Much of what President Obama said tonight was true. It is true that mortgages were lent to those who could not afford them. It is true that companies are shipping jobs overseas and at the same time receiving tax breaks. It is true that with the death of Osama Bin Laden and numerous Al Qaeda leaders, America is much safer. And it is true that millions of new jobs have been created since he took office.

The positives may sound good when you phrase them as such. But the grim reality is that the problems America faces are so significant, that the good things that have happened under this administration are eclipsed. While these jobs were being created, millions of jobs were being eliminated. We still have fewer jobs than when the president took office. And whether he likes to admit it or not, his own policies have played a part in this anemic growth.

EPA regulations piled on by this administration have cost us over 5% of our GDP, and that’s just one federal department of many. The Dodd-Frank financial regulation bill will cost $30 billion that we don’t have. The Small Business Administration estimates that the compliance cost of our current regulatory environment is $1.75 trillion per year. President Obama alone cannot be blamed for this, as his predecessors and those in Congress passed many of these regulations prior to 2009.

The president failed to mention that government programs incentivized lending of mortgages to those who could not afford them. Federal laws demanded banks loosen their restrictions or face legal action. The Federal Reserve further incentivized banks to comply by offering them easy credit. They lowered interest rates causing investors to put their money into long term projects and many focused on residential construction.

With his re-appointment of Ben Bernanke to chair the Federal Reserve System, this inflationary policy of unnaturally and artificially low interest rates has continued. The Fed has injected trillions of dollars into our economy under this administration, money which is not backed by matching economic growth or a significant demand for US dollars. This has caused the value of our currency to drop, and commodities such as gasoline have jumped in price as a result of a speculative bubble.

President Obama could have partially alleviated this problem by promoting domestic drilling for oil and the construction of new refineries, while we wait for science to develop inexpensive renewable energy. Instead, he has chosen to stand in the way of domestic oil production, while we continue to send billions of dollars to the Saudi elite, and turn a blind eye as they send that money to violent, theocratic institutions all over the world. He turned down the Keystone oil pipeline which would run from our largest supplier of oil—Canada—to the world’s most high-tech refineries in Houston.

It would have created tens of thousands of new jobs, including many for union workers that support Obama enthusiastically. They have been denied this opportunity in favor of capitulating to a lobby of environmental zealots known for its dishonesty in promoting its agenda.

The president covered a topic that I have focused much of my attention on in recent years: education. While he briefly touted the importance of returning control to local communities and schools, the other solutions he proposed are not only wrong, but they would further damage a K-12 system that is already a miserable failure at meeting the needs of the 21st century economy.

The president proposed forcing students to stay in school until they are 18 and claimed this would improve overall education. With all due respect, this is dead wrong. We have to get out of this ‘everyone gets a trophy’ mentality and realize that some children just will not learn. By forcing them to stay in school they hold back those of our children who have the drive to succeed. It is sad and politically incorrect to mention this, but it is true.

It has been mentioned in the writings of Jim Blockey, a reform school teacher from Las Vegas, I’ve discussed it with Robert Mansfield of Pennsylvania; a man born to a drug-addicted mother who grew up on the streets of Philadelphia with nothing and who rose to success when he returned to school, got his GED and joined the Army where he rose to the rank of Sergeant.I have heard even more examples from my friends who attended failing government schools in the inner cities of Ohio.

Although early childhood education in this country is world class, by the time our children reach high school, students in European countries like Belgium beat us on a number of metrics. Students in Japan, South Korea and Singapore blow us out of the water. China isn’t messing around either. They are targeting their most skilled students and placing them into advanced programs. When those students come to our universities they trounce their American peers in mathematics and natural sciences, and then our broken immigration system forces them to return to China and use the skills that we taught them against us in the global economy. A better system would incentivize and enable them to become Americans, and grow our economy instead.

