Three years ago, the University of Notre Dame invited President Barack Obama to deliver a commencement address and conferred on him an honorary law degree. But on Monday, the university joined 42 other Catholic institutions in suing the Obama Administration over new Obamacare regulations that force religious institutions to pay for coverage of abortion-inducing drugs, contraception, and sterilization regardless of the employers’ moral or religious objections.

The mandate’s narrow exemption effectively applies only to churches and other houses of worship; religiously affiliated hospitals, colleges, charities and other non-profits don’t qualify for a religious exemption. Cardinal Donald Wuerl, Archbishop of Washington, explained the significance of the Administration’s mandate and its impact on those institutions, remarking that, “For the first time in this country’s history, the government’s new definition of religious institutions suggests that some of the very institutions that put our faith into practice–schools, hospitals, and social service organizations–are not ‘religious enough.’”

In total, 12 lawsuits were filed this week challenging the Administration’s anti-conscience mandate, and the wide range of organizations joining the legal challenge underscores the enormous opposition to the mandate. Heritage’s Sarah Torre explains that the lawsuits span from the Catholic dioceses of Washington, D.C., and Joilet, Illinois, to Catholic Charities of Jackson, Mississippi, and the Michigan Catholic Conference. “The range of the 43 institutions that have joined the dozen suits highlights the variety of Good Samaritan groups harmed by the mandate,” Torre writes. “These ministries serve inner-city children, the elderly, deaf, developmentally disabled, HIV/AIDS patients, and homeless–among many others. Catholic outreach, like many other religious groups in America, seeks to serve those most in need.”

These 43 plaintiffs join a number of others who had filed similar suits in recent weeks, including three evangelical higher education institutions: Colorado Christian University, Louisiana College and Geneva College. As the presidents of these schools explained in a Wall Street Journal op-ed in April:

[T]he Obama administration has passed a rule that will penalize our colleges with faith-based fines merely because we center our beliefs about the sanctity of human life on the Bible, not on the demands of federal bureaucrats. The administration’s mandate that religious employers provide coverage of abortion-inducing drugs for their faculty, staff, and students is a bridge too far in America.

This ‘conscience tax’ is a blatant violation of the freedoms of religion and speech guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution and affirmed by federal laws such as the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. This mandate would be unjust even if it applied only to those who accept government funding, but it does much more than that. It applies to private, religious employers just because they exist in American society, regardless of whether they receive government funding.

Indeed, it is the Obama Administration’s attempt to broadly impose its will on any religious organization in violation of First Amendment protections that brought such a wide variety of institutions to challenge the Obamacare regulations. Notre Dame President Father John Jenkins wrote that his university’s lawsuit goes beyond a debate about contraception and is about the freedom of a religious organization to “live its mission”:

For if one Presidential Administration can override our religious purpose and use religious organizations to advance policies that undercut our values, then surely another Administration will do the same for another very different set of policies, each time invoking some concept of popular will or the public good, with the result these religious organizations become mere tools for the exercise of government power, morally subservient to the state, and not free from its infringements. If that happens, it will be the end of genuinely religious organizations in all but name.

The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops has called the Obamacare mandate an “unprecedented” violation of religious freedom by the federal government. In addition to the lawsuits, Catholic bishops are planning a national campaign for religious freedom in the two weeks leading up to the Fourth of July holiday. Cardinal Timothy Dolan, president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, explained the urgency behind their actions: “We have tried negotiation with the Administration and legislation with the Congress–and we’ll keep at it–but there’s still no fix. Time is running out, and our valuable ministries and fundamental rights hang in the balance, so we have to resort to the courts now.”

So yet again, Obamacare’s overreach will come before the courts, this time because its centrally driven health care policy is conflicting with conscience and poses a direct threat to the nation’s religious institutions. Regardless of the outcome, there is one thing Congress can do to stop the federal government’s vast overreach into American life — repeal Obamacare now, and then replace it with market-based reforms that respect religious liberty.

