Author: Heritage

On 02.08.10 11:08 AM posted by Mike Brownfield

<ahref="http://blog.heritage.org/wp-content/uploads/piggybank.jpg"></p>Hundreds of thousands of recession-induced retirements are proving to be terrible news for the Social Security Administration, leading to the total decimation of its annual surplus for the first time in 25 years, <ahref="http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2010-02-07-social-security-red-retirements_N.htm">according to USA Today. But this morning’s headline really doesn’t qualify as “news,” per se, given that Social Security has been headed toward dark territory for <ahref="http://blog.heritage.org/2009/03/26/sayonara-social-security-surpluses/">quite some time.

The chief actuary for the Social Security Administration said of today’s “news” that, “Things are a little bit worse than had been expected.”*He understates the true extent of the problem.

This year marks a tipping point for Social Security – for the first time in 25 years, Social Security outlays will exceed revenue, according to Congressional Budget Office (CBO) reports. What’s more, <ahref="http://www.heritage.org/Research/SocialSecurity/wm2632.cfm">as The Heritage Foundation has warned, Social Security will begin running permanent deficits by 2016.

<spanid="more-25921"></span>There is more bad news on the horizon for the Social Security Administration, as USA Today reports:

The impact of the recession is likely to hit the giant retirement system even harder this year and next. The Congressional Budget Office had projected it would operate in the red in 2010 and 2011, but a deeper economic slump could make those losses larger than anticipated.

If that weren’t enough, even more trouble abounds. As the recession pushes more Americans into early retirement (and with unemployment, less tax revenue is collected to support the program), the Social Security Administration will also have to grapple with the retirement of the Baby Boomer generation, who will begin drawing benefits. In short, <ahref="http://blog.heritage.org/2010/02/02/social-security-bailouts-begin-in-2010/">Social Security will need a taxpayer-funded bailout, unless, of course, government embraces policy solutions to right the ship.

Heritage expert David C. John says there are <ahref="http://www.heritage.org/Research/SocialSecurity/wm2632.cfm">three short-term solutions for fixing Social Security, including reducing benefits, increasing retirement savings and raising taxes. John writes that the first two options will take time, but could be effective, while raising taxes is merely an easy way out that should be avoided:

The first two will take years to have a real effect. Accounts of any size need to grow for about 20-25 years before they are large enough to pay much in the way of retirement benefits. Moreover, benefit changes are politically feasible only if current retirees and those close to retirement are not affected, which means that it would be several years before benefit changes start to take effect.

On the other hand, some prefer tax increases because they would immediately pump money into Social Security. But that band-aid would just delay the start of real long-term reform and make it much more likely that Congress would keep taking the easy way out by raising taxes.

Today’s news – or “reminder” – should be a wake-up call for the Obama administration and Congress. The Social Security system needs help, and it’s time to look at real solutions to the problem.

http://blog.heritage.org/2010/02/08/…s-no-surprise/

On 02.08.10 12:00 PM posted by Guinevere Nell

<ahref="http://blog.heritage.org/wp-content/uploads/100208obam-econ-team.jpg"></p>A year ago, President Obama warned the American people that the financial crisis was dire and required <ahref="http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/2009-01-08-obama-economy_N.htm">a whole new approach to government spending. Obama argued that the government must help America spend its way out of the recession, and <ahref="http://otrans.3cdn.net/45593e8ecbd339d074_l3m6bt1te.pdf">his economists, using Keynesian multipliers, argued the “stimulus” would keep unemployment below 8.2 percent (PDF).

Conservatives were skeptical, and pointed out that many of the government jobs would take a year or more to materialize, but Obama replied that <ahref="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/11/AR2009071102465.html">we must be patient and keep spending. Conservatives pointed out that many of the stimulus projects were wasteful, and pork-ridden, but the consistent response from supporters of the President’s plan was that <ahref="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/10/AR2009041001985.html">any stimulus is better than no stimulus. The economist behind the administration’s theory of stimulus pending, the late John Maynard Keynes, argued that any spending is better than no spending, famously saying that the government could bury money and let people dig it up and this would be superior to not spending at all. <ahref="http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/14/time-for-bottles-in-coal-mines/">Obama supporter and Nobel laureate Paul Krugman has publicly endorsed this position.<spanid="more-25895"></span>

Since then Obama has promoted this idea consistently – stressing that his stimulus is “saving” jobs and boosting demand despite the <ahref="http://blog.heritage.org/2009/12/04/obama%E2%80%99s-failed-stimulus-in-pictures-jobs-gap-grows-to-76-million/">growing gap between his promises and the reality. And Obama is still <ahref="http://blog.heritage.org/2010/01/08/obamas-green-jobs-plan-will-do-more-harm-than-good/">introducing new programs such as his “green jobs” program with the justification that they will “create jobs.”Despite <ahref="http://blog.heritage.org/2009/12/04/morning-bell-the-definition-of-economic-insanity/">failure after failure, the promises and rhetoric never changed…

Until now.

Now that <ahref="http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1910208,00.html">the failure of the stimulus bill is becoming obvious, and <ahref="http://www.capitolhillblue.com/node/22985">public opinion has turned against it, Obama is touting a spending freeze in his <ahref="http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/02/01/introducing-2011-budget"><spanstyle="font-weight: normal;">2011 budget</span>: “As we focus our efforts on spurring job creation and jumpstarting economic growth, we also have to change business as usual in Washington and restore fiscal responsibility.”

Wait: If government spurs job creation by spending, even on digging holes and filling them up, then how can one advocate both the first part, and the second part, of that sentence? That kind of doublethink can hurt the brain.

What new theory lies behind the timing of this sudden advocacy of budget restraint? It certainly is not Keynesian theory. Keynesian theory would suggest continued loose fiscal policy, since unemployment is still around 10 percent. Remember: <ahref="http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/14/time-for-bottles-in-coal-mines/">digging holes and filling them in is “stimulus” and hence is better than nothing, for Keynesians.

