Building an America where freedom, opportunity, prosperity, and civil society flourish.
About The Heritage Foundation
Founded in 1973, The Heritage Foundation is a research and educational institution—a think tank—whose mission is to formulate and promote conservative public policies based on the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense. We believe the principles and ideas of the American Founding are worth conserving and renewing. As policy entrepreneurs, we believe the most effective solutions are consistent with those ideas and principles.
Rounding out our Top Ten of 2010 series (we already listed the Top Ten Charts, Top Ten Papers, Top Ten Videos, Top Ten Morning Bells, and Top Ten Side Effects), today we bring you the Top Ten Foundry Posts of this year. As always, posts are ranked by pageviews with the 10th most popular post on top, and the most popular post at the bottom.
The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act became the law of the land in 2010, but debate over its existence and implementation will rage on in the New Year. The law’s serious policy flaws are already impacting health insurance and costs, but these are part of a deeper and broader issue: the proper role for the federal government in Americans’ health care. The public’s stance on this issue has been anything but settled in the wake of the new law’s passage.
As ramifications of Obamacare continue to play out, it becomes clearer that the changes made are the wrong ones. The new law cuts $575 billion from Medicare, but uses the savings to fund a new health entitlement, rather than deal with the financial insolvency that Medicare faces. “Bending the cost curve” was one of Obamacare’s original goals, but Medicare’s actuary reports that while the the new law indeed bends the curve, it is in the wrong direction: up, not down.
Furthermore, countless employers have said Obamacare accelerated increases in their health insurance premiums, prompting them to consider dropping coverage or pass more of the cost onto employees and their families. Mandates and new regulations are likely to further inhibit businesses’ ability to offer health insurance to employees, and also threaten to negatively affect the economy at large. Finally, when the law comes fully online and the true costs are accounted for, Obamacare is expected to significantly increase the nation’s deficit spending. Continue reading...
As we enter a new year, education reformers will look back on 2010 as the year when education in the United States began to return its focus to the needs of students instead of to the demands of adults. During this past year, public attention to the barriers of educational opportunity created by special interests groups grew, and educational opportunities made possible by school choice made significant strides.
An array of movies—including Waiting for Superman, The Cartel and The Heritage Foundation’s own Let Me Rise—not to mention the courage of state and local leaders to stand up to teachers unions, increased public awareness of the failing status quo of an education system meant to serve the nation’s children. Continue reading...
This year, as the clock strikes twelve on New Year’s Eve, Americans who depend on health savings accounts (HSAs) to make medical expenditures more affordable will experience first-hand yet another adverse side effect of Obamacare. Starting in 2011, American families will no longer be able to use HSAs to purchase over-the-counter drugs, such as cough and allergy medicines.
Americans using HSAs will not be the only ones affected. The provisions of the new law will also change rules regarding the use of flexible spending accounts (FSAs) and health reimbursement accounts (HRAs).
One of the benefits of these savings accounts is that they allow users to put some of their earnings into a separate, tax-free account. This money can then be used for out-of-pocket medical costs such as medical deductibles, eyeglasses, and prescriptions. Since users can make medical purchases using pre-tax dollars, these accounts help cut out-of-pocket costs by about 20 percent, on average. Continue reading...
Within days of Obamacare’s passage, The Heritage Foundation began documenting all of the ill Side Effects the new law was inflicting on our country. It has been The Foundry’s most popular feature by far. The Side Effects index page is the third highest trafficked page on the blog. Continuing our Top Ten in 2010 series, here are the Top Ten Side Effects of 2010 ranked by pageviews with the 10th most popular post on top, and the most popular post at the bottom.
The 111th Congress is officially over, and according to Gallup, it’s also officially the worst Congress in the history of polling. Yet despite its 13% approval rating there are those who are hailing the 111th Congress for its myriad legislative “accomplishments.” Not surprisingly, many of those touting those “accomplishments” are the very members of Congress who voted for the legislation in the first place. Starting at the top with Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), you find a woman who is not at all ashamed of the legislation she has passed, despite the disastrous poll numbers. Pelosi says she is “very, very proud of the work that was accomplished by this Congress.”
The American people, though, think differently, and they have already issued their verdict on the 111th Congress by way of an earthshaking election in November. If you take a look at some of Congress’ big-ticket “accomplishments,” you might understand where they’re coming from. Here’s a look at 10 major pieces of legislation coming out of Congress the last two years and why Americans might not be so pleased:
Obamacare: Billed as the panacea for America’s health care woes, The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, better known as “Obamacare,” is a 2,700-page behemoth that “portends a massive transfer of power, dollars and decision making to the federal government,” says Heritage’s Nina Owcharenko. Heritage also finds that under the law, workers and families will face increased costs, seniors will lose access to care, and American taxpayers will take the hit for a trillion dollars in new federal spending. (3/2010) Continue reading...
