LRWF_Blog
to the web site of Lee Republican Women Federated! Thank you very much for visiting and we hope you find our web site informative and a place you will want to visit again. Lee Republican Women Federated (LRWF) is a member of the Florida Federation of Republican Women which was chartered in 1950 and a member of the National Federation of Republican Women (NFRW) which was started in 1938. Our affiliation with both these groups allows us to say that we are part of a grassroots organization of over 100,000 women throughout the country who support Republican candidates and issues at all levels of government.

2013 Membership Renewal going on now!

Send a completed 2013 membership form and dues to LRWF PO Box 61964 Fort Myers, Fl 33906 or bring along to a monthly meeting. New members welcome!!

Get the Flash Player to see the slideshow.

Upcoming Speakers:

July 8, 2013 Luncheon Meeting Program:  Website and Social Media Workshop

June 10, 2013 Dinner Meeting Program:  Post Legislative Session Update presented by Heather Fitzenhagen, FL House of Representatives.

Stay in the Loop!

LRWF Newsletter
Name:
E-Mail Address:

    NFRW.NET

    UPCOMING EVENTS

Recent Blog Topics

May 21st, 2013

Where do food stamps come from?

They come from taxpayers—certainly not from family farms. Yet the “farm” bill, a recurring subsidy-fest in Congress, is actually 80 percent food stamps and other government nutrition programs.

OfarmaBill-words300

The food stamps sweeten the farm deal for lawmakers, who admit that the combination works for their political purposes. As Heritage experts Daren Bakst and Diane Katz explain:

The food stamp portion creates a reason for urban representatives to support farm subsidies, and for farm-state lawmakers to support food stamps.

Talk of de-politicizing agriculture programs and welfare policy is met with stiff resistance. For example, Senator Thad Cochran (R–MS), ranking Republican on the Senate Agriculture Committee, recently told the North American Agricultural Journalists group that food stamps should continue to be included in the farm bill “purely from a political perspective. It helps get the farm bill passed.”

Food stamps are there to help “get the farm bill passed.” And the relation of the rest of the farm bill to farming is also questionable. Bakst and Katz note that “Congress has expanded the farm bill over time into a costly compilation of disparate programs. Along with agriculture and food stamps, the legislation includes dozens of forestry, conservation, energy, and rural development programs.”

It has become the norm that Congress lumps billions—even trillions—of dollars in taxpayer-funded programs together into huge bills. This allows them to sneak in plenty of special-interest pork.

Each of these programs deserves to be evaluated on its own, and taxpayers deserve transparency from Congress about how it plans to spend our money.

For example, food stamps are a massive program that needs a careful look. Food stamp spending has doubled under the Obama Administration, and participation is at historic highs. Recruiters hold bingo games and other “parties” to try to get more people on the food stamp rolls.

Farm commodity programs are also a major concern and in dire need of reform. Congress may eliminate the egregious direct payment program, which pays farmers for doing nothing. However, instead of stopping there, both the House and Senate farm bills would replace direct payments with programs that could wind up being even costlier.

Food stamps and farming ultimately have to do with food, but that’s about all they have in common. Making the farm bill 80 percent food stamps just doesn’t make sense.

Article from The Morning Bell, Heritage Foundation

May 3rd, 2013

Senators return to Washington next week to debate the Gang of Eight’s comprehensive immigration bill. Heritage President Jim DeMint has said the bill is “unfair, it costs too much, and it’s going to make the problem worse.” We’ve put together an infographic that explains some of the major problems with a “comprehensive” approach to immigration reform. Forward this to a friend to share these concerns.

What's Wrong with<br />
the Gang of Eight's Bill?

 

Article from The Morning Bell, Heritage Foundation

May 2nd, 2013

Congress rammed Obamacare through without many Members even reading the bill. Now it’s applying that same frantic, complex, pie-in-the-sky legislating to immigration. The similarities are frightening.

1. Extreme Costs

The Government Accountability Office now projects that under the most realistic scenario, Obamacare will add $6.2 trillion to the primary deficit over the next 75 years. That’s a staggering figure, especially considering the fact that President Obama pledged in 2009, “I will not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficits—either now or in the future.”

