Heritage's Ryan Anderson is profiled on the front page of Thursday's Washington Post.

Heritage’s Ryan Anderson is profiled on the front page of Thursday’s Washington Post.

Today’s Washington Post includes an in-depth front-page profile of Heritage’s Ryan Anderson, one of the nation’s leading proponents of traditional marriage:

Another day, another town. Ryan T. Anderson, the conservative movement’s fresh-faced, millennial, Ivy League-educated spokesman against same-sex marriage, has another busy schedule.

There is an interview with conservative talk radio, a debate with a liberal professor at the University of Colorado’s law school and, after that, a lecture to Catholic students eager to hear Anderson’s view that the Constitution does not require that marriage be “redefined” to include same-sex couples.

The Supreme Court will soon be deciding just that question. And Anderson, a 33-year-old scholar at the Heritage Foundation, has emerged as a leading voice for those who resent being labeled hopelessly old-fashioned — or, worse, bigoted — for believing that marriage should be only between a man and a woman.

“Gays and lesbians undoubtedly have been discriminated against,” Anderson says. “But marriage is not part of that discrimination.”

Be sure to read the whole article, which includes praise from the likes of Princeton’s Robert George and even his liberal sparring partners.

So why did the Post profile Anderson? Because his arguments are driving the debate:

Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. cited his work twice in his dissent from the court’s opinion in United States v. Windsor, which struck down part of the federal Defense of Marriage Act. Anderson is becoming a prominent face of the opposition in news media appearances.

Do you think conservatives need more young advocates like Anderson to sway more people to the conservative cause?

Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) and Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) at The Heritage Foundation

Sens. Mike Lee (R-UT) and Marco Rubio (R-FL) at Heritage Wednesday.

Speaking today at The Heritage Foundation, Sens. Mike Lee (R-UT) and Marco Rubio (R-FL) made the case for their new tax plan.

Our current tax code is so overcomplicated and burdensome, they explained, that it ends up punishing entrepreneurs and savers. Over 90 percent of Americans would see a tax decrease under their proposal.

The plan “levels the playing field” for those with small businesses who are currently paying higher taxes than their larger competitors. “The more you innovate, the more you invest into the economy,” Rubio said, “the more you should get back.”

Not only that, their proposal is a “pro-growth and pro-family tax plan,” Lee said, since it institutes a $2,500 child tax credit.

Heritage’s Curtis Dubay and David Burton reviewed the plan last month:

The business side of the Lee–Rubio plan is the best business income tax reform plan that has been proposed in Congress in recent memory. The individual side is a modest step in the right direction, but leaves much room for improvement. The business tax reforms are so positive that, taken as a whole, the plan would dramatically improve the economy and the incomes of American families.

The Lee–Rubio plan would also increase interest in tax reform and show the way on business tax reform. It will help to make tax reform a reality when there is a President in office who wants to lead the effort.

What do you think of the Lee-Rubio tax plan? 

Who pays their fair share of taxes?

Daily Signal

“Top earners pay a disproportionately large share of the federal tax burden,” Heritage’s Curtis Dubay writes on The Daily Signal. “The top 10 percent pays 53.3 percent of all federal taxes. When looking at just federal income taxes, they pay 68 percent of the burden.”

Heritage urges lawmakers to adopt a tax system “that taxes income that is spent, but not income that is saved and invested.”

How would you reform taxes?

You read that right. Raul Castro pardoned us. Over the weekend, the Cuban dictator granted the United States of America a pardon for the embargo we enacted on Cuba.

And President Obama shook the dictator’s hand:

Photo: NPR

This thaw in relations does nothing for the Cuban people or America’s interests, but rather serves to bolster Obama’s personal legacy.

“Barack Obama is simply in a rush to create a legacy for himself,” Heritage Foundation expert Mike Gonzalez told FoxNews.com. “He found time to meet with Mr. Castro, but he didn’t have time to meet with [Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin] Netanyahu.”

And how has President Obama affected the dictator’s future plans for Cuba? Gonzalez warns that it will be much of the same: “Raul Castro is a family man, like ‘Don Corleone’ – he is now setting up his pieces and Obama has given him an assist in how to perpetrate that.”

What kind of foreign policy legacy do you think President Obama will have?

Legislation moving through Congress, the result of a deal between Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) and Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), would add around $141 billion in deficit spending as part of a so-called “doc fix” to prevent Medicare cuts.

In an article for The Hill, Heritage’s Robert Moffit and Paul Winfree tell us what Congress should do instead:

With a stronger Medigap reform that would further limit “first dollar” coverage, the Senate should also simplify Medicare, combining Parts A and B, so that seniors pay a single deductible, get  uniform coinsurance, and receive iron-clad  protection from the financial devastation of catastrophic illness.

To rein in unnecessary spending, lawmakers should reduce taxpayer subsidies for Medicare Part B and D premiums for the wealthiest recipients, roughly 10 percent of all participants. That’s certainly not unreasonable; President Obama himself has proposed eventually extending “means testing” to 25 percent of the Medicare population.

Finally, the Senate should reduce unnecessary spending in the Medicare Advantage program by replacing its flawed payment system with intensified price competition.  Health plans should bid for government contributions, with the average bidders—plus taxpayers and seniors—winning.

What do you think: should lawmakers reform Medicare, or just “fix” it as Boehner and Pelosi propose by adding hundreds of billions of dollars to the debt?

« Older Entries