Perspectives; Thoughts; Comments; Opinions; Discussions

Posts tagged ‘The Heritage Foundation’

Florida, Arizona top ‘Educational Freedom Report Card’

By Ian M. Giatti, Christian Post Reporter | Tuesday, September 13, 2022


Getty Images

Parents looking for more options and transparency when schooling their children may want to head toward the Sunshine State.  A new report from conservative public policy think tank the Heritage Foundation ranked Florida as the most parent-friendly jurisdiction in the union, followed by Arizona, Idaho and Indiana.

The inaugural 2022 edition of the “Education Freedom Report Card” also ranked New Jersey, New York and the District of Columbia as the least favorable for parents seeking choice and transparency in their child’s education. The report card uses a metric of four broad categories — school choice, transparency, regulatory freedom and spending — and utilizes 30 “discrete factors” to determine each state’s score. 

Florida’s top ranking is mainly due to its academic transparency and a “strong” education savings account (ESA) program, more commonly known as school vouchers, the report stated. Florida adopted its ESA program in 2014, followed by several other states, including Mississippi (2015), Tennessee (2015), North Carolina (2017) and West Virginia (2021). Florida ranked first in “academic transparency,” meaning that “Florida lawmakers set a high standard for academic transparency and rejecting critical race theory’s pernicious ideas in 2022.”

“State officials approved a proposal that prohibits teachers and administrators from compelling students to affirm the prejudiced ideas of critical race theory,” the report reads. “Lawmakers also approved a proposal that requires academic transparency so that parents and taxpayers can review classroom assignments before educators use such materials as part of K–12 instruction.”

Earlier this year, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis signed the Parental Rights in Education Act, which prohibits public school teachers and third parties from instructing students about sexual orientation or gender identity in grades three and younger. The law also requires schools to notify parents about changes affecting their child’s mental, physical and emotional health.

The law also prevents school districts from withholding information from parents at a time when many school districts nationwide are barring teachers from discussing trans-identified students’ social gender transition with their parents at the students’ request. 

Florida ranks seventh overall in return on investment (ROI) for education spending, a variable that measures academic achievement for the investment in terms of spending per pupil. Florida also ranked second in regulatory freedom, meaning the state’s teachers and students are able “to pursue education largely devoid of red tape.”

“An impressive 42 percent of Florida teachers are alternatively certified, making their way to K–12 classrooms through a means other than a traditional university-based college of education,” the report added. “The state has full reciprocity of teacher licensure, allowing anyone with a valid teaching license from another state to teach in Florida, or anyone who holds a certificate issued by the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards.”

Arizona, which expanded its ESA option to every child statewide in July, ranked second on Heritage’s report card. However, data for the ranking was collected in the early spring of 2022 before the passing of Arizona’s universal ESA program. This means next year may see the state catapult over Florida to the top ranking. That didn’t stop Arizona from ranking first for school choice on the 2022 report card.

According to the report, Idaho’s third-place ranking stems largely from its high ROI and transparency.

On the other end of the ranking, New Jersey, New York and D.C. are “doing little to provide transparency, accountability, and choice to families,” the report finds, citing those jurisdictions’ 49th, 50th and 51st rankings, respectively.

The report also underscored that while school choice remains vital, a growing number of existing schools are embracing critical race theory as “teachers have abandoned the practice of teaching their students about a shared sense of national identity, and districts are coercing teachers and students to affirm ideas that violate the Civil Rights Act of 1964.”

“Schools are teaching children to affirm the lie that America is systemically racist, despite seminal laws, such as the Civil Rights Act, and the monumental cultural shifts and racial progress brought on by the civil rights movement,” the report states.

The report’s authors — Lindsey Burke, Jay Greene, Jonathan Butcher and Jason Bedrick — urge lawmakers to consider legislation that would prohibit “any public official from compelling teachers or students to affirm or profess any ideas, especially concepts that violate state and federal civil rights laws.”

The report’s authors also contend that parents, taxpayers and policymakers should also have access to curriculum and instructional materials and that such access was a welcome benefit gleaned from remote learning during the COVID-19 pandemic.

“[P]arents should know if teachers assign homework from the Black Lives Matter Week of Action website, for example, so that they can have informed discussions with their children, school administrators, and board members,” the authors wrote. “Our report card accounts for state policymakers who have adopted provisions reaffirming state and federal civil rights laws and academic transparency provisions.”

The ongoing debate comes as American public school systems have seen an exodus of students since the COVID-19 pandemic began in 2020.

One report from the nonpartisan research group Education Next found that 2 million fewer students have been enrolled in non-charter public schools since spring 2020 when many public schools were closed for in-person instruction.

While conservative organizations have issued resounding endorsements of school voucher programs, those programs are mostly opposed by public school teachers’ unions. The American Federation of Teachers argues that vouchers will primarily serve as tax breaks for wealthy families that can afford to send their kids to private schools. 

Zeph Capo of the Texas American Federation of Teachers told KHOU-11 in August that voucher programs “really haven’t worked out well.”

“As a matter of fact, most of the evidence shows that it’s actually been a waste of money and it hasn’t actually improved education,” Capo was quoted as saying.

But Burke, the director of the Center for Education Policy at The Heritage Foundation, told The Christian Post the study seeks to change the national conversation. 

“We hope this report card catalyzes education freedom across the country,” said Burke. “That more professionals are able to enter the classroom without having to go through woke colleges of education; that parents have radical transparency around the content their children’s schools are teaching, that school boards become more responsive to parents than to teachers unions by moving more school board elections on-cycle; and that, most importantly, every child can choose the learning environment that’s right for them through universal education choice.”

Scholars warn of dangers of critical race theory, how it’s being injected into students

Reported By Brandon Showalter, CP Reporter

People gather near the White House during a peaceful protest against police brutality and racism, on June 13, 2020, in Washington, DC. AFP via Getty Images/Daniel Slim

Scholars are warning about the influences of the neo-Marxist paradigm in many realms of culture, a theory they say undermines the foundations of a free society and harms the marginalized people it purports to help.

In a webinar hosted by The Heritage Foundation‘s Angela Sailor Monday, policy experts spoke at length about the ways in which critical race theory and the identity politics it underpins have sown hostile division into public life while claiming to combat racial injustice.

Broadly defined, critical race theory utilizes race as the lens through which every area of life is examined, categorizing everyone into oppressor and oppressed groups. The racial theory is the child of critical theory, the scholars explained, and most Americans do not agree with its ideological claims but it is being pushed strongly by elites and has entrenched special interests in many public institutions.