The 112th Congress has an unprecedented plan. They are going to read the Constitution-the document that each member will swear to uphold-aloud on their first day. When asked on MSNBC to comment, Washington Post writer Ezra Klein replied “It’s a gimmick. I mean, you can say two things about it. One, is that it has no binding power on anything. And two, the issue of the Constitution is not that people don’t read the text and think they’re following. The issue of the Constitution is that the text is confusing because it was written more than 100 years ago and what people believe it says differs from person to person and differs depending on what they want to get done.”
Take that, foolish members of Congress! According to Klein, the Constitution is unknowable, and is only a tool for people to push through idiosyncratic policy proposals. So much for that oath.
But our Constitution’s history and origin is known. In his famous speech to the Federalist Society Annual Lawyers Convention in 1985, Former Attorney General Edwin Meese reminds us that the Constitution is not “buried in the midst of time.” It was not haphazardly written. The Constitution is a carefully drafted document: the Founders “proposed, they substituted, they edited, and they carefully revised.” The Constitutional Conventions’ discussions, disputes, and compromises carefully recorded. The Father of the Constitution, James Madison, wrote comprehensive accounts of the convention. “Others, Federalists and Anti-Federalists alike, committed their arguments for and against ratification, as well as their understandings of the constitution, to paper, so that their ideas and conclusions could be widely circulated, read, and understood.” Thus, thanks to the pamphlets, letters, and well-documented debates and drafting records from the founding, the meaning of the Constitution is, in fact, knowable. Continue reading...
For Indiana families, 2011 is already promising to be an exciting year for educational opportunity. Governor Mitch Daniels recently told the Courier-Journal that he will push to enact an education voucher program for low-income students, which would provide them with scholarships to attend a private school of their choice. The News-Sentinel editorialized on the plan, writing:
Gov. Mitch Daniels wasn’t kidding when he said one of his goals for the last two years of his term was major education reform… The real stunner, though, is his proposal for a true school choice plan, a voucher system that would allow parents to use state funds to offset the costs of sending their children to private schools. If the governor can pull that one off, it would far surpass both the toll road lease and daylight saving time in sheer audaciousness… Poor students are the ones most in need of a good education. How can we deny them the ability to shop for the best school?
It now appears likely that the Russian Duma will attach an understanding to the new strategic nuclear arms control treaty with the U.S., known as New START, that specifically rejects the U.S. Senate’s understanding that Russia has no grounds for using New START to impose general limits on U.S. missile defense options. The Duma is scheduled to continue consideration of the treaty next month.
Such an action by the Duma would confirm the suspicions of a number of Senators, led by John McCain (R–AZ), that the Russian government would point to language in New START’s preamble as a means of limiting U.S. missile defense options. This language re-establishes the “link” between strategic offensive arms and missile defenses that was broken by President George W. Bush in 2002, when the U.S. withdrew from the Soviet-era Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, which imposed severe restrictions on the U.S. missile defense program. Accordingly, McCain offered an amendment to New START in the Senate to delete this language in the preamble. The amendment was defeated on the basis that the language in the preamble is not legally binding. Continue reading...
At a recent gathering of Heritage Foundation members, the former Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich congratulated us for launching Heritage Libertad. The Speaker said he recognized how Heritage Libertad could be a critical tool to communicate conservative thought to Hispanics in our country.
With the Left eager to make Hispanics a permanent underclass dependent on the federal government for everything, it is absolutely vital that we effectively convey why Libertad – Liberty – is so vital to ensure that we live in a society where freedom, opportunity and civil society flourish for us all – including Hispanics.
More importantly, Heritage Libertad exists to provide the same research, analysis and commentary on www.heritage.org As Heritage Foundation President, Ed Feulner says in today’s Washington Times column, “Unlike certain politicians, we don’t act as if there are “Hispanic” issues and “non-Hispanic” issues.”
This year has been quite a journey for conservatives.
An overzealous liberal majority in Congress, revved up by their Christmas Eve health care victory in the House of Representatives, greeted 2010 with an agenda that was far left and far removed from the will of the American people.
From Obamacare and the New START to defense cuts and tax hikes, we conservatives have had our work cut out for us this past year. Yes, we lost important battles in Congress – Obamacare is now the law of the land and we have a new START Treaty. But conservatives have continued the debate and expanded it.
It is no longer just about health care, harmful treaties, tax hikes, defense cuts or any one item in between. It is about America’s First Principles.
When Democratic senators and representatives voted to approve the $787 billion stimulus package nearly two years ago, the ones who came from swing states and districts knew they were taking a political risk. What they didn’t know was that the economic benefits of the stimulus would become so entangled in red tape that even today, much of that money remains unspent. Continue reading...
Danish authorities have just sunk another plot to strike the West.
According to press reports, “Denmark’s intelligence service says it has arrested four people plotting what it called an ‘imminent’ terrorist attack against the Jyllands-Posten newspaper, which printed controversial cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad. The head of the agency, Jakob Scharf, described some of the suspects as ‘militant Islamists.’ He said the group had been planning to enter the newspaper’s building and kill as many people as possible.”
