Whats The Truth Behind Oil Subsidies?

Its easy to take shots at oil companies, especially when gas prices are rising over $4 per gallon. Playing the role of David against an enormous corporate Goliath is a great way to score political points, so its no wonder that President Barack Obama and liberals in Congress have issued a clarion call for the end to oil subsidies as a way of wreaking revenge against those they say are responsible for the high cost of energy. The truth, though, isnt as simple as the good-versus evil fable the left would have you believe. On Wednesday, five Democratic U.S. senators sent a letter to the CEOs of the countrys five largest oil companies declaring, [I]f we are truly serious about cutting our deficit, it is imperative that we start by getting rid of wasteful and ineffective corporate subsidies that have outlived their usefulness. The lefts anti-subsidy rhetoric is right on. Ending all energy subsidies, including those for oil and gas, would be good for American taxpayers and consumers. But if those senators were truly serious about cutting the deficit, they wouldnt stop at just cutting subsidies for oil companies. They would also call for the elimination of subsidies for the presidents pet projects such as renewable fuels, electric vehicles, wind and solar. Throw in clean coal and natural gas, too. That would be the right move for the American taxpayers. But good policy isnt their goal vilifying an industry is their end game. Theres another problem with the lefts crusade against the oil industry. The Heritage Foundations Nicolas Loris and Curtis Dubay explain that the broad calls for an end to oil subsidies is really code for targeted tax hikes against companies they dont like: The President overreaches on what truly is a subsidy for oil and ignores the fact that the government does far more to hurt oil production than help it. He singles out the oil industry, which already faces a higher marginal tax rate at 41 percent compared to 26 percent for the rest of businesses in Standard & Poors 500. To make matters worse, the tax hikes on the oil and gas industry proposed in the presidents fiscal year 2012 budget would increase the price of oil and gas for American consumers, according to the Congressional Research Service. Loris and Dubay conclude: Ending all energy subsidies, including those for oil and gas, would be good for American taxpayers and consumers. However, Congress should not punish the oil and gas industry with targeted tax hikes, nor should it reward other parts of the energy industry favored by the Administration. Theres much the president and Congress could do if they truly wanted to give Americans a break at the gas pump. For starters, they could provide access to our countrys domestic energy reserves, roll back regulatory burdens on companies and lift the de facto moratorium on offshore drilling permits. Attacking the oil industry might satisfy the lefts bloodlust against corporate America, and it might play well in press conferences. But targeted tax hikes against industries one might not like is not an answer to the high price of gas. It might feel good in the short run, but its not a long-term solution to Americas energy problems. 21 0Email1932

Bin Laden Dead Justice has been done. Nearly 10 years since the 9/11 attacks that left more than 3,000 Americans dead, Osama bin Laden was killed by a small team of U.S. military personneloperating under the authority of the Central Intelligence Agency. We first want to congratulate the men and women of our military and intelligence communities, past and present, who worked tirelessly across three Administrations to bring ultimate justice to the man who killed so many. The war on terror, though, is not over. Bin Laden's death is the most significant victory in the war on terror since the 9/11 attacks, more important than the arrest of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi in 2006. Bin Laden's elimination vindicates U.S. strategy in the region, started under President George W. Bush, and it will be seen as a major success for the United States,

