RLC National Committee member Terry Nelson, a veteran law enforcement officer whose career has spanned three decades, recently testified before the El Paso City Council in Texas. Nelson, a speaker with Law Enforcement Officers Against Prohibition, is convinced the War on Drugs is a failed policy.

In January, El Paso’s City Council unanimously voted to call for an open debate on ending drug prohibition; however, the mayor vetoed the resolution. The City Council responded by calling for an override of the veto. Unfortunately, the Mayor’s veto was upheld; four of the eight council members who originally supported the resolution reversed their votes under significant federal pressure that threatened state and federal funding.

Mr. Nelson’s service includes the U.S. Border Patrol and the Department of Homeland Security. Below is his testimony.

Online forums frequented by grassroots activists are abuzz these days regarding the grassroots political movement in the states to reaffirm that our states are sovereign entities while rebuking the federal government’s over-involvement in key areas of our lives as well as mandates pushed onto the states by the federal government.

In 2009, there has already been a move among legislators in more than 25 states to push for some type of state sovereignty resolution.

Oklahoma’s sovereignty bill, which passed their House last session but got stalled in the Senate, came out of the House with near unanimous support. In the House, longtime champion of the RLC Charles Key is the author of the legislation and second-term incumbent Jason Murphey is a vocal advocate for the bill. Murphey was endorsed by the RLC in 2006 and 2008. The Senate bill is being championed by Sen. Randy Brogdon, a great friend of the RLC. “What we are trying to do is to get the U.S. Congress out of the state’s business,” said Brogdon.

The bill is currently in the Senate. Without the RLC’s strong citizen legislators in Oklahoma, this bill would never have been drafted. Rep. Murphey recently penned an editorial published in The Edmond Sun explaining his state’s sovereignty bill and linking it specifically to the unfunded mandates and massive spending in Obama’s stimulus bill.

Similarly, in New Hampshire, Dan Itse, a favorite among RLC members in the Granite State, filed a bill to affirm sovereignty in the New Hampshire House. Itse was on Fox and Friends and Glenn Beck recently to promote the bill, citing No Child Left Behind and the PATRIOT Act as examples of the federal government over-stepping its boundaries.

In Pennsylvania, Rep. Sam Rohrer, who the RLC endorsed in 2008, has been fighting against REAL ID since it passed Congress.  Rohrer cites the following examples of state sovereignty erosion:

- By collecting taxes from state residents and then using that money to compel sovereign state governments –- through the use of “strings” attached to federal funding – to implement programs and provide services in accordance with the desires of federal authorities;
- By pushing states toward financial distress by providing financial incentives to implement programs and services without supplying adequate federal funding.
- By enacting national laws that go far beyond the federal powers enumerated in the U.S. Constitution; and
- By potentially providing federal funds to fill state budget deficits, which were created, in part, through over-spending prompted by federal financial incentives to create new programs.

In Montana, the state sovereignty resolution was introduced by (among others) RLC-endorsed first-year legislators Wendy Warburton (left) and Gerry Bennett.  Aubyn Curtiss, who endorsed Ron Paul for President, is the Senate sponsor of the legislation.

Alaska, Alabama, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Nevada, and Maine may see similar measures introduced this session.

Links to the legislation: GA, MI, MO, MT, NH, OK, PA, SC, WA

Once again, political consultant John Hallman will be organizing our annual grassroots lobbying trip to Tallahassee for Florida RLC members and activists. The Florida RLC’s members will visit dozens of legislators and maybe even the governor’s office to push our issues forward, including the Taxpayer Protection Act, or TABOR (which will be introduced again this session).

- A 10th Amendment resolution on state sovereignty;
- Insurance reform (trying to fix the governor’s broken reforms);
- Property tax reform; and
- Opposition to coercive union card-check organizing.

Students are welcome to participate, too. For logistics or to RSVP, call John Hallman at 561-715-7203.

RLC members have visited the Capitol for years now.
Above is a photo of RLC members at the Capitol in 2008.

The Maine RLC Leadership Conference will be held at the Holiday Inn Conference Center in Augusta on Saturday, April 25 from 8:00 AM to 4:00 PM.

This conference will be most beneficial for future candidates and campaign managers who share a commitment in returning the GOP to its roots of protecting individual liberty and limited government.

Past and present elected officials and campaign consultants have been asked to participate. The featured speakers are Dean Scontras of the Maine Republican Project and State Rep. Richard Cebra. RLC member Vic Berardelli will discuss Effective Campaign Communication. Of course, RLC leader and former State Rep. Ken Lindell will be attending, too.

