• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • EPA Formally Declares CO2 a Dangerous Pollutant

    Step aside, elected Members of Congress. If you can’t pass cap and trade legislation, The Environmental Protection Agency will move in with massively complex and costly regulations that would micromanage just about every aspect of the economy. They announced today that carbon dioxide and five other greenhouse gases (GHGs) threaten public health and the environment.

    Since 85 percent of the U.S. economy runs on fossil fuels that emit carbon dioxide, imposing a cost on CO2 is equivalent to placing an economy-wide tax on energy use. The kind of industrial-strength EPA red tape that the agency could enforce in the name of global warming would result in millions of dollars in compliance costs. These are unnecessary costs that businesses will inevitably pass on to the American consumer, slow economic growth and kill jobs. Although the crafted rules say only facilities that emit 25,000 tons of carbon dioxide per year or more will be affected, businesses fear the exemption may not hold up in court and could now be imposed on many smaller commercial buildings, farms, restaurants, churches and small businesses.

    Even EPA administrator Lisa Jackson acknowledged top-down regulations would be more costly than a cap and trade system, saying, “Legislation is so important because it will combine the most efficient, most economy-wide, least costly, least disruptive way to deal with carbon dioxide pollution,” she recently stated, adding that “we get further faster without top-down regulation.” Of course, this isn’t a legitimate argument to pass cap and trade legislation. Cap and trade, a climate treaty and EPA regulations are the three ugly step-sisters of climate policy. Yet they’re trudging forward anyway.

    The Heritage Foundation’s Center for Data Analysis study of the economic effects of carbon dioxide regulations found cumulative gross domestic product (GDP) losses of $7 trillion by 2029 single-year GDP losses exceeding $600 billion in some years, energy cost increases of 30 percent or more, and annual job losses exceeding 800,000 for several years. Hit particularly hard is manufacturing, which will see job losses in some industries that exceed 50 percent.

    And George Will writes that any emissions reduction targets, whether they come from the EPA, cap and trade, or a Copenhagen treaty are simply unattainable: “Barack Obama, understanding the histrionics required in climate-change debates, promises that U.S. emissions in 2050 will be 83 percent below 2005 levels. If so, 2050 emissions will equal those in 1910, when there were 92 million Americans. But there will be 420 million Americans in 2050, so Obama’s promise means that per capita emissions then will be about what they were in 1875. That. Will. Not. Happen.”

    In the press release today, the EPA stated, “Science overwhelmingly shows greenhouse gas concentrations at unprecedented levels due to human activity,” and that “GHGs are the primary driver of climate change.” When the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued the initial endangerment finding in April, administrator Jackson noted that the agency “relied heavily upon the major findings and conclusions from recent assessments of the U.S. Climate Change Science Program and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [IPPC].” Not only does Climategate seriously call this into question but so do the 700 dissenting scientists refuting claims made by the IPCC report. That 700 figure is more than 13 times the number of scientists (52) who had a direct role in the IPCC report.

    Regardless of one’s view of carbon dioxide and global warming, environmental improvement and economic growth do not have to be mutually exclusive; in fact, most of the time environmental improvements come as a result of economic development. Companies will innovate and invest their resources to become more energy efficient because it will save them money in both the short and the long run.

    In his New York Times column over the weekend, Jared Diamond points to Wal-Mart as an example: “Obviously, a business can save money by finding ways to spend less while maintaining sales. This is what Wal-Mart did with fuel costs, which the company reduced by $26 million per year simply by changing the way it managed its enormous truck fleet. Instead of running a truck’s engine all night to heat or cool the cab during mandatory 10-hour rest stops, the company installed small auxiliary power units to do the job. In addition to lowering fuel costs, the move eliminated the carbon dioxide emissions equivalent to taking 18,300 passenger vehicles off the road.”

    Increased regulations and red tape will stifle that innovation by reducing the amount of resources that can be invested efficiently. They will have disruptive impacts on the economy and on living standards that will ripple throughout the country to reduce the earth’s temperature a few tenths of a degree.

    For more, see The Heritage Foundation’s full analysis on the how EPA regulations would hijack the economy.