Lindsey Burke, director of the Center for Education Policy at The Heritage Foundation, noted in her remarks that among the most influential arenas where critical race theory is being furthered is through the approximately 14,000 public school boards across the country. Those boards indelibly shape the minds of schoolchildren and many are approving the use of the curriculum materials based on the 1619 Project, a series of New York Times reporting that frames the arrival of African slaves on the shores of the United States as the central feature of the American founding. This view stands in stark contrast to the the idea that nation was birthed at the signing of the Declaration of Independence on July 4, 1776.

“More than 4,500 classrooms around the country have begun to incorporate the 1619 Project curricular materials into their content,” she said.

Burke and her colleagues specifically asked school board members and families across the country about the 1619 Project and 50% of all parents and 70% of school board members said that they do not want schools to use the instructional materials rooted in the idea that slavery is the center of the national narrative. Likewise, 70% of parents and 74% of school board members believe that slavery is a tragedy that harmed the nation but freedom and prosperity represent who Americans are.

Their data showed that only 25% of parents and 17% of school board members believe that students should be taught that the founding ideals of liberty and equality were false when they were written and that U.S. history must thus be reframed.  

Jonathan Butcher, a senior policy analyst at Heritage, explained that what the CRT worldview does is dismantle social and governmental norms and foments a new kind of intolerance.

“Critical theory is not a sympathetic perspective with policy goals that lead to racial reconciliation, freedom, and opportunity. That’s not what it is. It’s talking about subjugation and retribution,” he said, referencing a paper he co-authored with fellow panelist and author Mike Gonzalez.

One of the founders of CRT calls for “transformative resistance strategy” in response to the rule of law and the U.S. constitutional republic, he said. According to those who adhere to the theory, they are “highly suspicious of the liberal agenda” with liberal in this sense meaning classical liberal values from the Enlightenment, he noted.

Gonzalez, author of The Plot to Change America, offered during his remarks that it is important to realize that the far left feels emboldened to repress conservative ideas and are calling for vast institutional change, noting its grip on the government, culture-making institutions, Big Tech, and many Fortune 500 companies.

At base, CRT is “a tool for changing the country,” he said, a tool that undermines societal foundations and holds that the rule of law and jurisprudence is to preserve the privilege of those who write the laws.

Christopher Rufo, a journalist and visiting fellow at Heritage Foundation, has been examining how the theory has been operating within institutions, HR programs, and in federal government agencies.

At the National Nuclear Laboratories in New Mexico, CRT-based training sessions were held in which white male executives were taken to a resort and were forced to undergo a series of exercises to deconstruct their white male identity, something that the trainers claimed was akin to the Ku Klux Klan, mass killings, and MAGA hats, he explained. The men were asked to condemn themselves and then write letters of apology to women and people of color and apologize for their whiteness. Similar training efforts and exercises were taking place across the federal bureaucracy but President Donald Trump canceled them with an executive order.

Rufo is now working on reporting that will show how this ideology is being inculcated into K-12 students. An upcoming story he will soon publish highlights how 3rd graders are being tasked with deconstructing their intersectional identities, which is “slicing and dicing their own internal self-image on the axes of race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, transgenderism … and then ranking themselves on a hierarchy of power and privilege.”

“They’re taking these tenets that were once limited to academia and now trying to basically inject them into the bloodstream of every institution from kindergarten to the federal government,” he said.  

“They are now training elementary school students how to hold protests, how to disrupt the system, how to become revolutionaries.”

The theory, which promises a utopia of sorts and racial equality, is not aiming to build anything but rests in negation that relies upon the thrill of revenge yet offers nothing to the margins of society, Rufo argued.

He urged parents to find out what is in their children’s school curriculum, noting that much of it is not only indefensible but likely illegal and is only backed by a tiny group of activists in all but the most extreme school districts. It will take courage to resist but it is necessary and the more scrutiny it receives the more likely it is to be rejected, he said. 

The Heritage Foundation discussion comes amid ongoing debate over CRT among evangelicals, with some influential leaders, including John Piper and Tim Keller, rejecting it.

More recently, a group of Southern Baptist seminary presidents released a statement declaring that CRT is incompatible with their beliefs while denouncing racism. The statement sparked outrage among some within the Southern Baptist Convention, forcing at least two black pastors to cut ties.

A group of pastors, including SBC’s first and only black president, responded with a statement, lamenting that “the actions of some in the SBC appear to be more concerned with political maneuvering than working to present a vibrant, gospel-loving, racially and culturally diverse vision.”

“Many who recognize systemic injustices are labeled as ‘Marxists,’ ‘Liberals,’ and ‘Critical Race Theorists,’ even though they are theologically orthodox and believe in the total sufficiency of Scripture,” they said. “[W]e stand firmly in opposition to any movement in the SBC that seeks to distract from racial reconciliation through the gospel and that denies the reality of systemic injustice.”

Almost Everything the Media Tell You About Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Is Wrong

waving flagAuthored by Ryan T. Anderson / / August 22, 2016

The findings—that scientific research does not support the claim that sexual orientation is innate and immutable—directly contradict claims made by Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy in last year’s Obergefell ruling. (Photo: Skanda Gautam/Zuma Press/Newscom)

Ryan T. Anderson, Ph.D., researches and writes about marriage and religious liberty as the William E. Simon senior research fellow in American Principles and Public Policy at The Heritage Foundation. He also focuses on justice and moral principles in economic thought, health care and education, and has expertise in bioethics and natural law theory. He’s the author of the just-released book, Truth Overruled: The Future of Marriage and Religious Liberty.” Read his research.

A major new report, published today in the journal The New Atlantis, challenges the leading narratives that the media has pushed regarding sexual orientation and gender identity.

Co-authored by two of the nation’s leading scholars on mental health and sexuality, the 143-page report discusses over 200 peer-reviewed studies in the biological, psychological, and social sciences, painstakingly documenting what scientific research shows and does not show about sexuality and gender.

The major takeaway, as the editor of the journal explains, is that “some of the most frequently heard claims about sexuality and gender are not supported by scientific evidence.”

Here are four of the report’s most important conclusions:

The belief that sexual orientation is an innate, biologically fixed human property—that people are ‘born that way’—is not supported by scientific evidence.

Likewise, the belief that gender identity is an innate, fixed human property independent of biological sex—so that a person might be a ‘man trapped in a woman’s body’ or ‘a woman trapped in a man’s body’—is not supported by scientific evidence.

Only a minority of children who express gender-atypical thoughts or behavior will continue to do so into adolescence or adulthood. There is no evidence that all such children should be encouraged to become transgender, much less subjected to hormone treatments or surgery.

Non-heterosexual and transgender people have higher rates of mental health problems (anxiety, depression, suicide), as well as behavioral and social problems (substance abuse, intimate partner violence), than the general population. Discrimination alone does not account for the entire disparity.

