The Heritage Insider: The IRS is either lying or terrible at keeping records, is policing offensive trade names really a job for the government? and more
Updated daily, InsiderOnline (insideronline.org) is a compilation of publication abstracts, how-to essays, events, news, and analysis from around the conservative movement. The current edition of The INSIDER quarterly magazine is also on the site.
June 21, 2014
Latest Studies: 43 new studies, including a Manhattan Institute report on which cities are doing well and why, and a report from the Mercatus Center on how the private sector can improve public transportation
Notes on the Week: The Internal Revenue Service is either lying or terrible at keeping records, is policing offensive trade names really a job for the government? and more
To Do: Learn about human flourishing, conservative social justice, and an agenda for prosperity
Budget & Taxation
• Fiscal Uncertainty and Economic Activity – Cato Institute
• The Best of Both Budgets – John Locke Foundation
• Key Argument for Export-Import Bank Invalid – Mercatus Center
• Should the Internet Tax Moratorium be Made Permanent? – Phoenix Center for Advanced Legal and Economic Public Policy Studies
• Addressing Common Objections to Shifting from Defined-Benefit Pensions to Defined-Contribution Retirement Plans – Reason Foundation
• Enacting Local Supermajority Vote Requirements to Increase Taxes – Washington Policy Center
Crime, Justice & the Law
• Thwarting ‘Patent Trolls’: Not as Easy as it Sounds – American Enterprise Institute
• Curbs for Costly Discovery? Federal Rules Reform Aims at Electronic Document Burdens – Washington Legal Foundation
• No Rational Basis for Florida High Court’s Nullification of Statutory Noneconomic Damages Cap – Washington Legal Foundation
• The Other Shoe Has Dropped on General Jurisdiction: Utilizing U.S. Supreme Court’s Bauman & Brown Rulings – Washington Legal Foundation
Economic Growth
• Job-Training Reform: Finding Out What Works – The Heritage Foundation
• America’s Top Metros: Who’s Leading the Recovery, and Why – Manhattan Institute
Education
• Class Warfare and Student Loans – American Action Forum
• Staying on Target for College – American Enterprise Institute
• Donating the Voucher: An Alternative Tax Treatment of Private School Enrollment – Cato Institute
• Public Rules on Private Schools – Friedman Foundation for Educational Choice
• Opening New Doors for Students: Washington’s First Public Charter Schools – Washington Policy Center
Foreign Policy/International Affairs
• Are Bahraini Shi’ites Puppets of Iran? – American Enterprise Institute
• The Shi’ites of Pakistan: A Minority Under Siege – American Enterprise Institute
• U.S. Participation in the U.N.’s “Programme of Action” on Small Arms and Light Weapons Is Not in the National Interest – The Heritage Foundation
• The Rebalance to Asia: What Are Its Security Aims and What Is Required of U.S. Policy? – Hudson Institute
Health Care
• Primer: Understanding the 340B Drug Pricing Program – American Action Forum
• The President’s Health Care Law Does Not Equal Health Care Access – American Enterprise Institute
• The Economics of Pharmaceutical Pricing – Pacific Research Institute
• The Elusive Uninsured: Assessing the ACA Exchange in Texas – Texas Public Policy Foundation
Information Technology
• A Framework to Reform FCC Competition Policy – American Action Forum
• The Comcast/Time Warner Cable Deal: Keep the Focus on the Consumer Welfare Benefits – Free State Foundation
• Protecting Internet Freedom and American Interests: Required Reforms and Standards for ICANN Transition – The Heritage Foundation
Labor
• Unfree Speech: Most Washington Unions Fund Political Campaigns with Compelled Dues – Freedom Foundation
• Union Influence in the 2014 Legislature – Freedom Foundation
• Empowerment in the Workplace – The Heritage Foundation
Monetary Policy/Financial Regulation
• Why Is Federal Housing Policy Fixated on 30-Year Fixed-Rate Mortgages? – The Heritage Foundation
• New Private Monies: A Bit-Part Player? – Institute of Economic Affairs
• How Proxy Advisory Services Became So Powerful – Mercatus Center
National Security
• Why Canada Should Join the U.S. Missile Defense Program: Ballistic Missiles Threaten Both Countries – The Heritage Foundation
Natural Resources, Energy, Environment, & Science
• Political Agendas versus Sound Nutrition – Independent Women’s Forum
• An Evaluation of the Effects of California’s Proposed Plastic Bag Ban – Reason Foundation
• Extreme Weather and Climate Change: What the Science Really Says – Texas Public Policy Foundation
