SZONE.US Forums - The Heritage Foundation

A Response to Secretary Clinton?s Foreign Policy Speech

Heritage — Wed, 08 Sep 2010 23:48:46 GMT

On 09.08.10 02:03 PM posted by Brett Schaefer

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton gave a major foreign policy speech at the Council on Foreign Relations earlier today touting the Obama Administration�s foreign policy. The speech was wide ranging. The bulk of the speech was populated by platitudes and generalities intended to emphasize the Administration�s dedication to maintaining America�s global leadership role, revitalizing alliances, resolving international problems, and commitment to helping countries develop. All worthy aspirations to be sure, but they are ultimately empty words without evidence of achievement or at least progress toward achievement. That is where the questionable nature of the Administration�s foreign policy becomes evident.

According to Secretary Clinton:

We are working to support direct talks between the Israelis and Palestinians, and next week I will travel to Egypt and Jerusalem for the second round of negotiations. In Iraq, where our combat mission has ended, we are transitioning to a civilian-led partnership. We are stepping up international pressure on Iran to negotiate seriously on its nuclear program. We are working with Pakistan as it recovers from devastating floods and combats violent extremism. And of course the war in Afghanistan is always at the top of the agenda.

This list only serves to reveal the stark lack of substantive achievement on the major foreign policy priorities of the Administration. Aside from Iraq, where the transition was paved by the previous Administration, the list is one of stalled efforts and questionable decisions.

The speech also contained the obligatory reflexive swipes at the previous Administration: �With Russia, we took office amid talk of cooling relations and a return to Cold War suspicion�. Let�s examine the Asia-Pacific region. When we took office, there was a perception�fair or not�that America was absent. *So the Obama Administration made it clear from the beginning that the United States was back.�

Some parts of the speech were downright offensive. Take this quote for instance:

We are upholding and defending the universal values that are enshrined in the UN Charter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Today these principles are under threat. In too many places, new democracies are struggling to grow strong roots. Authoritarian regimes are cracking down on civil society and pluralism. Some leaders see democracy as an inconvenience that gets in the way of the efficient exercise of national power.

This world-view must be confronted and challenged. Democracy needs defending. The struggle to make human rights a human reality needs champions.

This work starts at home, where we have rejected the false choice between our security and our ideals.

To casually equate the crackdowns by authoritarian regimes and internal political debate over American policies�whether referencing to U.S. treatment of detainees in Guantanamo or the immigration debate exemplified by the Arizona legal challenge or the debate over the Ground Zero mosque or some other issue�is indefensible.

However, not all of the speech was bad. Secretary Clinton�s discussion on �Global Institutions for the 21st Century� is worth highlighting because it may represent a triumph of experience over naivet�:

So our fifth step has been to reengage with global institutions and begin modernizing them to meet the evolving challenges of the 21st century. We need institutions that are flexible, inclusive, and complementary, instead of competing with one another for jurisdiction. Institutions that encourage nations to play productive roles, that marshal common efforts, and enforce the system of rights and responsibilities that binds us all.

The United Nations remains the single most important global institution and we are constantly reminded of its value: The Security Council enacting sanctions against Iran and North Korea. Peacekeepers patrolling the streets of Monrovia and Port-au-Prince. Aid workers assisting flood victims in Pakistan and displaced people in Darfur. And, most recently, the UN General Assembly establishing a new entity -UN Women-which will promote gender equality, expand opportunity for women and girls, and tackle the violence and discrimination they face.

But we are also constantly reminded of its limitations. It is difficult for the UN’s 192 Member States, with their diverse perspectives and interests, to achieve consensus on institutional reform, especially reforming the Security Council itself. The United States believes that the Council must be able to react to and reflect today’s world. We favor Security Council reform that enhances the UN’s overall performance, effectiveness and efficiency to meet the challenges of the new century. We equally and strongly support operational reforms that enable UN field missions to deploy more rapidly, with adequate numbers of well-equipped and well-trained troops and police they often lack, and with the quality of leadership and civilian expertise they require.* And we will continue to embrace and advocate management reforms that lead to efficiencies and savings and that prevent waste, fraud and abuse.

The UN was never intended to tackle every challenge, nor should it.* So when appropriate, we are working with our partners to establish new venues and organizations to focus on specific problems.

Considering that the Obama Administration�s �smart power� foreign policy, with its emphasis on using and working through international institutions, is commonly perceived to be a refutation of the Bush Administration�s �unilateral� foreign policy, Secretary Clinton�s characterization of the United Nations in her speech today is remarkable. Sure, the United Nations is declared to be the �the single most important global institution.� But what does that mean? What other truly �global� institutions are there? When standing alone, it is easy to be the most important.

What about value? Secretary Clinton�s examples, presumably among the best she has, are hardly convincing. For instance:

Security Council sanctions against Iran and North Korea are useful, but hardly decisive. Without cooperation and observance from China and Russia, the sanctions are greatly blunted. Their cooperation has not been secured despite the Administration�s plaintive efforts.
U.N. Peacekeepers often do good work, but they also have serious problems and weaknesses. Thus far, the U.S. mission has been absent in Turtle Bay when it comes to U.N. reform.
U.N. humanitarian efforts are certainly useful and the dedication of U.N. workers is admirable, but is it indispensable? Humanitarian efforts, including those in Haiti and Pakistan, are often initiated and facilitated by NGOs and backed by U.S. bilateral and regional government aid and support.
As for the U.N. General Assembly creating a new organization to promote gender equality, one only has to realize that Iran (which recently sentenced a woman to be stoned death for adultery) was elected earlier this year to U.N. Commission on the Status of Women to gauge the seriousness of the U.N. General Assembly�s dedication to women�s rights.

Secretary Clinton implicitly acknowledges the limited value of the U.N. in her next paragraph which highlights the problems of the U.N. and the need for reform. This may be rhetoric�the U.N. has a well-earned reputation for ineffectiveness and mismanagement. But it also could be an acknowledgement that working through the U.N. has not been nearly as easy as the Obama officials envisioned it would be during the campaign.

The telling blow, however, comes at the end: �We are working with our partners to establish new venues and organizations to focus on specific problems.� Ambassador John Bolton would have been comfortable making that point and it echoes the recommendations that The Heritage Foundation experts have been making for years in publications like Liberty�s Best Hope and ConUNdrum: The Limits of the United Nations and the Search for Alternatives. The fact that the most pro-U.N. U.S. Administration in decades is conceding that the U.N. is a niche effort and that progress on addressing problems requires alternative organizations is a damning indictment of the organization.

http://blog.heritage.org/2010/09/08/...policy-speech/

Side Effects: Obamacare Raises Your Premiums

Heritage — Wed, 08 Sep 2010 23:48:46 GMT

On 09.08.10 01:00 PM posted by Conn Carroll

Health Insurers Plan Hikes. That’s the headline of today’s Wall Street Journal story which reports: “Health insurers say they plan to raise premiums for some Americans as a direct result of the health overhaul in coming weeks, complicating Democrats� efforts to trumpet their signature achievement before the midterm elections. Aetna Inc., some BlueCross BlueShield plans and other smaller carriers have asked for premium increases of between 1% and 9% to pay for extra benefits required under the law, according to filings with state regulators.”

It’s exactly what conservatives predicted. While the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) did estimate that Obamacare would cause health insurance premiums to rise, conservatives correctly pointed out that the CBO�s estimates were wildly optimistic. James Capretta w rote at the time:

For weeks, experts have been warning that the Senate legislation would lead to serious �adverse selection� in the individual and small-group insurance markets. Adverse selection occurs when, on average, the pool of insured lives becomes less healthy over time compared to a relevant comparison group. The Senate bill would require insurers to take all comers, with heavily regulated rates. These rules would help those with chronic conditions get less expensive coverage. But they would also drive up premiums for the young and healthy.
…
CBO argues that risk-selection problems will be mitigated by the presence of new insurance subsidies, penalties for those who don�t get coverage, a once-a-year enrollment window which will limit the opportunity to come back into insurance, and the tendency for people to comply with mandates even if they are costly. But, as others have shown, even with subsidies, the cost of coverage for many low and moderate wage families will be very substantial. Many people could reduce their costs if they paid the penalty instead of premiums and signed up with insurance only when they really needed it. Would the fact that they might have to wait a few months before getting insurance be enough to keep them in coverage all year? Hard to predict. In fact, as pointed out here, it appears that none of most-cited models used to estimate the impact of health-reform plans, including CBO�s, has an explicit capacity to calibrate insurance take-up rates based on the penalties imposed on those who go without coverage. Apparently, the premium estimates are based as much on judgment as analytics, and CBO�s judgment is clearly on the optimistic side.

