Heritage Foundation experts accounted for three of the nine articles in the Journal of International Security Affairs‘ recent symposium (not yet online) on the 30th anniversary of Ronald Reagan’s Strategic Defense Initiative:

1. Baker Spring reviews the history of missile defense and explains that lawmakers opposed to such defenses have come to see its benefits
2. Rebecca Heinrichs discusses the varying sorts of threats for which missile defenses are appropriate
3. Michaela Dodge explains the logic of space-based missile defenses

Do you think missile defense can help keep America safe?

Congress is holding hearings today about the September terrorist attacks in Benghazi, Libya that claimed the lives of four Americans. Heritage Foundation experts have identified several questions that remain unanswered and how to anticipate and mitigate similar threats in the future.

To get more graphics like this every day, like Heritage on Facebook.

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 »

Keiko Hiromi/Polaris/Newscom

In the wake of this week’s tragic attacks, including the Boston bombing and the ricin-laced letters sent to , policymakers need to refocus on effective homeland security solutions.

The first purpose of federal government is to protect its citizens. For this reason, The Heritage Foundation has long been focused on developing homeland security policies that keep the U.S. safe and prosperous, as seen in the following reports.

Eight Heritage reports summarized on Heritage.org can serve as a guide to future reforms: Continue Reading »

Heritage Foundation national security expert James Carafano appears in four episodes of the new documentary series “Bullet Points,” which premiers tonight on the Military Channel.

Carafano, who serves as Heritage’s E.W. Richardson Fellow, weighs in on the history of conflicts including the Battle of the Pacific in World War II, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, and Desert Storm.

“Bullet Points” premiers tonight at 10:00 p.m. Eastern on military and runs for five weeks.

North Korea has continued its saber-rattling this week, and news reports suggest the communist nation is preparing a missile launch.

North Korea’s threats should not be taken lightly. The Heritage Foundation’s Michaela Dodge tells us that Pyongyang’s missile program pose a threat to the United Statest:

North Korea can already hit Hawaii, parts of Alaska, and California. It can also hit U.S. forward-deployed troops in South Korea, Japan, and Guam…While the Obama Administration does not believe that North Korea is capable of hitting the U.S. with a nuclear weapon, the U.S. has a history of underestimating North Korea’s ballistic missile and nuclear weapons programs.

American troops and bases are also located throughout the region, including along the Demilitarized Zone that serves as a border between North and South Korea.

Photo: Newscom

In the latest development in its long history of belligerence, North Korea is threatening  preemptive nuclear attacks against the U.S.

Unfortunately, cuts to defense may limit America’s ability to deter or defend against attack, The Heritage Foundation’s Nick Zahn writes. “The bottom line,” he explains, “is that as U.S. capability erodes, warfighters will be unable to provide the necessary credible deterrence to maintain peace—not just on the Korean peninsula, but elsewhere in the world where the U.S. has critical national interests. Nor in a conflict will they be assured victory with the least possible U.S. and allied casualties.”

But the communist government isn’t just a threat to other countries. It’s a threat to its own people.

Since North Korea is essentially an isolated military slave labor camp for its rulers, information is hard to gather. Hard to gather, but not impossible, as Heritage’s Olivia Enos explains: Continue Reading »

Photo: NewsCom

The federal budget for 2014 should accomplish six things, Heritage Foundation experts explain. These are laid out in our Saving the American Dream plan:

1. Balance the budget in less than 10 years, without raising taxes, and keep the budget in balance thereafter;
2. Swiftly overhaul entitlement programs, including Social Security, to guarantee economic security to seniors while making the programs affordable;
3. Repeal Obamacare in its entirety;
4. Fully fund defense;
5. Cut discretionary spending; and
6. Roll back recent tax increases with a sweeping, growth-oriented tax reform plan and caps taxes at the historical average of 18.5 percent.

So does Rep. Paul Ryan’s (R-WI) new budget proposal, released today, measure up? Continue Reading »

The sequestration cuts to the armed forces don’t really address the problem of wasteful Defense Department spending. In fact, The Heritage Foundation’s Baker Spring explains that the indiscriminate cuts “will result in the loss of military capabilities” while doing little to curb waste.

There is a lot of waste and inefficiency in the military, and Heritage recently outlined $70 billion in annual savings. But that’s not how the sequester or the Obama administration’s proposals work. Continue Reading »

The debate in Washington this week has focused on the mandatory spending cuts, known as sequestration, that go into effect Friday. To hear the media and the White House describe it, the cuts will be “massive.” But are these cuts really that massive?

No. “Federal spending will explode from $3.6 trillion to $6 trillion over the next 10 years, but the much-maligned sequester will cut only 2.4 percent of this spending,” The Heritage Foundation’s T. Elliot Gaiser explains.

The sequester doesn’t gut key social programs

The Obama administration would have you believe it’s coming from “vital” social programs. But, as Gaiser explains,

sequestration leaves the largest component of federal spending—entitlements—nearly untouched. Instead, it falls most heavily on national defense, with 50 percent of sequestration cuts impacting national security. Thirty-five percent would impact non-defense discretionary spending. Less than 15 percent would fall on mandatory spending, which consumes 62 percent of the federal budget.

The sequester won’t force airport delays

Liberals also claim that the sequester will lead to massive inconvenience as budgets are slashed at agencies like the TSA and FAA, Gaiser explains with Heritage’s Jason Lloyd:

President Obama claims that unless Congress raises taxes to undo the imminent automatic budget cuts known as sequestration, the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) would be forced to reduce security measures, leaving travelers and the airways vulnerable and increasing wait times at airports.

But there are ways to economize that don’t involve core responsibilities, for example trimming non-essential budget items. Gaiser and Lloyd point out, for example, that the TSA has wasted millions of taxpayer dollars: “The TSA has a warehouse in Dallas, Texas, where 5,700 pieces of unused security equipment sit in storage. The dormant equipment is worth $184 million.”

The sequester won’t lay off teachers

President Obama has also claimed that our nation’s children will be at risk of a poor education if the cuts go through:

“[o]ur ability to teach our kids the skills they’ll need for the jobs of the future would be put at risk…70,000 young children would be kicked off Head Start, 10,000 teacher jobs would be put at risk, and funding for up to 7,200 special education teachers, aides, and staff could be cut.”

This is simply incorrect, Gaiser and Lloyd explain:

No federal education program operated by the Department of Education directly funds teacher salaries—this is a state and local responsibility. Further, there are a multitude of ineffective and duplicative programs that could—and should—be cut, saving billions of dollars annually and restoring state and local education decision-making authority…

Washington has not spent federal taxpayer money judiciously on education. Real education reform would save billions of dollars, while improving children’s educational opportunities by empowering states and parents.

But the sequester will affect national defense

The sequester will affect our nation’s ability to protect itself, however:

National defense, unlike most other discretionary programs, is a central constitutional duty and today represents only 17 percent of the budget. Yet nearly half of the Congress-mandated sequestration cuts—$492 billion—would come from defense. These across-the-board cuts threaten our nation’s defense capability.

Congress should follow through with the sequester

The United States needs to cut spending. And as Heritage’s Amy Payne notes, the sequester is better than many of the alternatives:

It would be better to replace them with smarter cuts, but the reality is that Washington has to start cutting spending now. Real program reforms and a balanced budget are the only way to solve our continuing fiscal crises. So it is critical that Congress keep its word and follow through on these spending cuts to prove it is serious about bringing our budget into balance over the next 10 years.

Do you believe budget cuts are needed? And if so, what should be cut?