By Zachary Albert
As the 2024 presidential election heats up, some people are hearing about the Heritage Foundation for the first time. The conservative think tank has a new, ambitious and controversial policy plan, Project 2025, which calls for an overhaul of American public policy and government.
Project 2025 lays out many standard conservative ideas – like prioritizing energy production over environmental and climate-change concerns, and rejecting the idea of abortion as health care – along with some much more extreme ones, like criminalizing pornography. And it proposes to eliminate or restructure countless government agencies in line with conservative ideology.
While think tanks sometimes have the reputation of being stuffy academic institutions detached from day-to-day politics, Heritage is far different. By design, Heritage was founded to not only develop conservative policy ideas but also to advance them through direct political advocacy.
All think tanks are classified as 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organizations, which are prohibited from engaging in elections and can take part in only a small amount of political lobbying. But some, like Heritage, also form affiliated 501(c)(4) organizations that allow them to participate in campaigns and lobby extensively. Heritage is one of the sponsors of the Republican National Convention, which wraps up in Milwaukee on July 18, 2024.
In research for my forthcoming book, “Partisan Policy Networks,” I’ve found that a growing share of think tanks are explicitly ideological, aligned with a single political party, and engaged in direct policy advocacy.
Still, Heritage stands out from all of the groups I investigated. It is much more conservative and more closely aligned with former President Donald Trump’s style of Republicanism. Heritage is also more aggressive in its advocacy for conservative ideas, pairing campaign spending with lobbying and large-scale grassroots mobilization.
Americans should expect to hear a lot more about its ideas, like those outlined in Project 2025, if Trump is reelected in November 2024.
Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post via Getty Images
A new type of think tank
Two Republican congressional staffers, Ed Feulner and Paul Weyrich, formed Heritage in 1973 as an explicit rebuke to existing think tanks that they thought were either too liberal or too meek in advancing conservative ideas.
Feulner and Weyrich were particularly incensed about how a preeminent conservative think tank at the time, the American Enterprise Institute, or AEI, timed its release of a policy report in 1971 on whether to approve government funding for supersonic transport airplanes, which can fly faster than the speed of sound. AEI published its recommendations several days after Congress voted on the issue, because it “didn’t want to try to affect the outcome of the vote.”
Heritage turns this philosophy on its head. Rather than producing policy research for its own sake, Heritage conducts research, as one employee told me in 2018, “to build a case, to make the argument for policy change.”
For example, Heritage’s affiliated 501(c)(4) advocacy organization, Heritage Action for America, and Sentinel Action Fund, a Super PAC set up by Heritage Action in 2022, spend money to influence elections and lobby elected officials on issues as diverse as taxation, abortion, immigration and the environment.
For this reason, some scholars and politicos call Heritage and other similar groups “do tanks” rather than “think tanks.”
Because Sentinel Action Fund is a Super PAC, it can raise and spend unlimited amounts of money to influence elections so long as they do not coordinate with candidate campaigns. Sentinel Action Fund then spent more than US$13 million on voter outreach and advertising in the 2022 midterm elections. The fund’s self-described aim was to ensure GOP majorities in the House and Senate by aiding “key conservative fighters” in “tough general elections.” Sentinel Action Fund Vice President of Communications Carson Steelman said that in 2024, “the Sentinel Action Fund is totally legally separate from Heritage Action.”
Jeff Haynes/AFP via Getty Images
People, not just money
But it’s the people, even more than money, that make Heritage influential, my research shows.
Heritage has directly worked to place former and current employees in congressional offices and the executive branch. More than 70 former and current Heritage staffers began working for the Trump administration by 2017 – and four current Heritage staffers were members of Trump’s cabinet in 2021.
Heritage also says that it has more than 2 million local, volunteer activists and roughly 20,000 “Sentinel activists” who receive information from Heritage and take part in organized campaigns to push for conservative policies. My interviews show that activists who partner with Heritage take part in strategy calls, contact elected representatives with coordinated messages and amplify the organization’s messaging on social media.
