• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • Paris Hilton's Energy Plan

    Following Senator John McCain’s ad that compared Senator Obama to Britney Spears and Paris Hilton for his celebrity status, the hotel heiress promptly responded with an ad of her own. On actor Will Ferrell’s website, Funny or Die, Hilton devised her own energy policy to relieve Americans from high gas and electricity prices. She said:

    Barack wants to focus on new technologies to cut foreign-oil dependency, and McCain wants offshore drilling. Well, why don’t we do a hybrid of both candidates’ ideas? We can do limited offshore drilling with strict environmental oversight, while creating tax incentives to get Detroit making hybrid and electric cars. That way, the offshore drilling carries us until the new technologies kick in, which will then create new jobs and energy independence. Energy crisis solved.”

    Throw her on the ballot!

    In all seriousness, eliminating bans on offshore drilling has tremendous potential with little risk involved. Currently there are government restrictions in place for new energy production off the Atlantic and Pacific coasts, parts of offshore Alaska, and the eastern Gulf of Mexico. In these areas alone, the Department of Interior estimates the amount of energy to be:

    • 19.1 billion barrels of oil (30 years with of imports from Saudi Arabia)
    • 83.9 trillion cubic feet of natural gas (enough to power America’s homes for 17 years)

    My colleague David Kreutzer, Senior Policy Analyst in Energy Economics and Climate Change, put it this way: “Paris Hilton’s support of offshore drilling confirms that this policy is a no-brainer.”

    Enough said.

    Posted in Energy [slideshow_deploy]

    21 Responses to Paris Hilton's Energy Plan

    1. Jackson, Nashville says:

      The problem is that Paris and McCain are both suggesting that an increase in drilling will provide near-term relief to rising energy costs. That is just not going to happen.

    2. Allen, California says:

      Jackson, it's already happening. The cost of a barrel of oil started dropping almost immediately after Bush lifted the presidential ban on drilling. All that had to happen was that Washington started TALKING seriously about offshore drilling, and prices started coming down. By the way, Nick, Paris' "no-brainer" image is very carefully cultivated. She's a lot smarter than you might think. And her "energy plan" is a perfect example.

    3. Rob,California says:

      She is right in the fact that we need to increase our drilling for oil for the near future of our energy supply.

      What we need to do is to increase the nuclear power of electric to the level that everything is powered by it. We will not need oil except for air transportation. Nuclear power would solve our water problem here in California by powering water desaltnation plants. Nuclear power is clean, inexpensive and safe. What are we waiting for?

    4. Darvin Dowdy, Houst says:

      And Jackson, Paris has a high paying job. John McCain has a high paying job. But there are many of us out here who's manufacturing jobs were sent over seas over the past decade. The burger-flipping jobs and mall retail jobs are better than nothing. But the prospect of high paying oil field related jobs that will come from increased domestic drilling are important to us. Why are you democrats blocking these jobs from U.S. workers? I thought the democrat party was for the workers. That $700 billion that T Boone keeps talking about could be folding back into our own economy rather than into some Saudi princes' Swiss bank account.

      Tell me how that can be bad for our Nation, Jackson. DD

    5. Bruce Edwards says:

      How predictable, Heritage Foundation, that all you can talk about in regards to Paris Hiltons' comments were what she said about supporting offshore drilling! How interesting and yet not surprising, that you wouldn't mention what she said about Detroit working with the development of hybrid and electric vehicles. You only fool the lazy-minded with your narrow approach. Give it up! You have been exposed! You are naked and it isn't a pretty sight!

    6. mark , Houston says:

      Hey Jackson,have you ever worked on an oil rig ? I have ,I've seen the bit go into the groung and less than twenty four days we were pumping oil . you libs need to get off of your high horses and figure out that the american people don't believe you . the solutions ARE there . As for Paris , it only makes sense that you would give credit to what a ______ thinks about a national crises .

    7. Greg Hagen, Pine Col says:

      Bruce…! Alternative energy is not (and should not be) in the discussion along with drilling!

      I might as well address you here, now although lots of others need to understand this.