showing the world that America will remain committed to hunting down its enemies as long it takes. But while America should take great satisfaction in this tremendous achievement, the United States must remain vigilant against a terrorist threat that is not yet vanquished. Terrorists are trying to attack us both at home and abroad; with38 terrorist plots foiled since 9/11, these attempts will certainly continue, if not get worse. With bin Laden's death, which came by way of a small, covert strike force, there will be an impulse to believe that this action validates that covert operations are a cheap and simple answer to the most vexing national security problems. They are not. They are just one tool in the tool box. Among those tools, too, is the strategic and lawful interrogation of detainees, including those at Guantanamo Bay. President Obama and Congress should not use bin Laden's death as an excuse to turn back the clock on the counterterrorism tools we need, like the PATRIOT Act. That full range of tools must be applied to the United States' continued efforts against terrorism in Afghanistan and around the world. Bin Laden's death is a demoralizing blow against al-Qaeda that could be followed up by additional strikes against other al-Qaeda leaders. But though this is a significant achievement, much work remains. First and foremost, the United States must finish the job in Afghanistan and not relent in defeating the Taliban. The operation also highlights that Pakistan is truly at the epicenter of global terrorism. The fact that the world's most-wanted terrorist was captured in a major Pakistani city 150 kilometers from the nation's capital should silence those Pakistanis who rejected the idea that bin Laden was hiding in their country as a Western conspiracy. It should also strengthen President Obama's hand in pushing the Pakistanis to continue to take action against other terrorists on their soil. The details on Pakistan's involvement in the operation are still unclear. If Pakistani intelligence played a substantial role in locating bin Laden, it would generate a deep reservoir of American goodwill for Pakistan. If, on the other hand, it was largely a U.S. unilateral operation, the positive impact on relations would be more short-lived. Ayman al-Zawahiri will almost certainly take over as al-Qaeda's new chief. Zawahiri had in recent years become both the public voice and operational planner of al-Qaeda. However, since bin Laden was the founder and spiritual head of al-Qaeda, his death will demoralize the ranks of the organization and thus will likely be a major strategic setback for the movement. Zawahiri does not carry the same mythical aura as bin Laden and thus the organization will likely lose its luster among young recruits. But threats remain. Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula is responsible for three terror plots here in the last 18 months, something that the organization's core could not accomplish. And, likewise, the Taliban just last weekend launched a new offensive against U.S. troops in Afghanistan. Those are facts the U.S. government must bear in mind as the debate begins over the defense budget. There is no "peace dividend" with bin Laden's death -- our military is underfunded, and we must not shortchange our military men and women who are fighting to protect America. Though al-Qaeda suffered a significant blow last night, it was not a fatal one. It is worth stating again: the war on terrorism is not over, and the war in Afghanistan is not won. America must remain vigilant and continue its global fight against terrorism.

Marriage Is an Ideal, Not a Fairy Tale As many as two billion people -- about a third of the world -- were expected to watch todays British royal wedding between Prince William and Kate Middleton. The global euphoria highlights the enduring ideal of marriage. For all the extravagance and fanfare of a future monarch's wedding, we recognize in it some of our deepest human aspirations and the shared nobility of the institution of marriage. That same chord was struck 30 years ago, as the world watched another royal wedding on July 29, 1981. As ABC's Ted Koppel commented that evening: "Todays marriage between Charles and Diana was ... a hugely magnified version of what most of us hope for, the idealized beginning of what is meant to ripen into the perfect partnership of a man and a woman." Koppel's ABC colleague, Bob Green, added: "The royal aspect almost was secondary ... [T]here was something universal about the ceremony of life that was taking place. The message was the same one that comes through at a wedding in a church recreation room in New Hampshire or a justice of the peaces office in Ohio." When the royal couple said, "I will," the roar of the crowd outside St. Paul's Cathedral "was almost as if the world was cheering for itself," Green reported. And indeed we do cheer for ourselves when we rejoice in wedding vows. Marriage is a promise. Not just between one man and one woman but to the community at large, to generations past and to those yet to be born. Wedding vows set apart this lifelong, life-giving relationship from all others. As Heritage senior research fellow Chuck Donovan writes: The simplicity of this truth accounts for the nearly universal history and expression of marriage across cultures. Despite the enormity of the pressures marriage and family face today, the vast majority of people in American society express the desire to marry, experience a lifelong faithful relationship, have children, and raise those children into adulthood where they are able to establish families of their own. Even in 1981, however, ABCs Green noted that "marriage and the family have fallen on hard times." How much more so in the 30 years since: The bitter, postmodern ending to Princess Diana's own fairy tale during that time is an apt metaphor for the troubled state of marriage today. Still, the institution of marriage endures, even when a particular marriage falls apart. Our failure to attain it doesn't change the ideal--nor should current challenges. Today, the route to marriage isn't nearly as clear as in generations past, and once entered, its endurance less sure.Americans are marrying at half the annual rate they did four decades ago, data posted at FamilyFacts.org show. Last year, The Marriage Index, published by the Institute for American Values and the National Center on African American Marriage and Parenting, rated the strength of marriage in America at 60.3 out of a possible 100, based on a set of five indicators. In 1970, the score would have been 76.2. The erosion of marriage and family bode ill for the strength and stability of American society. Scholar Michael Novak famously referred to the family as the "original Department of Health, Education and Welfare" because