The Gang of Eight’s immigration plan granting amnesty to those unlawfully in the U.S. will cost already burdened American taxpayers more than they can bear. When he last crunched the numbers during the 2007 amnesty debate, Heritage’s Robert Rector calculated that a general amnesty would cost some $2.5 trillion—after considering what legalized immigrants would likely pay in taxes and receive in government benefits and services. His updated research on the latest proposal, due out soon, is likely to find a higher price tag in 2013.

2. False Promises 

Remember President Obama’s promise that “If you like your health care plan, you can keep it”? That’s just one of the most famous (or infamous) broken promises of Obamacare. The Congressional Budget Office projects 7 million people will lose their employer-sponsored coverage by 2022 because of the law.

On immigration, Heritage President Jim DeMint told CNBC’s Larry Kudlow this week: “I’ve heard a lot of promises about bills that have gone through Congress. …The only thing that I know about this bill is that it’s going to give legal status and eventual citizenship to those who came here unlawfully. The rest are just promises.” One of those promises is border security—as Heritage’s James Jay Carafano explains, the bill would not actually secure the border.

>>> Watch Jim DeMint explain the problems with the Gang of Eight bill

3. Have to Pass It to See What’s In It

Nancy Pelosi wasn’t kidding when she said Congress would have to pass Obamacare “to see what’s in it.” That’s because the bill gave federal agencies free rein to write regulations that would become the real-world version of the law—and even though it passed in 2010, the regulations are still being written today.

The immigration bill does the same thing—it gives over congressional authority to federal agencies, allowing unelected bureaucrats to think up all the details later.

Obamacare_Immigration_v1

Tweet this graphic

4. Piles on Already Broken—and Broke—Entitlement Programs

Obamacare plans to add millions of people to the Medicaid rolls—the largest expansion ever to this problematic program, which is already unsustainable and needs vital reforms.

Likewise, the immigration bill would add millions to the number of people on various taxpayer-funded benefits, from Medicare and Social Security to welfare. As DeMint said, “These programs are already broke. Our country is already $17 trillion in debt. This will be a net loss, a huge cost to taxpayers.”

5. Perks for Special Interests

Whenever the legislative process turns fast and furious, Members of Congress start loading on special-interest deals that are less likely to be noticed in the chaos. Obamacare was full offavors for Big Labor. Now, the immigration bill is carrying all sorts of special-interest goodies—not to mention a bonanza for immigration lawyers.

This isn’t the way Congress should make laws. It’s only making the same mistakes all over again—and we’ll be paying for them.

Article from The Morning Bell, Heritage Foundation.

April 25th, 2013

Fast and Furious
Katie Pavlich

ATF managers, they WERE fearless men who knew what it was like to have a gun pointed in their face, they were policemen and law enforcement agents first and executive bureaucrats a distant second.  When did things change?  The ATF moved from the Treasury Department to the Department of Justice in 2003 after the raid at the Branch Davidian compound in Waco, TX.  The ATF changed, replaced by bosses with well, polished monogramed shirts, designer suites…cowboy boots gone replaced by tasseled loafers.  When agents first came on the job, it wasn’t about control, it was about enforcing the federal firearms laws and now it is about denying honest people their Second Amendment rights.

Special Agent Peter Forcelli said he could not think of a single reason why Fast and Furious would have worked.  “But perhaps it was not supposed to “”work”” all along”

Congressman Daniel Issa’s investigation led to the downfall of TWO DESIGNATED FALL GUYS. – Dennis Burke US Attorney and Kenneth Melson, Acting Director ATF (Melson was reassigned) whereas Burke retuned to Arizona and all but disappeared.

The US ATF contingency located in Mexico, Darren Gil, former head of the ATF,  were kept in the dark regarding Fast and Furious which resulted in the deaths of Mexican citizens and will continue to do so.  He has no doubt that that it will also result in American citizens being exposed to more fire-arms related violence as a result of this operation.

The Mexican government, through a visit by William Burns, American Deputy Secretary of State, he met with Mexico’s Foreign Secretary and threatened to withdraw $500 million program which provides training, economic, social development programs to fight gang and cartel crimes and suddenly the outcry from Mexico “softened”.

Our Justice Department has been lax in enforcing the whistleblower protection laws when it’s been their operations.  There are still ATF agents with firsthand information, but are afraid to come out in fear of ATF retaliation. 

ATF agent John Dodson paid the price of being a whistleblower.  Vince Cefalu also paid the price of reporting of misconduct with regard to misuse of wiretaps, yet today his ATF file is clean.  He is co-founder of CleanUPATF.org.  He is being investigated by the ATF for “misconduct”.  He is suing the ATF in California with unlawful retaliation against a whistleblower.  Peter Forcelli, former NYPD and 9/11 agent, is now fighting for his integrity for his whistleblowing.  Congressman Issa has expressed outrage on the retaliatory efforts against agents who are trying to tell the truth.  Again many more agents have expressed the desire to tell “their story”, but fear for their careers. 

The following agencies/departments knew of Fast and Furious: United States Department of Justice’s Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), Department of Justice (DOJ), Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Immigration and Customs Enforcement Administration (ICE), Homeland Security, Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), US Attorney’s office Customs and Border Protection (CBP), Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and the National Security Council (NSC).  Yet the US Attorney General Holder and President Obama did not know about Fast and Furious?

Finally Holder’s knowledge of Fast and Furious was released in 2011 proving that he had knowledge in 2010.  Holder responded by stating his “staff” has failed to inform him.  Obama told reporters that he has ….”complete confidence in Attorney General Holder, in how he handles his office.”

Deputy Attorney General  of the Criminal Division (whose boss is Holder) was aware of the gunwalking of the ATF.  For the ATF whistleblowers  this was a moment of anger and vindication.  Yet Holder still maintained that he could not “KNOW THE DETAILS OF EVERY OPERATION”.   Congress followed Holders testimony with a “no confidence” resolution against him with 103 signatures.  Homeland Security Secretary, Janet Napolitano denied knowing anything about Fast and Furious, yet there are five emails linking her to Holder.  Holder did keep her in the dark, but her office approved the guns crossing the border under the CBP.  ATF source says she was briefed.

On the other hand, the gun shop owners were “forced into the hand of selling”. The Mexican President had plans to sue American gun shops for crimes committed in Mexico.  Issa accused the Justice Department of trying to divert the attention and distract attention from clear wrongdoing from Fast and Furious by passing new regulations.  Holder supported the new regulations as appropriate for stopping the flow of guns from the US into Mexico. 

Yet in all of this, not a single firing of senior management in the ATF or Justice Department has occurred, while those who attempt to expose it are punished and marginalized.   

The mainstream media and their level of scrutiny has been absent, yet the administration is trying to make Fast and Furious go away first by denying it and then by covering it up and delaying the  whole truth to come out.

The Obama administration is using Fast and Furious, as Rahm Emanuel puts it, ….”a serious crisis that you don’t want to go to waste”……to take away or limit people’s Second Amendment rights.  Fast and Furious was built to fail and built to succeed in promoting gun control.  The administration is using the consequences of Fast and Furious to restrict gun rights.  The Supreme Court, the United Nations (through the UN Arms Trade Treaty ((ATT)) bureaucrats may be called in to impose Obama’s agenda on limiting gun ownership In the US.  So far, it has not worked. 

There are still 1,400 Fast and Furious guns missing. 

Will Holder, Napolitano and others in the Administration pay the price?

Respectfully submitted,

Maria Kernan

April 14th, 2013

Agenda 21

Glenn Beck with Harriet Parke

 

Another Book Every American Should Read

 

Agenda 21 is about control, control of the land, sea and air.  Where animals and nature are more valued than humans.  When this happens, there is no stopping the enemies attempt to control and regulate every part of your life.