      Tell me: who do you think is smart enough to include the known-quantity of a currently needed domestic drilling measure with desired energy-alternative factors with all their unknown 'pinwheels and batteries'…and why would that be necessary or right?

    8. fderk says:

      paris's plan is great, stop hating on her plus its ten times better and more effective then mccains energy plan

      Video: Hillary Campaigns For Obama in Nevada

    9. Darvin Dowdy, Houst says:

      Oil drives our economy and will for many years. Decades. Alternative sources of energy make up a very small percentage and can't be depended upon to fill the massive gap. Unfortunately, too many in our nation are in complete denial about that fact. Completely divorced from reality. Oil is an efficient, natural, God given resource. We are blessed to have it and we should use it. It is the right thing to do. DD

    10. Thomas Gray, South, says:

      The consequences shall be approved if the anti energy crowd continue to stonewall the will of reality.


    11. Tom McKinney of Dunw says:

      Outstanding!!!! We should do both! Let's go.


    12. Pingback: paris hilton s energy policy

    13. Thomas Gray, South, says:

      Subject,,,, Planet savers,,

      Understanding that ' man ' is often brutal and heartless when wageing a war whatever the cause may be,,, the { planet savers } are no exception.

      Like the people that think solor and wind power are going to keep their lights and heat on at night they are wishing for something that they just can't have.

      The Planet Savers Cannot Save The Planet.

      Not in china or india or russia or a hundred other countrys on { the planet } BUT what they can do in a country of laws like the U.S.A. is cause the system of government not to function.

      That is not only ,,what,, they are doing it is the ,,only,, thing that they can do becouse they have absolutly no power to do,,,, ANYTHING,,,, in these other countrys.


      House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D- Calif., said that she is trying to { save the planet } by blocking the vote on a bill to allow offshore drilling,

      Sen, Barack Obama is the sponser of legislation that would or did ? block ,,, geological,,, research to locate offshore oil.

      NUF SAID,,, Right here I would point out that { ALL } these ,,, save the planet,,, people are currently using the resource that they are batteling ,,,against,,, BUT, the governmental { politician } Is elected to serve the people not,,,THE PLANET,,,

      and thats what this is all about,,,OBTAINABLE ENERGY { FOR THE PEOPLE. } .


    14. jono, iowa says:

      can't decide who's comment to respond to…

      Is it really that unknown that we have reached the peak oil production for the world? well, we have. yes, we could drill for more oil and it's well known that there is more oil out there. why do people get attacked for not wanting to drill? oil causes much environmental harm and we spend billions of dollars each year to protect our strategic oil supplies. why don't we start investing some of that money in renewable energy? nuclear energy is not renewable nor a good option. we are a brilliant country and if we spent the time and energy to try to become a country of renewable energies than we can do it.

      People talk about not being able to rely on renewable energy sources. honestly, how can we rely on oil when it is a dwindling resource? the two largest nations in the world are industrializing and will soon start gobbling up the oil faster than we are. where is all of this oil going to come from?

      oh yes, and we currently are using billions of gallons of fuel each year to drive our military and our ongoing wars, which are a result of our oil dependence. perhaps oil prices would go down if we weren't demanding so much due to our military needs. remember, supply and demand.

      do people out there really believe that democrats want to ruin the economy? the people that are against drilling know that more oil isn't going to solve the problem, and obviously isn't going to effect the gas prices for years. So why do people want to drill? we could conserve so much by simply not being so lazy!!! ride your bike, walk, carpool, keep your car tuned up and tires inflated. gas isn't so expensive when you don't use it. we have become so lazy and dependent on motorized transportation, it really is kind of pathetic.

      by the way-oil isn't the only natural resource that has reached its peak production, natural gas has also, which heats millions of homes here. so seriously, start thinking about how we can truly become less oil dependent because not only our future depends on it, but the whole worlds'. we should be world leaders in this and gain back our status as 'do-gooders' not war-mongers.

