Here is the Heritage Take on the top issues today.Please reply to this email to arrange an interview.
9 Things You Need to Know About the Budget Resolution’s Reckless Tax and Spending Spree <[link removed]> – During this summer’s negotiations over the bipartisan infrastructure bill, many conservatives warned that any concessions made by Democrats would be undone by using reconciliation to get the rest of what the left wants for urban transit and passenger rail. To keep
Republicans at the negotiating table, Biden said he was willing to give up some of the transportation spending that he wanted, and reserve reconciliation for areas not related to infrastructure, such as social and environmental programs. The Senate budget resolution breaks this promise by giving $60 billion in reconciliation instructions to the
House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, on top of the $1.1 trillion infrastructure deal. The summary from the Senate Budget Committee explicitly states that the reconciliation instructions are expected to be used to increase spending on items already covered by the infrastructure bill, including transit improvements, investments in
transportation, ports, and clean vehicles. This shows that months of infrastructure negotiations were done in bad faith. Heritage experts: Joel Griffith <[link removed]> and Rachel Greszler <[link removed]>
Infrastructure and reconciliation bills undermine competition with China <[link removed]> – The Biden team is also using these
legislative vehicles to implement the "Green New Deal." Everything about the deal screams advantage China. America will lose its energy independence. Increasingly, Americans will be forced to buy (less efficient) green energy technologies manufactured in, wait for it, China. And, even as these provisions hamstring our economy, China will continue to grow as the world’s most prolific polluter. In short, the "Green New Deal" pays China to impoverish America. Friends and allies around the world who look at these bills objectively will conclude that claims they will strengthen American competitiveness are laughable. They will see them for what they are: “progressive leaders” surrendering to China in order to drive a radical domestic political agenda. Heritage expert: Jim Carafano <[link removed]>
Sloppy Thinking About ‘Systemic Racism’ <[link removed]> – To prove the existence of “systemic racism,” French must
first define it. Here, he stumbles. He starts by explaining what it is not. It is not actions undertaken with racist intent, he says. He then points to “residential segregation” and, specifically, redlining (a practice whereby banks refused to invest money in certain neighborhoods), “profound employment discrimination,” and “educational disparities.” This reasoning is befuddled. French is trying to reason from the specific to the general, but he distills no common principle from his three examples. The first is an action motivated by a business judgment, which often has a disparate impact on minorities if they make up the greater part of that neighborhood. The second is an action by individuals motivated by racial animus. And the third is not an action, but the result of some unspecified set of causes. Are these all systemic racism? If not, are they causes of it, results of it, parts of it? French doesn’t say. Heritage expert: GianCarlo Canaparo <[link removed]>
Why We Should Care That YouTube Has Silenced Sen. Rand Paul <[link removed]> – The government isn’t censoring information, it’s just working with the most powerful tech companies in the world to screen what it considers “misinformation.” Surely,
Big Tech companies and government officials couldn’t be wrong or be making decisions based on politics rather than health or science, could they? At one point, Facebook used misinformation warnings on posts arguing that the coronavirus that causes COVID-19 may have been man-made and originated in a lab. Facebook eventually had to change its policy and stop after it became hard to deny that a substantial amount of evidence exists for the lab-leak theory. Who was spreading “misinformation” after all? Maybe tech company chiefs and government officials shouldn’t be the arbiters of what is truth
and what isn’t. Maybe that ultimately should be left to the American people—and to courts, in the case of libel. Heritage expert: Jarrett Stepman <[link removed]>
Anti-Poverty Leaders to Biden: Child Allowance Cash Payments Will Not Give Low-Income Americans True Opportunity <[link removed]> – The policy may also subsidize single-parenthood, thereby undermining the chance that children will be raised by a married mother and father, which we know provides the best environment for children. Add this dynamic to other safety net benefits that penalize marriage,
such as the Earned Income Tax Credit, and the chances that low-income children live with a single parent increases. Any of these results are unacceptable. There are better ways to address poverty and the challenges working families in this country face. Instead of this expensive and ultimately counterproductive policy, policymakers should expand school choice in education, orient more benefit programs to promote work, and end disincentives to marriage, among other positive reforms. Policymakers should reject the Biden plan for permanent, unconditional cash payments in the form of a child allowance and
join thought leaders across the political spectrum to seek true opportunity for low-income Americans. Heritage experts: Robert
Rector <[link removed]> and Leslie Ford <[link removed]>
George Gascon’s Sinking Poll Numbers <[link removed]> – Perhaps more troubling for Gascon, is the fact that 61% of those
surveyed said they would not vote to reelect Gascon at the next election and would vote for a different candidate to replace him. Only 21% said they would vote to reelect him. He’s 40 points upside down. Only 17% were unsure. And lest you think this was some partisan-skewed poll, 53% of those surveyed were Democrat voters, 24% were independent voters, and only 17% were Republican voters. And these same voters would vote “no” to recalling California Gov. Gavin Newsom by an 8-point margin—49% to 41%. Those seeking to recall Gascon still face an uphill battle. It’s the nature of recall elections. But these numbers should rightfully be concerning for Gascon. Voters in Los Angeles and elsewhere are tired of the pro-criminal, anti-victim policies of rogue prosecutors like Gascon. And the numbers are starting to show it. Heritage expert: Zack Smith <[link removed]>
-