of its role in providing for the needs of all its members, and particularly the next generation. That's why one of the most important ways that government can promote the general welfare is by upholding the institution of marriage. As Donovan recently stated in testimony on behalf of the Defense of Marriage Act: All of the governmental interests embodied in the Defense of Marriage Act ultimately serve one overarching purpose: to create and foster conditions of public policy that reinforce the binding of men and women to one another and to the children they co-create. Study after study of the impact of marriage and the sustained presence of mothers and fathers in the home, striving together and nurturing their children, demonstrate the advantages of a married mother and father over every other family form that has been exhaustively studied to date. Yet, in the shadow of the royal wedding, a worrisome class divide on marriage is emerging that threatens to make marriage more of a fairy tale than a shared ideal. Writing about a 2010 report, "When Marriage Disappears: The Retreat from Marriage in Middle America," author W. Bradford Wilcox and Heritages Donovan observe: Marriage is in trouble in Middle America. High rates of divorce, nonmarital childbearing and single parenthood were once problems primarily concentrated in poor communities. Now, the American retreat from marriage is moving into the heart of the social order: the middle class... What is happening today is a widening gulf between the middle class, where a sharp decline in marriage is at work, and the most educated and affluent Americans, where marriage indicators are either stable or improving. An understanding of the central importance of marriage and realistic expectations about it will go a long way toward making the institution more durable and pervasive across socio-economic levels. "The writers of fairy tales most commonly ended their stories about princes and princesses at the altar," Koppel intoned 30 years ago. "These writers knew what marriage was meant to be. They were also wise enough to know that it rarely turns out that way." Fairy tales, however, often leave out the wedding vows that dispel the easy illusion of happily ever after, set appropriate expectations for a lifetime of commitment and connect couples to the communities of support around them. The vows begin where the ceremony ends. With good reason, the world once again roared with joy at the universal promise embodied in William and Kate's vows today.

Will Leon Panetta Ensure That America Is Defended? Amid a continuing war in Afghanistan, a new operation in Libya, ongoing military efforts in Iraq and a failing foreign policy doctrine, President Barack Obama has proposed cutting the already overstretched U.S. military by $400 billion. And today, he is expected to nominate CIA Director Leon Panetta to serve as Secretary of Defense, replacing the retiring Robert Gates. As Panetta stands for confirmation, the Senate must ask whether Panetta is the right man for the job of helping to provide for America's defense. The Heritage Foundation's James Carafano, Ph.D., writes that there are five main questions the Senate should pose to Panetta to determine whether he will honestly assess what the U.S. military needs to ensure a common

defense or merely go along with the president: 1. Defense budget: President Obama has repudiated his own defense review (the Quadrennial Defense Review), which he delivered in 2010 and which by law is supposed to provide an honest assessment of project needs. Now, his recent decision to pick an arbitrary goal of $400 billion in defense cuts over the next decadeand then ask for a review to justify itwill be your first job in office. Why should we trust you to do anything but rubber-stamp his demands? 2. Vital priorities: Do you agree that instead of cutting defense, the next Secretary of Defense should be focused on helping the U.S. military win in Afghanistan, identifying a clear plan for the United States with and in Iraq beyond December, avoiding mission creep in Libya while actually helping create a coherent strategy for the Arab "Spring," and crafting a clear, more effective policy toward Iran to prevent it from becoming a nuclear power? 3. China: We need a rational, credible plan to counter the Peoples Republic of Chinas large-scale military modernization program. Can you deliver on a plan that will ensure that the U.S. remains a capable stabilizing military force in Asiaone that never has to fear intimidation from China? 4. Missile defense: Since entering office, President Obama has negotiated the New START nuclear agreement with Russia that has diminished U.S. stature as a nuclear power. He has cut back U.S. missile defense posture to what he believes is just-enough, just-in-time missile defense, rather than building robust defenses that would answer potential threats. Do you think that was smart? Would it not have been wiser to do everything within his power to ensure that the U.S. and its allies have the most robust defenses possible against threats from Iran and North Korea? 5. Homeland protection: The U.S. must be better prepared for protecting the homeland. Despite all its rhetoric, this Administration actually cut the number of specially trained and equipped military forces that would respond to a weapons of mass destruction incident. That seems wrongheaded. Will you do more to ensure the homeland is adequately protected, including for emerging threats like cyber attacks? These questions are vitally important in light of what the Panetta pick could mean for the military. The Hill reports: Shifting Panetta to DOD "probably means bigger cuts to the defense budget," said Loren Thompson of the Lexington Institute. "Secretary Gates was strongly committed to maintaining a robust defense posture, but Panetta will be more interested in getting along with the White House, which must find ways of cutting the deficit," Thompson said. ... "Putting Panetta in as defense secretary means Obama now has an ally at the Pentagon," said one senior GOP congressional aide. "He will be more inclined to agree with the president on a number of issues where Gates might have pushed back or disagreed with the president." Making arbitrary cuts to the military and walking in lock-step with the president is not what America needs from the person responsible for directing our armed forces, defending our homeland, and ensuring that our military has all that it needs to execute its mission around the world. It needs a strong leader who can help turn around the Administration's sad record on foreign policy and national security while also pushing back against dangerous cuts to defense. The Senate must now determine whether Leon Panetta is up to the task.

