Keith Alexander, Director, NSA (Douglas Graham/CQ Roll Call/Newscom)

General Keith Alexander, the director of the National Security Agency (NSA), testified in an open hearing before the House Permanent Select Committee for Intelligence on how intelligence collection supports the national effort to fight transnational terrorism.

For the first time, he revealed that more than 50 incidents of potential terrorism were stopped by the set of programs under scrutiny. He emphasized that he was working to declassify these incidents so they could be shared with the American people.

These revelations come as no surprise to us. Heritage research has noted 54 foiled terrorist plots since 9/11. Given that we know of only three that were not stopped by intelligence (the shoe bomber, the underwear bomber, and the Times Square bomber), this means that these NSA programs might well have played a significant role in thwarting dozens of uncovered plots.

Heritage has long held that tools such as the PATRIOT Act and legitimate surveillance programs can be important tools for battling transnational terrorism.

That said, the need for effective counterterrorism operations does not relieve the government of its obligation to follow the law and respect individual privacy and liberty. In the American system, the government needs to do both equally well. Protecting life and limb and protecting our sacred liberties are uncompromisable objectives in today’s world of terrorism and technology.

The post NSA Spying Stops Terrorism but Should Also Respect Liberties appeared first on The Foundry: Conservative Policy News Blog from The Heritage Foundation.

Cartoon by Glenn Foden

As the debate over the farm bill continues, a great deal of hoopla has been made about cuts to the food stamps program. The Obama Administration has called the proposed cuts “harmful” and “unacceptable,” and has even threatened to veto the bill because of the cuts.

But what exactly are these “deep cuts”? About 2.5 percent. (That’s in the House version of the bill. The Senate’s version cuts much less.) That’s a 2.5 percent cut to a program that has increased in costs by roughly 100 percent since 2008. Far from deep cuts, the farm bill simply maintains historically high levels of food stamp spending.

In 2008, food stamp funding was roughly $40 billion. In 2012, spending was double that, at around $80 billion. Costs had been increasing prior to that, however. In 2000, food stamp spending was about $20 billion, roughly half of what it was in 2008.

Today, one in seven Americans receives food stamp benefits each month, more than at any time in the nation’s history. This can’t simply be blamed on a poor job market. It is also because eligibility standards have been loosened. Broad-based categorical eligibility—a policy put into place by the Clinton Administration and pushed heavily by the Obama Administration—has allowed states to overlook asset limits and weaken income limits in order to enroll more people in the program. The Obama Administration has also allowed states to waive work requirements for able-bodied adults. These waivers were supposed to be temporary, but the Administration has allowed them to continue.

The food stamps program is old and in need of reform. To get spending under control, food stamp spending should be rolled back to pre-recession levels when the employment rate recovers. The program should also be restructured to promote work instead of discourage it, as some researchers suggest it does.

Smart cost reforms accompanied by efforts to promote self-sufficiency through work would take food stamps off its reckless spending spree and put it on a road to fiscal responsibility.

The post Farm Bill Barely Nibbles at Food Stamps appeared first on The Foundry: Conservative Policy News Blog from The Heritage Foundation.

Massimo Pizzotti Stock Connection Worldwide/Newscom

The leaders of the G8 have wrapped up a two-day summit. Although tax, transparency, and trade (the so-called three Ts) were priorities on the official agenda, the civil war in Syria dominated the headlines.

This change of plans demonstrates one of the biggest problems with huge international summits such as the G8: The agenda is etched into stone well in advance of the actual summit, so there is little flexibility to adapt the agenda to current events when required.

Conferences such as the G8 have rigid agendas, with various sessions typically focused on a set of issues (in this case, the three Ts). If a major world event (such as the war in Syria) occurs, it has no place on the agenda. Conferees must squeeze it in among the other agenda items, resulting in too little discussion.

In the case of the G8, the only time all eight leaders sat down together to discuss Syria was at last night’s dinner. The idea that Syria can be discussed over “Roast Fillet and Braised Shin of Kettyle Beef and Violet Artichokes” would be comical if the situation wasn’t so serious.

In the end, the Lough Erne Declaration lacked any meaningful advancement in the three Ts. Far from concrete solutions, the declaration simply outlines more aspirations and goals. Furthermore, the declaration will not change the current debate about the future of Syria one bit. One can only wonder: What was the point?

The post Syria and the G8: Only a Dinner Party Discussion appeared first on The Foundry: Conservative Policy News Blog from The Heritage Foundation.

Newscom

Teachers in Deerfield, Kansas, just did something unusual—they voted to decertify their union. The Kansas National Education Association (KNEA) no longer represents them.