The Belgians and the Japanese emphasize on the importance of school choice and privatization of education. And the British and the Japanese both emphasize on the important of the individual. Their programs are customized to fit the abilities of each student. In Japan, education is mandatory till around 15 years of age, at which they get their equivalent of our GED. Their upper-tier secondary schools are optional, and yet over 95% of Japanese students continue their education beyond the mandatory requirements. These programs are customized as either vocational education or preparation for university.

And one third of these schools are private!

In Great Britain, when you are 16, you can stay in the system, go to a trade school, or if you are smart enough go straight to college. Some states have adopted similar programs right here in America, where gifted students can achieve associates degrees upon graduating. I propose that we don’t waste their time teaching things they don’t need in the career they want.

We need to take heed to what the Belgians, the British and especially our Japanese friends have done. We shouldn’t mandate education to 18; we should eliminate the high school diploma and require a GED at the end of what is currently 9th grade as they do in Japan. Then make tenth through twelfth grade a customizable and optional program. Let students have choices of vocational programs, college preparatory programs, and if they are skilled enough, let them go straight to college. Provide a system that can ensure our 18 year olds truly are adults by giving them the marketable skills they need to make a living wage instead of mooching off of mom and dad into their twenties.

The status quo is unacceptable! And it fosters this sort of environment. To those who are worried about the students who wouldn’t go to school beyond their GED, they can always take the unskilled labor jobs and then work their way up the ladder or choose to continue their education at a later time in life. What makes such a system work so well is that the market will determine what skills are needed and relevant programs will be supplied.

This one-size-fits-all everyone-needs-to-go-to-college mentality is causing us to fall behind the competition. It is creating an education bubble that will inevitably burst. Many of these college degrees are becoming useless, rendering starting salaries that are not significantly higher than a high school diploma. The focus must be on marketable skills. General education is never a bad thing and should be viewed as a virtue, but it can only go so far.

The best possible system we can provide for our children is a system of individual choice, with a supply of curriculum determined by the market economy’s demand. A system that empowers parents, rewards the best students, and the best teachers, and yes—a system that discourages and reprimands failure.

The president went on to claim that college tuition is too high, and if it continues to rise he will pull subsidies from those universities. He’s right to acknowledge the avarice of our university system: costing its students thousands in waste on unnecessary programs and fees that should either be privately funded or purchased a la carte at the individual level.

Yet, he fails to understand the prime reason why tuition has risen at twice the rate of inflation and four times the wage rate. The federal government’s guarantee of all student loans has given greedy academics and administrators an opportunity that they would not have in a free market. They have constantly jacked up their prices, knowing that the government would credit the money to them no matter what, and the students would get stuck with the bill.

In the state of today’s economy, no one between the ages of 18 and 22 with the exception of military, civil service and a few lucky kids who invested from their teen years would be able to apply for a loan at a bank to pay over $10,000 a year for full-time tuition and living expense financing unless they had either a parent or credit-worthy friend co-sign for them. I know because I borrow primarily from a credit union to finance my education. Without a co-signer I likely would not have been approved, and if I was approved, my interest rate would be over 10%.

But the government federally guarantees many financial options for students who have little to no credit history. This has allowed the universities to set their tuition and fees well above a true market rate. In a free market where the finance was out of pocket or credit-based, they could not do this. Their classrooms would sit empty at those prices, and they would go bankrupt. Ending the federal department of education would quickly slash tuition prices in half, and prices would finally begin to increase in conjunction with wages and inflation.

When my father went to college in the 1970s, you borrowed directly from the school. A full-time summer job was enough to cover a year’s tuition and much of your living expenses at a state university. My father came here a poor immigrant, went to a small private college, and worked part time as a manual laborer. He graduated on time and with two years of debt.

My generation has not been so lucky.

This achievement by my father is the American Dream that we should want for all of our children, and it is morally wrong to deny them the benefits of a free market where they have the power to control their own destinies.