A spending freeze is “Hooverism” and is the worst thing that one can do during a recession; during a recession government must use deficit spending, and the more deficit spending the better. Now, in any case <ahref="http://blog.heritage.org/2010/02/01/morning-bell-the-obama-budget-higher-taxes-higher-spending-and-more-debt/">the spending freeze is tiny, but if it were a true attempt at fiscal responsibility, this would be a curious policy turnaround.

http://blog.heritage.org/2010/02/08/…n-doublespeak/

On 02.08.10 01:07 PM posted by Todd Thurman

</p>In what was seemingly an outlandish Super Bowl commercial, the “Green Police” could become all too real.* Though the cap-and-trade legislation appeared to die in the Senate after the passing the House, that doesn’t mean the war of environmental regulations is over. Liberals could still force draconian environmental restrictions on us anyway. <ahref="http://blog.heritage.org/2010/02/01/obama%E2%80%99s-energy-budget-a-revenue-neutral-cap-and-trade-system/">Tucked into the budget of the Environmental Protection Agency (run by unelected bureaucrats) is money to enact “laws” that will force us to comply with new emissions standards. This commercial would be funnier if it wasn’t so true.

http://blog.heritage.org/2010/02/08/…-green-police/

On 02.08.10 06:46 AM posted by Conn Carroll

Right before the Super Bowl, President Barack Obama spoke about health care reform with CBS News’ Katie Couric: “I want to come back and have a large meeting, Republicans and Democrats, to go through systematically all the best ideas that are out there and move it forward.”

According to aides, the President envisions a half-day meeting on February 25th held in Blair House (a building across the street from the White House) presumably televised by C-SPAN. President Obama’s conciliatory rhetoric aside, everyone knows this publicity stunt has nothing to do with actually considering conservative health care reform ideas and everything to do with the appearance of transparency and bipartisanship. The New York Times reports: “In making the gesture on Sunday, Mr. Obama is in effect calling the hand of Republicans who had chastised him for not honoring a campaign pledge to hold health care deliberations in the open, broadcast by C-Span, and for not allowing Republicans at the bargaining table.”

And the reality is that Democrats have no intention of including conservative ideas this late in the game. The Washington Post reports that White House officials “said the president will come to the health-care summit armed with a merged version of the two bills that Democrats strong-armed through the two chambers with almost no GOP backing.” And The Post adds that Congressional Democrats show no signs of intending to listen to new ideas either: “In separate statements Sunday, Democratic leaders praised the president for calling the bipartisan summit but made clear they are not prepared to give up on the progress they made last year.”

The White House continues to operate on the assumption that the American people would support their plan, but that President Obama just has not explained it well enough to the American people. The exact opposite is true. The American people have a very good idea of what is in President Obama’s health care plan, and they do not like it. The President’s plan takes the worst part of the status quo – a slow-motion federal government takeover of health care – and makes the problem much, much worse. Tacking-on one or two conservative ideas will not change the fundamental direction Obamacare would take our country.

Take for example the President’s insistence that his plan includes the conservative idea to allow individuals to purchase health insurance cross state lines. The problem is the President’s plan also gives czar-like powers to unaccountable federal bureaucrats to decide what does and does not qualify as health insurance for the entire country. These regulations would squeeze-out any real competition among private health plans anywhere, making competition across state lines useless.

If the President were really interested in bipartisan reform, he should have reached-out to conservatives months ago. Even before the President was sworn into office, our conservative health care analysts here at The Heritage Foundation have been reaching-out with common sense, free-market-friendly ideas that can ensure access to affordable health insurance. But for more than a year, the President chose not to listen. If the President truly is interested in bipartisan health reform, he needs to step back and start over. His six-hour February 25th Hail Mary pass just isn’t going to cut it.

Quick Hits:

• Thanks to last weekend’s snow storm in Washington, Senate Democrats will miss their self-imposed deadline for bringing President Obama’s Second Stimulus to the floor today.
• According to the latest Gallup poll, 53% of Democrats have a positive view of socialism.
• Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad yesterday ordered the production of higher-enriched uranium, significantly beyond the levels of its regular nuclear fuel.
• According to the chief actuary for the Social Security Administration, the nation’s giant retirement system will operate in the red “for a year or two.”
• The local teachers union in Montgomery County, Maryland, has such control over the local Democratic Party that candidates running for office give the union campaign cash, instead of the other way around.

http://blog.heritage.org/2010/02/08/…ave-obamacare/

On 02.07.10 09:00 AM posted by Dan Ziegler

House Cloakroom: February 8 – 12

Analysis:

Last week President Obama released his new budget which would spend an additional $1.7 trillion. Heritage budget analyst Brian Riedl breaks that down in his analysis of the budget here.* On top of that the House passed and sent to the President a $1.9 trillion dollar debt limit increase.

As the Senate moves to take up a supposed “jobs” bill, the House with pivot back to health care. *The final language is still being worked out but they expect to take up a bill to remove antitrust exemptions for health insurers, which is a provision that does have some bi-partisan support. This could be sign that Congress could pivot to taking up smaller portions of the broader health care reform bill.

Lastly, the House is also expected to take up an Intelligence Authorization bill.

Major Floor Action:

• HR 2701 Fiscal 2010 Intelligence Authorization

• Small health care bill to remove antitrust exemptions for health insurers (language still not available)

Major Committee Action:

• Many of the Subcommittees of the House Appropriations Committee will hold hearings this week to begin considering the 2011 Appropriations programs and activities.

• Several major committees will also hold hearings on the 2011 budget including Armed Services, Homeland Security, Natural Resources, Ways and Means, and several others.

Senate Cloakroom: February 8 – 12

Analysis:

Jobs.* Jobs.* Jobs.* The Senate stimulus strategy, outlined late last week, involves moving a number of smaller bills.* With public anxiety over last year’s $787 billion stimulus bill and the sheer complexity of the health care reform efforts, that makes political sense.* Moving multiple small bills will prove no more effective than last year’s failed effort if the policy is bad.* Unfortunately, many of the policies being discussed appear to be more of the same — spending and taxpayer-backed subsidies geared toward special interests.

Major Floor Action:

• On Monday, the Senate will vote to confirm Joseph Greenaway to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Third Circuit. They will also attempt to invoke cloture on the controversial nomination of Craig Becker to be a member of the National Labor Relations Board.

• The legislative text of the “tax provision” stimulus bill has not been made public, but a misguided hiring tax credit is certainly on the table.

Major Committee Action:

• The Armed Services Committee will hold a closed hearing on the transfer of detainees held at Guantanamo.

• The Energy Committee will hold a hearing on DOE’s loan guarantee program.

