Paul Ryan, Joe Biden, and Heritage Foundation Facts

Heritage Foundation offers Calm Assessment over Noise of Biden-Ryan Debate

Here are some facts about issues discussed in the debate to help serve as an Election Guide for you 

Vice President Biden and Representative Paul Ryan squared off (Thursday) night for a spirited and intense 90-minute debate at Centre College in Danville, KY. Topics ranged from foreign to domestic, touching on serious issues that Heritage policy experts grapple with every day.
While many commentators were critiquing style, a team of 19 Heritage experts cut through the malarkey and focused on substance. They reacted instantly to the debate last night, providing policy research on the multitude of questions raised by moderator and ABC News correspondent Martha Raddatz. Below are some of the highlights of our experts’ reactions to the major issues addressed.

We will be discussing the debate in our first-ever Google Hangout today at noon ET. Follow us on Google+ to join the conversation.

Don’t Blame Budget Cuts for Libya Embassy Attack

Biden claimed that Ryan’s budget is partly responsible for the failures of security that led to the death of Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans, saying that “The Congressman here cut embassy security in his budget by $300 million below what we asked for.”

As Heritage expert Brett Schaefer pointed out on The Foundry: “Overall funding for those programs has increased sharply over the past decade. Indeed, Worldwide Security Protection is more than double what it was a decade ago. … Moreover, the State Department has considerable latitude in allocating security funds based on current events and intelligence on possible threats. Why that latitude was not applied in Libya deserves further scrutiny.”
It’s also worth noting that the U.S. Senate has not actually adopted a budget in more than three years. So it is hard to see how the appropriations process is the appropriate place to start looking for the failures that led to the death of Stevens and his colleagues. The problems run deeper than that.
–Ted Bromund, Senior Research Fellow in Anglo-American Relations, The Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom

A Not-So-Balanced Approach on Spending

Biden echoed the all-too-familiar mantra that a so-called “balanced approach” is necessary to fix our spending and debt issues. Sounds fair, right? Except that the policy prescription he and President Obama advocate consists of more stimulus spending – disguised as critical investments, of course — plus massive tax hikes on high-income earners and small businesses, for starters. That’s a double whammy guaranteed to harm the economy.
Ryan rightly points out the sluggish economic growth the United States has experienced recently. The unemployment rate is still outlandishly high, and GDP has grown at a crawling rate. It is hardly the recovery Americans were assured would result from federal stimulus spending. That’s all the more reason not to double down on tax hikes on Americans or propose even more government spending. The economy needs to be free from the threat of Taxmageddon and other tax hikes, and Washington needs to curb its spending problem.
–Emily Goff, Research Associate, Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies

The Transnational Terrorism Threat
The debate took a quick tour over the landscape of transnational terrorism from Libya to Iraq to Afghanistan to Iran. It was so quick that no one bothered to explain where the war against transnational terrorism stands today.

The case in Libya is tragically all too clear. Al-Qaeda affiliates have established a base in the country. In Iraq, the AP recently reported that since the United States “ended” the war, the number of al-Qaeda in the country has doubled. Iran remains one of the world’s most notorious state sponsors of terrorism. The Taliban and other affiliates are threatening the stability of Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Whoever holds the Oval office in January is going to have to deal with a significant transnational terrorism threat. The current U.S. strategy is just not up to the task.
–James Jay Carafano, Deputy Director, The Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for International Studies, and Director, Douglas and Sarah Allison Center for Foreign Policy Studies

Obama Tax Hike Would Devastate Jobs

Biden discussed President Obama’s plan to raise the top two marginal tax rates. If that were to occur, the economy would create 710,000 fewer jobs, according the accounting firm Ernst & Young. Jobs would suffer badly because, even though the Vice President said only 3 percent would pay those higher rates, those 3 percent are the biggest, most successful small businesses that do all the hiring. The Ernst & Young study found the Obama tax hike would devastate jobs because those businesses that would pay the higher rates employ 54 percent of the private workforce.

On the other hand, tax reform like Governor Mitt Romney and Ryan propose would lower rates to encourage growth and do so without reducing revenue or shifting the tax burden from high income taxpayers to middle income families. Even the Tax Policy Center, which is the group Obama and Biden cite to criticize the Romney tax plan, does not claim the Romney plan would reduce revenue — never mind by $5 trillion.
–Curtis Dubay, Senior Policy Analyst, Tax Policy, Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies

The $6,400 Question on Medicare

Continued

Obamacare: Repeal Is up to Congress

Morning Bell: Join the Fight to Repeal Obamacare

Ed Feulner, President, The Heritage Foundation

Many wonderful patriots are out in the trenches, fighting tyranny with all their hearts. Truth is our greatest weapon, and The Heritage Foundation works 24-7, educating American citizens. They are among the groups who have the most influence on Congress. CD

Fellow Americans,

Like you, I am disappointed by the Supreme Court’s Obamacare decision. The Court misread and rewrote Obamacare in order to save it. Such contortions are not the proper role of judging. Most Americans are with you and me and deeply dislike this law.

We believe, however, that this is far, far from a time for despair. This decision will energize freedom-loving Americans to once again take matters into their own hands. Our republic has survived and flourished for more than two centuries because men and women—brave, determined, and deeply committed to the cause of freedom—were willing to stand, to march, and to make whatever sacrifices were necessary so that their children would know the blessings of liberty, the hope and opportunity that flow from living in “the land of the Free.”