 

Agenda 21, is both a work of fiction (Ms. Parke) and documented factual information (Glenn Beck).  “Effective execution of Agenda 21 will require a profound re-orientation of all human society, unlike anything the world has ever experienced – a major shift in the priorities of both governments and individuals and an unprecedented redeployment of human and financial resources. This shift will demand that a concern for the environmental consequences of every human action be integrated into individual and collective decision-making at every level.”  – Dan Sitarz, Agenda 21:  The Earth Summit Strategy to Save Out Planet

 

In 1972 in Stockholm, Sweden the original UN Earth Summit was held and resulted in the “Stockholm Declaration”.  A plan was born containing twenty-six principles and seven proclamations which sounds like their goal is to have a better / healthier world.  The word “equitably” should ALWAYS ring alarm bells even if you believe the statement / statements are benign.  The word “equitable” is not just an empty catch phrase, but an invasion of our individual freedoms and a declaration of war on capitalism.

 

“Agenda 21 is a comprehensive plan of action to be taken globally, nationally and locally by organization of the United Nations System, Governments, and Major Groups on every area in which human impacts on the environment.”  There are plenty of smaller ways that our government and private groups impact our lives and are promoting Agenda 21.  Lee County has signed on……research and you will learn.  Water is our greatest resource to protect, but at what cost?

 

The government, in order to “save” us, some homes  have had so- called “smart meters” installed, automakers are now making cars and soon trucks out of aluminum, which will not hold up as well in major accidents all under the auspicious of “for the greater good of all”.  California has a goal to have half of its population move into high-density urban housing.  The land will be deemed wilderness….the animals will have more freedom than humans.  To make all of this happen, there must be a “REDISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH”…where have we heard that?

 

The novel portion of the book is fiction, but it shows what could happen when the animals and nature are valued more than human life and is played out to the extreme.  The progressive think long term and they understand that change must come slowly before WE realize what is happening.

 

Maria Kernan

 

 

 

April 9th, 2013

Lady Margaret Thatcher, Britain’s former prime minister and patron of The Heritage Foundation, was a leader who transformed Britain from the sick man of Europe into once again a great nation and an economic powerhouse.

Her death yesterday at the age of 87 is a loss not only for her own country of Great Britain, but also her strong allies in America and across the globe.

Lady Thatcher outlived the vast majority of her adversaries and critics. She was a leader who changed the course of history. In fact, the Thatcher revolution really laid the foundations for the Reagan revolution in the United States.

She was a hugely successful politician because she was always a conviction politician. Lady Thatcher held to a deep-seated set of conservative beliefs. She always stood by conservative principles.

>>> Watch Heritage’s Ed Feulner, Ed Meese, and Becky Norton Dunlop in a new video remembering Lady Thatcher

Lady Thatcher always believed firmly in the ideal of American leadership on the world stage. It was her view that without American leadership, this world is a far more dangerous place.

And in order to protect and advance her legacy in the United States, she established the Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom at Heritage in 2005. It’s the only center in the world that is named after Lady Thatcher. And she set up a center in the Washington, not in London, because she has so much faith in American global leadership.

RIPMargaretThatcher_forMB

Heritage has always had a very special place in Lady Thatcher’s heart. I saw her in London just a few months ago in December. She was very cheerful. She was contented. She was very tranquil. And the first question she asked me when I saw her was, “How is The Heritage Foundation doing?” Because she has always felt that Heritage is a special place, that Heritage is a place that protects and defends conservative beliefs.

As we mourn the loss of Lady Thatcher, it’s important for us to remember the importance of moving forward with core conservative beliefs. If Heritage does not defend these very values that Margaret Thatcher fought for, then America will be a far less prosperous society — a society that does not hold onto the beliefs of individual freedom, individual liberty. And for Margaret Thatcher, individual liberty, individual freedom, are what makes the United States a great nation.

So today we pay tribute to the Iron Lady, one of the greatest British politician of our time, one of the greatest figures of modern times, a figure who fought for everything that we believe in as conservatives. And may we go forward now fighting for those principles and advancing the vision of the great Iron Lady.

Article from The Morning Bell, Heritage Foundation

April 8th, 2013

Everything we do is online. If you’ve been the victim of identity theft or an email phishing scam, you know how quickly your personal data can be stolen or threatened.

It’s important to know the difference between types of cyber threats and the right approach to fighting them.

There are three tiers of cyber threats, as explained by Heritage experts Steven Bucci, Paul Rosenzweig, and David Inserra:

1. Cyber crime. Cyber crime hits many Americans in the form of identity theft, phishing, or cyber vandalism. In 2006, the Government Accountability Office estimated that cyber identity theft cost U.S. citizens and companies almost $50 billion, and the threat has only grown since then. These crimes are usually committed by individual criminals, so-called hacktivists, or criminal organizations, and represent the most common form of cyber threat.

2. Cyber espionage. Espionage pursues large, important targets, such as military blueprints or proprietary business plans, and is often state-sponsored. China, for instance, is a known bad actor in cyberspace. The Chinese not only allow and sponsor hackers, but have entire military and government units dedicated to stealing data from governments and private companies. China has been engaged in a prolonged campaign of stealing U.S. intellectual property and military secrets. Together with other hackers and cyber operations, China has stolen billions, if not trillions of dollars in U.S. intellectual property, not to mention compromising U.S. national security secrets.

3. Cyber warfare. While cyber crime and espionage are serious problems, the U.S. also faces a threat from cyber warfare. Taking down communications, transportation, or other critical systems would severely impair the U.S. response to a physical attack, increasing the damage sustained. While such an event is “unlikely” according to Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, the U.S. must prepare for these threats, since terrorists or isolated states are likely to use such attacks as they gain the capabilities to do so.

Across all three tiers, poor information sharing is one of the main problems—and in this case, the government could offer protection, rather than regulating. Heritage experts recommend that “entities that share information about cyber threats, vulnerabilities, and breaches should have legal protection. The fact that they shared data about an attack, or even a complete breach, with the authorities should never open them up to legal action.”

The government hasn’t meaningfully addressed these problems—and it can’t solve them by regulation. Think about Obamacare: The law passed in 2010, yet we are just now seeing tens of thousands of pages of regulations being written. If cybersecurity regulations were created the same way, online threats would have changed many times by the time the regulations went into effect.

President Obama was dissatisfied with Congress’s lack of action last year, so he went around them with an executive order favoring a regulatory approach to cybersecurity. This was the wrong way to go, but Congress can still help.

Article from The Morning Bell, Heritage Foundation

April 2nd, 2013

Immigration is a difficult issue—there’s no getting around that. How do we encourage and improve lawful immigration, while deterring unlawful immigration?

David Addington, head of Heritage’s Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies, takes on this question just as the Senate’s “Gang of Eight” nears a deal on a new bill. He writes:

The U.S. should reform its immigration system through a careful, step-by-step process that welcomes lawful immigrants, encourages their full participation in American life, and expands opportunity. The process also must prevent unlawful immigration, encourage respect for law, secure America’s borders, and preserve America’s sovereignty.

Heritage has described this step-by-step process for a problem-solving approach to immigration issues, such as reform of the lawful immigration system, visa reforms, lawful temporary worker arrangements, and strong border and interior enforcement.

Broad federal declarations usually don’t work, and a one-size-fits-all immigration policy is not the way to go.

It’s also important to remember why people come to America. They are drawn by the promise of freedom and the chance to make a better life for themselves and their families.

The best thing we can do for all immigrants—past and future—is to make sure that America remains a place where people want to come. America must be a place where citizens are protected and laws are enforced. Respect for the law is what makes individual freedom possible; the Constitution safeguards our freedoms.

Immigration policy that extends amnesty to unlawful immigrants goes against that respect for the law that makes America stand out in the world. As new congressional plans emerge, Addington warns that people who knowingly entered or remain in the U.S. unlawfully should not receive amnesty:

Amnesty comes in many forms, but in all its variations, it discourages respect for the law, treats law-breaking aliens better than law-following aliens, and encourages future unlawful immigration into the United States.

America needs—and wants—immigrants to enrich the nation. At the same time, we have to protect the nation’s borders and its sovereignty. Workable immigration reform will balance these necessities without compromising the American values that attract immigrants in the first place.