The WSJ is not the only outlet reporting that Obamacare is forcing insurance companies to raise premiums. The Los Angeles Times and Dallas Morning News also report rate hikes in their states, some as high as 16%. No wonder most Americans tell pollsters they support repeal of this intolerable act.

http://blog.heritage.org/2010/09/08/...your-premiums/

The Stalin Bust: Why Don�t They Get It?

Heritage — Wed, 08 Sep 2010 23:48:46 GMT

On 09.08.10 12:00 PM posted by Lee Edwards

The national convention of the American Legion joins a long list of Americans of all political views in condemning inclusion of a bust of the Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin at the National D-Day Memorial in Bedford, Va. Some 3,000 delegates last week adopted a resolution saying the Stalin bust “flies in the face of history which has seen countries tearing down�not erecting�statues of Stalin.”

So far, the reaction of the National D-Day Memorial Foundation, which installed the Stalin bust in June and in the wake of outrage is “reviewing” the decision, continues to be � silence.

The American Legion�s action follows opposition to the Stalin bust expressed by, among others, the Central and East European Coalition, representing 20 million Americans; the North Korea Freedom Coalition; the Joint Baltic American National Committee; and the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation, of which I am chairman. Also weighing in against the bust: Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA); Rep. Tom Perriello (D-VA), whose district includes Bedford and the memorial grounds; the Bedford County Board of Supervisors; and, in an editorial, The Washington Post.

In the 10 weeks since the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation began a petition campaign, more than 4,400 individuals and institutions have put their names on the line urging officials at the private National D-Day Memorial to do the honorable thing and remove the bust without further delay. Many of those who signed explained their disapproval.

Romuald E. Lipinski wrote: �”s Siberia survivor, where I was deported on Stalin�s order, at age of 14, I protest in strongest terms against displaying his monument in Bedford or anywhere else in the civilized world.”

Leslie L. Megyeri wrote: “During the 1956 Hungarian Freedom Fight, I participated in the removal of the despised Stalin statue in Budapest. As a U.S. Army veteran, I am appalled that I find a Stalin statue in the U.S.”

Veaceslav Vasiliev wrote: “I sign for my father who was deported with his family in 1940 from Basarabia (Moldova) to Siberia. I sign for my grandfather Ilie Vasiliev, killed in Siberian Gulag (Ivdellag).”

Ray Marchetta wrote: “KOLIMAR, Soviet Georgia famine 1932, Siberia, purges that killed 20 million, V Cheka and much more! Are you kidding me with this statue of Stalin?”

Sadly, Mr. Marchetta, this is no joke. It�s time for the folks at the National D-Day Memorial Foundation to admit making a profound mistake. It�s time for them to remove the bust of Stalin, a cold-blooded tyrant who was second in all history only to China�s Mao Zedong as the dictator with the most blood on his hands.

http://blog.heritage.org/2010/09/08/...t-they-get-it/

No Link Between Global Warming and Civil Wars

Heritage — Wed, 08 Sep 2010 23:48:46 GMT

On 09.08.10 11:00 AM posted by Nicolas Loris

Proponents of domestic and international global warming regulations like to argue that human-induced climate change could affect the safety of not only the U.S. but other countries as well. They suggest that global warming will lead to more natural disasters, which will in turn lead to increased global conflict.

Even the Department of Defense now considers climate change a threat to U.S. security. Exercises from the National Defense University concluded that �over the next 20 to 30 years, vulnerable regions, particularly sub-Saharan Africa, the Middle East and South and Southeast Asia, will face the prospect of food shortages, water crises and catastrophic flooding driven by climate change that could demand an American humanitarian relief or military response.�

But according to a new study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences in the United States, that�s not the case. Halvard Buhaug, senior researcher at the Peace Research Institute Oslo�s Centre for the Study of Civil War and author of the study, said:

Climate variability in Africa does not seem to have a significant impact on the risk of civil war. If you apply a number of different definitions of conflict and various different ways to measure climate variability, most of these measurements will turn out not to be associated with each other.

My article points to the fact that there has been too much emphasis on single definitions of conflict and single definitions of climate. Even if you found that conflict, defined in a particular way, appeared to be associated with climate, if you applied a number of complementary measures�which you should do in order to determine the robustness of the apparent connection�then you would find, in almost all cases, the two were actually unrelated.

Worse, climate treaties to cap carbon dioxide emissions would do little to address climate change and a lot to cripple economic competitiveness. These treaties would limit the resources available to effectively prepare and respond to either natural disasters or national security threats. Carbon caps would cause energy prices to soar, and as a result, production would decrease, resources would become scarcer, and innovation and entrepreneurial activity would fall.

These are the sorts of conditions that could actually give rise to actual conflict.
Heritage�s nation security expert James Carafano testified before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee last year that climate change is not a threat to national security. He stressed that �any changes in the climate, for better or for worse, will occur gradually over decades. Thus, there will be ample time to adjust national security and humanitarian assistance instruments to accommodate future demands. Those adjustments can and should be made with the most appropriate instruments, which might comprise any or all of the elements of national power including diplomatic, economic, political, and informational tools as well as the armed forces.� If the Obama Administration decides to fight this war on climate change and enter into a multilateral treaty to reduce CO2, the U.S. would ultimately lose, coming out of the battle with a weaker economy, weaker security, and weaker personal freedoms.

http://blog.heritage.org/2010/09/08/...nd-civil-wars/

JFK Says No to Obama Tax Hikes

Heritage — Wed, 08 Sep 2010 23:48:46 GMT

On 09.08.10 09:57 AM posted by Brandon Stewart

As Congress returns to Washington next week, the fight over the Obama Tax Hikes has already begun. President Obama has indicated that he plans to allow taxes to rise while also announcing a new “stimulus” that even some in the White House refuse to promise will stimulate the economy.

The Winston Group has created a new video contrasting President Obama’s positions on taxes with that of another president who understood the importance of keeping taxes low: President John F. Kennedy.

As we explained in our own video last month, the Obama tax hikes are exactly the wrong prescription for an ailing economy. Here’s wishing President Obama will take heed of his predecessor’s sound advice.

http://blog.heritage.org/2010/09/08/...ama-tax-hikes/

White House Aide Contradicts Obama on Stimulus II

Heritage — Wed, 08 Sep 2010 23:48:46 GMT

On 09.08.10 09:00 AM posted by Conn Carroll

We noted yesterday that White House aides were already backtracking on President Barack Obama’s promise that his $50 billion infrastructure plan “will not only create jobs immediately, it�s also going to make our economy hum over the long haul.” Specifically a “senior administration official” told Politico: “This is not an � immediate jobs plan.”

Well The Washington Post’s Dana Milbank apparently has been talking to the same “senior administration official.” Here is how he reports the exchange between reporters and the Obama White House:

Q. What is your estimate of how many jobs would be created?

A. We don’t have a jobs estimate for that.

Q. What are you thinking in terms of timing?

A. I don’t want to make a prediction about timing.

Q. So just your best-case scenario . . . when do we start to see jobs created as a result of all this?

A. In 2011.

Q. And are we talking January 2011 or December 2011?

A. Over the course of 2011.

Milbank then adds: “Obama himself must not have been briefed, because he told the crowd in Milwaukee that the plan would ‘create jobs immediately.’”

The President is scheduled to give another speech outlining another economic stimulus today at 2 PM. We’ll let you know if he gets his facts straight.