The report, “Sexuality and Gender: Findings from the Biological, Psychological, and Social Sciences,” is co-authored by Dr. Lawrence Mayer and Dr. Paul McHugh. Mayer is a scholar-in-residence in the Department of Psychiatry at Johns Hopkins University and a professor of statistics and biostatistics at Arizona State University.

McHugh, whom the editor of The New Atlantis describes as “arguably the most important American psychiatrist of the last half-century,” is a professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine and was for 25 years the psychiatrist-in-chief at the Johns Hopkins Hospital. It was during his tenure as psychiatrist-in-chief at Johns Hopkins that he put an end to sex reassignment surgery there, after a study launched at Hopkins revealed that it didn’t have the benefits for which doctors and patients had long hoped.

Implications for Policy

The report focuses exclusively on what scientific research shows and does not show. But this science can have implications for public policy.

The report reviews rigorous research showing that ‘only a minority of children who experience cross-gender identification will continue to do so into adolescence or adulthood.’

Take, for example, our nation’s recent debates over transgender policies in schools. One of the consistent themes of the report is that science does not support the claim that “gender identity” is a fixed property independent of biological sex, but rather that a combination of biological, environmental, and experiential factors likely shape how individuals experience and express themselves when it comes to sex and gender.

The report also discusses the reality of neuroplasticity: that all of our brains can and do change throughout our lives (especially, but not only, in childhood) in response to our behavior and experiences. These changes in the brain can, in turn, influence future behavior.

This provides more reason for concern over the Obama administration’s recent transgender school policies. Beyond the privacy and safety concerns, there is thus also the potential that such policies will result in prolonged identification as transgender for students who otherwise would have naturally grown out of it.

The report reviews rigorous research showing that “only a minority of children who experience cross-gender identification will continue to do so into adolescence or adulthood.” Policymakers should be concerned with how misguided school policies might encourage students to identify as girls when they are boys, and vice versa, and might result in prolonged difficulties. As the report notes, “There is no evidence that all children who express gender-atypical thoughts or behavior should be encouraged to become transgender.” (If the image below does not play, please proceed to

Beyond school policies, the report raises concerns about proposed medical intervention in children. Mayer and McHugh write: “We are disturbed and alarmed by the severity and irreversibility of some interventions being publicly discussed and employed for children.”

They continue: “We are concerned by the increasing tendency toward encouraging children with gender identity issues to transition to their preferred gender through medical and then surgical procedures.” But as they note, “There is little scientific evidence for the therapeutic value of interventions that delay puberty or modify the secondary sex characteristics of adolescents.”

Findings on Transgender Issues

The same goes for social or surgical gender transitions in general. Mayer and McHugh note that the “scientific evidence summarized suggests we take a skeptical view toward the claim that sex reassignment procedures provide the hoped for benefits or resolve the underlying issues that contribute to elevated mental health risks among the transgender population.” Even after sex reassignment surgery, patients with gender dysphoria still experience poor outcomes:

Compared to the general population, adults who have undergone sex reassignment surgery continue to have a higher risk of experiencing poor mental health outcomes. One study found that, compared to controls, sex-reassigned individuals were about five times more likely to attempt suicide and about 19 times more likely to die by suicide.

Mayer and McHugh urge researchers and physicians to work to better “understand whatever factors may contribute to the high rates of suicide and other psychological and behavioral health problems among the transgender population, and to think more clearly about the treatment options that are available.” They continue:

In reviewing the scientific literature, we find that almost nothing is well understood when we seek biological explanations for what causes some individuals to state that their gender does not match their biological sex. … Better research is needed, both to identify ways by which we can help to lower the rates of poor mental health outcomes and to make possible more informed discussion about some of the nuances present in this field.

Policymakers should take these findings very seriously. For example, the Obama administration recently finalized a new Department of Health and Human Services mandate that requires all health insurance plans under Obamacare to cover sex reassignment treatments and all relevant physicians to perform them. The regulations will force many physicians, hospitals, and other health care providers to participate in sex reassignment surgeries and treatments, even if doing so violates their moral and religious beliefs or their best medical judgment.

Rather than respect the diversity of opinions on sensitive and controversial health care issues, the regulations endorse and enforce one highly contested and scientifically unsupported view. As Mayer and McHugh urge, more research is needed, and physicians need to be free to practice the best medicine.

Stigma, Prejudice Don’t Explain Tragic Outcomes

The report also highlights that people who identify as LGBT face higher risks of adverse physical and mental health outcomes, such as “depression, anxiety, substance abuse, and most alarmingly, suicide.” The report summarizes some of those findings:

Members of the non-heterosexual population are estimated to have about 1.5 times higher risk of experiencing anxiety disorders than members of the heterosexual population, as well as roughly double the risk of depression, 1.5 times the risk of substance abuse, and nearly 2.5 times the risk of suicide.

Members of the transgender population are also at higher risk of a variety of mental health problems compared to members of the non-transgender population. Especially alarmingly, the rate of lifetime suicide attempts across all ages of transgender individuals is estimated at 41 percent, compared to under 5 percent in the overall U.S. population.

What accounts for these tragic outcomes? Mayer and McHugh investigate the leading theory—the “social stress model”—which proposes that “stressors like stigma and prejudice account for much of the additional suffering observed in these subpopulations.”

But they argue that the evidence suggests that this theory “does not seem to offer a complete explanation for the disparities in the outcomes.” It appears that social stigma and stress alone cannot account for the poor physical and mental health outcomes that LGBT-identified people face.

One study found that, compared to controls, sex-reassigned individuals were about five times more likely to attempt suicide and about 19 times more likely to die by suicide.

As a result, they conclude that “More research is needed to uncover the causes of the increased rates of mental health problems in the LGBT subpopulations.” And they call on all of us work to “alleviate suffering and promote human health and flourishing.”

Findings Contradict Claims in Supreme Court’s Gay Marriage Ruling

Finally, the report notes that scientific evidence does not support the claim that people are “born that way” with respect to sexual orientation. The narrative pushed by Lady Gaga and others is not supported by the science. A combination of biological, environmental, and experiential factors likely account for an individual’s sexual attractions, desires, and identity, and “there are no compelling causal biological explanations for human sexual orientation.”

Furthermore, the scientific research shows that sexual orientation is more fluid than the media suggests. The report notes that “Longitudinal studies of adolescents suggest that sexual orientation may be quite fluid over the life course for some people, with one study estimating that as many as 80 percent of male adolescents who report same-sex attractions no longer do so as adults.”

