Author: Heritage

On 02.04.10 03:30 PM posted by Helle Dale

<ahref="http://blog.heritage.org/wp-content/uploads/Europe090318.jpg"></p>President Obama’s decision to skip the annual U.S.-EU summit in Europe, May 24-25, has not endeared him to some Europeans; many of whom once again feel spurned by the man they have so greatly admired, and whose election they so ardently wished for. As reported by <ahref="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/03/world/europe/03europe.html?ref=world&pagewanted=…">The New York Times, “In addition to the palpable sense of insult among European officials, there is a growing concern that Europe is being taken for granted and losing importance in American eyes compared with the rise of a newly truculent China.” The problem here is twofold: It is indeed problematic on a global scale if the transatlantic alliance has been thus downgraded by the Obama administration. Yet, Europeans bear some of the responsibility in this:* their reluctance to support the United States in Afghanistan and their creation of ineffectual and tangled EU institutions have become impediments to relations with the United States.

Particularly aggrieved was Spanish Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, who was to host the summit in Madrid as the head of the country holding the rotating presidency of the European Council. Like other Europeans leaders, Zapatero, who faces reelection next year, would like to enhance his stature and bask in the Obama glow, and this opportunity was denied him by the presidential non-appearance. In addition, Zapatero arrived in Washington yesterday for high level meetings that interestingly do not include a one-on-one sit down with Obama in the White House.<spanid="more-25715"></span>

With the <ahref="http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,5205682,00.html">leadership mess the European Union created with the Lisbon Treaty, one can understand the White House’s hesitance to wade into the fray. The EU right now has the opposite of a leadership vacuum – in fact it has a leadership surfeit with no fewer than four presidents in office at the same time. Europeans love institutions and bureaucracies, and they have managed to create so many within the EU that total confusion now reigns.

There is Zapatero, who is prime minister of the country, i.e. Spain that currently holds the 6-month rotating presidency of the European Council. His closest rival is Herman von Rompuy, who is the newly minted president of the European Council, meant to be the ceremonial head of the EU. Then there is the president of the European Commission, and, finally, the president of the European Parliament. Over the past few months, a power struggle has emerged between Zapatero and Von Rompuy as to who is really at the top.

Meanwhile, back in Washington, it seems equally difficult to coordinate the White House and the State Department. Confusingly, a few weeks back, <ahref="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/03/world/europe/03europe.html?ref=world&pagewanted=…">two senior U.S. officials – Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs William Burns and Assistant Secretary of State for Europe Philip Gordon traveled to Madrid for a preparatory meeting for the summit – which the president now says he won’t be attending.

It is perfectly understandable that President Obama has decided not to travel to Madrid. Snubbing Brussels sends an important message that Washington is less than impressed with the EU’s leadership. *He must though be careful not to undermine the broader relationship with Europe as a whole, especially the ties with European nation states. For many reasons, there is a real impression emerging in Europe that Obama does not see himself as an Atlanticist. For Russia, China, and Iran among others, a divided transatlantic alliance is music to their ears, and will only weaken American leadership in the world.

http://blog.heritage.org/2010/02/04/…pean-disunion/

On 02.04.10 09:55 AM posted by Nick Loris

<ahref="http://blog.heritage.org/wp-content/uploads/clouds020410.jpg"></p>We’re a few days before a massive snowstorm whitewashes the District of Columbia, but the Climategate and Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change storms are already here and as fierce as ever. Earlier this week, The Guardian <ahref="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/01/leaked-emails-climate-jones-chinese">shed a little more light on the flawed and hidden data from University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit:

The apparent attempts to cover up problems with temperature data from the Chinese weather stations provide the first link between the email scandal and the UN’s embattled climate science body, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, as a paper based on the measurements was used to bolster IPCC statements about rapid global warming in recent decades.

Wang was cleared of scientific fraud by his university, but new information brought to light today indicates at least one senior colleague had serious concerns about the affair. It also emerges that documents which Wang claimed would exonerate him and Jones did not exist.The revelations come at a torrid time for climate science, with the IPPC suffering heavy criticism for its use of information that had not been rigorously checked – in particular a false claim that all Himalayan glaciers could melt by 2035.”

<spanid="more-25652"></span>

The Environmental Protection agency heavily <ahref="http://www.energybulletin.net/node/50936">relied on the IPCC report to suggest there was a scientific consensus on global warming. The Himalayan glacier gaffe is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to flaws in the IPCC report. Senior Policy Analyst Ben Lieberman <ahref="http://blog.heritage.org/2010/02/01/rapidly-melting-credibility/">expands,

Similar shenanigans appear to have gone on with the IPCC’s claim that damage from hurricanes, floods and other natural disasters has worsened because of global warming. Like the Himalayan glacier melt assertion, it was based on the claim of a single researcher who had not published it in the scientific literature, and who now disassociates himself from the way it was used in the IPCC report. Indeed, when he did publish the study, he concluded that there was “insufficient evidence” of a link between warming and natural disaster damage.”

Further, the IPCC’s assessment of reductions in mountain ice in the Andes, Alps and Africa came from two sources. One <ahref="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7111525/UN-climate-change-panel-based-claims-on-student-dissertation-and-magazine-article.html">was from a magazine that discussed anecdotal evidence from mountain climbers and the <ahref="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7111525/UN-climate-change-panel-based-claims-on-student-dissertation-and-magazine-article.html">other came from a student’s dissertation. The student was pursuing a master’s equivalent in geography and used interviews with mountain guides for his research.

Some are suggesting the Climategate storm is subsiding with the <ahref="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/04/science/earth/04climate.html">recent exoneration of Penn State University professor Michael Mann, one of the notorious climate researchers at CSU involved in the email threads. But the university’s internal investigation is being called into question by the Commonwealth Foundation <ahref="http://www.commonwealthfoundation.org/research/detail/climategate-penn-state">who feels an independent investigation would provide more credibility. Chris Horner of the Competitive Enterprise Institute <ahref="http://biggovernment.com/chorner/2010/02/04/climategate-penn-state-initial-report-signals-whitewash/">has serious issues with Penn State’s initial report of the Mann investigation.**

And Congressman Issa (R-CA) <ahref="http://washingtontimes.com/news/2010/feb/03/issa-slams-grant-embattled-climate-researcher/">is leading a charge to freeze the $500,000 grant in stimulus money Mann received.* Don’t worry, that money was put to good use.* The grant <ahref="http://blog.heritage.org/2010/01/14/541000-in-stimulus-money-creates-1-62-jobs-and-a-climate-scandal/">has generated 1.62 jobs.* The more pertinent question is: were those jobs saved or created?

We’re not sure what’s worse: The fact that some Members of Congress want to implement a cap and trade policy based on these reports <ahref="http://www.heritage.org/Research/Economy/bg2365.cfm">that would result in $4.6 trillion in higher energy taxes, job losses exceeding 2.5 million and nearly $10 trillion lost in gross domestic product (GDP). Or, the reduction in carbon dioxide from a cap and trade bill (and the economic pain that comes with it) <ahref="http://blog.heritage.org/2009/05/04/will-cap-and-trade-save-the-planet-part-3-in-a-10-part-series/">would not make a dent in the earth’s temperature. You can decide.

http://blog.heritage.org/2010/02/04/…loudy-as-ever/

On 02.04.10 10:19 AM posted by Lindsey Burke

This morning, families, students and community members gathered at the Capitol to show their support for the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program, which is currently being phased-out by the Obama administration. Senator Joe Lieberman and Senator Susan Collins hosted a press conference to discuss the impact of the successful program, which has greatly <ahref="http://www.heritage.org/Research/Education/wm2391.cfm ">improved the academic achievement of participating students, <ahref="http://www.heritage.org/Research/Education/wm2437.cfm ">ensured their safety while at school, and maintained <ahref="http://www.edchoice.org/downloadFile.do?id=375 ">strong support among District residents.