LEARN MORE: 

Encouraging Lawful Immigration and Discouraging Unlawful Immigration

Article from The Morning Bell, Heritage Foundation

March 28th, 2013

North Korea never stops threatening its enemies.

The belligerent dictatorship routinely threatens to turn Seoul, the capital of South Korea, into a “sea of fire.” Recent videoshave threatened America with nuclear annihilation.

Of course, after countless threats aren’t followed with action, the world wonders when to believe it.

The young leader Kim Jong-un is presiding over an administration, however, that shows a dangerous pattern.

Over the years, North Korea has repeatedly attacked allied military and civilian targets, including assassination attempts against the South Korean president, blowing up a civilian airliner, shooting down a U.S. Air Force plane, and seizing a U.S. Navy ship. This month, North Korea nullified the armistice ending the Korean War, moved artillery closer to the demilitarized zone, and warned South Koreans on border islands to evacuate.

All this suggests greater potential for another attack—perhaps imminent—on South Korean military and civilian targets. North Korea announced on Tuesday that it had put all of its artillery and rocket forces on the highest state of wartime alert, including those units “assigned to strike U.S. imperialist aggressor bases on the U.S. mainland and on Hawaii and Guam and other operational zones in the Pacific, as well as all enemy targets in South Korea.”

South Korean President Park Geun-hye has vowed to respond forcefully to the next North Korean attack—and Seoul shouldcounter-strike the next time North Korea attacks. If there are no consequences, the north will continue its attacks.

Of course, a stronger response from South Korea could mean escalation, and the U.S. must be prepared to join its ally. In fact, we are committed. On March 22, Washington and Seoul signed a Combined Counter-Provocation Plan to counter North Korean tactical-level attacks. The plan provides for a “strong and decisive combined South Korean and U.S. response.”

But friends—and enemies—are questioning U.S. ability to deliver on its security promises.

North Korea’s threats prompted the Obama Administration toreverse some of its reductions in missile defense recently, but that is not nearly enough. The Administration’s reassurances that America can defend itself and its allies actually contradictthe Deputy Secretary of Defense, who warned that sequestration would have devastating effects on U.S. defenses in the Pacific.

The Obama Administration’s much-heralded “pivot to Asia” has been rhetoric without resources. Claims of the U.S. being “back in Asia” were undermined by a budget-driven defense strategy that left the military shortchanged and U.S. credibility and resolve in doubt.

Defense needs should drive the defense budget. More of the defense cuts need to be reversed to ensure that American forces are capable of whatever is demanded of them.

North Korea may be blustering again, but we can’t take that chance. We have to be prepared for the day that it attacks.

Article from The Morning Bell, Heritage Foundation.

March 12th, 2013

At first look, the budget unveiled today by House Budget Committee Chairman Paul D. Ryan (R-WI) advances much-needed reforms and importantly accomplishes the crucial goal of balancing the budget within the decade, though this is partially on the coattails of Obama’s tax increases. Not a silver bullet, it is more of a stasis budget, rather than a bolder plan that builds on the reforms of previous years.

There are six things that each budget from the House, Senate, and President should accomplish. These are laid out in the Heritage plan, Saving the American Dream, which:

    • Balances the budget in less than 10 years, without raising taxes, and keeps the budget in balance thereafter;

 

    • Swiftly overhauls entitlement programs, including Social Security, to guarantee economic security to seniors while making the programs affordable;

 

    • Repeals Obamacare in its entirety;

 

    • Fully funds defense;

 

    • Rolls back discretionary spending; and

 

    • Rolls back recent tax increases with a sweeping, growth-oriented tax reform plan and caps taxes at the historical average of 18.5 percent.

Here’s how, at first blush, the Ryan plan measures up:

Gets to Balance. The Ryan budget achieves an important improvement over last year by balancing the budget within 10 years. The President’s budgets have never even attempted this, and given the Senate’s rusty skills in budget writing, it’s unlikely they would choose this course, either. The Ryan budget slows the growth of spending to about 3.4 percent per year, compared to roughly 5 percent today, with about $5 trillion less spending.

But, regrettably, Ryan’s budget also relies on Obama’s $618 billion fiscal cliff tax increase and Obamacare’s $1 trillion in tax hikes (more on this next) to get to balance. This means that tax levels rise almost immediately to 19.1 percent of GDP, well over the 18.5 percent benchmark. Balance is important, but so is the size of government. Without the tax increase, this budget would have had to have been more assertive in attacking spending and reforming entitlements to achieve and sustain balance.

And while the intent, we are told, is to stay in balance in the coming years and decades, regrettably, as the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has not updated its long-term model yet, there is no CBO scoring to say how or whether this happens.

Repeals Obamacare Spending, But Keeps the Taxes.The vital organs of Obamacare—the insurance exchange subsidies and Medicaid expansions—are scheduled to start next year. Ryan’s budget takes the correct and necessary step of repealing them. But, as noted above, perhaps the biggest shortcoming of this budget is that it keeps the tax increases associated with Obamacare. These tax hikes are the oxygen that fuels the fire of ever bigger spending. But the entire fire needs to be put out—all of Obamacare should be repealed, including its tax hikes.

Defense Funding Levels Mixed. Like last year, the Ryan budget protects defense from the eviscerating sequestration cuts. This is sound. As North Korea’s posturing shows, the world is not a safer place today. But the national defense budget has been squeezed by Obama’s reductions just when U.S. forces need replenishment and modernization. Ryan’s budget essentially adopts the defense spending caps in the Budget Control Act without sequestration. This is better than the President’s plainly inadequate funding for current and future needs, and certainly better than the sequester, but still less than what is required.

Entitlement Reforms; More Needed. Ryan continues to be a strong leader here, tackling Medicare’s abject failures head on. His signature solution of a premium support model for Medicare is the hallmark of his budget. Moving to a patient-centered model would free retirees from relying on the unstable and unsustainable government-run Medicare program and restrain costs through the competition rather than price-fixing. The sooner this transition is made, the better.

But the transition is too slow, as it once again exempts those over 55 from these changes to Medicare. Our spending problem is so severe that all Americans should be part of the solution. While this “grandfather” clause is understandable, most Americans this age will have more than a decade remaining in their working lives. We cannot continue to keep leaving one more year of the baby boomer generation out of the solution because Washington fails to act.

Though the budget takes the first step on by turning Medicaid into a block grant, more important is to move the mainstream Medicaid population into private insurance.

And discouragingly, like last year, there is no Social Security reform at all. This is especially disappointing, given the current discussions of commonsense, simple reforms like increasing the retirement age or moving to a more accurate measure of inflation like chained CPI.

Reduces Non-Defense Discretionary Spending. By extending the Budget Control Act spending caps for two years and keeping sequestration levels, the Ryan budget makes strong reductions to this spending. It also assumes some worthy and long overdue reforms, such as consolidating the federal government’s 49 job training programs, many of which are ineffective, and first steps at reining in farm subsidies.

Growth-Oriented Tax Reform. The Ryan budget lays out important principles for tax reform and rightly rejects closing tax preferences (“loopholes”) just to raise revenue. True tax reform is revenue neutral: Any revenue raised by eliminating tax preferences should be offset by lowering tax rates. The budget sets the same, pro-growth goals for fewer, lower rates and territoriality as last year.

Bottom Line: The Ryan budget delivers on its new promise this year—to balance the budget within the decade. Unfortunately, it does use higher taxes to help achieve this. It maintains Ryan’s signature reform to Medicare, which will go far toward reining in unaffordable entitlement spending.

Though more could be done along the lines of Saving the American Dream to advance bolder entitlement reforms and to throw off the yoke of Obama’s tax hikes, this budget takes first steps toward reining in spending and reforming entitlements. And if preliminary news reports are to believed, this plan is sure to be far superior to the Senate’s version now awaiting its finishing touches replete with still more tax increases, spending and looming deficits.

Article from The Morning Bell, Heritage Foundation