Skip ahead to page content

federal_budget_and_spending.jpg

24 event a smash hit

June 27, 2006 | By Nathaniel Ward

Talk show host Rush Limbaugh will moderate Friday's counter-terrorism discussion with Heritage experts and the cast of 24.

Carlos Bernard (who plays Tony Almeda on 24) banters with moderator Rush Limbaugh Friday at the Ronald Reagan Center while Mary Lynn Rajskub (Chloe O'Brien) and Gregory Itzin (President Charles Logan) laugh.

The results are in: last Friday’s panel discussion featuring radio host Rush Limbaugh, Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff, the cast and producers of Fox’s 24, and security experts from Heritage and the Center for Strategic and International Studies was a tremendous success.

While the popular television program does a good job reflecting the sorts of complex decisions and the dedication involved in homeland security, most of the show is exaggerated and entirely fictional, the panel concluded. “It isn’t realistic,” admitted Joel Surnow, 24’s creator and a professed Hollywood conservative. The show’s appeal lies not in its realism but in its broad message, he continued: “terrorists are the bad guys, we’re the good guys.”

The event drew quite a bit of attention. The Washington Post, The Austin American-Statesman, the Associated Press, ABC News, CNS News, UPI and National Review all covered the 24 event, which was shown live on C-SPAN. The New York Timesliberal columnist Maureen Dowd wrote a column about it, while the liberal Huffington Post and Wonkette blogs poked fun.

Heritage makes an impact on missile defense

The idea for a robust missile defense program for the United States, first proposed in Heritage’s 1982 “High Frontier” paper, took a step forward last week when the Senate voted to increase funding for missile defense research. Heritage played no small part in this development. With North Korea preparing to test a missile that could reach the United States, Heritage made clear to Congress the importance of strengthening our missile defense program—and the Senate adopted the new funding by a vote of 98-0.

Death tax compromise in the works

If Congress fails to act, the death tax will slowly be phased out until 2010—and then spring back into existence at 2001 levels on January 1, 2011. This is not good news for taxpayers. After Senate liberals filibustered permanent repeal of the death tax, conservatives have been working to scrape together a new plan that would at least improve on the status quo by cutting the tax rate and reducing the number of estates subject to the tax.

As Heritage’s Bill Beach explains, permanent repeal would be ideal. Repeal would benefit taxpayers in two ways, he writes, since they would

  • “Cease economically wasteful federal estate tax planning”
  • “Focus more on running their businesses and personal affairs knowing for certain that they do not have to look over their shoulder for the death tax collector.”

Not only that—and contrary to liberal myths—the death tax is economically unjustifiable. The death tax is a poor tax policy because it:

  • Discourages savings and investment—the tax urges consumption today to avoid taxes later
  • Undermines job creation and wage growth—the tax costs between 170,000 and 250,000 potential jobs each year
  • Prevents the economy from achieving its full potential—by discouraging investment, prosperity is curtailed
  • Contradicts the central promise of American life: wealth creation—Americans cannot pass on their prosperity to others

Line item veto

Both the House and the Senate are now considering President Bush’s solid proposal for a new line-item veto. The bill, as Heritage’s Brian Riedl explains, would expand and improve on the president’s authority to ask Congress to cancel budget authority for funds not yet spent. Riedl outlined the ways this line-item veto would be an improvement:

  • The president could “veto” entitlement changes and special tax breaks, as well as all discretionary appropriations;
  • Congress would have to act on “veto” packages within 10 days of the president submitting them;
  • Congress would have to hold up-or-down votes that could not be amended on the “veto” package bills;
  • Senators could not filibuster a “veto” package bill; and
  • Only a simple majority would be required to pass a “veto” package bill.

“While this new line-item veto could help to control spending, it alone will not solve the problem of runaway spending,” cautions Riedl, Heritage’s Grover Hermann fellow. Notably, President Bush has used his existing rescission authority far less than have other recent Presidents. “While the President’s proposal may help to reduce spending marginally, it is no substitute for aggressively using existing presidential powers.”

New features on MyHeritage.org

We’re rolling out new features on MyHeritage.org to help our members and supporters. On the side of each article on the website, you will now find new interactive tools to allow you to send articles to a colleague, print the article, respond to the article and much more. For those of you who use more advanced web features, we’re also rolling out RSS feeds that allow you to keep up with the latest news from MyHeritage.org.

In other news

Coming up at Heritage

To attend these or any other 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.