Teachers disliking their union representation do not make news, but teachers actually leaving their union do: The law makes it very difficult for teachers to remove unwanted unions.

Unlike most public officials, unions do not stand for re-election, so their members cannot regularly hold them accountable. Workers can remove an unwanted union only by filing for decertification. But bureaucratic obstacles make it difficult to hold a vote on decertification. The hoops Deerfield’s teachers had to jump through illustrate this problem.

Joel McClure, the teacher who led the effort, submitted the appropriate paperwork to the Kansas Department of Labor in November 2012. But Kansas teachers can request a vote only in a two-month window every three years. KNEA officials contested the petition by claiming that the teachers missed the December 1 deadline. (The Department of Labor had misplaced the initial petition paperwork.) Then the KNEA objected that the teachers’ attorney was not certified in Kansas and that they did not have enough signatures. However, the teachers prevailed and voted out their union—in June, just eight months after the initial submission.

When asked why they went through such protracted effort, the teachers said their union ignored their concerns. They wanted instead to be actively involved in negotiations and work collaboratively with the school district. “The desire is for teachers to participate at the [bargaining] table, to have free access to information,” McClure said. “In our little school district, there’s no reason we can’t sit down at the table and work out our issues.”

Now they can. But most other teachers never get to choose their bargaining representatives. Their unions formed in the 1970s and have never stood for re-election since. In some of Kansas’s largest school districts, not one teacher voted for the current union. Teachers who do not want a prolonged legal battle get stuck with their union by default.

The law should give workers more choice about who represents them. Kansas legislators are reviewing Kansas HB 2027, which would require teachers unions to stand for re-election every two years and allow individual teachers to negotiate separate contracts. This would make unions more accountable to their members while allowing great teachers to negotiate for even better pay.

Americans trust teachers to educate our children. We should also trust them to choose who should represent them.

Michael Cirrotti is currently a member of the Young Leaders Program at The Heritage Foundation. For more information on interning at Heritage, please click here.

The post Kansas Teachers Vote to Decertify Their Union appeared first on The Foundry: Conservative Policy News Blog from The Heritage Foundation.

KIMIMASA MAYAMA/EPA/Newscom

Currency manipulation is the issue that never dies. No matter how many times the link between exchange rates and American jobs is shown to be tenuous, the matter rises again like a zombie. In this case, it is Japan that has brought exchange rates back into the spotlight, as the yen has weakened sharply in the past six months.

A majority of the House of Representatives wrote a letter to the President last week asking that exchange rates be included in the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP).

The Members are right to hope that the TPP is comprehensive, but they would be wrong to hope that “currency manipulation” should become a part of the agreement.

Some Members of Congress believe that Japan is manipulating its currency and should be made to stop if it wants to join the TPP. And it is true that Japan has driven down the value of its currency by selling gigantic amounts of government debt and, more recently, sharply increasing the total money supply.

But this should sound very familiar. Putting aside the fact that some people think a $750 billion fiscal deficit this year constitutes “austerity,” the U.S. has been pumping out federal debt and new credit as fast as we can for closing on five years. If Japan must stop manipulating its currency in order to join the TPP, we must also.

There are many other problems with continuing to obsess over exchange rates, but in this case, we should focus on how it could hurt the TPP. The TPP is most valuable in two ways:

1. Integrating member economies, which account for 40 percent of U.S. trade, and
2. Restarting the process of global economic liberalization that will permit American companies and workers to compete freely.

The two goals involve, among other things, greatly improving the protection of intellectual property rights, sharply limiting the advantages granted to state-owned enterprises, enhancing market access in services, and unifying a very messy set of rules of origin. Each of these tasks by itself is both daunting and far more important to American prosperity than exchange rates. And that’s putting aside the problems with us complaining about other countries’ fiscal and monetary policy.

Shouts about currency manipulation are unavoidable. We shouldn’t let them distract us from the true—and truly difficult—job of securing a TPP that is strong on the issues that count.

The post Will the Currency Zombie Eat the Trans-Pacific Partnership? appeared first on The Foundry: Conservative Policy News Blog from The Heritage Foundation.

House Budget Chairman Paul Ryan (R-WI) has said that the Gang of Eight’s immigration bill is not amnesty—and he’s willing to debate anyone who believes it is.

Appearing on “Lou Dobbs Tonight,” Heritage’s Genevieve Wood said lawmakers are using buzzwords like “pathway to citizenship,” but at the end of the day, “amnesty is amnesty, no matter what you call it.”