    15. jono, iowa says:

      to mark, houston:

      quite misleading to say that we could have oil in 24 days. how long would it actually take for a company to go through the process to acquire the necessary permits to start such a process? how long would it take to build an oil rig hundreds of miles off of the coast? how long would it take to get that oil back here and into our gas tanks? i'm guessing a long time. and why does the department of energy estimate that offshore drilling won't effect our gas prices until 2030?

      what is your definition of a solution? i guess the solution to not enough oil is to get more. but the problem isn't so superficial now is it?

      oil and natural gas have hit their peak production and are running out. seems kind of silly to squabble around for a few hundred billion barrels here or there. why don't we really look at the real problem and real solutions. way less oil and way more renewable energy.


    16. alanbbc says:

      Oh, Thanks! Really funny. Big ups!

    17. Thomas Gray, South, says:

      To,, jono iowa,

      You didn't say anything that I did not allready know,, perhaps a few realistic answers may increase the value of this site if any of you care to bore yourselves reading them or posting your own,,,, And I note how you offhandedly dismissed a hundred plus year supply of abundend dependable energy,,,,read on,

      The energy that is produced by atom power directly offsets the need for fossil fuels,, increasingly costly [ transportation fuels ],,[

      heating fuels ],,, Atom energy ,,,,can,,,, produce abundent amounts of ,,,,,,,,,steam,,,,,,,,,, for heating in city's.

      geo thermal seems to me as another good answer to the great need for heating,but

      I have no idea what the cost. I beleave atom power IS the least expensive of any energy source and coal is the next least expensive.

      I' am

      watching to know if ,,,,,,,,,common sense ,,,,,,,, will prevail over anti atom activist,,

      who seem to be willing to forgo their quality of life and mine and

      yours also,,,

      By imposeing their ,,,detrimental ,,,will

      upon the electric utility's that are called upon to supply an

      INCREASING demand while a number of energy sources are DIMINISHING

      in availability including atom power,,,Nation wide,,,[ U.S.A. ],,, NOT a good combination.

      Something must be found to replace [

      transportation fuel,] For the entire country, [[ Atom powered

      electric generating stations ]],, ,,,,CAN ,,,,be used to produce hydrogen

      fuel, for use in transportation,,, and ,,,,,CAN,,,,, be used to recharge electric vechicles

      And,,,,,CAN,,,,, be used to supply the energy needed to extract oil needed for transportatoin from sources,,,,,such as,,,,,,, tarsands,,,,,, and,,,,,,, shale oil,,,,,, and ,,,it,,,,,,,CAN,,,,,,be used as an energy source to mine coal and other ores.


      The urainium fuel for atom power according to my understanding will last well over one ,,,,,hundred years and some say ,,,,,,much longer,,,,,,including ,,,considered,,, current ,,,,growth rates world wide,,,,thats more time,,,than a life time of a man,,, to advance and pay for and build and install alternative energy sources.


      heating Oil and NG will soon become unaffordable for many,, we ,,,must,,, supplement them with something not only affordable but OBTAINABLE. even ,,,my,,,answers are not sustainable only for a hundred years or so,,,,, solor may well prove to be the long answer if we can maintain our current energy sources. at affordable prices.

      we have no choice over the energy sources we lose. To,,,,willfully,,,, stop using atom power in my opinion is just ,,insane,, and I think soon millions are soon going to realize this is a mistake. as of 8/4/2008,,,there are no atom plants being constructed that I know of in the U.S.A.


      In the manufacture of,, ethanol / bio diesel ,

      [ transportation fuels ], atom energy is turned ,,,,,indirectly into,,,,, transportation fuels and the mony and jobs involved do not flow out of the country. a hard choice becouse this does compete directly with food crops.

      Atom power,,, can power many other applications that currently

      use,,,coal ,,OIL,,and, NG,,,,,,, as an energy source,,

      Atom energy,,,,CAN and IS being used as an energy source for rail. ,,, untill now ,,,rail simply could not compete against trucks for transportation because they ,,,,,,are,,,,,highly mobile and oil WAS cheap,,,,this all is changeing.

      Cheap oil is ending,,,,thus we need to increase rail as quickly as possable because of the ,,,exstremely,,, large numbers of trucks currently in use that are already having a very hard time with the riseing price of fuel.