In one example from 2021, Heritage Foundation developed a report on election fraud and voter integrity. Heritage Action for America, meanwhile, coordinated volunteers to deliver this report to Georgia legislators, had staffers meet with these legislators to advise them on passing new voting restrictions, and paid for television advertising urging citizens to support such laws.
Heritage, Trump and Project 2025
All these efforts add up to a great deal of influence within the Republican Party. Heritage has played a key role in pushing Republicans toward more conservative policies since its creation.
When former President Ronald Reagan took office in 1981, for example, the Heritage Foundation had a ready-made conservative agenda for the new administration. By the end of his first term, Reagan executed more than 60% of the think tank’s policy recommendations.
When Trump took office in 2016, Heritage was again ready with friendly staffers and a handy policy agenda, called the Blueprint for Reorganization. By the end of Trump’s first year in office, Heritage boasted that he “had embraced 64 percent of our 321 recommendations,” among them key conservative priorities like tax reform, regulatory rollback and increased defense spending.
Project 2025 is similar to these other sets of recommendations for Republican politicians and presidential candidates. It outlines an agenda for a new president to adopt and a team of experts to help them.
But Project 2025 has taken on a different bent compared with earlier blueprints. Kevin Roberts, the president of Heritage, has described the group’s role as “institutionalizing Trumpism.”
This is probably why Project 2025, and Heritage, have received such an unusually large amount of attention in recent months. The fact that a wonky, 900-page policy memo has been the focus of countless news articles and hundreds of Biden campaign tweets, especially before the 2024 election, is a telling indication of its expected influence.
For its part, the Trump campaign has maintained distance from the project, as Trump himself has implausibly claimed that he knows nothing about it.
He is likely keeping his distance from Project 2025 because parts of the agenda are far too extreme for all but the most die-hard conservative activists. But even if Trump isn’t campaigning on these policies, Americans should expect Heritage ideas to matter greatly in a second Trump administration. The Heritage Foundation is built for this goal.
Zachary Albert is Assistant Professor of Politics at Brandeis University.
The Conversation arose out of deep-seated concerns for the fading quality of our public discourse and recognition of the vital role that academic experts could play in the public arena. Information has always been essential to democracy. It’s a societal good, like clean water. But many now find it difficult to put their trust in the media and experts who have spent years researching a topic. Instead, they listen to those who have the loudest voices. Those uninformed views are amplified by social media networks that reward those who spark outrage instead of insight or thoughtful discussion. The Conversation seeks to be part of the solution to this problem, to raise up the voices of true experts and to make their knowledge available to everyone. The Conversation publishes nightly at 9 p.m. on FlaglerLive.
Laurel says
Project 2025 isn’t conservative, it’s suppressive.
Imagine turning the United States of America, a country where people fought and died for freedom, into a country of suppression.
That is their goal. To make us conform into their idea of what we all should be. Individuality squashed.
These supporters of suppression has been sliming their way into our lives and our governments for years now, and have been taking over the Republican Party, pretending to be the GOP.
They are heavily represented in Flagler County.
Don’t fall for it.
Ed P says
This is not a comment endorsing the manifesto called Project 2025. But keep an open mind to the few good portions that are just plain common sense. For instance.
There are approximately 17 million living veterans in the United States. That number is dwarfed by the number of illegals that have entered the country in last 4 years. ( 10,000,000 plus got aways)
Why do we continue to “support” open borders, costing tax payers billions when this funding could help our veteran and homeless?. It is estimated that the current cost for illegals is exceeding the total sum of food stamp, snap, and wic budgets. Yikes! The Biden/ Harris easing of the border is unfolding as a disaster. Our responsibility is to our citizens before we save the rest of the world, we are proving that can not do both.
Before we debate why the recent bipartisan border deal in May of this year was rejected, pause, and ask why did it take 3 plus years to originate in this administration as well as multiple failed attempt in prior administrations? This bill was fraught with speed bumps and road blocks.
Congress is and has been dysfunctional for years. Sure you can blame it on Trump. Convenient, but not the whole story.
There is plenty of blame to go around but until “we the people” stiffen our spines and stop accepting the lunacy and congressional paralysis, nothing will change.