• The Budget Committee will hold a hearing on the federal budget and exploding debt.

http://blog.heritage.org/2010/02/07/…80%93-12-2010/

On 02.06.10 06:30 AM posted by Mike Brownfield

</p>If you ask attorney Harold Apolinsky who really profits from the death tax, he’ll tell you, “I think I do, as an estate planning lawyer,” but then he will tell you why the tax needs to be permanently repealed.

According to Apolinsky, the death tax (or estate tax, as it is also known) taxes the transfer of a business from the deceased to their heirs upon death at an extraordinarily high rate. The tax first came into law in 1917 in order to pay for World War I, was abolished this year, but is set to come back in 2011 at a 55% rate and $ 1 million exemption.

Apolinsky, who helps families plan for the death tax, says it truly can be deadly for small companies. He observes that most successful businesses don’t have “buckets of cash” laying around to pay the tax, and they face the impossible choice of setting money aside, expanding their business, hiring new employers, or paying hundreds of thousands of dollars to insurance companies to fund a life insurance policy that covers their death tax obligation.

<spanid="more-25844"></span>That just doesn’t make sense, Apolinsky says, in a country built on capitalism and free enterprise. “If you’re going to take away half the value of a business every generation, how can it grow?” he asks, while also noting that Sweden and Australia have repealed death taxes because they want family businesses to grow larger and provide more jobs.

The Heritage Foundation as looked at family businesses in America who are suffering the effects of the death tax. Watch the following videos to learn more:

<ahref="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LT98odf2wIc">Hancock Lumber

<ahref="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ImxWWLEcMiI">Reliable Contracting

<ahref="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d3xI7RoS6rE">Grande Harvest Wines

Learn more about the death tax at <ahref="http://www.heritage.org/News/Death-Tax.cfm">heritage.org/deathtax.

Do you have a comment or your own story to share? Leave a comment below and join the conversation.

http://blog.heritage.org/2010/02/06/…nning-lawyers/

On 02.05.10 03:00 PM posted by James Phillips

<ahref="http://blog.heritage.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/iranpres0911041-e1265394900921.jpg"></p>Iran’s firebrand president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has been unusually active this week in the run-up to the February 11th anniversary of Iran’s 1979 revolution. On Sunday <ahref=" http://www.presstv.ir/detail/117545.htm?sectionid=351020101">he proclaimed that Iran will deliver a harsh blow to “Global Arrogance” (the United States) on the anniversary, a remark that has spurred speculation as to what he intends to do then.

In Ahmadinejad’s twisted mind, Iran is a world power that leads a global alliance against a United States that seeks to dominate the world. Any action that signifies Iranian independence and progress on the political, military, nuclear, technological or economic fronts therefore is a blow against the United States. Ahmadinejad already has <ahref="http://blog.heritage.org/2010/02/03/irans-ahmadinejad-unveils-satellites-and-disingenuous-offer-on-uranium/">lauded the launch of an Iranian research rocket on Wednesday as a “big event” and more ballistic missile tests may follow. Or perhaps an announcement on the nuclear front.

But the most likely explanation is that the annual regime-supported demonstrations in support of Iran’s Islamic revolution, with their customary chants of “death to America”, will not be the harsh blow that Ahmadinejad has in mind. By whipping up anti-American fervor the buffoonish Iranian leader hopes to drown out the voices of Iran’s opposition Green Movement, which seeks to drive him out of office.<spanid="more-25859"></span>

But Iran’s opposition leaders yesterday <ahref="http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/meast/02/04/iran.protests/index.html#cnnSTCText">urged their followers to defy the government and “march with their green colors” in protest rallies on February 11. Despite the arrests of roughly 4,000 protesters, the killings of at least 37 people, the staging of show trials, and the executions of at least two opposition members, Iran’s Green Movement appears determined to push for long-overdue reforms for Iran’s repressive government.

If large numbers of Iranians demonstrate on February 11 in support of the Green Movement, that will be a harsh blow to Ahmadinejad and his thuggish regime.

http://blog.heritage.org/2010/02/05/…bal-arrogance/

On 02.05.10 08:30 AM posted by Dan Lips

Regular readers of the Foundry are probably aware that the federal government’s school voucher program in the nation’s capital, the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship program, is benefiting students by improving school safety and providing higher academic achievement. We thought you’d probably like to know that they’re finding the same trends in Milwaukee, home to the nation’s longest-standing urban school voucher program.

A recent report from School Choice Wisconsin presented an analysis of the number of calls made to 911 from schools in Milwaukee, similar to a Heritage analysis from last summer written up in The Washington Post. The Milwaukee School Safety report found that choice schools appeared to be relatively safer than Milwaukee’s traditional public schools:

Taking into account enrollment differences, police calls to [Milwaukee public schools] occur at a notably higher rate than at independent charter schools6 or at schools in the [Milwaukee parental choice program]. The [Milwaukee Public School] call rate per pupil in 2007 is more than three times that at schools in the [Milwaukee Parental Choice Program].

In addition, a new report out this week from Dr. John Robert Warren of the University of Minnesota analyzed the graduation rates of students attending high schools in Milwaukee, comparing the graduation rate of students participating in the school voucher program with the graduation rate of students who attend traditional public schools in the city. Warren found that during the 2007-08 school year, 77 percent of students in the school voucher program graduated compared to 65 percent in the traditional Milwaukee public school system. The author urges that we use caution when interpreting these findings given the limits of his study’s design. But it is more emerging evidence of the compelling benefits of school choice.

http://blog.heritage.org/2010/02/05/…duation-rates/

On 02.05.10 09:00 AM posted by Deborah O’Malley

The New York Times highlighted a speech that Justice Clarence Thomas delivered at a Florida law school in which he defended the Supreme Court’s recent campaign finance decision in Citizens United v. FEC.* In that speech, Thomas also addressed why he chose to forgo the president’s state of the union address:

“I don’t go because it has become so partisan and it’s very uncomfortable for a judge to sit there,” he said, adding that “there’s a lot that you don’t hear on TV — the catcalls, the whooping and hollering and under-the-breath comments.”

“One of the consequences,” he added in an apparent reference to last week’s address, “is now the court becomes part of the conversation, if you want to call it that, in the speeches. It’s just an example of why I don’t go.”

Jennifer Rubin of Commentary Magazine had some interesting insights on these comments.* Rubin notes that the State of the Union has increasingly become a forum for the president to “lay out a political agenda” and—apparently now—make jabs at the other branches of government.* It is understandable that judges, who are not political players, would be uncomfortable at such an event.