Dean Scontras recently ran for Congress in Maine’s First Congressional District. Rep. Rich Cebra is currently serving as the Cumberland County Republican Committee Chairman.  RThrough effective organizing and a grassroots turnout, he upset the establishment to elect his slate of change oriented Republicans.

The Maine RLC Leadership Conference will cover a variety of topics including grassroots organizing, campaigning, communications, and get-out-the-vote strategies.

RLC membership is not required to attend the RLC Leadership Conference. The fee is only $25. However, if registration is received with payment by March 27, you can attend at a 20% early registration discount of just $20.

Register today!

___________________________________________________________________________________________________

Draft Agenda:

7:30-8:30 A.M. REGISTRATION

8:30 a.m. WELCOME – Ken Lindell
Introduction to the Republican Liberty Caucus, Maine Chapter

9 a.m. WHAT’S AT STAKE? – Vic Berardelli
Overview of Maine-specific issues, laws and regulations which impact liberty and taxes.

9:30 a.m. COMMUNICATIONS – Vic Berardelli
It’s not what you say, but the way that you say it! Communicating in a non-threatening manner

10:15 a.m.-10:30 a.m. BREAK

10:30 a.m. MINI CAMPAIGN SCHOOL – Adam Mack
Learn the difference between an effective campaign and one that is sure to lose.  It is not just about your message. Adam Mack will teach a mini version of his superb campaign strategy and tactics course.  This is a must for anyone considering running for office.

12:30 p.m. LUNCH BREAK – Dean Scontras

2 p.m.  GRASSROOTS – Rich Cebra
Gaining trust: Community involvement in non-political organizations where one gets known as a contributor, a leader and future candidate.

3 p.m. REPUBLICAN LIBERTY CAUCUS, MAINE CHAPTER
Business session

4 p.m. ADJOURNMENT
Registration table will be open for 30 minutes following adjournment for dues payments or to join RLCME if you attended as a non-member guest.

As more governors declare their opposition to the Stimulus Bill — which is now estimated to include more than $1 trillion in unfunded mandates for the states above and beyond the initial $800 billion cost — more and more state legislators across the nation have been introducing bills to assert state sovereignty under the 10th Amendment in an effort to assert the rights of their citizens and the authority of state governments against unwarranted interference by the federal government.

Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal, Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour and Idaho Governor Butch Otter stated their support for the position against the stimulus taken by Texas Governor Rick Perry and South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford this week. Governor Sarah Palin of Alaska has been speaking publicly against the bill and when it passed her office issued a statement praising Alaska’s congressional delegation for voting against it:

“Congressman Young and Senator Murkowski did their best to achieve the right balance in the bill, but in the end the majority allowed the spending to balloon and encompass support for programs that don’t respond to the problem at hand.”

Meanwhile, Governor Palin made the bizarrely optimistic suggestion that President Obama should Veto the bill to five lawmakers a chance to at least read the bill and specifically citing the problem for the states in the huge amount of unfunded mandates in the bill.

The push for state sovereignty laws has really gone nationwide. Texas has gotten on board with a bill submitted this week with six sponsors. It is basically the same as the Oklahoma resolution rather than the more radical New Hampshire resolution, which gives it a better chance of passage. Texas is a big state, and having it in the fight adds a lot of serious weight.

Although it is not yet confirmed on their legislature’s website, the story is circulating that Tennessee is the first state to pass a sovereignty resolution through both of its legislative houses, in only 2 days from its introduction on Wednesday. Their version is a non-binding resolution which doesn’t require the governor’s signature or have the force of law, but it is a significant statement nonetheless.

In Pennsylvania, State Representative Sam Rohrer is leading the charge, and has made a very impassioned video statement which lays out exactly what the problem is and urges other states to join him in reasserting their sovereignty and rejecting federal mandates, stressing the very real concern that the spendthrift federal government will take the fiscally responsible states down with them.

There’s also news from Oklahoma, where a quick phonecall to State Representative Charles Key confirms that the sovereignty resolution which he got through the house last year was approved unanimously by the rules committee and on Wednesday was passed by the Oklahoma House by a 83-13 majority and may be voted on by the state Senate as early as next week, with high hopes of passage.