Blog Entries The Doctor Becomes a Teacher, Too: Hal Scherz Wins 2011 Salvatori Prize for American Citizenship On Thursday, The Heritage Foundation awarded Hal Scherz, a pediatric urologist from Atlanta Georgia, its Salvatori Prize for American Citizenship. The award recognizes Scherzs efforts to educate the public about the federal governments bureaucratic destruction of the American health care system through the takeover that came to be known as Obamacare, said Heritage Vice President Matthew Spalding. Scherz asked that the $25,000 prize be given to his organization, Docs 4 Patient Care, which has spearheaded opposition to Obamacare within the medical profession. In just two years, the group has grown to over 4,000 doctors and 8,000 supporters, has testified before Congress, and has written op-eds for the Wall Street Journal. The award was announced at Heritages 34th Annual Resource Bank conference, where we caught up with Dr. Scherz to ask him a few questions. InsiderOnline: What will happen to the practice of medicine if Obamacare remains law? Hal Scherz: If Obamacare continues, the private practice of medicine in this country will cease to exist. Were on the road to the extinction of private practices. Theres going to be a consolidation in which hospitals and the government are going to run health care. When that happens, therell be limited choices. Therell be rationing of care. The quality of doctors will diminish. The number of doctors will diminish. The incentives for people to become doctors and for doctors to work hard will go away. Well see a deterioration and a Europeanization of our health care system. We dont even know what that will look like in the future. Its all very much up in the air, but the prospects are very frightening. IO: Are those outcomes by design or are they unintended consequences of the law? HS: I think its a little bit of both. One has to wonder whether there is really such a thing as unintended consequences. Theres no question that doctors are frightened right now. For the first time ever more doctors are working for hospitals than are working for themselves. Thats not a good thing. That just means that somebody elsea bigger institutionis insulating doctors and allowing them to make a living. Its taking away from the doctor/patient relationship, because hospitals are really not interested in patients. Doctors are interested in patients. Hospitals are interested in money, control, and power. And when they are employing doctors and buying up doctor practices there is a diminishing amount of freedom for doctors and worse care for patients as a result. IO: Do doctors tend to share your views or do they tend to agree with the American Medical Associations support for Obamacare? HS: Most doctors agree with my take. The AMA has a self-interest in Obamacare. They receive a large amount of their income from the medical coding system that is a government-sanctioned monopoly. So they are not in a position to buck the system and speak out for fear of losing that enormous income stream that is probably close $100 million annually. They also make their moneythis just came out last weekmining doctor data and selling itto the tune of about $40 million dollars a year. They make very little money taking care of their constituency. They dont have a constituency. When less than 20 percent of doctors in the country belong to the organization, how can you say that its representative?

IO: How do your patients respond when you do outreach to them on this issue? HS: Eighty-nine percent of patients like their doctors. And when you tell them that the opportunity for them to see their doctors is going to go away in the future under Obamacare, many of them dont believe it. But when you present the facts and they are faced with it, then they are completely shocked and appalled and they are concerned. Patients are very appreciative when you start talking about this and give them facts and give them places where they can go and see for themselves that what were telling them isnt opinion. Its all fact. IO: So how does Docs4Patient Care plan to fight Obamacare from here on out? HS: The 2012 elections are pivotal because if President Obama remains in the White House, health care is finished. Its over. We have to work very hard to make people understand that this health care law means the end of the health care system as they have come to know it. The health care system is not completely broken. There are flaws, but President Obama has completely subverted health care because of two things he said were problems: access and cost. What has happened is that Obamacare has increased costs. And its going to decrease access. There are going to be fewer doctors and there are going to be fewer doctors who are willing to participate in this government health care. All that this plan will do is enable people to wait in line. Thats all it will do. It will not give them better access. We are already seeing that happen. Were seeing thousands of senior citizens being turned away from their doctors of 20 years or more because they are going off Medicare. Or we are seeing new Medicare patients who are finding it impossible to find a doctor because doctors are not taking new Medicare patients. So in the next two years Docs 4 Patient Care plans to build up its ranks. Were going to form state chapters around the country. Weve already got four that are up and running, and weve another 20 that are in the formative stages. We are going to have boots on the ground for the 2012 elections to help get the information to patients through the power of our offices. IO: And what do you think are better ways of fixing the health care system? HS: The problem with Obamacare is that it is a top-down system. It is government-run. President Obama and his supporters believe that the government is better at making health care decisions than patients are, and that is just absolutely flat out wrong. Patients need to be in charge of their health care. Patients need to be the ones who can purchase insurance and get tax credits like employers. Patients need to be the ones to decide who their doctor is going to be and they have to be the ones who decide how they are going to pay for it and not let a third party pay for it. We have to revamp the entire health care delivery model so that people are in charge through high-deductible health savings accounts, so that the first dollar out is their dollar and not the insurance companys or the governments. Whoever is controlling the payment of health care is controlling the health care of the individual. That should be the patients and not the government or insurance companies. Champions for Marriage and the Rule of Law Speaker of the House John Boehners announcementthat former Solicitor General Paul Clement will lead the defense of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in federal court is a victory for the rule of lawand for an irreplaceable institution of civil society. That victory was confirmed this week as Clement resigned from the King & Spalding law firm because of its decision to abandon DOMA after a campaign of intimidation by a gay activist group. Clement, who puts the interests of his client above his own, will continue to defend marriage as he joins Bancroft PLLC. Ever since February 23, when Attorney General Eric Holder announced that he and President Obama had concluded that DOMA was unconstitutional, litigation over the 1996 law had been held in abeyance pending the decision to name Clement. The presence of Clement ends all doubt as to whether marriage as the union of a

man and woman will get the vigorous defense it deserves in federal appeals court and, if necessary, the U.S. Supreme Court. Acting quickly, Clement filed his first motion, an unopposed request to represent the House of Representatives as an intervenor in the case. The motion notes that the history of House participation in litigation on constitutional issues has generally involved merely filing amicus curiae briefs. Given the Obama Administrations refusal to defend the constitutionality of DOMAs Section 3which reserves words such as spouse in federal law for relationships between a man and a womanClements motion seeks full intervenor status for the House to act as a party in the stead of the Justice Department. At the same time, the motion makes clear that the Justice Department retains the responsibility to defend other challenges to DOMA, including its provision protecting the states from being forced to recognize each others determinations regarding same-sex marriage. Boehner and his colleagues on the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group, Eric Cantor (RVA) and Kevin McCarthy (RCA), have taken the responsible approach to defend a wise and necessary law that the previous Congress, led by then-Speaker Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (DNV), made no move to disturb. The Human Rights Campaign to damage the intervention is a travesty. Will We Default on Our Debt? The United States today hit an all-time high debt, passing $14 trillion, according to Associated Press reports. And with $45,300 of debt for every man, woman and child in the United States, its clear as day that spending is the problem. Yet Washington has yet to come to an agreement on a way forward, either in the short term or the long term, though the budget plan passed by the House of Representatives would fundamentally alter this debtridden path the nation is on. Its time to get serious about cutting spending and getting the U.S. government to live within its means. But thats not the message coming out of the White House. On the issue of the whether to raise the debt ceilingallowing the government to borrow and spend even more moneyPresident Barack Obama has resorted to dire predictions about what could happen if Congress does not take action. The Hill reports: If investors around the world thought that the full faith and credit of the United States was not being backed up, if they thought that we might renege on our IOUs, it could unravel the entire financial system, Obama said at a town hall meeting hosted by CBS last week but released Sunday. We could have a worse recession than we already had, a worse financial crisis than we already had. And, likewise, U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner warned that if Congress does not raise the debt limit, the U.S. economy would likely enter a double-dip recession and added, A default would inflict catastrophic, far-reaching damage on our nations economy, significantly reducing growth, and increasing unemployment. But Heritage Foundation Vice President of Domestic and Economic Policy David S. Addington notes that those dire predictions just arent true. In discussing J.D. Fosters paper Congress Has Time and Options on Debt Limit, Addington writes: As Dr. Fosters paper demonstrated, there will not be a default on the Federal debt when the Treasury reaches the statutory limit on its borrowing of $14.294 trillion. The Treasury just will not be able to borrow any more money. The Treasury would still pay debts that come due, putting off temporarily payment of less important obligations as necessary to pay the maturing debt. President Obamas prophecies about the debt limit obscure an underlying truth: The U.S. government must find a way to get control of spending. Simply raising the debt limit and allowing the United States to borrow more money, unchecked, will not make that happen. To that end, in an interview with The Wall Street Journal, investor Stanley Druckenmiller warns that defaulting on the debt is not the real problem Wall Street should be worried about: In the future, he says, People arent going to wonder whether 20 years ago we delayed an interest payment for six days. Theyre going to wonder whether we got our house in order.