Heritage analyst Ron Utt has written extensively on the false hope of infrastructure spending job creation:

Infrastructure Bank Proposals Rely on Backdoor Deficit Spending
Learning from Japan: Infrastructure Spending Won’t Boost the Economy
More Transportation Spending: False Promises of Prosperity and Job Creation

http://blog.heritage.org/2010/09/08/...n-stimulus-ii/

Hurricane Katrina: Grassroots Greatness and Federal Failure

Heritage — Wed, 08 Sep 2010 23:48:46 GMT

On 09.08.10 08:00 AM posted by Samuel Belz

On the fifth anniversary of Hurricane Katrina, credit for New Orleans�s ongoing recovery continues to go to the grassroots, not the federal government. Grassroots had the reflexes and staying power that government did not.

There�s no question that the disaster and aftermath of Katrina lifted the veil on a dysfunctional system. Katrina revealed a city full of schools that didn�t work, corruption, weak infrastructure, and issues of race and class.

But it�s also a story of people from all kinds of backgrounds coming together to fix problems�and that�s why New Orleans is recovering.

New Orleans is a case study in grassroots initiative. That�s why James Carafano, Jennifer Marshall, and Lauren Hammond make the argument that government should create more space and rewards for faith-based community organizations to respond to emergencies like these. It was small, local, personal charities and community efforts that turned the tide during Katrina.

Government often doesn�t know how best to help. This anniversary should be a reminder to renew personal responsibility and accountability to each other and the need for putting our energy not toward the blame game but working together to create solutions to problems.

The whole episode, from the hurricane in late August 2005 to the present day, is a good illustration of the conservative principle that government is not and should not be the leader in community renewal. To read more about this, check out our recently published Seek Social Justice, a six-lesson study guide that explores the role of institutions that make strong community possible�marriage and family, church, business, etc. Government�s role is limited and should be to secure the space in which mediating institutions can flourish. As the nation reflects on Katrina, the primary call of Seek Social Justice is a call for renewed personal responsibility, which makes limited government possible.

http://blog.heritage.org/2010/09/08/...deral-failure/

There Really Is Something Rotten in the Justice Department

Heritage — Wed, 08 Sep 2010 15:52:17 GMT

On 09.08.10 07:00 AM posted by Hans von Spakovsky

The Washington Times lead editorial yesterday was about the Justice Department enabling voter fraud � just in time for the November elections. This is due to the Department�s refusal to enforce the part of Section 8 of the National Voter Registration Act that requires states to remove ineligible voters from their registration rolls � people who have died or moved away, and felons who have not yet had their voting rights restored. The longer such names remain on a registration list, the greater the chances that a fraudulent vote will be cast in their names.

I reported in 2009 that the Obama administration had dismissed without explanation a lawsuit filed against Missouri Democratic secretary of state Robin Carnahan during the Bush administration over her failure to comply with this provision of the NVRA. This happened only a month after Carnahan announced she was running for the Senate. Besides the obvious political motivations, I know from sources inside the Civil Rights Division that the Obama political appointees have no intention of enforcing this provision.

Former Voting Section lawyer Christian Adams confirmed this when he testified this summer before the U.S. Civil Rights Commission that Deputy Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights Julie Fernandes told Voting Section staffers that the administration had �no interest in enforcing this provision of the law.�

Now that he is back in private practice, Adams has sent a series of warning letters to 16 states in obvious violation of the law. Justice should be suing them, but since they will not, Adams is taking advantage of the fact that there is a private right of action under the NVRA.

Adams�s letters are based in part on a report filed with Congress by the U.S. Election Assistance Commission in June 2009 on the impact of the NVRA. It includes voter-registration statistics from the states for 2006�2008. This data shows some amazing results. For example, Adams says, there must be a fountain of youth in states such as Maryland, Arkansas, Massachusetts, Oregon, and Tennessee: None of them removed a single dead voter during that two-year reporting period. Many counties in states such as Alabama and Rhode Island also show a similar miracle � no voters were removed from their voter rolls for having died. If you have any ailing family members, these are obviously the states they should move to quickly. There are also several states � South Dakota, Mississippi, Texas, Kentucky, and Indiana among them � with more registered voters than (according to the Census) people of voting age.

When I was in the Civil Rights Division, we actually investigated this problem and filed lawsuits against several states to enforce this provision of the NVRA For trying to enforce federal law, we were labeled as �vote suppressors.� No, we just wanted to fairly enforce the law that Congress had passed, something the Clinton administration had failed to do. It did not file a single lawsuit in eight years to enforce this provision.

Hopefully, Adams will succeed in forcing these states to comply with federal law. It�s too bad that a private citizen has to carry out the responsibility of the Justice Department because it has failed to do so and, in fact, refuses to do so for ideological and political reasons that have nothing to do with the impartial administration of justice.

Cross-posted at The Corner.

http://blog.heritage.org/2010/09/08/...ce-department/

Morning Bell: Neglecting Allies and Appeasing Foes

Heritage — Wed, 08 Sep 2010 15:52:17 GMT

On 09.08.10 05:14 AM posted by Conn Carroll

In yesterday’s New York Times, International Herald Tribune columnist Roger Cohen reported: “Since taking office, President Obama has reached out to the Muslim world as a whole, to China, to Turkey and to Iran, but has devoted scant serious diplomatic energy to Europe.” Cohen then went on to quote prominent Paris-based defense analyst Camille Grand: “Europe is the object of benign U.S. neglect. Obama has not established or re-established a strategic relationship with any single European country or with Europe as a whole.”

This analysis is dead on. In their report released last week, Defining the Obama Doctrine, Its Pitfalls, and How to Avoid Them, Drs. Kim Holmes and James Carafano detail just some of President Obama’s practice of extending an open hand to enemies while rebuffing friends and close allies, including: not welcoming the Dalai Lama to the White House when that dignitary made his first visit to Washington after Obama took office; reversing years of U.S. policy by supporting Argentina over the U.K. on the Falklands; caving to Russia by abandoning our missile defense plans with the Czech Republic and Poland; and backing a Hugo Chavez ally in Honduras.

The problem with this approach is that the U.S. government has a responsibility to the people of America to act in its own and its allies� best interests. Since World War II the United States has promoted security and liberty throughout the world by creating strong international institutions and alliances that promote self-governance, the rule of law, civil and political rights, property rights and economic opportunities. But partnerships will fall short of our expectations if the countries with which we align share neither our values nor our goals. Rewarding troublemakers while ignoring our allies only emboldens those who do not share our values and demoralizes those that do.

Take the President’s campaign to “reset” relations with Russia. As mentioned above, one of President Obama’s first acts as President was to betray our Czech and Polish allies by surrendering our plans to build Ground-Based Midcourse Defense interceptors to appease Russia. The culmination of this campaign is the President’s New START agreement, which the Senate Foreign Relations Committee is scheduled to vote on this month. In today’s Wall Street Journal, former Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security John Bolton explains why New Start Is Unilateral Disarmament:

In pursuing New Start, the Obama administration has essentially jettisoned the 2002 Treaty of Moscow, which only dealt with the limitation of nuclear warheads that were operationally deployed. That freed large numbers of U.S. launchers (land-based and submarine-based ballistic missiles, along with heavy bombers such as the B-2) to carry conventional payloads world-wide�a concept known as “conventional prompt global strike.”

Such delivery flexibility is far more important to America than to Russia, given our global interests and alliances. Its wisdom was evident after 9/11, as we fought in Iraq, Afghanistan and beyond. New Start encumbers us with unnecessary constraints that will distort strategic priorities and weapons-development for decades.

Now is no time to be limiting our conventional or nuclear capabilities in the vain hope that Russia will suddenly become a force for liberty and security abroad. As Cohen notes: “The Atlantic relationship remains the cornerstone of world stability even as new powers emerge. With its huge debt, America needs affordable influence; Western allies are the way to find it. The struggle of our age pits the state against the anti-state, with weapons of mass destruction potentially mixed in: The West embodies the values and has the institutions central to winning that fight.”

