Change Congress to Restore Accountability and End Federal Mandates
Republican Liberty Caucus Candidates Have the Answer to Obamacare and Out of Control Government

WASHINGTON, DC  – Today’s Supreme Court Ruling on the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) is a strong reminder of how important it is that we elect new leaders to the House and Senate who will stand up for smaller government and to protect individual liberty and who will make repealing this tyrannical legislation a top priority.

While Obamacare may technically be Constitutional, because the 16th Amendment opens the door to all sorts of unreasonable taxation, that does not mean that it is good policy. Raising taxes enormously on every citizen, either directly in the form of penalties or indirectly in the form of mandated health insurance and inflated prices, is outrageous in a time of high unemployment and economic uncertainty. As fewer and fewer people pay taxes at all, placing an even greater burden on the productive segment of the population is unconscionable.  Even worse, this is just the first step.  As insurance prices rise the call will come for more interference by government and we will slide into a the complete control of the healthcare system by unaccountable bureaucrats, an end to individual choice and a rapid decline in quality of service.

In today’s ruling the Supreme Court has at least identified Obamacare for what it is, the largest tax increase in United States history, though it is much more and much worse than just that. In the middle of an election year this provides a winning issue and a rallying cry to all true fiscal conservatives, and the Republican Liberty Caucus is supporting a nationwide slate of candidates who share the highest possible commitment to protecting the rights of citizens to be free from unjust government mandates of every kind, to preserving personal and economic liberty and to getting the increasingly heavy weight of out of control government off of our backs.

Candidates like Ted Cruz in Texas and Barry Hinckley in Rhode Island are  poised to join our prior endorsees like Rand Paul and Mike Lee in creating a powerful voting block in the Senate which will never compromise when liberty is threatened. In the House those same values which are being championed today by Ron Paul and Justin Amash will be carried forward with reinforcements like Thomas Massie in Kentucky, Lauren Stephens in Wisconsin, Kerry Bentivolio in Michigan,  Jessica Puente Bradshaw in Texas and scores of others.  With their guidance Congress will reassert its authority over the federal bureaucracy and demand accountability from the executive branch.

We are the  grassroots backbone of the Republican Party, committed to issues which truly matter to the people and an agenda which demands reform from our own party as well as the national government. The time for compromise on principle is over. As so many of our own leaders fail to stand up to the Democrats and their agenda of plundering and spending, the momentum has shifted to the Liberty Movement within the GOP and with a rapidly growing membership and new chapters springing up all over the map, the Republican Liberty Caucus is carrying the banner.

Repealing Obamacare makes a great battle cry, but it is just the beginning. It is just the cap on the mighty pyramid of government excess which we must tear down. Government has reached too far into our pockets and taken too much control of our lives. As we reclaim our independence we must elect new leaders who will defend our right to be free, to make our own decisions and to take back responsibility for our lives. Let us start by repealing Obamacare and keep fighting until government is once again dedicated first and always to protecting our personal and economic liberty.

UPDATE
A deal was worked out on Wednesday which selected 17 Amendments to the FDA bill to be voted on on Thursday. Sen. Paul’s amendment was included among the 17 so we now have until some time Thursday get people to email their Senators to to encourage them to support the Paul amendment.

On Thursday the Senate is expected to vote on the Federal Food Drug and Cosmetic Act which contains authorization for the continued operation of the Food and Drug Administration. Senator Rand Paul has offered an amendment to this bill which addresses key problems with the FDA (S.3187).

This amendment targets two key areas of abuse of power by the FDA, regulatory overreach and abusive enforcement powers.

The first goal of the Paul Amendment is to reign in FDA overreach in regulating dietary supplements and deliberately misclassifying foods, vitamins and natural medicines as drugs, placing them under inappropriate restrictions or removing them from the market entirely. This addresses an ongoing problem with the FDA attempting to expand its authority to interfere more and more with the health food and natural medicine market to reduce competition with commercial pharmaceuticals. Paul’s proposal does not limit reasonable regulation of dangerous substances, but does target opportunistic overregulation.