The D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program, which has helped 3,300 low-income, primarily African American and Latino students gain access to better schools, works simply but wonderfully: it gives low-income parents the opportunity to send their children to safe and effective private schools in the District.

<spanid="more-25656"></span>As a result of the scholarships and their own drive to succeed, wonderful children like Tiffany Dunston have been able to overcome once-insurmountable personal obstacles and do great things. Tiffany went from fighting to learn in a failing public school to — with the help of an Opportunity Scholarship — becoming the valedictorian at Archbishop Carroll High School. Now, she’s thriving at a great university. Killing the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program decreases the possibility that another child like Tiffany will achieve her potential. Sadly, Obama’s FY2011 budget funds the OSP at a mere $9.4 million, which the <ahref="http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2011/assets/oia.pdf ">president expects “will be the final request for federal funding to support the Opportunity Scholarship program.”

During the press conference, Senator Lieberman called the decision to phase out the scholarships a “tragedy and an outrage.” Lieberman stated:

If the president and his administration are consistent about supporting programs that work, they should support the OSP…this program has not only changed lives, but I believe it has saved lives…If Dr. King were here today, he’d be fighting his heart out for the OSP.

Lieberman has long been a supporter of school choice. Last year, in a Congressional hearing on the future of the D.C. OSP, the senator left no doubt in the minds of those in attendance as to why the program is being phased-out. Special interest groups like the NEA have worked tirelessly to ensure school choice is not an option for D.C. families.

During today’s press conference, Senator Collins reported that 86 percent of children in the Opportunity Scholarship program will have to return to District schools that are failing. Is the president, who inspired millions of people with a message of “hope” and “change” – and who, as a child, attended private school thanks to a scholarship – now so wedded to narrow-minded special interests that he’s willing to sacrifice the futures of poor children who live just blocks from the White House? We hope not.

Co-Authored by Virginia Walden Ford and Lindsey Burke. Virginia Walden Ford is the Executive Director of D.C. Parents for School Choice.

http://blog.heritage.org/2010/02/04/…rship-program/

On 02.04.10 11:01 AM posted by Ariel Cohen

<ahref="http://blog.heritage.org/wp-content/uploads/Natural-gas-refine.jpg"></p>As <ahref="http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=aH0jhcEHz07s">Bloomberg reports, during 2009 U.S. natural gas output grew 3.7 percent to an estimated 624 billion cubic meters (bcm), while the Russian production dropped by 12 percent to an estimated 582 bcm. So much for Russian plans to become an energy juggernaut.

Russia is still a major player in global energy markets and aspires to leverage its resources to become a global energy superpower. It is the largest supplier of natural gas to the European Union and is using this dependence as a foreign policy tool to drive wedges between European capitals and between Europe and the United States. The Kremlin’s strategy seeks to increase dependence by locking in demand with energy importers, consolidating the oil and gas supply under Russian control by signing long-term contracts with Central Asian energy producers, and securing control of strategic energy infrastructure in Europe, Eurasia, and North Africa. Russia’s strategy also involves extending the Gazprom monopoly to create an OPEC-style gas cartel and increasing cooperation with OPEC.

Russia still outperforms Saudi Arabia – and any other country on the planet as the largest producer and exporter of oil and gas. But the Gazprom’s production decline is a cautionary tale of government mismanagement of natural resources, opacity and corruption. In the Heritage’s<ahref="http://www.heritage.org/Index/"> Index of Economic Freedom 2010 Russia came 143rd, behind Haiti, but ahead of Vietnam.<spanid="more-25657"></span>

Russia possesses the world’s largest natural gas reserves. It has been the leading producer for most of the past 20 years and supplies one quarter of the European market. However, due to the global economic crunch, Europe’s gas prices and consumption declined, and the Russian GDP shrank by about 8.7 percent last year. Gazprom cut back output during the gas dispute with Ukraine.

The U.S. total natural gas production, vital for keeping up electricity output and keeping homes warm, has been boosted by production from onshore shale basins and off shore drilling in the Gulf of Mexico and elsewhere.

The American resurgence in gas production is a case study in the advantages of private enterprise over government monopoly. For decades, American gas output stagnated as conventional gas reserves were depleted. However, in the last four year, <ahref="http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/ng/hist/n9010us2m.htm ">natural gas production jumped 10 percent. In the last decade, <ahref="http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/international/iealf/naturalgasreserves.xls">proved natural gas reserves jumped 45 percent in spite of the rising withdrawals. These phenomenal increases are due to the entrepreneurial application of directional drilling and hydro fracturing technology to shale gas reserves. Dynamic private enterprise applied to marginal resources trumped superior resources throttled by state monopoly.

Now, Russia, go match that.

http://blog.heritage.org/2010/02/04/…in-gas-output/

On 02.04.10 11:45 AM posted by Mackenzie Eaglen

<imgsrc="http://blog.heritage.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/pentagon_081204.jpg" alt="Pentagon (Photo by Newscom)" /></p>The Pentagon’s major strategy known as the Quadrennial Defense Review was released this week.*It immediately drew praise from the New York Times’ editorial titled <atitle="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/04/opinion/04thur1.html?th&emc=th" href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/04/opinion/04thur1.html?th&emc=th">“The Defense Budget” for cutting weapons programs—although not nearly enough—and for acknowledging a decline by choice regarding the role of the United States in the world.

The editorial singles out the cancellation of the C-17 transport plane, the Joint Strike Fighter alternate engine, and the F-22 fifth-generation fighter for applause, and dismisses them as “anachronistic and unnecessary.” *The article’s stock-in-trade is a litany of recycled sound bites about “still unproven” missile defense, “cold war relic” weapons, how the Pentagon must make “tough choices,” and how America cannot afford to write the Pentagon “a blank check.”<spanid="more-25667"></span>

Worse, still, the NYT celebrates the Pentagon’s acknowledgment that “while the United States remains the world’s leading military power, it is much more dependent on allies to help maintain international stability.”

Of course, the U.S. carries a disproportionate share of the military burden of its alliances and international missions because it is singularly committed to defending liberty and responding to humanitarian need abroad. *The recent response to the earthquake in Haiti, which was predominantly funded and manned by the U.S., is one example.* Indeed, over 20,000 U.S. troops and 41 C-17s (among other platforms) are being used in Haiti relief operations.* But you wouldn’t know it listening to President Obama dismissing these essential, unique airplanes as “pure waste” on Monday.

This is true even beyond our geographic neighborhood, as with our efforts to protect Muslims from genocide in the Balkans during the 1990s. *As House Armed Services Committee Ranking Member, Rep. Howard “Buck” McKeon (R-CA), said at Heritage earlier toady, no fewer than 30 countries around the world rely on the U.S. nuclear umbrella for their core security.

