Skip to content

Archives

Is the heritage foundation reliable


is the heritage foundation reliable

How reliable are government declarations that mask mandates prevent the spread of the coronavirus? Our recent experience has left us less. Heritage Found., List of Fraudulent Use of. Absentee Ballot Cases, mynewextsetup.us Heritage Foundation Criticism #1 Ignores New. Enrollment during the Open Enrollment Period and. Ignores That the Increase in Coverage.

Is the heritage foundation reliable -

Heritage Foundation

Causes: Citizen Participation, Public & Societal Benefit, Public Finance, Taxation & Monetary Policy

Mission: 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.

Programs: (see schedule o)educational programs:the heritage foundation ("thf or "the foundation") hosts events and sponsors programs to educate government officials, the academic community, journalists, and the general public on topics ranging from the founding fathers and civil society to political philosophy and legal principles. In , thf's lectures and seminars program produced public events attracting 11, attendees. Thf's resource bank conference draws over conservative policy experts, activists, congress members, and donors for three days of workshops and discussions. Thf's intern program provided young people an invaluable work-study experience in washington, dc. Thf's congressional programs hosted over 66 fellowship events in with participation from unique congressional offices. Participants included legislative staffers, communications directors, schedulers, and chiefs of staff. Additional information is available in our annual report, available online at https://www. Heritage. Org/article/the-heritage-foundations-financial-information

(see schedule o)public policy research:the heritage foundation produces hundreds of research papers annually, including issue briefs, blog posts, fact sheets, backgrounders, guides, and books addressing a broad range of economic, domestic, defense, foreign, and social policy issues. These publications analyze both current public policies and alternative policy recommendations for substance and merit. The results of our research are available in print format and at no charge through our website, which is visited by millions. Additional information is available in our annual report, available online at https://www. Heritage. Org/article/the-heritage-foundations-financial-information

(see schedule o)media and government relations:the heritage foundation distributes its research products to members of congress, congressional staff, policymakers in the executive branch of the federal government, state officials, journalists, members of the academic community, other non-profit organizations, the general public, and donors. The heritage foundation conducts hundreds of briefings for domestic and international officials, policymakers, experts, and lawmakers and their staff on issues ranging from federal spending and unfunded liabilities to homeland security, tax, and health policy. In , thf published issue briefs, 99 backgrounders, 27 legal memoranda, and 9 special reports. Thf delivered 31 congressional testimonies. Thf's analysts made over 4, radio and television appearances in , and earned roughly 1, op-ed placements in major print and online media outlets. Thf sent out a daily newsletter, "the morning bell," to over , subscribers, a newsletter, "the agenda" to over , subscribers, and published hundreds of articles through the foundation's digital news publications. Thf's social media platforms had 2. 7 million fans and followers and its websites heritage. Org and dailysignal. Com had 6 million total visitor sessions. Heritage and daily signal videos received million views. Additional information is available in our annual report, available online at https://www. Heritage. Org/article/the-heritage-foundations-financial-information

Community Stories

15 Stories from Volunteers, Donors & Supporters

11

dbravo General Member of the Public 10/04/

Rating: 1

10/04/

This is a wealthy organization founded by wealthy people who want to keep their wealth by influencing public opinion, votes and elected officials.

Share this review: Flag review

Review from Guidestar

7

stash General Member of the Public 04/23/

Rating: 4

04/23/

Dear Sirs’
In reply to your apparently well meaning survey.?
Probably you will just throw this in the trash as having come from a crank, however it did not. I am a proud 6th generation US Citizen .
My Great grandfather, Grandfather, Father and myself all stepped up and served this “God Blessed Country” in its time of need. We all thankfully, returned home weary but confidently, thankfully of having made our contribution to its sustainability; to live in freedom and rase families and abide by the laws of our country. We have all endeavored to obey the laws, make an honest living, rase god fearing honest families and advance the ideals of our fore fathers as outlined and clarified in Declaration of Independence and the resulting US Constitution.
Your questions posed to me on, what this president should or could do?; now that he has been elected to the highest office in the United Stases,— has left me in great turmoil. “President Trump", is not going to succeed of fail as a result on the opposition “Democrat” party but most assuredly “he may fail” as a result of his “ fellow Republicans”. “ So Sad “ With a few valiant exceptions; many of these self centered, egotistical, arrogant, representatives, of their constituent “legal citizens”, should be ashamed of every breath they take while taking up precious space in this countries Capital. Washington DC..
The only way this president will ultimately accomplish any of the goals he is attempting to achieve will be; if our Representatives and Senators will “work together” as a team” of winning , duly elected representatives of this glorious & free Democratic Republic. They must vote on and sign into law those enumerated promises & goals they have been elected on. “Obstructionist democrats” will not be their downfall, it will be their own “fellow” REPUBLICANS.
Wy wife and I have been waiting to visit Washington for many years hoping that a capable leader with a willing and capable congress would be in charge when we make our final visit to this great countries capital . At our age we will soon no longer physically able to make the visit on our own. Next week,we have decided to finally make that journey; but we are saddened that, the many promises of the last election will be for not. These seemingly feckless duly elected Republicans now in control of the House, Senate and finally the Presidency have no idea how unite as a team to win. Though he was possibly not the originator of the saying; Edmond Berk once is quoted as saying; “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.” This is apparently a path worn with pride in Washington DC. Again, so sad, These obstructionist members of the Republican party are driving the final nail in the eventual demise of the most successful form of government ever conceived by man. And they smile to the cameras.
Kind Regards, A S Giles [email protected]

Share this review: Flag review

I truly believe Heritage Foundation is sincerely, bible based with integrity and goals to achieve in getting news out to the people. However, I do have one complaint. I have and do donate from time to time. With that said, I recently received a token of appreciation from you which caused me some concern. I t was a beige fabric bag, with the American flag and of course, the Heritage Foundation proudly across the bottom of the bag. My suggestion to someone is that if you are going to send out a token of appreciation; you should make sure you consider it an item you would be proud to display your foundation name. Had my husband not disposed of the bag it was mailed in; I would have returned it to SENDER. The American flag was seriously faded and spotted and even distorted. The only thing clear on the bag was again, the foundation name at the bottom. If you can afford to spend money on "tokens of appreciation" that are bad quality, to the point that no one would really get any use out of it; because they would not be seen carrying itthen money is being wasted that could be used for the foundation work. I know you do good work; but wasting money is not good. If I receive any more "tokens" that are inferior and looks like a complete waste of money; I will assume you have more than enough money and may not need my future donations.

Share this review: Flag review

3

VARGREAT Donor 11/21/

Rating: 5

11/21/

I applaud the work of this organization in helping to fight the encroachment of government in our daily lives. Our founding fathers saw the danger of an overreaching government and fought the Revolutionary war to free ourselves from that. The Constitution and the Declaration of Independence were written to protect "we the people" from the government.

The free enterprise system will always be far more efficient in creating wealth and prosperity for all. Socialism only means that everybody gets to be equally poor. Ask the French who are about to go bankrupt because as Margaret Thatcher said:

"The problem with Socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money."

Share this review: Flag review

This is the "Big Daddy" of conservative movement think tanks. Hundreds of employees, reliably mainstream conservative on every issue. Its focus is on clear, concise research on critical issues for lawmakers and the public. If the Heritage Foundation did not exist, we would need to invent it. I visit its website often and so should everyone who wants to know the facts behind the big issues. Strongly recommend.

Share this review: Flag review

Review from Guidestar

14

mynewextsetup.us General Member of the Public 02/19/

Rating: 1

02/19/

The Heritage foundation refuses to acknowledge that we have asked them on at least 5 different occaisions to stop sending mail to my fathers address. he has given the way too much money over the last 2 years. HE CANT AFFORD IT!! but he is 85 years old and has no clue what he is doing. I guess the Heritage Foundation is afraid of losing this cash cow. Do the right thing and stop sending mail telling the eldeerly that they Need to give an Emergency Donation, this puts fear into them. This is just the same as any other scam out there, If you really do what you say then do what we ask and take elderly people off your mailing list before they cant afford to eat.

Share this review: Flag review

Review from CharityNavigator

The Heritage Foundation was NOT founded by the Koch brothers. A quick google search, which takes 10 seconds, clearly shows this to be misinformation. The Heritage Foundation was founded in by Paul Weyrich, Edwin Feulner and Joseph Coors. This Think Tank has been pivotal in educating people about the conservative values this country was founded on. Very professionally run charity with good accountability and transparency.

Share this review: Flag review

10

mynewextsetup.us General Member of the Public 12/26/

Rating: 1

12/26/

The Heritage Foundation is nothing more than propaganda machine founded by the Koch brothers to enrich themselves. It cherry picks phrases from the Constittution then ad libs them misleading it's audience with the intent of druming up support for politicians who will forever be in the pocket of the Koch brothers

Share this review: Flag review

Review from CharityNavigator

3

jsblas Donor 11/20/

Rating: 5

11/20/

Jamatucci1 this organization is attempting to RETURN this country to its roots and the ideals of our founding fathers. The "re-engineering" that is taking place is from pro-socialist, anti-capitalist, "entitlement" motivated, selfish individuals who ASK NOT "what they can do for their country" but rather "what their country can do for them". That quote is for the new self centered democrats who have forgotten what their party and leaders USED to be about. As far as the "intellectual" who gave us all a lesson on "evil" people and how they blame others - I'm curious if that applies to those who "blame Bush" for everything that's gone wrong in this country under the current leadership. Both of you should consider moving to a country where your ideals are already established - perhaps Russia, Greece, France or China. The governments there will "take care of you". Don't forget, when you give up the right to care for yourself (to a government), your giving up your liberty.

Share this review: Flag review

Review from CharityNavigator

Heritage Foundation is a wonderful organization. We have been donors for years. Their primary role is to educate people that we have a Constitutional Republic and should be governed accordingly. Also the need to stop the wasteful government spending of tax dollars

Share this review: Flag review

8

jamatucci1 General Member of the Public 08/07/

Rating: 1

08/07/

This organization is clearly focused on re-engineering America down a path that destroys the American Dream for nearly everyone.

Share this review: Flag review

I enjoy the daily Member Briefing online. This is a highly professional and educational organization. They are conservative and aligned with "the rule of law".

Share this review: Flag review

Review from CharityNavigator

The Heritage Foundation is an excellent, professionally-run organization. Pay no mind to the reviewer who says the foundation was started by the the Koch brothers (as though there would be something wrong with that anyway -- they made their money honestly, through the free market, not by ripping off the taxpayer). They've confused Heritage with another free market institute. The motive of the diatribe is obvious: They want to harm an organization that has been effective in slowing the growth of government. Greatnonprofits is worse than useless because they permit anybody to anonymously post whatever they want about an organization and won't even remove remove reviews once evidence is provided to them that they include false and defamatory information. Greatnonprofits thus hold lower standards that Wikipedia, if you can believe that.

Share this review: Flag review

6

Laporre General Member of the Public 03/27/

Rating: 1

03/27/

THe Koch Brothers founded the Heritage Foundation to further their cause to buy the opinion of the United States. These brothers are Evil incarnate. Evil people blame others for problems. Evil people do not do a personal inventory as to their own evil behavior - they are immune. Evil people plan evil on other less fortunate. This fits the modus operandi of the Koch family. I suggest you people out there pray for them.