    Posted in Energy [slideshow_deploy]

    47 Responses to EPA Formally Declares CO2 a Dangerous Pollutant

    1. Drifter, Utah says:

      Yes… The shadow government moves in to accomplish what the real government cannot bring about, the subjugation of the American people under the watchful eye of Big Brother.

      The United Nations is not a peace organization and the EPA is not an environmental one…

    2. tucanofulano, usa says:

      Well, IF CO2 is such a problem then Harry Reid ought to shut up and sit down…same for Feinstein, Boxer, and especially Obama. There is NO "hard science" implicating human activity in the so-called "global warming". Sad to see "science" bought off by government grants awarded by politically "correct" motivated slugs. At one point in the USA at least physicians and scientists were pretty much trusted to look for, discover, and truthfully report findings – today, with "obamacare", "global warming and 'cap/trade'" exposed as hoaxes committed by prostituted frauds in white lab coats there is a high level of scepticism, distrust, and anger directed toward these same groups of individuals and their "unbiased" opinions. The focus of the public's weath really needs to be on the politicians, like Obama, who just cannot bring themselves to do or to say anything truthful – they need to be fired.

    3. Andrea Plummer, TX says:

      Lovely. I wonder how long it will be before they figure out a way to tax us for simply existing. And of course, some pro-abortion, pro population control group is going to grab this and run with it. Come, Lord Jesus!

    4. Greg says:

      Okay. TERM LIMITS FOR ALL CONGRESS for starters.

      Radical agency leads need to be fired!

      This reminds me of Judges who legislate from the bench! Oh… TERM LIMITS ON THEM TOO!!!

    5. Ebba, Europe says:

      Adopt to the world or lose

      If you will not accept the rest of the planets consensus to reduce GHG emissions your industry might have problems exporting in the future.

      Volvo and SAAB had such a problem they tried to fight of regulation in europe asking for a CO2 be counted on weight of the car instead of unit. Look at them now nobody in Europe wanted to buy a car that needed so much petrol and bought a Prius or a small car instead. Look at them now! Soon to be out of business!

    6. Jim, Florida says:

      The EPA's draconian regulation is tantamount to taxation without representation. We did not elect these "czars", therefore they are not accountable to "WE THE PEOPLE!" If they were serious about regulating GHG's, maybe they should consider regulating water vapor, since that is the most significant, percentage-wise, GHG in our atmosphere. This is governmental/bureaucratic insanity!

    7. Pingback: EPA Formally Declares CO2 a Dangerous Pollutant » The Foundry « News You May Have Missed

    8. Murray Efford, New Z says:

      USA, please wake up to the reality that your continued fouling of the global nest imperils us all.

      • Greg says:

        The Global Nest? Oh dear lord. Ecology 101. Plants take in CO2 and expire oxygen. People and animals breath in Oxygen and expire CO2. By the EPAs standards all humans and animals are now walking toxic pollutants. Enjoy your global "nest" taxes, my friend.

    9. Elaine, United State says:

      Soooo, my breathing is bad for the planet?

      HA!

      I'm all for taking as good care of our enviornment as anyone else. But global warming (Oh, that's right. It's now climate change, since we're actually experincing a cool down period.) is ridiculous!

      Doesn't anyone in the EPA remember Biology 101?

      What do humans do: Inhale oxygen and exhale carbon dioxide.

      What do plants do: Inhale carbon dioxide and exhale oxygen.

      It's a perfect plan, created by God.

      The EPA wants to eliminate mankind. I suggest they lead by example.

    10. Dexter, San Francisc says:

      If Congress cannot get rid of the EPA, we should, right after getting rid of the flesh-eating fungus in Congress.

      Life is messy and certainly not efficient, not so an empty head. On the other hand even the most complicated mistakes are basically simply stupid.

      For this we have politicians, as has been said about many in that criminal class: if it weren't for lawyers, we wouldn't need lawyers.

      The EPA protects nothing and produces only waste and pollution — time to flush their logic buffer before they start making 'law' worse than it is.