“And really,” Rubin continues, “there is no purpose to be served by the judges sitting mutely (or not) as the president solicits cheers for health care or incurs boos for a budget freeze.”* Rubin is right.* Judges are fundamentally apolitical in their offices.* Judges take no part in crafting or promoting laws and policies, so there is no reason they need to be present while the president briefs lawmakers about his policy plans.

Rubin makes an interesting reference to the ABA’s Canon 4 of judicial ethics, which forbids judges from engaging in political or campaign activity “that is inconsistent with the independence, integrity, or impartiality of the judiciary.”* While Rubin does not think that attending the State of the Union address amounts to “political activity,” she does suggest that the increasing political nature of the event—especially its interactivity—makes it come close:

If the purpose of that rule is to maintain the divide between judges and politics and to avoid ensnaring judges in partisan brawls, then a good place to start would be for justices to follow Justice Thomas’s guidance.

Attending the State of the Union does not amount to a violation of judicial ethics, and therefore no disparagement should attach to justices who choose to attend, but given the partisan nature of the event, and the recent attempt of the President to use the speech to politicize Supreme Court decisions, attendance certainly does not help to fulfill the rule’s purpose of insulating judges from politics.

http://blog.heritage.org/2010/02/05/…-staying-home/

On 02.05.10 09:24 AM posted by Conn Carroll

Releasing his budget this Monday, President Barack Obama told the American people:

We won’t be able to bring down this deficit overnight, given that the recovery is still taking hold and families across the country still need help. … Just as it would be a terrible mistake to borrow against our children’s future to pay our way today, it would be equally wrong to neglect their future by failing to invest in areas that will determine our economic success in this new century.

But not only does President Obama’s budget fail to reduce deficits “overnight”, his budget actually moves them in the opposite direction. President Obama’s budget would:

• Permanently expand the federal government by nearly 3 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) over 2007 pre-recession levels;
• Borrow 42 cents for each dollar spent in 2010;
• Leave permanent deficits that top $1 trillion in as late as 2020;

The chart above compares the President’s budget deficit projections to the Congressional Budget Office’s budget deficit projections under current law. In other words, the policy changes embodied in President Obama’s 2011 Budget puts our country $2.5 trillion deeper in debt by 2020 than it other wise would be if current law were left unchanged.

Now the President is apparently arguing that his trillions of dollars in additional deficit spending are needed to “invest in areas that will determine our economic success in this new century.”

This is statement goes to the core of the fundamental difference between leftists and conservatives in this country: liberals belief economic growth comes from wise investments by government experts; conservatives believe that economic growth stems from* millions of Americans having the freedom to make their own economic decisions everyday.

President Obama’s bailouts, massive stimulus spending, and other dangerous interventionist policies (some of which began in 2008) have made Americans less economically free. The 2010 Index of Economic Freedom analyzes just how economically “free” a country is, and this year America saw a steep and significant decline, enough to make it drop altogether from the “free” category, the first time this has happened in the 16 years we’ve been publishing these indexes. The United States dropped to “mostly free.” As the Index shows, lack of freedom has a direct, negative effect on job growth. It should be no surprise that President Obama’s policies have taken us down the path to fewer jobs and record deficits.

http://blog.heritage.org/2010/02/05/…s-in-pictures/

On 02.05.10 11:00 AM posted by Sarah Torre

The president’s proposed FY2011 budget increases funding to the Department of Education by $3.5 billion. But despite this significant increase, his budget effectively cuts the freedom of choice and educational opportunities from the lives of children living in the District of Columbia. What began last year as a low-profile attempt to quietly phase out the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program has become a noticeable agenda of denying school choice to District families. Representative John Boehner wrote about the administration’s decision today:

“President Obama’s job-killing budget does away with school choice in the nation’s capital. Even with all the profligacy that the FY 2011 budget represents, the President still finds room to kill one of the most successful and important programs enacted by Congress: the District of Columbia Opportunity Scholarship Program.* Based on current program participation rates and the amount of available program funding carried forward from prior fiscal years, the President assumes that this will be the final request for federal funding to support the Opportunity Scholarship Program.* The President is calling for this program’s termination despite the fact that the Department of Education is getting another massive injection of taxpayer money.* In other words, the Administration is boosting funding for underachieving public schools in DC, while at the same time terminating funding for the successful DC school choice program.”

The most recent casualty in the struggle to save the successful voucher program’s future is Holy Redeemer Catholic School. The Pre-K through 8th grade school, which has served the community of Northwest Washington, D.C. since 1955, is closing its doors. The Washington, D.C. Archdiocese’s decision to close or combine four Catholic schools in the area speaks to the difficult situation face by Catholic schools in general and the important role voucher programs play in the schools’ ability to provide a high quality, private school education. The Washington Post notes:

“The changes come at a tough time for area Catholic schools, which have been suffering from declining enrollment because of the economy and, in the District, the winding-down of the federal voucher program that gives low-income families up to $7,500 to attend private schools.”

The Archdiocese recently released a statement regarding the school closings, noting congressional wavering on reauthorizing the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program as a contributing factor to closing Holy Redeemer:

“Of the 149 students now enrolled, nearly 35 percent are Catholic. Sixty students depend on Opportunity Scholarships for tuition assistance. That program is scheduled to end after the 2010-2011 year without action by Congress. The uncertainty over OSP’s future and the decision by the U.S. Department of Education to bar new students from entering the program this year already has contributed to a decline of 24 Opportunity Scholarship recipients at the school since 2007-08.”

While Archdiocese leaders have pledged assistance in transitioning Holy Redeemer families to another Catholic school, the situation inevitably means many students formerly receiving a private school education will return to failing, often unsafe public schools. What President Obama and congressional leaders had hoped would be a quiet dismissal of the scholarship program has become a loud declaration against the freedom of school choice and educational opportunity.

But there is still hope for schools like Holy Redeemer and the DC OSP generally moving forward.* Rep. Boehner and Senator Joe Lieberman sent a letter last week to President Obama requesting the administration’s support for the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program. Senator Lieberman along with Senator Susan Collins and a number of D.C. families participated in a press conference yesterday to call on the president to keep his promise to “fund what works” and provide students necessary and equal educational choices.

http://blog.heritage.org/2010/02/05/…oice-for-many/

On 02.05.10 12:00 PM posted by James Carafano

The Department of Homeland Security’s Quadrennial Homeland Security Review (QHSR) is out. Like the Pentagon’s QDR it is supposed to detail future threats and how our government will deal with them. This report, also like the QDR (and the annual assessment of the Director of National Intelligence), includes the obligatory reference to global warming.

