ScaifeNet because we can't let Soros have all the fun...

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.

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.

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 communiqué 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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

In April, while campaigning in Pennsylvania, Vice President Joe Biden promised the American people: “I’m here to tell you, some time in the next couple of months, we’re going to be creating between 250,000 jobs a month and 500,000 jobs a month. … We caught a lot of bad breaks on the way down. We’re going to catch a few good breaks because of good planning on the way up.” And for a while it looked like Biden was a genius. In May, the Labor Department reported that nonfarm payroll employment rose by 290,000 the previous month and in June they reported that the U.S. economy added another 431,000 jobs. President Barack Obama’s “good planning” was working! But then the next report showed the U.S. economy lost 125,000 jobs in June and then the August report found another 131,000 jobs were lost in July. Today the Labor Department released the September jobs report, showing nonfarm payrolls decreased again by 54,000 and that the nation’s unemployment rate rose to 9.6%.

By every objective measure, President Barack Obama’s economic stimulus package has been a complete failure. When President Obama was selling his stimulus plan to the American people, he promised it would save or create 3.5 million jobs by the end of 2010. At the time, employment stood at about 134.3 million, according to the Labor Department’s most commonly used measure. That established an Obama jobs target for December 2010 at 137.8 million. According to the latest jobs report, total U.S. employment stood at 130.3 million in August, which means the cumulative Obama jobs deficit stands at 7.5 million.

Despite the mounting evidence of failure, the Obama administration is still completely unapologetic. Defending her tenure as chair of the President’s Council of Economic Advisers, Christina Romer told journalists at the National Press Club Wednesday: “The current recession has been fundamentally different from other postwar recessions. … Precisely because such severe financial shocks have been rare, there were no reliable estimates of the likely impact. To this day, economists don’t fully understand why firms cut production as much as they did, and why they cut labor so much more than they normally would, given the decline in output.” But after first admitting that the experts don’t understand the current crisis, she then confidently asserts:

It is clear that the Recovery Act has played a large role in the turnaround in GDP and employment. In a report that Jared Bernstein and I issued during the transition, we estimated that by the end of 2010, a stimulus package like the Recovery Act would raise real GDP by about 3½ percent and employment by about 3½ million jobs, relative to what otherwise would have occurred…. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, CEA’s own estimates, and estimates from a range of respected private sector analysts suggest that the Act has already raised employment by approximately two to three million jobs relative to what it otherwise would have been.

Got that? Romer first admits that her magic Keynesian formulas were completely useless in predicting how bad the recession would be, and then she turns right around and uses those exact same formulas to justify the success of the stimulus. If that bootstrapping weren’t audacious enough, Romer then went on to claim that “the United States still faces a substantial shortfall of aggregate demand” and that “structural changes in the composition of our output or a mismatch between worker skills and jobs” having nothing to do with continued high unemployment. So instead of changing course, Romer wants us to double down with a second round of economic stimulus.

How much more stimulus does the Obama administration want to spend? Romer wouldn’t say, and the White House is desperate to avoid calling any new action “stimulus,” but The Atlantic’s Megan McArdle has crunched the numbers and come up with a ballpark size of how big the original economic stimulus package would have to have been if we take the left’s Keynesian economics as gospel: “Full employment is perhaps 4.5-5%. If we assume that stimulus benefits increase linearly, that means we would have needed a stimulus of, on the low end, $2.5 trillion. On the high end, it would have been in the $4-5 trillion range.”

Even the Obama administration doesn’t want to add another $5 trillion to our $13.5 trillion national debt. That is why the Obama administration is pushing a $921 billion tax hike set to take effect on January 1, 2011. There is only one word for proposing $981 billion in taxes to pay for trillions in failed stimulus spending in the midst of 9.6% unemployment: audacity.

Quick Hits:

• Thanks to even more expensive coverage mandated by Obamacare, companies are increasingly passing on higher health care premium costs to workers.
• Thanks to a proposed oil drilling ban, BP says it may not have the money to pay for all the damages caused by its oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.
• Thanks to a weak job market, far fewer 18 to 29 year olds now identify themselves as Democrats, compared with 2008.
• According to a new poll from Arizona, 64% of Arizona voters still support the state’s new immigration enforcement law.
• The Obama Justice Department is now suing Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio for not cooperating with AG Eric Holder’s civil rights probe.