>>> Watch the video

Dobbs asked about the impact of immigration policy on voters, and Wood said a policy that helps people get ahead in America is needed.

“I think Republicans ought to be trying to get more Hispanic votes—they ought to be trying to reach more people, period, but you don’t do that by putting forward bad policy,” Wood said.  “If we really say we care about these folks, we need to be ensuring that we have a system and a country that allows them to move up the economic ladder and really pursue the American dream.”

LEARN MORE:

America’s Opportunity for All: Strengthen Immigration Through Commonsense Reforms

Rachel Taylor is currently a member of the Young Leaders Program at The Heritage Foundation. For more information on interning at Heritage, please click here.

The post Pathway to Citizenship Is Amnesty (VIDEO) appeared first on The Foundry: Conservative Policy News Blog from The Heritage Foundation.

imago stock&people/Newscom

This week, President Obama is in Lough Erne, Northern Ireland, for the G8 summit, an annual meeting of the world’s wealthiest countries: the U.S., Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia, and the United Kingdom.

Last year, world hunger was on the agenda as the President hosted G8 leaders at his Camp David retreat. This year, with the farm bill and food aid reform on the domestic agenda, the President has a unique opportunity to return to this theme and make a lasting impact on world hunger once and for all.

A good first step would be reforming food aid. Each year the U.S. provides nearly $2.2 billion in food aid to countries facing food shortages and starvation around the world. However, U.S. food aid must be purchased from U.S. producers and shipped on U.S.-flagged vessels, making these programs costly and inefficient.

In addition, some food aid is distributed through a wasteful process called monetization. In this process the U.S. donates food to charities, which then sell it in other countries and use the proceeds for development projects. This undercuts farmers in other countries. A 2011 Government Accountability Office report found that monetization activities wasted $219 million over three years. The President should instead champion reforms that eliminate monetization and allow food to be purchased anywhere and shipped in the most cost-effective way.

While President Obama is in Northern Ireland, he should take some cues from his European counterparts, as well. The European Union reformed its food aid policy effectively in the mid-1990s, eliminating the monetization of aid and sourcing its food from more efficient producers. This makes EU aid cheaper, more efficient, and more effective.

The President has said that “the United States has a moral obligation to lead the fight against hunger and malnutrition.” At the G8, President Obama can lead this fight by championing economic freedom and market-based reforms that would help combat starvation worldwide.

The post G8 Summit: Fight Global Hunger with Economic Freedom appeared first on The Foundry: Conservative Policy News Blog from The Heritage Foundation.

Newscom

Economists often point to the “wisdom of crowds”—the idea that a group of people is likely to make better decisions that an individual will. Then again, your mother probably taught you the importance of individualism when she admonished you that “if everyone else jumps off a bridge, would you do it, too?”

In this case, the Constitution favors your mother’s view.

In a recent series on PBS, Peter Sagal set out to determine how the Constitution applies to modern American life. As part of the final installment, Sagal journeyed far beyond our borders to Iceland, where citizens are drafting a new, “crowd-sourced” constitution.

Sagal wonders, “Is our Constitution up to the challenges of the 21st century?” After all, “national constitutions are like cars. After enough wear-and-tear they can break down.” That’s certainly true for most constitutions. Law professor Mila Versteeg has read every national constitution drafted since World War II and found they are rewritten, on average, every 19 years. Some cars do indeed last longer than that.

But the beauty of the American Constitution is that it predates automobiles and many other modern conveniences. Today’s governing documents read like a laundry list of “rights” the government is required to “give” to you. South Africa’s constitution guarantees a “right” to “adequate housing,” “reproductive health care,” and “to receive education in the official language or languages of their choice in public educational institutions where that education is reasonably practicable.”

In contrast, our Constitution simply sets out a framework for a free people to confront the political questions of their times. As Heritage’s David Azerrad puts it,

Its words and principles, anchored in the Declaration of Independence, categorically rule out certain laws—e.g., bills of attainder—and create a system of checks and balance between different levels of government. But within the confines of these restrictions and delineations, it leaves the people free to deliberate via their elected representatives on the questions and problems of the day.

Its simplicity was a stroke of genius. As Sagal later admits, it has lasted for so long because it is brief and allows for occasional “repairs” through amendments.

Of course, there are a few parting shots at the Constitution during this episode. Former Representative Barney Frank (D–MA) tells Sagal that the entire system is weighted toward inaction. But commentator P. J. O’Rourke counters that that’s a feature, not a bug: “Tyranny was more worrisome to the Framers than legislative deadlock.” They wanted it to be difficult to enact national laws, because that would leave most power in the states.