The message of class envy is dividing us and acting against the interests of that dream. Claiming that a job creating class is not paying their fair share when the top 1% of earners pay nearly 40% of the income taxes and the top 10% pay 70% of income taxes is ludicrous. But loopholes favoring one business over another certainly must go.

Our country needs a fairer, flatter tax. We need low rates for all, but we need few to no deductions. Compliance with our current tax laws cost American businesses nearly half a trillion dollars every year. Corporate taxes only make up 9% of our federal revenue yet their punitive nature begs the question: are they really worth it? What if the economic growth that was unleashed as a result of their elimination put so many people back to work, that the income tax revenue increased not only to offset that 9%, but to surpass it?

President Obama mentioned that companies are receiving tax breaks while they offshore jobs, and he mentioned the importance of incentivizing them with tax breaks to bring those jobs back here. There are over one trillion American dollars sitting overseas because investors don’t want it to be taxed by both the foreign country and the United States upon its return. Presidential candidate Ron Paul, former candidate Herman Cain, and myself all support a common sense solution to this problem.

I call upon President Obama to eliminate taxes on all foreign money repatriated into the U.S. economy. Let these corporations and businesspeople know that if they use that money to create American jobs, they can bring it back tax free! This is something that everyone should get behind! One trillion dollars is a lot of money with the potential to create millions of new jobs. If the president and both parties in congress are serious about restoring this economy to greatness, then a bill will be brought up and soon eliminating the repatriation tax, and President Obama will not hesitate to sign it.

There is too much at stake here to play class warfare politics. If government stole the entire net worth of every billionaire on the planet, not just in the U.S., it would total up to $4.5 trillion. Under this administration, the national debt has increased by over $5 trillion . We have debt because we spend too much, not because we tax too little. Both parties are to blame. We cannot afford our so-called entitlement system as is and we cannot afford a foreign policy of being the world’s policeman.

Now that we are out of Iraq President Obama said he wants to take that money, spend half of it to pay down the debt and half to build our own infrastructure. What he failed to mention was that there are no actual savings from the end of the Iraq War. We borrowed and printed money to finance our operations there and continue to do so in Afghanistan. There is no sudden influx of revenue we can use to pay down the debt, there is only a smaller deficit.

The President must realize that this is a Now or Never moment to prevent our country from going the way of many great empires in history, destroying itself under massive debt from an affluent society at home and a thinly spread militarism.

Do not give up on bipartisanship, Mr. President. Despite the differences between you and the Republicans, you can still get started on these things. Take a look at the recommendations of the Erskine-Bowles commission. Find the things in there that you and the Republicans can agree on, and immediately pass them. It will not be the end-all-be-all solution, but it is far better than doing nothing.

We owe it to future generations to actually build them a future. I understand the pressures of an election cycle, Mr. President. But the best way to get reelected is to do right by the American people. Embracing the free-market, ending corporatism, foreign nation building, and unsustainable benefit programs is the only way to save the American Dream.

Thank you, and God Bless America!

————————————————————————————————

Aaron Alghawi is finishing his B.S. in Economics at Texas A&M University; he is a board member and Director of Student Outreach for the Republican Liberty Caucus.

Barry Hinckley Represents the Kind of Leader We Need to Restore the Principles of the Republican Party

AUSTIN, TX – At their most recent meeting the National Board of the Republican Liberty Caucus voted unanimously to endorse Barry Hinckley in the Senatorial campaign in Rhode Island.  He received the highest praise of the board and is their first selection for endorsmeent in the 2012 election cycle.  Hinckley is an excellent advocate for the principles of limited government and individual liberty to which the Republican Liberty Caucus is dedicated.

“Rhode Island has a unique history as a bastion of liberty and free thought, dating back to its founding by Roger Williams,” said RLC National Chairman Dave Nalle.  “Those ideas inspired the creation of the Republican Party and I believe that Barry Hinckley is a leader who can help restore the party to those principles of limited government and individual liberty. He is dedicated to giving the people of Rhode Island a real voice in Washington.  He is exactly the kind of Senator we need to send to DC to work with our 2010 endorsees like Mike Lee (UT) and Rand Paul (KY).”

“Taking back the Senate is a key goal for Republicans in 2012, but it’s only a victory if we elect the right kinds of Republicans – ones who are pledged to serving the people and not special interests,” observed  RLC Director Bill Westmiller.  “Barry Hinckley represents a new generation of Republican leaders who will govern based on principle tempered by pragmatism and who will roll back federal spending, end the cycle of uncontrolled debt and stand up for the rights of the people.”

Following on the election of more than two-dozen RLC endorsees to the House and Senate in 2010, the RLC has set a goal of doubling that number in the 2012 election. With a larger core of newly elected, principled representatives in Washington we can swing the debate away from the big government status quo and crony capitalism and towards the government of citizen legislators our founders intended.

In 1774 John Adams wrote that the revolution had been completed “in the minds of the people” before conflict ever broke out, and we believe that a similar revolution in attitude is taking place in the United States today. The people are no longer content to sit idly by and accept the dictates of an out of control government. We demand the restorations of our liberties and real accountability, and if we do not get it we will keep voting out complacent and unresponsive office holders until they get the message.

—

More information on the Barry Hinckley campaign can be found at http://www.hinckleyforsenate.com/

Republican Liberty Caucus Endorses Brian K. Hill in Connecticut Senate Race
Brian Hill Represents the Kind of Leader We Need to Restore the Republican Party

AUSTIN, TX – At their most recent meeting the National Board of the Republican Liberty Caucus selected Connecticut Senatorial candidate Brian K. Hill as one of their first endorsees for the 2012 election season.  Hill is an oustanding candidate who represents the principles of limited government and individual liberty to which the Republican Liberty Caucus is dedicated.

“The party establishment in Connecticut has put forward two candidates in this Senate race who represent only the interestes of big government and crony capitalists,” said RLC National Chairman Dave Nalle.  “Brian Hill is a real grassroots alternative with solid credentials and innovative ideas.  He is dedicated to giving the people of his state a real voice in Washington.  He is exactly the kind of Senator we need to send to DC to work with our 2010 endorsees like Mike Lee (UT) and Rand Paul (KY).”

“Brian Hill is a champion of individual liberty and limited government who will not give ground on fundamental principles and will hold both the Democrats and our own party leadership accountable for their failures,” observed  RLC Vice-Chairman Ed Lopez-Reyes.  “He will take up the serious work of rolling back federal spending, ending the cycle of uncontrolled debt and speaking up for the rights and interests of the people of their states.”

Following on the election of more than two-dozen RLC endorsees to the House and Senate in 2010, the RLC has set a goal of doubling that number in the 2012 election. With a larger core of newly elected, principled representatives in Washington we can swing the debate away from the big government status quo and towards putting the best interests of the people first.

In 1774 John Adams wrote that the revolution had been completed “in the minds of the people” before conflict ever broke out, and we believe that a similar revolution in attitude is taking place in the United States today. The people are no longer content to sit idly by and accept the dictates of an out of control government. We demand the restorations of our liberties and real accountability, and if we do not get it we will keep voting out complacent and unresponsive office holders until they get the message.

—

More information on the Brian K. Hill campaign can be found at http://briankhill.com/

Rep. Amash has had his position in the 2012 election weakened by a redistricting plan designed to strengthen the positions of big-government incumbents in his state by transferring some of his voters to their districts and saddling him with more Democrat votes. It’s still a very winnable district, but he needs all the help he can get.

The key to winning elections for liberty candidates when fighting the entrenched system of perpetual incumbency is to raise money from outside of a single district and to reach out to Liberty Republicans all over the nation for support. With Ron Paul retiring we need to hold on to every seat we can. I don’t do this often, but I’m sending out a plea to Republican Liberty Caucus members and supporters nationwide to do what they can to help keep Justin Amash in Congress.

The best way to donate is through his 48-hour moneybomb which ends tomorrow. You can donate at AmashforCongress.com.

As a nation we’re in well over our heads and this is not the time to take on more debt. We don’t have to raise the debt ceiling and despite the fearmongering holding the line on debt will not lead to default or disaster or other negative consequences. All we have to do is make the cuts our government can easily afford as we go. Government revenue will keep coming in at more than 85% of what they want to spend and all they have to do is limit their spending to that level, paying interest on the debt first so we don’t hurt our credit rating. It just takes a little leadership with some backbone.

We urge you to write or call your Senators and Representatives to encourage them to vote against raising the debt ceiling. You can copy and paste the text below and send that to them, or modify it or replace it with your own thoughts. Use the link at the end to find the addresses to email or to get the phone number for their offices.

Dear Senator/Representative X:

I want our government to live within its means the same way that I have to. It doesn’t make any sense to spend more than it takes in through tax and other revenues. Just adding on more debt isn’t the answer and will lead to a ballooning debt which will become harder and harder to pay back. Government needs to tighten its belt the same way that citizens are with fewer jobs and higher prices.

Please. Instead of raising the debt ceiling, take the lead among your colleagues in calling for immediate ongoing spending reductions to keep spending within the limits of available revenue. Pay the service on the debt first, then necessary entitlements like medicare and social security and then prioritize the rest of the spending based on real need. There are so many things which government does which we can live without or do ourselves or through our state governments, it shouldn’t be hard to find places to save. You might start by looking at our current overseas wars, agricultural subsidies and the Departments of Energy, Homeland Security and Commerce.

The days of irresponsible government in this country have to be over. The people want less government, not more, and we are no longer willing to pay such a high price for services we never asked for. We want a return to Thomas Jefferson’s idea of “a wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned.”

I hope I can count on you to justify my past and future support by taking the lead in holding the line on debt and putting our government back on the right track.

Sincerely,

YOUR NAME

Just click on this link to find contact info for your representatives.

• In Peach Pundit, Georgia RLC Chair Travis Bowden argues that a proposed shift in power violates the Georgia Constitution in “The Role of the Lt. Governor“;

• At her blog, Nebraska RLC Chair Laura Ebke opines that having both Ron Paul and Gary Johnson in the presidential race is a good idea.

• In NH Insider, New Hampshire RLC Chairman Andrew Hemingway argues that Republicans should end their typical view of government and instead adopt a new perspective;

• At RedState, Wisconsin RLC Chair Mike Murphy’s efforts to rescind a promise between Democrat and Republican incumbent politicians has been exposed as a result of his tireless work.

Our RLC state chapters are busy building momentum for electoral successes in 2012. Please get involved today!

Laura Ebke says its beneficial to have two liberty candidates in the 2012 GOP race.

Raise your hand if you support torture.

“We don’t have a king today, but, unfortunately, I think we’re drifting to a point that our big government is king — and the government tells us what we can do and be responsible for us. And, if we don’t have a house, they’ll give us a house. If we don’t have education, they’ll give us free education. If we’re hungry, we get food stamps. And deficits don’t matter. And if you need money, you print the money. And we have this moral obligation to police the world. It goes on and on … the king will take care of us.”

Released last week, the Paul Ryan budget has been praised by some conservatives. Many on the left have said Ryan’s plan is unfair to the elderly and the poor — who would also be affected by Ryan’s approach to Medicare and Medicaid — and benefits corporate interests and the wealthy. Ryan’s budget is set to pass the GOP-controlled House this week.

Paul, who will turn 76 this summer, said Ryan’s plan doesn’t go nearly far enough toward dismantling the welfare state. “We are dealing with a problem in Washington as a budgetary accounting problem and that’s not it. It’s a philosophy problem. What is the philosophy of government? What should the role of government be?”

The Congressman went on to question the role of government in the economy and welfare system. “(Paul) Ryan doesn’t reject (the) notion (of a government-run welfare system). I do.”

Congressman Paul also criticized spending on “maintaining our empire” and “being the policeman of the world.”

“All great societies have ended for foreign policy reasons,” Paul said. “That’s what brought the Soviets down.” Paul, a likely 2012 Presidential candidate, said he also opposes raising the nation’s federal debt limit.

The Republican Liberty Caucus of Wisconsin has been critical of Congressman Paul Ryan for his previous support of Big Government.

• The largest spending cut in U.S. history. The agreement will immediately cut $38.5 billion in federal spending – the largest spending cut in American history in terms of dollars – just months after President Obama asked Congress for a spending “freeze” that would result in no cuts.

• Hundreds of billions in spending cuts over the next decade. The agreement will cut hundreds of billions of dollars from the federal budget over the next decade – “real money,” as the Wall Street Journal editorial board recently noted.

• An end to the “Stimulus” Spending Binge. The agreement begins to reverse the “stimulus” spending binge that began in 2009 – signaling the official end of a period of unprecedented government intervention that former Federal Reserve Board Chairman Alan Greenspan and other economists say hurt job creation in America by crowding out private investment.

• Guarantees Senate Vote on Repeal of Obamacare. The agreement reached with Senate Democrats guarantees a Senate debate and vote on legislation that would repeal President Obama’s government takeover of health care in its entirety. The House passed such legislation in January as part of the Pledge to America.

• New Tools in the Fight to Repeal Obamacare. The agreement will generate new tools for the fight to repeal Obamacare by requiring numerous studies that will force the Obama Administration to reveal the true impact of the law’s mandates, including a study of how individuals and families will see increased premiums as a result of certain Obamacare mandates; a full audit of all the waivers that the Obama Administration has given to firms and organizations – including unions – who can’t meet the new annual coverage limits; a full audit of what’s happening with the comparative effectiveness research funding that was in Obamacare and the president’s failed “stimulus” spending bill; and a report on all of the contractors who have been hired to implement the law and the costs to taxpayers of such contracts.

• Denial of Additional Funding to the IRS. The Obama administration has sought increased federal funding for the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) – money that could be used to hire additional agents to enforce the administration’s agenda on a variety of issues. This increased funding is denied in the agreement.

• A Guarantee of Senate Vote and Debate On Defunding Planned Parenthood.  The agreement with Senate Democrats guarantees a Senate debate and vote on legislation that would end federal funding for Planned Parenthood.

• Ban of Taxpayer-Funded Abortion in DC. The agreement includes a complete ban on federal funding of abortion in the District of Columbia, applying the pro-life principles of the Hyde Amendment (“D.C. Hyde”).

• Mandatory Audits of the New Job-Crushing Bureaucracy Set Up Under Dodd-Frank. The agreement subjects the so-called Consumer Financial Protection Bureau created by the job-destroying Dodd-Frank law to yearly audits by both the private sector and the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to monitor its impact on the economy, including its impact on jobs, by examining whether sound cost-benefit analyses are being used with rulemakings.

WASHINGTON, DC — Speaking for thousands of grassroots activists nationwide, Dave Nalle, Chairman of the Republican Liberty Caucus, advised lawmakers not to compromise on the budget or to expect to be held accountable.

“Republicans who were elected to significantly cut the size of government should listen to the will of the people — or expect to be held accountable in the next election,” said Nalle.  “The proposed cuts are too little and too late and further compromise with Democrat politicians who are not serious about downsizing government will betray the results of last November’s elections.  If standing up for fiscal responsibility means the government must be shut down, then it is on the heads of the big spenders and let them pay the political price for it.  Shut it down!”

Nalle’s statement came in response to the revelation that Republican House Speaker John Boehner is trying to make a back-room deal with moderate Democrats to pass a budget with only $33 billion in cuts for the fiscal year.  Chairman Nalle’s outrage was echoed by grassroots leaders of the Republican Liberty Caucus, who conferred to discuss a response to the failure of party leaders and determined to remind their representatives that the Republican grassroots elected them to end the era of out of control spending and dramatically downsize government.

Florida RLC Chairman Matt Nye observed that “spending at every level of government is out of control, but nothing compares to the fiscal insanity we are witnessing in Washington, D.C. This new batch of Republicans was elected to get America’s financial house in order, but to date they have failed utterly and completely. It is hard to understand how such a simple fact of reality – that you cannot consume more than you produce – is so hard for our elected officials to understand and act on when regular Americans do it every day in their own households.”

At-Large RLC Board member William Westmiller of California asked, “Why shouldn’t Republicans support the shutdown all non-essential government services?  If the Democrats refuse to cut those marginal services, GOP leaders should be promoting creative solutions like privatization. For example, if the government can’t afford to run national parks, they should be sold to the highest bidder and the receipts applied to reduce the national debt.”

David Williams, Chairman of the Republican Liberty Caucus of North Carolina, said, “Last year North Carolina voters made it clear that they want sweeping budget cuts and a government that lives within its means. The new Republican majority Congressional delegation, the state’s first in over 100 years, will earn the respect and continued support of North Carolina voters if they follow through on their pledge to restore fiscal discipline without tax increases.”

And Michael S. Murphy, Chairman of the Republican Liberty Caucus of Wisconsin, observed that, “The message sent by the American voter was not heard clearly enough by the Republican Congressional leadership. With the exception of a few Liberty Republicans that emerged from the Tea Party Movement, the Republican establishment has proven yet again that they can’t be trusted with responsible budgetary governance. The only way to halt runaway deficit spending is to shut down the government to save our Republic from the irreversible financial abyss it’s about to dive into.”

Concluded Dave Nalle, “Today the National Republican Congressional Committee sent me a fundraising email signed by Speaker Boehner. Why would grassroots GOP donors take a donation request seriously from the ‘leader’ who is about to compromise with the Democrats on a totally unacceptable budget? The House GOP Leadership is making a mockery of the peoples’ call to cut spending.”

“Shut the government down. Come home to your districts for a week or two and hold some town hall meetings.  Give us a chance to remind you face to face why we’re so fed up with the way you’re spending our money and ignoring the debt problem,” said Nalle

–30–

The Republican Liberty Caucus is a nationwide grassroots organization which promotes individual liberty and limited government within the Republican Party.   You can find more information about the Republican Liberty Caucus at www.RLC.org.

Congressman Justin Amash, 30 year old freshman RLC member from Michigan, is undoubtedly a rising conservative star with an extremely bright future. I was already impressed after spending some time with him at this year’s Republican Liberty Caucus national convention, but the longer I follow him, the more I find to like. Rarely am I this taken with a person’s integrity; and next to never is the said individual a politician, let alone a Congressman. But Amash is a glaring exception to that general rule, and I couldn’t be more excited about the precedents he’s setting. When I say that Amash is a model for the next generation, I mean it on many levels.

For starters, Amash is a pioneer when it comes to social media – which fits well with the fact that he’s only 30. At facebook.com/repjustinamash, he posts every single vote he takes with an explanation of his rationale, and links to the roll call. I’m not aware of any other politician doing this, especially so religiously. It demonstrates Amash’s dedication to transparency; another aspect of his character that I find impressive.

Additionally, it’s quite rare for politicians to be accessible the way Amash is. While it’s impossible for him to answer every single question posted on his Facebook page, I’ve noticed that he almost always responds to constituents – and on occasion, others as well. When an issue is so contentious as to merit commentary from large numbers of people, he’ll often post clarifications to his positions, and reiterate his well thought out logic.

What all of this really comes down to is the fact that Amash is highly process oriented. He takes the business of voting, and doing it within a constitutional context seriously; a model his colleagues should learn from. On his aforementioned Facebook page, Amash posted a note, explaining why he sometimes votes “present”:

“I will vote “present” on legislation in three circumstances:

(1) when I could otherwise support the legislation, but the legislation uses improper (e.g., unconstitutional) means to achieve its ends. This situation often arises when legislation is drafted in such a way that the law does not apply equally to persons or entities that are doing the same thing;

(2) when Representatives have not been given a reasonable amount of time to consider the legislation; or

(3) when I have a conflict of interest, such as a personal or financial interest in the legislation—a circumstance that hasn’t happened yet and I don’t anticipate happening.”

This speaks to Amash’s unconventional yet refreshing emphasis on procedure. He utilizes (admittedly rare) “present” votes not as a vehicle to avoid taking a position on controversial issues but to, in fact, do the exact opposite by calling attention to inherent problems with certain pieces of legislation. Amash is the most clear and direct Congressman I’m aware of – people simply aren’t used to his approach, since it’s historically been rare for a Representative to vote “present” for any reason other than to avoid the matter at hand. With Amash, that couldn’t be further from the case – and I hope that those who may have assumed that any of his votes are cop outs will reexamine their views on the matter, and engage with Rep. Amash before lashing out.

In fact, in that exact regard, Amash was recently attacked by Fox News’ Greta Van Susteren while I was smiling over the fact that he was the only member of Congress speaking with sense over the partisan noise on the “Defund NPR” issue.

As Amash eloquently explained, again, via Facebook:

“H R 1076 does not actually save taxpayer dollars; it merely blocks CPB (Corporation for Public Broadcasting) from exercising its discretion to send funding to NPR. The funds CPB does not send to NPR under the bill are returned to CPB to be spent subsidizing other private radio producers. I offered an amendment in the Rules Committee to require that any funds not sent to NPR be redirected to pay down the deficit, but the amendment was ruled out of order. Therefore, public broadcasting will not see any reduction in federal funding even if this bill becomes law.”

This kind of action speaks to Amash’s desire to reveal the truth about how Congress actually operates rather than playing up the largely irrelevant partisan talking points of the moment. Amash, like all serious conservatives, is against the federal funding of media on principle. However, unlike many of his fellow Congressmen on both sides of the aisle, he actually wants to address the issue at its root, rather than vote on a fleeting matter that’s getting a bit of attention because of a James O’Keefe gotcha stunt.

Ultimately, what I admire about Amash is that he’s confident enough in his principles to not worry about going against the grain. Why should he be concerned when he’s always able to articulately defend his positions? His style is civil, methodical, and logical to the point where he acts as a foil for the DC as usual crowd; revealing through his dedication to constitutional governance how absurd the status quo (to steal a Mike Church line) in Mordor-on-the-Potomac is.

I would love to see more Congressmen adopt his transparent, informed method of conducting government business. The amount of sense Amash makes amidst the circus that is Washington DC is sadly, what makes him “radical” – yet in reality, he’s anything but. He’s conservative in the most plainly interpreted sense. You always know what to expect from him, because he takes rare yet seemingly common sense positions, such as wanting to comprehend bills before voting on them – and is actually mindful of their constitutionality and cost. You can’t BE more conservative than that! His dedication to the letter of the law and to revealing how recklessly and deceptively our federal government operates should be commended. I can’t help but think that those who criticize Amash either haven’t been sufficiently exposed to the logic of his process – or completely have a handle on it yet oppose him anyway, because they benefit from politics as usual and the propaganda that sustains it.

For those of us who truly want to limit government and are tired of the endless bipartisan pandering that gets us nowhere, the independent-minded Justin Amash is our man. Join me in encouraging others to familiarize themselves with how he’s revolutionizing government. After all, those who irk the traditional talking heads on both sides of the aisle must be doing something right.

RLC Board member Corie Whalen and Congressman Justin Amash.