Author: Heritage

On 03.31.10 09:00 AM posted by Lindsey Burke

</p>For sports enthusiasts, March is an exciting month. The excitement of the NCAA Tournament keeps even the casual fan glued to the edge of their seat until the <ahref="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RRpA_8J5cLE&feature=related ">final buzzer sounds. While it’s easy to get caught up in the players, it often comes down to the coaches and the belief that every talented student athlete also has the potential to excel in a professional career beyond basketball. The NCAA has made this clear throughout March by running <ahref="http://ncaafoundation.biz/wps/portal/ncaahome?WCM_GLOBAL_CONTEXT=/ncaa/NCAA/Media+and+Events/Press+Room/News+Release+Archive/2007/Announcements/NCAA+Launches+Latest+Public+Service+Announcements+ Introduces+New+Student-Focused+Website ">special advertisements with this message: “There are over 380,000 student athletes, and most of us go pro in something other than sports.”

While the game matters, life after the game is what matters the most.

A microcosm of this message presents itself in a new documentary film about a legendary high school basketball program, whose off-the-court record of graduating all but two players is even arguably more impressive than the near-perfect on-the-court track record of 24 state basketball championships.

<spanid="more-30272"></span><ahref="http://www.thestreetstopsheremovie.com/ ">The Street Stops Here – a compelling documentary about Coach Bob Hurley, Sr. and his near-perfect track record of state basketball championships – will air for the first time nationally tonight (March 31st) at 10:00 p.m. on PBS. The film synopsis states:

The Street Stops Here is a portrait of the nation’s best high school basketball coach, Bob Hurley, Sr., and his career-long struggle to inspire and motivate those around him in order to keep the doors of a poor, inner-city Catholic school open. He’s tallied 900-plus victories for a school that’s won 24 state championships. Hurley’s sent all but two of the hundreds of players he’s coached to college, a feat that truly shows what matters to him most.

No high school in America has accomplished so much with so little. For more than 50 years, the tiny, broken-down school has provided a quality, Catholic education for Jersey City’s lower-income families. Sustaining St. Anthony’s mission is a constant struggle, as financial instability threatens to close its doors annually.

Sadly, St. Anthony’s plight is an all-to-familiar story. A parochial school, providing a high quality education to low-income families – families who would otherwise be relegated to their underperforming neighborhood schools – struggles to keep its doors open because of education policies that disadvantage private providers.

In the nation’s capital, the storyline is much the same. The administration is phasing-out the successful D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program, which provides scholarships of $7,500 to low-income children to attend a private school of their choice. That decision has not only had a negative impact on District families, but it has also been devastating for some D.C. schools. A number of parochial schools in the District <ahref="http://blog.heritage.org/2009/12/18/will-the-grinches-have-a-change-of-heart-about-the-dc-voucher-program/ ">may be forced to close down since enrollments will continue to decline as the program slowly dies. As a result, hundreds of children attending these schools may be forced to return to the underperforming and unsafe D.C. public school system.

The Street Stops Here, which was screened at Heritage this spring, is just one example of the uphill battle so many families and schools face to guarantee children in their community have access to a quality education. It’s a must-see for anyone interested in the fight to ensure all children have a bright educational future.

http://blog.heritage.org/2010/03/31/…et-stops-here/

On 03.31.10 08:12 AM posted by Nick Loris

<ahref="http://blog.heritage.org/wp-content/uploads/oil-drill100219.jpg"></p>President Obama announced today that the administration will open access to waters for offshore drilling in the Atlantic and eastern Gulf of Mexico. While the president should be commended for allowing oil and natural gas exploration and development in untouched water, the devil is in the details. Part of the administration’s proposal is regressive in that it <ahref="http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/business/6937346.html">cancels some lease sales that were already pending:

“But it is unlikely to win strong support from the fiercest drilling advocates in Congress and the energy industry, who have accused the administration of slow-walking conventional oil and gas production. They are expected to oppose many of the administration’s decisions — including the cancellation of planned lease sales in Alaska and potentially years-long waits before new drilling along the East Coast.

Administration officials said the blueprint would keep drilling out of Alaska’s Bristol Bay, home to sockeye salmon and endangered whales. And it was expected that Pacific waters along California, Oregon and Washington also would be off-limits. Under revised Interior plan, four pending lease sales in the Chukchi and Beaufort seas north of Alaska would be canceled to allow scientific studies and environmental research before any drilling decisions. A previously scheduled lease sale in Alaska’s Cook Inlet would still go forward.

<spanid="more-30273"></span>

Salazar had said he was readying a second blueprint for leasing from July 1, 2012 until 2017 — a decision that meant scrapping a Bush-era plan that would have OK’d leases on Pacific and Atlantic waters where no drilling has been allowed for decades (Emphasis added).”

Even opening the eastern Gulf of Mexico <ahref="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304739104575153922665431994.html?m od=WSJ_hpp_MIDDLETopStories">will require Congress’s permission. $4-a-gallon gasoline triggered the public outcry for reducing the red tape on drilling, and the recession did not weaken the public’s support. Even when gasoline prices f<ahref="http://www.fuelgaugereport.com/">ell to $2.20 per gallon in April of last year, 68 percent of Americans <ahref="http://www.pollingreport.com/energy.htm">favored drilling in U.S. waters. Oil demand will go up as countries across the globe recover from the recession and the consequent upward pressure <ahref="http://www.fuelgaugereport.com/">on gas prices only <ahref="http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/offshore_drilling/68_favor_offshore_oil_drilling">reemphasizes the need for increased supply.

Yes, the process of leasing and subsequent exploration and drilling takes a number of years; in fact, those opposed to drilling often argue that it takes too long for the oil to become commercially available. Of course, they’ve been saying that for decades and much of this oil could have already been on the market had we acted then instead of dragging our feet. The increased economic activity from heavily-populated developing nations like India and China indicates that the demand for oil is likely to increase well into the future. The least we can do is step aside and let companies determine whether these projects are economically feasible.

President Obama said in his announcement today <ahref="http://blogs.ajc.com/jamie-dupree-washington-insider/2010/03/31/obama-on-energy-security/?cxntfid=blogs_jamie_dupree_washington_insider">th at “This is not a decision that I’ve made lightly.” It should have been. Offshore drilling will create jobs and increase energy supplies without cost to the taxpayer. It will create revenues for financially strapped state governments and increase revenues for federal governments. Unfortunately, we won’t realize many of these benefits because this decision was more about getting “drilling” in the headlines than in our nation’s waters.** The same could be said for the president’s <ahref="http://blog.heritage.org/2010/02/16/obama%e2%80%99s-nuclear-push-good-but-not-enough/">nuclear push.

http://blog.heritage.org/2010/03/31/…-announcement/

On 03.31.10 08:00 AM posted by Richard Sherwood

<ahref="http://blog.heritage.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/badnews_healthcare090616.gif"></p>Now that Obamacare passed, the Left is calling it a truly historic achievement, *chalking it up as a victory for health care reformers everywhere.* With the enactment of the House-Senate reconciliation bill, the so-called “fix” to the Senate bill,* Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) <ahref="http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/health care/89357-health care-reform-a-historic-day-for-us-speaker-nancy-pelosi?page=2#comments">remarked that the bill did “something very important for the American people, very significant to their daily lives.”* Well, Congressional liberals are correct about one thing. It’s historic.* It is an unprecedented takeover of Americans’ health care *now equal to one-sixth of the entire US economy.* It is historic for its partisan backroom deals and controversial parliamentary tactics. *And it is historic for its apparent disregard for the *strongly held opinion of the majority of the American people.* But it will long be remembered for its *catastrophic side effects- in record spending and its disruption- on the lives of millions of Americans.