Share this review: Flag review

This may be an "okay" organization, but in one way they are terrible. I have been trying to stop the automatic monthly withdrawals from my mother's checking account, since she died in I sent land mail in December , and again in mid-January after the January contribution was taken. I sent an email which they should have had on January 30, and finally after emailing back and forth, in the afternoon of February 3, they say they will stop future charges but that it is too close to mid-February to stop the February charge. If they had really read and processed their mail properly, these charges would already have been stopped.

Share this review: Flag review

Review from CharityNavigator

Источник: mynewextsetup.us

History around the web

    Today in History

  • LBJ creates Warren Commission

    One week after President Kennedy's assassination, President Lyndon B. Johnson establishes the Warren Commission to investigate the alleged assassin, Lee Harvey Oswald, his death, and any possible conspiracies.

    More »

  • Whitman Massacre in present-day Washington

    A band of Cayuse and Umatilla Indians massacre Dr. Marcus Whitman, his wife Narcissa, and eleven other missionaries near Fort Walla Walla in present-day Washington. Several causes include a Cholera outbreak, a local conflict between Catholic and Protestant missionaries, and a renegade Cayuse named Joe Lewis who sought to instigate a destabilizing crisis.

    More »

  • American novelist Louisa May Alcott is born in Germantown, Pennsylvania. Alcott, most famous for Little Women, was the daughter of noted transcendentalist Amos Bronson Alcott, who moved the family to rural Massachusetts to embrace the natural world. 

    More »

Источник: mynewextsetup.us

The Heritage Foundation is a conservative (c)(3)nonprofit think tank founded in and based in Washington, D.C.[1] In , The Atlantic described the organization as "the de facto policy arm of the congressional conservative caucus."[2]

The think tank is affiliated with but run independently from Heritage Action for America, a (c)(4) political advocacy group.

On October 14, , the foundation announced Kevin Roberts, then chief executive officer of the Texas Public Policy Foundation, would take over as president later in the year.[3]

Mission

As of May , the website for The Heritage Foundation listed the following mission statement for the organization:[4]

The mission of The Heritage Foundation 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.[5]

Background

The Heritage Foundation's initial funding came from political conservative Joseph Coors, co-owner of the Coors Brewing Company.[6] Funding from Coors was later augmented by financial support from billionaire Richard Mellon Scaife.[7] Conservative activist Paul Weyrich was its first president. He was followed as president in by Edwin Feulner Jr. Feulner co-founded the organization with Weyrich; both were previously congressional aides. Feulner had worked as the staff director of the House Republican Study Committee and as a staff assistant to U.S. Congressman Phil Crane.[8]

In , former Senator Jim DeMint took over as the organization's president. He was removed by the board of trustees on May 2, According to Politico, the decision was based on the board's disapproval of DeMint's decision to shift away from policy proposals toward more political action.[9] After DeMint's removal, Feulner became president again, until foundation board member Kay Coles James was selected in December to serve as the organization's next president. James officially became president on January 1, [10][11]

The think tank was founded to develop conservative policy proposals and submit them to legislators. According to The Atlantic, the organization occupied a place as one of the most influential conservative think tanks from its founding. The magazine wrote, "It came to occupy a place of special privilege—a quasi-official arm of GOP administrations and Congresses; a sponsor of scholarship and supplier of legislation; a policy base for the party when out of power. Heritage has shaped American public policy in major ways, from Reagan’s missile-defense initiative to Clinton’s welfare reform: Both originated as Heritage proposals."[2]

Work

As a (c)(3) research organization, The Heritage Foundation researches and publishes policy papers. According to Politico, the organization began working with what it called a briefcase test for all of its policy proposals: "[A]ll Heritage reports had to be able to fit into briefcases and be readable in less than an hour. The executive summaries of the reports were even designed to be digested by senators and representatives riding on the Capitol subway on the way to a vote."[12]

Mandate for Leadership

Heritage's book of policy analysis, Mandate for Leadership, proposed a set of detailed conservative policies for changing the federal government. The original proposal consisted of 20 volumes and 3, pages; it was later published in a condensed version that totaled more than 1, pages. The Mandate for Leadership offered specific recommendations on policy, budget and administrative action for all Cabinet departments, as well as agencies to be staffed by political appointees in the incoming conservative administration of President Ronald Reagan (R). Reagan gave a copy to each member of his Cabinet at their first meeting.[1] According to The Atlantic, 60 percent of the document's policy ideas were being implemented by the end of Reagan's first year in office. The Heritage Foundation followed the original document with six editions, released between and [2]

Contract with America,

In , Heritage advised Newt Gingrich and other conservatives on the development of the Contract with America, which was credited with helping to produce a Republican majority in Congress. The Contract was a pact of principles that directly challenged both the political status-quo in Washington and many of the ideas at the heart of the Clinton administration. As such, Heritage is often credited with supplying many of the ideas that ultimately proved influential in ending the Democrats' control of Congress in [1]

Policy Review

Until , The Heritage Foundation published Policy Review, a scholarly public policy journal, which was then acquired by the Hoover Institution.

mynewextsetup.us

Beginning in , The Heritage Foundation published mynewextsetup.us as a conservative web community. The site split with The Heritage Foundation in to focus more on news reporting from a conservative perspective.[13]

Index of Economic Freedom

In partnership with The Wall Street Journal, Heritage publishes the annual Index of Economic Freedom, which assesses the economics of countries around the world. The Index scores are based on Heritage's perspectives on a country's economic policies; they score each country based on 12 factors related to economics.[14]

Policy scope

Heritage Foundation lists their main issues on their website. The following is a list of some of those issues and an abbreviated summary of the foundation's position:

  • Agriculture: "Lawmakers should take a hard look at whether farm policies that were created to assist poor family farmers during the Great Depression make any sense in the current era of hugely profitable agribusinesses. They should enact policies that allow farmers to base their crop-planting decisions on market demand, not government subsidies and regulations."[15]
  • Budget and spending: "To restore fiscal health, the federal government should reduce taxes, cut wasteful spending, and reform the massive entitlements."[16]
  • Economy: "Free-market, pro-growth policies are critical to enable our economy to flourish."[17]
  • Education: "Effective education policy includes returning authority to the states and empowering parents with the opportunity to choose a safe and effective education for their children from among public, private, religious, charter, online and home school opportunities."[18]
  • Energy and environment: "Energy and environmental policy is a national priority. Lawmakers should implement a long-term plan that allows free markets to balance supply and demand, ensures reliable and competitively priced energy for the future, and creates incentives for responsible stewardship of the nation's resources and environment."[19]
  • Family and marriage: "The family, centered on marriage, is the basic unit of society. Healthy marriages and families are the foundation of thriving communities. When marriages break down, communities suffer and the role of government tends to expand. Sound public policy places marriage and the family at the center, respecting and guarding the role of this permanent institution."[20]
  • Healthcare: "America's health care financing and insurance systems need major reform. Policymakers should take decisive steps to move today's bureaucracy driven, heavily regulated third-party payment system to a new patient-centered system of consumer choice and real free-market competition. In such a system, individuals and families would make the key decisions and control the flow of dollars."[21]
  • Immigration: "The United States was established on principles that support the welcoming of new residents to our shores to learn and embrace American civic culture and political institutions through the processes of immigration and naturalization. Over the past several decades, however, immigration policy has become skewed, falsely presented as an uncompromising decision between unfettered immigration and none at all."[22]
  • Taxes: "America’s tax code needs reform. It discourages working, saving, investment, and entrepreneurship. It hinders productivity, job growth, international competitiveness, and wage increases. The New Flat Tax, The Heritage Foundation’s tax reform plan, would fix these flaws. Families and businesses would pay a one simple tax with a single tax rate under the plan."[23]
  • Homeland security: "Americans must recommit themselves to living the principles that made this nation safe, free, and prosperous while defending them against attack. The only way to reduce America's vulnerability is to provide persistent, sensible homeland security."[24]

Leadership

On January 1, , Heritage Foundation trustee Kay Coles James became the organization's sixth president.[10][11] On October 14, , the foundation announced Kevin Roberts would take over as president later in the year.[3]

As of October , the official website of the Heritage Foundation listed the following individuals as members of the organization's board of trustees:[25]

  • Barb Van Andel-Gaby, Chairwoman
  • Michael W. Gleba, Vice Chairman
  • Kay Coles James
  • Larry P. Arnn
  • Edwin J. Feulner
  • Steve Forbes
  • Robert P. George
  • Ryan Haggerty
  • Price Harding
  • Virginia Heckman
  • Jerry Hume
  • Mark A. Kolokotrones
  • Edwin Meese III
  • Rebekah Mercer
  • The Hon. J. William Middendorf II
  • Abby Spencer Moffat
  • Nersi Nazari
  • Robert Pennington
  • Anthony J. Saliba
  • Thomas A. Saunders III
  • Brian Tracy

Finances

The following is a breakdown of The Heritage Foundation's revenues and expenses as submitted to the IRS for the to fiscal years:

Annual revenue and expenses for The Heritage Foundation, –
Tax YearTotal RevenueTotal Expenses
[26]$92,,$80,,
[27]$96,,$82,,
[28]$,,$80,,

Tax status

The Heritage Foundation is a (c)(3) tax-exempt nonprofit organization. Its (c) designation refers to a section of the U.S. federal income tax code concerning charitable, religious, and educational organizations.[29] Section (c) of the U.S. tax code has 29 sections that list specific conditions particular organizations must meet in order to be considered tax-exempt under the section. Organizations that have been granted (c)(3) status by the Internal Revenue Service are exempt from federal income tax.[30] This exemption requires that any political activity by the charitable organization be nonpartisan in nature.[31]

Affiliated programs

The Heritage Foundation is affiliated with the (c)(4) advocacy group Heritage Action for America. The two are run independently but share a board of trustees.

Noteworthy events

Barred from Republican Study Committee meetings,

In August it was announced that the Republican Study Committee (RSC), a group of conservative House members, barred Heritage Foundation and Heritage Action employees from attending its weekly meeting in the Capitol. According to the National Journal, the RSC and Heritage initially split over disagreements regarding a July vote on the farm bill.[32]

Jim DeMint firing

On May 2, , the board of trustees voted unanimously to remove former Sen. Jim DeMint as president of The Heritage Foundation. According to Politico, the decision was based on the board's disapproval of DeMint's decision to shift away from policy proposals toward more political action.[9]

Recent news

The link below is to the most recent stories in a Google news search for the terms Heritage&#;Foundation. These results are automatically generated from Google. Ballotpedia does not curate or endorse these articles.