If the president needs a roadmap to making those cuts and getting the government in order, he ought to take a look at Heritages Saving the American Dreamour plan to fix the debt, cut spending, restore prosperity, balance the nations budget within a decade, and keep it balanced. On the issue of the debt ceiling, Addington has some advice, as well: If the Obama Administration is serious about getting spending under control and about maintaining orderly financial markets, Secretary Geithner needs to help guide his colleagues at the Office of the Management and Budget and in the White House toward near-term substantial reductions in Federal spending, including for entitlement programs, and long-term solutions to ensure that the Federal Government never spends itself again so deeply into debt that it cannot effectively manage its way out. How About a National Obamacare Waiver? If you knew a dangerous virus was about to hit America and that you could beg the government for a vaccine, youd probably do it, wouldnt you? Thats just what states and businesses alike are doing right now in preparation for Obamacare. But rather than seeking a vaccine, theyre asking for waivers from the laws onerous requirements. To date, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has approved 1,372 Obamacare waivers, covering 3.1 million Americans. Yesterday, The Daily Callerreported that among HHSs most recent round of 204 Obamacare waivers, 38 are for fancy eateries, hip nightclubs and decadent hotels in House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosis Northern California district. Thats right: Nearly 20 percent of exemptions from Pelosis crowning health care achievement were doled out in her backyard. If thats not enough irony for you, try this waiver on for size: On Monday, the Las Vegas Sun reported that NevadaSenate Majority Leader Harry Reids home statereceived a partial statewide Obamacare waiver, too. If youre keeping score, Reid was Pelosis counterpart in the Senate fighting to get Obamacare passed into law. Now his state will be one of three to get a waiver from the laws requirements, while the rest of America suffers. Why did Nevada get a waiver? The Sun reports that HHS found that some of the laws implementation requirements may lead to the destabilization of the individual market. Senator Dean Heller (R-NV) said that thats all the more reason why Obamacare should be repealed: It is becoming increasingly clear how flawed this law really is . . . Not only did it cut a half trillion dollars from Medicare, impacting thousands of Nevadas seniors, now the law would have driven health insurers out of our state if a reprieve had not been granted . . . This is why Obamacare will not work for Nevada. But Pelosis district and Reids home state arent the only ones getting waivers. There are others getting a break from the law, toobig corporations and labor unions. All these waivers might sound like a lot to you, especially since most of the laws provisions dont take effect until 2014. But if you ask the White House, theyll tell you that its no big deal. In a press briefing yesterday, press secretary Jay Carney downplayed the waivers and said that its not that many and that [t]he waiver is not a waiver of the law but just a provision of the law. Well, thats one way to spin it. The Heritage Foundations Kathryn Nix explains why some of the waivers are being granted: Obamacare forbids insurers from placing annual and lifetime limits on health plans. These consumer protections have endangered the limited coverage plans that some employers currently offer. Unable to provide more comprehensive coverage, those employers would be forced to drop coverage altogether if they abide by the new law. To avoid this consequence of the new law, employers are flocking to secure the waivers offered by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to keep their employees covered. In the case of waivers for businesses, Heritages Ed Haislmaier recently testifiedthat the Obama Administration doesnt really have the authority to grant them in the first place. In the case of state insurance markets, Congress explicitly allows a waiver, which is an admission that they knew the legislation would be disruptive. It makes sense that labor unions, states and companies of all sizes want to escape Obamacares costly requirements. Thats because its clear that Obamacare already isnt working, even though the law is barely