Recent <ahref="http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2010/03/Top-10-Disasters-of-Obamacare">research by Heritage’s Kathryn Nix looks at some of the major consequences of Obamacare.* The paper outlines the ten ways in which liberals’ health care agenda will be a disaster for Americans.* They include:<spanid="more-30257"></span>

• Growth in federal deficit
• Increased health care costs and spending
• Slowed economic growth through new taxes and mandates
• Augmented government control over health care
• Expansion of inefficient entitlement programs
• Higher burdens on state budgets
• Inadequate focus on Medicare
• Low income worker discrimination
• Social and economic inequities in the exchange
• Blatant disregard for federalism and the US Constitution

Only two weeks after passage of the bill, some of these effects are already evident. Large corporations and small businesses alike have gone public with the <ahref="http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=agZwb0aUO03g">new costs they will face as a result of new law.* Caterpillar, Inc. expects a $100 million dollar hit to earnings from the subsidy tax on retiree drug benefits. *John Deere & Co., the world’s largest maker of farm machinery, said the new law will increase expenses by about $150 million after taxes in the fiscal year that runs through October.* In all, health care charges ultimately may shave as much as $14 billion from U.S. corporate profits, according to an <ahref="http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=agZwb0aUO03g">estimate by benefits consultancy Towers Watson.* This will negatively affect job growth and curb investment in the US economy.

States also have already begun to feel significant financial pressure as well as a loss of control over state health programs.* Congress’s Medicaid expansion, opposed by many Governors, *has prompted Indiana governor Mitch Daniels to drop his popular Healthy Indiana Program, a program providing insurance to 50,000 low income Indiana residents.* Gov. Daniels <ahref="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704094104575144362968408640.html"> remarks, “I hope those folks will do all right when they are pitched into Medicaid.”* Gov. Daniels, like many others, is being handcuffed by Washington. He is being ordered *to expand inefficient federal entitlements at the expense of custom state-based programs—a major hit to federalism and state rights.

<ahref="http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2010/03/Top-10-Disasters-of-Obamacare">As Nix concludes in her analysis:

These disasters are only the beginning of the vast effects the President’s health care overhaul will have on the U.S. As bits and pieces of the law are implemented, its effects on states, businesses, and Americans of every ilk will become manifest. Congress and the American people should not view passage of the liberals’ health care package as the end of the debate on reform. Rather, the long and tedious journey toward restoring personal control over health care dollars and decisions is just beginning.

The battle has just begun.

Rick Sherwood currently is a member of the Young Leaders Program at the Heritage Foundation. For more information on interning at Heritage, please visit: <ahref="http://www.heritage.org/About/Internships-Young-Leaders/The-Heritage-Foundation-Internship-Program">http://www.heritage.org/About/Intern…rnship-Program

http://blog.heritage.org/2010/03/31/…for-americans/

On 03.31.10 07:00 AM posted by Jeffrey Chatterton

</p>When the United States and Russia meet in Prague on April 8 to sign the follow-on Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START), Presidents Obama and Medvedev will finalize a process that took about a year to complete. Although some claim New START is a monumental step along the “road to zero” (a world without nuclear weapons), a look back at the rocky negotiation process reveals that serious national interests were sacrificed in the interests of this idealistic goal:

• On <ahref="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/07/AR2009020700756.html">February 7, 2009, Vice President Joe Biden promised that the U.S. would “press the reset button” with Moscow during an international security conference in Munich.<spanid="more-30242"></span>
• Secretary of State Hillary Clinton <ahref="http://www1.voanews.com/english/news/a-13-2009-03-06-voa51-68812192.html">followed this speech by presenting Russian foreign minister Sergei Lavrov with a physical reset button meant to symbolize the improved relationship.
• Presidents Obama and Medvedev first met on <ahref="http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-4909175-503544.html">April 1, 2009, in London, where they released a joint statement on their intentions to renew the START agreement and “move further along the path of reducing and limiting strategic offensive arms.”
• <ahref="http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2009/04/Incompatible-Pronouncements-on-the-Future-of-the-US-Nuclear-Force">Within the week, Obama traveled to Prague to announce his ambitious plan to rid the world of nuclear weapons. At the time, Heritage Fellow Baker Spring pointed out the president’s contradictory goals of maintaining an effective nuclear arsenal while acceding to the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.
• The U.S. and Russia began formal negotiations on the START follow-on agreement on <ahref="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/20/world/europe/20start.html">May 19, 2009.
• From <ahref="http://www.globalsecuritynewswire.org/gsn/nw_20100329_1928.php">July 6-8, 2009, Obama met with Medvedev in Russia, where the two leaders agreed to reduce their strategic warheads to between 1,500 and 1,675 and their strategic delivery systems to a range of 500-1100 each.
• <ahref="http://www1.voanews.com/english/news/a-13-2009-07-15-voa37-68743607.html">Reportedly, both countries discussed the “third site” missile defense system to be deployed by the U.S. in Poland and the Czech Republic at this meeting. Russia adamantly opposed the plan and tied the European missile defense to arms control negotiations.
• In <ahref="http://blog.heritage.org/2009/08/27/obama-officially-abandons-missile-defense-in-europe/">late August, Polish media sources reported that Obama had abandoned these missile defense plans.
• On <ahref="http://www.heritage.org/Research/Factsheets/Endangering-America-And-Our-Allies-Obamas-Missile-Defense-Plans-Dont-Add-Up">September 17, the U.S. officially cancelled the “third site” option, appeasing Russian interests to push through with START negotiations and abandoning commitments made to important American allies. According to a Heritage Foundation Factsheet, this decision was “a strategic victory for the Kremlin, which is determined to have a sphere of privileged interest in its region.”
• However, on <ahref="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/10/world/10nobel.html">October 9 the President was rewarded for his nonproliferation efforts when it was announced that he would receive the Nobel Peace Prize.
• The surprising decision did not guarantee success in START follow-on negotiations. On <ahref="http://www.politico.com/blogs/laurarozen/1209/ObamaMedvedev_issue_START_statement_.html">Decembe r 4, Obama and Medvedev released a joint statement committing both nations to continue working towards a successor treaty following the official expiration of START I the next day.
• In <ahref="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/27/world/europe/27start.html">January 2010, the Obama Administration thought it had completed the agreement, but it later found out the Medvedev still refused to budge on linking missile defense to arms control. Moscow got Obama to back down on the “third site” option, so the Kremlin continued to push him on other missile defense options in Europe throughout February.
• When the president announced the completion of START negotiations <ahref="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/26/AR2010032604410.html">last week, he emphasized that the agreement puts no limits on American missile defense systems. However, a non-binding perambulatory statement from Moscow states their right to withdraw if Russian interests are threatened by U.S. missile defense systems.

