud missiles to the Lebanese Shiite militant group Hezbollah.
• By a 14-point margin (39%-25%) more American voters believe the Supreme Court is too liberal than too conservative according to Rasmussen Reports.
• The Obama administration’s new regulation making only unionized firms eligible for federal contracts will cost taxpayers 10%-20% higher construction costs on all federal projects.

http://blog.heritage.org/2010/04/14/…louts-forever/

On 04.13.10 09:00 AM posted by David Weinberger

<ahref="http://blog.heritage.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/gm.gif"></p>A recent <ahref="http://www.gao.gov/highlights/d10492high.pdf">GAO report warns that GM and Chrysler may need even more taxpayer money. This comes after GM and Chrysler received the overwhelming bulk of an $81 billion auto bailout under TARP.

The report finds GM and Chrysler may have unfunded liabilities for their pension programs. These obligations could have been terminated if these companies had filed for a typical bankruptcy. They were maintained, however, after the government assumed sponsorship during the most recent crisis. Should these companies be unprofitable, these unfunded liabilities will be unmet by GM and Chrysler as soon as 2013.

The report explains why:

Officials at the Department of the Treasury, which oversees TARP, expect both GM and Chrysler to return to profitability. If this is the case, then the companies will likely be able to make the required payments and prevent their pension plans from being terminated. However, if GM and Chrysler were not able to return to profitability and their pension plans were terminated, PBGC would be hit hard both financially and administratively.”

<spanid="more-31040"></span>Should these companies continue to face losses, GAO estimates that for years 2013 and 2014 pension liabilities could cost GM over $12 billion, and Chrysler over $2 billion, to combine for “about $14.5 billion” picked up by PBGC. And that’s only by year 2014. It’s likely taxpayer money will be needed for future years.

Further, the GAO explains:

…until Treasury either sells or liquidates the equity it acquired in each of the companies in exchange for the TARP assistance, its role as shareholder creates potential tensions with its role as pension regulator and overseer of PBGC in its role as pension insurer. In particular, tensions could arise if decisions must be made between allocating funds to company assets (thereby protecting shareholders, including taxpayers) or to pension fund assets (thereby protecting plan participants).

In other words, another bailout is all but inevitable, the only question is whether taxpayers will take the hit through TARP or through the PBGC.* Considering the Obama administration’s big labor ties, expect the PBGC to take the hit.

http://blog.heritage.org/2010/04/13/…ailout-please/

On 04.13.10 10:00 AM posted by Michael Orion Powell

<ahref="http://blog.heritage.org/wp-content/uploads/Castro-Raul-Chavez-10-4-13.jpg"></p>Cuban leader Raul Castro is a figure right out of the world of George Orwell’s political epic <ahref="http://www.online-literature.com/orwell/1984/">1984. In that novel, Big Brother declared, through the propaganda subjected to the citizens of the future society of Oceania, that “freedom was slavery” and “war is peace.”

Castro has engaged in Orwellian rhetoric <ahref="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8603225.stm">in his response to mounting criticism over the government’s treatment of dissidents who have gone on hunger strikes to protest their imprisonment. He denied that there was merit to the criticisms leveled regarding the treatment of political prisoners or the merits of their detainment, deeming such criticism as “a ferocious campaign” to bring the Cuban government into disrepute.

<spanid="more-31178"></span>One dissident, <ahref="http://blog.heritage.org/2010/02/25/cuban-dissident%E2%80%99s-death-should-renew-front-against-castro/">Orlando Zapata Tamayo, died February 23 after being incarcerated following a 2003 crackdown on dissidents, and another, Guillermo Fariñas, is now in a hospital. Castro has defended the treatment of Fariñas by saying that the government is “doing what we can to save his life,” while <ahref="http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE63404U20100405">warning ominously that “if [Fariñas] does not change his own self-destructive stance, he will be responsible, along with those who back him, for an outcome which we too do not wish to happen.” Castro’s chilling warning reminds one of characters from gangster movies that warn those they are blackmailing that it would be awful bad if violence were to be inflicted on them or their loved ones.

Just as Castro blackmails both Fariñas and critics by threatening some form of violence, he is <ahref="http://en.mercopress.com/2010/04/05/farinas-reply-to-raul-castro-determined-to-continue-fasting-until-death">quite incredibly claiming that it is actually the Cuban government that is being blackmailed by countries pressuring them for their actions, <ahref="http://www1.voanews.com/english/news/americas/US-Pressures-Cuba-After-Hunger-Strike-Death-89959637.html">such as the United States. “We will never give in to blackmail, from any country or group of countries, no matter how powerful,” he said during a speech that was broadcast nationally. Castro’s doublespeak is a clear reminder that, while not quite as bad Stalin or Pol Pot, Cuba’s “<ahref="http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2008/05/Cuba-Solidarity-Day-2008-Remembering-Our-Totalitarian-Neighbor">lesser but omnipresent tyranny” (as Heritage scholar Ray Walser put it) is the most brutal destroyer of freedom in our hemisphere.