It would be impossible to write a limited constitution today. Every interest group under the sun would demand “rights” be included, and it would end up reading like a menu instead of a governing framework. All the more reason to avoid following the crowd of countries that are constantly reworking their constitutions and instead rededicate ourselves to defending the one we’re blessed enough to have.

The post A Constitution for the 21st Century appeared first on The Foundry: Conservative Policy News Blog from The Heritage Foundation.

As we learn more each day about what Obamacare will bring, a video that recently became available reveals another frightening turn. The federal government already struggles with fraud in many major programs such as Medicare and Social Security. What about the forthcoming Obamacare insurance exchanges?

Obamacare includes a “navigator” program of individuals paid by the government to encourage people to sign up for the exchanges.

A House Oversight Committee hearing from May 21 produced the following exchange with Gary Cohen, the director of the federal center charged with implementing health insurance exchanges under Obamacare:

Representative Paul Gosar: What will a navigator or assister do if an individual reports they are paid under the table?

[Long pause]

Gary Cohen: That’s a good question. I’ll have to think about that, and talk to folks.

That’s not the only good question about the navigator program; the House Oversight Committee sent a letter asking more questions. The Department of Health and Human Services has allocated $54 million to this Obamacare “outreach” effort, and yet the Administration has not answered basic questions, like whether navigators would have to pass a criminal background check. The video demonstrates that Obamacare navigators could end up encouraging tax fraud by failing to report individuals who are paid under the table.

In March 2010, Speaker Nancy Pelosi famously said we had to pass the bill to find out what’s in it. Apparently, three years later, even the people in charge of implementing Obamacare still don’t know what’s in the law, and how it will—or won’t—work.

The post Q: Will Obamacare Encourage Fraud? A: “I’ll Have to Think About That…” appeared first on The Foundry: Conservative Policy News Blog from The Heritage Foundation.

Yesterday, the Supreme Court handed down one of its first major decisions of this term, striking down Arizona’s measure requiring proof of citizenship for voter registration. Media reports are already off base in interpreting this decision, says Heritage legal expert Hans von Spakovsky. Here are three things to know about the decision.

1. This is not a voter ID decision.

This decision has to do with voter registration, not the act of voting. Von Spakovsky explains:

In 2004, Arizona voters overwhelmingly approved a referendum that had two major components: voter ID for in-person voting and a requirement that anyone registering to vote provide proof of citizenship. The voter ID provision was not before the Supreme Court and is alive and well in Arizona. (emphasis added)

Although it did not strike down the provision that requires a photo ID for in-person voting, von Spakovsky said “the Supreme Court came down on the wrong side of election integrity” with this ruling.

2. Federal law already mandates that a person must be a U.S. citizen to vote.

The Court’s ruling does not mean that requiring proof of citizenship is bad or wrong. In fact, people are supposed to vote only if they are citizens.

The Court ruled the way it did because there is already a federal law requiring people to affirm that they are U.S. citizens when they register to vote. Most people register using the federal mail-in form under the “Motor Voter” law. The majority of the justices said that federal requirement “preempts” Arizona’s requirement, which simply means the federal law comes first.

But Arizona residents can register to vote using the federal form or a state form. Von Spakovsky notes that “Arizona can continue to require proof of citizenship for anyone who registers using the state form.”

3. States do determine the qualifications of their voters.

If Arizona has information about a voter that shows he or she is not eligible to vote, then the state still decides who is a legitimate voter.

Von Spakovsky says:

The Court specifically noted that under our Constitution, states have the exclusive right to determine the qualifications of voters in federal elections, and Arizona can deny registration to anyone who submits a federal form if it has other information in its possession that establishes the ineligibility of the applicant.

Making sure that only U.S. citizens are voting is vital to the integrity of American elections. This Supreme Court decision basically kept the status quo, and meanwhile, voting reforms are needed.

Read the Morning Bell and more en español every day at Heritage Libertad.

Quick Hits:

• The editors of National Review make the case that Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) should vote against the Gang of Eight amnesty bill he helped draft.
• The problem with Senator John Cornyn’s (R-TX) border security amendment: Amnesty still comes first, and everything else comes later.
• Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) owes Heritage an apology, writes the Washington Examiner.
• Obamacare will create a massive hub of Americans’ personal information.
• Should food stamps be part of the farm bill?

The post Morning Bell: 3 Things You Should Know About the Supreme Court and Voter ID appeared first on The Foundry: Conservative Policy News Blog from The Heritage Foundation.