See also

External links


  1. The Heritage Foundation, "35 years of history," archived April 2,
  2. The Atlantic, "The Fall of the Heritage Foundation and the Death of Republican Ideas," September 25,
  3. The Hill, "Heritage Foundation names new president," October 14,
  4. The Heritage Foundation, "About Heritage," accessed May 3,
  5. Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
  6. The Heritage Foundation, "The Legacy of Joseph Coors," accessed May 3,
  7. The Washington Post, "Scaife: Funding Father of the Right," May 2,
  8. The New York Times, "Paul Weyrich, 66, a Conservative Strategist, Dies," December 18,
  9. Politico, "The real reason Jim DeMint got the boot," May 2,
  10. Heritage Foundation, "Heritage's New President," December 19,
  11. Politico, "Heritage Foundation taps Kay Coles James to be next president," December 19,
  12. Politico, "How to Make the Heritage Foundation Great Again," May 3,
  13. Townhall, "About Us," accessed May 3,
  14. The Heritage Foundation, "About The Index," accessed May 3,
  15. Heritage mynewextsetup.us, "Agriculture," accessed December 4,
  16. Heritage Foundation, "Budget," accessed December 4,
  17. Heritage Foundation, "Economy," accessed December 4,
  18. Heritage Foundation, "Education," accessed December 4,
  19. Heritage Foundation, "Energy and Environment," accessed December 4,
  20. Heritage Foundation, "Family," accessed December 4,
  21. Heritage Foundation, "Healthcare," accessed December 4,
  22. Heritage Foundation, "Immigration," accessed December 4,
  23. Heritage Foundation, "Taxes," accessed December 4,
  24. Heritage Foundation, "Homeland Security," accessed December 4,
  25. The Heritage Foundation, "Board of Trustees," accessed October 14,
  26. Guidestar, "The Heritage Foundation IRS Form ()," accessed May 3,
  27. Guidestar, "The Heritage Foundation IRS Form ()," accessed May 3,
  28. Guidestar, "The Heritage Foundation IRS Form ()," accessed May 3,
  29. Internal Revenue Service, "Exempt Purposes - Internal Revenue Code Section (c)(3)," accessed January 13,
  30. Internal Revenue Service, "Life Cycle of a Public Charity/Private Foundation," accessed July 10,
  31. Internal Revenue Service, "Exemption Requirements - (c)(3) Organizations," accessed January 13,
  32. National Journal, "Republican Lawmakers Retaliate Against Heritage Foundation," accessed August 30,
Источник: mynewextsetup.us

Under George W. Bush, Heritage’s influence began to wane. Unlike his father, the younger Bush favored the neoconservative ideas of the Project for the New American Century and the American Enterprise Institute. Although a few ex-Heritage staffers went to work for Bush—most notably incoming Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao—the foundation excoriated some Bush policies as insufficiently conservative. Tom DeLay famously banned Heritage from reserving rooms in the Capitol, for example, after it opposed Bush’s expansion of Medicare.

With the election of Barack Obama, however, Heritage came roaring back. It sprang into action as a prominent supporter of the Tea Party, paying for demonstrations and staging town hall outbursts that fostered an intense anti-Obama mood among Republicans. In it created Heritage Action, a nonprofit entity that could engage in more explicit political work, and in it hired DeMint, the fierce Tea Party congressman from South Carolina, as the foundation’s president. The operation became so pro–Tea Party, in fact, that many establishment Republicans began to complain about its lack of loyalty to the conservative orthodoxy. “They’re destroying the reputation and credibility of the Heritage Foundation,” declared Mickey Edwards, a former congressman who served as a founding trustee of the think tank. Senator Orrin Hatch went even further. “Right now, I think it’s in danger of losing its clout and its power,” he toldMeet the Press. “There’s a real question in the minds of many Republicans now: Is Heritage going to go so political that it really doesn’t amount to anything any more?”

As it turns out, such conflicts with the GOP establishment helped position Heritage to serve as a much-needed bridge between Trump and conservatives. Although the group initially opposed Trump, DeMint quietly reached out to the candidate last year, offering his group’s assistance. Last spring, the foundation aided Trump with his list of potential Supreme Court nominees that helped him dampen conservative dissent and begin the long process of winning over Republicans of all stripes. Another major turning point came in July, when Trump picked Pence, a longtime friend of Heritage and DeMint, to be his running mate. “The campaign and the transition knows that many of these issues that Donald Trump ran on—repealing Obamacare, securing the borders and preventing amnesty, and draining the swamp—those are things Heritage has been building support for for years,” DeMint said in December.

Now, two decades after it fell from conservative grace, Heritage has regained its standing in the White House. Over the next four years, the think tank will play a key role in steering domestic policy, particularly in government departments where Trump plans to give “long leashes” to his secretaries—some of whom, like education nominee Betsy DeVos, have contributed millions of dollars to the Heritage Foundation. In pushing for government deregulation and lower taxes for the rich, the think tank will be wielding its newfound influence on behalf of its donors, who rank among America’s wealthiest citizens. “Victory goes to those who are prepared,” DeMint boasted in December. “Heritage is not looking for attention or credit, but what we do want to do—on behalf of our supporters—is reinvigorate our country with good policy ideas. It turned out to be a very good match with what Donald Trump wanted to do.”

Источник: mynewextsetup.us

Counting of and Challenging Electors

Statement from The Heritage Foundation:

WASHINGTON — Heritage Foundation President Kay C. James made the following statement about the upcoming action in Congress about the presidential election results.

As prescribed by the Constitution, Congress will meet this week to count the electoral votes and declare the results of the presidential election. This process allows members of the Senate and House of Representatives to affirm or object to the electoral vote returns of individual states.
We must allow this process to play out in accordance with the Constitution. I welcome any effort to examine the facts and to shine a bright light of transparency on the electoral process.
The American people deserve election results they can trust. That only works when America has a secure, transparent, and peaceful vote-counting process. Every legal vote must count and every elected official has the duty to uphold the rule of law and the Constitution. The functioning of our republic depends on accurate and reliable election results.
Soon this Electoral College process will be complete. It’s a system that has served our country well for more than years. Only after Congress has acted and all objections are heard will America have a new president. Regardless of the outcome, The Heritage Foundation stands ready to work on behalf of the American people to advance conservative policies.


To help guide Grassroots Activists throughout the country on what to expect this week, please see the below Fact Sheet outlining the process and procedures:

Who participates in the electoral college process?

United States law directs the electors appointed by the states to meet on the first Monday after the second Wednesday of December in a presidential election year. The place of their meeting is designated by state legislatures, and the electors cast their votes for president and vice president. The votes are placed on certified lists and transmitted to the U.S. Senate.

The Constitution of the United States directs the House of Representatives and the Senate to meet in a joint session to receive and count the certificates of election as certified by the states. A majority of electors’ votes has to be received by a candidate for president and a candidate for vice president in order for them to take office. In the case of no person receiving a majority of electors’ votes, the House is directed to choose the president, and the Senate is directed to choose the vice president. Thomas Jefferson and John Quincy Adams were elected president in this manner.

When does the joint session meet?

U.S. law directs the House of Representatives and the Senate to meet in a joint session to count the electoral votes at PM on January 6, unless there is an alternative date established by law. The joint session is presided over by the vice president of the United States, who is the president of the Senate.

What happens during the joint session?

U.S. law prescribes the process of the joint session; however, by tradition, the House of Representatives and the Senate agree to a set of procedures for the joint session. The electoral votes are counted by tellers who have been picked by the presiding officers of each house of Congress: the speaker of the House and the president of the Senate. The roll call of the states follows alphabetical order, and the electors and any materials related to the election are presented to the joint session. In the case of a state sending more than one slate of electors, all the sets of electors and any materials from the state are presented to the joint session. The House of Representatives and the Senate then decide which slate of electors is valid, and the tellers count those electors.

Are members of Congress allowed to object to the electors?

Members of Congress are constitutionally allowed to object provided the objection is made in writing, is directed at a particular electoral vote or set of electoral votes, and is signed by at least one House member and one senator. Once a proper objection is made, the two houses of Congress divide and consider the objection. Debate is allowed in each house followed by a vote in each house as to whether the objection should be accepted or rejected. If either house rejects the objection, the presiding officer, generally the president of the Senate, directs the tellers to record the electoral votes as submitted by the state.

How does the process conclude?

The vice president of the United States, in their role as president of the Senate and as presiding officer of the joint session, directs the tellers to count the votes of each state and announce them, hears objections from members of the House and Senate, and ensures that members of the public present do not interfere with the counting of votes. Once the tellers have completed the roll of the states and the votes of each state, the vice president announces the total number of votes for each candidate for president and vice president and reports to the joint session which presidential candidate and which vice presidential candidate has won the election.

If you would like to watch the process, here is the link for the joint session of Congress which met on January 6, to certify the election of Donald Trump and Mike Pence.

Источник: mynewextsetup.us

Dubious Heritage study pits right against itself

The Washington Examiner's Philip Klein, a prominent conservative writer, noted yesterday that the Heritage Foundation's study on the costs of immigration reform has already started a "war among conservatives."

That's largely true. None other than Jennifer Rubin reported yesterday:

In what was almost certainly an unprecedented press call, top fiscal conservatives from Americans for Tax Reform, the Cato Institute, the Kemp Foundation and the American Action Network took what had once been the premier conservative think tank, the Heritage Foundation, to the woodshed for its immigration report that sees trillions in cost and no benefits from immigration reform. []These are longtime allies of Heritage and promoters of free market capitalism who are witnessing the intellectual bastardization of a once great institution to adopt a cause that is inherently unconservative, namely opposition to immigration Fiscal, pro-growth conservatives are concerned (as they should be) that the movement may turn reactionary, rejecting not just dynamic scoring but faith in a dynamic economy and society.

There are several important angles to this, aside from the obvious significance of conservatives fighting amongst themselves on one of the most important policy debates in the country today.

Note, for example, that for much of the conservative/Republican establishment, support for comprehensive immigration reform has clearly taken root, so much so that when Heritage goes on the offensive, old alliances are thrown out the window and the pushback is candid and unrelenting. Leaders from the party and the conservative movement have clearly decided that immigration is an issue that must be dealt with -- now -- and it's time for the base to get in line.

Also keep in mind, this isn't just about immigration policy itself. There's also the issue of "dynamic scoring" -- determining the cost of a policy by factoring in the expected growth impact -- which Heritage strongly supports, but ignored as part of its condemnation of the reform plan. Americans for Tax Reform's Josh Culling told Rubin, "It's a concern. Heritage ceded the superiority of dynamic scoring. CBO is basically to the right of Heritage. It is a worry."

And finally, I can't help but find it amusing to hear conservatives throughout the Beltway say simultaneously, "Wait, you mean Heritage is filled with hacks who do shoddy policy work to achieve ideological ends?"


I'm afraid so. An objective look at the "study" Heritage produced yesterday reveals it to be a lazy and incomplete scholarship. It is a political document, intended to provide cover to partisans who hope to defeat immigration reform because they hate immigration reform, not a research document, intended to provide accurate information to shape the debate in a constructive way.

In other words, the Heritage Foundation, as expected, has completed its transition from a conservative think tank to a far-right activist group.

It led Matt Yglesias to emphasize "an under-appreciated point."

[E]ven ideological movement-oriented think tanks do their movements a disservice when they do bad work. As Republican members of Congress ponder what to do about immigration, possessing accurate credible information about the fiscal impact would be very useful to them. You actually want to have a team of people "on your side" who you can trust to do good work. Heritage is not that team.

As the intellectual infrastructure of the conservative movement deteriorates, I'm not altogether sure that team exists anywhere. Indeed, for much of the right, anti-empiricism rules the day and reliable scholarship itself is seen as a dubious pursuit.

Still, for GOP policymakers who do want credible, trustworthy information to bolster their policy agenda, it's getting tougher to find quality materials. It reinforces the "wonk gap" between the left and right that we talk about from time to time.