While many herald the finalization of the START follow-on agreement as a vindication of the Obama’s arms control strategy, a reminder of this year-long process raises questions about American national security. Were the sacrifices related to missile defense, American alliances, and nuclear modernization worth it? These more immediate and urgent strategic interests should not be clouded by the idealism of a world without nuclear weapons.

Jeffrey Chatterton currently is a member of the Young Leaders Program at the Heritage Foundation. For more information on interning at Heritage, please visit: <ahref="http://www.heritage.org/About/Internships-Young-Leaders/The-Heritage-Foundation-Internship-Program">http://www.heritage.org/About/Intern…rnship-Program

http://blog.heritage.org/2010/03/31/…d-we-get-here/

On 03.31.10 06:00 AM posted by Rory Cooper

Do Christians have civil rights? Earlier this week, citizens of Davenport, Iowa were informed that City Administrator Craig Malin planned to change the name of Good Friday to “<ahref="http://abcnews.go.com/US/iowa-town-renames-good-friday/story?id=10233061">Spring Holiday” on official city documents, per the recommendation of the Davenport Civil Rights Commission. After the city and state grew appropriately outraged, the decision was reversed and Mayor Bill Gluba pled that the city move on to “more important issues.” But, this issue might in fact be the most important.

Over the course of the past several decades, political correctness has been applied to protect the rights of communities experiencing discrimination, and that can be appreciated. The inclination to not offend your fellow man is as natural as wanting to catch someone who is falling. It’s inherent in us. But at what point do the scales tip, and the balance of political correctness shift towards infringing upon the rights of many, and their own civil liberties, for the supposed protection of a few? In Davenport, the scales aren’t just tipped, they’ve gone missing.<spanid="more-30188"></span>

<ahref="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_Friday">Good Friday is one of the holiest days of the year for Christians. It marks the day Jesus Christ was crucified. And on the Sunday afterwards, Christians celebrate Easter, rejoicing in his resurrection. You do not have to be a Christian to understand how important these days are to those who worship the faith.

Imagine if this Davenport incident had been about the Jewish observance of Passover which often coincides with Easter, or the Muslim observance of Ramadan, which is also celebrated across our land of religious liberty. The outcries would have been louder, and the claims would’ve included an assault on the motives of the person responsible. Were the decision-makers bigoted? Were they anti-Semitic? But in this case, it is actually a “Civil Rights Commission” making these ridiculously un-American assaults on a religion. The motive automatically gets accepted as benign.

So what is the purpose of the “Civil Rights Commission”? Is it designed to protect the liberties of a few at the expense of most, or should it be empowered to protect the rights of all, even against the outcries of a few? In Davenport’s case, it <ahref="http://www.cityofdavenportiowa.com/egov/docs/1153285843506.htm">was created in 1962, and given enforcement power in 1974 to protect all persons from discrimination. So in other words, what began as a noble effort is now a tragedy of unintended consequences.

Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. said in his 1963 “<ahref="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_have_a_dream">I Have a Dream” speech: “With this faith we will be able to work together, to pray together, to struggle together, to go to jail together, to stand up for freedom together, knowing that we will be free one day.” This does not sound like a man convinced that Christianity should be pushed from the public square.

King went further: “…we will be able to speed up that day when all of God’s children—black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics—will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual: “Free at last! Free at last! Thank God Almighty, we are free at last!” Again, the civil rights icon of the twentieth century was not advocating for protection from religion, but rather a peaceful coexistence rooted in its core philosophies on display to all.

The Davenport “Civil Rights Commission” <ahref="http://abcnews.go.com/US/iowa-town-renames-good-friday/story?id=10233061">told reporters that they “had no plans to change the name of ‘Easter Sunday’ because it fell on a weekend and government offices were already closed.” Never before had Jesus’ resurrection being celebrated on a Sunday seemed so convenient. They had “discussed changing Christmas” but decided against it when they determined enough religions celebrate Christmas. The Christmas-celebrating, Easter-ignoring theologians must only live in Davenport.

During Holy Week, it is easy to forgive the transgressions of those on the Davenport Commission. For Christians, it is imperative. But it is also imperative that we protect the rights of all those who wish to worship as they see fit; even against those who demand that worship be hidden from public view. Our nation was founded on principles that demand that all men are created equal. The easiest way towards equality is not to ignore the differences that make America great, but to embrace a nation that is welcoming to faith, freedom and civil society.

This article was originally published by The Daily Caller, <ahref="http://dailycaller.com/2010/03/31/good-friday-still-good-friday-thank-god/">here. You can follow Rory Cooper on Twitter <ahref="http://twitter.com/rorycooper">@rorycooper.

http://blog.heritage.org/2010/03/31/…day-thank-god/

On 03.31.10 05:27 AM posted by Conn Carroll

<ahref="http://blog.heritage.org/wp-content/uploads/handcuffs-10-03-31.jpg"></p>Before President Barack Obama took over the White House, no United States citizen had ever been forced by the federal government to buy a product against their will. But now, thanks to the passage of Obamacare, Americans, by dint of their mere existence, are now required to purchase Obama administration approved health insurance or face a penalty assessed through the Internal Revenue Code. <ahref="http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2009/12/Why-the-Personal-Mandate-to-Buy-Health-Insurance-Is-Unprecedented-and-Unconstitutional">This is simply unprecedented. The income tax doesn’t kick in until an American earns income. Auto liability insurance doesn’t become mandated until an American chooses to drive (and even then it’s only by the state). <ahref="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn">And farmers must first grow food before they are subject to the regulations of the Department of Agriculture. But facing federal government sanction for simply breathing? That is a troubling assault on American liberty.

Unfortunately, Obamacare is just the latest example of the growing reach of the federal government into all aspects of our lives. While the final bill passed by Congress <ahref="http://www.jct.gov/publications.html?func=startdown&id=3673">specific ally made the noncompliance with an IRS individual mandate penalty not a crime, far too often when the spotlight of American attention is not focused on an issue, Congress has gone ahead and criminalized what was once before perfectly normal behavior. Consider, for example, small-time inventor and entrepreneur Krister Evertson, whose story is <ahref="http://www.heritage.org/Research/Commentary/2009/11/Criminalizing%20Health%20Care%20Freedom">recounted by Heritage fellows Brian Walsh and Hans von Spakovsky:<spanid="more-30220"></span>

In May 2004, FBI agents driving a black Suburban and wearing SWAT gear ran Evertson off the road near his mother’s home in Wasilla, Alaska. When Evertson was face down on the pavement with automatic weapons trained on him, an FBI agent told him he was being arrested because he hadn’t put a federally mandated sticker on a UPS package.

