Author: Heritage

On 01.24.10 01:20 PM posted by James Carafano

One of the loudest drumbeats in support of “Cap and Trade” legislation has been if the United States doesn’t tackle climate change with legislation we’ll face a national security catastrophe. Nations will collapse, waves of refugees will sweep the world, and states will war on other states over scarce resources.

The poster child for the national security nightmare argument was melting glaciers in India that would lead to dramatic shortages of fresh water and water wars between nuclear-armed states. Now comes a report from India —never mind. Apparently the claim from a UN climate panel turns out to be bogus.

I hate to say, “I told you so,” but I did. “While it might feel intuitively appropriate to directly connect the dots between the changing global environment and the human response to global warming,” I testified before a Congressional panel last October that would be a big mistake. We don’t know enough about how human societies or climate work to bet the farm on one big government bill.

In fact, the real national security threat is the “Cap and Trade” bill. You cannot protect the nation without a strong economy. “Cap and Trade” is an economy killer.

I told Congress, “[w]hile the long-term impacts of climate change on national security can be debated, the short-term impact of legislation to curb emissions is more readily apparent. A study by The Heritage Foundation’s Center for Data Analysis on a similar companion bill proposed in the House finds that the law would make the United States about $9.4 trillion poorer by 2035. Much of this decline would be from reduced economic productivity and job loss. In particular, under the House legislation there would be 1.15 million fewer jobs on average than without a cap-and-trade bill.”

http://blog.heritage.org/2010/01/24/…ng-never-mind/

On 01.24.10 03:29 PM posted by James Carafano

Days before President Obama plans to present his State of the Union address to a joint session of Congress, Osama Bin Laden sent his own message to the American people. According to CNN “A new audio tape allegedly from al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden claims responsibility for an attempt to blow up a plane en route to Michigan on Christmas Day and warns the United States of more attacks.” The report added, “The tape, which aired on Al Jazeera on Sunday, says ‘the United States will not dream of enjoying safety until we live it in reality in Palestine.”

When Bin Laden speaks the President should listen—particularly as he drafts his remarks to the American people. Here is why.*Since taking the White House the president has relegated the war on terrorism to one speech at the National Archives and a litany of pronouncements to distance his administration from Bush—closing Gitmo; curtailing CIA-led interrogations; and terrorists from Military Commissions to high-profile trials in the United States.

What the president has not done is demonstrated he takes Bin Laden’s words seriously. That is a mistake the United States has made in the past—and one Obama repeated.

There is much that the President could do in his speech to recommit his administration to winning the Long War.

He could clearly state that winning in Afghanistan and protecting America’s vital interests are more important than arbitrary withdrawal deadlines.*He could pledge to use all the tools in the terrorist fighting toolkit including Gitmo, commissions, and the Patriot Act.*He could pledge to rebuild the American military rather than gutting the defense budget for modernizing our forces.*He could pledge to be a real war president 24-7-365.

Or he could leave Bin Laden’s rambles go unchallenged.

http://blog.heritage.org/2010/01/24/…u-hear-me-now/

On 01.24.10 09:20 AM posted by James Carafano

It seems every time you pick up a newspaper, the headline proclaims another military program cancelled. First, it was the F-22. Then it was missile defense. The list goes on and on. The reason given seems always the same too…“We don’t need that.” This mantra gets repeated so often, one suspects one of two truisms must be at the root of it. Perhaps, everyone in the Pentagon before Obama showed up was an idiot and didn’t know what was really needed—or, all these cuts are a budget driven exercise, gutting the military modernization program (the White House’s chief strategy for tamping down defense spending).

The latest victim is the most advanced robotics program ever attempted by the Army. “Remember that unmanned, pack-mule vehicle the Army was building to carry rucksacks, water, ammo and other heavy gear for combat troops?” asks a recent article in the Army Times, “Forget about seeing it on a battlefield near you. The Multifunction Utility Logistics Equipment vehicle, known as the MULE, was among the unmanned toys that survived from the now-defunct Future Combat Systems program.” No longer. “The Army killed the MULE-Transport and MULE-Countermine vehicles in December because the two concepts were no longer needed in the new Brigade Combat Team Modernization structure, said Paul Mehney, spokesman for Program Executive Office Integration.”

