NATO’s Total Withdrawal From Afghanistan Could Rock Asia Stability

NATO’s Total Withdrawal From Afghanistan Could Rock Asia Stability NATO'S withdrawal from Afghanistan in 2014 is likely to have far-reaching implications for Central and South Asia. And total withdrawal of troops could be devastating for regional security and jeopardise the safety of western nations, say analysts. The stability of the region is linked directly to the US’s long-term military and economic commitment to Afghanistan after Nato troops are scheduled to leave. Click here to read the full report

The Defector: Escape from North Korea   The award-winning documentary The Defector: Escape from North Korea is a gripping, heart-wrenching look at the risks North Koreans are willing to endure to escape a despotic regime to reach freedom. Join us for the Washington Premiere Screening of this documentary on December 5th at 5:30pm, and a panel discussion afterward featuring the producer, Ann Shin, and Dong-hyuk Shin, Human rights activist and former inmate of North Korean Camp 14. Click Here to RSVP

Trending Terrorism in Asia U.S. Terrorism in Asia is not a threat of the past but a threat of the present. A recent survey of indicators compiled and presented by The Heritage Foundation found that Asian countries comprise three out of the top four countries with the most domestic terrorist attacks. Click here to Read the Full Report

About The Heritage Foundation Founded in 1973, The Heritage Foundation is a research and educational institute -- 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.

The Heritage Foundation  |  214 Massachusetts Ave NE, Washington, DC 20002  |  202.546.4400

How Obamacare Discourages Work and Marriage

We were told that Obamacare was supposed to be compassionate toward the needy in America. While President Obama and his fellow liberals may have held the best of intentions while ramming Obamacare through Congress, the law’s policies are far from compassionate toward the uninsured and Americans with low and modest incomes. In fact, the law perpetuates some of the country’s worst trends that trap people in poverty. It includes disincentives for individuals to marry and for Americans of low and modest incomes to work. Discouraging work and marriage will only perpetuate poverty and income inequality, not alleviate them. Discouraging Work The way Obamacare calculates federal premium subsidies and cost-sharing subsidies includes several “cliffs.” A person might qualify for a hefty subsidy at his current income, but if he gets a raise and makes a little more, that Obamacare subsidy disappears. At these cliffs, individuals and families will actually benefit more by working less because additional earnings could cause them to lose thousands of dollars in taxpayer-funded subsidies. Families facing these kinds of poverty traps may ask the obvious question: If I will lose so much in government benefits by earning additional income, why work? Rather than encouraging hard work, initiative, and entrepreneurship, Obamacare instead undermines these essential American values. Discouraging Marriage Obamacare contains not one, but two penalties on marriage—one for families with low and moderate incomes and another for families with higher incomes. By continuing failed policies that undermine the institution of marriage, Obamacare will accelerate a root cause of income inequality in the United States. Here’s an example. A 50-year-old non-smoker making $35,000 per year would qualify for a sizable insurance subsidy, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation’s insurance subsidy calculator. The individual’s premium would be capped at 9.5 percent of income, resulting in an insurance subsidy of $2,065 paid by the federal government. However, if this 50-year-old is married to another 50-year-old who also makes $35,000 per year, the couple would receive no insurance subsidy at all. This couple would incur a marriage penalty of $4,130 in one year—equal to the $2,065 that each individual could have received if they were not married. As Urban Institute fellow Gene Steuerle has said: “Our tax and welfare system thus favors those who consider marriage an option—to be avoided when there are penalties and engaged when there are bonuses. The losers tend to be those who consider marriage to be sacred.” Obamacare sends a clear message that reliance on government is preferable to these traditional American values—work and marriage. Our health care policy should not be undermining these foundations of society. For a more commonsense approach to health care reform, check this out.

The Heritage Foundation | 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE | Washington, D.C. 20002 | (800) 546-2843

They Got Away With It

As President Obama said, they got away with it. Harry Reid and the Democrat-controlled Senate got away with changing the Senate’s rules so that they can shove through anything they want without having to worry about Republicans filibustering against it. Just a few short years ago, then-Senator Obama spoke forcefully against doing what Senate Majority Leader Reid (D-NV) just did. When Republicans talked about a similar rule change in 2005, Obama said (emphasis added): I urge my Republican colleagues not to go through with changing these rules. In the long run, it is not a good result for either party. One day Democrats will be in the majority again, and this rule change will be no fairer to a Republican minority than it is to a Democratic minority. I sense that talk of the nuclear option is more about power than about fairness. I believe some of my colleagues propose this rule change because they can get away with it rather than because they know it is good for our democracy. Yesterday, the President’s strong words in support of the filibuster were but a memory, as he declared his about-face in favor of the Democratic majority seizing power. “I support the step a majority of Senators today took to change the way that Washington is doing business,” he said, describing Reid’s power grab in lofty, for-the-people terms. Obama’s 180-degree turn on this issue—based on who’s in the Senate majority—is perhaps most amusing when you see that he invoked the American Founders in defense of both positions. In 2005, getting rid of the filibuster “certainly is not what the patriots who founded this democracy had in mind.” But today, using the filibuster is “not what our Founders envisioned.” Now, whatever the Democratic majority in the Senate wants, it can be done. The rule change means that instead of needing 60 votes to cut off debate on a nomination, Reid needs only 51. He has 55 Democratic Senators. As Heritage legal analyst Elizabeth Slattery noted, “Though the rule purportedly applies only to executive branch and judicial nominations—excluding Supreme Court nominations (for now, anyway)—it would seem with 51 votes, Reid can do just about anything.” The change could be undone again with another simple majority vote. But the minority may just want to wait it out until they get their turn—Senator Chuck Grassley (R–IA) has said, “Go ahead. There are a lot more [Antonin] Scalias and [Clarence] Thomases out there we’d love to put on the bench.”

The Heritage Foundation | 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE | Washington, D.C. 20002 | (800) 546-2843

While Obama Remakes the Courts, Harry Reid Wants to Remake the Senate

11/21/2013 Every few months, it seems, Harry Reid (D-NV) threatens to upend the Senate so that he can push something through without following the rules. This time, it’s the President’s judicial nominees. President Obama is already well on his way to remaking federal courts in the liberal image, but Reid insists this isn’t happening fast enough. The Senate Majority Leader is threatening again that he will break Senate rules to change the rules—so he can do anything he wants with the bare minimum number of votes (51). This would mean effectively ending the use of the filibuster, Senators’ ability to speak at length against measures they oppose. That would be bad news, as this Senator explained: Everyone in this chamber knows that if the majority chooses to end the filibuster—if they choose to change the rules and put an end to democratic debate—then the fighting and the bitterness and the gridlock will only get worse. That Senator was Barack Obama, in 2005, when his party was in the Senate minority. But when you’re on top—as the Democrats are now in the Senate—the filibuster looks different. It looks like a speed bump. In fact, the filibuster actually protects the rights of all Senators—and of the American people they represent. There’s a reason the Senate confirms nominees for judicial appointments and other appointed positions. As Heritage legal analyst Elizabeth Slattery wrote yesterday: The Constitution divides the power of appointing judges (and certain other executive branch officials) between the President and the Senate. The President may have a right to nominate whomever he chooses, but the Senate need not rubber-stamp those nominations. Indeed, for those given lifetime appointments (such as federal judges), the need for careful consideration is essential. The proposed rules change would constrain Senators’ ability to deliberate on nominations through the vital debate function as long as one party retained a bare majority. President Obama is already far outpacing President George W. Bush in judicial confirmations for his nominees during his second term. And as Slattery and Heritage’s Hans von Spakovsky have pointed out, the latest push is focused on packing a crucial circuit court that often serves as a stepping stone toward the Supreme Court. If longstanding Senate rules are broken and changed, the majority party—whichever it happens to be—would have unprecedented power. Right now, Harry Reid wants that power.

The Heritage Foundation | 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE | Washington, D.C. 20002 | (800) 546-2843

Obama Becoming a Punchline, but Obamacare Is No Joke

Obama Becoming a Punchline, but Obamacare Is No Joke 11/14/2013 “The Tonight Show” is a cultural bellwether, so when its studio audience roars its approval at Senator Ted Cruz’s (R-TX) quip that Obamacare is “the biggest job killer in this country,” you know something’s happening across our land. The truth is now gushing out on the President’s signature legislation, which has become a late-night punchline that not even reliably liberal “Saturday Night Live” or Jon Stewart can keep from satirizing. The fact that fewer than 27,000 people “selected” plans—but didn’t necessarily buy them—on HealthCare.gov in five and a half weeks tells a tale in itself. (We had a little fun with it here.) Conservatives who sought to defund this law can take pride in taking a stand that is looking better and better with each passing day—one that will not be forgotten. Progressives who shut down the government because they would not compromise are, on the other hand, looking over their shoulders and taking arrows, even from the left. This is why the President’s approval ratings are at an all-time low, according to an impartial Quinnipiac poll released this week. It said that only 36 percent approve of the President’s job on health care; 38 percent on foreign policy; 32 percent on the economy; and 35 percent on immigration. By a margin of 52 percent to 44 percent, Americans say their President is a dishonest man. Late-night comedians notwithstanding, Obamacare isn’t funny to the millions losing their insurance after being repeatedly reassured by the President that “if you like your present insurance you can keep it. Period.” For many of those losing their coverage, the options they have are anything but cheap. It is even less funny that this lie was essential to passage of the law. Obamacare squeezed through on the narrowest of margins—no Republican voted for it, and Senate rules had to be twisted—and the bill would have died had President Obama spoken the truth and said “millions will lose their insurance coverage.” It also isn’t funny to those who are seeing their premiums go up. According to Heritage researcher Drew Gonshorowski, premiums are going to increase for individuals buying insurance in the exchanges in at least 42 of 47 states. In fact, health care costs will rise across the board. As Bob Moffit, a Senior Fellow for Health Policy Studies at Heritage, has said, “No matter how you look at this, health care costs both for individuals and for the country as a whole are going to increase.” There are many reasons for this, as Moffit mentioned—namely, 18 new tax hikes, $1.8 trillion in new health care entitlement spending, and new benefit mandates. And the worst part, of course, is what Obamacare will do to our national psyche, how it will affect the relationship between government and the governed. None other than V.I. Lenin said that “medicine is the keystone of the arch of socialism.” Lenin founded a communist empire that lasted 70 years. Lenin also said “a lie told often enough becomes the truth.” In other words, Obamacare is an unmitigated disaster for our country. This is why it would have been better to defund it before it took the toll that it is already taking on so many American citizens. Onward, Ed Feulner Founder, The Heritage Foundation

The Heritage Foundation | 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE | Washington, D.C. 20002 | (800) 546-2843