They will receive this ruling as a clarion call to action. Once again, the people will have to rise to defend a fundamental American concept: that the power of government over individuals must be limited.

First, let’s acknowledge what was good in the decision. The Court recognized that there are limits to what Congress may do under the Commerce Clause. Big-government forces have for too long abused this clause’s grant of congressional authority, but the Court’s decision reaffirms that there are limits on their actions.

There’s also the fact that the individual mandate has acquired the official constitutional status of a “tax”—and if it is indeed a tax, then that is even more reason for the U.S. Senate to repeal it with the 51-vote threshold available under the Budget Act’s reconciliation process. It is a revenue provision. No filibuster problems there now.

Calling it a tax, of course, doesn’t make the heavy-handed policy in Obamacare any better for those who now have to buy a product they don’t like. And yesterday’s opinion makes clear that President Obama enacted a massive new tax on the middle class, breaking one of his repeated promises.

We must resolve to check this dangerous expansion of power.

The first step is to work harder than ever to fully repeal Obamacare. Now that the Supreme Court has had its say, Congress becomes the arena in which we can fight for relief and restoration of constitutional limits.

Congress can and must reassert its constitutional authority. Indeed, the House of Representatives has already acted. We congratulate the lower chamber for having voted to repeal Obamacare.

Now it’s the Senate’s turn to do what’s right: Repeal Obamacare, and force the President to sign its repeal.

The American experiment is predicated on the idea that government exists to serve the people, that it derives its power from the people, and that the people retain all powers they do not specifically grant to government. Obamacare turns that fundamental idea on its head.

Ours is still a government “of the people.” And the American people have spoken clearly. Indeed, the people’s antipathy toward the law keeps growing. Just this month, a poll conducted by The New York Times and CBS News found that more than two-thirds of Americans wanted the Supreme Court to strike down Obamacare as a whole or in part. Only 24 percent would keep the law in place. While Court decisions obviously should not be driven by polls, the poll clearly shows the people’s dissatisfaction with the bad policy in Obamacare.

So many aspects of Obamacare are appalling. Once all its provisions kick in—conveniently, after the November election—millions of Americans stand to lose their current coverage. Already, it saddles individuals and families with higher premiums, higher costs, and higher taxes—and even steeper increases loom on the horizon. It has sparked a host of other loathsome mandates, like the HHS mandate that requires charitable religious organizations to provide coverage that violates the tenets of their faith.

But why should we expect government to respect the constitutional right to religious freedom if we allow government to ignore fundamental restraints on its power to regulate the lives of its citizens?

This year will mark a pivotal point in American history. The American people now must make a critical decision: We must choose between constitutional, limited government on the one hand and arbitrary, unlimited rule on the other.

We at The Heritage Foundation, as always, will stand in defense of our nation’s founding principles. We are eager to lead the fight to overturn this Intolerable Act—Obamacare—and we are grateful for your support of our efforts to save the American Dream for the next generation.

Join our fight: Become part of the mission to repeal Obamacare and create a better America.

Sincerely,

Ed Feulner
President, The Heritage Foundation

Repeal Obamacare: 10 Terrible Provisions of Obamacare

Repeal Obamacare: 10 Terrible Provisions

From Heritage

Obamacare includes such a variety and volume of negative policies that it’s hard to keep track of them all. Here is a list of 10 terrible provisions that every American should be aware of:

1. It increases taxes on families earning over $250,000. In 2013, the employee portion of the Medicare payroll tax will increase from 1.45 percent to 2.35 percent for families earning $250,000 or more and individuals earning $200,000 or more. The income threshold is not indexed for inflation, so more and more middle-income families will be hit by the tax hike as time goes on.

2. It adds a new tax to investment income. The increased payroll tax rate is also applied to high-earners’ investment income for the first time beginning in 2013. It will hit capital gains, dividends, rents, and royalties, discouraging investment and harming economic growth.
3. It puts new limitations on those with HSAs and FSAs. Starting in 2012, Obamacare restricts the products that consumers may purchase with a Health Savings Account (HSA) or Flexible Savings Account (FSA)—such as over-the-counter medications—and increases the penalty for such non-qualified uses of HSAs. It also limits the amount taxpayers may deposit into an FSA to $2,500 a year in 2013.
4. It adds a new tax on those who purchase medical devices. In 2013, a 2.3 percent excise tax will be applied to medical devices, causing a $28.5 billion tax hike on medical device manufacturers. The industry will pay for this tax by reducing jobs and passing additional costs on to consumers.
5. It penalizes marriage. Obamacare creates new taxpayer-funded subsidies for the low and middle classes to purchase health coverage, but the structure of the subsidies allows two individuals to claim more in subsidies alone than if married. This discriminates against married couples and discourages marriage at almost all age and income levels.
6. It violates religious liberty. The Department of Health and Human Services included the full range of contraceptives, including abortion-inducing drugs, among the women-specific preventive services that Obamacare requires insurers to include with no cost-sharing. This mandate violates Americans’ conscience rights and religious liberty. Its narrow exemption for religious employers will force many who find these products morally objectionable—including religious charities, hospitals, and schools—to pay for them.

Continued