Источник: mynewextsetup.us?featureFlag=false
Skip to Main Content
It looks like you&#;re using Internet Explorer 11 or older. This website works best with modern browsers such as the latest versions of Chrome, Firefox, Safari, and Edge. If you continue with this browser, you may see unexpected results.
Banner

Conservative Web Sites

  • Town Hall
    "mynewextsetup.us is the #1 conservative website. mynewextsetup.us pulls together political commentary and analysis from over leading columnists and opinion leaders, research from partner organizations, conservative talk-radio and a community of millions of grassroots conservatives.

    mynewextsetup.us is designed to amplify those conservative voices in America’s political mynewextsetup.us was launched in as the first conservative web community. At that time, only a handful of political sites existed and mynewextsetup.us was the first major investment in online activism made by either side. In , mynewextsetup.us split off from The Heritage Foundation in order to expand the scope of mynewextsetup.us's mission to inform, empower and mobilize citizens for political change. In , mynewextsetup.us was acquired by Salem Communications.."
  • Michelle Malkin
    "Michelle Malkin is a conservative blogger, syndicated columnist, Fox News Channel contributor, and author of Culture of Corruption.
    Michelle Malkin started her journalism career at the Los Angeles Daily News in and moved to the Seattle Times in Her popular newspaper column has been syndicated nationally by Creators Syndicate since

    Malkin publishes her widely read conservative blog -- mynewextsetup.us (her personal site) -- and founded mynewextsetup.us, a leading news and opinion group blog on the right.

    Michelle Malkinhas worked as a Fox News Channel contributor since , where she appears frequently on "The Sean Hannity Show," "Fox & Friends" and other programs. "
  • The Weekly Standard
    From C/Net: "Unlike National Review, which reports on the news, The Weekly Standard's writers opine on the political events from the week and the site is populated with columns written specifically for the print version of the magazine. Because of that, it doesn't offer much unique online content. Regardless, it's still a popular destination for those who don't want to spend money on the subscription."
  • National Review
    According to mynewextsetup.us " National Review (NR) is a semi-monthly magazine founded by author William F. Buckley, Jr. in Although the print version of the magazine is available online to subscribers, the free content on the website is essentially a separate publication under different editorial direction. The online version, National Review Online, describes itself as “America’s most widely read and influential magazine and web site for conservative news, commentary, and opinion.” Has a right wing bias in reporting, but is well sourced and mostly factual with news. (7/19/)"
  • The Drudge Report
    Wikipedia says that "The Drudge Report is a politically conservative American news aggregation website. Run by Matt Drudge with the help of Charles Hurt, the site consists mainly of links to news stories from other outlets about politics, entertainment, and current events; it also has links to many columnists. "
  • mynewextsetup.us
    "mynewextsetup.us is the #1 conservative website. mynewextsetup.us pulls together political commentary and analysis from over leading columnists and opinion leaders, research from partner organizations, conservative talk-radio and a community of millions of grassroots conservatives.

    mynewextsetup.us is designed to amplify those conservative voices in America’s political mynewextsetup.us was launched in as the first conservative web community. At that time, only a handful of political sites existed and mynewextsetup.us was the first major investment in online activism made by either side. In , mynewextsetup.us split off from The Heritage Foundation in order to expand the scope of mynewextsetup.us's mission to inform, empower and mobilize citizens for political change. In , mynewextsetup.us was acquired by Salem Communications.."
  • Breitbart News
    Wikipedia says "
    "Breitbart News Network (known commonly as Breitbart News, Breitbart or mynewextsetup.us) is a far-right[6] American news, opinion and commentary[7][8] website founded in by conservative commentator Andrew mynewextsetup.us February , Bannon announced the addition of approximately 12 staff members and the opening of Texas and London-based operations. The new offices were the beginning of an expansion plan that included the addition of a new regional site roughly every 90 days, with new locations to include Florida, California, Cairo, and Jerusalem.[38] According to a Pew Research Center study, 3% of respondents got their news from Breitbart in a typical week, and 79% of its audience report having political values that are right-of-center.[39]"
Источник: mynewextsetup.us?g=&p=
is the heritage foundation reliable

History around the web

    Today in History

  • LBJ creates Warren Commission

    One week after President Kennedy's assassination, President Lyndon B. Johnson establishes the Warren Commission to investigate the alleged assassin, Lee Harvey Oswald, his death, and any possible conspiracies.

    More »

  • Whitman Massacre in present-day Washington

    A band of Cayuse and Umatilla Indians massacre Dr. Marcus Whitman, his wife Narcissa, and eleven other missionaries near Fort Walla Walla in present-day Washington. Several causes include a Cholera outbreak, a local conflict between Catholic and Protestant missionaries, and a renegade Cayuse named Joe Lewis who sought to instigate a destabilizing crisis.

    More »

  • American novelist Louisa May Alcott is born in Germantown, Pennsylvania. Alcott, most famous for Little Women, was the daughter of noted transcendentalist Amos Bronson Alcott, who moved the family to rural Massachusetts to embrace the natural world. 

    More »

Источник: mynewextsetup.us

Counting of and Challenging Electors

Statement from The Heritage Foundation:

WASHINGTON — Heritage Foundation President Kay C. James made the following statement about the upcoming action in Congress about the presidential election results.

As prescribed by the Constitution, Congress will meet this week to count the electoral votes and declare the results of the presidential election. This process allows members of the Senate and House of Representatives to affirm or object to the electoral vote returns of individual states.
We must allow this process to play out in accordance with the Constitution. I welcome any effort to examine the facts and to shine a bright light of transparency on the electoral process.
The American people deserve election results they can trust. That only works when America has a secure, transparent, and peaceful vote-counting process. Every legal vote must count and every elected official has the duty to uphold the rule of law and the Constitution. The functioning of our republic depends on accurate and reliable election results.
Soon this Electoral College process will be complete. It’s a system that has served our country well for more than years. Only after Congress has acted and all objections are heard will America have a new president. Regardless of the outcome, The Heritage Foundation stands ready to work on behalf of the American people to advance conservative policies.


To help guide Grassroots Activists throughout the country on what to expect this week, please see the below Fact Sheet outlining the process and procedures:

Who participates in the electoral college process?

United States law directs the electors appointed by the states to meet on the first Monday after the second Wednesday of December in a presidential election year. The place of their meeting is designated by state legislatures, and the electors cast their votes for president and vice president. The votes are placed on certified lists and transmitted to the U.S. Senate.

The Constitution of the United States directs the House of Representatives and the Senate to meet in a joint session to receive and count the certificates of election as certified by the states. A majority of electors’ votes has to be received by a candidate for president and a candidate for vice president in order for them to take office. In the case of no person receiving a majority of electors’ votes, the House is directed to choose the president, and the Senate is directed to choose the vice president. Thomas Jefferson and John Quincy Adams were elected president in this manner.

When does the joint session meet?

U.S. law directs the House of Representatives and the Senate to meet in a joint session to count the electoral votes at PM on January 6, unless there is an alternative date established by law. The joint session is presided over by the vice president of the United States, who is the president of the Senate.

What happens during the joint session?

U.S. law prescribes the process of the joint session; however, by tradition, the House of Representatives and the Senate agree to a set of procedures for the joint session. The electoral votes are counted by tellers who have been picked by the presiding officers of each house of Congress: the speaker of the House and the president of the Senate. The roll call of the states follows alphabetical order, and the electors and any materials related to the election are presented to the joint session. In the case of a state sending more than one slate of electors, all the sets of electors and any materials from the state are presented to the joint session. The House of Representatives and the Senate then decide which slate of electors is valid, and the tellers count those electors.

Are members of Congress allowed to object to the electors?

Members of Congress are constitutionally allowed to object provided the objection is made in writing, is directed at a particular electoral vote or set of electoral votes, and is signed by at least one House member and one senator. Once a proper objection is made, the two houses of Congress divide and consider the objection. Debate is allowed in each house followed by a vote in each house as to whether the objection should be accepted or rejected. If either house rejects the objection, the presiding officer, generally the president of the Senate, directs the tellers to record the electoral votes as submitted by the state.

How does the process conclude?

The vice president of the United States, in their role as president of the Senate and as presiding officer of the joint session, directs the tellers to count the votes https www suntrust online banking each state and announce them, hears objections from members of the House and Senate, and ensures that members of the public present do not interfere with the counting of votes. Once the tellers have completed the roll of the states and the votes of each state, the vice president announces the total number of votes for each candidate for president and vice president and reports to the joint session which presidential candidate and which vice presidential candidate has won the election.

If you would like to watch the process, here is the link for the joint session of Congress which met on January 6, to certify the election of Donald Trump and Mike Pence.

Источник: mynewextsetup.us

Devaluing the Think Tank

Tevi Troy

One of the most peculiar, and least understood, features of the Washington policy process is the extraordinary dependence of policymakers on the work of think tanks. Most Americans — even most of those who follow politics closely — would probably struggle to name a think tank or to explain precisely what a think tank does. Yet over the past half-century, think tanks have come to play a central role in policy development — and even in the surrounding political combat.

Over that period, however, the balance between those two functions — policy development and political combat — has been steadily shifting. And with that shift, the work of Washington think tanks has undergone a transformation. Today, while most think tanks continue to serve as homes for some academic-style scholarship regarding public policy, many have also come to play more active (if informal) roles in politics. Some serve as governments-in-waiting for the party out of power, providing professional perches for former officials who hope to be back in office when popular community bank routing number florida party next takes control of the White House or Congress. Some serve as training grounds for young activists. Some serve as unofficial public-relations and rapid-response teams for one of the political parties — providing instant critiques of the opposition's ideas and public arguments in defense of favored policies.

Some new think tanks have even been created as direct responses to particular, narrow political exigencies. As each party has drawn lessons from various electoral failures over recent decades, their conclusions have frequently pointed to the need for new think tanks (often modeled on counterparts on the opposite side of the political aisle).

After Democrats lost the elections, for example, some liberal intellectuals and activists concluded that they were being outgunned in the arena of political communication, and created, among other institutions, the Center for American Progress — a think tank with a heavy emphasis on message development. And inafter Republicans lost amid deep concern about the financial crisis and the ensuing economic downturn, some conservatives concluded that they needed more creative economic thinking, and this yielded, among other projects, e21 — a right-of-center economic-policy think tank based in Washington and New York. This trend — which might be summed up as "lose an election, gain a think tank" — has not only increased the proliferation of such institutions, but has also tended to make their work all the more responsive to political needs and developments, for better and for worse.

Today, think tanks are highly influential in our politics; their research and scholars are heavily consulted and relied on by our elected leaders. And in a time of both allied first bank sb policy challenges and highly polarized political debates, there is f gallery by a train reason to expect that think tanks will grow only more important in Washington.

As they become more political, however, think tanks — especially the newer and more advocacy-oriented institutions founded in the past decade or so — risk becoming both more conventional and less valuable. At a moment when we have too much noise in politics and too few constructive ideas, these institutions may simply become part of the intellectual echo chamber of our politics, rather than providing alternative sources of policy analysis and intellectual innovation. Given these concerns, it is worth reflecting on the evolution of the Washington think tank and its consequences for the nation.

"SYSTEMATIC STUDY"

For many decades, the classic definition of think tanks as "universities without students" fit reasonably well. From their beginnings in the early 20th century well into the post-war period, Washington think tanks tended to be research centers modeled on academic institutions and devoted to addressing technical questions relevant to government policy.