It sounds like another “homegrown” plot. We have seen all too many of these of late. They are consistent with the pattern of recent extremist activities—the throw-the-spaghetti-at-the-wall strategy—just do something, anything! Osama bin Laden launched his terror campaign by going after the “far” enemy: the U.S. and Europe. Continue reading...
The Washington Post editorializes today: “In a handful of Southern and Western states, Republican governors and lawmakers are vowing to replicate Arizona’s harshly nativist law or go even further with bills that would outlaw the presence of undocumented immigrants or require police to screen suspects for immigration status – or both. The assumption underlying such legislation is that the 11 million illegal immigrants in this country, including the 7 million who hold jobs, can and should be deported en masse.”
This is just plain false. Advocates for stronger immigration law enforcement do not believe that illegal immigrants should be deported en masse. Heritage analyst Jena McNeill explains: Continue reading...
The Wall Street Journal reports: “The global oil industry, far from chastened by the catastrophic spill in the U.S. Gulf of Mexico, is planning record spending next year, including a large amount for deep-water development. … Barclays estimates spending on new wells, producing platforms and other energy infrastructure will total $490 billion next year, up 11% from 2010. The figure is based on a survey of 402 companies. In part, the planned spending increases reflect the higher costs for finding and extracting oil in harder-to-access areas.”
And where are these investment dollars going? More WSJ:
Chevron, which announced a 29% increase in spending earlier this month, cited a desire to develop several large, offshore projects in Western Australia, the South China Sea … Rio de Janeiro-based Petroleo Brasiliero SA is expected to budget $28.2 billion for capital costs, the most of any company, according to Barclays. The lion’s share is slated for development of its recently discovered deep-water oil fields off Brazil’s Atlantic coast. Continue reading...
On Monday, we brought you the Top Ten Heritage Charts of 2010. Yesterday, we featured the Top Ten Heritage Papers of 2010. Continuing our Top Ten of 2010 series, today, we rank the year’s Top Ten Morning Bells. Once again, all posts are ranked by pageviews with the 10th most popular post on top, and the most popular post at the bottom.
One of the repeating story lines the lamestream media is looking to advance for the 112th Congress is the fictional contradiction between Tea Party small government convictions and the necessity of big government intervention to cause economic growth. Today’s contribution comes from Politico’s Darius Dixon who asks, “Can the tea party go nuclear?”
The premise of the piece is that conservative plans to jump start nuclear power plant construction conflict with Tea Party plans to shrink the size and role of the federal government since today’s nuclear power industry is dependent on federal loan guarantees. This is two thirds right. Yes, the Tea Party does want to “to cut spending and pull back the hand of government.” Yes, the nuclear power industry “depends on subsidies, loan guarantees and other federal funds.” But that doesn’t mean that more federal loan guarantees and subsidies are the only way to revive our domestic nuclear power industry. In fact, expanding the existing loan guarantee program would simply remove incentives to decrease costs, stifle innovation, suppress private-sector financing solutions. Continue reading...
“What do you say to people who are losing patience with gas prices at $3 a gallon? And how much of a political price do you think you’re paying for that, right now?” This was a question asked of the president at a press conference in August…of 2006. The president was George W. Bush. In fact, it was a question that was asked in one way or another regularly during the entire eight years of the Bush presidency, regardless of where energy prices stood at that moment.
In May 2004, The New York Times reported that congressional Democrats “were stepping up pressure on the Bush Administration to ease gasoline prices,” when prices were still under $2/gallon. In April 2005, at another press conference, a journalist stated: “Mr. President a majority of Americans disapprove of your handling of social security, gas prices…” In 2006, Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) exclaimed: “Since George Bush and Dick Cheney took over as president and vice president, gas prices have doubled…They are too cozy with the oil industry” after she drove one less-than-energy-efficient block to a press conference at a local Exxon station.
In 2008, then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) “blasted” the president for rising gas prices on his (and her) watch. In July 2008, ABC News asked the president what was his “short term advice for Americans about gas prices?” repeating a nearly identical question asked at a February 2008 press conference. In April 2008, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) said gas prices were “the number one issue facing America today.” Continue reading...
With all the talk about forcing people to buy health insurance, health insurance exchanges, and high-risk pools, it is often forgotten that most of what Obamacare really is, is just a massive expansion of an existing and already failing entitlement program. Of the 34 million Americans who gain health insurance through Obamacare, over half (18 million) will receive it through Medicaid.
In its current form, Medicaid is already bankrupting states across the country. Obamacare only further overloads this already broken system by expanding Medicaid eligibility to include all Americans under 133 percent of the federal poverty level. While Obamacare will pay for all of the benefit expansion for the first three years, and 90% of it after that, Obamacare never pays for any of the state administrative costs for adding those 18 million Americans to their welfare rolls. That amounts to billions in unfunded federal mandates for states to absorb. Continue reading...
Author: 
Author: 
Author: 
Author: 
Author: 
Author: 
Author: 
Author: 
Author: 
Author: 
Author: 
Author: 