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is scheduled to address the Council on Foreign Relations today, where she will say of the Obama Doctrine: “Today we can say with confidence that this model of American leadership works.” But this claim ignores the realities in Iran, North Korea and Russia. Rewarding these countries will force friendly nations to look elsewhere, not to Washington, for arrangements that bring them greater security. And that will make this a far more dangerous world indeed.

Quick Hits:

President Obama will announce today that he opposes any compromise on his plan to raise taxes.
In his debut New York Times column, recently departed Office of Management and Budget director Peter Orszag called for Congress to delay the Obama tax hike for two years.
Because Attorney General Eric Holder is refusing to enforce Section 8 of the National Voter Registration Act, former Department of Justice lawyer J. Christian Adams is privately suing 16 states that have failed to remove ineligible names from their voting rolls.
Now-demolished old Giants Stadium still carries about $110 million in debt, or nearly $13 for every New Jersey resident.
French government unions staged a one-day national strike protesting a measure that would raise the minimum retirement age to 62 from 60.

http://blog.heritage.org/2010/09/08/...ppeasing-foes/

Debunking Orszag?s Tax Hike Myths

Heritage — Tue, 07 Sep 2010 22:33:58 GMT

On 09.07.10 11:00 AM posted by Conn Carroll

Former White House Office of Management and Budget Peter Orszag may have left the Obama administration this past July, but The New York Times has made sure his opinions won’t fall into obscurity. He is now a Contributing Columnist for the NYT op-ed page and his first effort is a tax-and-spend classic. We have paired some of Orszag’s op-ed statement “myths” with “facts” from JD Foster’s new paper: Obama Tax Hikes Defended by Myths and Straw Man Arguments

Orszag: “In the face of the dueling deficits, the best approach is a compromise: extend the tax cuts for two years and then end them altogether.”
Foster: “Extending the 2001 and 2003 tax provisions is not a tax cut; failure to extend these provisions is a tax hike. Failure to extend current tax policy would impose massive tax hikes on millions of Americans. Preserving current tax policy is not a tax cut.”

Orszag: “Over the medium term, the tax cuts are simply not affordable.”
Foster: “The problem is spending, not revenues. The country cannot afford to let current spending levels continue. Taxes as a share of the economy will soon exceed the historical average. The current and projected unsustainable deficits are due to Obama�s spending surge, not a shortage of revenue.”

Orszag: “Making all the tax cuts permanent would expand the deficit by more than $3 trillion over the next decade.”
Foster: “The Obama tax hikes, while enormous in their own right, are almost inconsequential compared to the size of the unfunded spending in Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. Tax relief enacted a decade ago did not cause excessive entitlement spending. Tax increases today and in the future would do little to address the long-term fiscal picture.”

Orszag also writes: “How much savings is plausible on the spending side? … The health reform act included substantial savings in Medicare and Medicaid, so there aren�t further big reductions available there in our time frame.”

That is just plain false. Substantial savings can be found if we repeal Obamacare. As James Capretta has pointed out, repealing Obamacare would save us $4.4 trillion between now and 2030.

http://blog.heritage.org/2010/09/07/...ax-hike-myths/

The Founders, Free Markets, and Sound Money

Heritage — Tue, 07 Sep 2010 22:33:58 GMT

On 09.07.10 10:00 AM posted by Julia Shaw

When most people think about the Founders and economics, two common myths arise. The first is that the Founders vehemently disagreed about economics and, therefore, reached no consensus on the subject. This contention is evident in Alexander Hamilton�s and Thomas Jefferson�s famous exchange about whether the American economy should consist of self-sufficient farming or a commercial empire of manufacturing. The second myth is that the Founders saw little or no role for government in the economy�that they embraced a purely laissez faire economic theory.

Thomas G. West puts an end to these two myths with his latest First Principles Essay The Economic Principles of America�s Founders: Property Rights, Free Markets, and Sound Money. Indeed, Jefferson and Hamilton vigorously disagreed on some economic issues, but they shared common principles regarding fundamental economic policy. Second, the Founders envisioned a vital role for government in the economy�not by relying on experts to regulate in fine detail the use of property and foster mass redistribution of wealth�but to establish and maintain the basic protections of the rule of law.

Despite spirited policy quarrels, West contends that the Founders maintained a �consensus on both principles and the main lines of economic policies and the main lines of economic policy that government should follow.� He highlights three main principles of the American Founder�s shared economic theory: private ownership, market freedom, and reliable money.

Private ownership relies on government to define who owns what through titles of deeds, to allow the owner to use that property, and to prevent others (including the government itself) from infringing upon the property. Market freedom means that �everyone must be free to sell anything to anyone at any time at any mutually agreeable price.� To that end, governments must enforce contracts, except under certain limited exceptions, and provide means of transportation that are available to all for the purposes of exchange. Reliable money is necessary to facilitate all of these transactions.

From these three principles of economics are derived several policy implications. For instance, government should encourage private ownership of property; should protect property from abuse by other people, foreign nations, and the government itself; and should prevent monopolies. Government also has some enumerated powers to restrict private property�s use, including promulgating local regulations for health, safety, and morals, and subjecting property to a limited degree of taxation.

Government today has strayed from the Founders� economic theory, and several of the Founder�s policy implications are in tension with modern practice. For instance, federal regulators, such as the Environmental Protection Agency and the Fish and Wildlife Service, severely curtail private property�s use. Large portions of western states are designated as public land. Government does not encourage private ownership of this land, because government now is �presumed to know best how property is to be used.�* The Founders� understanding of government as protecting the people�s rights and their personal property has been supplanted with a government that confiscates or redistributes private property.

Despite ever encroaching government regulations, market freedom remains and modern statists have been unable to erase the American spirit of economic enterprise.* As we see from the Founding generation, though, agreement on the basic tenants of economic theory does not preclude healthy, vigorous debate about particular policies. Fortunately, it looks like that debate may be moving is the direction of economic liberty.

http://blog.heritage.org/2010/09/07/...d-sound-money/

Earl and Dean: Category ?Much Ado About Nothing? Hurricanes

Heritage — Tue, 07 Sep 2010 22:33:58 GMT

On 09.07.10 09:00 AM posted by Matt Mayer

In the continuing (over)reaction to the failures of Hurricane Katrina five years ago, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) once again �leaned forward� in anticipation of a hurricane. For all of its activities in response to Hurricane Dean in 2009, FEMA spent north of $50 million for what amounted to a cloudy day in Houston, as Dean never got close to hitting Texas. Despite the fact that few expected Earl to actually hit the United States, FEMA issued disaster declarations to North Carolina and Massachusetts. Other than some larger waves, stronger winds, and heavier rain, nothing about the storm was of such �severity and magnitude� that the states couldn’t handle Earl on their own.

It is high time for governors to stiffen their spines and FEMA to get its finger off the declaration trigger.

Since his inauguration, President Barack Obama has issued 195 FEMA declarations despite the fact that not a single hurricane has hit the United States in that time span and only one minor earthquake has occurred. In less than two years, FEMA under President Obama has issued more declarations than the Eisenhower (106), Kennedy (52), Johnson (93), Ford (101), Carter (176), and H.W. Bush (174) Administrations and only slightly fewer than the Nixon (212) and Reagan (225) Administrations did throughout their entire presidencies. President Obama�s 20-month figure outpaces the Clinton Administration, which didn�t hit its 195th FEMA declaration until its 38th month, and even bests the record-setting Bush Administration’s FEMA declaration pace, as that Administration didn�t issue its 195th FEMA declaration until September 25, 2002�three weeks after the Obama Administration did.

As we have long argued, this country needs to get FEMA out of the routine natural disaster business and reserve its capabilities for catastrophic events. At the same time, states need to take back the roles they had in natural disasters from 1787 to 1993. Failure to make these changes will only result in more $50 million false alarms, atrophied state capabilities, and a FEMA worn down by the operational tempo of a new declaration every 2�3 days.

http://blog.heritage.org/2010/09/07/...ng-hurricanes/

Teen Talk: ?Defining Up? Expectations of Teens

Heritage — Tue, 07 Sep 2010 22:33:58 GMT

On 09.07.10 08:00 AM posted by Collette Caprara

A recent comment by actress Jennifer Aniston that “women are more and more realizing that they don�t have to settle with a man just to have that child” might seem to indicate that deviancy has irrevocably been “defined down” and that a culture of permissiveness has been permanently entrenched in our nation�s society.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention report that the percentage of teens who believe that it�s okay for an unmarried female to have a child has increased to nearly 64 percent (among males) and to more than 70 percent (among females.

