Governor Gary E. Johnson has been called the next Ron Paul.  He has not yet announced his candidacy for president, but has been widely mentioned as a potential Republican presidential candidate who reflects the Tea Party’s and liberty Republicans’ perspectives.

I recently blogged about Governor Johnson’s background.  He received good grades from the Cato Institute when he was governor and has a taste for honesty that is rare in politics and business today.

Besides serving as governor of New Mexico for two terms, he had built a significant corporation from scratch, which he sold in 1999.  Readers who would like to contribute or help Governor Johnson can find contact information on http://ouramericainitiative.com/. He also has a Facebook group page with 2,000 members.

Langbert: Governor Johnson, it is a privilege to interview you.  I teach business administration at Brooklyn College.  What are three things that you learned from your business career that could be applied to the federal government or that you did apply as governor of New Mexico?

Johnson: I started my company in 1974 and I was the only employee.  In 1994 we had 1,000 employees.  Things that I learned and applied as governor include the importance of hiring good people; cutting mistakes short; and sticking to basic principles.

I’m good at hiring people and have a great track record.  But mistakes are inevitable. When you make a mistake in hiring, you need to cut it short.   As governor, I avoided political appointments as much as possible.  There was one instance where I was forced to make one, and I closely monitored the individual’s performance.

The obvious things are most important. The basic principles:  being on time, sticking to principles, telling people to tell the truth.  As governor, I sat down in cabinet meetings and I told people to tell the truth.

L: One of the realities of large organizations is the use of information to manage conflict and improve social compatibility and coordination.  Managers call these patterns interpersonal skills.  Might not 100% truth telling interfere with interpersonal skills? Of course, if everyone in industry tells the truth, costs and performance will be improved.

J: On the contrary, being honest 100% of the time makes it easy.  If you tell the truth, you don’t have to remember anything.  What you’re talking about is managing conflict.  Someone once said that honesty is where what you say and what you think are the same as what you do.  But of course you can say things that minimize conflict.

L:  To what degree is it possible to cut the federal budget? How would you go about cutting?

J: I faced the same situation in New Mexico as the president faces.  I could have cut big government in New Mexico drastically and no one would have noticed.  (That is, these government employees produce no value for the economy.) The spending train is out of control.  But the Democratic legislature fought me and the courts handed down adverse rulings.  The legislature was 2 to 1 Democratic.  Common sense has gone out the window.  First you have to stop the spending.  The time is ripe for doing so in Washington, and it’s accomplishable.

We are a bankrupt nation.  We’re not taking care of our own house. Unlike the generation before us, interest and principle payments are due now. The enormous budget deficits will lead to inflation and an ever weaker dollar.

L:  What is your position on the bailout and TARP?

J: I would have opposed both.  Government should not have been involved in this. The Paulson connection amounts to this being an inside job.  Why should Goldman and AIG be saved but not Lehman?

L: What is your position on health reform?  How would you recommend the system control health costs?

J:  I would recommend a free market approach to health care reform.  Increase supply through the free market.  Gall Bladders R Us. We ended up with an insurance entitlement rather than health care.  Extending the current approach will lead to shortages and rationing health care.

The same principle applies to education.  We should blow the lid off publicly controlled education.

L: What is your position on the Fed and the gold standard?

J: The Federal Reserve deserves full responsibility for the housing bubble and as well deserves credit for mitigating the bust.  Overriding that, the dollar is now worth a nickel.  I understand the arguments for a free market in money and I support them.  I shy away from the phrase “regulate the Fed” because I do not want Barney Frank deciding monetary policy.  I wouldn’t say the Fed needs to be abolished.  I understand the argument for a gold standard, though.  The US government should be pursuing a strong dollar policy, which the Fed hasn’t done.

L: What is your position on the Middle East and Israel?

J: I’ve been to Israel and the Golan Heights and I understand the threats Israel faces from outside and within. I can’t summarize my position as the issues are too complex. I do believe in a strong national defense.  But our security is not threatened by Iraq and Afghanistan.

L: Where do you stand on Iraq and Afghanistan?

J: I believe we should pull out of both and return our focus to fighting terrorism. The focus needs to be protecting America. I’m not sure if that is still the mission in Iraq and Afghanistan. I was surprised that Obama increased US presence in Afghanistan.

L: What about Social Security reform?

J:  Social Security is flawed.  When it was brought into existence the life expectancy was  55. Benefits started at 65.  Now, life expectancy is 75, and benefits start at about the same age. It’s a Ponzi scheme.  A combination of benefit reduction and/or privatization are necessary.  At least part of Social Security should include private accounts that are counted in your estate.

L: What do you think of making Social Security voluntary and converting it into a defined contribution plan?

J: That would make it viable.

L: What is your position on states’ rights and state sovereignty?

J: The states are 50 laboratories of democracy.  The burden that the federal government places on the states is outrageous.  The same is true of health care.  A return to federalism is needed.

L: Thank you, Governor.  I am certain that liberty Republicans will be interested in learning more about your ideas.

I just mailed the following press release on behalf of the New York Republican Liberty Caucus:

The Republican Liberty Caucus of New York, a group of approximately 200 liberty-oriented Republicans around the state, has endorsed Chris Edes, who is running on the Libertarian ticket in Rochester. Mr. Edes was endorsed on October 12 at a special meeting of the New York executive committee. Also endorsed by the Libertarian Party, Mr. Edes will appear on the ballot on the Libertarian Party line.

Speaking about the endorsement, Edes said: “I’m pleased to receive the RLC endorsement. The Republican Liberty Caucus is the vanguard of Republican thinking for the 21st Century.”

Mr. Edes aims to bring new ideas to the school debate. He is not part of the political establishment, and so is not part of the Democratic Party’s failed educational policies that respond to political pressure from teachers’ unions and an educational establishment that is encumbered by lockstep political correctness; neglect of basic three r’s education; and a willingness to tax this State out of existence.

As Diane Ravitch points out in her book Left Back: A Century of Battles over School Reform, progressive education and the cumbersome bureaucracy associated with big government have left generations of students unable to perform and a nation that has flagged in the global marketplace.

To find out more information about Mr. Edes’ campaign, visit his website at http://www.vote-for-chris.net.

The Republican Liberty Caucus favors a reduced scope of government in order to permit New York to become more competitive. Future generations will be deprived of freedom and the fruits of economic innovation because of encroaching socialism.

As President Obama’s kids are settling in at Sidwell Friends, one of the best private schools in the nation, their father has signed a budget that takes away the opportunity for poor kids in Washington DC to attend schools like Sidwell Friends with the help of the Opportunity Scholarship Program, which makes it possible for 1,700 kids a year — mostly African-Americans — to escape from the worst public school system in the country and attend a charter school or a private school which will give them a chance at a better future.

The Opportunity Scholarship Program is only four years old and has barely had a chance to prove itself, but it stands little chance of continuing when the federal funds backing it are eliminated from the budget by Democrat legislators eager to keep campaign contributions from the teachers unions flowing.

Teachers unions don’t like any kind of program which gives kids a chance to escape from government-run schools, and even this relatively modest voucher program is too much of a threat to be allowed to survive now that they have some clout. The funding was in the budget coming out of the last session, but has now been removed and is unlikely to be added back in with Democrats in control.

The program provides $7,500 vouchers to about 1,700 DC public school students chosen by lottery which they can then use to change schools, attend a charter school or attend an area private school. Every student who uses a voucher releases more money for other students who stay behind in public school because their voucher is underwritten by the federal government and is considerably less than the $14,400 per student spent by the DC public school system, which has the sad distinction of being the one of the most expensive and lowest performing school systems in the nation. DC ranks last in the nation in math and reading, 4th lowest in SAT scores and 6th worst in graduation rate,

Perhaps most important and almost always overlooked by those doing studies on voucher programs is how many graduates go to college and the quality of the colleges they end up attending. In the DC public school system only 59% of high school students even graduate. Of those only 36% have completed the coursework necessary to qualify them to go to a 4-year college degree program. Only 52.8% of those who take the SAT in DC go to college. Of those 86.2% attend in-state colleges which in the overwhelming majority of cases means that they attend the University of the District of Columbia which offers 4-year degrees but is basically comparable to a decent community college. That means that of entering freshmen only about a fifth will end up going to college and most of those will go to a second-rate institution.

In comparison, at the top private schools in DC like St. Albans, National Cathedral and Sidwell Friends virtually all of the students graduate and about 99% of those graduates go on to college and more than 25% of those graduates go to one of the top 10 colleges in the country — like Harvard, Yale, Brown, Columbia, Princeton and Stanford. So that means they send more graduates to the very best colleges in the world than even manage to get to college at all after graduating a public high-school in DC.

Now admittedly, the $7,500 which this program provides to students isn’t enough by itself to pay for a private school which costs $15,000 to $30,000 a year. But all of these private schools also have endowments for scholarships, some of them quite substantial and targeting kids from the poorer parts of DC. On average for every 3 students who come with a $7,500 voucher that’s another student who can attend one of these schools for free, so between vouchers and private endowments a lot more poor students can attend some of the best private schools in the nation than could have otherwise.

In addition, these vouchers can also be used at charter schools in DC, which have performance much closer to private schools than public schools. DC charter schools graduate 91% of their students, almost double the rate at DC public schools. 83% of those students attend college, close to three times the number of DC public school students going to college. As a group in 2007 DC charter school graduates received $11 million in college scholarship awards, a vital advantage when so many of them come from an underprivileged background.

High school graduation and the chance to go to college can make all the difference in the world for a poor kid from the inner city. It massively reduces the chance that they will be involved in crime, reduces their chance of using drugs, more than doubles their long-term earning potential and even raises up others in the community around them. It even substantially reduces their chance of a violent death. DC has a rate of violent crime which is three times the national average and its poor neighborhoods are among the poorest in the nation. Unemployment is high, drug use is widespread in the poor communities and for many there is no way out. Kids born into this environment are born doomed.

Access to better educational opportunities is the key to saving children from poverty and social disadvantage. A public school system which sends only a small fraction of its graduates to college and is rated third worst in the nation is not providing that opportunity, but for almost 2,000 students a year the Opportunity Scholarship Program did offer hope of a much better education and a very good chance at a degree from a good four-year college.

By taking this program away, Democrats in Congress are reminding us that they don’t really care about helping the most needy in our society. They just want to keep getting their votes, while pandering to the special interests for whom keeping the people poor and undereducated is politically advantageous.

Lisa Mallory and Anthony Reed each won their respective elections last week.

Lisa Mallory, Treasurer of the Republican Liberty Caucus of Texas, could not fool voters: they knew her to be the passionate leader that she is. Running for Leander Independent School District Board member, Lisa was able to trample her opponents. Leander ISD serves more than 25,000 students in the Austin area.

With 25 years of business experience and political training from the Leadership Institute, Lisa focused her campaign on improving the district’s test scores, lowering bond rates, and more oversight. Lisa proves what a highly capable, motivated citizen can accomplish at the local level — but the best is yet to come when Leander ISD has her on their school board.

RLC’er Anthony Reed, a 16-year resident of the Fort Worth suburb of Haltom (pop. 40,000), won election to the Haltom City Council. According to Reed, “Nothing is more important to me than the rights of all Haltom City citizens and businesses; and it is the respect, protection, and service of these rights from our government that has and will make Haltom City rise to the top — to become a beacon of liberty and community involvement for all of Texas to see.”

Look for good things to come from these liberty-loving Texas leaders.

Lisa Mallory, Treasurer of the Republican Liberty Caucus of Texas, was interviewed on the Liberty Cafe Show hosted by Nancy and Katie.

Lisa is running for Leander Independent School District Trustee, Place 1, which is a large school district in the Austin area.

At Lisa’s website, she explains that America “is suffering from a leadership deficit and a general decay in the moral standards necessary to maintain America’s status as leader amongst nations.”

Lisa already serves as Travis County Republican Party Pct. 379 Chair and Election Judge.

Listen to Lisa to learn about the value of running for School Board!  She’s also a very qualified, well-spoken candidate who is prepared to run for this office.

The Republican Liberty Caucus of California Recommends a NO Vote On Propositions 1A-1F in the May 19 Special Election:

NO on Proposition 1-A: THE RAINY DAY BUDGET STABILIZATION FUND
This budget deal is a bailout for big spenders who will extract another $16 billion dollars in taxes and continue to increase state spending. It is not a rainy day fund at all. The California legislature that has overtaxed and spend our hard-earned money will just have another slush fund to use at their will. It does nothing to restrain bloated deficits nor restrain tax-and-spend legislators.

NO on Proposition 1-B: EDUCATION FUNDING. PAYMENT PLAN
This proposal mandates more deficit spending for an education system that needs massive reform, not another $9.3 billion dollars in spending. Every increase in education spending, over many decades, has resulted in decreased student achievement. The legislature should be expanding charter schools, cutting bureaucracy, and allowing parents to choose among competitive public and private schools.

NO on Proposition 1-C: LOTTERY MODERNIZATION ACT
Lenders no longer trust the state of California to pay off its debts with reduced spending, so the legislature wants to promise its future income from gambling to bet that voters are suckers. The state legislators want to gamble in order to pay lenders so they can borrow and spend more.

NO on Proposition 1-D: CHILDREN’S SERVICES FUNDING
This shell game takes tobacco tax revenue, that had been promised for early childhood development programs, to pay off its other general fund obligations. Not only does this allow the state legislator to hinder the voter initiative, but it will fund more bloated state bureaucracy.

NO on Proposition 1-E: MENTAL HEALTH FUNDING. TEMPORARY REALLOCATION
This proposal is another shell game that voids voter initiative preferences to pay for mandates that were imposed by the federal government. The state should be saying NO to federal mandates and handouts, of our tax dollars, by reforming its own MediCal program with tax-free medical savings plans.

NO on Proposition 1-F: ELECTED OFFICIALS’ SALARIES. PREVENTS PAY INCREASES DURING BUDGET DEFICIT YEARS
This feel-good proposition pretends to freeze legislator’s salaries, but it does nothing of the sort. It pretends to be an incentive for responsible budget reductions, but it only guarantees more tax increases when legislators insist that they have to spend more. It does nothing to cut legislator salaries, nor those of the exploding state bureaucracy. This is a con game, to top off the shell games and slush funds of the other propositions.

Vote NO on all of these statist, bureaucratic games. NO on more borrowing and spending.

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.

Denver’s ProComp program, short for the Professional Compensation System for Teachers, was implemented in 2006 in a joint effort by the school district and the local teachers’ union to recruit and retain good teachers.

The teachers’ union and the district have reached a tentative agreement that preserves the innovative pay plan while loading more of the earnings towards the front-end of teachers’ careers. If teachers approve the deal by Sept. 9, it would be the first three-year contract stuck in Denver in two decades.

A description of ProComp can be found here. Merit pay is an innovative change that will reward the best teachers. Let’s hope a similar system is implemented in other states.

My background is as a teacher. I’m certified to teach social studies in several states and the District of Columbia. My current day job is as a fundraiser.

Discover Scholars, a new third party non-profit organization based in the DC area, has managed to combine two of my passions, to form a unique concept.

The organization’s goal is to use the private sector to enhance educational opportunities for needy or deserving students by accumulating donor funds designated for a particular type of student.

Republicans have been talking about free-market options in education for decades, ever since Milton Friedman conceptualized school vouchers. However, little has been done to address the need by the private sector.

Discover Scholars advocates “decoupling financial aid from individual colleges altogether, and creating other organizations whose goal is to allocate funding to students independently of the schools that they attend.” If their concept works, it will lessen the need for federal financial aid programs.

As Discover Scholars says, “Donors who are currently giving to colleges without really knowing where their money is spent will be able to give with the goal of funding students — all while having more transparency into how their contributions are actually being put to good use.”

Imagine having the power, as a donor, to fund particular types of students.

Imagine, as a student, having someone want to help you attain greatness.

Discover Scholars is now accepting applications for high school seniors and students entering their first year of college.

The RLC encourages liberty-minded students to apply for assistance.