Well, the chart that Heritage posted was by the Office of Managment and Budget (which does include medicare and social security receipts), not their own numbers, so your point does not hold water in that sense. In the case from the start, it has been spending that is driving deficits, not the lack of revenues. If you have a source that points out Heritage "trims the numbers", I would like to know the source. Then, I'll send a note to them and verify. However, Brookings has the same figures in many of their charts, and they are not quite so conservative as Heritage. In another instance, a Washington Post article, (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04..., states that the Heritage Foundation actually proposed individual mandates for health care, and therefore, Obama is just following a pragmatic conservative suggestion. I wrote the Heritage Foundation to verify. Here's what I found: To: Staff Subject: To Stuart Butler, Ph.D.

Did the Heritage Foundation recommend "individual health care mandates" Back in 1994 when Hillary Clinton was trying to reform healthcare? Thank you for your email to The Heritage Foundation.

Answer: In 1994, Heritage wished to present a plausible, conservative alternative to Clinton's healthcare recommendations. At the time, we did recommend those individual mandates as that alternative. However, our experts at Heritage reconsidered that policy and found that it was not the best solution we could find. Thus, Heritage changed its approach and looked for solutions that placed more emphasis on individual responsibility. Additionally, Heritage has been working with state governments and trying to craft policies from a state level.

Thanks again for your question to Heritage. Sincerely, Andrew Vitaliti Membership Intern

So, here was my answer:

Here is the answer from the Heritage Foundation. So, your "journalist" from the Washington Post did tell the truth; the problem is that it was a half truth. As usual, supposed "journalists" tell enough of the truth to support their particular "world view". In this case, Heritage obviously reversed itself on the individual mandate position, but your buddy forgot to include this tidy little detail. I still have the paperwork (which I forwarded to Chrysler's Washington Liaison office in 1994, and in none of the major six alternative plans is there an individual mandate mentioned.

So, until you can pinpoint the source of your figures, I cannot take them seriously; although you are welcome to post the source.