Quick Hits:

• Egyptians are voting today to elect a new president in the country’s first presidential contest since the Arab Spring revolution. For the past 16 months, the country has been under military rule and Islamists dominate the country’s parliament.
• A Pakistani doctor who helped the United States find Osama bin Laden was convicted of high treason in Pakistan on Wednesday and sentenced to 33 years in prison. The doctor, Shakil Afridi, assisted in verifying bin Laden’s presence at the compound in Abbottabad.
• The Congressional Budget Office has issued a warning to Congress that the nation is staring over the edge of a “fiscal cliff” and is at risk of a double-dip recession. On January 1, 2013, the largest tax hike in history is set to strike the American people unless Congress takes action to prevent it.
• The Obama Administration leaked classified information to filmmakers regarding the raid that killed Osama bin Laden. According to Judicial Watch, the secrets were handed over for a film that was scheduled to be released just before the November elections.
• In Pictures: Medicare is in bad shape and is desperately in need of reform. See for yourself in a new series of infographics from The Heritage Foundation.

Andrew Breitbart pioneered a new media revolution that transformed journalism and the political landscape. As Americans continue to mourn his tragic passing, we also seek to ensure that his legacy is honored and that the movement he spawned continues on with the army of citizen activists that he cultivated and inspired.

The Heritage Foundation and Franklin Center for Government & Public Integrity ask for your assistance in paying tribute to the monumental achievements of Andrew Breitbart’s work, and the recognition of those who continue his legacy by carrying the torch for freedom and truth.

We will honor three individuals — from the realms of professional journalism, blogging, and citizen activism — whose efforts advance the spirit of Andrew Breitbart’s work. Nominations will be accepted for individuals who are driven by an indomitable pursuit for truth and accountability, and whose work has broken meaningful ground in advancing those causes on behalf of the public good.

We’re currently collecting nominations at BreitbartAwards.com. Descriptions for the three awards appear below. Nominations must be submitted by midnight ET on Friday, May 25, to be considered.

Full-time reporter: In a media environment that tells reporters to go along to get along, a few still consider it a sacred trust to keep the people informed. A few still recognize the awesome responsibility in belonging to the only profession to be enshrined in the Bill of Rights. We’ll present one Breitbart Award to a full-time news reporter to honor courage and honesty in telling the real stories that matter to people’s lives.

Blogger: When the legacy media fails to do its job, we are fortunate to have an army waiting on the Internet to hold the institutions of power accountable. We’ll honor a blogger for intrepid reporting that goes over the heads of the legacy media to communicate directly to the people.

Citizen: The fight for freedom requires a constant stream of new recruits willing to make time in their lives to serve as watchdogs in their local communities. We’ll honor an information activist committed to digging up the truth.

The awards will be presented at the first-ever Future of Journalism Summit next month.

Each semester, we bring together more than 60 young leaders from across the country to participate in our internship program in DC. They are given the opportunity of practical experience working on policy research, marketing, and business, to training on marketing, blogging, and public speaking.  Combine trips to the Pentagon, National Archives, and Mount Vernon with each intern’s individual talents and passion, and each Young Leaders Program graduate will leave Heritage equipped for success.

This semester, we challenged each member in the class to submit a personal story, and bring conservative principles to life.  The winning piece is written by Jesse M. Crosson. Congratulations to all participants!

An Inspiring Tale of Good Old Fashioned Entrepreneurship

by Jesse M. Crosson

Baseball great Yogi Berra once advised, “Always go to other people’s funerals; otherwise, they won’t come to yours.” Yogi’s remarks, though often humorous, remind us of a simple-but-monumental truth about human beings: we are often motivated most when our own benefit is at stake.

Conservatives understand this characteristic as an indispensable feature of a prosperous society. That is, without the drive of entrepreneurship, Americans would not enjoy products like the light bulb, iPod, or microwave oven. Yet despite such advances, many on the Left periodically criticize this drive as “greed” and constrict it with suffocating taxes and regulation. So the question arises: how can conservatives effectively respond, without reverting to dry economic explanations about “rational self-interest” and “utility maximization?” The answer: by reminding our fellow Americans of the many inspiring stories of American entrepreneurship—stories which, while beginning with “self-interest,” end with a vast promotion of the common good.