    11. William says:

      This is Taxation without Representation. How about getting Mr. Hatch and your esteemed panel of experts on this one? The Administrative State does not have the Constitutional authority since they are not duly elected officials of the Peoples' consent. We the People are not bound to obey these unconstitutional rules the EPA puts out, PERIOD! And no judge should uphold the penalties, since this in an unlawful act by a bureau, and not our a law from our elected officials

    12. Harry, Illinois says:

      The problem we currently face is that we have allowed our politicians unlimited service and power. We need to demand that term limits be imposed. No longer than 2 terms. If they won't make the necessary ammendments than we as voters must do what I like to call impose VOTER MANDATED TERM LIMITS. To have some one calling the shots for 30-40 years is incomprehensible. Nobody is indispensible. If our country is that short on talent then we are all screwed.

      POWER BREEDS CORRUPTION. Just look at some of the specimens in Congress. U all know who they are.

    13. Reality, Al says:

      Great! Lets start limiting how much we can breathe too!! Dont we exhale co2?

    14. Pingback: Rebellion News

    15. jallen says:

      Very interesting take from across the pond:

      Barack Obama’s use of the EPA to pressurise the Senate to pass his climate change … shows his dictatorial mentality. He wants to override Congress, which is hostile to his climate gobbledegook because it is representative of the American electorate, and sideline the nation’s elected Senators by ruling by decree, courtesy of the EPA. This is a coup d’état.

      Fortunately, the world’s leading democracy, which he is trying to subvert, has guarantees of liberty so deeply embedded in its Constitution that US citizens are well placed to fight back.

      In the first place, regulation can be challenged in a way that laws cannot. So the EPA’s proposed ruling on so-called “Greenhouse Gases” can be opposed extensively with litigation, to the point that the ruling might not yet be in force when Obama demits office. In the second place, the EPA is funded by Congress. So, if the Agency is being used to bypass or neuter Congress, why should legislators not play hardball and retaliate by cutting off its funding?

      http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/geraldwarner/10

    16. Pingback: PA Pundits - International

    17. Paul Terry Stone says:

      At this rate, they can make it illegal to breathe.

    18. TerryP, Nebraska says:

      A few points were brought up that I think are important but aren't talked about much. One, one hundred years ago there were only about a quarter the number of people as today. Second, someone asked how long it will be before they start taxing us for just existing. That is a good question, because what do we as well as animals emit: carbon dioxide. If they have the ability to regulate CO2 emissions from smoke stacks and tail pipes, they have the ability to regulate CO2 emissions from your body. How many cars did we have in 1875? How many airplanes did we have? How many factories did we have? How much air conditioning and heating did we have? Shutting down most factories and vehicles across the West won't get us to where they say we need to be, because there will be to many people and livestock upon the earth. So this leads to one conclusion which is not talked about: We have to many animals and people on this planet if our goal is to bring the CO2 down to 1875 levels (we will have to get to earlier then 1875 levels because China, India and much of the rest of the world won't meet the same goals). So who gets to choose who and what animals gets to live or die and who gets to have children and how many? If we have to slaughter billions of animals and possibly ensure that many cannot have babies will the environmentalists call this cruel and unusual punishment? What about with humans?

      And the big question: For what? A small, possibly indeciferable drop in what the temperature could be without regulating CO2 emmissions.

      This is absolutely insane.

    19. Fred Beloit, Florida says:

      There is only one problem. There is no credible evidence that the air we breathe out is a pollutant. Recent whistle-blower leaks demonstrate that previous studies are tainted by poor science, greedy investigators, and political intent.

    20. Mary,Cleveland, OH says:

      If carbon dioxide is a dangerous pollutant, then why I am still alive?

    21. Dane says:

      So, if CO2 is a pollutant (toxin), then those nasty vegetables and fruits that we eat should be outlawed, since they absorb all that terrible toxic CO2! Reminds me of the Penn & Teller feature where people are sent out to petition against water, claiming it was toxic and giving it the 'scary' sounding scientific name. A lot of doops signed the petition without thinking!

    22. Diddley says:

      KEWL – Knowing that humans emit so much CO2 when they breath – we're just a step away from limiting couples to just one baby – just like the Chinese – and hey – why have congress vote – just have the EPA draft the regulation.

      This is beyond Socialism. This is beyond communism.