Missouri, as always, is marching to its own radically conservative drummer, with a state sovereignty bill up for consideration which is unique in that it specifically takes exception to the pro-abortion proposed federal Freedom of Choice law. This is conceptually similar to the bills being considered in Indiana, Wyoming and Oregon which reassert state sovereignty with a special emphasis on gun owners rights in response to a bill currently being considered in the House of Representatives to require licensing of all firearms nationwide.

Because of these articles a lot of concerned citizens are contacting me from various different states about what their states are doing. Sources in Maine inform me that they have also had a sovereignty bill proposed, but because of the structure of their legislative session it likely won’t even be looked at for months. A sovereignty bill was introduced in Minnesota on Thursday as HF997. Arkansas joined in with a bill in its state House of Representatives on Friday morning as well.

Some states have yet to get state legislators on board and are trying alternative methods. In Florida there is a pettition which will be submitted to the state legislature, which may not sit terribly well will stimulus-embracing Governor Charlie Crist. In Massachusets under a provision of their state constitution any citizen can request that a legislator submit a bill on their behalf. Ron Bokleman is struggling to get his bill, which is a version of the New Hampshire bill, past bureaucratic red tape so that it will actually be considered by the legislature. One correspondent also pointed out that a number of states passed or at least considered sovereignty bills in the past, starting with the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions authored by Madison and Jefferson back in 1799, but with some much more recent, like Utah’s 1995 bill which passed their House, a reminder that concern over unfunded mandates isn’t new, though it’s growing ever more critical.

It now looks as if at least half the states will have some sort of sovereignty bill up for consideration this year. Combine that with governors and legislators who are worried about how they’ll ever be able to pay for the massive unfunded mandates included in the so-called stimulus bill, and you have a volatile rift developing between the relatively fiscally responsible and citizen-friendly state governments and the incredibly fiscally irresponsible and increasingly autocratic government in Washington, DC. If we stand together and make our voices heard, we can stop further federal stimulus and bailout spending. If we can reassert control by 2010 we can stop at least two thirds of the current stimulus money from ever being spent. It’s time to storm the gates of power and let our elected leaders know that we do not want to see our country bankrupted and driven into socialism out of desperation and expediency.

The agenda for the National RLC convention, March 27-29, is taking shape and it mirrors the RLC’s commitment to principle and practical politics.

Dr. Lawrence W. Reed, president of the Foundation for Economic Education, and recent Florida Speaker Marco Rubio will address the combined state and national convention at the convention banquet on Saturday night.

Lawrence W. Reed, president of FEE

Reed will tackle the most pressing issue facing our nation, the economic crisis, with a talk titled “Great Myths of the Great Depression.” In it, he highlights the role of inflation and the Federal Reserve in the boom and then the counter-productive New Deal during the bust.

This is an important and timely talk and RLCers are encouraged to invite their friends and family to attend the banquet. Stand-alone tickets are available for the event.

The Foundation for Economic Education was the first libertarian think tank in the nation and remains among the foremost institutions advancing the Austrian economics tradition of Ludwig von Mises and F.A. Hayek.

Before assuming leadership of FEE, Reed led the Mackinac Center for Public Policy to its current position as the largest and most effective state policy think tanks in the nation and a model for Florida’s James Madison Institute.

Rubio, a likely candidate for the U.S. Senate, will discuss his plans and vision for the state and nation. He is best known for his book 100 Innovative Ideas for Florida’s Future, which he compiled by asking Floridians for policy ideas.

As a State Representative and then House Speaker, Rubio championed a smaller-government approach, in contrast with other elements of the Republican-controlled state government led by Gov. Charlie Crist.

Other speakers may also include Ivan Osorio, editorial director of the Competitive Enterprise Institute; Mark Cross, Florida director of the Campaign for Liberty; Matt Falconer, author of Building a Better Local Government; Larry Pratt of Gun Owners of America; Allen Douglas of the National Federation of Independent Businesses; and RLC member John Hallman of the Florida Taxpayers Union.

You can register online for the 2009 RLC National Convention at www.rlcfl.org.

This week, the cover of Newsweek made the claim “We Are All Socialists Now,” promoting an article which makes the argument that the United States is moving inevitably towards becoming more and more like a Eurosocialist state, even painting the unappealing picture of a future of soft and pervasive socialism combined with a continued trend towards moral conservatism. I don’t think they’re necessarily wrong in identifying this trend, but I think they are engaging in wishful thinking when they play up the inevitability and popularity of this development.

