Here is the Heritage Take on the top issues today.Please reply to this email to arrange an interview.

Biden's absurd 'zero cost'
claim – $3.5T is real money and it's coming out of your pocket <[link removed]> – At the end of the day, this legislation would further concentrate power and control in Washington D.C. The idea that Congress and federal bureaucrats deserve more responsibility over our day-to-day lives should be a punchline regardless of one’s political leaning, yet that is exactly what the bill would do. Instead of railroading through a piece of legislation that’s longer than the combined length of two King James Bibles, Congress ought to
slow down and consider alternatives. Reforms to already-existing benefit programs can encourage work and reduce long-term deficits. Maintaining a pro-growth tax code would do more for jobs and wages than any amount of federal meddling. Taking a responsible approach to the nation’s finances would be a welcome surprise. Unfortunately, Biden seems intent on pretending that everything he wants is free. He’s wrong. And if the legislative package passes, America will pay a very real price. Heritage expert: David Ditch <[link removed]>

Fact check: Will Biden's spending bill hike taxes on those making less than $400,000? <[link removed]> – Biden’s spending spree is paired with the largest tax increase in more than 50 years, clocking in at more than $2 trillion in higher taxes. These tax hikes would be permanent, while many of the new spending programs only get temporary funding
in order to game budgetary rules. Actually paying for the permanent expansion of government proposed by Biden would require even higher taxes. Increasing the tax burden would reduce wages, cost jobs, harm economic growth, cut investment, increase prices and harm working American families. Heritage expert: Joel Griffith <[link removed]>

5 Supreme Court Cases to Watch in the 2021-22 Term <[link removed]> – Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization: This is the most important abortion case in the last 30 years. Essentially, the Supreme Court will have an opportunity to reconsider—and potentially overrule—its wayward decisions Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey. In 2018, Mississippi enacted the Gestational Age Act, which prohibits abortions after 15 weeks of gestation except in cases of medical emergency or severe fetal abnormality. The state legislature set forth two findings in the law: 1) 75% of all nations do not permit abortions past 12 weeks’ gestation, and 2) an unborn human’s heart starts beating after five to six
weeks’ gestation and by nine weeks all “basic physiological functions are present.” It’s hard to overstate the potential impact of this ruling, whether it be a decision upholding the lower courts’ decisions and reaffirming Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which would be a huge blow to the pro-life movement, a moderate ruling that would gradually diminish prior abortion precedents, or a broad decision completely overturning its prior decisions. Heritage expert: Zack Smith <[link removed]>

Joe Biden’s plan to stop terror is ‘far’-fetched <[link removed]> – President Biden’s policy pronouncements may look great on bumper stickers, but they have fewer calories than Coke Zero. “The border is closed” was one empty promise. “Inflation is temporary” was another. Just as vacuous was the president’s promise that he will prevent the next 9/11 by fighting terrorism “over the horizon.” No way that can work. “Over the horizon capability” is a legitimate military term. It means being able to hit targets from a safe place at great distance, without benefit of a military presence in the area. Modern militaries, not just the United States, have been building out these capabilities for years, using long-range precision-guided weapons or drones paired with long-range or space-based sensors that can pinpoint
targets. Even before the last American troops had skedaddled out of Kabul, military experts complained that, without eyes, ears and influence in Afghanistan, al Qaeda and their ilk would flood back into the country and re-establish a terrorist safe haven from which to launch a new round of 9/11s. Heritage expert: Jim Carafano <[link removed]>
What absent fathers need to do right now for their children <[link removed]> – Today, the loss of the two-parent household plagues the Black
community. Prior to the 1970s, most Black parents were married, with dad working outside of the home and mom caring for the children. But once politicians sweetened the welfare system in the 1960s, welfare checks soon replaced the father. The financial consequences are staggering. The poverty rate for Black children in married-couple households is 73 percent lower than in mother-only households and 67 percent lower than in father-only households. The social consequences are disastrous, too. Black men are killing at a rate higher than any other population; we are dying at a higher rate than any other; we are imprisoned at a disproportionate rate; and, we use and sell drugs at a disproportionate rate. Fathers need to return to the home to bring discipline, protection, and provision. And, for absent fathers, returning to the family can be a beautiful thing. Heritage expert: Terris Todd <[link removed]>
Debunking the Left’s Propaganda on Voting <[link removed]> – It is not 1965 and there is no longer any justification for giving the federal government the ability to veto the election laws and regulations that citizens and their elected representatives choose to implement in their respective states. [HR 4] is an extraordinary violation of state sovereignty,
federalism, and the democratic process since it would take away the ability of the residents of each state and their elected representative to determine the rules under which their elections will be conducted. It is a very dangerous bill and there is no justification for it whatsoever. Heritage expert: Hans von Spakovsky <[link removed]>
Three Reasons The Afghanistan Hearings Were A Disaster <[link removed]> – Even the testimony that made headlines really didn’t tell us anything new. We learned for example there is now an elevated terrorist threat. Not exactly new news. We also heard the U.S. lacks the capacity to deal with these new threats. Again, not new news. It is unlikely that such partisan hearing are ever going to deliver the transparency and facts to the American people or enable them to really understand what happened, why it’s important, and where we go from here. None of the answers to these questions are likely to come without an independent inquiry. With Washington 0-for-3, the logical question is what’s next? If this were football, the coach would be fired, and there would be a shake-up in the starting line-up. What is likely to happen here is that the White House will move on. Congress will give up. The generals will keep their jobs. We as Americans don’t have to stand for this nonsense. But nothing will change unless we start paying attention and demanding better. Heritage expert: Jim Carafano <[link removed]>
Why Rachael Rollins’s Nomination to Be Rogue US Attorney Should Terrify Us All <[link removed]> – It brings us no joy to say we were right. But we predicted last year that a disaster-in-the-making would unfold if President Joe Biden selected rogue prosecutors from around the country to become rogue U.S. attorneys. Some were specifically floating the name of Rachael Rollins, the rogue Suffolk County district attorney in Boston, as a potential pick to become the chief federal law enforcement officer—the U.S. attorney—in Massachusetts. That came to pass, and Biden nominated her for the position. On Thursday, the Senate Judiciary Committee advanced her nomination on a tied vote (11-11). Now, the full Senate will have an opportunity to consider her nomination. Rollins’s conduct as a rogue district attorney has certainly been problematic. As Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., made clear at Thursday’s hearing, “it’s . . . rare for the President to nominate a radical, pro-criminal prosecutor for a U.S. Attorney position.” In fact, we cannot think of any other time in recent (or, frankly, distant) history where this happened. Heritage expert: Zack Smith <[link removed]>
How Clients’ Racial Preferences Hurt Minority Lawyers <[link removed]> – The root causes of racial disparities among law firm lawyers, whatever they are, occur before law firms make hiring decisions. Black law students, for example, accounted for only 7.9 percent of law school enrollees in 2019 and Hispanic students, 12.7 percent—less than either group’s percentage of the total U.S. population, which, one assumes, is the percentage that clients are targeting with their racial quotas. All of this is to say that these client demands are not likely having any long-term positive effect on the racial statistics of law firms, but they do have immediate and detrimental effects on minority lawyers. There is nothing insightful about this observation. That these racial quotas were likely to harm minority lawyers should have been obvious to clients the moment they first thought up this idea. Still, the clients insisted on them anyway. The unfortunate conclusion is that they never had these lawyers’ best interests at heart. They pushed racial quotas to make themselves feel virtuous, and they made pawns of minority lawyers to do it. Heritage expert: GianCarlo Canaparo <[link removed]>

-