Regulation & Deregulation
• Punishing the Majority: The Flawed Theory Behind Alcohol Control Policies – Institute of Economic Affairs
• Stealth Regulation: Addressing Agency Evasion of OIRA and the Administrative Procedure Act – Mercatus Center
Transportation/Infrastructure
• How the Private Sector Can Improve Public Transportation Infrastructure – Mercatus Center
Welfare
• The War on Poverty at 50: Building on What Works, Reforming What Doesn't – American Enterprise Institute
The Internal Revenue Service is either lying or terrible at keeping records. Late last week, the Internal Revenue Service informed the House of Representatives Ways and Mean Committee, which is looking into the agency’s treatment of conservative non-profit groups, that it had lost two years’ worth of Lois Lerner’s emails. Lerner was the head of the IRS unit that reviewed groups’ applications for tax exempt status. That unit is the one that was found, by the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration, to have targeted conservative groups with invasive and burdensome questioning during the 2010-2012 election cycle. Here are a few details on the latest development in the investigation of the scandal from the Washington Post:
The IRS said technicians went to great lengths trying to recover data from Lerner’s computer in 2011. In emails provided by the IRS, technicians said they sent the computer to a forensic lab run by the agency’s criminal investigations unit. But to no avail.
The IRS was able to generate 24,000 Lerner emails from the 2009 to 2011 because Lerner had copied in other IRS employees. The agency said it pieced together the emails from the computers of 82 other IRS employees.
But an untold number are gone. Camp’s office said the missing emails are mainly ones to and from people outside the IRS, “such as the White House, Treasury, Department of Justice, FEC, or Democrat offices.” [Washington Post, June 13]
In other words, the error affects only the emails that might have provided answers to the question: Who outside of the IRS was involved in targeting conservative groups?
There’s more, Eliana Johnson reports:
It’s not just Lois Lerner’s e-mails. The Internal Revenue Service says it can’t produce e-mails from six more employees involved in the targeting of conservative groups, according to two Republicans investigating the scandal.
The IRS told Ways and Means chairman Dave Camp and subcommittee chairman Charles Boustany that computer crashes resulted in additional lost e-mails, including from Nikole Flax, the chief of staff to former IRS commissioner Steven Miller, who was fired in the wake of the targeting scandal. [National Review, June 17]
If we are to believe the IRS’s explanation for how the loss of emails happened, writes John Hinderaker, then the agency may be in violation of laws governing record retention in the government:
The IRS has told us that after six months, backup tapes are erased and emails will survive, in all likelihood, only on an individual’s desktop computer (and that, only if the employee took the trouble to archive the email locally). Was such a policy even legal under the Code of Federal Regulations? I have not yet been able to figure that out. But it clearly was contrary to the guidance on document retention from the National Archives and Records Administration, which has broad oversight over the handling and retention of records by federal agencies.
In its Agency Recordkeeping Requirements: a Management Guide, NARA addresses the inadequate system that the IRS says that it used until last year. NARA says it is improper:
Agency files and record keeping systems must be available to all authorized staff members. Consequently, Federal records in electronic form should not be maintained solely on a staff member’s computer hard disk, diskettes, or directories assigned only for an individual’s use. This would be the electronic equivalent of maintaining agency paper records in an individual’s locked desk drawer.
As the IRS investigation continues, Koskinen and others at the Agency should not be allowed to get away with the facile suggestion that Lerner’s emails–all of them!–were not “records” and therefore could be destroyed with impunity. It would be interesting to know what documents the IRS did preserve as “records” during the relevant time period. Unless the IRS was simply thumbing its nose at its statutory duty to maintain records of its actions and deliberations, a large number of emails should have been preserved in some fashion.