The Brookings Institution, founded in as the Institute for Government Research, is generally considered the original Washington think tank. Its founder, businessman and philanthropist Robert Brookings, defined the new entity (in the words of the institution's official history) as "the first private organization devoted to the fact-based study of national public policy." Brookings grew out of the reformist sentiment of the Progressive era, and was dedicated to finding government efficiencies and pursuing budgetary reform. According to James A. Smith's The Idea Brokers, Brookings was one of a number of institutions propelled by the metaphor of social afflictions as maladies and public-policy experts as the physicians who could heal the patient. Brookings scholars were generally academics on loan; in its early years, in fact, the institution actually served as a kind of university with students, operating a graduate school in Washington that granted a small number of degrees.

Brookings was also, for the most part, a bipartisan institution. In the s, for instance, a number of its scholars conducted a study on the causes of the Great Depression that helped President Franklin Roosevelt's administration design its early economic agenda. And yet the institution's president — former University of Chicago economist Harold Moulton — and several other Brookings scholars were among the leading opponents of the New Deal, arguing that it would hamper economic recovery.

Other early think tanks followed a similar model. For instance, the Hoover Institution (originally called the Hoover War Collection) was established on Stanford's campus in with the purpose of "constantly and dynamically point[ing] the road to peace, to personal freedom, and to the safeguards of the American system." And the Council on Foreign Relations was founded in New York in as "a program of systematic study by groups of knowledgeable specialists of differing ideological inclinations," intended to help "guide the statecraft of policymakers," as Peter Grose put it in Continuing the Inquiry, a history of the CFR.

By the late s, critics had begun to argue that some of these institutions — while formally non-partisan and largely academic — represented a left-leaning intellectual consensus and required some counterbalance. Ina group of New York businessmen and pro-market academics (like Harvard's Roscoe Pound) created the American Enterprise Association. The organization's purpose, as they put it, was to promote "greater public knowledge and understanding of the social and economic advantages accruing to the American people through the maintenance of the system of free, competitive enterprise." When, in the midst of the Second World War, officials in Washington (aided by some Brookings scholars) began openly discussing the possibility of retaining wartime price and production controls after the war in order to avoid another depression, the AEA's leaders decided they needed a Washington presence to make the case against such a turn to managed economics. They relocated the organization inand eventually renamed it the American Enterprise Institute.

In the decades following the war, these think tanks — joined by about 40 other institutions, such as the RAND Corporation (founded in ), the Aspen Institute (in ), and the Hudson Institute (in ) — played an increasingly significant role in the development of federal policy. Brookings was deeply involved in the design of what became the Marshall Plan for the post-war redevelopment of Western Europe. The Council on Foreign Relations was pivotal in shaping the policy of containment toward the Soviet Union. The AEA helped engineer the dismantling of wartime production and price controls. And other think tanks increasingly came to supply outside researchers and policy architects to federal officials often overwhelmed by the growing size and complexity of the government.

The development of these institutions was greatly helped along by the fact that they were, from the start, granted tax-exempt status, meaning that contributions to them were (and remain) exempted from the contributors' income-tax liabilities. Because think tanks are understood to offer important support to the process of making good public is the heritage foundation reliable, they have been included among the charitable and other public-service institutions exempted from the income tax since its creation in

But this tax-exempt status results in some important limits on what think tanks may do in the political arena. InSenator Lyndon Johnson offered an amendment to tax-reform legislation that restricted political activity by tax-exempt groups (under section (c)(3) of the tax code), and Congress has refined and clarified this provision over the years, usually with the intent of making the restrictions on political activity more difficult to circumvent. Thus, since the mids, think tanks have had to be careful not to cross the line from policy research into explicit political or partisan activity. They can be very actively involved in policy debates, but may not offer material support to specific parties 1st day of summer australia candidates for office.

Although they were becoming increasingly important in prominent policy discussions, think tanks in the s and '60s intentionally kept some distance between themselves and the most heated political debates of the era. They saw it as their role to inform but not quite to advocate — to help clarify policy alternatives, but generally not to choose among them. This may have been driven in part by their understandable desire to retain that all-important tax-exempt status. Still, most think tanks went well beyond the requirements of the tax code, having made a very deliberate decision to distance themselves from direct policy advocacy.

It was frustration with this studied aloofness that eventually ushered in the age of more activist think tanks, beginning especially on the right. In his book The Power of Ideas, Heritage Foundation fellow Lee Edwards describes a pivotal moment in this evolution when, inAEI produced a study of the benefits and drawbacks of the supersonic transport aircraft that Congress was considering funding for the Pentagon. The study was delivered to congressional offices a few days after the Senate had defeated funding for the project in a close vote. After receiving the apparently tardy report, Paul Weyrich — then an aide to Colorado Republican senator Gordon Allott — called AEI president William Baroody to ask why the helpful analysis could not have been available before the vote. Baroody's response, according to Edwards, was that AEI "didn't want to try to affect the outcome of the vote."

Baroody's answer shocked Weyrich and his fellow congressional staffer Ed Feulner, who wondered what the purpose of such research was if not to affect the outcome of exactly that sort of vote. Weyrich and Feulner hatched the notion of a new think tank that would see as its mission the development of serious policy research to advance a broadly conservative agenda. Encouraged by Nixon White House staffer Lyn Nofziger, they began the work that would, inresult in the creation of the Heritage Foundation.

RESEARCH IN ACTION

Heritage was a different breed of think tank, and augured the new direction in which such institutions were headed. A far cry from its union savings bank mt washington hands-off predecessors, Heritage tried explicitly to "formulate and promote conservative public policies," as the organization's mission statement put it. It sought not only to serve as a source of basic research and analysis but also to help drive the agenda on behalf of conservatives around the country. To that end, Heritage pursued direct-mail fundraising, a tactic more typical of political campaigns and mostly unheard of among think tanks at the time. It rightly considered itself as much an organ of the conservative movement as of the Washington intellectual world.

When Ronald Reagan won the presidency inHeritage spotted its chance to influence policy more directly, and worked to compile a comprehensive conservative policy agenda for the new administration. Titled Mandate for Leadership, the publication contained more than 2, specific policy recommendations, from ways to pursue a more assertive approach toward the Soviet Union to minute alterations of environmental regulations. By the end of Reagan's second term, more than 60% of these proposals had been adopted by the administration, including, most famously, Reagan's across-the-board tax cuts. As the Washington Post's David Von Drehle wrote, Mandate for Leadership "came to be known, hyperbolically, as ‘the bible of the Reagan Revolution.'&#;" InTime magazine described Heritage as "the foremost of the new breed of advocacy tanks."

But Heritage was hardly the only conservative think tank to blossom in those years. It is true that, over the past few decades, think tanks affiliated with the left and the right have tended to be most active and important when their parties have been out of power — as opposition makes for more intensity, and think tanks tend to be robbed of their best people by friendly presidential administrations. Even so, in the s — perhaps because the Reagan administration made a special effort to draw on the work of right-leaning think tanks — conservative research institutions prospered. Martin Anderson, a senior Reagan economic-policy advisor, recalled that Mikhail Gorbachev waved a Hoover Institution book, The United States in the s, in front of Reagan aides at preparatory talks for a summit. According to a New York Times report about the incident, Gorbachev cited the book as "the real blueprint for Reagan Administration policy." Meanwhile, inReagan himself said that "today the most important American scholarship comes out of our think tanks, and no think tank has been more influential than the American Enterprise Institute."

Reagan's reference to scholarship points to another potential explanation for the rise of the conservative think tanks in the s. By that decade, many conservative intellectuals had come to regard the academic world as stultifying and unwelcoming, as the politicization of many university campuses caused right-leaning professors to feel like pariahs. For the most part, think tanks allowed these scholars to flourish free from the strictures of both academic coursework and oppressive political orthodoxies. Anderson exemplified this shift, having left Columbia University for the Amazon customer service tel number White House and later the Hoover Institution. In the Reagan White House, he helped funnel think-tank ideas and personnel into the administration.

The practical success of the conservative think tanks in this period, coupled with Heritage's new and more activist approach — which, to varying degrees, was embraced by the other major think tanks on both sides of the aisle — ushered in the era of what political scientist Donald Abelson has called the "advocacy think tank." Since that time, new Washington-based think tanks have, for the most part, tended to be less scholarly, increasingly political, and more likely to be tied to the fortunes of a party (or a wing within a party).

Politicians on both sides of the aisle have found these advocacy-based successors to the original staid Washington think tanks increasingly useful. After Democratic losses in the presidential elections of and '84, for example, a group of moderate Democrats founded the Democratic Leadership Council — not a think tank but an advocacy organization, expressly designated as such under section (c)(4) of the tax code, meaning that donations to it were not tax exempt. The DLC was designed to pull the party in a more centrist direction; Bill Clinton was part of the organization from the beginning, and eventually became its chairman. Inthe DLC created the Progressive Policy Institute, a tax-exempt think tank, to generate ideas for DLC-affiliated politicians.

After Clinton's victory, PPI was just as hot as Heritage had been afterserving as the "president's brain shop of choice," according to the Washington Post. DLC and PPI staffers Al From, William Galston, Elaine Kamarck, and Bruce Reed all worked for Clinton in various posts. PPI ideas that became Clinton policies included AmeriCorps and Vice President Al Gore's efforts to "re-invent government" by modernizing the bureaucracy and making better use of technology. Perhaps more important, PPI gave Clinton crucial Democratic blessing to introduce work incentives into welfare, a policy that became an important component of the welfare-reform law Clinton signed in

While PPI was clearly an advocacy think tank, it differed from Heritage in a number of important ways. First, it explicitly grew out of an existing advocacy organization. Second, it was far smaller than Heritage and its other rivals on the right. Called the "Mighty Mouse" of the think-tank world by the Post's Von Drehle, PPI has typically had fewer than ten scholars, but those scholars were generally more prominent and more senior than the rank-and-file Heritage scholars. Third, PPI sought to take its party in a specific direction, while Heritage was trying to refine and market the conservatism that had become the prevailing Republican ideology. In this way, PPI — which is no longer linked to the recently shuttered DLC — was less of a Heritage clone and more of a precursor to other left-leaning "third way" think tanks, like the New America Foundation (founded in ) or the Bipartisan Policy Center (founded in ).

Right-leaning think tanks, too, have functioned as governments in exile. After Clinton's win informer Bush-administration officials created two new advocacy think tanks of their own: the Project for the Republican Future and Empower America. PRF, founded by William Kristol (who had previously been Vice President Dan Quayle's chief of staff), was intended to serve as a "strategic nerve center for a network of thinkers, activists, and organizations committed to a coherent agenda of conservative reform." The peoples bank ripley PRF's most prominent products were its "policy memos" (distributed by the then-cutting-edge technology of fax), some of which helped to inform and solidify Republican opposition to Bill Clinton's health-care plan. Empower America — founded by former education secretary and drug czar Bill Bennett, former Republican congressman Jack Kemp, and former U.N. ambassador Jeanne Kirkpatrick — brought together three of the era's top conservative brand names in an effort to "[bridge] the gap between the array of think tanks that produce white papers on the public-policy debate and the actual enactment of policy." Both organizations were based on the advocacy model, although PRF's mission was closer to PPI's in that both organizations sought to create a new way of thinking within their aligned parties. Empower America, meanwhile, was closer to Heritage in its focus on not just policy development but also message distribution. Neither organization exists in its original incarnation today, as PRF closed its doors in (when Kristol and others left to start the Weekly Standard magazine), and Empower America merged with Citizens for a Sound Economy to become FreedomWorks in

Thus, by the late s, think tanks had evolved significantly from their origins as "universities without students." No longer confined to the neutral role of developing non-partisan policies, these institutions were active in the formulation and advancement of political arguments — a trend that, over the past decade, has only accelerated.