The QHSR warns:

[d]ependence on fossil fuels and the threat of global climate change that can open the United States to disruptions and manipulations in energy supplies and to changes in our natural environment on an unprecedented scale. Climate change is expected to increase the severity and frequency of weather-related hazards, which could, in turn, result in social and political destabilization, international conflict, or mass migrations.

One suspects the commercial for climate change is sandwiched into the report for the same reason it is included in the Pentagon’s report. And the inclusion raises the same questions. As we have written before:

1. They don’t come with an accompanying asterisk. The reality is there is no way to forecast the impact of climate change on national security.

2. They don’t tell you that the administration’s plan for dealing with global climate change may be the biggest national security threat of all because of its potential to wreck the US and the global economy and worst of all that is actually unlikely to affect global warming.

3. They don’t acknowledge that the White House is largely using the national security argument to push a political agenda…pushing for passage of bills like “cap and trade” and ratification of treaties like the Law of the Sea.

Furthermore, these reports are supposed to focus on near term threats. Efforts to link global warming to near term climate change been highly debatable. See Glaciergate.

On the other hand, in some cases we know parts of the global environment, such as the Arctic, are changing. The waters in the Arctic are going to become more navigable year round. We need policies to deal with that. That is a reality that is upon us. Nothing we do about our “dependence on fossil fuels and the threat of global climate change” is going to change that reality in the short term.

The kinds of impacts the QHSR is musing on, if they do realize themselves, are many decades in the future–far beyond the report’s planning time line.

Don’t get me wrong. Discussing and debating the course of global climate change is important.

Just, not sure the QHSR is the place to do that.

Homeland Security should worry a lot more about the terrorists that are trying to kill us right now than what the temperature is going to be 50 years.

http://blog.heritage.org/2010/02/05/…ing-dead-idea/

On 02.05.10 12:59 PM posted by Julia Shaw

Forget George Washington, James Madison, Frederick Douglass, Abraham Lincoln—nothing meaningful happened in America before 1877.

That’s the lesson North Carolina public high schools are teaching. New changes in their high school history curriculum, the U.S. History course (which seniors take), will cover events from 1877 forward only.

It will be as if the American Founding never happened.

According to Rebecca Garland, the chief academic officer for North Carolina Department of Public Instruction, the goal of this change is to teach what students will feel connected to, “where they see the big idea, where they are able to make connections and draw relationships between parts of our history and the present day.”

By implication, nothing before 1877 has any meaning to students: the Declaration of Independence that proclaims the self evident truths of equality, natural rights, and consent of the governed; the Constitution that establishes the rule of law and the framework in which we exercise our liberty; the Civil War in which Abraham Lincoln defended the principles of the American Founding and ended the institution of slavery.*These events are irrelevant for today’s students.

Early 20th century Progressives also taught that nothing before 1877 has meaning for today. In his new book We Still Hold These Truths: Rediscovering Our Principles, Reclaiming Our Future, Matthew Spalding recounts Progressives attack on America’s First Principles. The Progressives sought to remake America, so that the Declaration’s Founding Principles, the Constitution’s institutional structures, and the Civil War’s meaning as a victory for Founding principles would no longer ring true. The progressives argued that equal, natural rights were non-existent; government creates rights.*They replaced representative government with the administrative, bureaucratic state.

But the Progressives are wrong.

The events of 1776, 1789,*and 1865 still inspire our nation. So, for the students across U.S. who have the opportunity to study the American prior to 1877, treasure the Founding documents and learn about America’s First Principles. For you high school students in North Carolina, don’t worry,* the*We Still Hold These Truths study guide is coming soon.

http://blog.heritage.org/2010/02/05/…ever-happened/

On 02.05.10 02:08 PM posted by Alec Aramanda

The Obama Administration’s preference to treat terrorists as mere criminals, and not as hybrid enemy combatants to be tried in military commissions, has been made crystal clear. The Administration boasts that the United States has successfully prosecuted hundreds of terrorists in federal court in the past, and as such, we should continue to use federal courts for the most serious terrorists, like KhalidSheikh Mohammed. What they don’t tell you, however, is that they are playing fast and loose with the numbers and types of terrorists tried in federal court.

In fact, Attorney General Holder essentially conceded to the Senate Judiciary that there has not been one successful federal trial of an enemy combatant, captured overseas by our military, since 9/11. Read Heritage Senior Fellow Cully Stimson’s (former federal prosecutor and Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Detainee Affairs) op-ed on Holder’s testimony here.

The Administration’s numbers come from a report by a liberal organization called Human Rights First. Now, thanks to another outstanding article by Andrew McCarthy, we know the truth about the numbers and the Human Rights First terrorist trial report. The report analyzed 119 “terrorism-related” cases with 289 defendants (as of June 2, 2009) and found that 195 were convicted for a 91% conviction rate. But McCarthy, the former Assistant US Attorney in Southern New York and writer for National Review, explains that in its political calculation of “doubling down on civilian due process,” the Left is playing a bogus numbers game.

The report itself states that the 195 figure includes, “acts of terrorism, attempts or conspiracies to commit terrorism, or providing aid and support to those engaged in terrorism”, as well as, “charges under “alternative” statutes such as false statements, financial fraud, and immigration fraud.”

But The New York Times and at least one member of Congress have been bragging that civilian courts have convicted 195 terrorists. Of the 195 convictions, 11 resulted in life sentences (that’s slightly over 5.6% of all convictions). And for the remaining 184 convictions, the average prison sentence was only 8.41 years, with a median prison term of a mere 4.83 years. Some 73 defendants were convicted of material support, 28 for money laundering, 21 for false statements, and 12 for racketeering.* Nine were convicted of conspiracy to commit murder, and 6 were convicted of killing a U.S. national. Eight years of prison isn’t enough time for a hardened terrorist, and the simple fact is that many of these convictions are not “international terrorists” or those actively plotting terror attacks.