Who ever “THEY” are, have divided us and we fighting amongst ourselves. Our energy needs to be focused on the real and present problems immediately.
Here’s my best analogy. The direction of our country is like a road map from NYC to LA. There are thousands of routes we can follow and sights to see. None right, none wrong. But one will be the most direct and get us there the quickest. Right now we have lost our way and need to get back to that route and if need be, return later to smell the roses. Basics and common sense, not going “back” but moving beyond all the noise and bull shit. Just doing the right things instead of worrying about fund raising and reelection.
Ray W. says
Hello Ed P.
I went to Politifact to check on your claim that over ten million “got aways” entered the country over the last four years. The claim is rated as False. It seems that Franklin Graham repeated an already existing claim on Facebook on February 7, 2024. Facebook later flagged Graham’s posting as part of Meta’s efforts to combat false news and misinformation.” It may have taken on new life since that time.
According to PolitiFact, in November 2023, the Pew Research Center estimated that 10.5 million unauthorized people resided in the U.S., but that the sum total included unauthorized immigrants who had been in the U.S. for years and in some cases decades.
According to Customs and Border Patrol data, since President Biden was inaugurated, there have been 8.8 million border encounters, with encounters being defined as not the number of people, because one person might be encountered two, three, or more times. There have been 3.6 million removals through September 2023, according to DHS estimates.
And don’t leave out the fact that many undocumented immigrants return home. Some soon after entry. Others later. A long time ago, I commented on a 25-year study that concluded that 45% of all types of immigrants who enter the country at some time return home or immigrate to yet another country.
Who knows how many undocumented immigrants ever enter the country! But there is competent and reliable evidence sufficient to contradict your claim that it dwarfs the number of veterans in the country.
You are right, however, about the one right road to follow. We need more immigrants. The latest posted jobs opening report still lists 8.18 million unfilled open jobs, still a record that had never been achieved until after the pandemic (it topped out at 12.2 million in 2022. Prior to 2020, there had never been a time that businesses reported more than 8 million posted job openings. American businesses that are not sole proprietorships need millions of workers. Even if 10 million got aways entered the country, we need more. American women just aren’t having enough babies to replace the boomers who are aging out of the prime working age of 25-54. Economists estimate that the recent influx of immigrants accounted for between 0.7 and 1.1% of the productivity reflected in the recent 2.7% gain in GDP. That means that between a quarter and roughly 40% of our GDP growth during the second quarter of 2024 occurred because of incoming immigrants working, earning money, and spending it. We need their productivity and their youth. Yes, they add costs to educate their children, but relatively few ever retire here to draw benefits from Social Security. The backloaded costs are less. The frontloaded costs are more.
Do we, Ed P, need more immigration hearing officers? More border patrol personnel? More detention centers? I think we do. I know that only Congress can approve the funding for more federal positions. Each new official position needs funding for payroll, health insurance and retirement funding. That comes from Congress. While you may never have revealed whether you know of how federal positions are created, but something tells me that you do know. And I agree with your comment about a dysfunctional Congress.
So many roads to take. Some to nowhere. Some to perdition. Some only leading to the wilderness. None to Damascus. The next time you are looking for the right road, please turn the next time you see a signpost pointing toward Damascus. Oy vey!
Ed P says
My Error in comment 10,000 plus the got aways, not 10,00,000 Got aways.
The estimate of a total 10,000,000 -11,000,000 is smoke and mirrors. Through extensive searching, if you count every states estimate of illegals it approaches 18,000,000.
California 1.8 mil, Texas 1.6 mil, Florida 1.2 mil. Even Minnesota with its cold winters has 100 thousand-reported.
But alas who counts and what is deemed illegal?
Even if they have registered and received work permits, if they crossed illegally, in my view they are still in fact illegal. But those numbers are excluded.
We will never know the true number or facts. Heck, it’s been reported that we have lost track of the where about of 85,000 illegal children.
If your premise that we need more immigrants is correct, let them be legal immigrants who are sponsored or enter the correct way.
I’m pretty sure all the unfilled jobs are not unskilled openings suited for non English speaking, unskilled, unqualified foreigners.
Ray W. says
I agree with you on your comment that all immigrants entering the country should be documented. Thank you.
Do you think the process could be through legislation? Executive orders? Both?
As for documentation of each and every American resident, foreign-born or not, the Census has for decades used the same statistical modeling for its assessments that are required by law. By definition, we can never get a totally accurate count of the undocumented among us. All we can do is maintain the statistically reliable modeling system. Once we begin changing the modeling system each cycle, the results become worthless.
If 50 state administrations were to decide to adopt their own unique modeling systems, then comparing the incomparable becomes a useless exercise. Some states, perhaps for political reasons, might select a modeling system that skews data one way. Others? The other way. Florida openly opted out of traditional statistical modeling systems during the pandemic. We got a mishmash of pandemic data that made little sense of what might actually have been happening in Florida.
As an aside, I recently read an article about Russia’s current falling population. The author argued that if current trends in Russian birthrates continued to drop, Russia’s population will halve by the end of the century. The author opined that either Russia seizes more land and takes in the occupants of the land, or Russia relaxes its immigration policies.
On May 24, 2022, about three months after Russia invaded the Ukraine, France24 published a different article on the same subject titled: Population decline in Russia: ‘Putin has no choice but to win’ in Ukraine. (I accept that what I read was a translation from the original French)
The premise? Putin had declared in January 2020 the demographic crisis his country faced a “historic challenge.” Putin added: “Russia’s destiny and its historic prospects depend on how numerous we will be.”
During the chaos and financial destruction following the fall of the Soviet Union, Russia’s birthrate collapsed. Women simply stop having babies during uncertain times.
At the time of the fall, Russia had 148.2 million people. By 2001, the number had dropped to 143 million, according to a French demographer. The girls that were born during the crisis are now the ones in prime childbearing age, but they aren’t having enough children.
The Russian government established financial aid programs, family allowance systems and bonuses for large families. If these don’t work, just to the southwest, the Ukraine has a population of 44 million and some of the most fertile farmland in the world.
Putin had previously opened Russia’s borders to immigrant workers, many from Central Asia and freely gave Russian passports to inhabitants of neighboring countries. But immigration stopped during the pandemic.
The article closes with quotes from a different French demographer. “I think that everything will depend on who wins the war”, adds Chalard. “If Russia wins, the resulting joy could lead to a boom in births. But losing and getting bogged down in an economic crisis will have the opposite effect”, he says. “What is certain is that Putin has his back against the wall. From a demographic point of view, he has no other choice but to win.”
Make of this what you will. I am hoping that some FlaglerLive commenters will address the possible fact that if states successfully overestimate the number of immigrants, documented or not, those states might receive more federal funding.
I try to stick to Census figures, instead of individual state figures. Too messy when one veers too far from Census figures.
Laurel says
“Institutionalizing Trumpism.” I think that maybe Trump needs a little institutionalizing himself, along with those who think Project 2025 is a good idea. Cofeefee.
Oh, by the way, P2025 wants to kill Medicare and Social Security. The attack on Medicare is already in place. If you have “Medicare Advantage” you do not have Medicare. The Federal Government has allowed the use of the word “Medicare” in the insurance companies’ language, and has allowed you to agree to send these private insurance companies money out of your Social Security checks. So, you do not have Medicare, you have private insurance that determines what doctors you may see, and what procedures you may have. One goal for P2025 is to make it all private insurance, which would be the polar opposite of health care for all.
Hubby and I have Medicare. We get to go to Mayo Clinic, which does not accept *Advantage* plans. We get the best health care in the country, and we do not have to wait for it or have some bean counter tell us what we can and cannot do. One insurance guy told us that when on an *Advantage* plan, you are allowed to sometimes go to Mayo Clinic when you are absolutely on your last leg. Then again, sometimes they won’t let you go. You would have to pay yourself.
No thanks, we’ll come up with the copay, and no thanks to P2025.
Joe D says
100% correct about Medicare “Advantage” plans. As a retired Certified Nurse Case Manager, I can tell you, Patienty THINK they still have full Medicare benefits, plus some medication coverage, and the “hook” of some grocery money.
However they are giving up their CHOICE of medical treatment. Before getting care under MOST (if not ALL) advantage plans. There is a restriction on WHERE they get care (networks, that straight Medicare members don’t have), they FREQUENTLY have to get pre-approval before you get most treatment beyond your primary physician. Just wait until you have a SERIOUS medical condition…then the payment denials begin. What the Advantage groups don’t readily admit, is how many people DROP their advantage plans after 3 years!
Also, rather than a discount on what advantage plans get paid by Medicare, they actually get a BONUS payment from Medicare.
The BEST coverage (especially if you have ANY serious medical illness ), is to keep your A & B Medicare with a separate SUPPLEMENTAL plan to cover what Medicare doesn’t cover. Although, that is not a cheap option, you have total coverage, and full choice of where you get treatment (ANYWHERE in the US) without a pre-approval… you need to look at what you are trading away with an ADVANTAGE PLAN.
Ed P says
Joe D,
Best advice on Medicare plans. You are 100 % correct.
Laurel says
…And, with Medicare and Mayo Clinic, you can get labs, tests like MRIs and such at night and on Sundays. None of this *waiting* propaganda the right want you to believe about “socialized medicine,” and all of it centralized, read, and at your favorite doctor’s fingertips the next morning. I’m not talking about the hospital, either, where everything is immediate.
Keep your “Advantage” and private insurance if you prefer and it’s working for you. But don’t listen to those who claim that Medicare is a disadvantage; it isn’t.
Jackson says
End no fault divorce
Complete ban on abortions without exceptions Ban contraceptives
Additional tax breaks for corporations and the 1% Higher taxes for the working class
Elimination of unions and worker protections
Raise the retirement age
Cut Social Security
Cut Medicare
End the Affordable Care Act
Raise prescription drug prices
Eliminate the Department of Education
Use public, taxpayer money for private religious schools
Teach Christian religious beleifs ni public schools
End free and discounted school lunch programs
End civil rights & DEl protections in government
Ban African American and gender studies ni al levels of education Ban books and curriculum about slavery
Ending climate protections
Increase Arctic drilling
Deregulate big business and the oil industry
Promote and expedite capital punishment
End marriage equality
Condemn single mothers while promoting only “traditional families”
Defund the FBI and Homeland Security
Use the military to break up domestic protests
Mass deportation of immigrants and incarceration ni “camps”
End birth right citizenship
Ban Muslims from entering the country
Eliminates federal agencies like the FDA, EPA, NOA and more.
Ed P says
Jackson,
Are listing the myths of project 2025? I will stop at your first point since divorce is not mentioned in the plan.
No need to go farther to debunk your comment.
Laurel says
Ed P: The “myths” you mention are in print. Also, if you do a bit more research, you can heard the “myths” pour directly out of the “proud” supporters, and authors of Project 2025.
Ed P says
Laurel,
Your strident position is always provide definitive proof, yet when you are presented with proof, you deflect and deny.
Fact is Jackson may have been a victim of Mark Hammill’s tweet nearly a month ago, it did spur misinformation.
The document itself does not mention many of the myths, sorry I missed the dog whistles, whispers in the halls and pillow talk the authors and supporters said per your comment.