Yet throughout the country there are oases of excellence that provide evidence to the contrary.

One example is Teen Talk, a program for at-risk adolescent girls that was initiated by a community-based project in Milwaukee called the Family House. Though the Family House was primarily and originally established to provide hospice care for the low-income elderly, the project evolved to meet needs of others in the community, including the youths who would gather on the front steps in after-school hours.

�When we started the program in 2004, Milwaukee had the highest rate of teen pregnancies in the nation, and there was a rash of STDs at the elementary school that was just a block from the Family House,� said Vicky Edwards, Teen Talk�s first coordinator. �Some of those girls were having babies just because they were looking to be loved and wanted someone to love. But when their babies started growing up, the responsibility and reality of motherhood set in.�

�We had an after-school program, and we were seeing so many of our 13- and 14-year-olds becoming pregnant. And we were finding out that they weren�t getting any medical care and didn�t know what to expect,� said Cordelia Taylor, the founder and director of the Family House.

Teen Talk helps pregnant teens access the care, nutrition, and information they need. In addition, it prepares the girls to make wise life choices through conversations about the benefits of remaining abstinent and how to resist unwanted sexual advances.

The outreach also includes peer counseling, field trips, visits to museums, outings to restaurants (where they receive etiquette tips), a fashion show at a local department store, and movie dates followed by discussion groups�all of which contributes to greater self-esteem and a larger vision for their future.

Teen Talk began with a group of 17 adolescents in 2004. To date, more than 170 teens have participated in the program. Of those, only two became pregnant. Those two young women stayed in touch with the program and came back to serve as peer counselors.

Teen Talk participants were young women who lived in high-crime, drug-infested neighborhoods where the odds were clearly against them. Some lived with their grandmothers because their own mothers were incarcerated or addicted to drugs. The expectations and attitudes they embrace provide hope that the bar can be set higher for peers in much less daunting situations as well.

Here�s hoping for high-profile voices to champion successes like Teen Talk that are teaching responsibility, affirming the significance of marriage, and restoring community.

http://blog.heritage.org/2010/09/07/...ions-of-teens/

One in Six Americans Receives Government Assistance

Heritage — Tue, 07 Sep 2010 22:33:58 GMT

On 09.07.10 07:00 AM posted by Rachel Sheffield

One in six Americans now receives some form of government assistance, reported last week’s U.S.A Today.

Fifty million are on Medicaid, a record high and a whopping 17 percent increase since December 2007. Food stamp enrollment has climbed nearly 50 percent since 2008 and now stands at 40 million, or one in seven people. Ten million Americans receive unemployment benefits, and 4.4 million get direct cash assistance, an 18 percent increase from two years ago.

And these are the numbers from only four of the more than 70 welfare programs funded by the federal government.

While some of the growth in welfare can be attributed to the current recession, government-assistance programs were growing far before the economy began to decline in December 2007. In fact, welfare spending has been climbing since the 1960s, when Lyndon B. Johnson declared his “War on Poverty.”

However, President Obama�s increases have been the most dramatic of any President in the nation�s history. As he completes two years in office, he will have added roughly $260 billion to government welfare spending, a jump two-and-a-half times greater than any previous welfare increase in the nation�s history.

And don�t expect welfare spending to decrease once the recession ends. The Obama budget makes it clear that the majority of these spending hikes are permanent. As a result, beginning this year, taxpayers will contribute approximately $1 trillion every year to federal means-tested programs. (This amount will be even greater once Medicaid enrollment jumps in 2014 as a result of the health care bill.)

Needless to say, such spending will only add to the massive national debt. Yet even more detrimental perhaps, will be the growing culture of dependency it creates.

Congress needs to get welfare spending under control. Practical steps would include such things as capping welfare spending at 2008 levels, restoring the requirements embedded in the successful welfare reforms of 1996, and adding similar aspects of personal responsibility to other welfare programs, such as food stamps and housing assistance. Also, marriage education programs should be reinstated if the government is serious about tackling poverty, considering that nearly 80 percent of long-term poverty takes place in homes headed by single parents.

The growth in welfare spending during the current economic recession is not necessarily surprising, yet most of the growth has taken place independent of the economic downturn. As the national debt continues to balloon, the Obama Administration should look for ways to rein in spending instead of significantly adding to its growth.

http://blog.heritage.org/2010/09/07/...nt-assistance/

Ahmadinejad Dismisses Threat of Preventive Strikes

Heritage — Tue, 07 Sep 2010 22:33:58 GMT

On 09.07.10 06:00 AM posted by James Phillips

Iran�s bombastic President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, again has called into question the military strength and staying power of the United States. Asked last month if he anticipated a U.S. military strike on Iran�s nuclear facilities, Ahmadinejad dismissively said:

Do you really think that an army that has been defeated by a small army and now wants to withdraw would want to enter a war against the large and well-trained Iranian army? I don’t think so. The U.S. cannot start a war against Iran. More importantly, why would it? There are no logical reasons for this. Experience has shown that it is much better to be Iran’s friend than its foe. No one has yet to benefit from being an enemy of Iran.

Ahmadinejad also rejected the possibility of an Israeli preventive strike. Asked about a statement by former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton warning that Israel might strike before the nuclear reactor at Bushehr was fully operational, Ahmadinejad complained: “I think that Mr. Bolton is addicted to video war games. He sits all alone, imagining war games, and playing by himself. We think that such an attack is out of the question. The Israeli entity is too tiny to dare to confront Iran militarily.”

Ahmadinejad also ruffled Palestinian feathers when he warned on Friday that the Israeli-Palestinian talks that began in Washington last week would inevitably fail: “The fate of Palestine will be determined on the ground in Palestine. Not in Washington, not in Paris, and not in London.” “These talks are death,” he said. “There is no reason to hold talks.” A spokesman for the Palestinian Authority returned fire on Saturday, saying that Ahmadinejad, “who does not represent the Iranian people, who forged elections and who suppresses the Iranian people and stole the authority, is not entitled to talk about Palestine, or the President of Palestine.”

In contrast to the Palestinian Authority, which quickly put Ahmadinejad in his place, the Obama Administration still clings to its misconceived engagement policy. Despite the Iranian leader�s open contempt for the United States, the administration continues to adhere to the Obama Doctrine: the soft-headed application of soft power in an unsuccessful attempt to reach an acceptable compromise with the Iranian dictator.

http://blog.heritage.org/2010/09/07/...ar-facilities/

Morning Bell: The Obama Tax and Spend Hikes

Heritage — Tue, 07 Sep 2010 22:33:58 GMT

On 09.07.10 05:23 AM posted by Conn Carroll

According to the Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll released today, only 26% of voters think the economy is going to be better in the next year, and 61% think the country is on the wrong track. Desperate to show Americans he’s fighting “every single day, every single hour, every single minute” to turn the economy around, President Barack Obama unveiled yet another economic stimulus spending plan yesterday. This time the President is promising to spend $50 billion over six-years on a “Race to the Top”-style transportation pork plan that will fund pet leftist projects like high-speed rail. The President promised: “this will not only create jobs immediately, it�s also going to make our economy hum over the long haul.”

But even the President’s own officials aren’t believing the hype. Politico reports: “Under the best-case scenario, however, jobs would be created in 2011, the official said. ‘This is not an … immediate jobs plan. This is a six-year reauthorization that’s front-loaded,’ according to the senior administration official.” This Obama aide is half right: the President’s infrastructure plan will not create any jobs any time soon. As we have thoroughly documented before environmental regulations like the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) make it impossible for infrastructure spending to be implemented quickly. And even in the long run, as Heritage Foundation economist Ronald Utt has documented, the vast majority of independent academic and federal government studies show that the relationship between infrastructure spending and eco*nomic activity is close to zero.