Consider youth pastor David Purdy. For the past 12 years, Pastor Purdy has devoted his life to volunteer work and spiritual guidance in local schools, churches, and other venues across Central Pennsylvania. Yet despite his selflessly philanthropic lifestyle, Pastor Purdy is also a successful businessman.

About six years ago, Pastor Purdy encountered the popular backyard/tailgating game of “cornhole” at a family reunion. Cornhole simply involved tossing cornbags (bean-bags filled with corn) at a hole cut in a board, and the game’s additive simplicity struck Purdy and his wife. Thus, Purdy and his wife decided to purchase a game set for their family and youth group. Cornhole sets were not cheap, however; so, they decided they would make their own.  Purdy and his wife knew much more about drills and screws than they did about sewing machines and cloth, so Purdy determined he would purchase only the cornhole bags and make the boards himself.

But Pastor Purdy never bought the bags. Instead, realizing a set of 8 cornhole bags would cost him almost $30 after shipping, he decided to make the bags too. And after a quick trip to Jo-Ann Fabrics and the local feed mill (and an hour-long fight with his seldom-used sewing machine), Purdy found that he could make the bags for only a few dollars. Thus, he decided he would make an extra set of bags, to see if he too could sell them for over $20.

And sell he did.

Indeed, not only did Pastor Purdy sell his extra set, but he sold another, and another. And by the end of the week, he had convinced his wife to spend $100 (not an insignificant amount for a family of four, living on a youth pastor’s salary) for supplies for ten sets of bags. Pastor Purdy sold those too. The sales went so well, in fact, that Purdy set a goal of $1000 profit, in time to pay their upcoming property tax bill. They more than surpassed that goal. Within a few short weeks, Pastor Purdy and his wife created business around the production of cornhole bags.

Five-and-a-half years later, the Purdys’ business, BestCornBags.com, has grown immensely—producing, selling, and shipping thousands of cornbag sets a month. With that remarkable growth, they have extended their prosperity to their community. Their increases in production have benefited their raw-material and shipping providers—in this case, the local feed mill, local farmers, the US Postal Service, FedEx, UPS, duck cloth producers/wholesalers, and, recently, local real-estate agents. And, for our liberal friends, Pastor Purdy’s business has generated thousands of dollars in new tax revenues for the local, PA, and US governments.

But the benefits of Purdy’s business success have extended much further into his community than the typical gains associated with new businesses. With his proceeds, Purdy has donated thousands of dollars to his church and youth group, particularly in creating a new after-school hangout for local students. Furthermore, as perhaps one of the largest contributions of all, BestCornBags has provided gainful summer employment for many college and high-school students.  Indeed, not only has the business funded large portions of several college educations (including that of this writer), but his positive-yet-challenging work atmosphere has taught his young workers the value of a hard day’s work—and the satisfaction it can bring.

Clearly, Purdy’s unique business experience has promoted the public good in countless ways. But one cannot forget the beginning of his story: Purdy’s business began with the all-American notion of self-betterment and entrepreneurial spirit. In a word, Purdy, like millions of other American entrepreneurs, began his business with the hope of “making a buck” for his family—to pay that $1000 property tax bill. But, through the miracle of the market, Purdy’s ‘self-interest’ resulted in nothing but positive outcomes for his community.

To be clear, not all stories of entrepreneurship are so positive. Some individuals are, in fact, ruthlessly greedy. But a survey of most American communities reveals that true avarice characterizes only a minority of our country’s entrepreneurship. Instead, it is Purdy’s experience which represents the majority of successful American business stories—self-interest only adding to the public good. And, it is precisely because of the prevalence of stories like Pastor Purdy’s that the US government should loosen its regulations on businesses (and lower taxes for such job-creators). Simply put, these great American entrepreneurs are not the greedy one-percenters that the Left might make them out to be. Rather, they are your cousin, your neighbor—your youth pastor—whose idea and hope for self-betterment resulted in the resounding promotion of America’s welfare.

The transparency of some anti-defense ploys boggles the imagination. The most recent one has to do with the production rates of the new F-35 multi-role fighter.