      Trucks are currently moveing most of our food,,,rail must be ,,,,,aggressively,,,,,, exspanded,,, we have little choice,,,,in my opinion,,,,….Rail was built in a time when each town or settelment ,,,was,,,,, self sufficient,,,,, Sixty mile per hour truck transportation was not yet built.

      At this time rail is not large enough to replace the trucks that are in current use,,,,a willfull effort must be made to exspand rail,,,, truck transportation at current levels is ,,,,not ,,,,sustainable,,,, not to put trucking out of business but to carry the frieght that they ,,,,,no longer have ,,,,,affodable fuel to carry,,,,,,this must be a controlled and planned and fair change in order to keep peace between the two carriers. At this time I know of nothing that can change these facts,,, and changes must be made we have no choice.

      Atom power is the only adaquate energy supply available that can do this. Oil, ng, coal, are ,,,,needed,,,, for the heating of millions of homes.

      We must look at our various industrial energy,,,, users ,,,,to know where atom power can be used to replace the ,,,,unsustaiinable,,,, energy sources they are currently useing.

      These changes must be made,,,,,,,,and outside activisem must NOT be allowed to cause DELAY in there implementation,,,,,, they may be ,,,,allowed ,,,,to speak but the decisions made by the U.S. government must not be ,,,,annulled,,,, by these groups. as the consaquences may cause great hardship,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,if these delays continue.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

      construction of nuclear powered genorating stations needs to begin,,,NOW,,,not ,,,,,,after,,,,,, an environmental inpact study of insects or ……anything else ,,,,

      atom power, is an energy source that ,,,,,,demands,,,,, respect,,,,,BUT,,,

      it is not as dangerous as many are led to believe,,,in my opinion,,, but some very notable points about it is that ,,,,the cost does not fluctuate like oil or NG and the energy returned for energy input is measured in decades of useable power and is enough to,,, power entire city's including local industry's shops schools stores etc. look it up.

      ,,,,,,If,,,,,, we go atom free meaning shut down,,,,,, all,,,,,, nuclear

      powered electricity generating stations and not build any new,,,the ,,,,REAL,,,, outcome is the

      ,,,,,remaining,,,, energy sources are going to be in even greater demand

      in the face also of those that are getting very expensive,,[ ____ unobtainable,,

      Many people understand that there is a very large amount of coal in the U.S.A.,, What they may not know is what it will be like liveing in a large city,,, When,,,, they start burning it as a source for heating. In the winter 1952 and 1959 london england it is said one could not see one to two feet in front of him and children had to feel there way along the sides of buildings to find there way home from school ,,,in the day time,,, and many died the winter 1956 from the coal smoke. a history search will give the details,,, look it up.

      How many people have died from,,, ANY,,, accident at ,,,ANY,,, atom powerd electric generating plant in the U.S.A. ?

      The accident in russia occurred becouse of the design of the power plant ,,,that design was out lawed in england even at the time that it was built in russia,,,a 1950s era model,,,,when very little was known about how to safely ,,,,design,,,, and operate a reactor.

      solutions ,,,,,,,,,,,must,,,,,,,,,,, be found,,,[ not many answers,] to be sure.

      [ IF ],,, we build atom powered generating stations WHERE we need them

      along with [ ALL ] other energy sources,It may be possible to soften

      the worst of the coming economic,,,pain,,,

      wind power,,, solar electric power,,,

      ,,,,, these are for the most part

      inadequate and intermittent power sources that ,,,many,,, look upon as ,,,,THE,,,, answer to our energy shortfalls,, this is what a number of

      environmental activist and others are teaching,,And it is also their lobby's goal all

      around the country to promote this that will take many years to build for some very [,,,REAL,,,] Reasons,,,

      advancement needs to continue.

      The CEO of an electric utility in Texas. (Small utility; 45,000 customers.) We are sending out electric bills this month that are 35% higher than a year ago because of Texas' over-reliance on natural gas fueled generation (and the "de-regulated" market). Texas could very well see a power crisis next summer, similar to California in the early part of the decade, because we relied on the market forces to be smart about billion dollar generation decisions. Shortages loom LARGE next year!