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: <atitle="http://www.heritage.org/About/Internships-Young-Leaders/The-Heritage-Foundation-Internship-Program" href="http://www.heritage.org/About/Internships-Young-Leaders/The-Heritage-Foundation-Internship-Program">The Heritage Foundation Internship Program | The Heritage Foundation

http://blog.heritage.org/2010/04/13/…lian-rhetoric/

On 04.13.10 11:00 AM posted by Conn Carroll

</p>Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner stumps for Sen. Chris Dodd’s (D-CT) finance reform bill in today’s <ahref="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/12/AR2010041203341.html">Washington Post:

As the Senate bill moves to the floor, we must all fight loopholes that would weaken it and push to make sure the government has real authority to help end the problem of “too big to fail.”
…
Crucially, if a major firm does mismanage itself into failure, the Senate bill gives the government the authority to wind down the firm with no exposure to the taxpayer. No more bailouts.

Excuse us if we don’t take the Secretary of Wall Street Bailouts’ word on this. To the contrary, <ahref="http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2010/03/Dodd-Financial-Regulation-Bill-Super-Regulators-Not-the-Answer">what the Dodd bill actually does is create a new $50 billion fund to be used in “emergencies” for restructuring firms deemed too close to bankruptcy. And who gets to decide when there is an emergency and which firms are too close to bankruptcy?* You guessed it: Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner. <ahref="http://blog.heritage.org/2010/03/26/morning-bell-dodd-bill-creates-permanent-tarp-and-you-can-quote-that/">The Dodd bill is thus nothing less a permanent extension of Secretary Geithner’s TARP powers.<spanid="more-31201"></span>

But don’t take our word for it. <ahref="http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,1978531,00.html">Time reports:

That’s why the government decided to bail out most of the nation’s largest banks at the height of the financial crisis. And here’s where the problem potentially gets worse. Once bankers understand that the government will bail out their firms when their loans or other financial bets go bad, they are likely to take riskier and riskier bets. That, of course, leads to more potential bank failures and more taxpayer funded bailouts.

The Dodd bill was supposed to end all of this, and Senator Dodd says it does. Nonetheless, policy makers and economists say it’s far from clear that the proposed legislation solves the issue. Even members of the Federal Reserve, which gets a lot more power to regulate banks and financial products in the Dodd bill, are wary of the proposal’s ability to end too big to fail. Richmond Federal Reserve president Jeffrey Lacker recently said on CNBC that he believes the bill does little to stop future financial bailouts.

A better solution for the “too big to fail” problem are bankruptcy courts. Peter Wallison and David Skeel write in <ahref="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303493904575167571831270694.html"> The Wall Street Journal:

There is another lesson in the Lehman bankruptcy. Mr. Dodd claims his bill cures the too-big-to-fail problem because it requires the liquidation of a failing firm. But Lehman has been liquidated; what is left is a shell that may or may not struggle back to profitability.
…
Which system is more likely to eliminate the moral hazard of too big to fail? In a bankruptcy, as in the Lehman case, the creditors learned that when they lend to weak companies they have to be careful. The Dodd bill would teach the opposite lesson.

http://blog.heritage.org/2010/04/13/…louts-forever/

On 04.13.10 12:00 PM posted by Mike Brownfield

<ahref="http://blog.heritage.org/wp-content/uploads/Gingrich-TBB-10-4-132.jpg"></p>Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich has a message for conservatives if they want to succeed in changing the debate in Washington: conservatives must be a movement of “yes,” and they must stand for what they will do.

He delivered that message today at <ahref="http://thebloggersbriefing.com/">The Bloggers Briefing, a gathering of conservative bloggers from across the capital, held at The Heritage Foundation.

Gingrich also has a slogan for conservatives – “2 + 2 = 4” – which he describes as a way to slow down the political debate in America and serves as a reminder of what he says the left’s agenda is really about – an Orwellian government machine that tries to sell Americans on the notion that two-plus-two equals three, when in reality, it’s not.

<spanid="more-31219"></span>And it is today’s political reality that is most disconcerting to Gingrich. He describes President Obama’s government as a “secular socialist machine” that is “destructive of our society.” Its hallmark? He says it’s a combination of the bad economics of the 1970s, the Welfare state of the 1950s, Springfield corruption, Chicago-style politics and Saul Alinsky’s rules for radicals.