The Obama Administration’s policy of engagement and negotiations has so far failed to curtail Iranian or North Korean nuclear programs, or to strengthen the protection of human rights in China or Iran. If the U.S. has indeed decided to become “more dependent” on the international system and less dependent on our military might to underpin global stability, it is trading in a robust instrument of global liberty for a weaker one.* *Just as <atitle="http://www.heritage.org/Research/NationalSecurity/sr0052.cfm" href="http://www.heritage.org/Research/NationalSecurity/sr0052.cfm">no country can be expected to provide security and pursue its interests solely through the use of military power, no country can expect to be taken seriously during high-stakes negotiations without the potential threat of military force to back up its word. *Not only do most of our allies lack the military resources to defend nations from aggression or to respond effectively to crises, but many international alliances and institutions are further constrained because they are dominated by the hostile powers they are intended to restrain.

In this international environment, the U.S. should do all it can to maintain a broad spectrum of core defense capabilities that can be called upon at any time to respond to any threat or challenge. For example, the U.S. should invest in more modern, fifth-generation stealth fighters—which cannot by any reasonable accounting be called anachronistic relics—and begin developing a sixth-generation aircraft to maintain our military advantage and deterrent. *Russia just unveiled its stealth fighter jet, the Sukhoi T-50, late last month, and numerous other countries are challenging our dominance of the skies.

As the Heritage Foundation has pointed out this week, it is not a cause for celebration, but a cause for consternation, that <atitle="http://www.heritage.org/Research/NationalSecurity/wm2792.cfm" href="http://www.heritage.org/Research/NationalSecurity/wm2792.cfm">the military has been handed an insufficient budget that will force it to make “tough choices” that reduce our capabilities and make America increasingly vulnerable. *Theodore Roosevelt understood that a wiser approach was to talk softly and carry a big stick. *The NYT naively believes the Administration should take the stick off the table and dismantle it entirely, even before the talking yields any tangible results.

http://blog.heritage.org/2010/02/04/…war-era-stick/

On 02.04.10 12:15 PM posted by Derek Scissors, Ph.D.

<ahref="http://blog.heritage.org/wp-content/uploads/china-stock-market-100125.jpg"></p>Something odd happened today at the Washington Post.* The editors at the Post wrote a solid <ahref="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/03/AR2010020303534.html">editorial on China and, a page later, the esteemed George Will got caught in the <ahref="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/03/AR2010020302951.html?hpid=opinionsbox1">web of China myths.

The main point of the Post editorial is spot on: the Obama administration largely misplayed China policy in its first year.* There are many possible explanations why; one is the administration <ahref="http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601070&sid=apSqGtcNsqSY">overestimates American weakness and Chinese strength. The Post is absolutely right to call for the U.S., <ahref="http://www.heritage.org/Research/AsiaandthePacific/bg2366.cfm">which is far more powerful, to make foreign policy accordingly.

A critical aspect of this better policy is to push for free trade, by China but also by America and around the world.* Recognizing American strengths and interests does not mean China-bashing.* Some of the outcry against the PRC is self-interested protectionism masked in false claims of Chinese dominance. It is aimed at helping certain groups while harming America as a whole.<spanid="more-25676"></span>

George Will also advocates better U.S. policy but, in doing so, he makes the same mistake as the Obama Administration.* Will is rightly unhappy with our deficit and the backward-looking nature of government spending. *These are very serious threats to American prosperity.

However, Will then contrasts the bad American situation to a supposedly great Chinese situation, where the PRC spends wisely and will dominate the global economy.* That is not even close to being true.

China can always look good. This is partly because it has genuinely become much bigger and wealthier since market reform began 30 years ago and partly because it can publish any statistics the Party wants, <ahref="http://www.heritage.org/Research/AsiaandthePacific/wm2775.cfm">no matter how strange. Due to this success and “flexibility,” there are so many things to say about the Chinese economy that someone could spend 60 hours a week doing so.

The number one reason China might never equal the size of the American economy, despite having 1 billion more people, is something Will keys on – demographics. China is about to get older.* Much older, very fast.* The infamous one-child policy means there’s soon to be a whole generation where most Chinese families have two elderly parents supported by <ahref="http://www.feer.com/essays/2009/december51/chinas-family-planning-goes-awry">one working child.

That’s far worse than what the U.S. faces in terms of aging. It’s more like the Japanese situation, and Japan has been stuck in the mud for <ahref="http://www.heritage.org/Research/AsiaandthePacific/wm2307.cfm">20 years. Worse yet, China is still much poorer than the U.S. or Japan – that one child supporting two parents isn’t going to be making nearly as much money as the average American.

Both parts of the Post are right that we need to fix our policies, foreign and especially domestic.* What we should avoid is swallowing stories about the PRC that are based on very little.* That lack of knowledge of China has been part of the problem; it doesn’t work as part of any solution.

http://blog.heritage.org/2010/02/04/…-mostly-right/

On 02.04.10 12:45 PM posted by Conn Carroll

<ahref="http://blog.heritage.org/wp-content/uploads/US-OfficeOfPersonnelManagement-Seal.svg_.png"></p>Most Americans now believe that <ahref="http://prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/02/03/poll-americans-doubtful-health-overhaul-will-pass/">major health care legislation will not pass this year. But as Heritage Vice President Stuart Butler explains in <ahref="http://healthcarereform.nejm.org/?p=2934&query=home">The New England Journal Medicine one seemingly minor proposal in the Senate health care bill could end up having huge repercussions for our entire health care system:

The Senate legislation contains strong directives to the OPM, requiring it to negotiate medical-loss ratios (the percentage of premiums that insurers actually spend on medical care for enrollees), minimum benefits, profit margins, premiums, and “such other terms and conditions of coverage as are in the interests of enrollees in such plans.” Crucially, the legislation also specifies that the OPM-administered plans would automatically be deemed to meet all the requirements for plans to be offered through the health exchanges created by the legislation.1 This means that OPM-administered plans could in practice operate free of many of the financial regulations that exchanges might impose on other plans, allowing the plans to operate under their own OPM-designed regulations.<spanid="more-25677"></span>

How might the health care system evolve if this OPM feature were implemented as part of a modest reform package? Congress rarely gives an agency powers that it does not intend to be used. It also seems reasonable to assume that the people appointed to administer the new bureau within the OPM will be more likely to embrace the adversarial and regulatory philosophy of the leading congressional reformers and the CMS than the traditional “hands-off” culture of the OPM. Managed by such a transformed agency, the private plans that were part of an OPM alternative would probably come, over time, to look more and more like third-party administrators of a federally designed competitor plan, operating under rules significantly different from those governing competing private plans. The result in a few years could be functionally indistinguishable from a public option.

Butler identifies another proposal seen in the House bill that also could spell the death of private health care. Read his whole article <ahref="http://healthcarereform.nejm.org/?p=2934&query=home">here.