    23. Pingback: When CO2 is Outlawed, Only Outlaws Will Have CO2 » Siliconchef by Brian Richardson

    24. Larry Hoffmann San says:

      Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. There is no credible evidence that carbon dioxide emissions cause global warming. The costs to regulate emissions will be staggering, and all for nought. There will be no demonstrable benefit. All pain and no gain. Why do it?.

    25. Roger S., Ma. says:

      Great posting, "Elaine". You practically took the words right out of my mouth. To yours, "Jallen", also great, I would like to add a question: Isn't it Grand Juries who pass down indictments? And who sits on Grand Juries, and on Juries? Right: "We the People". Doesn't that mean we have all the power needed to stop this insanity? Simply by refusing to indict, or refusing to convict?

      To your "…from across the pond." Actually two of them, right? I think they warrant a response, not so much for their serious argument as for their mendacious aggression, one worse than the other.

      Let's take the "Big Pond" first, from "Murray Efford, New Zealand": Please wake up to the fact that the only thing imperiling any of us, certainly with any imminence, is the deceit of our politically pressured and/or enticed so-called "scientists". These exist not only at East Anglia's CRU, but also in our very own EPA hierarchy, which suppresses contrary evidence whenever it suits our politicians' (our greatest perils, worldwide) agendas. If we wish to combat "pollution", the "academic pollution" will have to be purged first!

      Nobody, not even you, could ever create sound policy based on falsified data or junk "models" thereof! — The other peril is the attempt to use the crudest of possible methods (massive X-board taxation) to attempt to achieve what would then need to be very subtle adaptations, if any.

      "Down Under", you may not be bothered as much by every step closer to late-medieval industrial output. "Up here", that would result in literally millions of dead — human beings — while, as always, the cockroaches and maggots would survive. I, for one, intended my engineering background for something other than farming "sheep's wool" or "herding cattle", thank you!

      A similar response to "Ebba, Europe", from across the "little pond": The "rest of the planets (sic) consensus" means little if based on falsified data and/or dubious "science". As a European, you should be aware of your various countries' GDP growth rates as well as of why, for meanwhile several decades, they have been so abysmally low. (Intensive government regulation of practically everything!) A goodly half of Europe may be considered "impoverished" by U.S. standards, and would be in even worse shape if that great economic engine aka USA had not been "pulling" it ever since the end of WW2, not to mention protecting it from its "well-wishing neighbors" to the East.

      (Ever travel to East Germany after reunification, or to Soviet Russia? Note the difference in quality of life, of its infra-structure? Or did you just ignore that? I assure you, it's relevant, and has much to do with government "managing" things, instead of "greedy" private enterprise. Are you aware of the amount of pollution those failed societies left for the rest of you/us to clean up? Probably not, or you would not be gleefully spouting such rubbish, let alone threats to those who "protected" your likely to have been leisurely acquisition of a PhD in medicine. — I read your posting elsewhere on HF: hardly more astute than yours from above!)

      Speaking of "clean" industrial production, notably of automobiles: Volvo and Saab did ever more poorly at market for a variety of reasons, least of which was their CO2 emission! Volvo, especially in its later versions, was/is a great vehicle. Its only real problem was/is price, pricing itself into a "premium market" segment for which it offered neither the quality nor the prestigious "name", like Mercedes Benz. Ditto Saab: Ever since their GM takeover, basic quality as well as innovative technology declined with respect to price, which began to rival the smaller Benz models'. Guess who lost market share, who gained? Last, not least, a big chunk of their price increases was likely due to ever more complex government regulations governing every aspect of their production cycles. Although a brand like Mercedes could survive (barely: they too recently needed a substantial financial "boost", which they got from the Emirates), such pressures were too much for the profitability of the likes of Saab or Volvo. For my part, the Japs can keep their Prius. I'll keep my "big" cars: Ford, Mercedes, and Corvette.

      These cars are already paid for, also environmentally! (Ever research how much energy and emitted CO2 flow into the production of even the smallest, lightest, cheapest, and least durable of automobiles?!) — Conversely, you may keep your: junk science, "global consensus" based on fantasy, PhD I'm beginning to question, false assumptions, false conclusions, European passport, threats, and all, I thank you! (Next time you people over there need to be "rescued", call on Putin and his oligarchs. They're waiting! I wish you luck.)