These findings—that scientific research does not support the claim that sexual orientation is innate and immutable—directly contradict claims made by Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy in last year’s Obergefell ruling. Kennedy wrote, “their immutable nature dictates that same-sex marriage is their only real path to this profound commitment” and “in more recent years have psychiatrists and others recognized that sexual orientation is both a normal expression of human sexuality and immutable.”warning warning

But the science does not show this.

While the marriage debate was about the nature of what marriage is, incorrect scientific claims about sexual orientation were consistently used in the campaign to redefine marriage.

In the end, Mayer and McHugh observe that much about sexuality and gender remains unknown. They call for honest, rigorous, and dispassionate research to help better inform public discourse and, more importantly, sound medical practice.

As this research continues, it’s important that public policy not declare scientific debates over, or rush to legally enforce and impose contested scientific theories. As Mayer and McHugh note, “Everyone—scientists and physicians, parents and teachers, lawmakers and activists—deserves access to accurate information about sexual orientation and gender identity.”

We all must work to foster a culture where such information can be rigorously pursued and everyone—whatever their convictions, and whatever their personal situation—is treated with the civility, respect, and generosity that each of us deserves.

More Evidence Partyof Deceit Spin and Lies or a liar Never-Hillary-Egl-sm fight Picture1 true battle In God We Trust freedom combo 2

An Inconvenient Truth: Liberal Climate Inquisition Can’t Explain Past Temperature Changes

waving flagCommentary by David Kreutzer / / May 02, 2016

Former Vice President Al Gore at a news conference with state attorneys general. (Photo: Andrew Schwartz/Newscom)

Godfather of the Green MafiaIn the week prior to the administration signing what should constitute an international climate treaty, one think tank, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, was subpoenaed for casting doubt on the agreement’s associated science of climate catastrophe.

As disturbing as such thuggery from state attorneys general would be in any case, the premise of the subpoena is faulty. The Competitive Enterprise Institute did not cast doubt on the dubious climate science. The actual data cast the doubt. The think tank and others have simply pointed out what the data show.

It looks like thought crime has now moved from George Orwell’s novel “1984” to the twisted reality of our judicial system. Pointing out facts should never be a real crime.

The Heritage Foundation’s new Paris-bubble-popping science summary is also a case of letting the numbers tell a story. A story many never hear in the media-hyped spectacle that is international climate policy.


For instance, the chart above shows reconstructed average world temperature data for the past 500,000 years. Solid-Foundation-600-wLogoDepending on the magnification and size of your monitor, each pencil dot would span something on the order of 1,000 years. The myriad 10-degree Celsius temperature flips all happened before man-made carbon dioxide could have had any impact—the final temperature spike started at the end of the last ice age.

Now see if you can follow this: The “science thought police” insist that even though none of the temperature variations for the first 499,950 years had anything to do with human activity, virtually none of the temperature increases of the past 50 years had anything to do with nature. Got it?

Settled-Science-600-LAA question some overzealous attorneys general might be asking right now is, “Where did this ‘denier’ data come from?” The answer is: the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Climatic Data Center website (to be very clear, it is part of the federal government).

If those who merely point to data that are inconsistent with an imminent climate crisis are thought criminals, how much more subpoena worthy would be those who actually created the data? This expands the thought crime conspiracy to an entirely new set of perps.

Should the hyperventilating attorneys general subpoena the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in its entirety or just the researchers? If donors to think tanks are subpoenaed simply because the think tanks pointed to this data, should not the U.S. Treasury be subpoenaed for actually funding these doubt-creating data?Baal Worship

In any event, it seems disingenuous to wave off huge past temperature changes as entirely natural while branding as science-denying fraudsters those who assert that natural forces are likely still to be playing a significant role. This is a problem for the U.N. Climate Agreement and its signers.

If natural forces have played a significant role in the moderate and unsteady temperature increases of the past 60 years, then what’s the climate hysteria about? If there is no need for hysteria, there is no need for the Paris climate agreement.


David Kreutzer is the senior research fellow in energy economics and climate change at The Heritage Foundation’s Center for Data Analysis. In this position, Kreutzer researches how energy and climate change legislation will affect economic activity at the national, local, and industry levels. Read his research.

Picture1 true battle Picture1 In God We Trust freedom combo 2

Glenn Foden, Editorial Cartoonist for The Daily Signal, Dies

Reported by Ken McIntyre / / Rob Bluey / / March 21, 2016

URL of the original posting site:

<!– Glenn Foden collaborated on numerous Heritage Foundation projects and drew a weekly editorial cartoon for The Daily Signal. (Photo: Patrick Frank/Patchbay Media) –>

Glenn Foden, who died Sunday, collaborated on numerous projects for The Heritage Foundation and drew a weekly editorial cartoon for The Daily Signal. (Photo: Patrick Frank/Patchbay Media)

Daily Signal editorial cartoonist Glenn Foden, who delighted in puncturing the pretenses and policy missteps of politicians, died Sunday after suffering a brain aneurysm.

Foden, a resident of Mount Airy, Md., had a gift for communicating conservative principles through his artwork. No matter the topic, he could deliver a humorous take on the most complex policy issues.

Genevieve Wood, senior contributor to The Daily Signal, who worked with Foden to settle on the topic of his weekly cartoon, recalled:

Every Wednesday morning I’d get an email from Glenn saying something like, ‘The ink is simmering, the coffee pot is on, what Washington debacle should we tackle this week?’ And so would begin our weekly back and forth of cartoon concepts to match up with a commentary on The Daily Signal.

Sometimes the first draft was the best; sometimes it took us three, four, or five revisions. It made no difference to Glenn—he was always committed to finding the right image and right angle to make the point and to make his audience chuckle.

Foden’s relationship with The Heritage Foundation dates to 2013, when he began producing cartoons for our Morning Bell daily e-newsletter as well as “whiteboard” videos such as this one on the Falkland Islands.

Patrick Frank, a former Heritage employee who films and edits online videos for The Daily Signal and other clients, recalled:

Glenn would leave around 5 a.m. to make a 1.5-hour or so trek from his place in Maryland to my place in Alexandria, where we’d spend all day filming a whiteboard video. … From storyboarding through filming, Glenn and I worked incredibly well together. [He] made sure each little detail of every scene was thoughtfully considered and delightfully executed.

We had a lot of time to kill working on these, and we’d have a blast talking about family, self-employment, ’70s rock bands, kind of anything but politics, to be honest. He epitomized the phrase “If you love what you do, you won’t work a day in your life” and was truly an inspiration to me. I’m heartbroken to think that we won’t have another filming day together.

Amy Payne, who edited commentary for The Daily Signal’s predecessor, The Foundry policy blog, was instrumental in his becoming a regular here.

