Pat Benic/UPI/Newscom

It’s no secret American leadership in the world is growing weaker. Our decreasing influence can be traced to the Obama Doctrine.

With his goal to make the United States “an equal partner” rather than an “exceptional” nation, President Obama has sought to remake American foreign policy. For years, The Heritage Foundation has explored and tracked the Obama Doctrine. Heritage’s Helle Dale explains the four main tenets identified by authors Kim Holmes and James Carafano. They are:

1. Ratification of more treaties and reliance on international organizations more often to deal with global crises and security concerns like nuclear weapons, often before turning to our traditional friends and allies;
2. Emphasis on diplomacy and “soft power” instruments such as summits and foreign aid to promote its aims and downplay military might;
3. Adoption of a more humble attitude in state-to-state relations; and
4. Playing a more restrained role on the international stage.

Becoming weaker in the world’s eye is not advantageous for the U.S..  Dale explains:

Soft power has not advanced the cause of political reform or peace in the Middle East following the Arab uprisings. And regimes like those of Syria, North Korea, and Iran display little fear of consequences from a U.S. in global retreat.

While the Obama Doctrine has made America weaker abroad, he has pushed for a stronger and more intrusive government at home. Recent scandals aside (IRS, AP spying, Benghazi), Obamacare is a prime example of a power-grab. As Heritage president  Jim DeMint wrote in yesterday’s Morning Bell, Obamacare is a means by which President Obama can jockey for more power through the IRS: “ Obamacare grants it (IRS) massive new authority.”

Do you think President Obama needs to reevaluate his policy priorities?

Heritage Foundation President Jim DeMint was named to Washington Life’s “Power List,” an annual ranking of the power-players in the nation’s political scene. Read the full list here.

On Friday the IRS admitted to targeting conservative groups for extra scrutiny in their applications for tax-exempt status. The agency claimed the practice was initiated by low-level workers and did not result from political bias.

Then over the weekend, it was revealed that the IRS targeted “groups focused on government spending, government debt, taxes, and education on ways to ‘make America a better place to live.’”

Heritage Foundation expert Hans von Spakovsky says that any explanation other than political bias would be hard to believe, because “the only relevant or substantive thing these organizations have in common is that they are all conservative politically.”

In fact, it’s fully permissible for organizations to advance conservative principles, he explains in a separate post:

Whether or not you agree with the Administration’s policies or whether you criticize the expansion of government or its excessive debt are not a consideration under the Revenue Code to qualify for tax-exempt status. Apparently, the IRS finally realized that, because according to The Washington Post, it changed its tactics in May 2012 to focus on “organizations with indicators of significant amounts of political campaign intervention.” Despite that change, dozens of conservative organizations are still waiting to receive their tax exemptions.

So why did the practice go on for so long without interference from the higher-ups? There should be a thorough investigation, von Spakovsky argues:

It’s unclear who in the IRS or elsewhere supported or condoned the wrongful conduct at issue, but it is important for the rule of law and the interests of justice that Congress aggressively pursue its oversight function to get to the bottom of this scandal and, most importantly, who instigated and authorized it.

Do you think targeting conservative groups was political?

The Senate immigration bill contains language that would provide substantial federal funding for special interest groups and expose the government to legal fights — at taxpayers’ expense.

Heritage Foundation expert Hans von Spakovsky explains that in addition to costing American taxpayers, by granting funding to immigrant advocacy groups these provisions “could expose the government to costly litigation going forward.”

The legislation establishes a $50 million grant program for nonprofit organizations to assist applicants for legal residence. “These grants can be used for legal assistance and effectively commit the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to providing grants for lawsuits against itself,” von Spakovsky explains.

In addition to these grants, the proposed bill includes very broad language granting legal services to aliens: Continue Reading »

Last week, Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) told Bloomberg Television that he would “probably not” support the Marketplace Fairness Act, an Internet sales tax bill that passed through the Senate by a 69–27 margin.

Boehner’s reasoning for not supporting the bill? “Moving this bill where you’ve got 50 different sales tax codes, it’s a mess out there,” he said. “You’re going to make it much more difficult for online retailers to be able to comply.”

Many small business owners are already frustrated by the complexity and high costs associated with the Internet sales tax. The Heritage Foundation has put together this infographic to highlight some of their concerns:

Do you think the complexity of the sales tax codes will over-burden small business owners?

Heritage Foundation president Jim DeMint and Heritage expert Robert Rector shed light on the real cost of granting amnesty to illegal immigrants in today’s Washington Post:

For centuries immigration has been vital to our nation’s health, and it will be essential to our future success. Yet immigrants should come to our nation lawfully and should not impose additional fiscal costs on our overburdened taxpayers. An efficient and merit-based system would help our economy and lessen the burden on taxpayers, strengthening our nation.

A properly structured lawful immigration system holds the potential to drive positive economic growth and job creation. But amnesty for those here unlawfully is not necessary to capture those benefits . . .

An exhaustive study by the Heritage Foundation has found that after amnesty, current unlawful immigrants would receive $9.4 trillion in government benefits and services and pay more than $3 trillion in taxes over their lifetimes. That leaves a net fiscal deficit (benefits minus taxes) of $6.3 trillion. That deficit would have to be financed by increasing the government debt or raising taxes on U.S. citizens.

Do you think our nation’s taxpayers can afford to cover the $6.3 trillion cost of granting amnesty to illegal immigrants?

You know you’re changing the debate on the Internet sales tax proposal when even left-leaning MSNBC features a Heritage Foundation video on the issue.

In a report last night on the Senate passage of the tax-hike proposal, MSNBC’s Chris Hayes featured a Heritage video on liberals who oppose the plan. Watch the segment below:

Read more Heritage research on how the Internet sales tax could cost you and cost small businesses.

Do you think the Internet sales tax should be implemented?

Jim DeMint

Heritage Foundation President Jim DeMint will appear Sunday on ABC’s This Week with George Stephanopoulos. He plans to discuss Heritage’s research on the cost of granting amnesty to illegal immigrants under the Gang of Eight proposal.

Click here see when to tune in in your area.

Next week Senators will begin to debate the “Gang of Eight’s” comprehensive immigration bill. Heritage President Jim DeMint has said the bill is “unfair, it costs too much, and it’s going to make the problem worse.”

Below is an infographic that explains some of the major problems with a “comprehensive” approach to immigration reform. Continue Reading »

FBI/AFP/Getty Images/Newscom

News reports that suspected Boston bombers Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev received large amounts of welfare benefits draw “attention to the policy principle that immigrants should be net contributors to the government and society and should not be a fiscal burden on American society,” The Heritage Foundation’s Rachel Sheffield argues.

As ABC News reports,  the time Tamerlan was receiving state aid “coincides with the years Tamerlan Tsarnaev reportedly became more radicalized. He was interviewed by the FBI in 2011 after Russia flagged Tsarnaev for his potentially dangerous views.” At the time of the bombing, neither of the brothers was receiving benefits.

Sheffield continues: Continue Reading »