Well, your statement that Heritage, whether you agree with their stance or not, is a research arm of the Republican Party, shows your biase flagrantly. I supposed when they "bashed Bush" in several articles and position papers in the early 2000's that was the research arm of the Republican Party - right? Here's one example of many whether you agree or not is irrelevant the proposition at hand:

http://blog.heritage.org/2008/12/30/bushs-betrayal-of-free-m...

For the sake of space I won't include the whole list, but I can tell you, Heritage vehemently disagreed with Bush on the No Child Left Behind Program, on the Medicare Part D program (which Heritage CORRECTLY forecasted would cost three times what the CBO and Bush said it would), and on overall increases in government spending and government reach. What this shows is your total "lack" of objectivity in evaluating their position and it also underscores your "unfortunate ignorance" of the entity. To say they are the "research arm of the Republican Party" shows you don't read their stuff, don't consider their stuff, and only read or listen to people who don't read or study their conclusions either. If you did, you would NEVER make such a ludicrous and myopic statement. That is like me saying, The Brookings Institution (which I do read their stuff too) is the research arm of the Democratic Party! That would be a ludicrous and myopic statement as well. While I may disagree with their stuff (some of which I have posted and supported by the way!), I do think they make the honest effort to research and support their conclusions. CATO does too though a different flavor. There is a difference between an opinion piece and an honest effort to examine data.