“Glenn was the type of person you usually only dream about working with,” Payne said, adding:

He was fun, easygoing, and had no ego involved. He was happy to bring others’ ideas to life. All I had to do was say, ‘What if we did something like this…,’ and he would whip up the cartoon version. No matter the time of day, he would come through for you—with a smile.

The Massachusetts native became a weekly contributor to The Daily Signal, Heritage’s multimedia news organization, when it launched in June 2014.

Foden, a political cartoonist for more than 25 years, once said his first and best vote was for Ronald Reagan.

Foden is survived by his wife Teresa and twin daughters Emily and Hannah.


We’ve collected some of our favorite Foden cartoons for The Daily Signal as well as reflections and tributes on Twitter and his Facebook page from those who knew him.

I want to express my condolences to the family of Glenn Foden. Glenn passed away today. Glenn was a very conservative…

Just a few of our favorites among Glenn Foden’s cartoons for The Daily Signal are below. To see more of his work for us, go here.









Glenn Foden epitomized the phrase "if you love what you do, you won't work a day in your life," says Patrick Frank, who collaborated with the cartoonists on many projects. (Photo: Patrick Frank/Patchbay Media)

Glenn Foden epitomized the adage “If you love what you do, you won’t work a day in your life,” says Patrick Frank, who collaborated with the cartoonist on many projects. (Photo: Patrick Frank/Patchbay Media)

Cartoon: Land of the Free?

waving flagDrawn and Posted by Glenn Foden / / February 05, 2016


Heritage Foundation expert Anthony Kim wrote earlier this week Brokeabout the 2016 Index of Economic Freedom.

Millions of people around the world are emerging from poverty thanks to rising economic freedom. But by sharp contrast, America’s economic freedom has been on a declining path over the past decade.

According to the 2016 Index of Economic Freedom, an annual publication by The Heritage Foundation, America’s economic freedom has tumbled. With losses of economic freedom in eight of the past nine years, the U.S. has tied its worst score ever, wiping out a decade of progress.

The U.S. has fallen from the 6th freest economy in the world, when President Barack Obama took office, to 11th place in 2016. America’s declining score in the index is closely related to rapidly rising government spending, subsidies, and bailouts.Tytler cycle cdr modified 071712

Since early 2009:

  • Government spending has exploded, amounting to $29,867 per household in 2015.Beat up
  • The national debt has risen to $125,000 for every tax-filing household in America—a total over $18 trillion.
  • The government takeover of health care is raising prices and disrupting markets.
  • Bailouts and new government regulations have increased uncertainty, stifling investment and job creation.

This is not something to take lightly. Economic freedom is the foundation of U.S. economic strength, and economic strength is the foundation of America’s high living standards, military power, and status as a world leader. The perils of losing economic freedom are not fictional.

It is painfully clear that our economy has been performing far below its potential, with individuals, families, and entrepreneurs being squeezed by the proliferation of big-government bureaucracy and regulations.

As documented by the index, and by other scholars, resusucationAmerica’s economic freedom has been declining at an alarming pace. Indeed, as The Wall Street Journal recently summed it up succinctly, Obama is “a champion when it comes to limiting economic freedom, and American workers have the slow growth in jobs and wages to prove it.”

Not surprisingly, our economic dynamism and innovative capacity have been measurably reduced. Self-inflicted wounds include:

No wonder the labor force participation rate has remained at near record lows after more than five years of steady decline.

Worse, vibrant entrepreneurial growth has been stymied by greater policy uncertainty and mounting debt. And a disturbing trend toward cronyism has gravely eroded the rule of law and distorted our free-market system.

House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Kevin Brady, R-Texas, keynote speaker of the official release of the 2016 Index, recently stated:

“It’s been almost seven years since the Obama “recovery” began, and our economy is barely out of neutral. Why does America have to settle for this?”Why

Restoring economic freedom is prerequisite to revitalizing and brightening America’s future. 2016 is the year to reaffirm the principles of limited government, free enterprise, and rule of law so that we can reconstitute an America where freedom, opportunity, and prosperity flourish. The time to act is now.

Indenification of Obama destruction unfit Picture1 In God We Trust freedom combo 2

The Truth About Wages in Right-to-Work States

waving flagPosted by Natalie Johnson / / September 02, 2015

A new report by The Heritage Foundation shows that private sector wages are not reduced in right-to-work states. (Photo: James Fassinger/Reuters/Newscom)

Private sector wages are not reduced in right-to-work states as union advocates have argued, according to a new report released Tuesday by The Heritage Foundation. James Sherk, a research fellow in labor economics at The Heritage Foundation and the author of the study, cited an Economic Policy Institute paper that claimed right-to-work laws reduce wages by 3 percent.Partyof Deceit Spin and Lies

Sherk found the conclusions “fundamentally flawed” because the study only partially accounted for the cost of living differences across states. He said this is a problem because companies in states with higher costs of living pay their employees higher wages to account for steeper expenses.

Every state with compelled union membership and Virginia, a right-to-work state, has living costs above the national average, which is how EPI arrived to its finding that right-to-work states have lower wages. Once cost of living was accounted for in the Heritage study, Sherk said EPI’s results “disappeared” and right-to-work laws had no effect on private sector wages.

Sherk’s study did find government employees make about 5 percent less in right-to-work states, but he attributed this to government unions’ ability to affect wages by electing “political allies” who will give them “favorable contracts.”

“All of these arguments of right-to-work wages really evaporate when you look under the hood of all these studies,” Sherk said.

Though more than three-quarters of Americans believe union membership should be voluntary, 25 states still have compulsory unionization.

Vincent Vernuccio, the director of labor policy at the Mackinac Center, said at a panel hosted at The Heritage Foundation Tuesday that after Michigan passed a right-to-work law in December 2012 its unemployment rate dropped largely because company site selectors were no longer eliminating the state for its compelled union laws. He said in May 2013, Michigan added 6,000 manufacturing jobs while Illinois, a compelled union state, lost 2,000 that same month. “The right-to-work states are gaining these jobs the forced unionism states are losing,” Vernuccio argued.

Republican state Rep. Chris Kapenga of Wisconsin said he immediately saw positive impacts after his state passed a right-to-work law this past year. He said Wisconsin had the highest growth of manufacturing jobs out of any metro area in the U.S. over the past year and was ranked third in the nation by “Manpower” magazine for its “bright job outlook,” which he attributes in part to the state’s move toward a workers’ choice environment.

“Right-to-work is good for the state and I think it’s good for the nation as a whole because it gets back to the individual liberty and freedom of a person to choose if they want to associate or not,” Kapenga said.