A final point: the IRS whines that it has 90,000 employees and that managing its internal documents is therefore difficult. But take a look at the IRS’s budget. In fiscal years 2012 and 2013, the IRS’s budget for “Information Services” was in excess of $1.8 billion annually! Nearly two billion dollars in “information services,” and the agency can’t keep track of emails? And that doesn’t count another $330 million, annually, for “Business Systems Modernization.” [Powerline, June 20]
Sharyl Attkisson reports that the IRS had the gall to suggest—in the same letter informing Congress of the lost emails—that Congress should end its investigation. Instead, says Attkisson, the IRS needs to show the paper trail on the alleged IT glitch, including a timeline of the crash, the names of all officials and technicians involved in attempting to fix the crash, and all IRS communications about the crash. [SharylAttkisson.com, June 14]
If you know your political history, this story might make you feel some déjà vu. Thirty-two years ago this very week (June 17, 1972), five men were arrested for burglary at the Democratic National Committee headquarters at the Watergate Hotel. That was the beginning of the Watergate scandal that would lead to President Richard Nixon’s resignation on August 8, 1974.
During the legal tussle over the tapes of President Nixon’s Oval Office conversations, the administration revealed that that there was an 18½ minute gap on the tape of a conversation between the President and his aide H.R. Haldeman on July 20, 1972—three days after the Watergate break-in. The President’s secretary, Rose Mary Woods, claimed that she had accidentally recorded over five minutes of the original conversation when she reached to answer the phone while transcribing the tapes. Few believed her account, which included an unlikely stretch to reach a phone with her left hand while holding down a transcription pedal with her right foot for five minutes. The rest of the gap was never accounted for. The participants appear to have taken knowledge of what was said during that conversation to their graves.
But it didn’t matter because there was a smoking gun in the Oval Office tapes that were released: a conversion on June 23, 1972, in which Nixon and Haldeman discussed having the Central Intelligence Agency tell the Federal Bureau of Investigation that the Watergate break-in involved sensitive national security issues that should not be investigated.
Ultimately, destroying the evidence didn’t help Nixon because he didn’t destroy all the evidence.
No, there is no evidence Gov. Walker broke campaign finance laws. The media have now compounded the abuse of conservatives by Wisconsin prosecutors with false reports of new allegations against Gov. Scott Walker (R). Gabriel Mellor reports on this week’s case of outrageous media malpractice:
Having launched a secret probe that has now been shut down by both the state and federal courts, the Democratic district attorneys find themselves the subject of an ongoing civil rights lawsuit for infringing the First Amendment rights of conservatives. But that is not how the media have reported the case.
Upon the unsealing of some of the probe documents by the federal appeals court, the media worked itself into a frenzy claiming that Walker was part of a criminal conspiracy. The media claim was based entirely on the subpoena document that was denied by the state judge as failing utterly to demonstrate probable cause to believe a crime occurred. In short: the judge, looking at all the evidence, found no reason to believe that a crime had occurred. That has not stopped the media from falsely implying otherwise.
This is largely accomplished by playing with verb tense. For example, the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel kicked off this infuriating libel with a piece that claimed, “John Doe prosecutors allege Scott Walker at center of ‘criminal scheme.’” The more accurate word, of course, would have been “alleged,” past-tense with the addition of the words “in denied subpoena request” or perhaps “in failed partisan investigation” or even “in politically-motivated secret investigation rejected by the state and federal courts.”
The New York Times, trumpeting the story on today’s front page, also uses the present tense to give the wrong impression. The piece begins “Prosecutors in Wisconsin assert that Gov. Scott Walker was part of an elaborate effort to illegally coordinate fund-raising and spending.” Again, the true story is that this took place last year and was ended by the courts. You’d have to read all the way down to the tenth paragraph to learn that the subpoenas weren’t granted because there was no probable cause to believe that a crime had occurred. Oddly, the Times piece muses on the electoral consequences for Walker in the third paragraph. [The Federalist, June 20]
Don’t believe that report about U.S. health care being the worst. Does the United States really have the worst health care system in the developed world while Britain has the best, as claimed in a new report from the Commonwealth Fund? Betsey McCaughey breaks down how the Commonwealth Fund’s study is reverse-engineered to show that socialized medicine is better:
Commonwealth gives heavy weight to “equity,” meaning equal access to care, so on this measure countries with government-run systems by definition come out on top. Another criterion gives countries points when doctors say “it’s easy to print out lists of patients by diagnosis.” And countries are rewarded when patients are “routinely sent computerized reminder notices for preventive or follow-up care”; the U.S. lost points because it is more common here to telephone patients than e-mail them. Never mind that American women have a better chance of getting regular mammograms than do women in most other countries, a reason for America’s top breast-cancer survival rate.
The report’s biggest trick is penalizing the U.S. for having the highest number of deaths due to preventable diseases, meaning diseases that are curable if treated soon enough. This measure conflates the incidence of disease with the treatment of disease. The U.S. has a high incidence of cardiovascular disease, considered preventable, because for 50 years Americans were the heaviest smokers and now are among the most obese. Bad behavior, not bad medicine, is to blame. As a National Research Council (NRC) panel cautioned in 2010, “It seems inaccurate to attribute ... high death rates from these causes to a poorly performing medical system.”
In fact, when it comes to treating disease – the primary purpose of the health-care system – the U.S. performs extremely well, and not just when it comes to breast cancer. The U.S. is also, for instance, stunningly effective in treating prostate cancer: An American diagnosed with it has a 99.3 percent chance of survival. In Great Britain only 70 percent survive, in Germany only 82 percent, and in Denmark a shockingly low 48 percent. [Real Clear Policy, June 20]
You should know the work of these four individuals: Some highlights from this year’s Bradley Prizes, presented Wednesday night at the Kennedy Center:
Four figures received the acclaim of their colleagues—and a $250,000 check—for their work in varied fields. George Will, who emceed the event (and a former Bradley Prize-winner himself), dubbed Wall Street Journal columnist Kimberley Strassel the “fourth branch of government” for her dogged pursuit of the truth behind what she called “the accepted storylines” advanced by politicos and pundits alike. Goldwater Institute president Darcy Olsen, a preeminent advocate of school choice, asked a question more leaders should take to heart: “What if the solution to Washington isn’t in Washington?” Terry Teachout, the playwright and Wall Street Journal drama critic, gave a provocative talk arguing for art over ideas. He elegantly summarized his job: “I seek to be ever and always alive to the moral force of art whose creators aspire merely to make everything more beautiful, and in so doing to pierce the veil of the visible and give us a glimpse of the transcendently true.”
Georgetown law professor Randy Barnett, one of the country’s greatest legal minds, discussed the two conflicting visions of the Constitution and ended the evening on a particularly stirring note by dismissing the idea that America has become, as the media often have it, too “polarized.” “Our politics seems divisive today because there are now two sides to this fundamental debate,” he argued. [Weekly Standard, June 23]
Video of the week: Order without government in the American West: There was no government on the Oregon Trail in the mid-19th century. But over 300,000 travelers made the trip, the vast majority quite safely. How did they figure out how to do that? Professor P.J. Hill explains in this recent Learn Liberty video:
Is policing offensive trade names really a job for the government? On Wednesday, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office revoked the trademark registration for the Washington Redskins’ team name. [Washington Times, June 18]
Under the Lanham Act, the Patent Office is supposed to refuse registration of any trademark that “[c]onsists of or comprises immoral, deceptive, or scandalous matter; or matter which may disparage or falsely suggest a connection with persons, living or dead, institutions, beliefs, or national symbols, or bring them into contempt, or disrepute[.]” [15 U.S.C. §1052(a)]
Some commentators who believe that the Redskins name is an ethnic slur have cheered the decision because they believe it will push the team to change its name. But should these kinds of societal debates be resolved by the Patent Office? Or any government office? Is there a First Amendment issue here?
Last month, Eugene Volokh wrote about another case of the Patent Office denying a trademark registration that it felt was disparaging to a group of people: The agency decided not to register “Stop the Islamization of America” mark. Volokh wrote:
My tentative view is that the general exclusion of marks that disparage persons, institutions, beliefs, or national symbols should be seen as unconstitutional. Trademark registration, I think, is a government benefit program open to a wide array of speakers with little quality judgment. Like other such programs (such as broadly available funding programs, tax exemptions, or access to government property), it should be seen as a form of “limited public forum,” in which the government may impose content-based limits but not viewpoint-based ones. An exclusion of marks that disparage groups while allowing marks that praise those groups strikes me as viewpoint discrimination. But I’m not sure that courts will ultimately see this my way; so far they haven’t been inclined to do so, precisely because the exclusion of a mark from federal registration leaves people entirely free to use the mark. [Washington Post, May 13]
The American Civil Liberties Union says the Redskins name is offensive, but nevertheless shares Volokh’s view that the Patent and Trademark Office shouldn’t be in the business of policing the decorum of trademarks. In a post about the Redskins from this past December, Gabe Rottman wrote:
At first blush, it might seem obvious that the USPTO should have the ability to deny registration to racist or vulgar trademarks. But, as with all things free speech, who gets to decide what’s racist or vulgar? That’s right, the government, which is just ill-equipped to make these kinds of determinations. […]
To its credit, the USPTO’s Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) engages in a very searching inquiry into whether a particular mark is offensive and considers extensive testimony and evidence by social scientists, advocacy groups, linguists, lexicographers, and others.
At the end of the day, however, the ultimate determination is inherently subjective and the TTAB and reviewing courts have a significant amount of discretion in deciding what’s disparaging and what’s not. It’s not unlike “I know it when I see it” in obscenity law, and it raises similar problems. [American Civil Liberties Union, December 10, 2013]
ObamaCare didn’t make health insurance cheaper; it just changed who is paying for it. The Obama administration wants you to think ObamaCare is working because premiums remain affordable for those in the federal exchanges. According to data released on Wednesday by the Department of Health and Human Services:
[P]eople who selected silver plans, the most popular plan type in the federal Marketplace, with tax credits paid an average premium of $69 per month. In the federal Marketplace, 69 percent of enrollees who selected Marketplace plans with tax credits had premiums of $100 a month or less, and 46 percent of $50 a month or less after tax credits. [Department of Health and Human Services, June 18]
But the price to the insurance buyer excludes the cost of the subsidies, which, by definition, are paid for by taxpayers. Peter Suderman reports:
[I]f you strip away the subsidies, individual market health insurance has, on average, become significantly more expensive in the wake of Obamacare, according to a newly published analysis by the Manhattan Institute.
Relying on a 3,137 county comparison of the five cheapest individual plans available prior to Obamacare with the five cheapest plans through the exchanges, the study by health policy fellow Yevgeniy Feyman found that, on average, premiums were up 49 percent under Obamacare. Again, that’s an average, and it masks some variation—in New York, which had unusually restrictive, badly designed health insurance market rules prior to Obamacare, premiums are actually down quite a bit—but it indicates that the overall trend for unsubsidized premiums is up.
The difference, then, is being made up by federal subsidies. According to the administration’s report, those subsidies are carrying 76 percent of the total cost of subsidized insurance plans selected in the federal exchange. The out-of-pocket average is $82. But the actual average premium price, without subsidies, is $346.
To the extent that insurance is relatively cheap, it’s because taxpayers are footing a big chunk of the bill. […]
As the Los Angeles Times reports today, “while the generous subsidies helped consumers, they also risk inflating the new health law’s price tag in its first year.” If premiums and subsidy levels in the state-run exchanges that were left out of the report generally match up with the federal government, then the Times estimates that the total for subsidies this year could run as high as $16.5 billion—significantly more than the roughly $10 billion estimated by the Congressional Budget Office. [Reason, June 18]
So ObamaCare has preserved the biggest flaw of the pre-ObamaCare health insurance market: Most consumers most of the time are shielded from the costs of their health care consumption decisions, which, of course, gives consumers an incentive to consume more. And as consumers have paid less, health care has taken a bigger and bigger bite out of the economy:
[Graph from “Fix Health Care by Tackling the Wedge,” by Arthur Laffer, Donna Arduin, and Wayne Winegarden, The Insider, Summer 2009.]
The ballad of Uber and Lyft: Neither taxis nor their regulators like the fact that Uber and Lyft give riders an easier way to find a ride, and they are attempting to use the force of government to put those companies out of business. A. Barton Hinkle tells the story of how consumers will lose if that happens—in a poem. Here’s how it starts:
What can be said about Uber and Lyft
That hasn’t been said before?
The e-hailing upstarts make catching a cab
The simplest possible chore.A map on your phone shows drivers nearby
That you call with a single tap
And after you ride you can rate your driver
In a separate part of the app. [Richmond Times Dispatch, June 17]
If you read the rest, you’ll understand not only the taxi cartels, but why Hinkle won a Bastiat Prize in 2008.