Oh really?

Developing robotics is, in fact, one of the great competitive capabilities that the Pentagon should be funding, not cutting according to a Heritage research paper, “Robotics and the Next Steps for National Security” by Jena Baker McNeill and Ethel Machi. When it comes to robotics technology, the future is here. Robots across the world now traverse hazardous terrain, carry out surveillance missions, and perform remote surgery. They are becoming ever more sophisticated and autonomous. Robots easily and safely perform tasks that would otherwise endanger human lives, and do so faster and more efficiently than is possible with conventional methods. Robots are used by private industries and by the federal government. Robots play a vital role in maintaining the competitive edge in national security.

Every time another cutting-edge capability is cast aside, raises the question again. Why are we cutting funds to rebuild the military? When these capabilities are needed Congress and the American people will curse the Pentagon and spend what ever takes to get our men and women the equipment they need to protect us and come home safe. But by then our soldiers will already be in harm’s way. The mission will be in jeopardy and our sons and daughters on the battlefield and at risk.

What the military needs today is not “sunshine patriots” but a Congress and an administration willing to meets its obligations to “provide for the common defense,” without cutting corners when its convenient.

http://blog.heritage.org/2010/01/24/i-robot-not/

On 01.24.10 06:00 AM posted by Dan Holler

Senate Cloakroom: Jan. 25 – 29

Analysis –

As Senators grapple with how to salvage health care reform, they simultaneously want to change their legislative focus to jobs and the economy.* Before they can do that, they have to contend with a record $1.9 trillion debt limit increase.* The debate, which is expected to last all week, will highlight our looming entitlement crisis, excessive spending and the increasingly aggressive involvement of government in our economy.

Major Senate Action –

The Senate will continue to debate the debt limit increase (H J Res 45).* Several amendments are expected, including one on EPA regulations, spending caps and PAYGO are possible.* Interestingly, the much hyped, fatally flawed, Conrad-Gregg fiscal task force seems to lack support.* In response, the administration has proposed a lame duck commission.

Major Committee Action –

• The Homeland Security Committee will hold another hearing on the Christmas Day terrorist attack.
• The Budget Committee will hold a hearing on the outlook for the federal budget and economy.
• The Armed Services Committee will hold a closed door hearing on cyber security.

House Cloakroom: Jan. 25 – 29

Analysis –

The House is in for a very short week focusing on two land bills which failed to pass the chamber the pervious week under suspension of the rules (requires a two-thirds majority to pass). *Behind the scenes the status of the health care bill remains in question following the election of Senator-elect Scott Brown in Massachusetts and should be a topic of discussion across the Hill this week. *Expect lawmakers to pivot to job creation measures in the coming weeks as the economy continues to struggle and unemployment remains high.* Make sure to check out the work by Heritage analyst James Sherk explaining the current unemployment situation here.

Major House Action –

• HR 3726 Castle Nugent National Historic Site Establishment Act of 2010, which failed under suspension last week.
• Similar legislation to HR 3538 Idaho Wilderness Water Facilities Act, which failed under suspension last week.
• President Obama State of the Union Speech on Wednesday, January 27th.

Major Committee Action –

• In preparation for release of the budget on February 1st the House Budget Committee will be holding a hearing with Dr. Douglas Elmendorf, Director of the Congressional Budget Office to discuss the budget and the economic outlook.*
• The House Armed Services Committee will hold a hearing on how the U.S. should respond to Al Qaida.* *
• And lastly, the House Natural Resources Committee Subcommittee on Insular Affairs, Oceans, and Wildlife will hold a hearing on HR 4416, the Great Ape Conservation Reauthorization Amendments Act of 2010. *Not kidding…

http://blog.heritage.org/2010/01/24/…ry-25-29-2010/

On 01.23.10 08:00 AM posted by Dan Lips

Picture the world in 1960 and imagine how much has changed over the past half century.* Now picture the average classroom in 1960 and today.* In both, you’d probably see roughly the same thing—a teacher standing in front of a row of desks.* Today, there might be a computer or two in the classroom.* But the set-up and the teaching process are probably about the same.

