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.

“What seems to be a GOP victory at first may well become another liberal victory in the long term. Unless Parker Griffith (formerly D-AL, now R-AL) starts voting like a true fiscal conservative, Alabama could be stuck with another entrenched Big-Government Republican Congressman.”

“Welcome to the party, Parker. Here’s an electronic copy of the Constitution. Read it well, as you will have to continue to dodge us if you continue to disregard it.”

The Washington Times features an article on how conservatives are not ready to accept Griffith; and the Alabama RLC provides several quotes from other conservative pundits on the switch.

House Democrat leaders are pushing for a Saturday vote on their sweeping health-care bill.

There are certain Democrats who MUST be called every day from now until the vote, which may be as early as Saturday now. Here’s the Target 92 list on the House side to all vulnerable and Blue Dog Democrats.  Blue Dogs are in blue. Here’s the .xls and .pdf versions.  Of note, the first 40 on the list are the Blue Dogs that signed the “deficit-neutral” letter mentioned above.  Everything you need to email their staff, write letters, make phone calls and send faxes, both to their district and Capitol Hill offices.

Keep calling out to the House and to the Senate in general. Of course, you can also reach them via the Capitol switchboard at (202) 224-3121. And of course, here is the CapWiz alert so you can contact your own members directly.

Top Ten Tax Increases Included in ObamaCare House Bill H.R. 3962

1. Small Business SURTAX (Sec.551, p. 336) – $460.5 Billion
2. Employment Mandate TAX* (Secs 511-512, p.308) – $135 Billion
3. Individual Mandate TAX* (Sec. 501, p.296) – $33 Billion
4. Medical Device TAX* (Sec.552, p. 339) – $20 Billion
5. $2,500 Annual Cap on FSAs* (Sec. 532, p. 325) – $13.3 Billion
6 Prohibition on Pre-Tax Purchases of Over-the-Counter Drugs through HSAs, FSAs, and HRAs* (Sec. 531, p.324) – $5 Billion
7. Tax on Health Insurance Policies to fund Comparative Effectiveness Research Trust Fund (Sec. 1802, p.1162) – $2 Billion
8. 20% Penalty on certain HSA Distributions* (Sec. 533, p.326) – $1.3 Billion
9. Other Tax Hikes and Increase Compliance on U.S. Job Creators – $56.4 Billion
………> IRS reporting on payments to certain businesses (Sec. 553, p.344) – $17.1 Billion
………> Delay implementation of worldwide interest allocation rules (Sec. 554, p. 345) – $26.1 Billion
………> Override U.S. treaties on certain payments by “insourcing” business (Sec. 561. p. 346) – $7.50 Billion
………> Codify economic substance doctrine and impose penalties (Sec.562, p.349) – $5.7 Billion
10. Other Revenue-Raising Provisions – $3 Billion

TOTAL TAX INCREASE . . . . . . . . . . $729.5 Billion

*[Violates President Obama's pledge to avoid tax increases on Americas earning less than $250,000]

The Minnesota chapter of the Republican Liberty Caucus has been hard at work, reaching out to prospects as we approach the 2010 elections.

This weekend, the Minnesota RLC will be operating a table at the state GOP Convention. This is the first time the Minnesota RLC has ever appeared a statewide party event. Says Secretary Norann Dillon, “With all of the talk and ttention on LIBERTY in this party, it will be an important outreach event for us.”

The Minnesota RLC is looking for volunteers to maintain the booth, so please contact us if you’re interested. The Minnesota RLC will be using the World’s Smallest Political Quiz, asking folks to drop off business cards for a book raffle, and handing out RLCMN cards to prospects.

Additionally, in September, members of the Minnesota RLC drove to Fargo, North Dakota to attend the first-ever Economic Reality Summit. The RLC and the campaign for Liberty sponsored the summit, which offered a “wake up call” to residents on fiscal issues like the national debt and government spending.

The Minnesota affiliate tabled and reached out to prospective members at the event. Many of the interested parties were North Dakota residents, so the Minnesota RLC helped lay the groundwork for the possibility of a North Dakota Republican Liberty Caucus in the near future.

Thank you to the members of the fabulous Minnesota chapter for their continued hard work!

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer’s town tall meeting in suburban Maryland Tuesday evening dissolved into chaos, with attendees at several points bringing the event to a complete halt, according to Politico.

