John reflected earlier on the possibility that as the next president of the Heritage Foundation, Jim DeMint might “stress the institution’s role in opposition, which is his stock in trade as a senator, and to downgrade its policy role.” Heritage’s decision to tap DeMint is less a sign that the pathbreaking think tank is setting off in a new direction than a sign it is pleased with the direction it has been taking the last couple of years.
In recent years, and especially over the last several months, Heritage has supplemented its traditional role as a major research institution by getting more involved in day-to-day political battles on Capitol Hill. Heritage Action for America was founded in 2010 by the Heritage Foundation’s board, and serves as a vehicle for Heritage to advance its policy message in a more directly political manner. Heritage, as a 501(c)(3), is unable to participate in direct lobbying; Heritage Action, a 501(c)(4), has fewer legal limitations.
There is a great deal of overlap between Heritage and Heritage Action, both in terms of staff (eight of its 14 D.C. staffers are Heritage alumni, including its CEO and COO) and messaging. Heritage Action’s offices are actually within Heritage’s main office on Massachusetts Avenue and there is frequent staff interaction between the two (full disclosure: I’m a Heritage Foundation alumna). Heritage Action has become increasingly vocal over the past two years, calling out congressional leaders seen as insufficiently opposed to the legislative agenda of the Obama White House and congressional Democrats. Heritage Action produces a scorecard to rate members of Congress on their voting records. While they do not endorse candidates, there has been an increasing amount of coordination between Heritage Action and the more conservative members of Congress in an attempt to promote legislation.
In the current fiscal cliff debate, the Heritage Foundation and Jim DeMint took a joint stand against House Speaker John Boehner’s counteroffer. In retrospect, the coordination just two days ago between Heritage and DeMint on Boehner could indicate just how much a DeMint-run Heritage Foundation will participate in day-to-day D.C. politics. RedState’s Erick Erickson has already alluded to the fact that Heritage Action is expected to take an even larger role under a DeMint-run Heritage Foundation.
DeMint will be retiring from the Senate in order to assume his role at Heritage, four years earlier than previously announced. A major component of outgoing president Ed Feulner’s job–fundraising–was going to be a difficult challenge for almost any successor, as Heritage’s 700,000 active “members” (donors who have contributed in the last 24 months) are accustomed to seeing Feulner’s signature on their fundraising appeals. DeMint, an expert fundraiser for the Senate Conservatives Fund, is no fundraising lightweight, which may have contributed to his appeal as a successor to Feulner. While Heritage will most likely be able to maintain its membership base after a DeMint succession, DeMint’s strategy for balancing politics and policy will be under the microscope from day one.
I think that it's likely that Demint sees a better possibility of creating real change from outside Congress than from inside. Congress has become monolithic in tone and inbred by choice. Just look at the number of second and third generation politicians who continue using the law of the land to make themselves weathy. And it's not Dems vs Reps but Congress vs. the will of the People that is the contest. Term limits would go a long way on curing that.
TexasTruBlu's comment probably is accurate, except for his last sentence: "Term limits would go a long way on curing that." California has had Term Limits for state political offices since 1990. But Term limits are not the answer, because they limit not only the bad (self-serving) politicians but also the good politicians (there are some, in California and elsewhere). The self-serving politicians escape Term Limits by switching to new political offices. Democrats and Republicans both have done that, often by collaborating. And this year's elections gave Democrats more than two-thirds of the State Senate, which will enable them to raise taxes at will. (Tax increases require a two-thirds vote.) The election (Proposition 28) also changed some Term Limits details, but did not end them. n nAnd California's political decisions — I have been a California resident almost continuously since 1949, when my family moved from New York to California and I was in the fourth grade — have been awful. My own education was excellent, but today many of the state's public schools are bad; its Universities are expensive and worth little (with the possible exception of engineering, broadly defined); its highways are deteriorating even without having been attacked by Sandy or other "natural disasters"; in the Monterey Bay area the water supply for human and agricultural use is inadequate because a mishmash of state and local agencies can't agree on a desalinization project that could benefit the entire bay population and nearby inland agriculture with minimal environmental damage if done right. And those issues are mere examples. n nThe state government's tax and regulatory policies are driving businesses out of the state (Google and other tech firms are a Northern California exception, at least for now) and the state's revenues are substantially less than its expenditures. Bankruptcy is likely to arrive Real Soon Now, unless the Federal Government goes stupid once again and bails out the state and its creditors. n nR.N. Folsom, Professor Emeritus of Economics, San José State University, San José, California. These opinions are mine, not those of SJSU, or of any California government agency.