This mental experiment highlights how education is one of the areas of American life that has been most resistance to change over the last 50 — if not 150 –years.* For the most part, students still pass through schools like widgets moving through a factory.** The school calendar remains based on the agrarian calendar. *Whether or not child had access to a great teacher often is still determined by where he or she lives.

This is beginning to change.* Fast.

Online or virtual learning is beginning to transform the way that children learn.* As we describe in a new report:

In the future, students will be able to receive customized instruction from teachers anywhere in the United States or even in the world. The best teachers will use technology to reach many more students. Virtual and blended-learning programs will enable mass customization in education, allowing students to learn at their own pace in ways that are tailored to their learning styles and interests.

As many as 1 million children (roughly 2 percent of the K-12 student population) are participating in some form of online learning. Today, 27 states offer statewide virtual schools that allow students to take a class online, and 24 states and the District of Columbia offer students the opportunity to attend a virtual school full-time.

Harnessing the power of technology has limitless potential to change American education for the better.* Consider how technologies like the internet and iPhone are changing how we live and just imagine what similar innovations can improve how students learn.

Here is just one example.* The Florida Virtual School, a pioneering online learning program, announced that it had created an application for the iPhone to help students learn Algebra.

It is tough to envision what exactly American education will look like in 2020 or 2050, but you can bet it’ll be different than that 1960s classroom.

http://blog.heritage.org/2010/01/23/…ng-revolution/

On 01.22.10 01:36 PM posted by Brett Schaefer

Earlier this week, Tom Miller, president and CEO of the United Nations Association of the United States, told the Westport Rotary Club that “as the richest nation in the world, the United States could do more for Haitian earthquake victims.” Considering Mr. Miller’s position, perhaps it would be instructive to contrast the U.S. contribution and support for Haiti to that of the other members of the U.N.

Claudia Rosett does just that in her Forbes.com column today where she observes:

… the United Nations’ ReliefWeb database showed contributions from the U.S. government (a.k.a. U.S. taxpayers) worth $90 million, or 44% of the grand total pledged.

That’s just a fraction of the real U.S. contributions, which include millions in private donations plus a huge relief operation by the U.S. military. America has been sending ships, air-dropping rations and pouring in thousands of troops to open relief corridors and provide security. All this is politely styled as backup to a U.N. effort, which is in reality propped up by the U.S.

The U.S. is also either the top donor or among the largest to most of the multilateral operations now focused on Haiti. These include not only the U.N., with its array of agencies, but also the World Bank and the International Committee of the Red Cross….

Just behind the U.S. in contributions to the U.N.’s Haiti appeal is a roster of Western democracies, starting with France (12.7% of the total pledged to date), Sweden (7.4%), Spain (3.5%), Germany (2.8%), Brazil (2.6%), Australia, Finland, Canada, Italy, Denmark …

She goes on to note the paltry donations of the oil-rich Middle Eastern countries, but the main point that Mr. Miller should glean is that the U.N. and the world are lucky that America is ready and willing to act and financially support efforts to address crises like that in Haiti. There doesn’t seem to be a long queue of countries ready to take our place as the world’s most generous and effective humanitarian.

http://blog.heritage.org/2010/01/22/…member-states/

On 01.22.10 02:42 PM posted by James Gattuso

Forget the war on terrorism, the war on drugs, even the war on poverty. President Obama seems to have declared a new war, a war on banks. It was launched last week with the proposal of a “bank tax,” supposedly meant to get TARP bailout money back to taxpayers (although it would leave out firms such as General Motors that actually owe most of the money). It continued yesterday with the President’s proposal of new bank regulations — limiting what banks can invest in as well as limiting to total size of financial institutions.

There’s not much to recommend either proposal. Neither would do much to avoid another financial catastrophe. In fact, by limiting the scope and size of an institution’s investments, there’s a good chance that they would make the system less, not more, stable.

And it isn’t just the president’s opponents who are skeptical. Reportedly, Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, along with White House economic advisor Larry Summers, fought hard internally against the proposals, arguing that they would unnecessarily damage the international competitiveness of the financial sector. But, they, apparently, were overruled.

The reason isn’t hard to see. Despite (or perhaps because of) the potential damage to financial firms, the politics of a war on Wall Street must have been irresistable. Who likes bankers anyway? What better way to pump up sagging poll numbers than to pick a fight with them? The President all but said as much, stating: “So if these folks want a fight, it’s a fight I’m ready to have.”

The dangers of the regulations, and — perhaps more — the virulence of the populist rhetoric, sent the markets into a tailspin yesterday, with the Dow losing 213 points yesterday and another 216 today. It’s unclear exactly what effect the drop will have on White House strategists, however. The goal, after all, was a war on Wall Street, so couldn’t have been surprised that Wall Street recoiled. And on the Left the new hard line against the capitalists was greeted with applause. France also congratulated Mr. Obama, saying they were glad to see him following their lead, although it wasn’t clear how welcome that embrace was).

But will the average American side with the President? Certainly, there’s lingering resentment against banks in the wake of the TARP fiasco. And reports of big bonuses this year certainly won’t win banks any popularity constests.

But there’s reason to believe Americans won’t be led so easily. Bankers as a whole certainly aren’t loved, but polls show politicians coming in even lower. And outrage over bonuses and other abuses is concentrated on those using taxpayer money.

Second, the ultimate judgment on Obama’s policy will be the results. And, however populist, a policy that hurts the economy, and reduces jobs, won’t win brownie points.

Lastly, despite the President’s assertion that his plan would assure that “[n[ever again will the American taxpayer be held hostage by a bank that is too big to fail,” American’s will likely take that — as they should — with more than a few tablespoons of salt. Not only are the new reforms unlikely to ward off future bailouts, but but the other financial reforms now pending in Congress would actually make them more likely. And the Administration’s insistence that the TARP program itself continue won’t help the message.

The Administration’s bank war is a fairly transparent attempt to score political points at the expense of good policy. The good news is that Americans should see through it.

http://blog.heritage.org/2010/01/22/…-war-on-banks/

On 01.22.10 02:43 PM posted by Nick Loris

First, hackers leaked e-mails and other documents from some of the world’s leading climate scientists detailing how they refused to share data, plotted to keep dissenting scientists from getting published in leading journals and discarded original data.

Next, United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) admitted the Himalayan glaciers won’t disappear by 2035 and that claim was based on speculation. Now, according to the UK’s Times Online, head of the IPCC Dr Rajendra Pachauri, “admitted that there may have been other errors in the same section of the report, and said that he was considering whether to take action against those responsible.”

Andrew Revkin of the New York Times has more (bold added):

“The sections on the risks of extinction from warming in the report and the panel’s summaries are, at the very least, confusing.

In the Summary for Policy Makers of the report on climate impacts, there are different summations of extinction risk within a few pages. On page 6, the summary states: Approximately 20 to 30 percent of plant and animal species assessed so far are likely to be at increased risk of extinction if increases in global average temperature exceed 1.5 to 2.5°C. * N [4.4, T4.1]

In a chart on page 16, at a point marking a 2°C warming from the global average temperature through the 1980s and 1990s, a label reads: Up to 30 percent of species at increasing risk of extinction.

In the Summary for Policy Makers of the final Synthesis Report drawing on the entire 2007 assessment, the extinction risk is summarized in yet another way (the italics are from the report): There is medium confidence that approximately 20 to 30 percent of species assessed so far are likely to be at increased risk of extinction if increases in global average warming exceed 1.5 to 2.5°C (relative to 1980 to 1999).

I asked a half dozen I.P.C.C. scientists about this during a side session at the Copenhagen climate talks and, in particular, asked them to decipher for me the meaning of the nested qualifiers in that final statement. Among other things, how much would extinction risk rise? Basically, they acknowledged there was inconsistency and flawed writing.”

Remember, this is the report that won the IPCC the Nobel Prize in 2007 with Al Gore and the same report the EPA heavily relied on to suggest there was a scientific consensus on global warming.**The EPA used this to make its*endangerment finding that says greenhouse gases are dangerous pollutants and thus must be regulated. This report could have large implications for our economy. And it’s turning out that it has more errors than Bill Buckner.

http://blog.heritage.org/2010/01/22/…arming-gaffes/