“We want the government out of our business!” said one person.

“This is not how the government is supposed to work!” yelled another.

According to Politico:

“The night’s most curious twist came when Collins Bailey, a Republican who serves on the Charles County Board of Education [and ran against Hoyer last year], strode to the microphone and asked Hoyer whether the health care reform effort would be paid for.

“The crowd whooped.

“Collins, how are ya?” Hoyer asked, smiling.

Hoyer went on to pledge that, yes, everything in a reform package would be paid for.”

Of course, he didn’t explain how.

Mr. Bailey is a Republican Liberty Caucus member and was endorsed by the RLC in his 2008 race.  He is very eloquent and a passionate defender of individual rights and constitutionally limited government.

This is the second time in the last two month that a RLC member in Maryland has gained attention for asking a hard-hitting question to their representatives.

In late July, RLC supporter Robert Broadus poignently questioned U.S. Senator Ben Cardin (D-MD) at his town hall.  He asked, “I want to know — are you going to tell me, an individual, that I have to buy health care or you’re going to fine me $2,500?”  Here’s a clip of the Broadus’s question as well as his appearance on Your World with Neil Cavuto.

“When you’re a child … you rely on your parents. If you want to get insurance, you buy it yourself,” said Broadus. “[For my family,] the economic downturn would better be spent on immediate, daily needs [than on health care],” he explained.

Bailey and Broadus provide two instances of appropriate ways for RLC supporters to ask questions at town hall meetings.  Their questions — both asked in a civil manner — were difficult for the Congressmen to address.

In February, The Missouri Information Analysis Center (MIAC), a “fusion center” that “collects intelligence from both the local agencies and the DHS and uses these combined sources to analyze threats and better combat terrorism and other criminal activity”, labeled some Ron Paul supporters and other constitutionalists as militia members.

On July 28, Missouri RLC Chairman Rob Hillman (above, center) offered testimony to the Interim Committee on State Intelligence Analysis Oversight regarding the MIAC report. That bipartisan Committee, chaired by Rep. Bob Dixon and Vice-Chaired by RLC-endorsed Rep. Jim Guest, was formed to gather public testimony about the MIAC fusion center in Jefferson City and the fusion center “MIAC Report” leaked to the public in February. The Committee is to report to the entire House of Representatives its findings.

On March 31, the Missouri RLC Board resolved unanimously to encourage the State Legislature to create a permanent MIAC oversight Committee. Rep. Jim Guest, Chairman of the REAL ID and Personal Privacy Committee, also sponsored HB 1138 to only permit MIAC to engage in constitutional activities in the future.

Not surprisingly, Obama, the Democrats in Congress, and the complacent Republicans in Congress recently voted to extend and appropriate additional funds to Cash for Clunkers. The program is just another endless example of a temporary, short-term government solution to a problem that could be solved by the free market.

The late economist Milton Friedman, whose wife Rose sadly passed away earlier this week, used to say that “nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program.” Generally this is true, but — despite the fact that Congress authorized an additional $2 billion in emergency funding for the bill two weeks ago — there are reports that the Cash for Clunkers program may already be out of cash yet again.

No problem, since the government has an unlimited source of revenue: namely, We the People. Another Friedman quote may be better fitting for this particular case: “If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in five years there would be a shortage of sand.”

Okay, so the Cash for Clunkers program is immensely popular — so why the criticism?

The program, administered by the the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (you trust them, don’t you?), was created to help boost the auto industry while helping the environment.

Sounds good, right? Consumers who own a car with low fuel efficiency can receive $3,500 to $4,500 from the federal government if they buy a new car with higher fuel efficiency.

Harvard economist Jeffrey Miron explains several problems with the program, namely: 1) the program pays people to junk cars that still have economic value; 2) the program will cause an increase in driving; 3) Official government policy favors one industry (automobiles, in this case) at the expense of other industries. Miron concludes that Congress “should end the program, not expand it”.

Of course, the government solution does not come without inefficiencies. This article points out that many car dealerships are considering pulling out of the program because they are not receiving payments from the government. Many of the dealerships understandably need that money to pay their bills and meet their payroll. Surprise, surprise — the government is not responding to local car dealerships who are participating in its own program.

Finally, there is today’s headline in The Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel: “Charities worry that car donations will go clunk” — which is very concerning.  Talk about a good way to stifle the market — let’s just put charities out of business altogether and have the government save us all.

The article highlights how very worthwhile endeavors such as Kidney Cars Program and the Rawhide Boys Ranch are now competing with the government. These private charities — along with scores of others — both use donated vehicles to raise funds for their programs.

This underscores Professor Miron’s point about the negative impact of the government coming to the rescue of one industry and impacting it to the detriment of other industries.

A program like Cash for Clunkers is simply not an appropriate role for a constitutionally limited government to administer in a free society.

Cash for Clunkers is a temporary solution that will soon go broke.

We’ll just have to wait and see how long it takes for the politicians to — once again — rescue the overzealous program with the hard-earned dollars of cash-strapped American taxpayers.

Two dozen Republicans gathered last weekend to charter the Republican Liberty Caucus of Marion County. Participants included Precinct Committeemen, party leaders, former elected officials and GOP activists from across Indianapolis as well as two prominent local bloggers, Gary Welsh of Advance Indiana and Paul Ogden of Ogden On Politics.

The group will work to elect pro-liberty candidates within the Marion County Republican Party and to promote these ideals among party members.

In its first act, the Liberty Caucus adopted a resolution urging Republican members of the Indianapolis City-County Council to reject any new tax increases to finance the Capital Improvement Board of Managers. There is a sense of frustration that Republicans elected during the tax revolution of 2007 to city/county offices have reneged on their campaign pledges to oppose new taxes.

Officers elected to lead the Marion County chapter include: Elizabeth Karlson, Chairman; Steve Smith, First Vice Chairman; Lisa Kelly, Second Vice Chairman; Glenn Hatmaker, Secretary; and Lisa Caulderon, Treasurer.

The leadership team will lead the group through the 2012 election.

The below photo is from a previous Indianapolis Area RLC meeting:

Like an old joke turned ironically true, it seems that the government is now preparing to actually tax us for breathing. This comes in the form of the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 sponsored by Representatives Henry Waxman (D-CA) and Edward Markey (D-MA) which is likely to come to the floor of the Congress as early as this Friday. It is the legislative culmination of the ongoing eco-madness based on the idea that the carbon dioxide is a form of toxic pollution, despite the fact that it is produced in nature, is part of the atmospheric cycle on which all life is based, and is shown to stimulate plant growth and the replenishment of the atmosphere.

Of course, the truth is that carbon dioxide is not an environmental threat, but is merely being raised as a bogeyman to allow for the passage of laws like this new energy bill whose real purpose is social engineering and anti-capitalism. It’s the perfect bogeyman because it’s everywhere and can never actually be eliminated plus it’s produced by almost every human activity — we even breathe it out with every breath. This means that a “carbon tax” can be applied to almost anything and becomes an excuse for raising taxes on everyone through indirect methods where the taxes end up being passed on to consumers in the form of energy price increases. John Dingell (D-MI) who is the senior Democrat in the House admitted recently that “nobody in the country realizes cap and trade is a tax, and it’s a great big one.”

The heart of this energy bill is the idea of a tax on emissions of carbon dioxide and other more serious pollutants, specifically targeting fossil fuels and making it costlier to use them, thereby pushing energy businesses to move into more earth-friendly sources of power. This is combined with the idea of “cap and trade” which allows companies which produce high emissions to buy offsets from companies which produce low emissions, thereby subsidizing the low polluters at the cost of the high polluters.

This all sounds great in abstract, but the problem is that 85% of America’s energy currently comes from fossil fuels of one sort or another, so the initial aggregate cost of the program will be huge. The other problem is that cap and trade just doesn’t work. As has been demonstrated in those nations where it has been used, energy companies find it more practical to just pass on the additional cost to consumers so the net result of all of this is not a reduction in pollution, just a massive increase in prices for energy consumers — effectively a big additional personal tax on every man woman and child in the nation, something they can ill afford in hard economic times.

Analysis of the consumer cost which this program would create suggests that by 2035 the price of gasoline would increase 58 percent, natural gas would go up 55 percent, home heating oil would increase 56 percent, and the typical electric bill would go up a whopping 90 percent. These would be increases to the baseline price and in addition to added cost from inflation and any natural fluctuation in the price of oil. In addition there would be secondary costs as the higher prices impact transportation and manufacturing and create sudden artificial inflation in almost every area of the economy. The finall cost for consumers would be almost $3000 per year starting as soon as the bill is implemented, and within 25 years the cost per family will have increased to almost $5000.

There are also other secondary costs to the economy in taking such a huge amount of money (almost $400 to $600 billion per year) out of the economy. Companies will look to cut costs and that means cutting jobs and wages. Families will not be able to pay the added energy costs and that means an increase in household debt.

The impact on jobs is particularly troubling and has been explored in depth in a stufy (PDF) done in Spain when they implemented a similar program. The administration is promoting this bill as one which creates more “green” jobs. What they don’t mention is that every one of those green jobs created comes at a cost of the loss of 2.2 existing jobs and most of the new jobs are temporary jobs in construction and installation or jobs which cease to exist when the new technology proves to be inefficient and is abandoned. It is estimated that 90% of the jobs created are temporary, so the long-term ratio is more like 20 jobs lost for every job created. Added to the massive job loss already caused by the administration’s failing economic policies this might be a cost too great for the nation to bear.

Massive job loss and energy cost increases for consumers were the result when Spain implemented a carbon tax with cap and trade, and it is that system which President Obama is using as a model for his program. President Obama regularly cites Spain as an example to look to for energy policy, despite the fact that the economic and human impact there has been devastating, prolonging recession, increasing unemployment and taking money out of the pockets of every consumer. The upside is that it is one of the factors contributing to the crushing defeat of Spain’s socialist government in the latest election which brought in more pragmatic reformers.

Fear-mongering about “catastrophic global warming” is being used by powerful lobbying groups like the Natural Resource Defense Council to drive support for this bill with no consideration of the damage which will be done to the economy and to consumers. And when you look at the bottom line, the projected outcome of all of this cost and suffering is estimated to be less than two-tenths of one degree in worldwide temperature change by the end of the century. Meanwhile the nation is enjoying what is reported to be one of the the coolest summers on record and a growing group of scientists led by Edward Teller are speaking out against climate change hysteria.

With a floor vote possible Friday, now is the time to contact your representative in congress and urge them to vote against HR2454. Remind them that you can’t afford to pay thousands in additional taxes to underwrite speculative technology and gratuitous expansion of the power of government. Tell them that carbon taxes and cap and trade have been a failure in Europe and that we can’t afford them here.

Voters are increasingly turning away from the Republican Party, as voter registration and voter identity polls increasingly illustrate. And there seems to be few voices of reason on where the Republican Party should go from this point forward.

Voters under 30 voted 66% to 32% for Democrat Barack Obama in 2008 – part of the biggest age disparity the exit polls have ever measured in a race for president. Young voters were the GOP’s worst age group in 2006 and 2004 as well.

According to the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, “History suggests that an entire generation’s partisan profile can be shaped in the first decade of voting. Imagine a Democratic-leaning millennial generation (those born between the late 1970s and the year 2000) adding 4 million potential voters a year to the U.S. electorate over the next decade.”

Young voters are less socially conservative than the electorate as a whole on issues ranging from homosexuality to immigration. They are also more secular and participate less in organized religion. In a recent Pew poll, 25% of Americans born since 1976 were atheist, agnostic or “nothing in particular” – compared with 13% of baby boomers.

“Young voters need to see a GOP that is more socially libertarian, particularly toward gay rights. With changing demographics come changing attitudes,” Republican consultant Mike Murphy wrote in Time magazine this month, lamenting in the same column that “A GOP ice age is on the way.”

The GOP also has to find a way to appeal to non-white voters.  In 2008, voters under 30 were 62% white while voters over 30 were 77% white .

So how can the GOP simultaneously attract black, Hispanic and Asian voters, continue its appeal to white voters, and also capture young voters?

Voters are looking for consistency — a cohesive vision for peace and prosperity — and solutions to our problems.

The Republican Liberty Caucus offers the solution: less government, more liberty.

Government at every level in this country continues to be too big, too intrusive, and too expensive.

Solutions we seek — from our nation’s dwindling health care system and dilapidated schools to our meddlesome foreign policy and increasing civil liberties violations — can be found when government is reduced or eliminated from the issue.

As a RLC Adviser Ron Paul has repeated time and again, liberty is the great unifier.  A vision of limited government unites all Americans in the great purpose of our nation’s government: to protect the rights of all American citizens and to be limited in scope and size.

Is there any vision more empowering than that?