This aircraft will replace several of the worn-out fighters of the Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps that are sometimes older than the pilots who fly them. The multi-role abilities of the F-35 will benefit the readiness and war fighting capabilities of all the branches of service and will markedly improve national security at a time when threats are increasing in number and magnitude.

The Joint Strike Fighter (JSF), as the F-35 is known, is designed to maximize both capability and survivability. Its production methodology was developed to allow for faster fielding of the aircraft and calls for incremental improvements in the design as early models roll of the line. Safety is not sacrificed, and the process known as “concurrency” puts the best available plane in the hands of the warfighters as soon as possible. It also allows for cuts in cost per copy as efficiencies build upon one another.

Unfortunately, forces that never wanted the nation’s pilots to have this aircraft in the first place are now trying to pull a bait and switch. They are saying that there is too much concurrency, and they want to slow down production of the JSF. This would drive up the cost per unit of each JSF and probably force some of our allies to cut the number of planes they have ordered. These cuts would further drive up cost, creating a vicious cycle of cost increases.

The clear goal here is to slow down production and drive up costs in a spiral that will eventually allow opponents of military modernization and proper readiness to call for killing the program altogether. Congress should not allow this to happen.

The U.S. Air Force has already cut back its requests to the bare bones of readiness. To reduce the fleet further, slow the rate of production, and eventually kill the JSF in the name of artificially escalated cost overruns is irresponsible.

Rather than give into this sneak attack, the Department of Defense should push up the rate of production. Congress should support them, protect the F-35 program, and give U.S. forces the aircraft they need to defend the nation.

This year’s National Memorial Day Parade in Washington, D.C., will have a special focus on Iraq veterans—and a way to participate if you can’t make it to the capital.

Following the formal end of the Iraq war last year, the American Veterans Center (AVC), which organizes the parade, is partnering with the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America (IAVA) to make sure men and women are welcomed home.

“With troops still deployed in harm’s way, it is imperative that we show our support and gratitude as a nation,” said James C. Roberts, president of the AVC. “As a Vietnam veteran myself, I saw firsthand the way my comrades were treated, and my reaction was, ‘Never again.’  The veterans of the Iraq war deserve an expression of gratitude from the American people.”

If you can’t make it to Washington on Memorial Day, you can “march” online through Virtual Boots on the Ground. You can log in with your email or through Facebook to show support for the troops, whether you are a veteran or a civilian.

Jason Hansman, membership director for IAVA, said his organization hopes to reach out to Iraq veterans who might not be aware of the resources available to them. IAVA organizes community activities and help for transitioning back into life in the States—including finding jobs. It offers help with resume writing and interviewing and connects vets with employers who have openings.

“It’s not just about the parade—it’s about what happens after the parade,” said Hansman, who served in Iraq from 2004–2005.

Hansman said for many Iraq vets, this recognition feels a little overdue. New York City hasn’t given a traditional ticker-tape homecoming parade, as troops are still fighting in Afghanistan.

“Being able to walk down Constitution Avenue with fellow Iraq vets—after we’re done with this conflict—that means a lot,” Hansman said.

The nationally televised parade, which begins at 2 p.m. ET on May 28, has been organized by the AVC since 2005. Sponsors include Boeing, the Association of American Railroads, Geico, and American Airlines.

You can also watch the parade live online at Virtual Boots on the Ground.

In its ceaseless quest to protect us from ourselves, Congress in 2009 compelled credit card companies to confirm an applicant’s “ability to pay” before approving an account. Lawmakers evidently believe that Visa, MasterCard, Discover, and the like somehow lack incentive to manage their own credit risk. (As opposed to, say, the elected officials who have racked up $1.2 trillion in national debt this year.)

In any event, the Federal Reserve Board subsequently issued the specific regulations called for in the Credit Card Accountability, Responsibility, and Disclosure Act (CARD). While the title makes for a cutesy acronym, it’s rather odd to use “accountability” to describe a statute that prohibits private companies from acting independently.

Fed Governor Elizabeth Duke was downright proud of the new rules, which she declared to be “an important milestone in the Federal Reserve’s efforts to ensure that consumers who rely on credit cards are treated fairly.”

But the new regulation can hardly be regarded as “fair.” In fact, the law is widely interpreted as prohibiting millions of stay-at-home moms (and a few dads) from obtaining credit cards of their own altogether—just like the 1950s. That’s because the “ability to pay” regulation requires credit card applicants to have an independent source of income to open an account, or else find a co-signer. To wit:

§Ability to Pay.

(a) General rule. (1)(i) Consideration of ability to pay. A card issuer must not open a credit card account for a consumer…unless the card issuer considers the ability of the consumer to make the required minimum periodic payments under the terms of the account based on the consumer’s income or assets and current obligations.

(ii) Reasonable policies and procedures. Card issuers must establish and maintain reasonable written policies and procedures to consider a consumer’s income or assets and current obligations…It would be unreasonable for a card issuer to…issue a credit card to a consumer who does not have any income.

Talk about a “War on Women”!

Credit card companies long ago realized that homemakers make the majority of household purchases—lack of a paycheck notwithstanding. A variety of studies also document that women take fewer financial risks than men, giving them a slight edge on the reliability scale. So, naturally, Congress has made it much more difficult for those with better credit odds to obtain credit. All of which is a kind of Orwellian corollary to putting lawmakers utterly lacking fiscal discipline in charge of the nation’s finances.

Just how the provision squares with marital property laws in some states is unsettled. Meanwhile, some 45,000 outraged moms (and a few dads) signed a petition of protest that has been delivered to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. A senior spokeswoman there told Forbes, “Concerns about how the rule may be affecting stay-at-home spouses have been brought to our attention and we are studying the issue.”

This latest regulatory perversion, along with all the other interference in most every aspect of our lives, reflect the arrogance of politicians and regulators who regard citizens as incompetent and who nurture a mistrust of free enterprise. All the while, they claim credit for grand schemes for which the rest of us pay a very high price.

It’s commencement time again: rows of folding chairs, the polyester cap and gown, a dozen of your closest relatives listening intently for your name, and of course the big name speaker. Georgetown’s School of Public Policy has Kathleen Sebelius, Columbia Law has umm, uhhh, Solicitor General Don Verilli, and Barnard College booked President Obama. These speeches are mostly opportunities to get a little good press coverage and encourage the next generation to join AmeriCorps or recycle.

Today, in 1964, though, one President’s commencement speech ushered in a new stage of liberalism. At the University of Michigan, President Lyndon Johnson boldly proposed the Great Society, the latest stage in the evolution of Woodrow Wilson’s Progressivism and Franklin Roosevelt’s Second Bill of Rights liberalism. Johnson combined the then-filibustered Civil Rights Act of 1964 and ambitious federal programs into a vision he dubbed the Great Society. The wildly utopian expectations (and experimental recklessness in social programs) brought modern liberalism into a crisis and dramatically expanded the administrative state, with all its cost and regulatory reach.

This Great Society, Johnson proclaims, is no “finished work” but “a challenge constantly renewed, beckoning us toward a destiny where the meaning of our lives matches the marvelous products of our labor.” As with John Dewey, Wilson, and Roosevelt, the ultimate aim is by design obscure, but it is a standard well beyond the material necessity and prosperity they presuppose.

Johnson proposes three sets of programs concerning the cities, the environment, and education. In each area we should seek both utility and beauty. Thus, Great Society urban policy should not only “rebuild the entire urban United States” in the next 40 years (by 2005) but promote “community” and combat “loneliness and boredom and indifference.” The environment should not only be unpolluted but allow men to “wonder at nature.” Education will not only bring children out of poverty; it will give them “hours of leisure.” Johnson is confident that a hyper-expanded government, reliant on Deweyan experimentation in government programs, can manage both political and spiritual transformation. Under the rubric of “creative federalism,” the Constitution’s true principle of federalism is overridden.

To develop such elevating programs, Johnson pledges to “assemble the best thought and the broadest knowledge from all over the world to find those answers for America.” With their aid, he asks students to fight four battles: for civil rights, against poverty, for enduring international peace, and, finally, for the Great Society, which seeks a “richer life of mind and spirit.” On all these fronts he retains all the utopianism of Progressivism and liberalism and reaches even further.