The second target of the amendment is the excessive expansion of enforcement power in the FDA. This has become a problem with a number of federal agencies which have decided they need their own police forces. In the case of the FDA they have developed a cadre of armed enforcement officers and are sending them out to conduct forced inspections of manufacturing facilities and farms, often carrying out searches and making arrests without a warrant in violation of the 4th Amendment. It is questionable that the FDA should ever have been given the power to arrest people and they certainly shouldn’t have their own armed enforcement units. The Paul amendment would disarm the FDA and require them to follow due process in going after violators.

This amendment addresses a serious problem with one of many federal agencies which have gone far beyond their legitimately authorized power. FDA regulation should be strictly restricted to keep the market in health supplements and foods as free as possible and enforcement of their regulations should be handled as a civil process or by local law enforcement or existing federal enforcement agencies.

Please write your Senators to encourage them to vote with Rand Paul to limit the power of the FDA and end regulatory abuse and overenforcement. Make sure to modify the wording of the standard letter to cover the points, but be in your own voice.

Given that the third and final day of ObamaCare Supreme Court oral arguments are now complete, I’d like to focus more on the political implications of what has occurred thus far rather than spending time analyzing the details of the case, which several others have done with far more of expertise than I could ever provide. I particularly recommend the Wall Street Journal live blogs (day one summary, day two, and day three), and the Texas Public Policy Foundation’s comprehensive coverage at PPACAction.com.

While we won’t know until June whether ObamaCare will be struck down, either in part or as a whole, it’s certainly safe to say there’s a chance that the individual mandate will be declared unconstitutional, thus creating chaos that will need to be addressed one way or the other. Justice Kennedy and others made note of potential impending disaster in that regard today, as reported by Brett Kendall at the Wall Street Journal:

“Several justices express concern about doing harm to insurance companies if the mandate falls but the rest of the law is left in place.  Justice Kennedy worries about imposing a ‘risk’ on insurance companies ‘that Congress never intended.’”

The Justices who made note of the trouble with striking down the individual mandate while keeping the law’s other provisions have a very good point. The entire aim of the mandate, in theory, was to avoid an adverse selection situation where only those who actively need insurance would seek it out while the healthy would then determine that remaining uninsured until they got sick was economically viable.

Given the chaos that could ensue if the law is partially upheld, which could certainly happen, means that Republicans need to be prepared to address either strike-down scenario – and in my humble opinion, a ruling that declares only the individual mandate unconstitutional (which the liberal Justices seemed to be pushing for today) would actually be worse, and absolutely destroy private insurance companies. Nevertheless, as I touched upon in my Day two analysis of the SCOTUS hearings over at my personal blog CorieWhalen.com, conservatives need to be very cautious in regards to declaring imminent victory in the event that the court does in fact declare ObamaCare unconstitutional; even as a whole. Winning a battle, important as it might be, certainly does not imply victory in an overall, extremely extensive war.

However, let’s assume for a moment that ObamaCare is declared unconstitutional in its entirety. The obligatory period of celebration will inevitably occur, but where will we really be as conservatives? Right back where we were when the left, during the Bush years and 2008 election, framed the narrative in a manner that convinced voters that Republicans had no solutions regarding this important matter. And honestly, is that premise even entirely inaccurate when Republican ideas regarding health care have in recent history been either virtually non-existent or only marginally less evil than the absurdities served up by Democrats? Republicans in the latter half of the 20th century, and particularly post-Reagan, have been incredible at screaming about Democratic proposals while inevitably compromising in the direction of further government growth – perhaps slowing the car headed toward the cliff down a few miles per hour, but in no way changing the vehicle’s direction.

Take, for example, the direction of the GOP after the defeat of HillaryCare. The ultimately ill-fated piece of legislation was killed just before the Republican Revolution of 1994 – but what did Republicans end up doing when they swept through the halls of Congress on the heels of their Contract with America? Regarding health care, at least, nothing of merit. The GOP at the time grew complacent and seemed to assume that staving off HillaryCare was a victory in itself rather than taking the opportunity to make pursuing decentralization and free market focused health care reforms a priority in their Contract with America.

This decision to not immediately play offense in a free market oriented manner regarding health care post HillaryCare eventually posed a massive political problem, because it led to the inference that Republicans were satisfied with the status quo, and ultimately aided in laying the groundwork for the onset of ObamaCare. And even worse than allowing Democrats to claim that Republicans were “doing nothing” on the issue of health care, the GOP fell into a left-defined parameter of “doing something” implying a federal, government-centric solution. This is where the Heritage Foundation’s flirtation with the individual health care mandate and Medicare Part D debacles come in.

As James Taranto wrote at the Wall Street Journal in October of last year in his piece, “ObamaCare’s Heritage:”

“Heritage did put forward the idea of an individual mandate, though it predated HillaryCare by several years. We know this because we were there: In 1988-90, we were employed at Heritage as a public relations associate (a junior writer and editor), and we wrote at least one press release for a publication touting Heritage’s plan for comprehensive legislation to provide universal ‘quality, affordable health care.’

As a junior publicist, we weren’t being paid for our personal opinions. But we are now, so you will be the first to know that when we worked at Heritage, we hated the Heritage plan, especially the individual mandate. ‘Universal health care’ was neither already established nor inevitable, and we thought the foundation had made a serious philosophical and strategic error in accepting rather than disputing the left-liberal notion that the provision of ‘quality, affordable health care’ to everyone was a proper role of government. As to the mandate, we remember reading about it and thinking: ‘I thought we were supposed to be for freedom.’”

And as for Medicare Part D, the legislation was introduced by then-Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-IL) in 2003 (when Republicans held the House, Senate and Presidency, mind you). Officially named the “Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act,” it was supposedly created to address the issue of prescription drug costs that were hurting seniors on Medicare. While it’s great that Republicans wanted to address a critical issue, they went about it in all of the wrong ways when they had the numbers to exert control over the process. Instead of pursuing free market reforms, the MMA provided a subsidy for large employers aimed at discouraging them from eliminating private prescription coverage to retired workers. (In this instance, the Republicans kowtowed directly to the AARP).

The legislation was rife with new bureaucracy, and ultimately ended up costing far more than projected, as is typical of big government schemes. Initially estimated to cost $400 billion over ten years, only a month after the bill passed, it was calculated that the overall cost of program between 2006 (the first year the program started paying benefits) and 2015 would be $534 billion. And of course, to top things off, per a report by the Boards of Trustees of the Federal Hospital Insurance and Federal Supplementary Medical Insurance Trust Funds in 2009, the projected net cost of the program over the 2006 to 2015 period was actually adjusted $549.2 billion. How fiscally conservative!

At the end of the day, Republicans rammed through a wishy-washy piece of legislation that attempted to address a problem, mainly with government solutions, but was too timid to go all the way, resulting in the perfect opportunity for Democrats to demagogue, claiming Republicans didn’t go far enough and more government was needed, creating the perfect narrative for the onset of ObamaCare. And how could Republicans really respond when they had already conceded that federal solutions are what should be pursued?

However, despite the miserable failings of past Republicans, I certainly don’t believe all is lost. In fact, I think now more than ever, due largely in part to grassroots pressure from tea party activists and other limited government advocates, that conservatives have an opportunity to reshape the debate by getting out in front post-ObamaCare and making a solid case for free market health care reforms. Over at the Cato Institute, there’s a lot of fantastic work laying out viable, liberty oriented reforms, and there’s plenty that can be done to get the federal government out of the business of distorting prices and continually tying basic care to insurance and insurance to employment.

Not only could many common sense reforms pushed by Cato be pursued, but conservatives on all levels of government should also embrace the Health Care Compact, which would allow states to enact their own health care legislation independent of federal intervention by banding together in an interstate compact. Ultimately, decentralization and free market reforms will be the key to fixing health care as our federal debt to GDP ratio continues to skyrocket past the 100% mark. Republicans need to do all they can to work toward the goal of reducing bureaucracy so individuals  can actually determine what the fair market value for the health services they seek are and can contract freely with their doctors.

Despite prior insanity, the potential failure of ObamaCare before the Supreme Court is ultimately a golden opportunity for Republicans. The GOP will be in a position to finally prove that it has learned its lesson about compromising in the direction of continuous government growth by providing a sensible alternatives to Democratic measures that actually shrinks government involvement in the health care industry.

As I noted above, it’s not as if there’s a dearth of policy work in this area; there’s plenty for the GOP to choose from – the party leaders just need to truly decide they’re actually for limited government and get their heads in the game instead of accepting as fact that government should continue to control our health care choices. Ultimately, what we as activists have to remember is that by expending energy fighting ObamaCare without a strong alternative free market plan to immediately implement legislatively means that as conservatives, we’ve given ground to the Democrats.

Make no mistake about it; the grassroots left is plotting their support of, in their wildest dreams, a single payer system, and at the very least, revisiting the public option idea as well as general Medicaid expansion. They will stop at nothing to define the parameters of the health care debate as inherently demanding a government-centric solution. This time, the Republican party cannot fall into the trap of being confined by that narrative. We can and will do better – and certainly, the more liberty Republicans you help us elect, the more up to this important task the party will be.

Corie Whalen is a political consultant based in Houston Texas. She currently serves as the national Secretary of the Republican Liberty Caucus.

Illinois School Bans Homemade Lunches

A westside Chicago school, Little Village Academy, has banned schoolchildren from bringing their own lunches from home. They now require all students to purchase their meals from the school cafeteria. An age-old American tradition has fallen by the wayside in Illinois.

Libertarian Republican radio talk show host Neal Boortz comments,

“So there you go folks … government knows best. If you surrender your child to the government to be educated, they you surrender your right to determine what type of lunch that child will eat. While the government has physical possession of your child in their indoctrination centers your rights are essentially terminated.

“There are two messages at work here. One is that parents have to come to the understand that parents don’t know nearly as much about how to raise their children as the government does. The second message is delivered to the children — and that message is that now is as good a time as any for you to learn that the government is going to be involved in virtually every aspect of your life — even down to what you are allowed to eat for lunch.”

Michigan State Police Extracting Data from Driver Cell Phones

The Michigan State Police have a high-tech mobile forensics device that can be used to extract information from cell phones belonging to motorists stopped for minor traffic violations, according to TheNewspaper.com, a journal of the politics of driving.

If you’re pulled over by the Michigan State Police for anything — an improper turn, a partially obscured license plate, or an officer’s whim — they can search your cell phone using a device called the CelleBrite UFED. That means text messages, photos, videos, contacts, who you’ve called, what apps you’ve downloaded, GPS data that reveals where you’ve been, even deleted data.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) learned that the police had acquired the cell phone scanning devices and in August 2008 filed an official request for records on the program, including logs of how the devices were used. The state police responded by saying they would provide the information only in return for a payment of $544,680.

“The Michigan State Police should be willing to assuage concerns that these powerful extraction devices are being used illegally by honoring our requests for cooperation and disclosure,” said ACLU attorney Mark P. Fancher. The ACLU is concerned that these powerful capabilities are being quietly used to bypass Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches. We have that same concern.

A U.S. Department of Justice test of the CelleBrite UFED used by Michigan police found the device could grab all of the photos and video off of an iPhone within one-and-a-half minutes. The device works with 3000 different phone models and can even defeat password protections.

Nevada’s Libertarian Streak on Seatbelts and Helmet Laws

According to our friends at LibertarianRepublican.net:

“Two big victories against the Nanny-State in Nevada this week. The State Senate Transportation committee voted against tougher enforcement for seat belt non-usage, and for legalizing motorcycle use without a helmet. Predictably, all Republicans sided with the pro-freedom side. And virtually all Democrats voted against freedom.

From the Las Vegas Sun, “Senate committee says no to helmets, tougher seat belt law,” April 14:

“The seat belt bill would allow police to stop a motorist and issue a citation solely for not wearing a seat belt. The present law allows officers to issue a citation only if the driver is stopped for another traffic infraction. Sen. Elizabeth Halseth, R-Las Vegas, who opposed the bill, SB 235, said Nevadans use safety belts at a higher rate than neighboring states.

Sen. Mike Schneider, D-Las Vegas, in arguing for the bill, said the buckle-up rate is only 30 percent at night. The 93 percent figure cited is falsified to get federal funds, he charged. He said opponents of the bill argue not wearing a seat belt is a personal choice, but everyone ends up paying to treat those injured because they aren’t buckled up. Voting against the bill were Halseth, Dean Rhoads, R-Elko, Mike McGinness, R-Fallon, and John Lee, D-North Las Vegas.

On the helmet law:

“The helmet bill, SB 177, removes the helmet requirement for motorcycle drivers and passengers if they are at least 21 years old and the driver has held a license for a year or more and completed a safety course. Halseth said whether to wear a helmet should be a personal choice. She said figures from University Medical Center show riders injured while not wearing a helmet actually cost less to treat than those hurt while wearing helmets.

Schneider, however, said everyone bears the cost. “This is costing society millions of dollars. No way does this benefit the state of Nevada,” he said. Manendo, Schneider and committee Chairwoman Shirley Breeden, D-Las Vegas, voted against the bill.

Illinois Moves to Ban Trans Fats

The Pat Quinn/Rahm Emanuel/Dick Durbin/Rod Blagojevich/Barack Obama State strikes again.

Note the blatant editorializing in this “news report” by the Gate House New Service out of Springfield, Illinois (via GalvaNews.com): “Illinois House moves to ban trans fat in foods”:

“Illinois is poised to become the second state in the country (after California) to ban artery-clogging artificial trans fats. The Illinois House last week approved a bill to eliminate artificial trans fats from restaurant and bakery food and food sold in school vending machines by January 2013. Cafeterias operated by state and local governments and schools would not be included in the ban until January 2016.

“Trans fats are like bacon grease pouring down your sink clogging your pipes,” said Rep. La Shawn Ford, D-Chicago, sponsor of House Bill 1600. “That’s exactly what trans fats do to your arteries. You can still have fried foods and baked goods without trans fats.”

Republicans and one brave rural Democrat are the only ones standing against this nanny-state imposition on individual liberties: “It’s yet another nanny-state mandate on the public when the businesses and communities are perfectly capable of making these decisions themselves,” said Rep. David Leitch, R-Peoria.

“We don’t have to be a watchdog for everyone,” argued Rep. Frank Mautino, D-Spring Valley. “We tell people to do a lot of things, and it would probably be good if they did them, but maybe at some point they’d like to decide on their own if they should do them or not.”

Patriots, it’s time to go RINO hunting in beautiful North Dakota!

Yesterday twenty-nine RINOs in the North Dakota State House voted to block an amendment to the state Constitution to prohibit North Dakotans from having to purchase health care.

The bill, HCR 3014, received support from 39 House Republicans but was blocked when 29 RINOs joined with 25 Democrats to kill the modification language.

The amendment is necessary to both strengthen North Dakota’s legal challenge to Obamacare and to protect residents from whatever comes after the courts rule. So why did 29 Republicans, many of them claiming that they’re opposed to Obamacare, vote down this amendment?

Attorney General Wayne Stenehjem (pronounced Sten-jum), Republican.

Stenehjem, a likely candidate for higher office in 2012, did help North Dakota join the federal lawsuit challenging Obamacare. But he has also been working behind the scenes to convince state legislators that North Dakota is powerless in the face of federal law. In February, Stenehjem issued an opinion at the request of legislators in which he concluded that federal laws, once vetted by the states, are the supreme law of the land and that it is unconstitutional for the states to resist them.

Stenehjem has been working with State Rep. Bill Devlin to persuade Republican legislators that they are powerless until the court rules. Their campaign saw success in that it convinced Republican legislators to vote with the bloc of Democrats who supported Obamacare.

In response, please contact Wayne Stenehjem (Republican) at (701) 328-2210 today and express your disgust with his efforts to dissuade legislators from voting the will of their constituents. And please contact Bill Devlin (Republican) to express your feelings about his miseducation campaign in the North Dakota House.

Writes North Dakota blogger Rob Port, “This school of thought is based on a misunderstanding of the supremacy clause. Yes, the Constitution and such laws as the Congress may make are the supreme law of the land, but when the laws Congress makes violate the constitution then they cannot, by definition, be the supreme law of the land. That a federal court may endorse an unconstitutional law doesn’t make it any more constitutional.”

Concludes Port, “With Wayne Stenehjem clearly harboring aspirations for higher office, voters in North Dakota might want to remember just how hard he campaigned against the sovereignty of our state, and just how weakened his campaigning leaves our state in our battle to overturn Obamacare.”

The Republicans who voted against the measure include: Dick Anderson, Thomas Beadle, Dennis Johnson, Stacey Dahl, Duane DeKrey, Bill Devlin, Glen Froseth, Kathy Hawken, Joe Heilman, Curt Hofstad, Jon Nelson, George Keiser, Joyce Kingsbury, Matt Klein, Larry Klemin, Bill Kretschmar, Curt Kruen, Andy Maragos, Bob Martinson, Nancy Johnson, Gary Paur, Vonnie Pietsch, Todd Porter, Raeann Kelsch, Mark Sanford, Wayne Trottier, John Wall, Robin Weisz, David Drovdal

The form at this website will allow you to contact them in one fell swoop.

………………………………………

Two Republicans, Bill Devlin and Wayne Stenehjem, persuaded 29 Republican legislators to vote against asserting freedom from Obamacare in North Dakota. TAKE ACTION!

The Republican Liberty Caucus of Wisconsin, which supported Governor Scott Walker’s budget proposal and efforts to limit collective bargaining rights for some state employees, is tackling recall and legislative efforts this spring. Specifically:

• RLC-WI members are working to collect signatures to recall eight of the 14 Democrat Senators who fled the state to Illinois for 3 weeks throughout February and early March; and

• RLC-WI members are rallying support for the legislation being introduced by Washington County legislators Glenn Grothman and Don Pridemore to legalize raw milk sales in the state.

Recall the Wisconsin 14!

The Republican Liberty Caucus of Wisconsin encourages its members to get involved in the recall efforts of eight Democrat Senators who chose to represent Illinois voters rather than Wisconsin voters. If you live in the Stevens Point/Wausau, Green Bay, North Woods, Kenosha, Madison, or Milwaukee areas, it is important to get involved in the recall efforts of the following State Senators. Click the link to be taken to the websites where you can download petitions to circulate.

• Recall Jim Holperin
• Recall Dave Hansen
• Recall Bob Wirch
• Recall Julie Lassa
• Recall Mark Miller
• Recall Spencer Coggs
• Recall Lena Taylor
• Recall Fred Risser

The goal of the recall efforts is to let the voters weigh in on the decision of the Senators to leave Wisconsin during a critical time in state history.

Legalize Raw Milk

Wisconsin RLC members are also working on a legislative initiative, as it did in 2010, to legalize raw milk in the dairy state. The proposal introduced earlier this week would allow for a licensed dairy farmer to register with the state to sell raw milk and its byproducts directly to consumers. Under current law, only incidental sales of raw milk are allowed. Nine states allow retail sales of raw milk.

Last spring, former Governor Jim Doyle vetoed a proposal that would have allowed farmers to sell their raw milk if there were certain safeguards in place to protect the public. But Governor Scott Walker said in January that he would likely sign a similar bill if it were to come across his desk.

Last May, the Wisconsin RLC sent out a press release supporting the legislation. “Imagine what a positive impact raw milk can have on the economy in our Dairy State,” said state RLC Chairman Michael S. Murphy of Milwaukee.

The Republican Liberty Caucus of Wisconsin was founded in 2009 to promote individual liberty, limited government, and free enterprise within the Republican Party. Learn more about the RLC-WI at http://wi.rlc.org/.

The Republican Liberty Caucus of Florida has developed a 2011 legislative agenda for its members to pursue.

The agenda, based on the RLC Statement of Principles, will be put into action as Florida RLC’ers attend the annual Lobby Days at the Capitol in Tallahassee today.

The Florida RLC’s legislative agenda is an excellent model for other state RLC chapters to follow and implement.

1. Restore Our Constitutional Rights
_______________________________________

• “Sovereignty of the State”: Joint resolution proposing the creation of Section 28 of Article I of the State Constitution, to assert the sovereignty of the state and refuse to comply with unconstitutional federal mandates. Support SJR1438/HJR1103
• “Intrastate Commerce Act”: A statute which provides that all goods grown, made or manufactured in Florida and sold within Florida shall not be subject to the authority of the Federal government. Support SB1478
• Scope and Exercise of Federal Power to Regulate Commerce: Urge Congress to honor provisions of U.S. Constitution that limit scope & exercise of federal power to regulate commerce. Support HM577
• Exercise of Federal Power: Urge the Congress of the United States to honor the provisions of the Constitution of the United States and United States Supreme Court case law which limit the scope and exercise of federal power. Support SM358
• Health Care Freedom Act: Creation of S. 28, Art. I of State Constitution to prohibit laws or rules from compelling any person, employer, or health care provider to participate in any health care system. Support SJR2/HJR1
• Ban Red Light Cameras: Many studies show how unsafe intersections become after installation of red light cameras, with a dramatic increase in the number of crashes and serious injury. These studies also show cities have been found guilty of shortening the yellow light to increase violations in order to generate revenue. Outside the safety issues raised by installation of these cameras is the constitutionality of the systems. Our Constitution says citizens have a right to face their accuser, yet their accuser in this case is a machine. Support SB672/HB4087
• Repeal REAL ID Act: In 2008, the Florida Legislature enacted the REAL ID Act as 4 of 47 sections in a DMV bill. The law required citizens to produce an enormous amount of personal papers to either obtain or renew a Florida driver’s license. This personal information are then seized by the state and scanned into an accessible database. The REAL ID law was forced on the states by the Congress in violation of the US Constitution’s 10th Amendment and violates the Florida Constitution’s 4th Amendment “Right to Privacy”.
• Open Carry: Allow concealed-weapons-licensed gun owners to openly carry their weapons. Support SB234/HB517
• State Jurisdiction: Limit gun regulation to the state and prohibit all local governments from passing or enforcing gun rules and regulations. Support CS/SB402/CS/HB45
• Doctor Prohibition: Prohibit physicians from asking patients about gun ownership. Support SB432/HB155

2. Repeal Unnecessary and Burdensome Regulations
_______________________________________

• Online Sewage Treatment and Disposal Systems: Eliminates provisions directing DOH to create & administer statewide septic tank evaluation program. Support SB168/HB13
• Florida Climate Protection Act: Repeal provisions for Cap & Trade regulatory program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from electric utilities. Support SB762/HB4117

3. Cut Spending and Protect the Taxpayer
_______________________________________

• Smart Cap: Amend Florida’s constitution to limit revenues collected by state government to the amount collected the previous year, plus an annual adjustment based on a combination of population growth and the rate of inflation. Any funds in excess of the limits will be placed in the state’s “rainy day fund” until that fund reaches 10 percent of the prior year’s total budget – at that point, the Legislature must vote to either provide tax relief or reduce property taxes.
• Stop High Speed Rail/Sun-Rail: The total cost of these rail projects will be devastating to our economy and the tax increases needed to operate the rail projects will take more money from the taxpayers. Spending billions on 1800’s rail technology such as Sun-Rail is a big mistake at a time when the Florida Legislature has to make cuts to essential services. We oppose state funding of rail projects.
• Pension Reform: Generous public pension benefits promised a decade or more are now placing significant burdens on many local budgets and although the state pension system isn’t in as bad shape as some other states, it is time to address it now before it does become a problem in the near future. The Florida Legislature should enact common sense reforms such as moving employees into a 401K style defined “contribution” plan. It is reasonable for the state of Florida to require government employees to contribute a portion of their salary into a retirement plan. Florida is currently the only state that does not have this requirement. Support SB1128/SB1130/HB1405
• Medicaid Reform: Our current Medicaid program is estimated to cost $20.2 billion this year, approximately 30 percent of our states budget. Sustaining a program that has been over-expanded, combined with new and expensive mandates from Washington from threatens to throw our state into further deficits and requiring more cuts to essential services. Support SB1972
• Property Insurance-Reduce Risk to Taxpayers: With Citizens Property Insurance becoming the primary insurer of property in Florida, the Florida taxpayer could be on the hook for billions of dollars if a hurricane of any significance hits Florida. Insuring Florida properties with state dollars will lead to huge debts, and all taxpayers will bear responsibility for that debt. Consumers in Florida would be served best by laws that attract new capital into the state; competition serves consumers better than regulation. Support SB1714/HB1243

4. Term Limits
_______________________________________

• Congressional Term Limits: Urge Congress to propose to states amendment to U.S. Constitution to limit terms of office of members of Congress. Support HM685.
• Do not extend Florida legislators’ term limits: We believe term limits are the only way to prevent elected officials from becoming entrenched and beholden to special interest groups. We implore you to leave the current term limit for legislators in place. Oppose SJR 300/HJR 207

Learn more about the Florida RLC at www.rlcfl.org.

Republicans in Florida should be proud of the direction Governor Scott is taking the Republican Party (and state government). Thus far, there are several reasons to be pleased with Governor Scott’s budget and agenda:

• Scott proposed spending $4.6 billion less than this year’s budget and wants to eliminate seven percent of the state’s government jobs, which would mean about 6,700 state-worker layoffs — significant cuts and hard choices at a tough economic time. In fact, RLC member Kristi Dunn was recently interviewed about her support for Governor Scott’s budget;

• Tony Fabrizio, Scott’s campaign guru and advisor, polled the issue of legalizing marijuana in Florida and found that nearly 6 in 10 people support the idea — almost enough to pass a state Constitutional amendment. Of the 800 voters surveyed, 456 would have voted yes on a constitutional amendment to legalize marijuana, but 344 would have voted against it;

• Governor Scott is working with the legislature to cut government waste. Legislators even asked the RLC’s input on what to cut;

• Governor Scott is a vocal opponent of the Obama health law and refuses to implement it in Florida unless it is found constitutional; and

• Governor Scott’s decision not to accept a $2.4 billion federal grant for a high speed rail project was a “courageous choice”, according to a congratulatory letter he received from the Republican Liberty Caucus of Florida Chairman Matthew D. Nye.

Governor Scott spoke at a Republican Liberty Caucus of Central East Florida meeting in September, 2010.

The Florida chapter of the RLC will host its Lobby Days at the Capitol on March 14 and 15. The top issue on the agenda is a Taxpayers Bill of Rights for Florida.

Health Care’s Individual Mandate Struck Down Thanks to RLC Endorsed Attorney General

Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli did not have to battle on the issue of health care. He could have taken the easy path and simply focused on other issues. Instead he decided to put principle first and filed suit against the federal government’s individual mandate that forces Americans to purchase a product.

The Virginia legislature and the Tea Party also deserve credit because the Health Care Freedom Act they passed in anticipation of the Obama health law gave Cuccinelli grounds to file the suit.

Today U.S. District Judge Henry Hudson ruled that the individual health insurance mandate “exceeds the constitutional boundaries of Congressional power” and it’s ultimately “about an individual’s right to choose to participate.”

The Republican Liberty Caucus of Virginia selected Attorney General Cuccinelli as its only statewide-endorsed candidate in 2009. He has demonstrated why through his continued efforts to uphold the rule of law and protect individual rights.

In 2008, then-State Senator Cuccinelli addressed members of the RLC at a meeting in Fredricksburg, Virginia. You can hear his remarks here, here, here, and here.