Destroyed for lack of knowledge In God We Trust freedom combo 2

Under Obamacare, Uninsured Rate Fell to Lowest Level in 50 Years. Why There’s More to That Number.

waving flagPosted by Melissa Quinn / / August 12, 2015

Me Myself and LIEThe percentage of Americans who are uninsured decreased to less than 10 percent of the population in the first three months of 2015. However, health care experts say the Medicaid expansion could have played a role in the drop. (Photo: Zbigniew Bzdak/TNS/Newscom)

Nearly two years after Obamacare’s implementation, a new survey found that the number of uninsured Americans decreased to less than 10 percent of the population in the first three months of 2015, which is the lowest level in the survey’s 50-year history.

depression-obamacareHowever, experts say the change could be mostly attributed to the Obama administration’s expansion of Medicaid. According to the survey from the National Center for Health Statistics, a division of the Centers for Disease Control, the number of people who were uninsured declined from 36 million in 2014 to 29 million in the first three months of 2015. Among adults between the ages of 18 and 64, the percentage of those who were uninsured dropped from 16.3 percent in 2014 to 13 percent in 2015’s first quarter.

The changes to the rate of uninsured come nearly two years after Obamacare’s implementation, which went into effect October 2013. While the drop speaks to the mission of the health care law, Ed Haislmaier, a health policy expert, pointed to outside factors that affect the decrease in the number of uninsured Americans.

death-panelIn an interview with The Daily Signal, Haislmaier, a senior research fellow in health policy at The Heritage Foundation, said that though it’s likely the Obama administration was likely “in the ballpark” for the changes in the number of uninsured, the survey had limitations.

Primarily, the government relied on answers from 26,121 respondents as opposed to an actual count, such as the number of people enrolled in health coverage, data that can be provided by health insurance companies.

“They’re trying to say how many people didn’t have Being sick of Obamacoverage and extrapolate from that,” Haislmaier said.

Most notably, though, the survey failed to address an increase to the Medicaid rolls, which stemmed from Medicaid expansion created under Obamacare.

According to Haislmaier, Medicaid enrollment from January 2014 to March 2015 went from approximately 60.9 million to 71 million.

>>> Commentary: Why Obamacare Could Be Heading to the Supreme Court (Again)

Obamacare SuppositoriesThe National Center for Health Statistics calculated the change to the rate of the uninsured in the 30 states and the District of Columbia that expanded Medicaid and the rate of the uninsured in the 19 states that decided not to expand the program. According to the survey, the percentage of adults between 18 and 64 years old who were uninsured in states that expanded Medicaid fell from 18.4 percent in 2013 to 10.6 percent in the first quarter of 2015. In states that opted against Medicaid expansion, the percentage of the uninsured fell from 22.7 percent in 2013 to 16.8 percent from January to March of 2015.

“Most of this is Medicaid,” Haislmaier said. “We know that for the first months of 2014, most of what happened in the private market wasn’t new coverage.”

The National Center for Health Statistics also looked at how the percentage of people who had public health plans, including Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program, and private plans, including employer-sponsored coverage and insurance purchased on the state and federal exchanges, has changed over time.

From 1997 to the first three months of 2015, the percentage of all Americans with public health coverage has increased steadily and Obama Clintonhas held at 34.6 percent from 2014 to March 2015. However, the percentage of Americans enrolled in private health coverage decreased from 1997 to 2013, when it increased from 59.6 percent to 64.5 percent as of March 2015.

Under Obamacare, Americans who do not have health insurance are forced to pay a Communistmonetary penalty to the Internal Revenue Service. The fine increases each year. Those without insurance had to pay $95 per adult or 1 percent of income in 2014. In 2015, the fine increases to $325 per person or 2 percent of income.

Though there has been an increase in the number of Americans enrolling in Medicaid after states adopted expansion, Nina Owcharenko, director of the Center for Health Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation, said the quality of care provided to Medicaid recipients differs substantially from SCOTUScarethose receiving private insurance.

In a paper examining Medicaid following its 50-year anniversary last month, Owcharenko noted that Medicaid recipients have less access to providers. Just 68.9 percent of doctors accept new Medicaid patients, a 2014 Centers for Disease Control study found. Medicaid recipients also have longer hospital stays and higher mortality rates, Owcharenko said.Mar 3 13 Mar 3 12

>>> Commentary: What States Can Do Now to Be Ready for an Obamacare Repeal

Stop Obamanomics Indenification of Obama The Lower you go tyrants burke freedom combo 2

Franklin Graham decries Christian bakers’ beat-down

waving flagPosted By Cheryl Chumley On 07/06/2015

Article printed from WND:

URL of the original posting site:


Samaritan’s Purse president Franklin Graham, who also heads up the world-wide Billy Graham Evangelistic Association, called the recent ruling against a husband-wife Christian cake-baking team an utter travesty for the First Amendment, and said the plaintiffs in the case – two lesbians – ought to be the ones paying the government-issued fine.

Graham was reacting on his Facebook page to the Oregon Bureau of Labor & Industries ruling against Aaron and Melissa Klein, owners of “Sweet Cakes by Melissa” who, in 2013, declined to make a cake for a lesbian wedding. The lesbians turned to the government for redress, and last week, after two years of fighting, the Kleins were ordered to pay $135,000 to the lesbians, in part to account for their stated pain and suffering, as WND previously reported.

Graham found the ruling ludicrous.

He wrote: “This is unbelievable! … Brad Avakian, Oregon’s Bureau of Labor & Industries Commissioner, upheld [the previous] ruling that the Kleins have to pay the lesbian couple $135,000 for a long list of alleged damages including:

  • ‘acute loss of confidence,’

  • ‘high blood pressure,’

  • ‘impaired digestion,’

  • ‘loss of appetite,’

  • ‘migraine headaches,’

  • ‘pale and sick at home after work,’

  • ‘resumption of smoking habit,’

  • ‘weight gain,’ and

  • ‘worry.’

Give me a break. In my opinion, this couple should pay the Kleins $135,000 for all they’ve been through!”cp 11

Graham also pointed to another facet of the ruling as potentially dangerous to the future of the First Amendment’s freedom of speech clause.

On that, he said: “Even more outrageous is that Avakian has also now ordered the Kleins to ‘cease and desist’ from speaking publicly about not wanting to bake cakes for same-sex weddings based on their Christian beliefs. This is an outright attack on their ‪#‎freedomofspeech‬. A senior attorney with the The Heritage Foundation was absolutely right when he said, ‘It is exactly this kind of oppressive persecution by government officials that led the pilgrims to America.’”Leftist Giant called Tyranny

He called for believers to pray for the Kleins, who are planning an appeal, as well as for other Christians who are currently fighting to maintain their religious freedom rights in the supposed “land of the free” known as America, he said.