A jury in federal court in Alaska acquitted Evertson, but the feds weren’t finished. They reached into their bag of over 4,500 federal crimes and found another ridiculous crime they could use to prosecute him: supposedly “abandoning” hazardous waste (actually storing, in appropriate containers, valuable materials he was using for the clean-fuel technology he was developing). A second jury convicted him, and he spent 21 months in an Oregon federal prison.

Putting the wrong stamp on a package. Storing your own property own your own land. When did these actions become federal crimes? Why? How can we stop them? A new book launched yesterday and published by The Heritage Foundation answers these questions. <ahref="http://www.amazon.com/One-Nation-Under-Arrest-Prosecutors/dp/0891951342/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1270034790&sr=8-1">One Nation Under Arrest: How Crazy Laws, Rogue Prosecutors, and Activist Judges Threaten Your Liberty documents how over the past 50 years the politicization of American criminal law and practice has created traps for millions of innocent and unwary Americans and threatens to make criminals out of those who are just doing their best to be respectable, law abiding citizens.

In 1998, an American Bar Association task force estimated that there were over 3,000 federal criminal offenses scattered throughout the 50 titles of the United States Code. Just six years later, that number is estimated to be over 4,000 and Columbia law professor John Coffee estimates that the federal government could use the criminal process to enforce as many as 300,000 federal regulations.

Lavrentiy Beria, the chief of the Soviet security and secret police under Stalin reputedly said, “Show me the man, and I’ll find you the crime.” Our country is by no means a Soviet police state yet, but a federal government empowered with a sprawling code that makes all of us potential criminals is more than just an existential threat to American Liberty. This <ahref="http://www.overcriminalized.com/">overcriminalization trend must end. Become informed. Learn the issues. <ahref="http://www.amazon.com/One-Nation-Under-Arrest-Prosecutors/dp/0891951342/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1270034790&sr=8-1">Buy the book. And <ahref="http://www.heritage.org/Donate">fight back.

Quick Hits:

• According to a newly released <ahref="http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/mar/30/cia-iran-has-capability-to-produce-nuke-weapons/">CIA report, “Iran continues to develop a range of capabilities that could be applied to producing nuclear weapons, if a decision is made to do so.”
• Since President Barack Obama took office, <ahref="http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/03/29/cnn-poll-big-shift-on-closing-of-guantanamo-bay-facility/?fbid=mMeLvSPTTeU">support for the U.S. detention facility at Guantanamo Bay has risen dramatically with 61% of Americans believing the United States should continue to operate the base.
• Thanks to Obamacare, starting in January, <ahref="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/30/health/30fine.html">Americans will no longer be able to tap their Flexible Spending Accounts to cover aspirin, vitamins and other over-the-counter medications, unless they are prescribed by a doctor.
• According to <ahref="http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/business/taxes/march_2010/national_sales_tax_still_unpopular">Rasmussen Reports, (60%) of voters nationwide think tax increases hurt the economy and 60% oppose the creation of a national sales tax.
• Despite claiming in his State of the Union that “we have excluded lobbyists from policymaking jobs,” <ahref="http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/Obama_-who-_excluded-lobbyists__-has-appointed-50-89531802.html">President Obama has appointed 50 lobbyists to posts in the federal government.

http://blog.heritage.org/2010/03/31/…-under-arrest/

On 03.30.10 01:30 PM posted by Anthony B. Kim

<ahref="http://blog.heritage.org/wp-content/uploads/EUslowgrowth.jpg"></p>The eleven year old euro zone, the world’s second largest economy after the U.S., confronts a cold reality: its members lost economic vitality over the euro’s first decade, as shown in this WSJ chart. The <ahref="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703312504575141640716040122.html"> WSJ reports:

[The] appetite for structural overhaul is low among Europeans, who have long believed that capitalism should be tempered by generous state benefits and strong labor protections. Even in the best of times, Europeans are loath to move toward a U.S.-style economic model, which they criticize for leaving citizens to sink or swim. In bad times, voters tend to demand economic security over change. French conservatives’ stinging defeat in regional elections over the weekend was a warning that many people voters have soured on President Nicolas Sarkozy’s bid to make France more business friendly and reduce some welfare benefits.

Whether in the euro zone or in the U.S., policy choices made now will shape the growth trajectory for years to come. Policy makers need to remind their publics of the key role economic freedom plays in enhancing competitiveness and prosperity. <spanid="more-30207"></span>It is economic freedom that empowers ordinary people, compensates hard work, and sparks innovative solutions from entrepreneurs. In fact, economic success in today’s global economy has proven to be next to impossible to sustain without a consistent policy environment that favors innovation and entrepreneurship. As shown in the <ahref="www.heritage.org/index/">2010 Index of Economic Freedom, volumes of empirical research confirm a <ahref="http://www.jobsandfreedom.com/?p=48">strong link between greater economic freedom and higher innovative capacity.

Government welfare may seem to promise security. What it delivers is economic stagnation. Now is the time to restore the path of economic dynamism that can only come from economic freedom.

http://blog.heritage.org/2010/03/30/…g-for-the-u-s/

On 03.30.10 02:00 PM posted by Kathryn Nix

<ahref="http://blog.heritage.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/badnews_healthcare090616.gif"></p>There’s only one way to pull the economy out of the doldrums. We need more jobs. Now.

As Obamacare inched its way toward passage, boosters of the radical legislation began making bold new claims about its virtues.* The bill, they said, would do far more than simply fix the health care system; it would create jobs and boost the economy, too.

[Oddly, they stopped short of claiming it would also help melt away the pounds as you sleep.]

Not surprisingly, the early evidence is quickly proving their claims to be false.<spanid="more-30213"></span>

Consider Massachusetts.* It is home to a large portion of the nation’s life sciences industry.* That industry now faces major job losses due to the new Obamacare tax on medical devices. The tax is intended to raise $2.2 billion a year to help foot the bill for Obamacare.

Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick, a Democrat, has been a vocal supporter of President Obama and his health care agenda.* But now that the deal is done, even Patrick admits he’s worried about what Obamacare will do to the commonwealth’s economy.

Yesterday, <ahref="http://bostonherald.com/business/general/view.bg?articleid=1242246">the Boston Herald reports, Patrick said he was “obviously concerned about the medical device burden here,” adding, “You better believe I will work to make modifications” if the bill is found to be an “impediment to that industry.”

It’s not a matter of “if,” but “when.”* Members of the industry are <ahref="http://bostonherald.com/business/general/view.bg?articleid=1242246">already raising red flags that the tax will bite hard. “‘This bill is a jobs killer,’ said Ernie Whiton, chief financial officer of Chelmsford’s Zoll Medical Corp., which employs about 650 people in Massachusetts. ‘We could be forced to (move) manufacturing overseas if we can’t pass along these costs to our customers.’”