Mocking, satirical, and winning. The funniest amicus brief ever—funniest we’ve read, anyway—now has the virtue of having argued for the winning side of a case. In February, the Cato Institute poked fun at political discourse in a brief to the Supreme Court that argued that an Ohio law criminalizing untruthful campaign speech violates the First Amendment. “[M]ocking and satire are as old as America, and if this Court doesn’t believe amici, it can ask Thomas Jefferson, ‘the son of a half-breed squaw, sired by a Virginia mulatto father,’” said the brief, which continued in that vein for numerous pages. And to demonstrate just how thorny it would be to put a government body in charge of determining what is true, the brief even poked fun at Chief Justice Robert’s ruling in the ObamaCare case: “Amici are unsure how true the allegation is given that the healthcare law seems to change daily, but it certainly isn’t as truthy as calling a mandate a tax.” [Amicus Brief of the Cato Institute, Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus, February 28, 2014]
If the Chief Justice or any of the other Justices were offended, they didn’t let it stop them from agreeing with Cato (and about 20 other amici). On Monday, the Court ruled unanimously that a First Amendment challenge to the Ohio law in question may go forward. Walter Olson notes that while that ruling was based on standing, the justices, including Justice Thomas, who wrote the opinion for the Court, seemed very skeptical that the law could survive a First Amendment challenge. [Overlawyered, June 16]
• Learn how conservative reform ideas can help the middle class prosper. Senator Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) will share his ideas on what a conservative reform agenda should be. He’ll speak at the Allan P. Kirby Center for Constitutional Studies at 1 p.m. on June 25.
• Advance your understanding of the meaning, foundations, and drivers of human flourishing. The Charles Koch Institute’s Innaugural Well-Being Forum will feature panelists Jon Clifton of Gallup World Poll; Carol Graham of the Brookings Institution; Todd Kashdan of the Laboratory for the Study of Social Anxiety, Character Strengths at George Mason University; and James R. Otteson of the BB&T Center for the Study of Capitalism at Wake Forest University. The event will begin at 6:30 p.m. on June 25 at the Newseum.
• Discover what a conservative social justice agenda might look like. Arthur Brooks and Robert Doar of the American Enterprise Institute and Megan McArdle of Bloomberg View will speak at the National Geographic Grosvenor Auditorium at 6 p.m. on June 23.
• Learn why the Lone Star State’s cities are leading the country in economic performance. The Texas Public Policy Foundation and the Manhattan Institute will host a discussion at the Texas State Capital featuring Midland Mayor Jerry Morales, Tom Gray of the Manhattan Institute, Don Baylor Jr. of the Center for Public Policy Priorities, and Chuck DeVore of the Texas Public Policy Foundation. The conversation will begin at 11:30 a.m. on June 26.
• Nominate your simple, eloquent, and witty writing for the Bastiat Prize for Journalism. The Bastiat Prize is named for the French writer Frederic Bastiat, who had a way of using humor and everyday examples to show how economic liberty is the solution to many problems. First prize is $10,000. The deadline for entry is July 31.
• Find out if the Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers are making another power grab. The Heritage Foundation will host a panel discussion on the agencies’ latest proposed wetlands rules. Speaking will be Virginia S. Albrecht, Special Counsel at Hunton & Williams; Don R. Parrish of the American Farm Bureau Federation; Julie A. Ufner of the National Association of Counties; and Tabby Waqar of the National Association of Home Builders. The event will begin at noon on June 26.
• Hear some straight talk about rape culture and sexual violence on campus. The Independent Women’s Forum will host a conversation with Christina Hoff Sommers of the American Enterprise Institute; Stuart Taylor of the Brookings Institution; Cathy Young, contributing editor at Reason; and Andrea Bottner, former director of International Women’s Issues at the State Department in the George W. Bush administration. The event will begin at 6 p.m. at 1706 New Hampshire Avenue, NW, Washington, D.C.
• When making your plans for the Fourth, don’t forget to put the Leadership Institute’s National Fourth of July Conservative Soiree on your schedule. They’ll have barbeque, face painting, and bluegrass—plus some inspiring speeches. The gathering will take place from 11 a.m. to 3 p.m. at the Bull Run Regional Park.
(Want more stuff to do? Check out InsiderOnline’s Conservative Calendar.)
Have a tip for InsiderOnline? Send us an e-mail at insider@heritage.org with “For Insider” in the subject line.
Follow us on Twitter: http://twitter.com/InsiderOnline.
Looking for an expert? Visit PolicyExperts.org.
The Heritage Foundation
214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE
Washington, DC 20002-4999
phone 202.546.4400 | fax 202.546.8328
Comments
Post a Comment