But spending is just one side of President Obama’s economic prescription for the country. Not only is he advocating another $50 billion in spending on top of the $814 billion in economic stimulus spending he has wasted so far, he is also advocating for a $921 billion tax hike set to take effect this January 1, 2011. The administration wants us to believe that this massive tax hike will have no effect on our economic recovery. But that is just not so. Raising taxes on work and investment would mean less work and less investment and can be regarded only as an overtly hostile anti-jobs policy. That is just one of the myths exposed by Heritage analyst JD Fosters’ new paper: Obama Tax Hikes Defended by Myths and Straw Man Arguments. Foster also details:

Myth: Small businesses would be only marginally impacted by higher taxes rates.
Fact: Successful, growing, hiring small businesses are especially targeted by higher tax rates. Many Americans report business income from hobbies, sideline businesses, etc., thus inflating the number of so-called “small businesses.” True small businesses have employees and machinery, offer goods and services widely, and are far fewer in number. Yet they earn most of the small business income that would be subject to the higher rates.
Myth: Tax rates matter little in the long run.
Fact: Tax rates have their most powerful effects on long-run growth and wages. The effects of tax changes take time to manifest fully because major business investments typically require extended evaluation, planning, and implementation. Similarly, while workers respond quickly to changes in tax rates, a full response takes time as they adjust their spending and budgets accordingly.
Myth: The country cannot afford not to raise taxes.
Fact: The problem is spending, not revenues. The country cannot afford to let current spending levels continue. Taxes as a share of the economy will soon exceed the historical average. The current and projected unsustainable deficits are due to Obama’s spending surge, not a shortage of revenue.

Our economy is not on the wrong track because we spent too little. According to Keynesian theory, a $1.4 trillion budget deficit should have already stimulated our economy into full recovery. Our economy is struggling because of uncertainty caused by the tax and spend policies in Washington. The President’s $921 billion tax hike is not helping matters. A sound, responsible budget policy absent tax hikes does not demand radically lower levels of spending but only reversing Obama�s radical spending. Congress should make current tax policy permanent and then get about the business of paring government spending to sustainable levels.

Quick Hits:

The International Atomic Energy Agency says its*ability to monitor Iran’s increasing enriched uranium stockpile has been hampered by the country’s decision to eject two inspectors.
According to the new Washington Post poll, 57% of voters now disapprove of President Obama’s handling of the economy and 58 % give him low marks on dealing with the deficit.
According to the Labor Department, only 47.6% of people ages 16 to 24 had jobs in August, the lowest level since the government began keeping track in 1948.
At least 5 of the 34 House Democrats who voted against Obamacare are running television ads touting their opposition while none of the 219 House Democrats who voted for it are highlighting their support for the bill.
Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) told CNBC Friday there’s “plenty of the room” in the federal budget to cut $700 billion in spending.

http://blog.heritage.org/2010/09/07/...d-spend-hikes/

Morning Bell: Labor Day Has Become Government Day

Heritage — Mon, 06 Sep 2010 17:08:27 GMT

On 09.06.10 05:00 AM posted by James Sherk

This Labor Day marks a milestone in the history of the U.S. union movement. It is the first Labor Day on which a majority of union members in United States work for the government. In January the Department of Labor reported that union membership in government has overtaken that in the private sector. Three times as many union members work in the Post Office as in the entire domestic auto industry. The face of the union movement is not a worker on the assembly line but a clerk at the DMV.

This is a dramatic shift for the union movement. The early trade unionists did not believe that unions had a place in government. They believed the purpose of unions was to redistribute business profits from owners to workers … and the government makes no profits. *Not until the 1960s did unionizing government employees become widespread. Now government employees make up 52 percent of all union members.

So what? Why should Americans care if unions are now dominated by workers who get their paychecks from governments, instead of workers who get their paychecks from private firms? There�s one simple reason: private firms face competition; governments don�t.

Collective bargaining, the anti-trust exemption at the heart the labor movement’s power, was created to help workers seize their “fair share” of business profits. But if a union ends up extracting a contract from a private firm that eats up too much of the profits, then that firm will be unable to reinvest those resources and will lose out to competitors. But when a union extracts a generous contract from a government, there is no check on that spending. Instead of being forced out by more efficient competitors, the government just raises taxes.

The shift from private to public sector has fundamentally changed organized labor’s priorities. Unions used to support policies that would help their private sector employers grow. But now that they are largely dependent on the government, the only growth that unions are interested in is the growth of government. So unions push for tax increases across the country. Consider recent union activism:

Illinois. Unions want state lawmakers to increase the state income tax from 3 percent to 5 percent and to expand the sales tax to cover some services. In April 2010 they organized rallies of government workers outside the state capitol shouting �Raise my taxes! Raise my taxes! Raise my taxes!� At that rally, a government union member was caught on camera chanting �Where�s the money?� and �Give up the bucks!�
Montana. The Montana teachers union openly sees itself as a supporter of tax and spend politics. Its President boasts, �Were it not for us almost any one of the � anti-tax and spend ballot issues proposed in the last 25 years would have passed.�
New Mexico. Unions lobbied the state�s legislature to raise taxes to deal with its budget deficit. The union got its wish, but it was not the wealthy who paid � the legislature imposed a 2 percent sales tax on food.
Washington state. Washington state has no income tax, and unions want to change that. They have placed an initiative on the November ballot creating a state income tax and are among the top donors to the campaign to pass it.

Government unions are the backbone of the Obama dependency economy. Taxpayers should not have to subsidize union campaigns, much less those that call for tax increases. At the very least Congress should end the automatic payroll deduction of union dues.

http://blog.heritage.org/2010/09/06/...overnment-day/

Obama?s Immigration Get out of Court Free Card

Heritage — Sat, 04 Sep 2010 01:24:01 GMT

On 09.03.10 12:30 PM posted by Hans von Spakovsky

There is an important column on immigration today in The Washington Times Commentary section by Mark Metcalf, a former Justice Department colleague and good friend of mine.* I previously reported for The Foundry on his testimony in June about our broken immigration court system before the House Judiciary Committee�s Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and International Law. Metcalf is a former immigration judge who writes about the disdain the Obama administration has shown toward the rule of law with its wholesale dismissal of thousands of cases against illegal aliens. It is also ignoring the more than 600,000 outstanding deportation orders already issued by immigration courts (unless a particular alien has a criminal record).

This will, Metcalf points out, �assure that more illegal immigration will follow — with illegal [alien]s confident that the administration, which refused to secure this nation�s borders, will not remove those who enter and remain illegally.�

This policy of ignoring the law, ignoring court orders, and implementing the across-the-board dismissal of immigration cases against illegal aliens can occur because of a fact that few members of the public realize: our immigration courts are administrative courts within the Justice Department, and the judges are DOJ employees. Because they are not Article III federal courts with independent authority, they don�t have “the historic check and balance of authoritative courts — courts that can refuse the bidding of a reckless executive agency.”

What is so infuriating about the Obama administration�s case dismissal policy is that it means that illegal aliens are being treated better than ordinary citizens: “Aliens who enter this nation illegally and then evade court or disobey orders to leave are treated better than the general public � In any other court, court evasion results in contempt charges, arrest and incarceration.”* Not so in the Obama-Holder world of justice.

http://blog.heritage.org/2010/09/03/...urt-free-card/

Hugo Chavez: ?Your Land is My Land!?

Heritage — Sat, 04 Sep 2010 01:24:01 GMT

On 09.03.10 12:00 PM posted by Ray Walser

Like all good socialists Venezuela�s Hugo Chavez believes private property is theft, so he wants to steal it back in the people�s name.* Chavez remains on an expropriation roll, having gobbled up huge sections of the Venezuelan economy, reportedly $22 billion in transactions in the past four years. For the powerful and prominent he has offered compensation, drawing on Venezuela�s oil wealth, but for many promises and litigation lead only to misery and despair.