It HasNever Been About Marriage burke freedom combo 2

Why Today’s Supreme Court Case on Same-Sex Marriage Matters

waving flagJamie Jackson / / April 28, 2015

So why does this matter? Sarah Torre, a policy analyst at The Heritage Foundation, explains what you need to know about the case.


>>> Don’t Silence the 50 Million Who Voted for One Man-One Woman Marriage

Same Sex Marriage



OARLogo Picture6

Higher Fast-Food Wages: Higher Fast-Food Prices



The Heritage Foundation

Union activists want to raise the minimum wage in the fast-food industry to $15 an hour. However, fast-food restaurants operate on very small profit margins; they could only afford such wages by raising prices—significantly. Higher prices would, in turn, drive customers away, forcing even larger price increases to cover costs. Ultimately, the average fast-food restaurant would have to raise prices by nearly two-fifths. This would cause sales to drop by more than one-third, and profits to fall by more than three-quarters. Absent the widespread adoption of labor-saving technology, the union-led “Fight for 15” would make fast food much more expensive for Americans.

Fight for 15

The Service Employees International Union (SEIU) has launched an expensive PR campaign calling for wages of at least $15 an hour in the fast-food industry. This Fight for 15 is part of a larger SEIU pressure campaign to unionize fast-food restaurants.[1] Hundreds of union activists have staged “walkouts” and protests across the country demanding the higher pay rate. These protests have attracted considerable media attention. However, if the SEIU achieved its stated goal, it would hurt the budgets of millions of moderate-income Americans.

No, Fast-Food Joints Cannot Absorb Cost Increases

Artificially inflating wages would substantially increase fast-food restaurants’ total costs—labor makes up a considerable portion of their budget. Chart 1 shows the financial statements of the average fast-food restaurant in 2013. Labor costs (26 percent) and food and material costs (31 percent) make up the majority of the typical restaurant budget.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics reports the average cook in a fast-food restaurant earned $9.04 an hour in 2013.[2] The SEIU’s push for $15 an hour would consequently raise fast-food wages by at least 66 percent. Paying $15 an hour would raise fast-food restaurants’ total costs by approximately 15 percent.[3]

Fast-food restaurants could not pay this additional amount out of their profits. The typical restaurant has a profit margin of just 3 percent before taxes.[4] That works out to approximately $27,000 a year[5]—less than the annual cost of hiring one full-time employee at $15 an hour.[6] In order to raise wages, fast-food restaurants must raise prices.

Fast-Food Customers Are Price Sensitive

Most Americans eat fast food because they want a quick and inexpensive meal. If fast-food restaurants raised their prices, many of their customers would either eat at home or go to more expensive restaurants.

Academic studies consistently confirm the price sensitivity of fast-food customers. Table 1 shows the results of all studies of U.S. fast-food demand published since 1990.[7] The figures in the table show the estimated drop in sales when prices rise by 1 percent.

Most studies find that a 1 percent increase in prices causes sales to fall by almost 1 percent. Larger price increases cause sales to fall by proportionally larger amounts. For example, Abigail Okrent’s and Aylin Kumcu’s estimate implies that a 10 percent increase in fast-food prices would cause fast-food sales to fall by 9 percent.[8]

And More Price Increases

The loss of sales would force fast-food establishments to raise prices even more to cover fixed costs like rent, insurance, and marketing. These price increases would, in turn, further reduce sales, necessitating further price increases.

Many economists analyzing the fast-food industry overlook this dynamic.[9] They assume that fast-food restaurants would only have to raise prices enough to cover the cost of wage increases—ignoring the sales and revenue that fast-food restaurants lose because of these price increases. Consumers’ price sensitivity means that fast-food prices must rise by more than the initial increase in labor costs.

Total Economic Effects

The Heritage Foundation constructed a simulation model using the data on the average fast-food restaurant’s income and expenses. (See Chart 1.) This model accounts for the sales that fast-food restaurants lose when they raise prices. (See the appendix for details of this model.) Chart 2 shows the effects of a $15-an-hour minimum wage on the fast-food industry.

The higher labor costs would initially force fast-food restaurants to raise their prices by 15 percent, which would drive down sales by 14 percent. This would force restaurants to raise prices again, pushing sales down further. In equilibrium the average fast-food restaurant would have to raise prices 38 percent.[10] Prices would rise roughly twice as much as the initial increase in labor costs.[11] Total sales and hours worked would both fall by 36 percent. Fast-food restaurant owners would also have to accept a 77 percent reduction in profits in order to stay in business—leaving them with an average profit of just $6,100 a year per store. Otherwise they would have to raise prices to an extent that would drive away their customer base.

These changes would hurt consumers. Americans would face higher fast-food prices, putting a dent into the budgets of everyone who frequently eats fast food—primarily moderate-income consumers, not the wealthy, who do not regularly eat fast food.

Labor Substitution

Such an increase in prices and decrease in profits would devastate fast-food restaurants. Many owners would find that taking on the risk of operating a restaurant—and potentially losing money—is not worth profit margins of less than 1 percent. Many fast-food restaurants would respond by restructuring dramatically in order to use less labor.

Fast-food restaurants could reduce labor costs by (a) substituting entry-level workers for more skilled and more productive workers and (b) replacing human workers with machines. Fast-food jobs involve many routine tasks that are particularly susceptible to automation. For example, McDonald’s recently announced plans to adopt iPhone ordering and paying—making the jobs of many cashiers redundant.[12] Inventors in California have created an automatic hamburger-cooking machine that cooks 360 hamburgers in an hour without human intervention.[13] Artificially increasing fast-food wages would significantly hasten the adoption of such technology—flat out eliminating many positions in the fast-food industry.

Fewer Entry-Level Jobs

These reduced job opportunities would badly hurt less-skilled workers. Fast-food restaurants generally employ younger and less-experienced workers. In the limited time they work in the fast-food industry, they gain basic employment skills—such as how to work reliably, follow instructions from a supervisor, and work constructively with co-workers. Once they gain these skills, they quickly move on to higher-level jobs. McDonald’s estimates that its franchisees see average annual turnover of 150 percent—the average employee stays for just 8 months.[14] When employees leave, they quickly find higher-paying jobs. Two-thirds of minimum-wage workers earn a raise within a year—with a median raise of 24 percent.[15] Eliminating entry-level jobs makes it harder for workers to advance into higher-paying positions.


Raising the minimum wage in the fast-food industry to $15 an hour would hurt consumers and workers. Without major operational changes, fast-food restaurants would have to raise prices by 38 percent while seeing their profits fall by 77 percent. This would cause many restaurants to close and many others to make extensive use of labor-saving technology—eliminating many of the entry-level jobs that inexperienced workers need to get ahead. Congress should not facilitate the SEIU’s attempt to inflate fast-food wages.

—James Sherk is Senior Policy Analyst in Labor Economics in the Center for Data Analysis, of the Institute for Economic Freedom and Opportunity, at The Heritage Foundation.


The Heritage Foundation estimated the full effects of raising the minimum wage in the fast-food industry using an iterative model. Heritage used data on the average labor and food costs of limited-service (fast-food) restaurants from IBISWorld, as shown in Chart 1. The data were modified to include the employer share of payroll taxes in the “wages” category instead of “other.” Heritage also estimated that 81 percent of payroll costs are paid to line employees, while 19 percent are paid to salaried managers. Heritage used this data to estimate the labor costs of hourly employees as a share of total revenues at the average fast-food restaurant.

Data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics show that the typical fast food-cook in a restaurant earns $9.04 an hour.[16] Heritage estimated that if the SEIU raised minimum wages in the fast-food industry to $15 an hour, average wages would rise to $15.50 an hour—allowing limited ripple effects to maintain wage differentials for more experienced workers. The SEIU proposal would thus raise hourly fast food labor costs by 71 percent.

The Heritage Foundation surveyed all studies that estimated the price elasticity of demand for fast food in the U.S. published over the last 25 years. Heritage found five studies with six elasticities[17] (Jekanowski et al. calculated estimates for two time periods). The Heritage Foundation used the average of these six elasticities to estimate how fast-food demand responds to price changes. As Table 1 shows, the average elasticity was almost identical to the median elasticity.

Heritage used an iterative model in which fast-food restaurants first raise their prices to cover the labor cost increase, and then experience falling sales in response to the price increase. The reduced sales cut the food and labor expenses of the restaurant but not its fixed costs. Heritage assumed that food and labor costs fall proportionally to the change in sales. In the model, restaurants then raise their prices by an amount necessary to restore a portion of their previous profits. The model iteratively estimates the sales decreases and subsequent price increases more than 200 times until equilibrium sales and price levels are reached.

The initial estimate with unchanged profits concluded that the average restaurant would go bankrupt, so the Heritage Foundation re-ran the model with successively lower profits. Heritage assumed that restaurants would maximize their profits, subject to the condition they remain in business. This estimate showed that restaurants would have to accept a 77 percent reduction in profits for the labor cost and price increases not to put them out of business.

[1] Arun Gupta, “Fight For 15 Confidential,” In These Times, November 11, 2013, (accessed September 3, 2014).

[2] Bureau of Labor Statistics, “Occupational Employment Statistics: Occupational Employment and Wages, May 2013: 35-2011 Cooks, Fast Food,” April 1, 2014, (accessed September 3, 2014).

[3] Heritage Foundation calculations based on data from IBISWorld, “Industry Report 72221a: Fast Food Restaurants in the US,” May 2013. These calculations assume that 81 percent of total labor costs shown in Chart 1 are paid to hourly workers, with the rest paid to salaried managers unaffected by any proposed changes. These calculations also assume a small “ripple effect” from the pay increase, such that the average hourly wage would rise from $9.04 an hour to $15.50 an hour.

[4] Ibid. The employer share of payroll taxes has been added to the “Wages” category and subtracted from the “Other” category.

[5] Ibid., p. 31. In 2013, there were 232,611 fast-food establishments that collectively made $191 billion, which works out to $821,000 in revenues per establishment, with average profit margins of 3.3 percent.

[6] $15/hour multiplied by 40 hours/week by 50 weeks/year works out to $30,000 a year. Employers would have to add the 7.6 percent employer-share payroll tax, another $2,300.

[7] These were studies on the elasticity of demand for fast food specifically, not the larger category of “Food Away from Home,” which includes all restaurants. Researchers have conducted far fewer studies on the demand for fast food than they have on the demand for all food away from home.

[8] Abigail Okrent and Aylin Kumcu, “What’s Cooking? Demand for Convenience Foods in the United States,” paper for presentation at the Agricultural and Applied Economics Association’s 2014 annual meeting, Minneapolis, July 27–29, 2014, (accessed September 3, 2014). These figures are for industry-wide price increases. If an individual fast-food restaurant unilaterally hiked its prices, it would probably lose much more business to less expensive competitors.

[9] See, for example Jeannette Wicks-Lim and Robert Pollin, “The Costs to Fast-Food Restaurants of a Minimum Wage Increase to $10.50 per Hour,” Political Economy Research Institute Research Brief, September 2013.

[10] These price increases would have to be for the average check, not each individual item. Consumers would probably respond to the price increases by substituting cheaper items, for instance, McDonald’s dollar menu. Such substitution means that prices of less expensive items would have to rise by more than the average amount in order for the price of the average check to rise by 38 percent.

[11] This explains the observation by Emek Basker and Muhammad Khan that fast-food prices respond to minimum-wage increases as though labor costs accounted for 50 percent of total expenditures. Economic survey data consistently show that fast-food restaurants spend roughly one-quarter of their budget on labor costs. However, prices rise by more than this in response to minimum-wage increases to recoup revenues from reduced sales. Emek Basker and Muhammad Khan, “Does the Minimum Wage Bite into Fast-Food Prices?” University of Missouri Working Paper No. 1317, September 2013.

[12] Maria Vultaggio, “McDonald’s to Launch NFC-Enabled Mobile Payment and Ordering App: Report,” International Business Times, September 2, 2014, (accessed September 3, 2014).

[13] Momentum Machines, “The Next Generation of Fast Food,” (accessed September 3, 2014).

[14] Michael Harris, “An Employee Retention Strategy Designed to Increase Tenure and Profitability in the Fast Food Industry,” dissertation, University of Phoenix, December 2010, (accessed September 3, 2014).

[15] Jonathan Meer and Jeremy West, “Effects of the Minimum Wage on Employment Dynamics,” National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper No. 19262, revised December 2013, p. 8.

[16] Bureau of Labor Statistics, “Occupational Employment Statistics: Occupational Employment and Wages, May 2013—35-2011 Cooks, Fast Food.”

[17] Mark D. Jekanowski, James K. Binkley and James S. Eales, “Convenience, Accessibility, and the Demand for Fast Food,” Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Vol. 26, No. 1 (2001).

MUST READ AND SHARE!!!!! The Destructiveness of Obamacare in Pictures


The Heritage Foundation has put together the impact of Obamacare in pictures. This is visual evidence that Obamacare is not only not working, but it is destructive. Above is but one of those pictures which reveals the economic impact of Obamacare on 27 year olds. 
The accompanying full pictures below looks at areas ranging from canceled policies, reduced choices, new taxes and more.

Slide Show

Complete Message




Tag Cloud

%d bloggers like this: