In 1765, legal scholar William Blackstone said it is “better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer.” Today’s United States judicial system apparently disagrees.

Historically, criminal penalties were only used to punish behavior that is inarguably wrong, such as murder, theft, fraud, rape, and so forth.

But recently a disturbing trend has emerged — overcriminalization. That’s when government uses criminal law to solve every problem, to punish every mistake, and to compel compliance with regulatory objectives. Criminal penalties are now enforced against reasonable people who did not know what they were doing was wrong.

Take Abner Schoenwetter. He became a victim of overcriminalization after the federal government prosecuted him for violating a foreign country‘s wildlife regulations. Continue Reading »

Liberals are quick to argue that Europe’s economic stagnation proves spending cuts hurt growth. Heritage Foundation economist Salim Furth, though, points to a counterexample.

While he cautions “against drawing too much from a single example,” he notes that:

From 1995 to 1998, fiscal consolidation was heavily on the spending side, and growth accelerated to a smoking 3.6 percent, and the deficit turned to a surplus.

The fact that growth was strongest right after spending cuts preponderated and weakest when taxes increased most is an excellent exhibit of the case for preferring spending cuts.

What do you think? Should we cut spending as a way to boost the economy?

Reining in government spending, not more stimulus, will boost job growth and the economy, Heritage Foundation economist Salim Furth said yesterday in testimony before the Senate Budget Committee.

Furth, who testified alongside former Obama economic adviser Larry Summers and MIT economist Simon Johnson, also touched on the economic costs of entitlement spending. Read a summary of the hearing in the Seattle Times.

Watch the video of his testimony below. His remarks begin at 1:35.

Furth’s research has shown that spending cuts are superior to tax hikes as a means to reduce deficits and debt.

Do you think we should cut spending?

During a debate on immigration this week at the Bipartisan Policy Center, Heritage Foundation expert Robert Rector warned about the high cost of amnesty to American taxpayers.

In the video below, Rector questions the fairness of an approach like the Senate’s Gang of Eight amnesty bill.

Today the government spends close to $1 trillion each year aiding low-income individuals with nearly 80 different welfare programs, Rector pointed out. Providing amnesty to an estimated 11 million illegal immigration would cost taxpayers trillions more over their lifetimes.

The farm bill currently being debated isn’t really a farm bill at all. It’s more than 80 percent food stamps.

But even the farm portions of the bill aren’t what they seem. Heritage Foundation experts made this infographic to expose the truth. Share it on Facebook!

“On May 19, the United States hit its debt ceiling after adding $300 billion in more debt since lawmakers suspended the ceiling in February,” Heritage’s Romina Boccia reports.

That’s $300 billion in new debt in less than four months.

Hitting the limit, she says, is part of an ongoing pattern: Continue Reading »

Politico says The Heritage Foundation is among the five players who could stop the push for amnesty for illegal immigrants:

This is the kind of policy fight for which Jim DeMint was hired.

The former South Carolina GOP senator and tea party hero took over last month as president of the 40-year-old conservative think tank, and got straight to work. He has blasted the Gang of Eight’s proposal as “amnesty,” criticized negotiators for drafting the bill in secret and is trying to highlight the bill’s potential costs if millions of undocumented immigrants are made eligible for federal benefits.

If DeMint and Heritage — with its policy analyses and feisty advocacy arm — can help keep the right unified on immigration, it could force Democrats and the White House to accept amendments they don’t like in order to get something through — or simply kill the bill.

Heritage has been here before. The group helped sink previous immigration efforts by focusing on costs. Senior research fellow Robert Rector released a study in 2007 saying that immigration legislation could cost taxpayers $2.6 trillion.

Monday, Heritage said immigration reform could cost $6.3 trillion on new spending on entitlements and social programs.

DeMint appeared on Fox News this morning to explain the costs of granting amnesty:

Do you think lawmakers will balk at the costs of this plan?

The Heritage Foundation released a pivotal report today  which calculates that granting amnesty to illegal immigrants will cost taxpayers $6.3 trillion.

Some highlights from the report:

• If amnesty is enacted, the average adult unlawful immigrant would receive $592,000 more in government benefits over his lifetime than he would pay in taxes.
• The lifetime fiscal deficit of amnesty — benefits minus taxes — would be $6.3 trillion, and that’s a conservative estimate.
• When those granted amnesty retire and collect Social Security, they would draw $3.00 out of the pot for every $1.00 they paid in.
• In 2010, the average unlawful immigrant household received around $24,721 in government benefits and services while paying some $10,334 in taxes. That means that each illegal immigrant household today costs taxpayers $14,387 per year. Amnesty would provide unlawful households with access to over 80 means-tested welfare programs, Obamacare, Social Security, and Medicare. The fiscal deficit for each household would soar.

In their 93-page report, Heritage welfare expert Robert Rector and domestic policy scholar Jason Richwine break down the cost of amnesty to the U.S. taxpayer. Even accounting for the phased approach to implementing government benefits that some amnesty advocates favor, the long-term cost is astronomical. Continue Reading »

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 »