The underlying misunderstanding in the article and which I saw repeated several times on the Sunday morning talk shows, is that the American right and the Republican party are to some degree ready to accept socialism because so much of it got implemented by President Bush in what they described as a “conservative Republican administration,” particularly in reference to the quasi-nationalization of financial institutions in the TARP bailout bill. I’ve seen this misconception repeated a lot over the last few years in the media and on the left, where there is this firm and inexplicable conviction that Bush was a hardcore conservative. Certainly if you asked most Republicans and anyone who is in the far right, Bush was not a conservative on social or fiscal issues. At best he was equivocal on social issues and moderate on fiscal issues. Watching from my perspective on the libertarian wing of the GOP this was always obvious, but one would think that it would be clear even to the often-muddleheaded media given the soft and often disposable nature of conservative principles in the Bush administration’s policies.

Yes, Bush talked a very conservative line and pandered to conservative interest groups, but his hallmark was not following through on those promises. To anyone watching from the right this was obvious, and it was equally clear that the decision to support Bush and later McCain, who had many of the same problems, was made reluctantly in the belief that even if they compromised on some principles they were still better than the alternative. It’s even a sign of how utterly opposed to creeping socialism the core of the right is that they were willing to accept Bush and McCain, suggesting that they saw the threat of socialism as so serious that they were willing to turn to almost anyone they thought could slow its progress.

Throughout his years in office there were constant examples which made clear how unconservative Bush really was and how willing he was to give lip service to principles he didn’t really believe in. One classic example came during the 2004 election when there was a huge pro-life rally on the national mall. Bush, the supposed hardline social conservative born again Christian, didn’t walk or drive the mile or so to go address that rally of fervent supporters. Instead he sent them a brief and generic video message which was essentially an insincere smile and meaningless thumbs-up, enough to keep their votes but at the same time showing clearly that he wasn’t all that eager to be seen with a bunch of religious fanatics.

The Iraq war was another huge, glaring example. The left and the media assume that because the war involved a buildup of the military that somehow made it a conservative policy. Yet if you look at the goals and accomplishments of the war, it was an example of an almost Wilsonian foreign policy of missionary diplomacy, where American wealth and resources and military power were used primarily to spread liberal ideas and provide freedom and democracy to a foreign nation with the goal of creating a new partner in a chaotic part of the world who would help us spread the principles of liberal civilization. Bush’s coalition was made up mostly of nations who still cling to idea building an international community of liberalism and those who opposed the war were mostly those nations who have moved from liberalism to socialism.

Other examples abound like the halfheartedness of Bush’s attempts to reform Social Security and his No Child Left Behind initiative, but if your memory can stretch back to Bush’s first term, it becomes clear that most of the really conservative policies like substantial tax cuts and such limited reduction of government programs as was undertaken originated in Congress and not in the Bush White House. Bush had things he wanted, like the Iraq War, and he was willing to give Democrats and porker Republicans almost anything to get them behind his pet programs.

There’s also very little conservative about the TARP bailout. It represents an alliance between the Bush administration and their friends in the financial sector and the Democrats in Congress. While Bush may have supported it, in fact TARP was overwhelmingly opposed by Republican legislators. Only 18 Republicans in the House voted for it. 90% of Republicans voted against it. The breakdown was similar in the Senate with almost all Republicans opposing it. What’s more, TARP was not the beginning of this break between the administration and Republicans and Conservatives in the grassroots and in elective office. While conservatives wholeheartedly supported Bush on issues like cutting taxes, none of his budgets passed with unanimous approval, and when his final budget was voted on in 2008 it received not one Republican vote in the House and only 2 in the Senate, passing exclusively on Democrat support. Bush signed it, demonstrating that for all practical purposes he had become a rubber stamp for the policies of the left at the same time that legislators had begun to respond to the outrage within the GOP and on the right.

Critics in the media and Democratic spokesmen are making the self-serving argument, as David Axelrod did on Meet the Press, that the beliefs of Republicans are represented by the policies of the last 8 years, or that it ought to be okay with Republicans and conservatives to pass the Stimulus Bill because Bush signed the TARP bill, or that massive spending on the Iraq War excuses massive spending on other programs. What they choose not to understand is that on these issues the vast majority of the political right and eventually even the majority of Republicans in Congress did not actually agree with the Bush administration, vocally opposed his excessive spending and wanted to break the unholy alliance with the left which made it possible. By the end of his administration the split between Bush and the right was complete and clearly represented in votes on spending legislation.