A production platform caught fire in the Gulf of Mexico this morning 80 miles south of Vermilion Bay, Louisiana. Fortunately, according to early reports, the 13 workers on the platform survived the scare, but rescue crews took the workers to the hospital for precautionary measures.

What exploded was not a drilling rig (like in the instance of the BP spill) but a production platform. AP reports that the shallow-water platform was not producing oil at the time of the explosion, although the well does normally produce approximately 58,800 gallons of oil and 900,000 cubic feet of gas per day. Although an official for Mariner, the company that operates the rig, reported that no oil is leaking from the platform and they properly shut the well, a thin oil sheen was present. The latest speculation is that the sheen may be from spilled petroleum from the production platform.

Without a doubt this is a different case than BP’s Macondo well blowout that leaked over 200 million gallons of oil into the water—with BP’s posing a much bigger environmental and economic challenge. If anything, the silver lining from Mariner’s production platform fire is that their response in terms of closing the seven collection wells and evacuation of the 13 crew members seems to have been professionally and successfully carried out.

Figuring out what caused the fire should be a priority for Mariner and regulators, but this shouldn’t be used as justification for the drilling moratorium. We need to recognize that offshore oil drilling is still an important national and economic priority. Energy is the lifeblood of the American economy, and oil is a significant part of our country’s energy portfolio, and that is unlikely to change any time soon. Offshore drilling provides about one-third of the U.S.’s domestic oil. These much-needed sources off our coastal waters have the potential to provide energy to every aspect of the U.S. economy at a time when fuel shortages that lead to increased energy prices can mean death to struggling industries.

As rare as these occurrences are, the clear reality is that rig and platform fires that threaten human safety and can cause significant environmental damage cannot keep occurring. We need to transition to a system that promotes safety and allows drilling to continue instead of piling on regulations that make it unnecessarily and prohibitively expensive to drill of America’s coasts. An important part of that effort should be liability reform for the secondary costs that stem from offshore oil and gas accidents.

The current system places a $75 million cap for the responsible party for these costs. Liability costs above $75 million up to $1 billion are funded by the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund (OSLTF). The OSLTF is financed by an eight-cent-per-barrel tax on imported and domestic oil. The Oil Pollution Act of 1990 stipulates different liability limits for different oil and gas operations.

This system distorts risk of oil and gas operations in two fundamental ways. The artificially low cap of $75 million established 20 years ago does not fully or directly capture the risk of offshore operations. Secondly, rather than placing responsibility with the liable company, the OSLTF shifts responsibility to the entire industry and, ultimately, the federal government, thereby reducing the incentive for individual companies to operate safely.

Although the fire on the Mariner production platform was not a result of the liability system, a new system is necessary that better promotes safe offshore drilling operations.

Congress should reform the OSLTF and remove the $75 million liability cap, replacing it with a new system that accurately assesses the risks of offshore oil and gas operations and appropriately assigns those risks to industry operators. Companies should demonstrate to federal regulators an ability to insure against the liability risk associated with specific offshore oil and gas operations (exploration, extraction, and transportation, etc.) in federal waters. Private risk assessors would determine liability coverage requirements for specific activities, and federal regulators would certify that liability requirements are met. The means for meeting liability coverage requirements would not be limited but may include self-insurance, insurance pools, dedicated assets, or private insurance policies.

The federal government would create a private, tiered insurance framework and administrative process to manage claims. The central element of the insurance framework would be a private and voluntary pooled insurance fund for claims above $1 billion. The claims process would ensure that legitimate claims are paid fully and efficiently while protecting responsible parties from frivolous lawsuits. This is a system that would better align risk and behavior and enhance the safety of America’s offshore oil and gas operations.

If at first you don’t succeed, change the message. That’s the lesson learned when it comes to the new trillion dollar health law passed this spring.