      What we need in this country is a comprehensive energy plan … including nuclear! There hasn't been a nuclear plant permitted in this country since 1976. The last nuke came online in '96 I tnink it was. The plants we are discussing today won't generate kWh one before 2016-17 at the earliest.

      As for solar, check out any of the number of solar calculators on the web. Solar is very expensive. Most americans don't have thousands to spend on solar panels that produce enough energy to power a couple of light bulbs.

      What we need is conservation, clean coal, more energy efficiency, solar initiatives, some wind and nuclear power. Short-term, nuclear should be the focus of our governments efforts. If we fail to embrace a comprehensive energy policy, including nuclear power, your monthly electric bill will just keep outpacing inflation. And this will happen to people in a country alreaady having to live with $4.00+ gasoline, rising food prices, tanking stock prices, and rising unemployment.

      I don't see how the No Nuke crowd does anything but damage the future of this country. Go Nukes!

      And at the same time these activists

      by demanding never ending invironmental inpact studys and bringing law suites against the construction of atom powered electric generating sites are succeeding to shut down [Atom Power] in the U.S.A. that [,,IS,,]

      working,,, to help maintain electricity service to,,,,, [[[ three hundred

      million ]]] people in the USA.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,By these actions,,,,,,, these activists,,, ,,,DRIVE UP,,,,,, THE COST,,, of building new plants so high and the time to approve the permits ,,,,so long,,,, that the utilitys simply give up trying,,, and burn FOSSIL FUELS this is starting to get ,,,VERY,,, exspensive and unsustainable and in my opinion will begin to cause great hardship amoung those who can no longer afford electricity ,,,if,,, this,,, ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,behavior of delay,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,is not stopped.

      An atom powered generating station can only produce power for so many decades and then by,,, law,,, must shut down. In the U.S.A.

      The production time of some stations has been extended,,, but because of the property's of radiation cannot be extended indefinitely as for example a steel mill,,,this MAY no longer be true, I'm not sure. atom power has made many advances.

      And so by this means we are ,,, losing,,,, a ,,,,,critical ,,,,,energy source that is ,,,sustainable,,, for at least for the next one hundred years or so and probably much longer.


      Is this the way a democracy works ? Is this the will of the majority of the people in the U.S.A.?.

      I have no problem with the promotion of wind or solor,, But for,,,, unelected ,,,minority's ,,,that answer to ,,,,,no authority ,,,,,that are interfearing with utility's operating ,,,,,,, legal businesses,,,,, and lawfull businesses ,,,,,,,,being allowed to shut down an energy source that is ,,,legal,,, for them to use that we are all soon going to ,,,,desperatly,,,, need to produce transportation fuels ,,,I ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,DO ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,have a few things to say.

      IF they [ anti atom activist ] submit a bill to the senate and the legislature makeing nuclear powered electric generating power plants ,,,unlawfull,,, and is passed and is written into law ,,,,I will support the law and my government and say no more.

      atom power is,,,, legal,,,, and what these activists are doing is cercumventing the law and in my eyes it is not only unlawfull but wrong.

      I am not cercumventing the law by promoting atom power and I am not cercumventing the law by telling you people what these people are doing.

      DO some MATH a single steam turbine powered by atom energy or coal or oil or NG can produce 10.000 hp.? How many solor panals or wind mills are needed to equal the hp that just ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,one,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, steam turbine can produce?.

      If any of you don't know the answer I say to you don't vote ,,,,against,,,, ANY source of energy untill you do. A power plant has multiple turbines that run simultaneously twenty four hours a day seven days a week.


      I am not ,,,taking action ,,,, !!against!!,,, any energy source,,,,,,these other people are,,,, WITH MONY AND LAWYERS,,,, what I am doing is trying to explain to you people what may work and ,,,what won't ,,,in my opinion.


      some argue that denmark uses wind power and it works very well,,,,OK it may be true they get a steady wind that blows,,,,for how many people ? and what is the cost of that electricity,

      it's no comparison we don't get the winds and three hundred ,,,,MILLION,,,, people would need how many wind mills ?,,,,,Wind may be the long answer for some places as a power source but ,,,,as a rule,,,, it's an intermittent power source.