Now that Bush is gone, trying to pin his policies on Republicans who overwhelmingly opposed them and to claim that we’ve demonstrated a willingness to accept the socialism which is being promoted by congressional Democrats and which was rubber stamped by Bush is grossly deceptive. We may be in the minority, but those who oppose socialism and still stand for freedom and smaller government never really supported Bush, do not accept the blame for his bad policies, especially those towards the end of his term when he worked with the Democrats, and are not going to be told that they have to support Obama when he perpetuates the same mistakes and irresponsible spending which Bush engaged in.

In Bush we gave the Democrats a Republican they could live with and after eight years it became clear that it was a mistake to make that compromise. Bush is gone and is now an object lesson, and all we have left are our principles. It’s time to stand by those principles and remind the people that Obama is just repeating Bush’s mistakes and that we didn’t support them then and don’t support them now. We are not socialists and we will not be socialists and we will continue to fight for America to be a nation which represents the principles of liberty, responsibility and prosperity on which it was founded.

In a short and insightful article on Blogcritics, Kenn Jacobine has uncovered something which the media and all the blog pundits seem to have missed. There is a report from economists led by Timothy Kehoe which was commissioned by the Federal Reserve and uses solid historical research to show very convincingly that government overreaction with things like bailouts and massive stimulus spending is directly responsible for turning recessions into depressions.

Working with examples going back to the 1980s these economists show how countries like Mexico and Japan which followed the Keynesian model and responded to recessions with the same kind of panic spending our government is currently engaging in, prolonged recessions and turned them in to long, slow economic depressions. In contrast countries like Chile and Finland which responded in ways which were harsher in the short term but more fiscally responsible, which shut down businesses and banks and let people go bankrupt, ended up recovering quickly and having much stronger long-term economies.

That this study could have been commissioned and published by the Federal Reserve and be for sale on their website while they utterly ignore its findings and continue to advise more deficit spending and bailouts is the height of stupidity and incompetence. To remind them of this, the authors have just released a short version of their report which is a must read for anyone concerned about our economic future. Their conclusion really says it all:

“Studying the experience of countries that have experienced great depressions during the twentieth century teaches us that massive public interventions in the economy to maintain employment and investment during a financial crisis can, if they distort incentives enough, lead to a great depression.”

That we should have spent trillions and are preparing to spend trillions more on a policy which history demonstrates is dead wrong, is inexcusable and unforgivable.

According to the Evening Sun, Governor Ed Rendell (D-PA) is working to consolidate over 500 of Pennsylvania’s school districts down to 100 districts. According to Rendell, “Almost everyone agrees that Pennsylvania has far too many school districts … we just don’t need that many school districts, and, more importantly, in today’s economy we cannot afford them.” Gov. Rendell is going to create a Commission to hash out the details of the plan, but if lawmakers reject the plans of that Commission, the state Board of Education has been given the authority to consolidate districts.

I disagree. More districts is better for several reason. First, fewer districts gives the federal and state governments more control over local districts — an idea that libertarians believe will fundamentally result in more failed schools.  Then there is the obvious point that local teachers and parents know much more about local students than students being bused across the county or than state bureaucrats. Of course, there will also be additional burdens on local taxpayers.

As longtime RLC activist Jeff Palmer recently wrote, “A fundamental pillar of freedom is that power should be entrusted to the level of government closest to the people. A school board of a small district must be responsive to the voters; a school board of a large district is more insulated from its constituents and is typically beholden to unions, building contractors, and other large special interests.”

Keep in mind that, until the 1840s, American education was not a system at all, but a disjointed collection of local, regional, and usually private institutions.

In 2009, our federal Department of Education has a budget of over $56 billion annually. Under George W. Bush, the Department primarily focused on elementary and secondary education, expanding its reach through the “No Child Left Behind” law. The Department’s budget increased 69.6% between 2002 and 2004. However, an overwhelming majority of teachers oppose the law.

In 1996, the Republican Party made abolition of the Department a cornerstone of their campaign promises, calling it an inappropriate federal intrusion into local, state, and family affairs. The GOP platform read: “The Federal government has no constitutional authority to be involved in school curricula or to control jobs in the market place. This is why we will abolish the Department of Education, end federal meddling in our schools, and promote family choice at all levels of learning.”

This school district merger plan in Pennsylvania is another move toward central planning; it’s bad news for taxpayers, teachers, district administrators, and — most importantly — children who desperately need to learn.