To illustrate his point, McCarthy provided an example of what could be included in this 195 figure:

Let’s say the FBI is investigating al-Qaeda and it interviews a person suspected of having relevant information. That person lies during the interview, so the prosecutors indict him for making false statements, and he pleads guilty. Under the HRF’s [Human Rights First] standards, that gets tallied as a conviction in a “terrorism case.” But it hardly means the defendant is an international terrorist, let alone a KSM [Khalid Sheikh Mohammed – the architect of the 9/11 attacks].

However, there are other groups trotting out different sets of numbers. The Justice Department has its own number being used to boost the anti-terrorism credentials of civilian courts. According to a DOJ fact sheet, “Hundreds of terrorism suspects have been successfully prosecuted in federal court since 9/11.*Today, there are more than 300 international or domestic terrorists incarcerated in U.S. federal prison facilities.” The numbers parade doesn’t stop there.* According to an ACLU website dedicated to “Myths and Realities About the Patriot Act”, the then- Bush Administration, “overstates [the] actual number of convictions and omits a number of key facts related to these numbers,” and that the convictions were more commonly for, “charges of passport violations, fraud, false statements, and conspiracy.” The ACLU claims that out of a reported 361 terrorism cases (as of 2004) only 39 individuals were actually convicted of crimes related to terrorism – with a median sentence of 11 months.

The discrepancy among these figures is political. The DOJ naturally wants to boast a strong conviction record of terrorists, whereas the ACLU, according to McCarthy, seeks to paint the terrorist threat as exaggerated. *All of these different numbers are being used to make a case for why terrorists like the Christmas Day Bomber belong in a civilian court, as opposed to a military court. Since that is the issue at hand, it would make more sense to compare and consider similar cases involving convicted terrorists, as opposed to a broader combination of terrorists and those that in some way assisted them.* McCarthy further summarizes this distinction:

The criminal justice system managed to take out only 29 terrorists in the eight years before 9/11. That’s less than what the military sometimes gets done in a single day during this war, underscoring that real international terrorists are primarily a military challenge, not a legal one, and ought to be handled primarily by military processes.

It is comparing apples to oranges to compare a terrorist who was one spark away from blowing a jetliner out of the sky and murdering hundreds of people to somebody who donated money to a front charity or helped move jihadist funds around.* McCarthy, with the experience of serving as the lead prosecutor in the case against the 1993 World Trade Center bomber, explains that, “If we are to prevent jihadist strikes from happening (the post-9/11 Bush philosophy), we have to do aggressive terrorism investigations and prosecute people for the lesser offenses (immigration fraud, money laundering, material support, etc.) that, if left unchecked, facilitate major attacks.”

McCarthy is absolutely correct. Convicting less valuable and less imminently dangerous supporters of terrorism is a crucial component in the long-term war against radical Islamic terrorism, but the numbers involving an active terrorist threat and a more passive connection to terrorism should not be lumped together to score political points. Military commissions, properly resourced, are still the best option we have to handle those with a direct hand in the planning and execution of terror attacks.

The Human Rights First report concedes that a great many of the 195 convictions are in fact minor offenses.* But before carelessly detaching the strings attached to such a number for political purposes, our politicians and commentators should put a little more thought into what the numbers actually represent.

http://blog.heritage.org/2010/02/05/…ith-terrorism/

On 02.05.10 06:04 AM posted by Ed Meese

<ahref="http://blog.heritage.org/wp-content/uploads/ronald-reagan-on-phone10020.jpg"></p>Tomorrow, Feb. 6, is the 99th anniversary of the birth of Ronald Reagan, the 40th president of the United States. Although it has been 21 years since President Reagan completed his second term and left the White House, he still remains a figure of great interest to many Americans, including a large number of young people who were not even born during the time he was president.

New books come out about Reagan every year. The more research that is done about him, the greater the appreciation of what he accomplished and of him as a person. During 2008 Reagan was the president whose name was most mentioned in the debates of both parties, as an example of an effective leader the candidates wished to follow. Since he left office, Ronald Reagan has been the standard to which subsequent presidents have been compared. In numerous polls Reagan has been selected as one of the outstanding presidents in the history of the country.<spanid="more-25743"></span>

Why this continuing interest and favorable treatment of a president from the 20th century—in many ways more favorable treatment than he received from the media while he was in office? The answer lies in both the accomplishments he achieved while in office and his leadership style, which inspired and encouraged the American people.

The history of the Reagan presidency shows how he revitalized the United States economy at a time of one of the most serious crises since the Great Depression of the 1930s. His program of lower tax rates across the board, regulatory reform, stable monetary policy, and slowing the growth of federal spending, produced the longest peacetime period of economic growth in the history of the nation. On the international front his strategy and actions rebuilt our national defense capabilities, restored the position of the U.S. in world leadership, and took the courageous actions that ultimately led to the end of the Cold War, with the cause of freedom winning.

Equally important in endearing him to the American people was Reagan’s style of leadership. He had a vision of where America should be going and he was able to communicate that vision to the American people. It depended greatly on his concept of why America was good and why the American people had achieved so much in what has been a relatively new nation on the face of the earth. He admired the Founders and was able to relate their ideas of liberty, civic virtue, and opportunity to the people of the current generation. Even in difficult times, his cheerfulness and optimism gave the people the hope that, as he would put it, “America’s best days are yet ahead.”

As with any president, not everything went well and Reagan faced many challenges, political opposition, and disappointments. Yet his faith in God and his faith in the American people enabled him to maintain his posture of enthusiastic leadership and ultimately to prevail over numerous obstacles.

As we look back a quarter-century to an era of great challenge at home and abroad, and to a time when America needed a great leader, we can be thankful that we had a president who was equal to the task.

This remembrance of President Reagan was originally published in <ahref="http://dailycaller.com/2010/02/05/remembering-reagans-legacy-and-applying-it-today/">The Daily Caller this morning.

http://blog.heritage.org/2010/02/05/…ying-it-today/

On 02.05.10 06:12 AM posted by Brandon Stewart

In the most recent installment of “<ahref="http://blog.heritage.org/tag/in-the-green-room/">In the Green Room,” Representative Buck McKeon (R-CA), the top Republican on the <ahref="http://armedservices.house.gov/">House*Armed Services Committee sat down with us before <ahref="http://www.heritage.org/press/events/ev020410a.cfm">his major address yesterday at The Heritage Foundation to discuss national defense priorities.

His speech was titled “Building a Robust National Defense for the 21st Century: Countering a Decline in the Defense Department.” We discussed some of his points, including his response to the view among some that America is in decline. Rep. McKeon pushed back against that assessment stating:

“I disagree. I think we hold our destiny in our hands. We can make the decision whether we move forward or whether we will follow a declining path as other great nations have. We have the ability to control the decision.

…

We need to be able to take a position throughout the world that we are going to stand up for those who desire freedom.”

Be sure to watch*our <ahref="http://blog.heritage.org/tag/in-the-green-room/">other videos from In the Green Room.

http://blog.heritage.org/2010/02/05/…america-great/

On 02.05.10 06:40 AM posted by Nick Loris

<ahref="http://blog.heritage.org/wp-content/uploads/brake-pedals100205.jpg"></p>Toyota’s bad press has been for its sticky pedal incident certainly isn’t surprising, but is all the negative attention warranted? When asked about the Toyota recalls, Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood responded by <ahref="http://www.nydailynews.com/money/2010/02/04/2010-02-04_untitled__toyota04m.html">saying, “My advice to anyone who owns one of these vehicles is stop driving it, and take it to the Toyota dealership because they believe they have the fix for it” and <ahref="http://www.cnbc.com/id/35208812">that “we’re not finished with Toyota.” Hood later toned down his remarks but immediately after his “stop driving” comment, Toyota’s stocks plummeted. Even after recovering some, the <ahref="http://www.nydailynews.com/money/2010/02/04/2010-02-04_untitled__toyota04m.html">stock closed down 6% that day.

Much like Vice President Biden’s <ahref="http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=7470281&page=1">comments not to use public transportation or ride an airplane because of swine flu, LaHood’s comments were a bit over the top and have caused some to question the government’s motive. We don’t speculate motives at The Heritage Foundation, but it’s easy to understand why a government that now owns a major stake in General Motors would want to put continuous bad press on a rival automaker. In fact, <ahref="http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100202/ap_on_bi_ge/us_auto_sales">GM’s sales were up 14 percent in January while Toyota’s fell 16 percent. Ford, which refused government bailout cash, had sales figures increase 25 percent. This could simply be a market response to a bad product; profits and losses are a telling sign in the economy, but the government shouldn’t be holding Toyota’s head under the water. Toyota handled the problem quickly by recognizing the problem as well as recalling and guaranteeing a fix for all 2.3 potentially affected owners.

<spanid="more-25751"></span>

But when every Member of Congress and the Obama administration is a jobs, jobs, jobs message, it would cause more harm than good to keep the bad press on Toyota since its integral in the U.S. economy. Weston Konishi of the Mansfield Foundation <ahref="http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/international-business/Is-US-bullying-Toyota-on-recall/articleshow/5534434.cms">says, “Toyota is now a real stakeholder in the US economy — think of its auto plants and jobs — so trying to score points against it would be somewhat self-defeating.”

While an accelerator pedal that could get trapped on the floor mat is a serious issue, the remarks and the reactions have been overblown<ahref="http://www.edmunds.com/repairshops/all/Ohio/Oregon.html"> according to David Champion, director of automobile testing for Consumer Reports: “When you look at the statistics we are putting an awful lot of effort on a very small risk. There has been something like 2,000 complaints of unintended acceleration in some 20 million Toyota vehicles — it’s almost like trying to find a needle in a haystack.”

Either way, this is what happens when the ref starts playing for one team. The fans begin to question every call.

http://blog.heritage.org/2010/02/05/…sticky-pedals/

On 02.05.10 06:46 AM posted by Conn Carroll

When President Barack Obama was sworn into office, the U.S. economy employed <ahref="http://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/empsit_02062009.htm">134.6 million people and the unemployment rate stood at 7.6%. In response to growing job losses, President Obama passed an*<ahref="http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/jan/27/stimulus-price-tag-soars-as-jobless-rate-rises/">$862 billion stimulus plan that his economic experts promised would help the United States employ at least 138.6 million people by 2010. Reality has not been kind to President Obama’s hope. Today, the Bureau of Labor and Statistics released its*<ahref="http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm">monthly jobs report showing the U.S. economy shed another net 20,000 jobs, leaving only 129.5 million jobs, almost 10 million short of the President’s promises.

Anticipating this bleak job news, the President <ahref="http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/78437-obama-jobs-must-be-our-no-1-focus-in-2010">announced in his State of the Union address last week: “That is why jobs must be our number one focus in 2010, and that is why I am calling for a new jobs bill tonight.” It is understandable why the President wants to call this new legislation a “jobs bill” instead of what it really is: his second stimulus. But that would mean admitting that his first stimulus completely failed, which both the <ahref="http://blog.heritage.org/2010/01/11/ap-confirms-government-infrastructure-spending-does-not-create-jobs/">objective evidence and <ahref="http://blog.heritage.org/2010/01/26/cnn-poll-3-of-4-americans-say-stimulus-wasted/">the opinion of the American people show it has.

And why did the President’s first stimulus fail? For the same reason his second stimulus is destined to fail: <ahref="../2009/12/03/the-jobs-summit-jobs-failure-20/">Only the private sector in pursuit of opportunity can create jobs on net. The best we can hope from government is that it keeps to a minimum the jobs it prevents and the income and wealth it destroys.<spanid="more-25731"></span>

And the specific policies being talked about on Capitol Hill for this second round of stimulus are particularly pernicious. The $5,000 tax credit for any business that hires a new worker not only does not create any incentive for already-struggling companies to begin hiring, it could even <ahref="http://blog.heritage.org/2010/02/04/tax-credit-for-hire-another-failed-stimulus-policy-in-the-pipeline/">result in some currently unemployed individuals remaining unemployed until the tax credit is passed into law, or similarly, some companies firing some workers and then re-hiring once the tax credit is passed into law.

The President’s TARP-funded government-subsidized loans for small businesses are also terrible policy. Besides the fact that unspent TARP funds ought to be used to pay down the deficit, <ahref="http://blog.heritage.org/2010/02/03/a-pledge-small-businesses-do-not-need/">the Small Business Administration has a terrible record of effectively allocating capital to the private sector.