More on the Senate’s OPM provisions, <ahref="http://www.heritage.org/Press/Commentary/122309a.cfm">here and <ahref="http://www.heritage.org/Research/HealthCare/bg2364.cfm">here.

http://blog.heritage.org/2010/02/04/…e-senate-bill/

On 02.04.10 01:00 PM posted by Ray Walser

In a recent letter to Speaker Pelosi, President Obama stated that <atitle="http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601080&sid=aM0QitIrzxMY" href="http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601080&sid=aM0QitIrzxMY">North Korea does not fit the criteria for being listed as a <atitle="http://www.state.gov/s/ct/c14151.htm" href="http://www.state.gov/s/ct/c14151.htm">state sponsor of terrorism, which would automatically impose sanctions.* That leaves four countries on the list: Cuba, Iran, Sudan, and Syria.* But given testimony this week from <atitle="http://www.dni.gov/testimonies/20090212_testimony.pdf" href="http://www.dni.gov/testimonies/20090212_testimony.pdf">Director of National Intelligence Denis Blair to the U.S. Senate, we have to wonder, why not Venezuela?

Blair pointed out that its authoritarian president Hugo Chavez, which called Colombia’s Defense Cooperation agreement with the U.S. “a declaration of war against Venezuela,” continues offering covert support to the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), which the U.S. Department of State lists as a <atitle="http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/other/des/123085.htm" href="http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/other/des/123085.htm">terrorist organization. The FARC has killed and kidnapped Americans as well as <atitle="http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Americas/2009/1223/Colombia-s-FARC-rebels-kill-governor-prompting-calls-for-security-shift" href="http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Americas/2009/1223/Colombia-s-FARC-rebels-kill-governor-prompting-calls-for-security-shift">killed innocent Colombians with its terror attacks.* Chavez is also pursuing closer ties with all four of the state sponsors of terrorism, and could well turn Caracas into <ahref="http://www.douglasfarah.com/?pg=2">a Mecca for terror wannabees in the Americas. For these and other reasons,<atitle="http://s3.amazonaws.com/thf_media/2010/pdf/bg_2362.pdf" href="http://s3.amazonaws.com/thf_media/2010/pdf/bg_2362.pdf">it is past time to put Venezuela on the list of state sponsors of terrorism.

http://blog.heritage.org/2010/02/04/…f-terror-list/

On 02.04.10 01:30 PM posted by David Kreutzer

<ahref="http://blog.heritage.org/wp-content/uploads/ClosedFactory.jpg"></p>Rebecca Lefton, writing a <ahref="http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2010/02/false_energy_claims.html">report for the Center for American Progress, tries to debunk a <ahref="http://www.heritage.org/Research/Economy/bg2365.cfm">study of the Boxer-Kerry bill published by The Heritage Foundation. Instead she demonstrates that she didn’t read the study or doesn’t understand the economic logic of the bill she supposedly supports. Further she offers as a substitute for Heritage’s work an analysis done by the Environmental Protection Agency. Either she didn’t read the EPA report, doesn’t understand it, or is willfully misrepresenting it.

The economic fallacies of Lefton’s review are many, but the primary one is her assertion that Heritage cost projections are “grossly overestimated.” In support of her assertion she claims the <ahref="http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/economics/pdfs/HR2454_Analysis.pdf">EPA projects an annual cost of between “$80 and $111 annually” per household. EPA’s actual, inflation-adjusted annual costs range up to $1,288 annually. Unlike Heritage, the EPA did not do a complete, new economic analysis of the Boxer-Kerry bill (S. 1733), but instead based their report on the economic analysis of the Waxman-Markey bill (H.R. 2454). So it is necessary to go to <ahref="http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/economics/pdfs/HR2454_Analysis.pdf">page 14 of EPA’s analysis of H.R. 2454 to find these inflation adjusted cost household cost projections. However, even these larger impacts would be an apples-to-oranges comparison next to the Heritage estimates.<spanid="more-25694"></span>

Previously <ahref="http://www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/wm2580.cfm">we have pointed out that converting from lost consumption per household to lost income per family of four (a more comprehensive and intuitive measure) would bump the range of EPA costs up to $2,700 or more per year. That’s a far cry from $111 dollars, but even this large number is dependent on several unreasonably generous assumptions concerning nuclear power, as yet undeveloped carbon capture-and-storage technology, and developing a world-wide market for offsets (paying others to cut CO2).

Lefton’s misunderstanding of what the $111 estimate actually represents is very common (though still mistaken) and was addressed <ahref="http://www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/wm2705.cfm ">here.

Lefton accuses Heritage of not adjusting the damaging economic impact of cap and trade to account for efficiency mandates. The implication being that such an adjustment would moderate the negative effects. In fact, the mandates add to the economic costs making the pain even greater.

Suppose your employer withheld your pay unless you shopped at a discount department store. This would be a mandate that might cut your consumption spending. Capping your pay at 20 percent of your current salary, like an energy or CO2 cap, would cut your consumption. However, telling you to shop at the discount store after you get the pay cut won’t lighten the burden of having 80 percent less income.

The Heritage report provides support for this clear result from multiple sources—including the current Congressional Budget Office, which <ahref="http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/105xx/doc10562/09-16-CapandStandards.pdf">said (pg. 4) the mandates would “result in a generally higher cost to the economy.”

Nevertheless, Lefton accuses us of failing to recognize the “key role” the mandates will play and with a quote implies the EPA analysis shows great savings from the mandates. What does the EPA <ahref="http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/economics/pdfs/EPA_S1733_Analysis.pdf">actually say?

<blockquote>
The resulting modeled economic impacts of the energy efficiency provisions [mandates] include modest reductions in allowance prices (~1.5%), fossil fuel prices (coal and natural gas ~1%), and electricity prices (

On 02.04.10 02:00 PM posted by Jim Roberts

<ahref="http://blog.heritage.org/wp-content/uploads/GaryLocke020410.jpg"></p>President Obama’s Secretary of Commerce, Gary Locke, rolled out the administration’s new “<ahref="http://www.commerce.gov/NewsRoom/PressReleases_FactSheets/PROD01_008895">National Export Initiative (NEI)” today at the National Press Club.* The way Secretary Locke described it, the NEI sounds like a great vehicle to create jobs—government jobs.

Secretary Locke began by saying that the “NEI represents the first time the United States will have a government-wide export-promotion strategy with focused attention from the president and his Cabinet,” ignoring the prior administration’s success in negotiating <ahref="http://www.ustr.gov/trade-agreements">free trade agreements with more than a dozen countries between 2001 and 2009.* NEI’s main features are:

– more “robust” efforts to help small- and medium-sized enterprises, through the Foreign Commercial Service (FCS) “Gold Key” program (Sec. Locke made it sound like something brand new—actually “Gold Key” has been around for more than 20 years).

-President Obama’s “Export Cabinet” wants to hire more U.S. Government (USG) bureaucrats “to advocate for U.S. business” and channel more taxpayer dollars into “export promotion activities” at the U.S. Departments of Commerce and Agriculture.<spanid="more-25704"></span>

-“improved access to credit” through increasing U.S. Export-Import Bank lending to small- and medium-size businesses from $4 billion to $6 billion through FY 2011 budget increases.* This sounds like an export subsidy and puts the government into the position of picking winners and losers among companies applying for loans (may the best lobbyist win!).