Laurel says
Thanks to Tony Mac’s research:
• Privatize Social Security (c22, p715)
• Privatize veterans’ healthcare (c20, p635)
• Privatize infrastructure projects (c19, p555)
• Privatize the Federal Aviation Administration (c19, p565)
• Reduce federal disaster relief programs (c16, p610)
• Reduce funding for federal research programs (c12, p415)
• Decrease regulations in healthcare (c14, p450)
• Reduce funding for public health programs (c14, p455)
• Repeal the Affordable Care Act (c14, p460)
• Promote free-market healthcare (c14, p465)
• Dismantle the Department of Education (c11, p365)
• Reduce federal student aid (c11, p385)
• Increase private sector role in public education (c11, p390)
• Limit federal involvement in technology standards (c28, p850)
• Reduce federal government intervention in various sectors (c1, p25)
• Cut federal support for renewable energy projects (c12, p405)
• Reduce regulations by the Environmental Protection Agency (c13, p425)
• Withdraw from international climate agreements (c13, p430)
• Reduce environmental regulations on businesses (c13, p440)
• Promote energy production on federal lands (c16, p600)
• Limit the jurisdiction of federal courts (c1, p40)
• Decrease the size of the federal workforce (c3, p95)
• Restructure the Department of Homeland Security (c5, p165)
• Reform the Department of Justice (c17, p565)
• Repeal Dodd-Frank financial regulations (c27, p800)
• Abolish the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (c27, p815)
• Repeal net neutrality regulations (c28, p845)
• Eliminate the Department of Commerce (c21, p660)
• Limit federal involvement in local policing (c17, p575)
• Reduce business regulations (c18, p520)
• Reduce federal oversight of labor standards (c18, p530)
• Implement a flat tax system (c22, p700)
• Lower corporate tax rates (c22, p725)
• Restrict the powers of the Federal Reserve (c24, p770). Please feel free to copy and share
Now, explain where I “deflect and deny” and I will clarify for you.
Eva says
Typical. No need, or no ability to spin the outrageous threat to our freedoms? Sad.
Sherry says
@jackson. . . Thank you for getting us back on the subject and for pointing out the horrors of Project 2025. GO KAMALA!
Ed P says
FYI,
Approximately 50 % of the listed items by Jackson do not exist in the document.
Additionally, there are a number of solid common sense ideas that could be valuable. The entire document is not trash nor is it treasure.
Ever hear there are no dumb questions? Not every idea is dumb either.
Mark says
Need a Thumbs Down button too.
Ray W. says
While I am not agreeing with your “50%” comment (it might be closer to 45%, but then again, I just don’t know), thank you, Ed P. I have maintained on this site for years that unfettered reasoned debate based on intellectual rigor is crucial to the continued existence of our liberal democratic Constitutional republic, no matter the content of the argument of the day.
As a Hegelian and a Constitutionalist, let the debate over the overall concept of Project 2025 reach full flower. Let the hypothesis clash with the antithesis, leading to a never-ending synthesis. Years ago, I heard someone assert that the only thing that had changed in the abortion debate in the 50 years of Roe was that those who identified as “anti-abortion” now identified as “pro-life.” And those who identified as “pro-abortion” now identify as “pro-choice.” Nothing else, he claimed, had changed in those heated 50 years.
And let’s not forget the 1937 Chicago Tribune editorial column labeling the 1935 Social Security Act “communism.” That debate has been going on for nearly 90 years. I thought it was the deadly third rail of politics to challenge the Social Security Act, but maybe I am wrong. That some say Project 2025 mentions reforming it is nothing new. What could be worse than a communist social security act?
Sherry says
This from Time:
Though the proposal is not included in the Project 2025 policy book, eliminating no-fault divorce is one of the goals of many of the advisors to the project — an initiative put together by groups like the right-wing Heritage Foundation, to lay out an agenda for a second Donald Trump Presidency. And this is no isolated proposal. Newly minted Republican Vice Presidential nominee J.D. Vance has called no-fault divorce “one of the great tricks that I think the sexual revolution pulled on the American populace.”
Sherry says
Project 2025 will continue to destroy any and all abortion rights:
“The Dobbs decision [overturning Roe v Wade] is just the beginning,” Project 2025 reads. “Conservatives in the states and in Washington, including in the next conservative administration, should push as hard as possible to protect the unborn in every jurisdiction in America.”
Project 2025 takes direct aim at abortion pills, indicates that fetuses should have legal rights, and seeks to expand “surveillance” of abortion while eliminating government support for the procedure. In its architects’ view, abortion is not healthcare and should never be treated as such.
Enforce the Comstock Act
Project 2025’s most audacious proposal may be the easiest to enact: the playbook suggests that a future conservative administration enforce the Comstock Act, a 151-year-old anti-obscenity law that prohibits the mailing of abortion-related materials, to ban people from shipping abortion pills. Because abortion clinics rely on the mail to send and receive the pills, as do the advocates who help people induce their own abortions, enforcing the Comstock Act could result in a de facto national ban on medication abortion.