out of the gate. But granting waivers here and there merely postpones the effects of the law for a couple of years. Its not the solution America needs. A better idea would be to repeal Obamacare and grant America a permanent nationwide waiver. Whose Side is the NLRB On? Its hard to imagine Uncle Sam telling Walt Disney where to make movies or McDonalds how many hamburgers to make, but if you take a look at the case of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) versus Boeing, youll see that the federal government is trying to do just that: dictate where and how private industry may do business. And its doing so to bolster one of President Barack Obamas favorite special interests labor unions. To catch you up on the story, Boeing Corporation decided to build a new assembly plant in Charleston, South Carolina, in order to produce the 787 Dreamliner. The NLRB (which is responsible investigating unfair labor practices) got wind of the decision and last month filed a complaint against Boeing, alleging that the company decided to build the plant in South Carolina out of retaliation for union strikes at its Washington state facilities. Nevermind that Boeing actuallyadded 2,000 jobs in Washington on this particular project. South Carolina is a right-to-work state, meaning that Boeing can hire non-union workers. For fans of big labor (like President Obama and his allies), right-to-work states are a threat to unions dominance. (Its worth noting that the NLRB today is composed of four members, three of whom are Obama appointees.) The NLRBs intentions, then, could be easily inferred. It is doing all it can to help unions at the expense of right-to-work states, corporations and at the end of the day, American workers. But in this case, we have even more than inference. The Washington Examiner reports that a leaked NLRB memo makes clear that President Obama and the radical labor advocates he put on it are embarked on a calculated campaign to make unionized firms even harder to manage. The memo, which was obtained by the Heritage Foundations Hans von Spakovsky and James Sherk, shows that the board seeks to elevate union officials to equal partners with executives in corporate boardrooms of all unionized firms. The Examinercontinues: The memo instructs NLRB regional operatives to flag all cases in which unionized firms made relocation decisions without submitting detailed economic justifications to their unions. The board plans case-by-case reviews, followed by prosecutions of selected cases. The intended consequence is that all major business decisions will become subject to approval by unions. Remarkably, the NLRB has attempted to deny that its telling Boeing how to make basic business decisions, despite all evidence to the contrary. In an interview with The Street, NLRB spokeswoman Nancy Cleeland said: We are not telling Boeing they cant build planes in South Carolina, Cleeland clarified, in an interview. We are talking about one specific piece of work: three planes a month. If they keep those three planes a month in Washington, there is no problem. Beyond the ten planes, she said, Boeing could build whatever it wants in South Carolina. So Boeing can make some planes, but not the planes the NLRB says it cant make? That still sounds like the federal government dictating private business decisions, doesnt it? However the NLRB wants to parse words or spin the story, it remains that its actions fly smack in the face of the rule of law. Simply put, the federal government does not have the legal authority to tell a company where it can expand its business. Sherk and von Spakovsky warn: The NLRBs decision to issue a complaint represents an unbridled, unauthorized, and unlawful expansion of the regulatory power of an executive agency. If allowed to stand, its actions threaten business investment and job creation as well as the employment of both unionized and nonunion workers. Borrowing a page from the union intimidation playbook, the NLRBs general counsel released a statement earlier this month warning Boeing not to litigate this case in the media and public arena. It is clear to the NLRB that its actions against Boeing would be unpopular nationallyand especially in South

Carolinaso they do not desire attention or transparency. But as in most cases, when an agency like the NLRB wants the media to ignore a story, more media scrutiny is likely required. Millions of Americans continue to suffer unemployment. Yet as businesses try to get back on their feet, the union-dominated NLRB is expanding its reach to win short-term gain for its big labor special interest allies at the economys expense. As the NLRB hurts businesses, job creation suffers right along with it. Its time for Congress to take action to prevent the NLRB from inflicting even more damage on Americas economy. In China, a Crisis Between Church and State that is Still Unfolding Nineteen Chinese pastors have joined together to send a remarkable petition to the National Peoples Congress on behalf of one of Beijings largest underground churches. The Shouwang church is the most recent target of Communist authorities crackdown on the unauthorized house church movement that now numbers some 5070 million Chinese Christians. The Shouwang church began in a home but has grown to 1,000 members in recent years, with many well-educated and affluent congregants. Forced out of rented meeting space in 2009, the church bought its own propertyonly to be denied access by the government. Ousted from rental space once again this spring, the congregation has sought to meet outdoors. But their worship services have been disrupted, and hundreds were detained by police on Easter Sunday. Pastor Jin Tianming and other church leaders are under house arrest to prevent them from leading services. As The New York Times noted, the crisis is stirring up the tens of millions of Chinese believers who have come to place more faith in Christianity than in the atheist Communist Party. That has led to the bold petitionwhich the Timesreports was drafted by Xie Moshan and Li Tianen, patriarchs of the house church movement, who have each spent more than a decade in Chinese prisons. Their petition goes beyond calling for redress of one churchs afflictions. We believe that the Shouwang Church incident is not an individual, isolated episode that happens to a single church but rather a typical phenomenon in respect of the conflict between state and church during the period of social transition. That conflict between state and church, the pastors argue, can be resolved only with official recognition of religious liberty, an essential step to ensure the freedom, stability, and prosperity of the nation. The petition argues, on the basis of the Chinese constitution and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, for robust religious libertyincluding freedoms of assembly, association, speech, education and evangelismfor congregations outside the network of state-sanctioned churches. Two weeks ago, the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom once again identified China as a country of particular concern, ranking it among the most serious violators of religious liberty worldwide. Now the anxious Communist regime has forced the Shouwang showdown with a courageous congregation that is well-connected and whose allies have articulated a strong political philosophy, patriotism, and good will. How the regime reacts to this position of moral strength and sound reasoning about the path to freedom and prosperity will tell the world much about Chinas future. NLRB Comes to Big Labor's Defense It's hard to imagine Uncle Sam telling Walt Disney where to make movies or McDonald's how many hamburgers to make, but if you take a look at the case of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) versus Boeing, you'll see that the federal government is trying to do just that: dictate where and how private industry may do business. And it's doing so to bolster one of President Barack