-Locke says the administration favors “trade agreements that are balanced, ambitious and improve market access for U.S. workers, firms, farmers and ranchers” but pledged “continuing the rigorous enforcement of international trade laws to help remove barriers that prevent U.S. companies from getting free and fair access to foreign markets.”* In practical terms, Locke’s emphasis on the fig leaf of enforcement means the administration will continue to have no real intention of pushing the three stalled FTAs with Panama, Colombia, South Korea (although Sec. Locke said that USTR Amb. Ron Kirk is working “to fix the problems” with those FTAs).

Bottom Line take-aways:* The NEI relies on too much government interference and too many USG bureaucrats shilling for politically well-connected companies.* It was telling that the only FCS success story Sec. Locke cited involved the sale of a General Electric “combined cycle power plant” in Kuwait (in April 2009 after Obama took office, of course).* GE’s Chairman, Jeffrey Immelt, is a well-known Obama supporter and GE owns pro-Obama MSNBC.* Another little sign—a pro-NEI press release from the United Parcel Service (UPS) was distributed at the luncheon.* Non-unionized FedEx has alleged in full-page advertisements in the Washington Post and elsewhere in recent months that the Obama Administration has <ahref="http://ir.fedex.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=388559">tilted USG policy in favor of UPS and their 35,000 Teamster Union drivers.

The real answer is not an “Export Cabinet,” but lowering taxes and reducing regulations so that U.S. companies can be truly competitive.* Instead of increasing the FCS budget, why not abolish it and use the savings to reduce the deficit!* Truly competitive U.S. companies can hire their own private sector consultants who will be far more effective than Foreign Commercial Service bureaucrats.

If President Obama really wanted to expand market access for all U.S. exporters, he would push Congress to approve the free trade agreements with South Korea, Colombia, and Panama.* What he and Secretary Locke actually want is for the government to decide which exporters get taxpayer money, just like the government decides who gets bailed out at home, who gets what health care, which producers get a break from cap and trade, and on and on.

http://blog.heritage.org/2010/02/04/…ow-government/

On 02.04.10 02:21 PM posted by Kathryn Nix

<ahref="http://blog.heritage.org/wp-content/uploads/GovControlHealthCare.jpg"></p>For the past several months, Washington has exhausted every possible method to pass a health care bill designed to increase government’s control over health care.* They haven’t been successful yet, but that may not matter: even without Obamacare, government health spending is set to increase far faster than private health expenditures, surpassing the private sector as soon as 2012.

<ahref="http://www.cms.hhs.gov/NationalHealthExpendData/03_NationalHealthAccountsProjected.asp">Today the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services released its projections of national health expenditures for the next ten years.* The report shows that spending by the public sector grew much faster in 2009 at 8.7 percent, compared to the private sector which only grew at 3.0 percent.* Though public spending was heightened by the recession, as unemployment caused more Americans to lose employer-sponsored coverage and enroll in Medicaid, the trend is expected to continue into the next decade.

What is more, the report bases its projections on current law.* In the case of Medicare, this underestimates future spending.* Under current law, Medicare is set to reduce physician reimbursement rates by 21.3 percent in 2010.* This would lead to growth in Medicare spending of just 1.5 percent in 2010. However, the likelihood of these cuts coming to fruition is slim to none, as every year, Congress votes to suspend them.* 2010 will likely be no different.* A <ahref="http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/content/abstract/hlthaff.2009.1074">report by Health Affairs cites that, if physician payment rates are held constant, the more likely growth in Medicare will be 5.1 percent in 2010.* Whether or not these physician cuts occur is no small matter—with them, overall health spending growth would be 3.9 percent.* Under the more likely scenario, health spending growth would be 4.7 percent.<spanid="more-25703"></span>

Thus far, the debate on health care reform has focused on increasing government spending to reduce the number of uninsured.* But government spending should be moving in the opposite direction.* With government spending growing at a fast clip, <ahref="http://www.heritage.org/Research/HealthCare/wm2734.cfm">rather than overhaul the entire system, lawmakers should channel reform towards high-cost (and largely cost-inefficient) government programs, like Medicare and Medicaid.

Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security, the <ahref="http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/02/01/us/budget.html?hp">three entitlements big spenders, are duly in need of attention from Congress.* These programs will be responsible for <ahref="http://www.heritage.org/research/features/BudgetChartBook/If-Tax-Revenue-Is-Held-at-Historical-Levels.aspx">unsustainable growth in government spending in the years to come, and will quickly become insolvent.* By reforming entitlement programs, Congress could kill two birds with one stone: achieve long sought-after health care reform and bend the cost curve in health care spending, all the while addressing the fiscal crisis facing the nation due to out-of-control spending.

Rather than increase government’s role in the health care system, Congress should see the current trend for what it is: a cry for reform of existing government health care programs.* Getting public health spending under control would have a monumental effect on overall spending, directly and indirectly reducing costs for all Americans.

http://blog.heritage.org/2010/02/04/…-care-by-2012/

On 02.04.10 06:24 AM posted by Conn Carroll

Following weeks of <ahref="http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/79589-lincoln-more-democrats-could-support-bill-barring-terror-trials">strong <ahref="http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0210/32416.html">bipartisan <ahref="http://washingtontimes.com/news/2010/jan/27/911-panel-chiefs-fault-handling-of-bomb-suspect/">criticism of their handling of terror trials and detainees, Attorney General Eric Holder released a <ahref="http://www.justice.gov/cjs/docs/ag-letter-2-3-10.pdf">letter yesterday defending the Obama administration’s criminal justice system approach to prosecuting the war against al-Qaeda. Defending his administration’s handling of*the Flight 253*terrorist, Holder wrote: “I made the decision to charge Mr. Abdulmutallab with federal crimes, and to seek his detention in connection with those charges, wtih the knowledge of, and with no objection from, all other relevant departments of the government.”

First, this statement directly contradicts the sworn Congressional testimony of Director of National Intelligence Adm. Dennis Blair who, when asked by Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) under oath if he had been consulted about how Abdulmutallab should have been interrogated, responded: “<ahref="http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/declassified/archive/2010/01/20/intel-chief-s-comments-infuriate-obama-officials.aspx">I was not consulted.” Under intense political pressure from the White House, Blair has since said his remarks were “misconstrued.” But his politically-pressured retraction was not made under oath. His initial statement was. At the very minimum, Congress must demand that both Holder and Blair testify under oath to settle this contradiction.

But more importantly, both the personal pronouns and the underlying substance of Holder’s letter speaks volumes about this administration’s approach to protecting the American people. Holder <ahref="http://www.justice.gov/cjs/docs/ag-letter-2-3-10.pdf">wrote yesterday: “Neither advising Abdulmutallab of his Miranda rights nor granting him access to counsel prevents us from obtaining intelligence from him. On the contrary, history shows that the federal justice system is an extremely effective tool for gathering intelligence.” Holder appears to be arguing that reading suspects their Miranda rights is a great way to get them to talk. But as American University law professor Kenneth Anderson <ahref="http://volokh.com/2010/02/03/eric-holder-letter-to-senators-on-abdulmutallab/">notes: “The point of offering suspects the Miranda warning and associated rights is not in order to persuade them to talk, but in order to make sure they know they don’t have to and, if they have much in the way of brains, won’t.”<spanid="more-25607"></span>

And, in the past, Holder himself has even acknowledged this. The Weekly Standard’s Stephen F. Hayes <ahref="http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/holder-02-its-hard-interrogate-enemy-combatant-us-because-he-has-lawyer">flags this exchange between CNN’s Paula Zahn and Holder about American Taliban John Walker Lindh from January 28, 2002. Zahn: “How much pressure should they put on this man to get information out of him as they interrogate him?” Holder replied: “Well, I mean, it’s hard to interrogate him at this point now that he has a lawyer and now that he is here in the United States. But to the extent that we can get information from him, I think we should.”

Holder asserts throughout his letter, and in contradiction to his 2002 statement, that absolutely no intelligence was lost by treating Abdulmutallab like a common criminal. That is just not plausible. In a speech at The Heritage Foundation yesterday, Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) said: “The fact remains that all the intelligence he possessed concerning the locations, training techniques, and communications methods of Al Qaeda in Yemen is perishable. Yemeni forces needed that information on December 25th, not six weeks later. Meanwhile, the American people are left to wonder whether, in place of interrogations, their safety depends on terrorists having families who can persuade them to talk.”

The criminal justice system can and should play a role in our nation’s fight against al Qaeda. But it should not dictate war-time policy for the entire Executive Branch. Again, from <ahref="http://blog.heritage.org/2010/02/03/watch-live-sen-mitch-mcconnell-r-ky-addresses-the-war-on-terror/">McConnell yesterday: “No one denies that a balance must be struck between preserving civil liberties and protecting the homeland. No one wants to sacrifice one for the other. But in many cases, all that’s involved is a simple question of judgment. And when a judgment call has to be made, our priorities should be clear: keeping Americans safe should always win out, within the law.”

And who should be making those judgment calls? The American people did not elect Eric Holder to balance the interests of national security and civil liberties. They elected Barack Obama to do that.

Quick Hits:

• President Barack Obama’s 2011 Budget proposes to <ahref="http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2010-02-04-border-security-budget_N.htm">scale back some border security programs set up after the 9/11 attacks.
• For the first time in the history of the United States, <ahref="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB20001424052748703575004575043490639289022.html"> government programs will account for more than half of all U.S. health-care spending next year.
• The scientific experts at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) have <ahref="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/03/AR2010020303804.html">changed their mind about ethanol’s impact on global warming and have now issued new biofuel regulations that encourage ethanol production.
• Following revelations that <ahref="http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7014203.ece">Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Chairman Rajendra Pachauri failed to correct known errors in his agency’s 2007 global warming report, Greenpeace UK Director John Sauven is calling on Pachauri to resign.
• Pennsylvania State University has begun a formal investigation into whether global warming fear monger Dr. Michael Mann is <ahref="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703575004575043693339038422.html?m od=WSJ_hpp_MIDDLENexttoWhatsNewsSecond">guilty of scientific misconduct for the way he carried out research into climate change.

http://blog.heritage.org/2010/02/04/…nder-in-chief/

On 02.04.10 07:30 AM posted by John Ligon

<ahref="http://blog.heritage.org/wp-content/uploads/money_stacks090211.jpg"></p>As President Obama continues campaigning for yet another round of stimulus it appears now that even <ahref="http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/ap/rank-and-file-house-dems-trash-obamas-plan-to-give-tax-credit-to-businesses-that-add-workers-83448287.htm">democrats are beginning to question the soundness of this strategy.* This new focus includes a $5,000 tax credit—among other items— for any business that hires a new worker—effective the year the legislation is passed. *Of course, the intended effect of this new policy may win some political points for the President and legislators, yet this effect does not override the fact that this maneuver is simply <ahref="http://uchicagolaw.typepad.com/beckerposner/2010/01/the-jobsubsidy-planposner.htm">bad economic policy.

Creating a tax credit for hiring new workers will not create an incentive for already-struggling companies to begin hiring—which is the overall intent of this policy. <ahref="http://uchicagolaw.typepad.com/beckerposner/2010/01/the-jobsubsidy-planposner.html">This could even 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.<spanid="more-25622"></span>

Businesses are not making the decision to not hire—or lay off current workers—because they simply want to keep their workforce smaller. Instead, as a result of depressed demand during the recession, <ahref="http://www.nfib.com/Portals/0/PDF/sbet/SBET200912.pdf">companies are continuing to face lower sales and overall revenues.* Most companies—particularly small- and medium-sized companies—are making these employment decisions to <ahref="http://www.nfib.com/Portals/0/PDF/sbet/SBET200912.pdf">shore up on costs to survive during the recession.* As an example, if a company determines that a worker is too costly to employ at $25,000, that worker will remain costly at $20,000, especially when there is no new work for the company.* This is holds for a business of any size.

Business owners want to see the economy rebound so that they can begin productively employing more workers.* However, the net effect of this tax-credit-for-hire policy—given the mix of other mandate costs and regulations companies stand to face with potential federal legislation—<ahref="http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/wm2790.cfm">could turn out to be negative.

Federal health care reform policy is still alive, including <ahref="http://www.heritage.org/Research/HealthCare/wm2753.cfm">punitive employer mandate costs that have been attached to these bills and <ahref="http://www.heritage.org/Research/HealthCare/wm2706.cfm">expanded Medicare payroll taxes.* The <ahref="http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/wm2703.cfm">estate tax—which is a significant drag on American family-owned businesses—has not been permanently repealed and <ahref="http://www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/wm2585.cfm">new energy taxes as part of proposed federal cap-and-trade legislation still loom. This is in addition to <ahref="../2010/01/01/morning-bell-happy-tax-year">the other tax cuts and reductions that expired December 31, 2009 all of which provide incentives for small and medium-sized businesses to grow and productively employ workers.

To get companies of all sizes to productively hire more workers—and encourage entrepreneurs to bring new innovative and productive ideas to the economy—President Obama and federal legislators should re-focus their efforts on tinkering with economic policies that actually <ahref="http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/wm2790.cfm">create the incentives for companies to form, innovate, and productively expand .

http://blog.heritage.org/2010/02/04/…-the-pipeline/

On 02.04.10 08:17 AM posted by James Carafano

<ahref="http://blog.heritage.org/wp-content/uploads/DHS.png"></p>The only real victim in the attempted Christmas Day bombing of an international flight bound for Detroit was the Department of Homeland Security. Claiming the “system worked” earned the secretary more than a few cat calls, late night jokes, and even demands for her resignation. Napolitano’s statement, however, was never the real story.

First, that statement was taken out of context. Second, none of the security failures rest at the feet of Homeland Security. As we <ahref="http://www.heritage.org/Press/Commentary/ed010810c.cfm">detailed last month: “The decision to flag an individual for secondary screening or bar him from flying altogether comes from the Terrorist Watch and No-Fly lists. Lists are managed by the National Counterterrorism Center and the Terrorist Screening Center….Abdulmutallab shouldn’t have been given a visa or, if he already had one, it should have been revoked….Visas are issued by the State Department.”<spanid="more-25629"></span>

Rather than let the department take the heat (for what should admittedly be regarded as a monumental blunder in battle transnational terrorism) the White House ought to be helping out the department rather than standing by and watching the pot shots being taken it.

Here is a short to do list.

1. Go after Congress. It’s a crime that Congress has done nothing to streamline oversight of the department and let be pulled back and forth by dozens of committees and subcommittees that all claim jurisdiction over one thing or another.
2. Take Amnesty off the Table. The administration has made the department point on supporting an immigration bill that is as wrongheaded and politically divisive as the last one. Putting the department front and center in that debate is a bad idea.
3. Give the Department a Seat at the (other) Table. Today, Homeland Security remains mostly a customer of the intelligence community with little authority to push on the system to get anything done. Perhaps if it had more operational responsibilities, like running the Terrorist Screening center, it might be able to herd the cats a little more.
4. Crack Some Heads. Cooperation on visas security between State and Homeland Security still stinks compared to what it could be.
5. Let the department do its Job. Less czar-like direction (after all remember what happened to the Russian empire) and more trust in people to take the initiative and get the job done will go a long way.

http://blog.heritage.org/2010/02/04/…land-security/

On 02.03.10 01:29 PM posted by James Phillips

<ahref="http://blog.heritage.org/wp-content/uploads/Iran-rocket-100203.jpg"></p>Iran’s government today announced the successful launching of a research rocket carrying a mouse, two turtles and worms into space. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad trumpeted the launch as a “very big event” and promised on state-controlled television that “The scientific arena is where we could defeat the (West’s) domination.” The launch of the Explorer-3 rocket is part of Iran’s ambitious space program, which concerns many Iran-watchers because the same technology used to launch research rockets and satellites can also be used to deliver warheads in ballistic missiles. Significantly, the launch <ahref="http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100203/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_iran_11">was announced by Iran’s Defense Minister, General Ahmed Vahidi.

Ahmadinejad also unveiled three Iranian-built satellites and a new booster rocket that reportedly is capable of carrying a satellite into orbit about 300 miles above the earth. The ceremony took place on the “National Day of Space and Technology” which is part of the ten day run-up to the February 11 anniversary of Iran’s 1979 revolution. During the same period last year, Iran launched an Iranian-built satellite into space with an Iranian-built rocket for the first time.

<spanid="more-25561"></span>

The space launch celebration came the day after Ahmadinejad reversed course and eased Tehran’s rejection of a proposed deal brokered by the International Atomic Energy Agency that would involve Iran transferring the bulk of its low-enriched uranium to be refined overseas and then returned for use in a medical-research reactor. Tehran originally had accepted the deal “in principle” last October before rejecting it and making an unacceptable counter-proposal last year. The Obama Administration had supported the deal as a means of buying time for a possible diplomatic deal on Iran’s nuclear efforts. <ahref="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/02/AR2010020200640.html">Now Ahmadinejad has zig-zagged once again, proclaiming: “If we allow them to take it, there is no problem.”

U.S. officials understandably remain wary of Ahmadinejad’s tactical shift, saying that if Iran has agreed to the deal, Tehran should officially notify the IAEA. Many suspect that Ahmadinejad’s public offer is a calculated move to derail efforts to escalate sanctions against Iran at the United Nations Security Council by giving China and Russia more diplomatic cover for further stalling a long-overdue sanctions resolution.

http://blog.heritage.org/2010/02/03/…er-on-uranium/

On 02.03.10 01:54 PM posted by J.D. Foster

On Tuesday, February 2, President Obama released his budget forecasting a deficit for 2010 of $1.6 trillion for the year and $9.1 trillion from 2010 through 2020. The next day the <ahref="http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=av16pDNNrMig">Moody’s credit rating agency announced Obama’s budget policies were so profligate and irresponsible as to risk the credit rating of the federal government. The United State has long been recognized as the best credit risk in the world, with a rating of Aaa on Moody’s scale. Obama’s fiscal policies may “test the Aaa boundaries” according to Moody’s, as it shaded the U.S. government ratings now below those of Canada, Germany, and even France.

The source of massive budgetary shortfall is not a shortage of revenues. Obama projects federal receipts will once again be above their modern average of about 18.4 percent by 2013, rising to almost 20 percent by 2020. Near- and medium-term deficits arise because Obama saw Washington’s excess spending in recent years and decided to double down. Under his budget, federal spending rises by $1.7 trillion over 10 years.

Worse, these medium-run deficits but segue to America’s long-standing, long-run fiscal disaster known as Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. With promised benefits exceeding the programs’ dedicated revenues by many tens of trillions of dollars the President has boldly called for the creation of yet another toothless, partisan budget commission. As Senator Dorgan (D-ND), Chairman of the Budget Committee so aptly expressed at a committee hearing on the Budget, when it comes to controlling long-term costs, <ahref="http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/feb/03/obama-budget-critics-mobilize-to-restore-cuts/">“I don’t see the focus. I don’t see the pivot”. Dorgan announced his retirement from the Senate the same day Moody’s issue its warning.<spanid="more-25582"></span>

The consequences of Obama’s profligacy will be felt some time in the future. For now, markets understand the United States has plenty of time to change course, and apparently assume it will do so. Hopefully, they are right. If and when markets come to believe the U.S. intends to continue to spend irresponsibly now and indefinitely, the reaction will be swift and painful in terms of much higher interest rates on U.S. government debt and throughout the economy. Debt is always a pay now or pay later proposition. If Obama impairs the U.S. government’s credit rating as his budget proposal threatens, paying later will get a lot more expensive.

http://blog.heritage.org/2010/02/03/…-below-france/

On 02.03.10 02:00 PM posted by James Carafano

<ahref="http://blog.heritage.org/wp-content/uploads/alaskan-glaciers100128.jpg"></p>Listening to Washington, you would never know that today’s hot topics include <ahref="http://blog.heritage.org/2009/12/01/climate-emails-have-rippling-effects/">Climategate, <ahref="http://blog.heritage.org/2010/02/01/rapidly-melting-credibility/">Glaciergate, and an increasingly bitter debate about what we really know about our capacity to accurately forecast global climate change.

In his State of the Union Address, President Barack Obama asserted that there is “overwhelming scientific evidence on climate change.” The Director of National Intelligence and the Pentagon are following the President’s lead in Lemming-like fashion.

<atitle="http://www.politico.com/blogs/laurarozen/0210/DNI_forecasts_global_threats.html" href="http://www.politico.com/blogs/laurarozen/0210/DNI_forecasts_global_threats.html">In his testimony to Congress, Dennis Blair, the Director of National Intelligence, stated, “We continue to assess that global climate change will have wide-ranging implications for US national security interests over the next 20 years because it will aggravate existing world problems—such as poverty, social tensions, environmental degradation, ineffectual leadership, and weak political institutions—that threaten state stability.”<spanid="more-25530"></span>

Meanwhile, <atitle="http://www.hsdl.org/hslog/?q=node/5348" href="http://www.hsdl.org/hslog/?q=node/5348">the Pentagon has warmed up to climate change as well. “For the first time, Pentagon planners in 2010 will include climate change among the security threats identified in the <atitle="http://www.defense.gov/qdr/QDR%20as%20of%2026JAN10%200700.pdf blocked::http://www.defense.gov/qdr/QDR as of 26JAN10 0700.pdf" href="http://www.defense.gov/qdr/QDR%20as%20of%2026JAN10%200700.pdf" target="_blank">Quadrennial Defense Review , the Congress-mandated report that updates Pentagon priorities every four years. In the review, Pentagon officials conclude that climate change will act as an “accelerant of instability and conflict,” ultimately placing a burden on civilian institutions and militaries around the world.” A five-minute NPR audio report can be found <atitle="http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=121352495 blocked::http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=121352495" href="http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=121352495" target="_blank">here.

The problem with all these dire warnings is that:

1. They don’t come with an accompanying asterisk. <atitle="http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=3f2b7 16d-5164-4ae0-b1e8-036fc51bf106" href="http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=3f2b7 16d-5164-4ae0-b1e8-036fc51bf106">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 <atitle="http://blog.heritage.org/2009/08/13/why-carafano-has-it-right-on-climate-change-part-ii/" href="../2009/08/13/why-carafano-has-it-right-on-climate-change-part-ii/">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. The QDR, for example, even suggests that global warming makes the case for passing the Law of the Sea Treaty. A treaty that not only has nothing do with climate change but, <atitle="http://www.heritage.org/research/internationalorganizations/lost.cfm" href="http://www.heritage.org/research/internationalorganizations/lost.cfm">experts including Reagan’s Attorney General Ed Meese, would argue, undermines US sovereignty and security.

http://blog.heritage.org/2010/02/03/…lobal-warming/

On 02.03.10 02:30 PM posted by Lindsey Burke

<ahref="http://blog.heritage.org/wp-content/uploads/DC_RallyMay609-020310.jpg"><imgsrc="http://blog.heritage.org/wp-content/uploads/DC_RallyMay609-020310.jpg" alt="" title="DC_RallyMay609-020310" width="300" height="325" class="alignnone size-full wp-image-25578" /></p>President Obama’s FY2011 budget confirms his administration’s plans to phase out the successful D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program. There are two clear indicators of this in the budget: the elimination of future funding for the program and the effective consolidation of the “three-sector approach” into two sectors. With regard to the elimination of funding, <ahref="http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2011/assets/oia.pdf ">page 1244 states:

The Budget proposes to continue to provide private school vouchers for only those students currently enrolled in the program…it is expected that this will be the final request for Federal funding to support the Opportunity Scholarship Program. Any funds not used in 2011 will be available in the future years to provide scholarships to the current cohort of students.

If adopted by Congress, this language would permanently restrict scholarship funding to the $9.4 million proposed in the FY2011 budget (which decreases to $8.4 million after subtracting the $1 million appropriated for administrative costs and tests). But as unfortunate as the elimination of the D.C. OSP is, the continued political pay-off to the D.C. public school system is equally appalling.<spanid="more-25570"></span>

As part of the original legislation creating the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program, D.C. Public Schools and D.C. public charter schools received additional payments on top of their regular federal appropriations. For D.C. public schools, federal appropriations exceed $120 million. The D.C. Public School System and the D.C. public charter schools each received their own allocation of $13 million to match the $13 million in funding used to create the D.C. OSP. The D.C. public schools and charter schools would have never seen any of this additional money if it weren’t for the creation of the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program.

Yet, as funding for the Opportunity Scholarships continues to decline, appropriations to the other two sectors continue to grow. According to President Obama’s FY2011 budget, funding for the D.C. OSP is slashed to $8.4 million (after administrative costs), while the additional public school and public charter school funding is increased to $23 million and $20 million, respectively. What’s more, the president’s budget also includes what he calls a “jump start” for reforms for the D.C. public schools of an additional $20 million, taking the grand total for D.C. public schools to $43 million. And remember, this is all in addition to D.C.P.S.’ regular federal appropriations.

As the President and Congress continue to funnel taxpayer money into the unsafe and underperforming D.C. Public School System, they are simultaneously cutting funding for the one federal education program we know works – the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program. The president’s budget punctuates his policy of <ahref="http://www.heritage.org/research/education/bg2257.cfm ">exercising school choice for his own family while denying it to the low-income children struggling in the nation’s capital.

Thankfully, supporters of educational opportunity in D.C. have not stopped fighting. Last week, Senator Joe Lieberman and Representative John Boehner sent a<ahref="http://gopleader.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=167984 "> letter to President Obama asking him to support school choice in the District. Tomorrow (February 4th), Senator Lieberman and Senator Susan Collins will host a press conference in support of the D.C. OSP. Despite the administration’s efforts to phase out the successful scholarships, District families have not given up hope.

http://blog.heritage.org/2010/02/03/…hers-students/

On 02.03.10 02:33 PM posted by Brandon Stewart

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) visited The Heritage Foundation for a*major address*Wednesday in which <ahref="http://blog.heritage.org/2010/02/03/mcconnell-takes-aim-at-white-house-terror-spin/">he strongly rebuked the Administration’s recent failures in the war on terror.<spanid="more-25595"></span>

Following his speech, Senator McConnell sat down with us <ahref="http://blog.heritage.org/tag/in-the-green-room/">In The Green Room, where he discussed how the Administration should be handling Guantanamo Bay detainees and reflected upon how the Administration’s “wrong-headed” approach to terrorism led to*the mishandling of the case of Nigerian terrorist Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab.

http://blog.heritage.org/2010/02/03/…tch-mcconnell/

On 02.03.10 03:00 PM posted by Brian Darling

With the victory of Senator-elect Scott Brown (R-MA), Democrats are turning to a secret “Nuclear Option” to push ObamaCare through the Senate and avoid a Republican filibuster. Now it appears, though, that Republicans have a procedural tactic of their own to fight back.

The Hill reports today that “Republicans say they have found a loophole in the budget reconciliation process that could allow them to offer an indefinite number of amendments. Though it has never been done, Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) says he’s prepared to test the Senate’s stamina to block the Democrats from using the process to expedite changes to the healthcare bill. Experts on Senate procedural rules, from both parties, note that such a filibuster is possible.” A close reading of the rules allows for unlimited numbers of amendments to a reconciliation package after debate is complete.

<spanid="more-25583"></span>

The DeMint tactic is in response to the liberal’s new secret plan to use reconciliation – the Nuclear Option – to force parts of ObamaCare through the Senate with a simple majority vote, thereby avoiding the filibuster rule. House leaders would pass the Senate-passed ObamaCare bill after the reconciliation measure passes the Senate. The reconciliation measure will carry all the changes to the Senate passed ObamaCare bill necessary to get a bill to the President’s desk. It is very confusing, but the bottom line is that the secret plan includes two bills that add up to ObamaCare.

Liberals in Congress need to change the rules of the game to avoid using the regular rules of engagement in the Senate after the victory of Senator-elect Scott Brown (R-MA) to the Senate. They have come up with a controversial plan that allows them to change the rules of the game. The Democrat Caucus does not have 60 votes to pass legislation through the Senate with the power to block amendments and debate, so they need to resort to special budget rules of reconciliation.

The left is angry that anybody would dare to fight back against these strong arm tactics of Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev). Jon Walker at FireDogLake argues for the left to toss the rules of the game out of the window. Walker rants that “Reid has the power to call a point of order and with the help of the Chair of the Senate, VP Joe Biden, and fifty members, put an end to this nonsense. Changing the rules mid-session is an extreme measure, but extreme obstructionism calls for extreme solutions.” The left will not rest until they have gutted the rules of the Senate and have passed an ObamaCare bill that even the people of liberal Massachusetts have soundly rejected.

http://blog.heritage.org/2010/02/03/…uclear-option/