Franklin Brito was a 49-year agronomist and modest property owner with a grievance against the Venezuelan government who wanted is day in court but became a victim of Kafkaesque frustration and denial of justice.

In December 2009, the hunger-striking Brito was taken into custody and placed in the care of the State. *He died August 30th in a Caracas military hospital.* The family intends to make the details of his �incarceration� and medical mistreatment known via the Inter-American Human Rights Commission, which has already issued a comprehensive report on the aggressive destruction of individual rights occurring in Venezuela.

The Chavez regime denies Brito had a valid land claim.* It argues he was mentally unstable and had become a tool of the Venezuelan opposition.* The official communiqu� states: �we are obliged to reject the pharisaism of the media machine, the opposition with only electoral ends, and the authorities of the Church, which encouraged Brito�s extreme decisions in order to cause a death serving their dirty flags.�* Case closed!

The machinery of �the Bolivarian Revolution� and �Socialism of the 21st Century� continues to grind on, running roughshod over property rights and rule of law, ignoring the legitimate complaints of citizens, and quick to label anyone who opposes the increasingly brazen concentration of power in the hands of an authoritarian regime as either crazy, a class enemy, or a tool of U.S. imperialism.

Brito paid a high price for the injustices committed by a State that is increasingly without rule of law.* In Venezuela he has become an instant symbol of the growing opposition to Chavista misrule.* Brito�s sad fate and the forced march to Cuban-style communism will influence voters� decisions when Venezuelans go to the polls on September 26 to select a new national legislative body and seek to regain a real voice in shaping Venezuela�s future.

http://blog.heritage.org/2010/09/03/...nd-is-my-land/

The Obama Budget: Expanding Welfare, Undermining Marriage

Heritage — Sat, 04 Sep 2010 01:24:01 GMT

On 09.03.10 11:00 AM posted by Rachel Sheffield

How can the government grow the nation�s welfare roles and undermine efforts to support marriage, in a single effort? It must simply follow the plan outlined in President Obama�s budget: pay states to grow their welfare roles and eliminate programs that encourage healthy marriage in low-income communities. Despite the fact that low work hours and single motherhood are two of the greatest contributors to poverty in the United States, the newly released budget undoes welfare provisions that encourage work and discourage out-of-wedlock childbearing.

Prior to the reforms of 1996, the federal government�s welfare policy was to dish out more money to states as the states increased their welfare roles. Not surprisingly, this provided no incentive to transition welfare recipients into the workforce. Welfare reform did away with this negative incentive and created the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program, leading to dramatic caseload declines and a decrease in the child poverty rate.

Unfortunately, these successful reforms were undercut in a variety of policy moves and all but wiped out by last year�s stimulus bill that created the $5 billion TANF Emergency Fund. This fund pays states 80 cents on the dollar for every new case they receive beyond their caseload amount for 2007 or 2008, once again providing incentive for states to grow their welfare roles.

Now, the President is proposing $2.5 billion to expand and extend this supposedly temporary emergency fund. Although the President links the need for this emergency money to the current recession, the truth is that the 1996 welfare reform already created a $2 billion nest egg for tough economic times such as this. Moreover, the funding the President has proposed would not even be dispensed to states based on their unemployment rates, but would merely be doled out based on caseload numbers. Basically, whether or not jobs are available makes no difference as to how many people can receive federal assistance.

Unfortunately, Rep. Jim McDermott (D-WA) has jumped on the bandwagon with the President, but has proposed even greater expansions to the welfare system. His legislation would allow states to collect as much federal money as they need to support their caseload (provided that the state does not receive more than 50 percent of its annual TANF dollars). Both Obama and McDermott have a clear message for states: increase the dole and the government will increase your pay.

Not only does the President plan to expand welfare, but he has also eliminated the program that aims to eliminate single motherhood, one of the greatest contributors to poverty in the United States. In 2005, Bush implemented the healthy marriage program to help those from low-income communities learn skills for building strong marriages. To replace this program, President Obama has introduced his �Fatherhood, Marriage, and Families Innovation Fund.� While this sounds similar in name, it is in fact just another jobs program, and focuses very little on fatherhood, marriage, or families.

The welfare reforms of 1996 encouraged individual liberty, promoting work and freedom from government dependence. Now, the current administration is moving backwards and pulling its most vulnerable citizens with it. True welfare should help everyone: the taxpayer, who is allowed to keep more of his or her paycheck, and the welfare recipient, who is lifted to personal independence.

http://blog.heritage.org/2010/09/03/...ning-marriage/

While Unemployment Rises, 15 Minutes to Tee Time

Heritage — Sat, 04 Sep 2010 01:24:01 GMT

On 09.03.10 10:30 AM posted by J.D. Foster

The latest jobs report showed the unemployment rate ticking up to 9.6 percent, putting the final nail in the coffin of recovery summer. The Obama Administration announced �Recovery Summer� last June to highlight the expected gains in jobs and economic strength resulting from Obama�s stimulus. Not. The economy is literally sliding into the fall.

President Obama, who has already tried a massive and massively ineffectual stimulus bill followed by a series of policy gimmicks (cash for clunkers, tax credits for first-time homebuyers) has announced that, once again, he is focusing intently on the economy. The following from The Washington Post is telling:

His advisers described his attentiveness�noting, for example, that he discussed the economy with New York Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg (I) for 15 minutes before golfing�but got little traction.

It is comforting to know the President has time to discuss the economy with the mayor of New York City�and to learn that he could spend 15 minutes doing so. Fifteen whole minutes he could slip into his busy schedule between golf rounds.

There is in fact a good explanation for the President�s inability to spend more time on creating the millions of jobs he promised. As is now evident, he just does not know what else to try. The policies that would work�tax relief, spending cuts, free trade, reducing regulations�are anathema to him and his ideology. So, he can either change course or play golf.

http://blog.heritage.org/2010/09/03/...s-to-tee-time/

Mothers? Intuition Trumps Feminist Ideology

Heritage — Fri, 03 Sep 2010 18:28:26 GMT

On 09.03.10 10:00 AM posted by Collette Caprara

Belying the image of the “liberated” working mother, a recent National Review Online commentary cites research by Brad Wilcox, director of the National Marriage Project at the University of Virginia, showing that, for the vast majority married moms, the workplace is not the top choice of where they want to spend their days.

In reviewing data from the 2000 National Survey of Marriage and Family Life, Wilcox found that only 18 percent of married women with children said they would prefer to work full-time, in contrast to 46 percent who would prefer to work part-time and 36 percent who said that they would prefer to stay at home. In addition, among married moms who were working full-time, nearly 75 percent said they would rather work fewer hours or not at all.

A bevy of sociological studies show that the mother�s intuition regarding what is best for her children is on the mark. Research throughout the last two decades reveals that children who attend day care centers are more likely to exhibit problem behavior and poor social skills than those being cared for by their parents. Furthermore, the children�s problem behavior is more pronounced the younger they are when they enter day care and the more hours they spend in center care each week.

The association between hours in day care and behavioral problems is prevalent regardless of socioeconomic status. And, sadly, the effects of time spent in day care centers can be long-term, with problem behavior extending even to middle-school years.

Research also indicates that the link between day care center attendance and problem behavior might be traced to an insecure mother�child attachment associated with extended hours in non-maternal care.

In addition to these socio-emotional difficulties are the health risks and propensity to infections and illness that numerous studies have found to be associated with day care center attendance.

In sum, years of research underscore the importance of mothers� instinctive desire to be with their children: Mother�s intuition trumps the feminist icon. Taxpayers and policymakers should work to promote policies that would enable moms to make the choice to stay at home and care for their children.

http://blog.heritage.org/2010/09/03/...nist-ideology/

New Study Says Cash for Clunkers Was � a Clunker

Heritage — Fri, 03 Sep 2010 18:28:26 GMT

On 09.03.10 09:00 AM posted by Nicolas Loris

The White House hailed last year�s “cash for clunkers” program as a successful government initiative that stimulated the economy, particularly the ailing auto industry. It provided $3,500�$4,500 rebates to consumers who purchase more fuel efficient cars and trade in their old vehicles, which dealerships then destroyed.