Johnson boasts that the Great Society marks a turning point in America’s history, which men will gratefully look back upon and say: “It was then, after a long and weary way, that man turned the exploits of his genius to the full enrichment of his life”—as though Jefferson, Lincoln, and Coolidge had no clue about leading a rich life.

Johnson called upon the graduating youth to join him in his cause but in principle capitulated to the most radical of them, as his Great Society articulated the vision of the Students for a Democratic Society (SDS). Founded two years before this address, the SDS protested the Vietnam War while closing down universities and demanding a total transformation of society along the lines envisioned by Dewey. This radical utopianism scarcely exceeded that of the man they would scream hatred at—Lyndon Johnson. Such are the dialogues of those who abandon the natural rights and constitutional government of the Founding.

Is cable news network MSNBC complicit in the death of Trayvon Martin? The suggestion, of course, is absurd. But under the same logic that liberals have used to tie Koch Industries to the Martin shooting, companies like General Electric and Comcast—owners of MSNBC—would be just as responsible.

The issue arose during a testy interview on MSNBC last week between commentator Martin Bashir and Mark Holden, general counsel for Koch Industries. Karen Finney, a substitute host on Bashir’s program, had previously suggested that Koch Industries, because it supports the American Legislative Exchange Council, had a role in Martin’s death.

ALEC has been falsely tied to passage of Florida’s stand-your-ground law, invoked by neighborhood watch volunteer George Zimmerman in his defense in the Martin case. But what Bashir didn’t appear to realize is that MSNBC’s parent companies, like Koch, are ALEC members.

That hasn’t dissuaded MSNBC personalities such as Finney and other left-wing commentators from implying that Koch Industries is somehow complicit in Martin’s death. It’s an inflammatory charge, but here’s what the rationale for attacks against Koch boils down to: Zimmerman shot Martin in what may or may not have been a permissible use of force under a law that was not based on ALEC model legislation that Koch had no part in formulating – and somehow Koch is responsible.

The line of attack against Koch starts with the liberal campaign to silence or otherwise neuter ALEC, a non-profit that advises state-level policymakers. The left’s objection to ALEC has nothing to do with the function it serves or the way in which it operates – if it did, liberals would also be criticizing the litany of similar “progressive” organizations. Rather, the objection is that ALEC advances center-right principles: limited government, free markets, and federalism, as the group’s tagline states.

Despite the coordinated and well-funded campaign to take down ALEC, most of the lines of attack against the group have not gained much traction.

In the wake of the Martin shooting, however, the anti-ALEC crusaders have settled on a new tactic. Zimmerman invoked Florida’s “castle doctrine” law, which allows citizens to use deadly force against would-be attackers in some instances. The groups looking to destroy ALEC have pointed out that it has written “model legislation” for similar laws.

“The Trayvon Martin thing was like a gift,” one anti-ALEC activist told Bloomberg.

The shooting helped accelerate the campaign to get ALEC members to drop their support in the face of organized boycotts by liberal groups and their supporters.

The Martin connection, however, is a specious one. ALEC approved its model “castle doctrine” legislation months after Florida passed its own law, meaning that model legislation played no part in forming the Florida law. That hasn’t stopped the attacks.

In fact, the attackers have tried to tie Koch Industries, owned by libertarian philanthropists Charles and David Koch, to the shooting as well, claiming that by financially supporting ALEC (as a member), the company is complicit.

Koch has pointed out that it not only had no part in forming ALEC’s model legislation (which, again, was not the basis for Florida’s law), but has actually lobbied for additional restrictions on Second Amendment rights – its only involvement on the firearms issue.

But all of these facts aside, if Koch is responsible for the shooting, so too are Comcast and General Electric, both of which are ALEC members. Holden pointed that out in his Bashir interview, and it merits more attention.

Comcast and General Electric happen to own MSNBC, the cable news network on which many of these anti-Koch sentiments have been broadcast, and on which Holden had to battle accusations against his employer.