DO TANKS

By earlywith Republicans in control of the White House and Congress, Democrats started contemplating their next move in the think-tank arms race. Ken Baer, a former speechwriter for Vice President Gore (and now communications director at the Office of Management and Budget in the Obama White House), warned in Slate of an intellectual missile gap between the parties. Democrats, he noted, needed to find professional homes for talented policy experts — including Baer himself — who were leaving the Clinton administration. According to Baer, the left had "failed to develop any sort of farm system for its displaced wonks," while the right devoted almost "limitless policymaking resources to its unemployed policy wonks." Part of the reason for this disparity, Baer explained, was that Democratic policy intellectuals and experts had traditionally found homes in academia. Republican policy experts, by contrast, needed to find Washington-based perches because they did not feel is the heritage foundation reliable — and often were not welcome — on university campuses.

Inthough, Democrats were being squeezed from three directions at once. First, Baer argued, they held none of the levers of power in Washington. Second, academia was no longer a comfortable place for policy-minded individuals. Because of the extreme specialization of the professoriate and the narrowing of academic research, Baer contended, the "academy has moved to the margins of public life." And third, Democrats could not compete with the plethora of conservative think tanks, since, Baer found, "AEI alone has more researchers and policy experts on staff and in house than PPI, the Economic Policy Institute, and the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities combined." For these reasons, if Democrats bolstered their existing organizations or launched new think tanks, they would be able to "count on a willing and able talent pool." Otherwise, Baer natural home remedies for gout attack, the ex-Clinton "wonks [would] move on if not tapped soon," finding lucrative jobs in the corporate sector; the left, he feared, would thus lose valuable experts who would be essential to future policy debates.

Baer's concerns were clearly shared by others on the left, and they led to efforts dominion power charlottesville phone number, inresulted in the founding of the Center for American Progress. CAP was the next step in the evolution of think tanks into political players. The organization was (and is) explicitly and proudly political, to a degree unmatched by prior think tanks. As CAP's former vice president for communications, Jennifer Palmieri — a veteran Democratic campaign operative — said in a Bloomberg article about the organization in"Others strive to be objective, we don't." The purpose of CAP was not to generate new ideas so much as to defend Democratic political positions and promote Democratic policies like universal health care and "green jobs."

CAP's affiliated advocacy organization — the Center for American Progress Action Fund, a (c)(4) group — even has a "news service" that sends staffers out to report news from CAP's perspective. CAPAF has had some success breaking stories — typically stories damaging to Republicans, such as Scott Keyes's report in early that GOP presidential candidate Herman Cain said he would never select a Muslim for his cabinet. Politico's Ben Smith and Kenneth Vogel described this person enterprise as an "in-house full-fledged, ideologically driven news organization aimed in part at tripping up Republican candidates on the ground in the early presidential contests." According to Palmieri, who also served as president of CAPAF, "We see ourselves as a content provider." The top bloggers at the Action Fund's ThinkProgress website, such as Matthew Yglesias and Joseph Romm, are also fellows at CAP; mynewextsetup.us's editor in chief, Faiz Shakir, is is the heritage foundation reliable CAP vice president. As Shakir put it, "The newsroom side is absolutely competing with all the leading news organizations." CAP's media project is breaking new ground in terms of what think tanks do; as Smith and Vogel noted, "the Center for American Progress newsroom has no parallel on the national stage."

Like Heritage and PPI before it, CAP has benefited from its close ties to a presidential administration: CAP's founding president was former Clinton White House chief of staff John Podesta, who also served as co-chairman of the Obama transition team. From that position, Podesta — who stepped down from the presidency of CAP this fall — helped usher so many of his former employees into the new administration that Washington Examiner columnist Tim Carney joked that Van Jones's reported move from the White House Council on Environmental Quality to CAP counted as a "transfer." Jones was only one of a host of individuals who worked for both Obama and CAP. Podesta's successor as CAP's president, Neera Tanden, was the domestic policy director of Obama's presidential campaign, and then worked in the Office of Health Reform in Obama's department of Health and Human Services. Carol Browner, Obama's former top environmental and energy advisor, is a senior fellow at CAP. Melody Barnes, former executive vice president at CAP, was the senior domestic-policy advisor for the Obama campaign and is now head of Obama's Domestic Policy Council. And Palmieri, former vice president for communications at CAP, is now deputy communications director in the Obama White House.

The Center for American Progress is easily the most thoroughgoing example of what City College of New York professor Andrew Rich has called "marketing think tanks." For these institutions, the balance between original research and public relations is clearly tipped in the direction of the latter. As Rich puts it, these organizations often seem more interested in selling their product than in coming up with new ideas. CAP in particular seems to have turned marketing and organizing into an art form. According to a article by Bloomberg's Edwin Chen, CAP devoted about 40% of its resources to communication and outreach that year, eight times as much as typical liberal policy organizations did. At the time, CAP had a budget of $27 million and claimed staffers, employing about as many full-time bloggers (11) as PPI did scholars. CAP has even been involved in the Occupy Wall Street protests: According to the New York Times, CAP "encouraged and sought to help coordinate protests in different cities"; a spokesman for the center told the Times that "we've definitely been publicizing it and supporting" the movement.

While CAP is the most far-reaching example, the "do tank" model is by no means limited to the left. Republican losses in andcoupled with CAP's success, have led conservatives to pursue their own more activist think tanks. Is the heritage foundation reliable aide to former president George W. Bush and to Senator John McCain's presidential campaign, Douglas Holtz-Eakin, recently started the American Action Forum, the very name of which reflects its activist inclinations. According to Congressional Quarterly, Holtz-Eakin felt that existing operations such as AEI and Heritage were "&#;‘not helpful' during the McCain campaign because they weren't politically engaged or innovative in their media strategies." His new organization hopes to change that dynamic and, as the group's mission statement puts it, "use the modern tools of communications to deploy ideas; engage Americans in the debate over the boundaries of government policy, personal freedoms, and market incentives; and educate and challenge the media to explore these issues and shape the next generation of political leaders." (For the sake of full disclosure, it should be noted that I have lent my name to AAF as an affiliated expert, though I am not paid or supervised by the group in any way.)

These new institutions bear far less resemblance to universities than did the traditional think tanks, and have even drifted from the model of the more advocacy-oriented think tanks of the s, '80s, and '90s. These differences among think tanks are evident, for instance, in the proportion of scholars at different institutions who hold Ph.D. degrees. A review of publicly available data about the educational backgrounds of think-tank scholars (conducted with the aid of Hudson Institute researcher Peter Grabowski) suggests that those think tanks that were founded earlier tend to have significantly more scholars with Ph.D.s today than do younger institutions. Among a representative group of think tanks founded beforefor instance, 53% of scholars hold Ph.D.s. Among a similarly representative group of think tanks founded between and23% of scholars have such advanced degrees. And among those founded afteronly 13% of scholars are as highly educated.

Granted, the Ph.D. is an imperfect measure, and it is certainly possible to do high-level policy work without an advanced degree. But the decline in the percentage of Ph.D.s does signal that the more recently created Washington-based think tanks are no longer adhering to the "university without students" model. So does the fact that their glib, TV-friendly, and often partisan spokesmen tend to eschew serious research in favor of analyzing every issue through a political lens. Thus, while think tanks have come a long way, it is far from clear that their evolution of late has been for the better.

DEVALUING THE CURRENCY?

One of the clearest consequences of this evolution has been the growth in the sheer number of think tanks. Every outgoing administration spits out dozens of high-level staffers interested in remaining involved in policy and politics through think-tank work, but the large, established institutions — like AEI or Brookings — have only limited capacity for new blood. Moreover, former senior officials often want to run their own shows, and so are disinclined to fold themselves into existing bureaucracies when they can launch new institutions instead. As a result, the number of think tanks in the U.S. has ballooned — from about 45 after the Second World War to about 1, today, including nearly in the Washington, D.C., area alone.

Each of these new think tanks must somehow distinguish itself from the others. And as such distinctions become increasingly narrow, institutions have found that they can stand out by adopting a more strident ideological bent — a practice that has led to think tanks' increasing politicization. This can be seen in the rise of the phenomenon of think tanks that, like CAP, create (c)(4) affiliates (donations to which are not tax-exempt) to do more political work. Even though these organizations are careful to maintain a "Chinese wall" between the (c)(3) and (c)(4) components that enables them to retain their tax-exempt status, the existence of the more political twin makes the intent of the think tank clear. It is hard to imagine Brookings or AEI, for example, creating a (c)(4) arm, and even harder to imagine exactly what those political arms would advocate, or even what process would enable them to make those decisions.

The emergence of cable-television networks has put further pressure on think tanks to produce more immediate and political products. Going on TV has become an important metric of success at many think tanks, and scholars often have to write articles and papers hawaiian airlines barclays mastercard login ways designed to increase the chances of attracting the interest of television producers. The hour news channels are constantly looking for new stories to draw ratings, and complicated studies with cautious conclusions do not fit the bill.

Donor pressure has further driven this politicization. As noted above, think tanks typically get their money from outside donations — from individuals, foundations, or corporations — and they surely sometimes tailor their messages and approaches based on those funding sources. Heritage, for example, gets a lot of donations from individuals through direct mail, which makes it important for the organization to demonstrate its ability to influence the political process. Some think tanks, such as Brookings and AEI, have endowments in the way that major universities do, albeit on a smaller scale. Most think tanks, however, are funded in the shorter term, and administrators seek to develop scholars or projects (or both) that can attract foundation or corporate support.

In addition, both liberals and conservatives have been more directed in their funding of think tanks in more recent years, as the lessons of conservative successes in the idea wars have proliferated throughout the political community. In fact, in recent years, campaign-finance reforms have made donations to think tanks one of the few tax-exempt ways to support political causes without running afoul of funding limits. Moreover, donors interested in influencing key debates want their contributions to lead to results, and are unlikely to be satisfied with merely helping to create an environment in which scholars kick around ideas regardless of their political impact.

As James McGann found in his paper "Scholars, Dollars, and Policy Advice," the move discussed above from longer-term to shorter-term funding models at many newer think tanks has led to an increase in "the influence of donors on research design and outcomes." This sometimes means that a think tank will take up or emphasize issues of particular interest to a donor. This practice need not be problematic, as long as researchers' conclusions are not pre-determined; indeed, actual "bought and paid for" research remains quite rare, even in this age of increasingly political think tanks. Still, keeping donors happy is more important now than ever — for if an organization's backers do not get their desired results, they have an increasing array of alternatives to support.