One of the central advocacy groups who pushed for the Obamacare recently held a confidential ”messaging” conference call with the progressive movement where they revealed the results of extensive polling on the new law. Remember when the left was confident their controversial health care vote would soon be cheered by the public? The thinking was that Jane and John Doe simply needed more time to understand the two and half thousand page bill, because the year-long health care debate wasn’t enough time for them to get a grasp on it.

The left might not want to hold their breath while waiting for the public to applaud their bill. That’s because the people know this bill better than progressives do. In fact, just yesterday the Kaiser Health Tracking Poll reported that favorability of the bill dropped to 43% in August. The professional left has now realized this and thus the reason for the advocacy group’s hush-hush “messaging” call.

It’s important to note what the left was told on the call not to say when speaking to Americans: “Don’t say the law will reduce costs and deficits.”

Read that again.

We were repeatedly promised that one of the best parts of this bill was that it would lower the national debt in the long term. It doesn’t take a health policy expert or an economist to understand why this can’t be. A simple logic test will do: how can we put 16 million more people on Medicaid and yet save money?

Answer: we can’t. Americans old and young knew it all along, while the left hoped they would forget thanks to a marketing blitz after the bill passed that was on par with the ‘85 Bears defense. Look for progressives to audible away from this deeply unpopular piece of legislation this fall and talk about something – anything – but their landmark health care bill.

The problems with the fundamental structure of the new health care law are obvious.  First, the primary vehicle for increased coverage is Medicaid expansion.  Sixteen million individuals, 650,000 in Illinois, will be forced onto Medicaid, the joint federal-state partnership to cover low-income individuals.  These individuals will have trouble finding access to physicians and services and will be forced to seek care in prohibitively expensive emergency departments, increasing the cost of care to the federal government, states and privately-insured individuals.  This coverage expansion will not guarantee access to quality health care services.

Next, the federal government will provide $200 billion in annual subsidies for individuals to purchase insurance.  The funding comes from cuts to Medicare that will create problems in access to hospitals similar to those recently observed by physicians, according to Medicare’s own actuaries.  Additional funding will come from taxing individuals’ health insurance for the first time in history, but not until 2018. Instead of reforming the system, bending the health care cost curve and making health care more affordable to individuals, families and small-businesses, the left shifted costs onto the federal government and away from care for seniors. This approach is short-sighted and will continue to strain the budgets of individuals and families, and – to a greater extent – state and federal governments.

What’s needed is not a new message, but rather an incremental approach focused on lowering health care costs. We should expand health savings accounts, the fastest growing insurance coverage option for Americans, which have proven successful in both the public and private sectors. Forcing insurance companies to compete across state lines will help lower costs as well, and my AARP-endorsed bill to reduce fraud, waste and abuse in Medicare is a no-brainer.

PS:  I also keep a daily record on Twitter (#218hcr) and my website, Roskam.house.gov, about the many reasons we need to repeal this flawed healthcare bill and replace it with commonsense reforms that lower costs first and foremost, thereby making insurance more affordable for people to purchase.

Rep. Peter Roskam (R) represents the Sixth District of Illinois.

The views expressed by guest bloggers on the Foundry do not necessarily reflect the views of the Heritage Foundation.

According to a new Pew Hispanic Center report, illegal immigration has dropped by almost two-thirds in the past ten years. The numbers increased, but slowed from 2000 to 2007, while the numbers dropped by 300,000 from 2007-2009.

This is not a surprising trend. The Department of Homeland Security announced in early 2010 that the illegal population in the United States had dropped from 11.6 to 10.8 million from 2008-2009. The fledgling economy coupled with the institution of increased enforcement efforts during the Bush years have pushed illegals inside the United States to go home, while encouraging those thinking of entering illegally to think again.

The real message to these statistics, however, isn’t just that the population numbers are going down but that this data undermines a key argument of amnesty advocates. The amnesty crowd has built its case for “earned legalization” (aka amnesty) on the premise that the immigrant community inside the U.S. was largely immobile and highly rooted here, and that even with increased pressure through immigration enforcement, there was little likelihood that they would return to their home countries. They take it one step further and assert that the only solution is to let illegals have a path to citizenship.