There is one sector of the economy that is thriving under President Barack Obama: government. This week, the Obama administration announced that*<ahref="http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/feb/02/burgeoning-federal-payroll-signals-return-of-big-g/">the number of government employees will grow to 2.15 million this year, topping two million for the first time since President Clinton declared that “the era of big government is over.” And today, <ahref="http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2010-02-04-lobbying_N.htm">USA Today reports “the lobbying industry is humming along in the nation’s capital” as the top 20 trade associations and companies increased their lobbying expenses by 20% in 2009. ConocoPhillips spent $18.1 million dollars lobbying Congress in 2009, up from $8.5 million the year before, while it also laid off 1,300 people.

This is a perfect example of what happens to an economy when government becomes “the focus” of job creation. Jonathan Rauch explains: “Economic thinkers have recognized for generations that every person has two ways to become wealthier. One is to produce more, the other is to capture more of what others produce. … Washington looks increasingly like a public-works jobs program for lawyers and lobbyists, a profit center for professionals who are in business for themselves.”

The real way Washington could create jobs is by getting out of the way. Fred P. Lampropoulos, founder and chief of Merit Medical Systems Inc., <ahref="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/04/us/politics/04jobs.html?_r=2&ref=todayspaper">told the President in December that businesses were uncertain about investment because “there’s such an aggressive legislative agenda that businesspeople don’t really know what they ought to do.” That uncertainty, he added, “is really what’s holding back the jobs.”

Quick Hits:

• Stocks worldwide suffered sharp losses as <ahref="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704533204575046613394014150.html?m od=WSJ-hpp-LEFTTopStories">the cost of insuring Greek and Portuguese sovereign debt soared.
• The House voted Thursday to allow the federal government to go <ahref=" http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/05/us/politics/05debt.html?ref=todayspaper">$1.9 trillion deeper in debt, an increase of about $6,000 for every U. S. resident.
• The Senate health care bill would <ahref="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704259304575043302815479426.html?m od=WSJ_Opinion_MIDDLETopOpinion">raise effective marginal tax rates on lower and middle-income singles and families up to 41%.
• Windmills installed by Minnesota cities to meet the state’s new mandated global warming renewable energy requirements are <ahref="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/05/science/earth/05cold.html?ref=todayspaper">failing to provide any power thanks to the snow.
• The White House is preparing for the possibility they will have <ahref="http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Supreme_Court/white-house-prepares-possibility-supreme-court-vacancies/story?id=9740077">two Supreme Court vacancies to fill on news that Justices John Paul Stevens and Ruth Bader Ginsburg both may retire.

http://blog.heritage.org/2010/02/05/…-as-the-first/

On 02.05.10 08:00 AM posted by James Carafano

<ahref="http://blog.heritage.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/borderfence.jpg"><imgsrc="http://blog.heritage.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/borderfence.jpg" alt="" title="borderfence" width="400" height="238" class="alignnone size-full wp-image-4136" /></p>1. There will be lots of positive measures in the bill that conservatives will support.

That does not matter. A massive amnesty will overwhelm all the positive affects of visa reforms, added security workplace enforcement , and even establishing temporary worker programs. That is exactly what happened when the same approach was tried in 1986.

2. The first thing we have to do is deal with the illegal population that is already here.

Wrong. Starting with amnesty will pretty much insure that none of the other issues get addressed. Once the “800 lbs guerrilla” is off the table the left will lose all interest in immigration and border security.

3. Legalization is not amnesty.

<spanid="more-25768"></span>Wrong. It is. No matter how its portrayed-rewarding people who broke the law by allowing them to stay here lawfully will only encourage more illegal migration.

4. There is no alternative to amnesty.

Wrong a phased approach to implementing reforms will address the underlying problems driving illegal immigration-that should be first priority.

5. Conservatives are part of the party of NO. They have no compassion, no sense of doing what’s fair.

Wrong. Conservatives believe that America is and should remain a “nation of immigrants” But the challenge of illegal immigration must be addressed in a manner that respects the rule of law, protects our sovereignty and security and gets employees employers need to grow the economy.

http://blog.heritage.org/2010/02/05/…ration-reform/

On 02.04.10 03:00 PM posted by Chuck Donovan

<ahref="http://blog.heritage.org/wp-content/uploads/prayer-breakfast100204.jpg"></p>A*<ahref="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/03/AR2010020303619.html">short piece in today’s Washington Post examines President Obama’s religious faith. The occasion of the article is the President’s remarks today to <ahref="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Prayer_Breakfast">the National Prayer Breakfast, an annual event held at this time of year in the capital. Interestingly, the article does not attempt to distinguish among the usages of prayer in the life of the Commander in Chief — whether he prays for strength or fortitude or policy guidance or just a peaceful day. In fact, the Post reports, President Obama consults religious tradition and teaching for insights into issues of governance:

“[C]lose advisers to the president said the role of faith, while subtle, has been noticeable in and around the Obama White House. One senior official described the president as “a prayerful guy.” Another said that Obama has consulted religious leaders less often for his own personal guidance than for help walking through major public decisions — such as during the Afghanistan review process, when he sought advice on the ethical implications of war.”

The impact of religious discourse on the foundations and evolution of just war doctrines is undeniable, and it has been a constraining force on the decisions of leaders who bear weighty responsibilities. American presidents have acted in similar ways, and openly discussed their spiritual reflections on public acts, throughout American history. In doing so, they carried on <ahref="http://www.heritage.org/Research/Thought/wm1722.cfm">the political and social philosophy of the Founders.

Meanwhile, however, on the opposite coast from Washington, D.C., lawyers in a San Francisco courtroom have spent <ahref="http://www.alliancedefensefund.org/issues/traditionalfamily/default.aspx?cid=5179">the last few weeks trying to establish that a public policy in favor of traditional marriage supported by voters with even a tinge of religious reflection is perforce unconstitutional.

Followed to its logical conclusion, that view would lead courts to constitutionally invalidate a host of public policy determinations on everything from <ahref="http://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=18-08-045-b">capital punishment to <ahref="http://www.saratogian.com/articles/2009/12/12/news/doc4b22fe993d63c793863281.txt">climate change,
and on <ahref="http://www.rcrc.org/">both<ahref="http://www.usccb.org/comm/archives/2010/10-021.shtml">sides of any number of issues where religious institutions or ideas play a role. As a wise Supreme Court Justice famously wrote, courts that go down this road will be “very busy indeed.”

http://blog.heritage.org/2010/02/04/…ant-interplay/