To combat that machine, Gingrich calls on conservatives to “refute everything the machine says” and to employ the movement of “yes.” He pointed to history for examples of when the conservative movement capitalized on that strategy, including Ronald Reagan’s victory over President Jimmy Carter and, more personal to Gingrich, the conservative revolution of 1994.

We took on a liberal president, we stopped government in its tracks, we moved to the first balanced budget in a generation … and we got reelected for the first time since 1928,” Gingrich said.

And as for a roadmap for governing in the future, Gingrich says “yes” is key to success. He pointed to The Heritage Foundation’s 1980 study “Mandate for Leadership,” which made policy recommendations for the incoming Reagan Administration, as an example of conservatives successfully advancing a positive agenda and real ideas for governance. To illustrate his point about a message of “yes,” he noted, “We did not have a contract against Clinton,” referencing the “Contract With America.” Rather, conservatives stood for tax cuts, for balanced budgets and for Welfare reform.

You can always arouse a fair amount of conservative excitement by saying ‘no,’” Gingrich said, “But you can’t govern by saying no.”

There are four top issues that Gingrich says should be on the positive conservative agenda: jobs, including dramatically cutting taxes and regulations; balancing the federal budget, which he calls a moral and economic imperative; energy, so that new building booms occur “in St. Louis, instead of Dubai;” and education reform, which he says is vital to ensuring we can compete with China and India.

In Gingrich’s view, there is a stark difference between a conservative vision for America and the liberal message being sold to the country.

The Obama model for America, Gingrich says, is “We should be grateful that the level of misery we’ve gotten to is not nearly as bad as it could’ve been.” To counter that message of malaise, Gingrich says conservatives must offer a better set of solutions than liberals, not just an ideology.

http://blog.heritage.org/2010/04/13/…vement-of-yes/

On 04.13.10 01:00 PM posted by Alex Adrianson

<ahref="http://blog.heritage.org/wp-content/uploads/FCC-Seal.jpg"></p>Is the Federal Communications Commission building a case for government-subsidized news? It’s not hard to imagine that will be the outcome of the Commission’s “Future of Media” inquiry. The digital age has produced a “democratic shortfall,” according to one source cited in the inquiry’s <ahref="http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-100A1.pdf">public notice. Another scholar working on the project for the FCC <ahref="http://freestatefoundation.blogspot.com/2010/04/wisdom-and-knowledge-who-to-judge.html">has said that today’s media abundance calls for “public media entities” that will serve “as both a filter to reduce information overload and a megaphone to give voice to the unheard.”

In other words, a free marketplace of ideas isn’t good enough for some. They want the government to pick winners and losers—as long as the winners express views with which they happen to agree. Care to guess which views those will be?<spanid="more-31215"></span>

<ahref="http://freestatefoundation.blogspot.com/2010/04/wisdom-and-knowledge-who-to-judge.html">As Randolph May of the Free State Foundation notes, the justifications for a government role in controlling content are ever shifting. Once, alleged scarcity was the reason that the FCC could impose the fairness doctrine on radio without running afoul of the First Amendment. (See, for instance, the Supreme Court’s 1969 <ahref="http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/printer_friendly.pl?page=us/395/367.html">Red Lion decision.) Now it’s not scarcity but abundance that government is supposed to fix by acting as a filter. Meanwhile, the FCC has no problem telling private industry that filtering content is a no-no. Disallowing Internet service providers from discriminating among sources or kinds of content is the intent of the Commission’s push for net neutrality.

If you are concerned about what the FCC is up to with its “Future of Media” inquiry, then you should attend the Free State Foundation’s event this Friday at noon at the National Press Club. The event, titled “<ahref="http://www.freestatefoundation.org/images/Future_of_Media_Event_Flyer_031810.pdf">The FCC’s ‘Future of Media’ Inquiry: What Is the FCC Is Doing – And Why?” features a presentation from Steven Waldman, who is leading the FCC’s inquiry. That will be followed by a discussion from a panel of three experts on communications policy: Catholic University professor and Free State Foundation fellow Donna Coleman Gregg, James Taranto of the Wall Street Journal, and former FCC commissioner and current Free State Foundation fellow Deborah Taylor Tate.

<ahref="http://www.insideronline.org/blogarchive.cfm?month=4&year=2010&blogid=F8329D1C-E761-96BF-99F3C94B6CFC87C4">Cross-posted at <ahref="http://www.insideronline.org">InsiderOnline.

http://blog.heritage.org/2010/04/13/…ws-on-the-way/

On 04.13.10 01:35 PM posted by Nicolas Loris

United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon is never afraid to make headlines when it comes to his stance on climate change. In 2007 he likened the war on climate change to actual war <ahref="http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN0135435720070301">saying, “”The majority of the United Nations work still focuses on preventing and ending conflict. But the danger posed by war to all of humanity and to our planet is at least matched by the climate crisis and global warming.” More recently, in defense of his position after Climategate, he <ahref="http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N08198995.htm">emphasized, “Climate change is happening much, much faster than we realized and we human beings are the primary cause.”

Now Mr. Ban is using natural resource depletion, specifically water, as a motive to reach a global accord to cut carbon dioxide emissions. At a speech to the Organization for Security and Cooperation (OSCE) he <ahref="http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=34320&Cr=climate+change&Cr1=">sai d of the Aral Sea, “where once there was water, sea, I saw endless sand and a graveyard of ships, <ahref="http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=34320&Cr=climate+change&Cr1=">and “As waters recede, tensions will rise. We need to work together, with full political engagement, to bring the various parties to the negotiating table, before tensions grow worse.”

Ban also addressed disarmament and non-proliferation issues in the speech. In some respects, Ban’s simply throwing things at the wall and hoping something sticks so he can claim a scalp.

<spanid="more-31242"></span>

But the remarks are also clearly intended to provide new justification for why the UN led climate negotiations should proceed <ahref="http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/01/28/save-rainforest-climate-change-scandal-chopped-facts/">despite a series of embarrassing scandals over the past few months that have led many to challenge the UN’s leadership role in negotiations on climate change.

Recent by the UN to agree on a plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and protect developing countries have failed; in fact, most considered Copenhagen a downright embarrassment. Natural resource depletion should not be used as an excuse for the UN to try again.

While access to water is a legitimate issue, it is generally not an issue that is global in scope that requires UN intervention. For instance, tensions between Egypt, Ethiopia, and Sudan over the Nile River are long standing. Various sources of the Nile extend further into central Africa, so it is a regional issue, but it is hardly global.

The Aral Sea Ban mentions is split between Khazakstan and Uzbekistan. Their countries’ leaders, (as well as some neighboring countries) obviously would share concerns in how that water is used. If they want to bring in the UN to help resolve any disputes (most likely the International Court of Justice) or to provide advice on water management, then that is their call. But there is no natural nexus for UN involvement.

Further, the idea that global warming is somehow responsible for the emptying of the Aral Sea is ridiculous. Yes, the Aral Sea <ahref="http://www.businessweek.com/globalbiz/content/oct2006/gb20061012_311835.htm">was once the world’s fourth largest inland body of water, but its shrinkage isn’t a new phenomenon. The sea has been <ahref="http://geography.about.com/library/faq/blqzaral.htm">shrinking since the 1960s because the primary inflows to the sea, the Syr Darya and Amu Darya Rivers, are diverted for agricultural irrigation. That’s not to say there aren’t environmental consequences, but is the UN really the body best equipped to solve this problem let alone climate change?

By linking the Aral Sea to global warming, Ban is trying to use water scarcity to rebuild the credibility of the global warming effort. But his claims that global warming would aggravate water scarcity, like many he’s made before, are baseless and not supported by sound, incontrovertible evidence. The credibility of climate modeling has come under <ahref="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/05/AR2010040503722.html">heavy attack, not just because of errors reported in data sets, but simply because of their accuracy in forecasting.

As Ban attempts to build momentum for this year’s climate summit in Cancun, Mexico, it’s important to remember the debacle that was Copenhagen. This is nothing more than a Ban trying to stay relevant.

Brett Shaefer co-authored this post.

http://blog.heritage.org/2010/04/13/…limate-change/

On 04.13.10 02:00 PM posted by Morgan Roach

<ahref="http://blog.heritage.org/wp-content/uploads/Pinera-10-4-13.jpg"></p>When Chilean President Sebástian Piñera was sworn into office last month, he did so with the walls around the National Congress rattling, as an aftershock of one of the five worst earthquakes in recorded history shook the building. Today, however, President Piñera is visiting Washington, DC, where he will attend the Nuclear Security Summit.

In a speech at the Brookings Institute, President Piñera’s message was clear: Chile’s plan for recovery is being put into action, but challenges remain. The Piñera administration is in a race to make up for the time lost to earthquake recovery to implement the goals of its campaign platform, primarily economic reform, poverty reduction and an increase in development.

February’s catastrophic 8.8 magnitude earthquake affected 2 million people, killing 342 and leaving 95 unaccounted for. With 370,000 homes damaged or destroyed and 200,000 needing to be entirely rebuilt, the weight of recovery is heavy. Mother Nature’s bill to the Chilean government is estimated at $30 billion – nearly 17 percent of the country’s GDP.

<spanid="more-31240"></span>While these roadblocks to the new administration’s agenda are daunting, the earthquake recovery package to be announced this week is set to confront the financial burden in multiple facets, one of which is the private sector, which is expected to recover more than $3.5 billion on insured damages alone. Piñera is also likely to dip into foreign savings, sell non-core public assets, and increase corporate taxes to help pay for reconstruction. This last could spell trouble, as high corporate tax rates are a proven growth killer.

Overall, Chile’s government and economy are equipped to manage such a crisis. The country’s deep commitment to free market policies earned it the status of the world’s tenth freest economy, according to the <ahref="http://www.heritage.org/index/">Heritage Foundation’s 2010 Index of Economic Freedom. It is important friend of the United States, a robust free trade partner and the <ahref="http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/business/2010/01/100112_chile_oecd_biz.shtml">31st member to the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development. The immediate economic impact is daunting, but Chile’s recent estimates project that the economy will expand by 4.5 percent this year, bringing it closer to the president’s 6 percent goal. Maintaining a commitment to free market principles is the surest path to ensure Chile’s future growth.

http://blog.heritage.org/2010/04/13/…%99s-recovery/

On 04.13.10 05:45 AM posted by Conn Carroll

<ahref="http://blog.heritage.org/wp-content/uploads/SEIU-10-4-131.jpg"></p>Last night, <ahref="http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0410/SEIU_official_Stern_to_resign.html?showall">Politi co reported that Service Employees International Union President Andrew Stern is expected to resign and, according to <ahref="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/13/us/13union.html?ref=todayspaper">The New York Times, the resignation is about to happen very soon. If Stern does resign, he will be doing so while at the top of his game. Stern told <ahref="http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2009/may/10/stern-unplugged-seiu-chief-labor-movement-and-card/">The Las Vegas Sun last year: “We spent a fortune to elect Barack Obama – $60.7 million to be exact – and we’re proud of it.” President Obama is well aware of his huge debt to the SEIU. That is why he admits in his autobiography, <ahref="http://victor-lee.com/empiresonline.net/files/Books/Barack%20Obama%20-%20The%20Audacity%20of%20Hope%20(Thoughts%20on%20R eclaiming%20the%20American%20Dream)/Obam_0307382095_oeb_c04_r1.htm">“I owe those unions.” And it also explains why<ahref="http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2009/10/30/seius-stern-tops-white-house-visitor-list/"> Stern is the most frequent Obama White House visitor, according to official visitor logs.

Stern’s access to President Obama has already paid huge dividends including: <ahref="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124227027965718333.html">an $862 billion stimulus that prevented states from having to cut-back government union jobs or wages; <ahref="http://blog.heritage.org/2010/03/16/morning-bell-is-now-really-the-time-to-create-a-new-2-5-trillion-entitlement/">$2.5 trillion in new government health care spending, much of which will go to unionized health care providers; and <ahref="http://blog.heritage.org/2010/03/29/seius-white-house-visits-are-paying-off/">the appointment of SEIU associate general counsel Craig Becker to the National Labor Relations Board. The NYT <ahref="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/13/us/13union.html?ref=todayspaper">describes the SEIU under Stern’s tenure as “the nation’s most politically active union, with 1.9 million members.” The marriage of politics to union organizing has been great for SEIU membership, making it <ahref="http://www.seiu.org/2008/01/SEIU-Drives-Growth-as-Union-Workforce-Increases-for-the-First-Time-in-Years.php">the fastest-growing union in America.<spanid="more-31157"></span>

But what has been great for SEIU’s membership rolls has not been good for the SEIU’s bottom line. Growing union membership through politics is expensive. <ahref="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124458836591599769.html">The Wall Street Journal reports that as recently as 2002, total SEIU liabilities were about $8 million. But by 2008, the union owed more than $156 million, a 30% increase over the $120 million it owed in 2007. And make no mistake, lobbying government is where Stern believes the future of SEIU is. After President Obama’s election, SEIU fired 75 national field staff and organizers so that the SEIU could <ahref="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/18/AR2009031800709.html">“reallocate resources … to lobbying and communications in Washington.”

In fact, taking a more critical look at SEIU’s recent growth, <ahref="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/13/AR2010041300017.html">The Washington Post reports: “some of its biggest gains in recent years were less the result of shoe-leather organizing and more the result of deals with major employers or politicians — including former Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich.” Specifically, <ahref="http://voiceforchildcare.org/news/2006/3/9/illinois-gov-signs-first-ever-contract.html">Blagojevich signed a state law handing over 49,000 state child care workers to SEIU local 880, <ahref="http://www.seiulocal880.com/index.php?id=668">which is run by the notorious community organizing group ACORN. <ahref="http://laborpains.org/index.php/2008/12/11/seius-pay-for-play-scandal/">The deal nearly tripled SEIU 880’s income from $7 million in 2005 to $21 million in 2007. This came after SEIU’s Illinois Political Action Committee <ahref="http://www.followthemoney.org/database/StateGlance/candidate.phtml?c=79667">gave Gov. Blagojevich $908,000, making it the single largest campaign contributor for his re-election campaign.

It is no coincidence that under Stern’s tenure <ahref="http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2010/01/Majority%20of%20Union%20Members%20Now%20Work%20for %20the%20Government">the number of government union members surpassed the number of private sector union members for the first time in our nation’s history. There are two reasons for this: 1) <ahref="http://blog.heritage.org/2009/05/22/morning-bell-how-big-labor-hurts-you/">Unions kill private sector jobs, and unionized companies earn profits 15% lower than those of comparable non-union firms. This makes unionized firms less competitive, which is why unionized manufacturing jobs fell 75% between 1977 and 2008, while non-union manufacturing INCREASED 6% over that same time. 2) Government union jobs face no competition. Public sector unionization has exploded in the past decade as leaders like Stern realized politics paid much better than the free market. <ahref="http://www.seiu.org/our-union/index.php">Under Stern’s leadership, SEIU has become the nation’s second largest government union with over half of its membership drawing a paycheck on the taxpayers dime.

Explaining how organized labor really works, US Court of Appeals judge for the 7th Circuit Richard Posner <ahref="http://www.becker-posner-blog.com/archives/2008/12/can_the_united.html">recently wrote:

The goal of unions is to redistribute wealth from the owners and managers of firms, and from workers willing to work for very low wages, to the unionized workers and the union’s officers. … Unions, in other words, are worker cartels. … There is also a long history of union corruption. And some union activity is extortionate: the union and the employer tacitly agree that as long as the employer gives the workers a wage increase slightly above the union dues, the union will leave the employer alone.

Except that in Stern’s America, union management no longer redistribute wealth from firms to union members. With the majority of union members now working for the government, Andy Stern and his cohorts are extorting money from you, the taxpayer. And where is that money going? Not into shoring up union member pensions. Those are woefully underfunded. No, the Andy Sterns of the world turn around and use their taxpayer-funded government union dues to lobby for an even larger government that can pay for even more government union jobs. Andy Stern’s America is a perpetual government dependency machine.

And don’t think for a second that Stern’s retirement means he is gone for good. <ahref="http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2010/02/obama-names-seius-stern-to-deficit-commission/36701/">Stern is still a proud member of President Obama’s deficit commission. Complete reliance on government growth, crippling debt, and Blagojevich-style corruption. That is what Andy Stern did to the SEIU, and it is what Stern and President Obama will do to this country.

Quick Hits:

• According to the Congressional Research Service, <ahref="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/13/us/politics/13health.html?ref=todayspaper">when Congress passed Obamacare, they accidentally revoked their own current health care coverage before the law created any viable alternatives.
• <ahref="http://www.latimes.com/features/health/la-na-health-premiums13-2010apr13,0,6241013.story">The Los Angeles Times reports that despite public outrage over double-digit health insurance rate hikes, Obamacare does nothing to prevent them.
• According to the Joint Committee on Taxation, <ahref="http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/domestic-taxes/91669-healthcare-law-socks-middle-class-with-a-39-billion-tax-increase">taxpayers earning less than $200,000 a year will pay roughly $3.9 billion more in taxes — in 2019 alone — due to Obamacare.
• According to <ahref=" http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/april_2010/47_say_repeal_of_health_care_law_will_be_good_for_ economy">Rasmussen Reports, by a 14-point margin (47%-33%) American voters believe repeal of Obamacare will be good for the economy.
• The Commerce Department’s Bureau of Economic Analysis <ahref="http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/apr/13/personal-income-falls-32-during-obamas-15-months/">found that real personal income for Americans – excluding government payouts such as Social Security – has fallen by 3.2 percent since President Obama took office in January 2009.

http://blog.heritage.org/2010/04/13/…0%99s-america/

On 04.13.10 06:55 AM posted by Rob Bluey

</p>Former Speaker Newt Gingrich, architect of the “Contract with America” and general chairman of American Solutions, visits The Heritage Foundation today to speak at <ahref="http://thebloggersbriefing.com/">The Bloggers Briefing. The live feed from Ustream.tv will begin shortly after 12 noon ET.

Tune in to hear Gingrich’s prescription for America and what lies ahead for conservatives, particularly in the wake of Obamacare’s passage.

http://blog.heritage.org/2010/04/13/…eritage-today/

On 04.13.10 08:00 AM posted by Anthony B. Kim

<ahref="http://blog.heritage.org/wp-content/uploads/SKOREA-US-FTA.jpg"></p><atitle="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/11/AR2010041102508.html" href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/11/AR2010041102508.html">An April 12 article in the Washington Post poses a timely question concerning one of our longtime friends:* “In a world of dangerously failed states and willful challengers to American leadership, South Korea is an astoundingly successful democracy that wants to be friends. But will America say yes?”

At the center of this challenging question lies <atitle="http://www.ustr.gov/united-states-and-korea-conclude-historic-trade-agreement" href="http://www.ustr.gov/united-states-and-korea-conclude-historic-trade-agreement">a free trade agreement that Washington and Seoul signed almost three years ago, back in June 2007. The agreement, commonly known as the KORUS FTA, has been characterized as “strong and balanced” and as “an agreement for the 21st century.”<spanid="more-31189"></span>

Unfortunately, the final step for the agreement has been stymied by U.S. politics. Bowing to domestic labor union pressure, President Obama has not moved the pact forward for Congressional ratification.

It would be easy to dismiss the hesitation we’re seeing in the Obama Administration over the trade deal with South Korea as just another chapter in the ongoing debate between free traders and protectionists. After all, the usual suspects are raising all the protectionist arguments.

Yet this FTA is about much more than trade and investment. South Korea has successfully transformed itself from a country devastated by war into one of Asia’s most vibrant market-oriented democracies. According to <atitle="http://www.heritage.org/index/Country/SouthKorea" href="http://www.heritage.org/index/Country/SouthKorea">the Heritage Foundation’s 2010 <emtitle="http://www.heritage.org/index/Country/SouthKorea">Index of Economic Freedom</em>, South Korea now ranks as the word’s 31st freest economy, jumping 9 places in the last year. In addition, the country has shown itself to be a willing partner of the U.S. in endeavors around the world. As the Post article points out, South Korea is willing “to cooperate with the United States in Haiti, Afghanistan and beyond. Would the United States really allow narrow-interest politics to limit such an opportunity?”

2010 marks the 60th anniversary of the Korean War, a conflict in which America and South Korea fought together in defense of freedom and democracy. There could be no more appropriate time to seal a trade deal that will foster a future of <atitle="http://www.heritage.org/Research/Lecture/The-Status-of-the-US-Korea-Relationship-in-2010" href="http://www.heritage.org/Research/Lecture/The-Status-of-the-US-Korea-Relationship-in-2010">lasting alliance for the two nations.

http://blog.heritage.org/2010/04/13/…and-democracy/

On 04.12.10 11:21 AM posted by Hans von Spakovsky

With the long expected retirement announcement by Justice John Paul Stevens on Friday, President Obama gets a second opportunity to shape the Supreme Court to match his very activist view of the law and the role of judges. That role, according to the President, is not to interpret the Constitution and statutes based on the time-honored principle of blind justice, but to use “empathy” to make sure that “powerful interests” are not “allowed to drown out the voices of ordinary citizens.”

Some might believe that it would not be worth the effort of conservatives to spend much time and resources on opposing a liberal, activist nominee because Obama will simply be replacing a liberal with another liberal. But they would be wrong.

There is no doubt that Justice Stevens has taken the wrong view in a vast majority of cases for many years, pushing judicial supremacy over the other branches of government (particularly in the area of national security), imposing liberal social policy as new-found rights, and on too many occasions veering from the original meaning of the Constitution. But he has occasionally made the right decision – such as when he wrote the opinion in 2008 that upheld Indiana’s voter identification law as perfectly constitutional.

As a former anti-corruption lawyer from Chicago, a city with an infamous reputation when it comes to elections, Stevens wrote for the majority “that flagrant examples of [voter] fraud…have been documented throughout this Nation’s history by respected historians and journalists…[that] demonstrate that not only is the risk of voter fraud real but that it could affect the outcome of a close election.” The Indiana legislature was thus fully justified in implementing a common-sense security measure like photo ID, something that the vast majority of voters believe is a sensible idea.

But voter ID is anathema to liberals, particularly liberal lawyers and law school academicians. It is almost impossible to have a reasoned debate with them over this issue. The fact that voter ID has been found to be both constitutional and not a violation of federal voting laws like the Voting Rights Act in various court decisions annoys and irritates them to no end. There is no question that most of the liberals that Obama could nominate will probably take the opposite view of Stevens on an issue that is vital to the continued integrity of American elections. The Indiana case was a 6 to 3 opinion, but liberal activists would love to be able to falsely characterize those who support voter ID as a bunch of right-wing, anti-minority bigots. Moreover, getting the wrong liberal on the Court would bring voter ID one step closer to being eventually outlawed by activist judges – it will give liberals another opportunity to slowly chip away at a Stevens decision they abhor.

This is just one of many issues that will come up before the Court again. It is vital that Senators probe to ensure that any nominee understands the importance of the rule of law and adherence to the Constitution. We need a justice, even if liberal, who does not bend the law to favor their own, particular ideology and the social policy views most currently in fashion in the “progressive” academy.

http://blog.heritage.org/2010/04/12/…supreme-court/

On 04.12.10 12:30 PM posted by Mike Brownfield

Economic realities are slapping states in the face as they come to terms with the fact that they can’t afford costly government programs amid declining revenues. Though many states are on a path toward economic ruin, some legislators in Missouri are taking heed and cutting spending.

The Associated Press reports that a Missouri Senate Appropriations Committee voted last week to eliminate state funding for several government programs, reducing state expenditures by $506 million.

The committee’s actions are incredibly significant, given the difficulty that comes with eliminating government programs, once enacted. The AP notes that some of the Republican Missouri senators “have resorted to quoting an observation made nearly a half-century ago by Ronald Reagan”:

“Government programs, once launched, never disappear,” the future president said in a 1964 speech in support of Republican presidential candidate Barry Goldwater. “Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we’ll ever see on this earth.”

Other states, though, aren’t finding as much success in addressing their budget shortfalls.

New York has a $9.2 billion budget deficit and is passing a series of emergency spending bills this week to keep the government running, according to Buffalo Business Reports. It doesn’t have funds to pay for union salary increases or construction projects, and the state is considering a mix of “sin tax” hikes for cigarettes and sodas, new borrowing, and cuts to education.

Massachusetts might bet on resort casinos and slot machines to solve their budget woes, despite gambling being rejected there seven times in the last 14 years. And some 2,500 miles away, Arizona is witnessing a bare-knuckle fight over a plan to raise sales tax from 5.6% to 6.6% to cover the state’s massive budget gap. Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer is campaigning for the tax increase and telling crowds, “The checkbook is overdrawn, we’ve maxed out the credit cards, we’ve mortgaged the house.”

It’s the same story across the fruited plain. What’s causing the problem? The Pew Center on the States cites symptoms including: major drops in revenue, growing budget gaps, increasing unemployment, high foreclosure rates, a supermajority requirement for state legislatures to pass budget bills (which includes making budget cuts or raising taxes), and troubles managing long-term fiscal matters and budgetary processes.

The good news for Missourians is that some of their legislators have the willpower to make the cuts they need to get the state’s budget on track. Other states might not be so lucky.

http://blog.heritage.org/2010/04/12/…ng-government/

On 04.12.10 01:28 PM posted by Nicola Moore

As federal income taxes come due this Thursday, Americans are well aware of just how expensive government is becoming.

But as the Wall Street Journal warned today, we ain’t seen nothing yet. Obama’s go-to strategy for cutting the deficit is to tax the so-called rich, but this would send tax rates to exorbitant levels.

For example, to reduce the deficit from 11 percent of the economy today to a sustainable 3 percent of GDP, families with more than $209,000 would see tax rates rise from 33% and 35% to 72.4% and 76.8%, according to new findings from the Brookings-Urban Tax Policy Center.

Why are these rates so high?

Number 1, the government is spending too much. Over the next ten years, government will expand by (an inflation adjusted) $12,000 per household, totaling more than $36,000 per household. That’s a whole lot of spending that requires a whole lot of new taxes to pay for it.

Number 2, the arbitrary requirement that new taxes only be paid by the “rich” ignores the critical fact that the top 10 percent of earners already pay more than 70 percent of federal income taxes.

And this trend has been accelerating through time.

But the greatest problem with this tax-trend is that it balances the burden of paying for growing government on the backs of a few families is that it creates immense dependence on the government by non-payers—those who collect federal benefits but pay no federal income tax—who have no skin in the game.

Instead of focusing on who to tax, Congress should focus on the real problem—spending—and start tightening its belt to save us from having to fork over even more of our income this time next year.

http://blog.heritage.org/2010/04/12/…ear-just-wait/