One particular downside of this trend is the potential of political or donor pressure to lead to self-censorship among both individual scholars and think tanks as institutions. A researcher is unlikely to write an essay or publish a study that he knows will make his bosses or donors unhappy. And an entire think tank may remain silent on an issue about which it had previously been more vocal when political circumstances, such as the party in power, change. Self-censorship is obviously nearly impossible to measure, but, on occasion, clear examples do emerge. For instance, the American Security Project's Michael Cohen noted last June in the New Republic that the Center for American Progress's Wonk Room blog had not run a single story about the Afghanistan war in the prior five months. During the Bush years, CAP had frequently taken up the war and been an adamant critic of the administration's policies; once Obama more or less continued those policies, however, CAP grew silent.

This proliferation and politicization of new think tanks has, perhaps ironically, tended to weaken the ability of all think tanks to influence policy debates. According to Andrew Rich, who also authored Think Tanks, Public Policy, and the Politics of Expertise, "the known ideological proclivities of many, especially newer think tanks, and their aggressive efforts to obtain high profiles have come to undermine the credibility with which experts and expertise are generally viewed by public officials." As AEI's Karlyn Bowman told Rich, the politicization of think tanks limits their ability both to provide new and innovative policy solutions and to get them implemented. As Bowman put it, "I wonder what is happening sometimes to the think tank currency, whether it's becoming a little bit like paper money in Weimar — currency without a lot of value because of the proliferation and because of the open advocacy of some of the think tanks."

This potential for devaluation poses a serious problem for the Washington policy process. There is nothing inherently wrong with the proliferation of think tanks and advocacy organizations intended to hone an existing line of thinking or advance better communication strategies; in an age of fast-paced politics and new media, such institutions surely play a useful role. But precisely in such an age, there is also a real need for original thinking that can break the mold of some familiar debates and propose plausible solutions to the enormous policy problems that now confront us. In other words, there is plenty of room for the new kind of think tank, but there is also plenty of need for the old kind as well. If the proliferation of "do tanks" makes traditional policy research — and even policy advocacy informed by original research — more difficult and less reliable, it stands to make the task before our policymakers far more challenging.

POLICY AND POLITICS

It is important not to overstate the independence and the value of the original think-tank model. Because it informs the political system, policy research has always been political. The Brookings Institution, the Council on Foreign Relations, and the other first-generation think tanks drew upon a certain set of political presumptions, and were able to sustain a patina of objectivity only because those presumptions were shared by an extended elite consensus in Washington. That consensus is long gone.

The value of that original model, therefore, was not that it was objective; it very often was nothing of the sort. Its value, rather, came from its ability to bring serious, original, expert research to the task of analyzing policy problems and proposing solutions. It sought to expand the range of options under debate and to ground that debate in hard facts and figures.

Some new think tanks, by contrast, are less likely to expand the range of options under debate. Rather, these institutions are helping politicians avoid the difficult task of pursuing creative policy solutions by giving them more ways to persist in failed courses. There are still great exceptions in the think-tank world, on all sides of our politics, but they increasingly have trouble being heard over the din.

It is not easy to see a way out of this problem. Every incentive — political, financial, and professional — points toward the citizens bank call center pittsburgh politicization of think tanks. The countervailing force would probably need to come from policymakers themselves: If elected officials, alert to the depths of the policy challenges they confront, were to actively demand from think tanks more rigorous, innovative research and less communications strategy, they might just get what they asked for. Of course, if we had political leaders inclined to such thinking, we might well have avoided our troubles to begin with.

Tevi Troy, former deputy secretary of Health and Human Services, is a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute and the author of Intellectuals and the American Presidency: Philosophers, Jesters, or Technicians? In his career, he has also had fellowships or affiliations with the American Enterprise Institute, the Claremont Institute, the Potomac Institute, the American Action Forum, the Heritage Foundation, and the Institute for Humane Studies.

Источник: mynewextsetup.us

The Heritage Foundation is a conservative (c)(3)nonprofit think tank founded in and based in Washington, D.C.[1] InThe Atlantic described the organization as "the de facto policy arm of the congressional conservative caucus."[2]

The think tank is affiliated with but run independently from Heritage Action for America, a (c)(4) political advocacy group.

On October 14,the foundation announced Kevin Roberts, then chief executive officer of the Texas Public Policy Foundation, would take over as president later in the year.[3]

Mission

As of Maythe website for The Heritage Foundation listed the following mission statement for the organization:[4]

The mission of The Heritage Foundation 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.[5]

Background

The Heritage Foundation's initial funding came from political conservative Joseph Coors, co-owner of the Coors Brewing Company.[6] Funding from Bank of north carolina mortgage reviews was later augmented by financial support from billionaire Richard Mellon Scaife.[7] Conservative activist Paul Weyrich was its first president. He was followed as president in by Edwin Feulner Jr. Feulner co-founded the organization with Weyrich; both were previously congressional aides. Feulner had worked as the staff director of the House Republican Study Committee and as a staff assistant to U.S. Congressman Phil Crane.[8]

Informer Senator Jim DeMint took over as the organization's president. He was removed by the board of trustees on May 2, According to Politico, the decision was based on the board's disapproval of DeMint's decision to shift away from policy proposals toward more political action.[9] After DeMint's removal, Feulner became president again, until foundation board member Kay Coles James was selected in December to serve as the organization's next president. James officially became president on January 1, [10][11]

The think tank was founded to develop conservative policy proposals and submit them to legislators. According to The Atlantic, the organization occupied a place as one of the most influential conservative think tanks from its founding. The magazine wrote, "It came to occupy a place of special privilege—a quasi-official arm of GOP administrations and Congresses; a sponsor of scholarship and supplier of legislation; a policy base for the party when out of power. Heritage has shaped American public policy in major ways, from Reagan’s missile-defense initiative to Clinton’s welfare reform: Both originated as Heritage proposals."[2]

Work

As a (c)(3) research organization, The Heritage Foundation researches and publishes policy papers. According to Politico, the organization began working with what it called a briefcase test for all of its policy proposals: "[A]ll Heritage reports had to be able to fit into briefcases and be readable in less than an hour. The executive summaries of the reports were even designed to be digested by senators and representatives riding on the Capitol subway on the way to a vote."[12]

Mandate for Leadership

Heritage's book of policy analysis, Mandate for Leadership, proposed a set of detailed is the heritage foundation reliable policies for changing the federal government. The original proposal consisted of 20 volumes and 3, pages; it was later published in a condensed version that totaled more than 1, pages. The Mandate for Leadership offered specific recommendations on policy, budget and administrative action for all Cabinet departments, as well as agencies to be staffed by political appointees in the incoming conservative administration of President Ronald Reagan (R). Reagan gave a copy to each member of his Cabinet at their first meeting.[1] According to The Atlantic, 60 percent of the document's policy ideas were being implemented by the end of Reagan's first year in office. The Heritage Foundation followed the original document with six editions, released between and [2]

Contract with America,

InHeritage advised Newt Gingrich and other conservatives on the development of the Contract with America, which was credited with helping to produce a Republican majority in Congress. The Contract was a pact of https www suntrust online banking that directly challenged both the political status-quo in Washington and many of the ideas at the heart of the Clinton administration. As such, Heritage is often credited with supplying many of the ideas that ultimately proved influential in ending the Democrats' control of Congress in [1]

Policy Review

UntilThe Heritage Foundation published Policy Review, a scholarly public policy journal, which was then acquired by the Hoover Institution.

mynewextsetup.us

Beginning inThe Heritage Foundation published mynewextsetup.us as a conservative web community. The site split with The Heritage Foundation in to focus more on news reporting from a conservative perspective.[13]

Index of Economic Freedom

In partnership with The Wall Street Journal, Heritage publishes the annual Index of Economic Freedom, which assesses the economics of countries around the world. The Index scores are based on Heritage's perspectives on a country's economic policies; they score each country based on 12 factors related to economics.[14]

Policy scope

Heritage Foundation lists their main issues on their website. The following is a list of some of those issues and an abbreviated summary of the foundation's position:

  • Agriculture: "Lawmakers should take a hard look at whether farm policies that were created to assist poor family farmers during the Great Depression make any sense in the current era of hugely profitable agribusinesses. They should enact policies that allow farmers to base their crop-planting decisions on market demand, not government subsidies and regulations."[15]
  • Budget and spending: "To restore fiscal health, the federal government should reduce taxes, cut wasteful spending, and reform the massive entitlements."[16]
  • Economy: "Free-market, pro-growth policies are critical to enable our economy to flourish."[17]
  • Education: "Effective education policy includes returning authority to the states and empowering parents with the opportunity to choose a safe and effective education for their children from among public, private, religious, charter, online and home school opportunities."[18]
  • Energy and environment: "Energy and environmental policy is a national priority. Lawmakers should implement a long-term plan that allows free markets to balance supply and demand, ensures reliable and competitively priced energy for the future, and creates incentives for responsible stewardship of the nation's resources and environment."[19]
  • Family and marriage: "The family, centered on marriage, is the basic unit of society. Healthy marriages and families are the foundation of thriving communities. When marriages break down, communities suffer and the role of government tends to expand. Sound public policy places marriage and the family at the center, respecting and guarding the role of this permanent institution."[20]
  • Healthcare: "America's health care financing and insurance systems need major reform. Policymakers should take decisive steps to move today's bureaucracy driven, heavily regulated third-party payment system to a new patient-centered system of consumer choice and real free-market competition. In such a system, individuals and families would make the key decisions and control the flow of dollars."[21]
  • Immigration: "The United States was established on principles that support the welcoming of new residents to our shores to learn and embrace American civic culture and political institutions through the processes of immigration and naturalization. Over the past several decades, however, immigration policy has become skewed, falsely presented as an uncompromising decision between unfettered immigration and none at all."[22]
  • Taxes: "America’s tax code needs reform. It discourages working, saving, investment, and entrepreneurship. It hinders productivity, job growth, international competitiveness, and wage increases. The New Flat Tax, The Heritage Foundation’s tax reform plan, would fix these flaws. Families and businesses would pay a one simple tax with a single tax rate under the plan."[23]
  • Homeland security: "Americans must recommit themselves to living the principles that made this nation safe, free, and prosperous while defending them against attack. The only way to reduce America's vulnerability is to provide persistent, sensible homeland security."[24]

Leadership

On January 1,Heritage Foundation trustee Kay Coles James login wayfair credit card the organization's sixth president.[10][11] On October 14,the foundation announced Kevin Roberts would take over as president later in the year.[3]

As of Octoberthe official website of the Heritage Foundation listed the following individuals as members of the organization's board of trustees:[25]

  • Barb Van Andel-Gaby, Chairwoman
  • Michael W. Gleba, Vice Chairman
  • Kay Coles James
  • Larry P. Arnn
  • Edwin J. Feulner
  • Steve Forbes
  • Robert P. George
  • Ryan Haggerty
  • Price Harding
  • Virginia Heckman
  • Jerry Hume
  • Mark A. Kolokotrones
  • Edwin Meese III
  • Rebekah Mercer
  • The Hon. J. William Middendorf II
  • Abby Spencer Moffat
  • Nersi Nazari
  • Robert Pennington
  • Anthony J. Saliba
  • Thomas A. Saunders III
  • Brian Tracy

Finances

The following is a breakdown of The Heritage Foundation's revenues and expenses as submitted to the IRS for the to fiscal years:

Annual revenue and expenses for The Heritage Foundation, –
Tax YearTotal RevenueTotal Expenses
[26]$92,$80,
[27]$96,$82,
[28]$,$80,

Tax status

The Heritage Foundation is a (c)(3) tax-exempt nonprofit organization. Its (c) designation refers to a section of the U.S. federal income tax code concerning charitable, religious, and educational organizations.[29] Section (c) of the U.S. tax code has 29 sections that list specific conditions particular organizations must meet in order to be considered tax-exempt under the section. Organizations that have been granted (c)(3) status by the Internal Revenue Service are exempt from federal income tax.[30] This exemption requires that any political activity by the charitable organization be nonpartisan in nature.[31]

Affiliated programs

The Heritage Foundation is affiliated with the (c)(4) advocacy group Heritage Action for America. The two are run independently but share a board of trustees.