So long, jobs.

If Congress had been serious about stimulating the economy, they would never have voted for Obamacare.* Instead, they would have worked to prevent new tax increases until unemployment falls.

When it comes to job creation, Obamacare completely misses the mark—unless you count the 16,000 IRS slots needed to enforce its individual mandate.* To learn more about the right approach for creating jobs, <ahref="http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2010/02/No-Cost-Stimulus-Would-Spur-Business-Hiring-and-Create-Jobs">click here.

http://blog.heritage.org/2010/03/30/…ll-costs-jobs/

On 03.30.10 01:00 PM posted by Dean Cheng

Too much of the discussion of Google’s departure has focused on censorship of political ideas, as though the problem was whether a Google search of “Tiananmen” should include a 21-year old photograph of a (very brave) man standing before a line of Chinese tanks.

The reality, however, is that the core of the Google-China dispute is about the perceived competency of the Chinese central government. When the Chinese authorities themselves acknowledge $35 billion in governmental waste and fraud, it suggests a scale of corruption and inefficiency that requires more accountability.

But for the CCP to acknowledge this as a national problem, as opposed to problems at the local level, would raise real questions about the competency and effectiveness of the central government. If corruption and bad governance is widespread, then either the government is aware and helpless, or unaware and incompetent. Small wonder, then, that individuals in China, such as Zhao Lianhai, who seek to use the Internet to publicize problems such as the milk powder poisoning incidents are promptly jailed.

In light of the growing incidences of mass unrest, often sparked by concerns over pollution, corruption, and health hazards, it is vital to maintain the appearance that the problems are local, and the responses are limited. For Google not to participate raises the specter of groups discovering that corruption and problems are widespread. Worse, it might lead to a national reaction.

In this light, the Chinese government’s reaction to Google’s decision to withdraw its search engines from China is both ironic and illuminating. The Central Propaganda Department (zhonggong zhongyang xuanchuan bu) has apparently issued instructions to domestic news sites, including newspapers and broadcast media, but also blogs and other social media, on how to characterize and discuss Google’s decision.

To ensure that Chinese discussants properly adhere to the narrative, news sections are instructed to use only central government media content, but not to engage in their own investigative reporting. Commentary and discussion programs must be cleared by central authorities first, while blogs are not permitted to discuss the issue at all.

Furthermore, Chinese media is enjoined from reporting on Google’s own press releases, and to place the Chinese perspective front-and-center.

What these instructions would suggest is that Google’s decision to withdraw may generate far greater repercussions in China than much of the recent debate has suggested. It may well be that more people will now question what information the government was restricting access to, such that Google should opt to leave rather than comply.

This would also suggest that Google’s immediate response to shift its operations to Hong Kong will be insufficient. If significant numbers of Chinese try to access Google by way of Hong Kong, the central government will face the difficult decision of either allowing the citizenry to circumvent government restrictions; limiting access to Hong Kong, with other economic and financial implications; or clamping down on Hong Kong, thereby raising questions about the “one country, two systems” model that Beijing would also like to apply to Taiwan.

It would appear that this clash between an American corporation and the Chinese government will continue to play out for some time to come.

One wonders if this is the sort of governance envisioned by those who would praise the “reasonably enlightened group of people…[that] can just impose the politically difficult but critically important policies needed to move a society forward in the 21st Century”?

http://blog.heritage.org/2010/03/30/…nd-governance/

On 03.30.10 11:53 AM posted by Jena McNeill

Yesterday, a series of bombings in Moscow subway stations killed 39 and injured more than 70. The bombings, conducted by two female suicide bombers, are undoubtedly a horrible tragedy for the families of the victims. What followed, however, was a decision by transit companies across the United States to ramp up security from more officers, tighter physical security at transit stations and bomb sniffing dogs. While these types of attacks may lead Americans to think that the U.S. needs to change its counter-terrorism strategy—the U.S. already has an effective means of stopping terrorism without the need to child proof the transit system.

Such knee jerk responses to terror attacks are not a new phenomenon. After the Christmas Day plot in December, where a Nigerian man attempted to blow up an airplane landing in Detroit, the Obama administration came out with a number of silly airport security measures, including plans to target 14 suspicious countries for secondary inspection—something that made little sense given the fact that terrorists often come through a number of different countries in order to get to the U.S.—most often ones not included in the 14.

Congress, for its part, fares no better the silly security measures department. In its 2007 9/11 Implementation bill, Congress put in place measures that would require 100 percent scanning and/or screening of maritime and air cargo. All that these measures managed to achieved was to scan cargo that is already subject to effective risk-based screening—not much of a gain in the security department. It is no wonder, given these examples that the private sector tends to over-react to terrorist attacks. Subways and other forms of public transportation will always be vulnerable—putting in place new security measures for every threat is a waste of money, and doesn’t do much to stop attacks.

The formula for combating terrorism effectively remains the same. Stopping terrorism in the earliest stages, through smart investments and effective intelligence gathering/information sharing has been and will continue to be the most successful way to stop these types of attacks. We have done this multiple times since 9/11.

We already know the right formula for effective counter-terrorism. The impetus is on the White House and Congress to set the example.

http://blog.heritage.org/2010/03/30/…jerk-security/

On 03.30.10 12:15 PM posted by Conn Carroll

Remember those lower health insurance premiums Obamacare would bring us?* Don’t count on it—especially if you’re young.* The Associated Press reports that a new analysis by Rand Health predicts premiums for young adults could rise as much as 17 percent under the new law.

The new age rating requirement is the culprit.* It bars insurers from charging older patients much more than their younger, healthier customers.* Today, the AP notes, “Insurers typically charge six or seven times as much to older customers as to younger ones in states with no restrictions. The new law limits the ratio to 3-to-1….”* So how will insurers make up the difference?* It will be “will be shouldered by young people in the form of higher premiums.”

The 17 percent premium hike predicted by Rand translates into $300-$500 premium increases for young adults.* Other studies suggest even steeper price hikes. *Jim O’Connor, of the consulting firm Milliman, Inc., predicts increases between 10 and 30 percent.* ShoutAmerica, a Tennessee nonprofit, predicts increases as high as 50 percent.

And that’s just from the new age rating restriction.** Other provisions, such as the rich benefits insurers will be required to offer in all health plans, will add further to premium prices.

And don’t forget the taxes.* When asked if health premiums would go up, Aetna CEO Ron Williams responded, “The answer is yes, and some of the things that will drive those premiums are significant additional taxes the industry will ultimately have to pay in the first year.”

Heritage analysts have explained how premium increases will discourage young adults from purchasing insurance altogether, opting to pay the much less expensive penalty instead.* That will only fuel a “death spiral” of out-of-control premium price hikes.

For lawmakers who really wanted to lower the cost of insurance and help more Americans buy it, Obamacare was the wrong way to go.* To learn more about the right way, click here.

http://blog.heritage.org/2010/03/30/…ance-premiums/

On 03.30.10 09:43 AM posted by Rep. Michael Burgess M.D.

As the health care reform debate began over a year ago, the American Medical Association, the top doctors group in the country, released a list of its top priorities for health reform. The AMA is a powerful association, and many have credited it with helping to kill HillaryCare, so the organization, of which I am a member, was in a good position to impact President Obama’s health care reform plan and accomplish some of doctors’ long-awaited goals.*Remember, without doctors, there is no health care, so it is important that health reform address the issues that are important to doctors and will help them keep their doors open and better serve America’s patients.

Two of the AMA’s top priorities are also two of the main reasons I decided to run for Congress almost 10 years ago – repealing the flawed Medicare physician payment formula, and nationwide medical liability reform. Unfortunately for doctors, Democrats in Washington, who have had control of Congress for over 3 years, have shown absolutely no signs of seriously addressing either of these issues. But with the AMA’s clout, I was hopeful that this time, with comprehensive health care reform a major goal for President Obama, these two big issues would finally be addressed.

Last May the AMA was one of six health-related industries to meet at the White House on health reform, and this gave me even more confidence that doctors may actually be close to fixing the Medicare physician payment formula and medical justice reform. So I was very surprised when last summer the AMA endorsed Democrats’ health reform…before a bill was even introduced!! And even more surprised was I when the AMA also endorsed the reform bill that is now law, with a doc fix and liability reform nowhere to be found.

The final legislation signed into law by President Obama last week had no doc fix and the lamest excuse for medical liability reform I have ever seen – a few million dollars for states to conduct pilot programs. In 2003, Texas passed one of the most successful medical liability reforms in the country, taking the state from a condition where doctors were fleeing to other parts of the country before 2003, to one where the state medical licensing board cannot keep up with the thousands of doctors now flocking to the state to practice medicine. So who needs a pilot program? I have a bill to make national medical liability reforms – H.R. 1468, the Medical Justice Act, which would implement Texas-style medical liability reforms on a national level. I believe all Americans, and all of America’s doctors, are entitled to the kind of reforms that have made Texas one of the best places in the country for doctors to practice medicine. I also have a bill to repeal and replace the flawed SGR formula that Medicare uses to determine physician payment – H.R. 3693, the Ensuring the Future Physician Workforce Act. Medicare’s physician fee schedule will pay doctors less this year for the same patients and services they provided last year, and this flawed formula needs a permanent fix. This legislation would give doctors and patients the sustainability and reliability they really need.

But like I said, ObamaCare included neither Medicare physician payment reform or liability reform. So today, on National Doctor’s Day, I submit that while we as doctors know that there are many problems with our nation’s current health care system, the legislation that is now the law of the land did little, if anything, to make life easier for us. Instead, health reform ignored, despite the clout I thought the AMA had, two of the top priorities that we have asked for year after year. More Americans will have health insurance, which is a good thing, and there will be more IRS agents, but whether or not there will be enough doctors that are able to keep practicing medicine, I believe, is a question that currently has no answer.

http://blog.heritage.org/2010/03/30/…ct-on-doctors/

On 03.30.10 06:57 AM posted by Mike Brownfield

Live Video streaming by Ustream

The vital concept of national sovereignty is under assault around the globe in virtually every realm of public policy.

Join us from 11:00 AM to 12:30 PM eastern as Ambassador John R. Bolton speaks at The Heritage Foundation about protecting U.S. sovereignty in the Age of Obama. Watch the streaming video.

http://blog.heritage.org/2010/03/30/…-age-of-obama/

On 03.30.10 07:30 AM posted by Brandon Stewart

Facing an American public that hates their new health care law, the Obama administration and their union/corporatist allies are planning a multi-million dollar television ad campaign to sell the benefits of Obamacare. While Food and Drug Administration regulations require all advertising for prescription drug to “present side effect information in a manner similar to that used for the benefit information,” the Obama administration faces no such hurdle when making their pitch. But if it did, this is what a typical pro-Obamacare ad would look like.

As we announced in today’s Morning Bell, we are launching a new Foundry feature, titled “Side Effects”. In this space, we will be updating you about all consequences of Obamacare, as a way of highlighting the importance of its eventual repeal.

http://blog.heritage.org/2010/03/30/…television-ad/

On 03.30.10 07:46 AM posted by Ed Feulner

President Obama this morning cited The Heritage Foundation’s research in an attempt to sell his health care package as a “middle of the road, centrist approach.” We take great exception to this misuse of our work and abuse of our name. This is but the latest act in a campaign to sell this big-government program as a moderate law that incorporates conservative ideas. Americans should not be fooled.

Let’s be very clear: We oppose this new law because it is a radical new intrusion into the daily lives of all Americans and a massive takeover of one-sixth of the U.S. economy. We view the President’s health care law as inimical to our national interests and offensive to the historic American dedication to the principle of self-government.

Our research has shown that President Obama’s health approach is financially unsustainable and will ultimately lead to health care rationing, a lower quality of care and a greater degree of dependence on government. We deplore those outcomes and are committed to making the intellectual case for this law’s repeal.
What part of that does President Obama not understand?

Specifically, President Obama told NBC’s Today Show host Matt Lauer that a centerpiece of his health care package, “in terms of the exchange, just being able to pool and improve the purchasing power of individuals in the insurance market—that originated from The Heritage Foundation.”

But the President knows full well—or he ought to learn before he speaks—that the exchanges we and most others support are very different from those in his package. True exchanges are simply a market mechanism to enable families to choose their health insurance. President Obama’s exchanges, by contrast, are a vehicle to introduce sweeping regulation and federal standardization on health insurance.

Moreover, we completely disagree that President Obama’s law improves the purchasing power of individuals in the insurance market. On the contrary, it will create a staggeringly complex and costly insurance system that will drive up premiums for Americans.

The President’s health care law is only eight days old, and already it has cost our economy billions of dollars. Late last week, AT&T alone took a $1 billion charge because of the impact of the bill, and the consulting firm Towers Watson told the Wall Street Journal that the total hit this year will reach nearly $14 billion. It is sad, given the present state of our economy, that the President’s party in Congress has reacted not by trying to find ways to spare the jobs that will be lost because of this law. Instead, they are trying to intimidate companies that take such charges with threats that they will be hauled in before the Energy and Commerce Committee.

It is also revealing that President Obama is still struggling to sell the American people on a bill that he and his party rammed through passage by a narrow margin in the face of bipartisan opposition. It is a sign of desperation that he, his handlers and the media echo chamber are reverting to the campaign practice of selling the President and his policies as centrist, middle of the road and aisle-crossing. As the country has found out the hard way in the past 15 months, they are none of those things.

The President has made a habit of using conservative talking points when trying to sell a liberal ideology because he knows that this is a center-right country that rejects his agenda when articulated honestly. His supporters have even tried to pin the blame of the potentially unconstitutional individual mandate on us. This approach brushes over the details of our research and ignores our ability to evolve past further developed research.

Over 16,000 new IRS agents will be hired by the government to enforce the President’s mandate on the American people. The President’s health care plan also raises premiums, taxes, and costs while lowering quality, and expanding Medicaid. These are not conservative ideas.

And let’s be clear, these are not ideas Heritage has ever, or would ever, support.

We made every effort over the past year to share our ideas for better health care reform with the President and members of both parties in Congress, but were not invited behind the closed doors. Now, after the bill is signed, it seems the President wishes we were along for the ride. We were not. We remain fervently opposed to the President’s partisan plan, and urge its immediate repeal. This is not common politics, it’s common sense.

Had President Obama limited his bill to centrist elements, he would have won wide bipartisan support for effective reform both within Congress and among the American people. He would have won it, too, at a fraction of the cost of this intolerable, huge and intrusive legislation. He would not now be facing popular rejection by the American people. And he would not need to misrepresent Heritage policies and positions in an attempt to give his radical health plan the patina of respectability.

http://blog.heritage.org/2010/03/30/…80%99s-claims/

On 03.30.10 05:18 AM posted by Conn Carroll

In the closing days of the Congressional health care debate, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) told the National Association of Counties: “We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it.” Today marks the end of just the first week of life under Obamacare and Speaker Pelosi has been proven right: we are just now finding out what is in it. This past Friday, AT&T, the biggest U.S. telephone company, announced that it would take a $1 billion charge against earnings thanks to tax changes buried in the 2,300+ page bill. $1 billion. That is a full third of AT&T’s $3 billion earnings for the fourth quarter of 2009.

The tax charges stem from changes Obamacare makes to the tax treatment of prescription-drug benefits for retirees. Companies used to be able to deduct part of their costs for providing drug benefits to their retirees, but Obamacare cancels that deduction. Roland McDevitt, director of health care research at Towers Watson, tells the Wall Street Journal, they “have a stream of tax benefits they are losing way out in the future.” Since companies had counted on these deductions for current and future retirees as an existing asset under the old law, accounting rules require firms to take the full loss for the change in the same quarter in which the tax law is changed. Hence Friday’s announcement to inform shareholders that AT&T’s bottom line was about to take a $1 billion hit.

AT&T’s billion-dollar Obamacare headache is so large due to the size (281,000 employees) of the company. Piper Jaffray & Co. analyst Chris Larsen tells Bloomberg: “Companies like AT&T, that have large employee bases, are going to have higher health-care costs and, therefore, lower earnings unless they can negotiate something or offer less to their employees.” And changes to current and future retirees’ health care seem to be exactly what will AT&T will do as a side effect of Obamacare. AT&T wrote in their Friday filing: “As a result of this legislation, including the additional tax burden, AT&T will be evaluating prospective changes to the active and retiree health-care benefits offered by the company.”

And AT&T is not alone. Towers Watson estimates that just this tax change alone will eliminate $14 billion in U.S. corporate profits. That’s $14 billion less American employers have to spend creating new jobs when our unemployment rate is still 9.7%. And AT&T is not the only company informing employees that Obamacare is going to mean worse care for them. Verizon Communications, the second biggest U.S. phone company, told employees last week that Obamacare “may have significant implications for both retirees and employers.”

The Heritage Foundation will be keeping you apprised of all of the consequences of Obamacare as they are learned with our new Foundry feature “Side Effects.” Already our health care experts have identified negative intended and unintended consequences from the legislation to children’s health insurance and health insurance taxes.

The American people already do not like this law. But to repeal it, we must keep Americans educated about all of Obamacare’s failures and offer our “Second Opinion” on what conservative idea would fix it.

Quick Hits:

• Yesterday on NBC’s Today show, President Barack Obama admitted his health care law did not adequately reduce costs: “We are still going to have adjustments that have to be made to further reduce costs.”
• After a dead cat bounce, Gallup’s latest poll shows a majority of Americans believe the passage of Obamacare is “a bad thing” and nearly two-thirds of Americans say the health care overhaul costs too much and expands the government’s role in health care too far.
• According to an analysis by the Associated Press, young adults seeking coverage on the individual market will see insurance premiums rise 17% on average thanks to Obamacare.
• The Service Employees International Union (SEIU) spent $683,371 lobbying the federal government in the fourth quarter, compared to the $353,531 they spent in the same quarter last year.
• The Environmental Protection Agency said Monday that it would not require power plants and other industrial sites to obtain federal pollution permits for emitting greenhouse gases before next January.

http://blog.heritage.org/2010/03/30/…t-side-effect/

On 03.30.10 04:01 AM posted by Kathryn Nix

Union bosses howled about one Obamacare tax hike: the levy on “Cadillac” health plans (expensive plans rich in benefits). The problem with this tax, as they see it, is that it hits the very plans often enjoyed by their rank-and-file.

Ever eager to please the unions, Democratic leaders added a “fix” to the reconciliation bill the president will sign into law today (Tuesday). It delays the unpopular tax to 2018. The pols are touting it as a scaled back version of the tax. But even the “fix” is broken.

While the tax won’t bite until after the president leaves office, “scaled back” it is not. The revised version raises the threshold for plans that would be subject to the tax. But it also indexes the threshold to rise with the general inflation rate.

The original tax was indexed to general inflation plus 1 percent. The “plus 1” was meant to account for the higher rate of inflation in medical costs. Dropping that “plus 1 percent” means that more and more Americans’ health plans will fall under the tax as premium costs continue to outpace inflation.

According to the Joint Economic Committee, “Under the provisions of the proposed “fix”, the high cost plans tax will hit the average family plan five years earlier. The subsidized exchange “silver plan” premium would be subject to the tax eleven years earlier.”

Bottom line: Though the tax may be “scaled back” in the short term, it will hit more Americans’ health plans sooner in the long term.

Rather than simply increase taxes to expand government health programs, Congress should replace the current tax exclusion with a fairer system: universal tax credits. Short of that, there are a number of practical steps Congress can take to expand private health insurance coverage and treat all citizens more equitably. It’s all explained here by Heritage analyst Stuart Butler.

To learn more about sensible tax reform that experts and lawmakers from both sides of the aisle support, click here.

http://blog.heritage.org/2010/03/30/…surance-taxes/

On 03.30.10 06:00 AM posted by Robert Gordon

While the Environmental Protection Agency grinds ahead with its Clean Air Act regulations to force reductions of carbon dioxide emissions from energy consumption, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) released a report on a different energy conservation program introduced by EPA the under the same law. Whether you are conscious of it or not, you have probably seen the logo for the Energy Star program stuck on a refrigerator, dishwasher or some other consumer product. The logo means the government has deemed the product to be relatively energy efficient. However, just because the government deems something to be more energy efficient does not mean it is. In fact, not only may it NOT be more energy efficient but also it may not even be real.

The GAO recently put the nearly two decade old Energy Star program to the test by establishing several bogus companies – consisting of websites, PO boxes and cell phones numbers – and then sought certification for twenty fictitious products. The results were dismal even for those who don’t expect too much from bureaucracy. At least 75% of the bogus products earned Energy Star certification. Of the twenty make-believe products submitted by the GAO, only two were rejected by the EPA or the Department of the Energy which is a partner in the program. Fifteen bogus products were stamped with the Energy Star seal of approval and for three others, the process was incomplete by the time the GAO authored its report.

With three out of four bogus products certified it’s hard to imagine that it could be worse but it is. Some of the bogus products that received Energy Star certification were no less than comical. According to the GAO they included: “…a gas-powered alarm clock and a room cleaner represented by a photograph of a feather duster adhered to a space heater…” Judging from the photo in GAO’s report, “adhered to” is a nice way of saying “stuck on with tape.” Perhaps this would be an energy efficient way to burn down one’s house.

Not only are tax dollars spent administering this program but GAO also notes that “… federal agencies must procure Energy Star-qualified or DOE Federal Energy Management Program (FEMP)-designated products, unless the head of the agency determines in writing that a statutory exemption applies” and “The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009 increased and extended the energy tax credits for homeowners who make energy-efficient improvements to their existing homes.”

Good news about the program is that it’s voluntary. That’s more than can be said for what EPA is planning to do to the economy with its pending carbon dioxide regulatory scheme.

http://blog.heritage.org/2010/03/30/…ot-too-bright/

On 03.29.10 12:00 PM posted by Hans von Spakovsky

On Friday, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia struck another blow towards restoring every American’s First Amendment right to engage in political speech. In SpeechNow.org v. Federal Election Commission, the court applied the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Citizens United to throw out another pernicious portion of the federal campaign finance law also known as McCain-Feingold.

SpeechNow is an unincorporated association of individuals that wanted to run independent ads in the 2008 election that supported candidates for federal office that shared their views on the First Amendment right of free speech and freedom to assemble. However, federal law limited the amount of contributions that could be made to the association because the FEC considered SpeechNow to be a political action committee or PAC. Individuals are limited to giving no more than $5,000 in contributions to a PAC in a given year.<spanid="more-30096"></span>

SpeechNow argued that this contribution limit violated the First Amendment rights of its members because it limited their independent political advocacy.* Why?* Well, the Supreme Court has previously held that the First Amendment allows unlimited independent political expenditures by an individual.* Thus, if I want to spend $50,000 of my own money taking out an ad in the Wall Street Journal urging people to vote for Senator Jefferson Smith because he is willing to filibuster pork-barrel, special interest legislation, Congress cannot limit the amount I want to spend on such political speech.* There is a disclosure requirement – most people don’t realize that if you spend more than $250 on such independent advocacy, you have to report it to the FEC

However, let’s assume you didn’t have the $50,000 required to purchase a quarter page of the Wall Street Journal.* But you could afford to spend $10,000 and you had four friends who were just as impressed with Senator Smith who were also willing to contribute $10,000 each.* One would think, given the First Amendment’s protection of free speech and associational rights, that what one person can do in terms of political speech, several people acting together should also be able to do. Prior to this decision, however, you would have been wrong.

Those five friends acting together to buy a political ad that a single individual could legally purchase would be violating federal law and subject to severe civil and criminal penalties.* The FEC, applying federal campaign finance law, would characterize those five friends as having formed a PAC.* Since PAC’s are limited to no more that $5,000 a year in contributions from an individual, you and your four friends would be considered by the FEC and the Justice Department to have violated federal law by contributing $10,000 each to buy this independent political ad.

The D.C. Court of Appeals quite properly threw out these federal limitations on an association of individuals engaging in political speech and advocacy, although it upheld the disclosure requirements that apply.* So SpeechNow will still have to report its independent expenditures to the FEC.* In addition to being unconstitutional, making it illegal for individuals acting together to engage in political activity that any one of them could legally undertake as individuals makes no sense.* The SpeechNow case is another great decision for everyone who understands that the very core of the First Amendment is the protection of the right to engage in political speech, a principle that too many in Washington who call themselves “reformers” want to override.

http://blog.heritage.org/2010/03/29/…ase-at-a-time/

On 03.29.10 12:44 PM posted by Nick Loris

From the <ahref="http://greeninc.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/29/hsbc-ejects-carbon-traders-from-index/">New York Times Green, Inc Blog:

The banking giant HSBC removed two companies involved in carbon trading from its Climate Change Index on Monday because they had lost too much value. Analysts from HSBC said the cause was mainly that governments had failed to come up with a timetable for a global climate deal at the United Nations summit in Copenhagen in December. “Carbon trading was the major loser from Copenhagen,” HSBC analysts said in their March 2010 Quarterly Index Review. ‘Cap and trade needs hard targets and binding rules – and Copenhagen delivered neither,’ HSBC said.”

In 2007 HSBC created a Global Climate Change Benchmark Index and had four climate change indices, two of which include a Climate Change Index and a HSBC Low Carbon Energy Production Index (including: solar, wind, biofuels, geothermal). An HSBC press statement <ahref="http://www.hsbcnet.com/solutions/news/corporate/cc_bmark.html">reads: “In creating these indices, HSBC has responded to changing investor sentiment in global equity markets. The HSBC research team has looked at a wide range of stocks and identified approximately 300 companies that are well positioned to benefit from the challenges of climate change.”

<spanid="more-30099"></span>

This is the big problem of the government creating false expectations. Businesses were convinced that the federal government would continue its trek to regulate CO2 and subsequently prepared for a carbon-constrained future by building business models around it. HSBC’s Global Climate Change Benchmark Index is just one example. Companies, especially in energy-intensive industries, began to prepare to comply with regulations, adjust to higher prices and adapt their operations to reduce CO2. Energy producers became vested stakeholders and lobbied for handouts to produce CO2-free energy to capitalize on their own investments and reap the benefits of government handouts. Major oil companies invested in renewable energy technology to capitalize on subsidies and tax breaks while enhancing their image. Even industries that do not emit relatively large mount of CO2 had to prepare for higher energy costs as well as be more cognizant of its own carbon output.

The regulations have certainly taken longer to put in place (or may not come into place at all) than many of these companies thought and it’s beginning to show. After Copenhagen failed, both procedurally and in its attempts to create a treaty, carbon prices fell dramatically on the European Climate Exchange in London. Government action and inaction is hurting businesses and consumers on all fronts. Government action would result in draconian energy taxes that would be passed onto the consumer – not just in gasoline and electricity consumption – but all producers that would face higher electricity prices. Government inaction is not only resulting in failing carbon markets but also creating business uncertainty. With potentially looming higher energy costs, businesses are hesitating on investing in new capital and labor. Leave it to the government to stunt the economic recovery without passing legislation; of course, passing a bill that <ahref="http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2010/01/What-Boxer-Kerry-Will-Cost-the-Economy">regulates carbon dioxide will only make it worse.

http://blog.heritage.org/2010/03/29/…oo-much-value/