heritage foundation: Page 1
Fiscal conservatives side with America-denouncing billionaire (Cato, Dan Mitchell, Heritage, Brownfield, Sean Medlock, Daily Caller, HotAir) - 05/11/12
Facebook co-founder Eduardo Saverin recently denounced his U.S. citizenship to avoid paying U.S. taxes he'd owe when that company goes public. Hopefully to most people the idea of turning your back on your country  to save money would be abhorrent.
Challenge for Teaparty: can you justify cuts to literacy programs (including Reading is Fundamental)? - 07/25/11
Earlier this year, spending by the Department of Education was cut by $750 million at least temporarily by ending or cutting back literacy and other programs. One of those affected was the organization Reading Is Fundamental; all the $24.8 million they were getting from the feds was eliminated.
For the last 35 years, educators and analysts at The Heritage Foundation have been intimately involved in the nation's great public policy debates. In all that time, we have never encountered legislation with such far-reaching and revolutionary policy implications as the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act currently before Congress. And never have we seen a bill more cloaked in secrecy or more withdrawn from open public exposure and honest debate.
In addition to being the single most expensive bill ever proposed, this measure calls for a massive expansion of the federal government's reach into the day-to-day life of virtually every citizen, business and civic organization in the nation. That, in itself, should be the subject of an extensive public conversation and thoughtful debate. Instead, we have seen Congressional leaders schedule snap votes on a 1,434-page bill that no one - repeat, no one - has had a chance to read in its entirety, much less digest and deliberate...
Specific problems with the bill at the link.
A major public policy success, welfare reform in the mid-1990s led to a dramatic reduction in welfare dependency and child poverty. This successful reform, however is now in jeopardy: Little-noted provisions in the U.S. House of Representatives and U.S. Senate stimulus bills actually abolish this historic reform. In addition, the stimulus bills will add nearly $800 billion in new means-tested welfare spending over the next decade. This new spending amounts to around $22,500 for every poor person in the U.S. The cost of the new welfare spending amounts, on average, to over $10,000 for each family paying income tax...
The recently passed U.S. House of Representatives stimulus bill contains $816 billion in new spending and tax cuts. Of this sum, $264 billion (32 percent) is new means-tested welfare spending. This represents about $6,700 in new welfare spending for every poor person in the U.S.I'm hardly an expert on this field, and I don't know how to evaluate the details at the link or the ones outlined here.
But this welfare spending is only the tip of the iceberg. The bill sets in motion another $523 billion in new welfare spending that is hidden by budgetary gimmicks. If the bill is enacted, the total 10-year extra welfare cost is likely to be $787 billion.
The claim that Congress is temporarily increasing welfare spending for Keynesian purposes (to spark the economy by boosting consumer spending) is a red herring. The real goal is to get "the camel's nose under the tent" for a massive permanent expansion of the welfare state.
The U.S. Senate is always looking out for you, provided that you want billions of dollars from the stimulus plan to be spent giving a paycheck to illegal aliens. See this for the details from Robert Rector of the Heritage Foundation:
The Senate stimulus bill would provide roughly $104 billion in funding for a variety of construction projects including highways, schools, and renovation of public housing. This funding will be spread over five to seven years. Normal government estimates indicate that each $1 billion spent on construction will create around 19,500 construction jobs, each lasting a year. Thus $104 billion in funding in construction projects would ostensibly create construction-related jobs for about 2.04 million workers over several years. Without specific mechanisms to ensure that workers are U.S. citizens or legal immigrants authorized to work, it is likely that 15 percent of these workers, or 300,000, would be illegal immigrants.
It would actually probably be a bit less than 15%, since most illegal aliens are employed in the low-skill side of home construction, rather than the higher-skilled heavy construction that most of that money would (apparently) go towards. However, it would still be a significant figure, and have no doubt that the Mexican government would be more than willing to send even more of their citizens here in order to take advantage of any weaknesses in the plan.
Note that the House version included language designed to block illegal aliens from being employed with stimulus funds by requiring those obtaining such funds to use eVerify. That language is missing from the Senate version, but even the language in the House version might have loopholes.
...The idea is modest and smart, but modest and smart usually don’t get very far these days. The anti-immigrant forces that buried the Senate’s comprehensive reforms under a wave of faxes and phone calls are at it again over the revival of this small part of that much bigger bill. They are convinced that giving a break to blameless young men and women - maybe about a million - who want to earn a college degree or serve in the military weakens the country instead of strengthening it. Their hostility to nurturing a new cohort of American citizens, their reflexive "no" even to this limited attempt at immigration decency, lays bare the bankruptcy of their self-defeating passions... Passage would also give encouragement to the budding activists on college campuses around the country who have rallied behind the Dream Act for themselves and their schoolmates...
1. This appeared on the same day that Dick Durbin made his changes which may have somewhat reduced the hugely negative impacts of the bill. Before those changes, the DREAM Act still allowed illegal aliens to take college discounts from U.S. citizens. And, it was a massive amnesty with no upper age limit and could have amnestied far more than the million that the NYT claims (maybe that's why they say "maybe").
2. Needless to say, the NYT is trying to smear those opposed to massive illegal activity as not only being "anti-immigrant", but being ruled by their "passions" rather than reason.
3. All of the "activism" I've seen relating to the DREAM Act is either dishonest (the endless string of PIIPPs) or based entirely on emotion, illogical thought, and ethnic solidarity. None of that should be encouraged.