    26. Mike Ivy says:

      The Power Of Prayer

      There is a group organizing in America that each evening at 9:00 pm eastern, 8:00 pm central, 7:00 pm mountain and 6:00 pm pacific time; will stop whatever you are doing and spend one minute praying for the safety of the United States, our troops, our citizens and for the return to a Godly nation.

      Our payers are the most powerful asset we have.

    27. Bobbie Jay says:

      if co2 is a pollutant then the ignorant must see human lives as a figment of their imagination!

    28. Pingback: Steve’s Leaves

    29. Jean from Virginia says:

      What kind of lives will Americans have – after a year of this government our land of the free, home of the brave is being taken over. We are being ruled. Next they will want Amnesty for all illegals,who will vote for this government. And a Civilian army. Let us Pray for a miracle.

    30. Bruce M. says:

      I don't know that we've ever experienced a corrupt administration in every possible, as is in office now. They are purely agenda driven, and don't care about what we think or what is best for America. The EPA is just another in our face venue telling us that we will conform one way or another.

      Well, prayer is more powerful than anything else followed by our actions in being pro active with not giving into apathy and doing every lawful thing possible to get these bums back to serving the will of the people.

    31. Freedom of Speech, T says:

      Murray , NEW ZEALAND,

      Interesting you did not add China, India, and a host of others for fouling the "nest".

      Just WHAT has New Zealnd contributed to mankind? You cannot count the scientific and medical breakthroughs, not to mention the pharmaceuticals AND taxpayer wealth WE have contributed to the world. Now, everyone wants to dump on us?

      We may fall but when we do you will also.

      The CHICOMS and Russians would just love to take our spot and then you can deal with them.

    32. Pingback: Morning Bell: Obama the Czar-Maker Becomes the Ultimate Czar | Conservative Principles Now

    33. Mary Cole Massey, says:

      I think that all those people who believe that CO2 is so dangerous, should stop breathing. That would solve the whole problem we have with global whatever. Thanks

    34. Pingback: Kerry-Lieberman-Graham-Boxer-Waxman-Markey | Conservative Principles Now

    35. weldon sumner,wa. says:

      The Below Adage holds even more

      during our hostilities with the

      "Chicken Littles"

      The "ANSWERS" for the most part are

      insignificant. Itis the

      "QUESTIONS" that are crucial. W2

    36. Morte, Australia says:

      It is pointless to formally label anything as a pollutant out of context.

      At high concentrations, many substances are a pollutant, because they breach acceptable thresholds of sustained biological activity, either directly or indirectly.

      Irrespective of the extent to which CO2 reflects infra-red radiation trapping it in the atmosphere, CO2 in high enough concentrations is toxic to most forms of animal life, which is why CO2 sequestration underground is a fairly risky venture –

      (refer to 1986 disaster in Cameroon)
      http://www.neatorama.com/2007/05/21/the-strangest

      Conversely, Oxygen (O2) is toxic to animal (esp. human) life in high enough concentrations, causing brain damage and blindness, and it is exceedingly hazardous as an inflammable gas, but it is not labelled as a pollutant.

      The real trick is nailing down what the real safe threshold is for excessive presence of a given element or molecular compound, and only label it as a pollutant IF it exceeds n parts per million – and even then, you have to state that in the context of what the undesirable effect is of that safe threshold being breached..

    37. Pensive says:

      Carbon Dioxide is a pollutant. All organic chemicals have the potential to oxidize to CO2. Some hydrocarbons are among the most dangerous chemicals known. Think of the BTEX group, benzene, xylene, toluene, ethylene. Benzene is recogised around the world as a Class 1 carcinogen. Hydrocarbons are killing marine life. Industrial stack emissions of hydrocarbons also burn to CO2. What the lag time between the chemical reactions are, I know not. What I do know is that benzene etc insidiously kills humans, ecosystems and wildlife. Its progeny is CO2. Polycyclic chlorinated dioxins are man-made and are destroying biodiversity. They are gender benders and feminize human and animal embryos. They too have an organic compound. There is an essential requirement to mitigate these grim reapers. Fewer emissions, less CO2! All things are connected!