With 300,000 individuals leaving in a period of two short years as a result of the economy and increased enforcement (enforcement that even the Obama Department of Homeland Security has touted as a success story), it is a tough-sell to say that the only option left is an amnesty. In fact, as opposed to enforcement, amnesty would make problems worse by simply encouraging more illegal immigration.

Despite real evidence that enforcement and economic disincentives have a major impact on illegal populations, the Obama White House has taken steps as of late to decrease, rather than increase enforcement. Changes to the 287(g) program that trained state and local law enforcement to enforce federal immigration law, an inherent border security policy, and the all out abandonment of several worksite enforcement policies, coupled with an assault on Arizona’s immigration law were bad enough. But now the Administration has taken to dismiss deportation cases against non-criminal illegal immigrants, allowing them to stay in the United States.

As my colleague Matt Mayer points out, “Instead of constantly seeking ways to evade, skirt, and ignore the immigration laws that are on the books, the Obama Administration needs to simply execute the laws—as is its constitutional duty—while looking to solve the immigration problem in a way that discourages more illegal immigration, maintains security, and promotes the economy.”

Following the Civil War, the Republican Party won elections by characterizing their opponents as the party responsible for the conflict. These fear tactics carried the GOP to several successes over the course of about 20 years.

This election strategy is still alive and well today. Now, it’s liberals who are “waving the bloody shirt,” this time through wild exaggerations of conservatives’ plans for Social Security reform.

This is nothing new. The Wall Street Journal, in an article detailing this “Social Security Bait and Switch,” writes that scare tactics centered around the threat of terminating Social Security “have been regular campaign themes since FDR.” Were President Reagan alive today, he may even utter again his famous campaign retort: There they go again.

The left is using Social Security as a central attack against opponents, claiming that conservatives are intent on “privatizing” Social Security if they gain back control of Congress. There is a huge flaw with this approach.

By demonizing conservatives, President Obama and company are making it ever less likely that the President’s deficit commission will successfully reach a consensus—as they were tasked by the President to do—on a strategy for reform. If their tactic works, that momentary short-term gain will come at the cost of untold billions in additional deficits as the chance to fix Social Security is significantly delayed.

The Wall Street Journal writes: “The irony is that the fiscal condition of Social Security could be substantially improved simply by readjusting its actuarial formulas to slow the growth rate of benefits. But Republicans are unlikely to sign on even to that if they’re going to be demonized for such a modest ‘cut’ anyway, much less endorse a reform like raising the future retirement age. Mr. Obama says he wants to cut a deal, but encouraging Democrats this year to box themselves in against any change will make serious reforms that much harder next year.”

Some liberals have expressed opposition to any changes whatsoever to Social Security, further antagonizing reform efforts. In an editorial, e21, a think tank that focuses on economic policy, writes, “Given that Social Security’s fiscal imbalance has been well documented by everyone from the Congressional Budget Office to the General Accounting Office to the program’s own actuaries and trustees, [Social Security reform] would seem to be a rational step to take. But once again, a cacophony of voices has arisen to argue that nothing about Social Security warrants changing any time soon.”

By attacking any changes at all to Social Security, liberals are increasingly backing themselves into a corner, a position that will make it exceedingly difficult to act on much-needed reform.

As November approaches, Obamacare’s defenders are quite plainly desperate. They see public opinion solidly against them, and a devastating election fast approaching. Their latest gambit to protect what was jammed through Congress in March is to claim that repeal would be so costly to the federal budget that it would be impossible to pass, even with overwhelming popular support. That’s the spin some on the left put on a recent letter from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) to Sen. Mike Crapo (R-ID).

But unfortunately for these advocates, that’s not what the CBO letter says. CBO’s message to Senator Crapo actually just states what is already obvious: If an effort were made to repeal just the Medicare cuts in the new law, it would, on paper, increase Medicare spending, and thus the federal budget deficit, by about $450 billion over ten years. Moreover, enacting a real “doc fix” to avoid deep and unrealistic cuts in Medicare physician fees will cost another $300 billion or so over the coming decade.