Reverse FDA’s approval of abortion pills
This year, the US supreme court rejected a lawsuit from anti-abortion activists who wanted to reverse the FDA’s approval of mifepristone, a common abortion pill, ruling unanimously that the activists did not have the legal standing to sue. But a Project 2025 proposal suggests avoiding the courts altogether and, instead, having the FDA reverse its 2000 approval of mifepristone altogether. That reversal would yank the drug from the market.
“Now that the supreme court has acknowledged that the constitution contains no right to an abortion, the FDA is ethically and legally obliged to revisit and withdraw its initial approval,” Roger Severino, who served as the head of Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) office of civil rights under Trump, wrote in Project 2025. Severino also suggests that, as an “interim step”, the FDA reverse guidance that allows providers to offer abortions via telemedicine – which currently accounts for 19% of all abortions nationwide.
Florida Man says
These same Republicans have no problem moving to Palm Coast, ruining it for the people who grew up here and using almost exclusively Mexican workers to build their big houses. Put your money where your mouth is, move back to your home state and use non immigrants to build your house. Then it would give you some credibility to your narrative.
Veterans have been getting the shaft since ‘Nam. Since that and every war after was just pretexts for companies like Halliburton to make money, they weren’t really defending this country, more like mercenaries for corporations. Blaming the wrong people. Iraq and the Taliban never had the ability to even hurt the US. I’m sorry your government misused you.
Lol, food stamps and public assistance are like 1% of the budget. The Military hasn’t passed an audit since 2018 and trillions have evaporated on stuff that doesn’t work like The Osprey.
The military gets the most money, yet couldn’t even stop 911. That’s like me spending a million on a home security system just to get robbed by a guy with a paper clip.
The guys whose boots you lick are the ones screwing up the finances of the country, not the poor, not women, not immigrants and minorities. Math is math.
Sherry says
Here ya go you “maga Project 2025 deniers” :
Posted by wonderful “Tony Mac” on another story. . . complete with pages numbers :
Project 2025:
The following is a partial list of proposed changes with chapter and page references. It shows how the Heritage Foundation with Trump as president plan to reshape our country. At a quick scan you can see how CAPITALISM plays a big part as they move to privatization for greed and control. This should frighten everyone.
• Privatize Social Security (c22, p715)
• Privatize veterans’ healthcare (c20, p635)
• Privatize infrastructure projects (c19, p555)
• Privatize the Federal Aviation Administration (c19, p565)
• Reduce federal disaster relief programs (c16, p610)
• Reduce funding for federal research programs (c12, p415)
• Decrease regulations in healthcare (c14, p450)
• Reduce funding for public health programs (c14, p455)
• Repeal the Affordable Care Act (c14, p460)
• Promote free-market healthcare (c14, p465)
• Dismantle the Department of Education (c11, p365)
• Reduce federal student aid (c11, p385)
• Increase private sector role in public education (c11, p390)
• Limit federal involvement in technology standards (c28, p850)
• Reduce federal government intervention in various sectors (c1, p25)
• Cut federal support for renewable energy projects (c12, p405)
• Reduce regulations by the Environmental Protection Agency (c13, p425)
• Withdraw from international climate agreements (c13, p430)
• Reduce environmental regulations on businesses (c13, p440)
• Promote energy production on federal lands (c16, p600)
• Limit the jurisdiction of federal courts (c1, p40)
• Decrease the size of the federal workforce (c3, p95)
• Restructure the Department of Homeland Security (c5, p165)
• Reform the Department of Justice (c17, p565)
• Repeal Dodd-Frank financial regulations (c27, p800)
• Abolish the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (c27, p815)
• Repeal net neutrality regulations (c28, p845)
• Eliminate the Department of Commerce (c21, p660)
• Limit federal involvement in local policing (c17, p575)
• Reduce business regulations (c18, p520)
• Reduce federal oversight of labor standards (c18, p530)
• Implement a flat tax system (c22, p700)
• Lower corporate tax rates (c22, p725)
• Restrict the powers of the Federal Reserve (c24, p770). Please feel free to copy and share