    38. Solo Dolo, Phoenix, says:

      Honestly?

      a) Assertions that CO2 doesn't cause warming. Yes, it does. There is considerable scientific evidence that CO2 traps UV rays that should exit the atmosphere, thereby "heating" the atmosphere. Does each individual ray cause considerable heat? No. Is the aggregate effect significant? It could be. The Earth is a delicate balance, shifting that balance causes all kinds of effects. We are already seeing ice caps melting and shifting weather patterns (most noticeably significant droughts in sub-Saharan Africa). Developing nations stand to lose the most, and developed nations pollute the most, isn't that nice?

      b) Assertions that the EPA's decision is equivalent to socialism. What? Do you know what socialism is? Look at modern Western European countries that have successful socialist models. You'll notice that their standards of life are, gasp, similar to ours! But that is an aside. Here, the EPA merely recognized it as a harmful pollutant. Which it is. According to scientific evidence. There was no reduction legislation (though there should be).

      c) The author is against command and control legislation. Guess who else is? Everyone. Do you remember the cap-and-trade Waxman-Markey climate change bill recently going through House/Senate? What was that bill? Oh right, cap-and-trade. One of two efficient methods for regulation (the other being a tax, but I won't get into that since I'm sure that taxes = socialism too, amirite?)

      d) The "stop breathing" mockery. Clever! Or maybe we should just reduce/eliminate heavily emitting/polluting coal plants (NOx, SOx, CO2, and radioactive/toxic ash oh my!) and shift the jobs in this industry to clean energy technology. Notice the word shift there. That's right, regulating polluting industries will spur development of clean industries! Amazing! One industry hurt, one born. Jobs shifted.

      e) But what do I know? Let's just continue status quo. Let China overtake U.S. for clean energy production. That way, when we actually need clean energy technology, we can just, you know, import from China. That will help the US economy/GDP/job growth loads. Good idea! My mistake for suggesting an alternative path.

    39. Pingback: Green Ploice Super Bowl ad -is it our future? : USACTION NEWS

    40. Pingback: House democrats not happy with the EPA | CLIMATEGATE

    41. Justin, Alaska says:

      Here I sit, reading past writings on this page six months later.

      Solo Dolo, are you serious? China leading in clean energy? China is a lead polluter! A tax, as an effective means of regulation? Are you kidding me? Your understanding of economics is fairly shallow if you believe that these actions will do anything but cripple growth. $1 tax paid = $1 less going into our economy and real gdp. Industry will not pay these taxes, you and I will. When gasoline is $5 / gallon again, the same individuals pushing this garbage will be railing against the "evil" oil companies.

    42. MyAIC, AZ says:

      The EPA's Move to Regulate GHGs is Premature, but will Congress Act?

      I haven't seen any credible evidence that sweeping EPA regulations like the Clean Air Act (which has since 1990 regulated other types of emissions) and the Clean Water Act have yielded net negative economic impacts – especially when we take into account the public health and environmental benefits they have yielded.

      That said, I think it would be far better for Congress to enact comprehensive legislation that draws us a very clear roadmap for our energy future. Our energy providers – and energy consumers – deserve to be able to plan for the dramatic changes that will inevitably accompany any type of emission regulations.

      If Congress fails to act to give energy both utilities and energy consumers the certainty we need to plan for the future, then I think there are models within which the EPA could regulate GHG emissions well if reasonably implemented.

      But let's not get ahead of ourselves, here. There is hope that Congress will take up the energy/climate bill again before elections in November – or perhaps in a lame duck session just after the election. Let's give lawmakers a chance to do what we elect them to do – make comprehensive national laws.

      http://www.arizonaic.org/blog/258-epa-greenhouse-

    43. Pingback: War on Dust? « The Daily Bayonet

    44. Pingback: If Barack Obama is elected, they’ll be building a mosque at Ground Zero » Quite Right Blog

    45. Pingback: The EPA Must Be Stopped

    46. Pingback: Global Warming Hoax Weekly Round-Up, July 28th 2011 « The Daily Bayonet

    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.

    ×