What this communication from CBO actually confirms, however, is that, contrary to White House assertions, Obamacare is a budget buster of the highest order. The claim that it would reduce the budget deficit over the coming decade has always rested on a series of gimmicks, implausible assumptions, and sleights-of-hand that have been exposed repeatedly over the past year, most especially by Rep. Paul Ryan in the presence of President Obama. Among the most egregious deceptions is the double-counting of cuts in Medicare’s reimbursement rates for hospitals and other providers of care — cuts so deep that they would push Medicare’s rates below those paid by Medicaid by the end of the decade.

Even if these cuts were realistic — which they aren’t — they can’t both be used to pay for a new entitlement and to improve Medicare’s solvency, as the White House claims. The same money simply can’t be spent twice. Moreover, this money is almost certainly never going to materialize anyway because, as Medicare’s chief actuary has warned repeatedly, they would seriously reduce access to care for seniors by driving hospitals and physicians out of the program. It is all but inevitable, therefore, that Congress will step in at some point to reverse the “cuts,” and probably sooner rather than later. When that happens, it will only confirm what’s already abundantly clear — that these unsustainable payment reductions should never have been allowed to grease the way for a permanent and massively expensive entitlement program.

Indeed, contrary to latest spin from the left, not only would repeal not bust the budget, it would in fact produce a budgetary windfall of such enormous size that it could pay for a sensible reform of American health care and for deficit reduction too.

The centerpiece of Obamacare is the largest expansion of entitlement spending in a generation. CBO estimates that the new law will add 35 million people to the federal government’s health-entitlement rolls by decade’s end — and that’s almost certainly a lowball estimate. Gross federal spending for this added entitlement burden, plus various other spending provisions in the bill, is expected to reach $233 billion in 2019 alone, and then grow at a rate of about 7 percent annually every year thereafter. That means Obamacare’s spending will total at least $3.4 trillion over its second decade, on top of the $1.1 trillion it will cost between now and 2019. And it’s likely to be much more than that when more realistic assumptions about employer dumping of coverage are factored into the estimates.

So that’s at least $4.5 trillion in federal spending that would be avoided over the next 20 years if Congress moved ahead with repeal. Even in Washington that’s a lot of money. So much in fact that it should be more than enough to gut Obamacare’s most egregious tax hikes and spending “offsets” while still paying for a sensible reform of American health care that actually cuts costs and covers more people. And even after enacting this kind of “replacement” program, there should still be something left over to put a real dent in the massive deficits projected to occur under the Obama budget plan.

A couple of weeks ago, the Left’s message gurus put out the word to Democratic candidates to abandon talk of the supposed cost-cutting that would occur under Obamacare.

They now understand that the public has not, and will not, buy the argument that a government takeover of American health care will somehow lower costs. Americans have long understood that Obamacare is a massive new spending commitment, piled on top of the unaffordable ones already on the federal books. That’s a recipe for financial disaster, not deficit cutting. The solution is repeal coupled with a reform that puts consumers, not the government, in charge of controlling costs. That’s the way to fix health care — and the budget too. And, yes, it can be done.

Cross-posted at Critical Condition.

Bjorn Lomborg wins a prize for having the most misrepresented position on climate change. In a recent interview with The Guardian, Lomborg reveals he believes that climate change is a problem. The Guardian refers to this as an “apparent U-turn.” It might appear to be a U-turn, but it isn’t.

In his book Cool It!, Lomborg states that “global warming is real and man-made. It will have a serious impact on humans and the environment toward the end of this century.” But he remained a global warming skeptic because he didn’t believe the damage would be catastrophic or that capping CO2 emissions was an effective policy for addressing the world’s problems. He still believes that global warming is a problem and he still believes that capping CO2 is not a solution. Neither his detractors nor many of his supporters heard that first part. Those who claim a U-turn still don’t hear the second part.

What has changed is that the Copenhagen Consensus (a handful of economists who rank how they would spend $100 billion addressing the world’s problems) no longer ranks climate change dead last among the world’s priorities.

While Lomborg previously felt that adaptation alone was the better strategy (and that rich countries should help poor countries adapt), the latest gathering of Copenhagen economists is apparently promoting a mix that includes adaptation, some geo-engineering ideas, and subsidizing new energy technologies. But global warming is still not the top problem.

Lomborg advocates a more thoughtful approach to global warming. From The Guardian: “After the analyses, five economists were asked to rank the 15 possible policies which emerged. Current policies to cut carbon emissions through taxes—of which Lomborg has long been critical—were ranked largely at the bottom of four of the lists. At the top were more direct public investment in research and development rather than spending money on low carbon energy now, and climate engineering.”

That is, Lomborg still opposes the strategy of Kyoto, Lieberman–Warner, Waxman–Markey, and Kerry–Boxer—he says “no” to punitive energy taxes or carbon caps.
The biggest change in the new Copenhagen Consensus isn’t that Lomborg thinks global warming is a problem (that’s not new) but that he has doubled the ante on his thought experiment—the economists are now to imagine they have $100 billion to spend instead of the previous $50 billion. While Lomborg is provocative and a lightning rod, he hasn’t made a U-turn.

The FCC’s plans for regulating the Internet through “neutrality” regulation—once considered on a fast track—was sidetracked once again yesterday as the agency announced a new round of public comments on possible regulation. It is one more twist in the drama that net neutrality has become, at least for those who see administrative procedure as exciting.

It’s a welcome twist, affording an opportunity to more fully consider some key dangers of regulation. At the same time, the delay underscores the difficulty that regulation supporters face in putting together a plan for controlling the Internet.

The agency had been expected to act this month to reclassify broadband Internet service as a “telecommunications” service, allowing it to regulate the industry. But that was before Google and Verizon—arguably the leading industry supporter and opponent, respectively, of neutrality—announced a compromise plan. The plan would allow for some regulation of Internet service providers but specifically exempt wireless service and “managed” services (such as Internet-based video services and phone services) from the rules.

The plan actually looked a lot like the FCC’s original outline for regulation. Nevertheless, the proposal was attacked by many hard-core supporters of regulation, such as Free Press and MoveOn.org, for not going far enough. In their view, Google had sold out. “Google is evil” (mocking Google’s corporate motto “Don’t be evil”) became a mantra, repeated by these groups and on left-wing blogs throughout the cybersphere.

Faced with this growing civil war between Google and its former allies in the pro-regulation camp, FCC chairman Julius Genachowski had little choice but to step back.

This does not mean Genachowski is giving up on regulation (despite scattered reports to the contrary). The specific questions to be addressed in the new round of comments—whether to impose mandates on highly competitive wireless industry and on investment-intensive managed services—are of course important. But they concern only how far regulation should go, not whether it should go. A market-based approach, apparently, is still not an option.

But the delay does underscore the problem faced by the chairman in getting the rules adopted. With the hard left insisting on an extreme version of regulation, it will be difficult for Genachowski to assemble a winning coalition for any regulatory plan. The end result may be no new regulation at all.

That’s a policy failure we could live with.

North Korea’s status as an international pariah is richly deserved. The country is a proliferator of nuclear technology having helped build a Syrian nuclear site that was destroyed by Israel and is believed to be assisting Burma in its own clandestine nuclear program. North Korea successfully detonated two nuclear devices on October 9, 2006, and May 25, 2009 and the U.S. believes North Korea has enough plutonium for at least half a dozen nuclear weapons. The regime has been striving to develop an intercontinental ballistic missile capable of delivering these weapons by testing its long-range Taepodong-2 missiles twice in recent years. In its pursuit of these nuclear and missile capabilities, North Korea has violated numerous United Nations Security Council resolutions. Most recently, North Korea stands accused of sinking a South Korean ship.

Efforts to negotiate and engage with the North Korean government over these issues by the current and past U.S. administrations have encountered repeated disappointment. To its credit, the Obama administration has resisted calls to engage in a new round of bilateral negotiations with North Korea until Pyongyang provides tangible evidence of the resumption of efforts to completely and verifiably abandon its nuclear weapons programs. In response to North Korea’s attack on the South Korean naval ship as well as its continuing violation of U.N. resolutions and international law, the U.S. recently announced new economic and financial sanctions on Pyongyang.

Meanwhile, Japan and South Korea are ill disposed to resuming the six-party talks given North Korea’s provocations.

But North Korea can count on at least one ally. As reported by FoxNews, “the United Nations is laying plans to spend more than $290 million on a welter of programs in the communist state.” The chief U.N. organizations involved in this effort are: United Nations Development Program (UNDP), UNICEF, the World Food Program (WFP) and the World Health Organization (WHO). This effort continues a tendency in the United Nations to lend support to the world’s most repressive regimes.

A recalcitrant and unrepentant North Korean regime should not be rewarded in this way. There is little doubt about the suffering of the North Korean people. However, it is the repressive policies of the North Korean government that have most directly contributed to the country’s humanitarian crisis by constraining internal and external trade and inhibiting private production.

Under the right circumstances humanitarian assistance could help alleviate the suffering in North Korea, but thus far the regime has refused to meet those standards fully. The North Korean government has agreed to only minimal changes sufficient to give U.N. agencies an excuse to resume operations. The tight control the North Korean government retains on its citizens and over the in-country activities of non-governmental organizations and international organizations providing humanitarian and development assistance make U.N. financial lifelines far more likely to benefit the regime than the North Korean people.

The U.S. and South Korea contribute to sit on the executive boards of the UNDP and UNICEF. Japan and the U.S. contribute to and sit on the Executive Boards of the WFP and WHO. If these countries truly want to apply pressure to North Korea, they should demand that these organizations curtail or suspend their North Korea programs until rigorous, transparent monitoring standards and delivery verification are implemented for U.N. assistance and Pyongyang complies with Security Council resolutions and ends its nuclear program.

Does Sharia law allow a husband to rape his wife, even in America? A New Jersey trial judge thought so. In a recently overturned case, a “trial judge found as a fact that defendant committed conduct that constituted a sexual assault” but did not hold the defendant liable because the defendant believed he was exercising his rights over the victim. Fortunately, a New Jersey appellate court reversed the trial judge. But make no mistake about it: this is no isolated incident. We will see more cases here in the United States where others attempt to impose Sharia law, under the guise of First Amendment protections, as a defense against crimes and other civil violations.

In S.D. v. M.J.R., the plaintiff, a Moroccan Muslim woman, lived with her Moroccan Muslim husband in New Jersey. She was repeatedly beaten and raped by her husband over the course of several weeks. While the plaintiff was being treated for her injuries at a hospital, a police detective interviewed her and took photographs of her injuries. Those photographs depicted injuries to plaintiff’s breasts, thighs and arm, bruised lips, eyes and right check. Further investigation established there were blood stains on the pillow and sheets of plaintiff’s bed.

The wife sought a permanent restraining order, and a New Jersey trial judge held a hearing in order to decide whether to issue the order. Evidence at trial established, among other things, that the husband told his wife, “You must do whatever I tell you to do. I want to hurt your flesh” and “this is according to our religion. You are my wife, I c[an] do anything to you.” The police detective testified about her findings, and some of the photographs were entered into evidence.

The defendant’s Imam testified that a wife must comply with her husband’s sexual demands and he refused to answer whether, under Islamic law, a husband must stop his sexual advances on his wife if she says “no.”

The trial judge found that most of the criminal acts were indeed proved, but nonetheless denied the permanent retraining order. This judge held that the defendant could not be held responsible for the violent sexual assaults of his wife because he did not have the specific intent to sexually assault his wife, and because his actions were “consistent with his [religious] practices.” In other words, the judge refused to issue the permanent restraining order because under Sharia law, this Muslim husband had a “right” to rape his wife.

Besides the fact that the ruling is wrong as a legal matter, and offensive beyond words, it goes to the heart of the controversy about the insidious spread of Sharia law—the goal of radical Islamic extremists. Fortunately, the New Jersey appellate court refused to tolerate the trial judge’s “mistaken” and unsustainable decision. The appellate court chastised the trial judge’s ruling, holding among other things that he held an “unnecessarily dismissive view of defendant’s acts of domestic violence,” and that his views of the facts in the case “may have been colored by his perception that…they were culturally acceptable and thus not actionable – -a view we soundly reject.” Although appellate courts typically defer to findings of fact by trial judges, under the circumstances, this appellate court correctly refused to do so, and reversed the trial court and ordered the permanent restraining order to issue.

The truth is that imposition of Sharia law in the United States, especially when mixed with a perverted sense of political correctness, poses a danger to civil society. Just last year, a Muslim man in Buffalo, New York beheaded his wife in what appeared to be an honor killing, again using his faith to justify his actions. It is doubtful that the domestic violence and rape in this recently overturned case will be the last Americans see of Sharia being impermissibly used to justify brutal acts on our soil. As former Assistant Secretary of Defense Frank Gaffney wrote recently:

Sharia is no less toxic when it comes to the sorts of democratic government and civil liberties guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. According to this legal code of Saudi Arabia and Iran, only Allah can make laws, and only a theocrat can properly administer them, ultimately on a global basis.

The trial opinion in this case shows that, indeed, the global reach of Sharia law is expanding. The trial court allowed the testimony of an Imam to be entered so that his account of Sharia’s standards could supercede the standards set by the New Jersey legislature. This is not just about cultural defenses, which by themselves are not proper under United States law, but about giving up control of the law to a religious code citizens of this country have no control over, a theocratic code world famous for its antidemocratic, sexist nature and its human rights abuses.

So-called “cultural defenses” have existed in other contexts for a long while and, for the most part, such defenses have been rejected. As a domestic violence prosecutor in San Diego, I ran across a case where the accused was charged with assault for punching his girlfriend, and the defense wanted to introduce an expert in Latin cultures. The expert was to testify that in Latin culture, it is acceptable for a man to strike “his woman” as punishment as long as it doesn’t cause serious lasting injury. This was rejected outright by the court, as it should have been. These attempts are not uncommon, but the cultural relativism they espouse is different than the more dangerous trend here.

In S.D. v. M.J.R., the husband’s defense for sexually assaulting his wife was not just another attempt to erode the protection of our own social mores. The specific threat that comes from attempting to establish Sharia law in the United States is that justification for doing so has been couched in the protections of the First Amendment. As noted by the appeals court in its decision overturning what amounted to the replacement of New Jersey’s rape law with Sharia, “the judge determined to except [the] defendant from the operation of the State’s statutes as the result of his religious beliefs.” Doing so was contrary to several Supreme Court decisions, which hold that an individual’s responsibility to obey generally applicable law—particularly those that regulate socially harmful conduct—cannot be made contingent up on his or her religious beliefs.

The U.S. Constitution cannot and should not be used to subvert legislatures and allow brutes such as the husband in this case to harm others simply because their actions are legal under Sharia law. It was impermissible for the trial court to act as it did in this case, and the appellate judges very correctly overturned the ruling below. This is not the last we will hear of such attempts, however, as Sharia-loving extremists are determined to establish an Islamic Caliphate around the world, especially in America. As Andy McCarthy has written, “Our enemies are those who want Sharia to supplant American law and Western culture.” We cannot allow that to happen.

The Values Voter Summit, September 17-19 in Washington, DC, is a premier event where prominent conservatives come together to discuss important issues in America (click here to sign-up). As a cosponsor, Heritage is proud to have many of our policy experts featured on the schedule. Highlights include:

• A Constitution Day discussion on our founding principles with Matthew Spalding, author of We Still Hold These Truths.

• An education panel moderated by Lindsey Burke, featuring a screening of Let Me Rise.

• A panel on the interdependence of social and economic conservative viewpoints and Indivisible moderated by Jennifer Marshall.

• A conversation on the definition of marriage with Chuck Donovan.

• An analysis of the real cost of illegal immigration with Robert Rector.

Heritage will also be exhibiting at the Values Voter Summit, providing guests access to key materials and products at our booth.

In addition to Heritage experts, the event will showcase speakers such as Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC), Gov. Bob McDonnell (R-VA), and Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN). View the complete schedule here.

Don’t miss out! Register today at ValuesVoterSummit.org.