President Obama�s economic team said cash for clunkers lured consumers who would have bought a new car two to three years in the future into the immediate market. However, a new study from economists Amir Sufi of the University of Chicago and Atif Mian of University of California-Berkeley suggests otherwise. According to NPR:

The government�s �cash for clunkers� program boosted auto sales by 360,000 during the two months it was in place, according to a new study. But in the seven months that followed, sales were down by 360,000 compared to what they would have been without the program, the study found.

The implication: The program didn�t bring new buyers into the market. But it encouraged people who would have bought a car anyway to make their purchase a few months sooner.

Although it�s impossible to know what the economy would have done absent cash-for-clunkers, the authors of the study attempted to do so by analyzing “parts of the U.S. where, for one reason or another, there were almost no clunkers on the road when the program took effect. By comparing sales in those areas to sales in more clunker-rich parts of the country, they were able to estimate the program�s effects.”

New auto sales reports show that August 2010 sales are down 21 percent from August 2009, which included the cash-for-clunkers program. For those who couldn�t afford to take advantage of the taxpayer-funded subsidy for the purchase of a new vehicle, the news is also grim. The reduction in the supply of used cars�partly from destruction of traded-in vehicles and partly because new car sales are down�has driven up used car prices. The prices of some models have risen as much as 30 percent, and even the smaller models are up 10 percent. So by what measure can this program be called a success?

http://blog.heritage.org/2010/09/03/...%a6-a-clunker/

How Obama Mis-Spent His Summer Vacation

Heritage — Fri, 03 Sep 2010 18:28:26 GMT

On 09.03.10 08:00 AM posted by Ernest Istook

Since 1985, the hands-down winner for worst marketing campaign has been New Coke�the disastrous flop when Coca-Cola tried to change its flavor.

After 25 years, we have a new contender�President Obama�s �Summer of Recovery� slogan of 2010.

The big media splash began in June, touting that �Obama, Biden declare ‘Recovery Summer,’� including six weeks of nationwide barnstorming visits by POTUS and VPOTUS.* All summer, a hyper-active Recovery Blog on the White House website trumpeted what they wanted Americans to believe.* Even the titles seemed to be lifted from works of juvenile fiction:

President Obama Breaks Ground on 10,000th Recovery Act Road Project; Let the Summer of Recovery begin!
The Vice President & the Recovery Act Go to Yellowstone
The Vice President and the Recovery Act on the South Rim of the Grand Canyon
On the Road to Recovery � Manchester, New Hampshire
President Obama on June Jobs Numbers: A Positive Six Months

But the figures said otherwise. **The administration had to eat its earlier words and down-grade the second quarter growth rate from the originally-announced 2.4% to an anemic 1.6% annual rate.

Official reports showed the U.S. economy lost 125,000 jobs in June, then131,000 more in July,* followed by 54,000 in August, and the unemployment rate rose to 9.6%.* An ABC News headline showed the disconnect between the White House and reality:* President Obama Reacts to August Jobs Numbers, Doesn’t Mention Net Job Loss of 54K

Other headlines told a different and more convincing story than Obama�s team could spin:** Enormous spending and deficits.* Unemployment high and long-lasting.* Job creation stagnant.* Record deficits.* Car sales slumping.* Home sales plummeting.

Credibility plummeted as well as White House happy talk didn�t match the stubbornly inconvenient facts.* Christina Romer, chairwoman of the White House Council of Economic Advisers, amazingly said the lousy August numbers �are reassuring that growth and recovery are continuing.”

Efforts to reach out to its usually-responsive youth audience were stymied by a National League of Cities� report that began, �Summer jobs prospects for teenagers have been diminishing steadily over the past decade, but early data for June 2010 show that employment rates for the nation�s 16- to 19-year-olds have fallen to stunning new lows.�

It all prompted normally supportive liberal economist Paul Krugman to write, �This isn�t a recovery, in any sense that matters.�

The President had promised allies in Congress that the summer barnstorming tour would trumpet success and turn around the rotten poll numbers for him and his party.* He and the Vice-President made stops that included Ohio, Missouri, Michigan, Kentucky and Illinois, coinciding with fundraisers that included California, Illinois, Wisconsin, Florida, New York, Washington and Ohio.

But the message on Obama�s teleprompter differed dramatically from what everyday Americans were experiencing.* The New York Times put a �Welcome to the Recovery� title on a Pollyanna op-ed by Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner.* But it was more believable when Geithner admitted to ABC News, �U.S. unemployment may rise again before it falls.* And the economy isn�t recovering rapidly enough.�

The White House and its allies bally-hoo their claims, but the contrast with the personal experience of most Americans is stark.* That�s unlikely to change even with the �re-education� efforts proposed by Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sibelius about the vastly-unpopular Obamacare law.

Those re-education efforts may fall as flat as the classic question, �Who are you going to believe?* Me or your own lying eyes?�

All is not lost.* Elections are less than two months away.* The Heritage Foundation has submitted 128 pro-growth ideas in its �Solutions for America� proposal.* The public is attentive and active.

For the White House, Labor Day couldn�t mark the end of summer soon enough.

To America�s left, the classic exaggeration was George W. Bush celebrating success in Iraq while a banner proclaimed, �Mission Accomplished.�* Now the right has its counterpart:* Barack Obama�s �Summer of Recovery.�

Ernest Istook served 14 years as a U.S. Congressman and is a distinguished fellow at The Heritage Foundation.

http://blog.heritage.org/2010/09/03/...mmer-vacation/

Obama Jobs Deficit Forcing Obama to Scramble

Heritage — Fri, 03 Sep 2010 18:28:26 GMT

On 09.03.10 07:00 AM posted by J.D. Foster

The August jobs report shows the Obama jobs deficit at 7.5 million workers. The Obama jobs deficit is the difference between the current level of employment and the level he promised his stimulus policies would achieve at the end of 2010. The President boasted that his policies would create 3.5 million jobs, pushing total employment by December 2010 to 137.8 million. As of this report, he is 7.5 million jobs short. By his own metric, the President�s policies have failed.

According to today�s jobs report, the economy lost 54,000 jobs in August and the unemployment rate ticked up to 9.6 percent. In short, the economy is in trouble. His policies having failed as expected, Obama is now flailing about looking for yet another ineffectual and costly �stimulus� program, continuing the President�s penchant for gimmickry.

Policies such as a temporary payroll tax holiday (reported to be under consideration) are worse than doing nothing. First, they do next to nothing to increase hiring. Second, such gimmicks reinforce the confidence-sapping realization that the President either completely fails to comprehend the nature of the economy or he is willing to put ideology above prosperity.

Gimmicks rarely work. The �cash for clunkers� program accelerated car purchases for a while, pulling purchases from the future into the present. The future is now, however, and car sales remain weak.

Likewise, the housing tax credit temporarily pushed up housing purchases, but now the credit is gone and housing is worse off for the ride, because buyers and sellers are even less sure of correct price levels. This added uncertainty makes both buyers and sellers more hesitant to agree on a price, thus slowing housing sales even more than conditions otherwise warrant.

The Administration needs to abandon its dalliances with gimmickry and focus on economic fundamentals. One fundamental is this: The Administration needs to abandon its attachment to the Obama tax hikes�the expiration of the most economically important elements of the 2001 and 2003 tax provisions. Allowing any of these tax provisions to expire at the end of the year is irresponsible economic policy. It is also unnecessary as a matter of fiscal policy, as projected deficits are the result of excess spending, not a dearth of revenues. Cutting spending back to historical levels is all that is necessary to get budget deficits under control.

The damage the Obama tax hikes would do goes beyond the immediate effects of the tax hikes themselves. Such an indefensible economic policy under current conditions sends a strong signal to families and businesses alike: Either the President is completely lost at sea when it comes to economic policy or he is willing to put his big-government, high-tax ideology above the need for job creation. Either way, if the Obama tax hikes go through, the Obama jobs deficit is likely to remain for years to come.

http://blog.heritage.org/2010/09/03/...a-to-scramble/