Obama's favorite special interestslabor unions. To catch you up on the story, Boeing Corporation decided to build a new assembly plant in Charleston, South Carolina, in order to produce the 787 Dreamliner. The NLRB (which is responsible investigating unfair labor practices) got wind of the decision and last month filed a complaint against Boeing, alleging that the company decided to build the plant in South Carolina out of retaliation for union strikes at its Washington state facilities. Nevermind that Boeing actually added 2,000 jobs in Washington on this particular project. South Carolina is a right-to-work state, meaning that Boeing can hire non-union workers. For fans of big labor (like President Obama and his allies), right-to-work states are a threat to unions' dominance. (It's worth noting that the NLRB today is composed of four members, three of whom are Obama appointees.) The NLRB's intentions, then, could be easily inferred. It is doing all it can to help unions at the expense of right-to-work states, corporations and at the end of the day, American workers. But in this case, we have even more than inference. The Washington Examiner reports that a leaked NLRB memo "makes clear that President Obama and the radical labor advocates he put on it are embarked on a calculated campaign to make unionized firms even harder to manage." The memo, which was obtained by the Heritage Foundation's Hans von Spakovsky and James Sherk, "shows that the board seeks to elevate union officials to equal partners with executives in corporate boardrooms of all unionized firms." The Examinercontinues: The memo instructs NLRB regional operatives to flag all cases in which unionized firms made relocation decisions without submitting detailed economic justifications to their unions. The board plans "case-by-case" reviews, followed by prosecutions of selected cases. The intended consequence is that all major business decisions will become subject to approval by unions. Remarkably, the NLRB has attempted to deny that it's telling Boeing how to make basic business decisions, despite all evidence to the contrary. In an interview with The Street, NLRB spokeswoman Nancy Cleeland said: We are not telling Boeing they can't build planes in South Carolina," Cleeland clarified, in an interview. "We are talking about one specific piece of work: three planes a month. If they keep those three planes a month in Washington, there is no problem." Beyond the ten planes, she said, Boeing could build whatever it wants in South Carolina. So Boeing can make some planes, but not the planes the NLRB says it can't make? That still sounds like the federal government dictating private business decisions, doesn't it? However the NLRB wants to parse words or spin the story, it remains that its actions fly smack in the face of the rule of law. Simply put, the federal government does not have the legal authority to tell a company where it can expand its business. Sherk and von Spakovsky warn: The NLRB's decision to issue a complaint represents an unbridled, unauthorized, and unlawful expansion of the regulatory power of an executive agency. If allowed to stand, its actions threaten business investment and job creation as well as the employment of both unionized and nonunion workers.

Borrowing a page from the union intimidation playbook, the NLRB's general counsel released a statement earlier this month warning Boeing not to "litigate this case in the media and public arena." It is clear to the NLRB that its actions against Boeing would be unpopular nationallyand especially in South Carolinaso they do not desire attention or transparency. But as in most cases, when an agency like the NLRB wants the media to ignore a story, more media scrutiny is likely required. Millions of Americans continue to suffer unemployment. Yet as businesses try to get back on their feet, the union-dominated NLRB is expanding its reach to win short-term gain for its big labor special interest allies at the economy's expense. As the NLRB hurts businesses, job creation suffers right along with it. It's time for Congress to take action to prevent the NLRB from inflicting even more damage on America's economy.