Skip ahead to page content

federal_budget_and_spending.jpg

Senate fails to block censorship rule

July 17, 2007 | By Nathaniel Ward

The House of Representatives acted last month to block funding for the so-called “Fairness Doctrine.” But Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI) barred Senate conservatives from doing the same, leaving the regulation’s future uncertain.

The Fairness Doctrine is a pernicious regulation, abandoned in the 1980s, that requires broadcasters to impose “balance” in their political broadcasting. Since it was repealed, conservative talk radio has flourished—and far left groups now seek to restore this and similar regulations to shut down conservative voices.

“The Left has been very active in promoting a number of much more subtle ‘reforms’ meant to alter what broadcasters do and say,” Heritage regulation expert James Gattuso explains. In short, they want to use the long arm of the government to silence their political opponents.

One group, the Center for American Progress, released a report finding that many talk radio stations broadcast conservative programming. They find the popularity of conservative shows unacceptable and argue that there should be more “diversity” in broadcast viewpoints. So they want to fine radio station owners who fail to operate in “the public interest,” a term to be defined by liberals, of course. This sort of regulation is just censorship by another name.

Fortunately, President Bush has pledged to veto any legislation reviving the Fairness Doctrine.

Two bad proposals for Iraq

The Left is ramping up its campaign to undermine political support for the Iraq war. And their fight is paying off on Capitol Hill, where lawmakers are pushing for legislation to hamstring the war effort.

One liberal-backed proposal, intended as an amendment to a pending defense bill, would require American troops to begin withdrawal from Iraq within 120 days and impose broad restrictions on what American troops based there can do. This law would require “the forced, premature withdrawal of American troops from Iraq,” write Heritage national security experts James Carafano and James Phillips. The plan “would have disastrous consequences for Iraq, the Middle East, and American foreign policy and would lead to a full-scale humanitarian disaster.”

Another amendment, sponsored by Sen. Ken Salazar (D–CO), Sen. Lamar Alexander (R–TN) and others, would impose the full recommendations of the Iraq Study Group. In doing so, the bill would undermine the President’s authority as commander-in-chief. Not only that, James Phillips warns, it “ignores key conclusions of the commission itself,” such as the rejection of withdrawal timetables and the endorsement of counter-insurgency strategies like that underway now.

Here’s a better plan, as outlined by Phillips and Carafano: “Allow the military to finish the job of training Iraqi security forces that are capable of supporting the government, dealing with sectarian violence, and providing for the safety of the civilian population.”

For all the latest on the conflict in Iraq, visit Heritage’s Progress in Iraq website.

Government handouts to ‘urban farmers’

There’s one big-government program that even many liberals can’t defend: farm subsidies.

And now Heritage researchers have discovered that a number of city dwellers—dubbed “urban farmers” by Heritage experts—are among the many dubious recipients of farm subsidies. Remember, farm subsidies are defended as an “emergency” measure to help small farmers scrape by in hard times. Instead, they’re just a handout to agribusiness and wealthy landowners who hardly need support.

View the chart online (PDF format)

In fact, Brian Riedl reports, ten percent of subsidy recipients collect three-fourths of the money. In addition, most of the $25 billion in farm subsidies handed out each year “goes to commercial farms, where average household income is $199,975 and average net worth is almost $2 million.” On top of that, “a total of 55 farmers cashed federal crop subsidies worth more than $1 million each in 2003 through 2005.”

It’s time Congress put a stop to this wasteful boondoggle.

Should Guantanamo Bay be closed?

Heritage national security expert James Carafano recently debated Gabor Rona of Human Rights First about whether or not the Guantanamo Bay terrorist detention facility should be closed. Carafano pointed out the flaws in arguments in favor of closure.

(1) [Closing the facility] will not satisfy the administration’s critics. In large part the debate over Guantanamo Bay represents what some analysts have termed as “lawfare,” misusing or reinterpreting laws to make American actions appear illegitimate in the eyes of the world. In other words, what they really disagree with is U.S. policy, but the policy debate is reframed as a legal issue.

(2) If the detention facilities at Guantanamo were closed, the United States would still have legal and moral obligations to safeguard the prisoners, collect intelligence, try war criminals, and send home detainees who are no longer a threat. Meeting all those obligations in accordance with the law and national security concerns will require procedures and facilities that look an awful lot like Guantanamo.

Read the whole debate on the CFR website.

Families matter for children

A new compilation of social science research from Heritage’s FamilyFacts.org once again demonstrates once again the importance of traditional families.

In this month’s FamilyFacts.org Top Ten, we learn that families and traditional values are closely linked with strong childhood development. For example, infant children of married parents exhibit more positive behavior than those of single or cohabiting parents. Likewise, young children whose parents attend religious services are more likely to have self-control and enjoy strong mental health. And children raised in early childhood by their mothers are better off developmentally and behaviorally than those cared for by others.

In other news

  • The PBS television network recently refused to air a documentary about moderate Muslims who speak out against radical Islamism. So The Heritage Foundation hosted a screening of this important film last week. Read more about this event on Heritage’s website.
  • United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon said yesterday that America should not cut and run from Iraq. “Any abrupt withdrawal or decision may lead to a further deterioration” in that country, he said at a press conference. Meanwhile, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Peter Pace, has cautiously concluded the new “surge” strategy in Iraq to be a “sea change” for the nation’s security situation.
  • The District of Columbia is challenging a court ruling that found the city’s absolute prohibition on firearms—even those kept in the home for self protection—to be unconstitutional under the Second Amendment.
  • Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp. has reached a tentative deal to purchase Dow Jones & Co., publishers of the Wall Street Journal. The agreement must still be approved by the company’s board of directors.
  • It’s revisionism gone mad in British schools, where new national guidelines no longer recommend teaching about such important historical figures as Adolf Hitler, Josef Stalin and Mahatma Gandhi—or even Winston Churchill, whose leadership helped the island nation prevail in World War II.

Coming up at Heritage

To attend the following Heritage Foundation events, RSVP at Heritage’s events website. Or you can watch these events live online at Heritage.org. All times are Eastern.

Nathaniel Ward is the Editor of MyHeritage.org—a website for members and supporters of The Heritage Foundation. DeEtte Chatterton contributed to this report.