      The electric utility's SUPPLY and our

      people CONSUME ,,,massive,,, amounts of energy,,,it's a fact we are losing

      our long enjoyed inexpensive,, [[ oil ]],


      ,—If— we can maintain

      sustainable dependable,,,,,,,, affordable,,,,,,, electricity [ atom power ] ,,,does it not seem like a good idea ,,,

      In truth bio fuels compete for limited sources of land,,,, but some ,,,,gain,,,, could be made if we stopped feeding it to animals to kill and eat,,,, I like meat ,,but I like,

      ,,,,,transportation also,,,,, a hard choice,,,,we can eat the animals or put ,,,their,,, food in our gastanks,,,,,

      met a man that hauled oranges from FLA to NJ,,,driving a

      tractor trailer truck powered with propane,,but that was back in the

      1960's,,, Most ware house forklifts have safely used propane as a fuel for many years.

      In my opinion compressed liquid hydrogen gas manufactured using atom power would be no more dangerus than propane but I know very little about it.

      Every day we delay implementing answers the cost of food and everything else that is energy intensive goes higher.

      We have the all the materiel's and labor and investers willing to invest in THIS country to build and operate atom powered electricity generating stations. I have already explained some of the reasons why they are not being built. These alternative energy sources,,,,,,,,,,,, are ,,,,,,,,,,,,the way to go,,, But the bottom line is we need atom power.

      to build, solor panals and drill geothermal or build wind ,,,,,, requires affordable ,,,,,energy.

      Since world oil supply is now in decline the world,,,, econimy,,, ,,,,,,,,must,,,,,,, decline also, the oil producers are going to fair better than the oil consumers,,,,so we better get our heads out from in front of the feel good TV and start building nuclear power plants also.

      A concerned

      citizen of the U.S.A.

    18. jono, iowa says:

      Mr. Gray-

      The argument isn't that nuclear energy isn't an efficient form of energy, it is not sustainable. What are we to do with the waste? We only have one world and I think we have already done enough damage to it. We need to be the leaders in renewable energy use. That is the argument-I agree there is no easy or quick fix to it. If the majority of our country weren't overweight, eating meat 3x/day, and driving virtually everywhere, that would do wonders for this problem. Also, its difficult to get unbiased information on subjects such as this.

      oh yes-we definitely need to expand our rail system. Our rail system would be scoffed upon by the majority of even 2nd world countries.

    19. Albert V. Weaver, 4 says:

      Korea has areas the size of two football fields covered with solar panels that will provide all the energy a nearby town needs. All of Europe,Germany leading is installing solar panels and wind turbines. Looking like our offshre oil gtowers wind turbine facilites are being installed in the North Sea. Visit http://www.germany. info to see. The desert heat of our Southwest,California,Arizona,Texas,New Mexico added to the winds in our mountains and particulatry the badlands of the Dakotas could provide cheap energy for this entire country and put a million people to work installing wind turbines and subsidized solar panels on our buildings and homes. Just takes the collective will which they have in Europe.

    20. Thomas Gray, South, says:

      Mr Weaver,,

      I agree There is that much energy in the south and mid west,, now PLEASE explain how to deliver that energy in the form of electricity or heat along about eight hundred miles or so of the eastern seaboard and you know like baltamore filly NYC CONN RI MASS NH ME VT hundreds of millions of people,, Solar panals will NOT work to heat these homes OR citys in these places.

      But mister weaver I support you if you can find a way to do it.

      Mr Jono Iowa,,,

      I'm pleased that you agree atom power is efficient and affordable I might add,, BUT to say unsustainable you sir have erred,,,BY comparson THE materials and metals for wind and solar are equally unsustainable,

      however as with mister weaver I support you if you can REPLACE our current energy supply fuels. But please do NOT say power down ANYWHERE north of the snow line.

      There is a proposal for a sustainable use and storage of nuclear waste that includes an end for the use of atom power that I agree with, it allows for the use of atom power for many decades but in the end we stop using it,,, you get your wish.


    21. I beleive paris is a beautiful woman i've seen so far..

    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.