Should we expect to see a boycott of MSNBC and its sister news organizations? Given that MSNBC has served as the platform to broadcast so many of the attacks against ALEC and Koch, it may be too much to ask.

Heritage’s new chart series, “Medicare at Risk: Visualizing the Need for Reform,” shows that, without the necessary structural reform, Medicare’s finances will have devastating consequences on the federal budget, not to mention taxpayers and seniors alike.

Medicare’s Impact on the Budget. Medicare spending is rising faster than any other part of the federal budget, and it’s a major driver of runaway deficit spending in the not-so-distant future. Retiring baby boomers and rising health care costs will cause Medicare’s shortfall to contribute to 81 percent of federal deficits by 2040. Clearly, the federal deficit cannot be contained without addressing Medicare’s structural problems.

Medicare’s Impact on Taxpayers. Medicare spending isn’t just busting the federal budget; its also consuming more of household budgets. In 1970, average Medicare spending per American household was $129. In 2021—just nine years from now—spending per household will be a whopping $7,987. Unless there is significant reform to deal with these rising costs, Americans will be faced with automatic benefit cuts or steep tax increases. The Medicare Part A payroll tax would have to increase by 84 percent just to make Part A alone solvent.

A common misconception is that seniors pay for their own benefits, but actually Medicare is structured so that current workers pay for current retirees’ benefits. Meanwhile, the ratio of workers to beneficiaries is decreasing. In 1965, there were 4.6 workers per beneficiary, but by 2030, the ratio will have fallen to 2.3. The increase in beneficiaries and decrease in workers is one major cause of Medicare’s insolvency.

Medicare’s Impact on Seniors. Obamacare did nothing to improve Medicare’s fiscal crisis. Even though Medicare spending falls by $421 billion under the health care law, the savings offset the cost of other provisions in Obamacare instead of shoring up Medicare’s deficits. Worse yet, Obamacare’s flawed method of controlling Medicare’s costs by cutting provider payments will significantly reduce seniors’ access to care. As the charts show, these profound cuts put 40 percent of providers in danger of closing their doors by 2050. As the number of beneficiaries rise, the number of providers cannot decrease without causing serious access issues.

Medicare reform is vital if the program is going to be ready to handle what’s to come. To read Heritage’s plan to save Medicare, click here.

President Obama’s proposal to keep interest rates on one type of student loans below market level obscures the fact that, if Taxmageddon strikes, the tax hike young adults entering the workforce would face would vastly outpace the savings they might enjoy from Congress continuing to subsidize their interest rates.

Taxmageddon is a massive tax hike that will strike all taxpayers—and the economy—on January 1, 2013, unless Congress and President Obama act to stop it. It is made up of a series of expiring tax policies, such as the Bush tax cuts and the payroll tax cut, and the beginning of several Obamacare tax hikes. The price tag for Taxmageddon is a whopping $494 billion in one year alone.

If Congress and President Obama fail to stop it, Taxmageddon would cost a new college graduate $1,260 in higher combined income and payroll taxes next year (assuming the average salary of new college grads of $41,701).

At the same time, if the new grad also took the maximum $5,500 Stafford student loan to pay for his senior year, and Congress continues to subsidize his rate at 3.4 percent instead of allowing that rate to rise back to the more market-oriented 6.8 percent, it would save him $110 next year (assuming a 10-year repayment window).

That’s $1,260 taken out of his right pocket by Taxmageddon and $110 stuffed back into his left by Congress and President Obama continuing to subsidize his student loan.

Taxmageddon would cost a college graduate 11-and-a-half times more than the lower student loan rate will save him. And only the approximate 7.7 million students that take out subsidized Stafford loans would benefit at all from the continued subsidized rate. But every single student that enters the workforce—nearly 21 million students are enrolled in postsecondary education today—will bear the burden of the Taxmageddon tax increase.

Despite the disproportionate pain that Taxmageddon would inflict, President Obama is focusing his attention on the student loan interest rate and ignoring Taxmageddon.

Students shouldn’t be fooled or distracted by President Obama’s hide-the-ball trick when it comes to Taxmageddon. They should be telling him at commencement addresses and campaign rallies he holds at their schools to stop Taxmageddon now.