Noteworthy events

Barred from Republican Study Committee meetings,

In August it was announced that the Republican Study Committee (RSC), a group of conservative House members, barred Heritage Foundation and Heritage Action employees from attending its weekly meeting in the Capitol. According to the National Journal, the RSC and Heritage initially split over disagreements regarding a July vote on the farm bill.[32]

Jim DeMint firing

On May 2,the board of trustees voted unanimously to remove former Sen. Jim DeMint as president of The Heritage Foundation. According to Politico, the decision was based on the board's disapproval of DeMint's decision to shift away from policy proposals toward more political action.[9]

Recent news

The link below is to the most recent stories in a Google news search for the terms Heritage&#;Foundation. These results are automatically generated from Google. Ballotpedia does not curate or endorse these articles.

See also

External links


  1. The Heritage Foundation, "35 years of history," archived April 2,
  2. The Atlantic, "The Fall of the Heritage Foundation and the Death of Republican Ideas," September 25,
  3. The Hill, "Heritage Foundation names new president," October 14,
  4. The Heritage Foundation, "About Heritage," accessed May 3,
  5. Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
  6. The Heritage Foundation, "The Legacy of Joseph Coors," accessed May 3,
  7. The Washington Post, "Scaife: Funding Father of the Right," May 2,
  8. The New York Times, "Paul Weyrich, 66, a Conservative Strategist, Dies," December 18,
  9. Politico, "The real reason Jim DeMint got the boot," May 2,
  10. Heritage Foundation, "Heritage's New President," December 19,
  11. Politico, "Heritage Foundation taps Kay Coles James to be next president," December 19,
  12. Politico, "How to Make best savings interest rates today Heritage Foundation Great Again," May 3,
  13. Townhall, "About Us," accessed May 3,
  14. The Heritage Foundation, "About The Index," accessed May 3,
  15. Heritage mynewextsetup.us, "Agriculture," accessed December 4,
  16. Heritage Foundation, "Budget," accessed December 4,
  17. Heritage Foundation, "Economy," accessed December 4,
  18. Heritage Foundation, "Education," accessed December 4,
  19. Heritage Foundation, "Energy and Environment," accessed December 4,
  20. Heritage Foundation, "Family," accessed December 4,
  21. Heritage Foundation, "Healthcare," accessed December 4,
  22. Heritage Foundation, "Immigration," accessed December 4,
  23. Heritage Foundation, "Taxes," accessed December 4,
  24. Heritage Foundation, "Homeland Security," accessed December 4,
  25. The Heritage Foundation, "Board of Trustees," accessed October 14,
  26. Guidestar, "The Heritage Foundation IRS Form ()," accessed May 3,
  27. Guidestar, "The Heritage Foundation IRS Form ()," accessed May 3,
  28. Guidestar, "The Heritage Foundation IRS Form ()," accessed May 3,
  29. Internal Revenue Service, "Exempt Purposes - Internal Revenue Code Section (c)(3)," accessed January 13,
  30. Internal Revenue Service, "Life Cycle of a Public Charity/Private Foundation," accessed July 10,
  31. Internal Revenue Service, "Exemption Requirements - (c)(3) Organizations," accessed January 13,
  32. National Journal, "Republican Lawmakers Retaliate Against Heritage Foundation," accessed August 30,
Источник: mynewextsetup.us

Title:                         Digital Workplace Analyst

Reports to:             Director, Information Technology

Job Summary:             The Digital Workplace Analyst configures, implements, and administers the solutions that make up Heritage’s Digital Workplace portfolio, including Teams, OneDrive, SharePoint Online, PowerBI, Dropbox, Avaya IP Office, Adobe Creative Cloud, DocuSign, and similar productivity solutions in the Digital Workplace portfolio. The Specialist also consults with departments on the implementation of business function-specific solutions including accounting, personnel, and resource scheduling applications.

Job Duties:

  • Consult with teams throughout the organization to determine areas where digital workplace products and procedures would improve collaboration, productivity, and outcomes.
  • Partner with business liaisons and technical teams to understand and define business goals and functional requirements to design solutions with appropriate people, processes, and technology to improve program efficiency and efficacy.
  • Help teams optimize their workplace experience through collaborative tools that increase productivity and allows seamless communication and collaborations amongst teams.
  • Evaluate is the heritage foundation reliable mitigate risk on innovative programs and contribute to impact assessments through cost/benefit analyses.
  • Develop and execute training programs (digital and in-person) to achieve accelerated adoption and usage of core Digital Workplace solutions.
  • Proactively support and maintain effective user relationships by educating clients on system capabilities, including adoption services.
  • Regularly attend department meeting to maintain an evolving understanding of business needs and articulate how Digital Workplace solutions and best practices can improve performance and increase mission impact.
  • Publish bi-weekly internal Heritage newsletter highlighting Digital Workplace capabilities and IT (Information Technology) security best practices.
  • Acquire and maintain knowledge of relevant Microsoft services and support policies to provide technically accurate solutions to customers.
  • Assist with upgrades and migrations related to products within the Digital Workplace portfolio.
  • Assist in defining strategies, roadmaps, policies and standards for end user workplace technology and mobility solutions.
  • Stay up to date with new features and products in the Digital Workplace portfolio and identify gaps in Digital Workplace offerings.
  • Manage licensing for Digital Workplace products, including monthly reviews and optimization of annual contract terms.
  • Work closely with the Service Desk to identify problems by tracking and examining tickets and requests that could be resolved with Digital Workplace solutions.

Qualifications:

Education:                   B.A.

Experience:                 years of relevant experience; preferably in implementing cloud, digital workplace, mobility, and/or office productivity tools

Communication:         Excellent verbal and written communication skills

Technology:                Teams, OneDrive, SharePoint Online, PowerBI, Dropbox, Avaya IP Office, Adobe Creative Cloud, DocuSign

Other Requirements:  

  • Understand and support the Heritage mission, vision for America, True North conservative principles, and the department’s goals and objectives.
  • Ability to learn and document current manual processes, and the ability to move stakeholders towards a more convenient, automated, and reliable implementation.
  • Preference given to candidates with Teams Administrator Associate, Microsoft Office Specialist, Power Platform Fundamentals, Windows Virtual Desktop Specialty, OR Microsoft Fundamental Certified Administrator certifications.
  • Demonstrated success in implementing cloud, digital workplace, mobility, and/or office productivity tools; delivering measurable results on in an environment with competing priorities; leveraging written, video and voice communications to communicate a vision for project success; leading up, down and across the organization without direct authority;
  • Ability to adapt with the quickly evolving Microsoft Cloud, with preferred experience in leading mid-to-large scale Microsoft Office implementations which include utilizing Teams, OneDrive, SharePoint Online, Groups, and preferably PowerApps; mobile device management (MDM) and Endpoint Management Solutions, and/or desktop delivery options from virtual.
Read MoreИсточник: mynewextsetup.us

Dubious Heritage study pits right against itself

The Washington Examiner's Philip Klein, a prominent conservative writer, noted yesterday that the Heritage Foundation's study on the costs of immigration reform has already started a "war among conservatives."

That's largely true. None other than Jennifer Rubin reported yesterday:

In what was almost certainly an unprecedented press call, top fiscal conservatives from Americans for Tax Reform, the Cato Institute, the Kemp Foundation and the American Action Network took what had once been the premier conservative think tank, the Heritage Foundation, to the woodshed for its immigration report that sees trillions in cost and no benefits from is the heritage foundation reliable reform. []These are longtime allies of Heritage and promoters of free market capitalism who are witnessing the intellectual bastardization of a once great institution to adopt a is the heritage foundation reliable that is inherently unconservative, namely opposition to immigration Fiscal, pro-growth conservatives are concerned (as they should be) that the movement may turn reactionary, rejecting not just dynamic scoring but faith in a dynamic economy and society.

There are several important angles to this, aside from the obvious significance of conservatives fighting amongst themselves on one of the most important policy debates in the country today.

Note, for example, that for much of the conservative/Republican establishment, support for comprehensive immigration reform has clearly taken root, so much so that when Heritage goes on the offensive, old alliances are thrown out the window and the pushback is candid and unrelenting. Leaders from the party and the conservative movement have clearly decided that immigration is an issue that must be dealt with -- now -- and it's time for the base to get in line.

Also keep in mind, this isn't just about immigration policy itself. There's also the issue of "dynamic scoring" -- determining the cost of a policy by factoring in the expected growth impact -- which Heritage strongly supports, but ignored as part of its condemnation of the reform plan. Americans for Tax Reform's Josh Culling told Rubin, "It's a concern. Heritage ceded the superiority of dynamic scoring. CBO is basically to the right of Heritage. It is a worry."

And finally, I can't help but find it amusing to hear conservatives throughout the Beltway say simultaneously, "Wait, you mean Heritage is filled with hacks who do shoddy policy work to achieve ideological ends?"


I'm afraid so. An objective look at the "study" Heritage produced yesterday reveals it to be a lazy and incomplete scholarship. It is a political document, intended to provide cover to partisans who hope to defeat immigration reform because they hate immigration reform, not a research document, intended to provide accurate information to shape the debate in a constructive way.

In other words, the Heritage Foundation, as expected, has completed its transition from a conservative think tank to a far-right activist group.

It led Matt Yglesias to emphasize "an under-appreciated point."

[E]ven ideological movement-oriented think tanks do their movements a disservice when they do bad work. As Republican members of Congress ponder what to do about immigration, possessing accurate credible information about the fiscal impact would be very useful to them. You actually want to have a team of people "on your side" who you can trust to do good work. Heritage is not that team.

As the intellectual infrastructure of the conservative movement deteriorates, I'm not altogether sure that team exists anywhere. Indeed, for much of the right, anti-empiricism rules the day and reliable scholarship itself is seen as a dubious pursuit.

Still, for GOP policymakers who do want credible, trustworthy information to bolster their policy agenda, it's getting tougher to find quality materials. It reinforces the "wonk gap" between the left and right that we talk about from time to time.

Источник: mynewextsetup.us?featureFlag=false
is the heritage foundation reliable

Posted in The

Comments

  1. +Anil Saini OTP late ana ye network ka issue ho sakta hai...muze bhi late ata hai but not more than 30 sec..OTP jaldi lane ke liye koi solution nhi hai

  2. Mera meri wife ke sath joint account hai. Account mere wife ka hai. Kay me a joint account pension ke liye use kar sakhata hu

  3. Santiniketan abar Kobe jaben ? Aamra onek bar Aamar Kutir a chilam . kintu sob jaiga Dekha hoy ni . samne mase jabo.

  4. sir, actually i forgot my user id and password since i did not use internet banking last few months. could u tell me how to generate new user id and password without going to sbi branch.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *