Before releasing his budget publicly, Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) gave Senate Republicans a private briefing about the plan in early April. During that meeting, RLC Advisory Board member Rand Paul, a Tea Party-backed freshman from Kentucky, challenged Ryan in front of the rest of their party, according to two GOP aides briefed on the meeting.

Sen. Paul said Rep. Ryan’s plan did not do enough to cut spending and relied on too much deficit spending for too long, according to the aides.

Ryan gave it right back to him. The budget committee chairman went directly after Sen. Paul’s five-year budget plan, which he had clearly studied closely. Ryan’s criticism went roughly like this: yes, he said, you slash the Department of Education and make fast, dramatic cuts, but you don’t deal with entitlement spending. In the out years the deficit would sky-rocket, he said, making an air chart with his hand moving through the air and pointing sharply upward.

A GOP aide sympathetic to Sen. Paul said that Rep. Ryan’s criticism unfairly isolated a single part of his plan and treated as if it represented Paul’s global approach to deficit reduction. Paul does plan to announce a proposal for cutting entitlement spending, the aide said, but wanted to put the domestic spending plan out first.

The private challenge from Sen. Paul reflects criticisms of Rep. Ryan’s plan Paul also made to HuffPost. Paul thinks that Ryan’s approach doesn’t go nearly far enough.

“Here’s how bad it is: The president’s proposal, his ten year plan, is 46 trillion in spending. Paul Ryan’s alternative, which everybody is going crazy over, is still 40 trillion dollars in spending,” Paul told HuffPost. “My problem with the whole thing is that all of the proposals basically increase spending.”

Rand Paul said that Paul Ryan’s plan relies too heavily on deficit spending. “The president adds, I think, 11 trillion to the gross debt and Ryan’s plan adds eight trillion. I don’t think anybody up here realizes that we can’t withstand trillion dollar annual deficits,” he said.

A Ryan spokesman didn’t respond to a request for comment.

The House recently approved Ryan’s spending plan, but it was rejected by the Senate. A compromise budget expires at the end of September.

(Source: Ryan Grim at Huffington Post)

The Republican Liberty Caucus of Michigan is honored to host two distinguished guests at its 2011 State RLC Convention:

1) Congressman Justin Amash
2) State Representative Bob Genetski

This event will occur on Saturday, May 14 at Tommy Brann’s Steakhouse & Grille (4157 Division Avenue South) in Wyoming, Michigan. Festivities will kick off at 12noon and will culminate at 3pm. Please RSVP to our Facebook event invite.

The atmosphere will be a working lunch and registration is FREE, but you will be responsible for your own meal. And, we all know that liberty isn’t free — so please bring some cash because the Michigan RLC will be passing the Liberty Bucket to help defray costs and promote liberty in Michigan in 2011 and 2012.

Congressman Amash spoke at the 2011 RLC National Convention and had this to say about the RLC: “In 2005, I wasn’t involved in politics in any substantive way. I had never really thought about running for office. I began looking for organizations that shared the beliefs I had — and that’s when I came across the Republican Liberty Caucus. And, really, it’s what’s started my move toward running for office.”

He is now recognized as one of the most principled members of Congress, passionately defending the principles he and his constituents share while working to reduce the burdens that decades of Big Government has had on us all.

State Representative Bob Genetski represents District 88 in the State House. While Congressman Amash served in the House, Rep. Genetski, Congressman Amash, and a small group of other principled Representatives often voted together to reduce the influence of the special interests and restore liberty to Michigan.

We hope you can join the Republican Liberty Caucus of Michigan, Congressman Amash, and Representative Geneteski for the 2011 Michigan RLC Convention on May 14.

Congressman Amash at the RLC National Convention in February. He was a super star among those who attended!

Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky wrote the following letter urging his fellow lawmakers to vote against compromise.

__________________________________________________

To my fellow Members of the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives,

The much-ballyhooed 2011 continuing resolution will leave the federal government spending $1.6 trillion more than it takes in. Despite descriptions of cuts, the 2011 Congress will spend more than it did in 2010 and with a larger annual deficit. It is the third year in a row with a record deficit.

Only in Washington can a budget that spends more than it did the year before, with a larger deficit, be portrayed as “cutting.”

The only “good news” from the 2011 CR would be that it adds less debt than President Obama’s plan, but it does not appreciably change the accumulation of debt.

Last November, riding a wave of voter discontent with out-of-control government spending, nearly 100 new House and Senate Republicans were sent to Washington to put an end to Big Government.

Most of us are small-government conservatives, who truly believe the size and scope of our federal government needs to be reversed. But being serious about this mission requires being honest with those who sent us; and it requires standing up when our leaders themselves abandoned their promises.

House Republicans were all voted in on the promise to pass a spending bill that cut $100 billion, a modest proposal when you consider our estimated $1.65 trillion deficit.

House leaders promptly floated a 2011 spending cut of less than $33 billion in January. House freshman rightly balked, saying that is not what they promised and not why they came to Washington. So the leaders went back to the drawing board and proposed a better, but still inadequate, $61 billion.

Fast-forward to last week. What numbers were the House, Senate and White House officials negotiating over? The difference between $33 billion and $40 billion. Note that the original House proposal somehow morphed into the White House/Senate Democrat proposal. If that doesn’t show the complete failure in the initial House proposal from January, I don’t know what does.

Finally, with great hand-wringing and drama, negotiations settled on just over $38.5 billion, or roughly $6 billion more than the freshmen objected to in January.

I didn’t come to Washington to settle for $6 billion less in spending than if I had not been here. I suspect most of my freshmen House friends didn’t either. That’s barely half a day’s spending at our current pace. This discussion is simply not credible or serious, and unfortunately, it has not been from the beginning, as the House leadership has made clear.

Think about it another way before you vote: The entire budget cut plans skim 3 percent off the top of our historic $1.65 trillion deficit. That means the side of Big Government got 97 percent of what they want.

I prefer to be on the other side. The side of the people who sent us here to Washington to do something. To cut spending. To save our economy. To move toward a balanced budget.

I will vote a resounding NO this week to this so-called deal. And I urge my colleagues, if they are serious about cutting government spending, to do the same.

Republican Liberty Caucus Advisory Board member Congressman Ron Paul had stern criticisms of the Paul Ryan budget proposal. According to Dr. Paul,

“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.

When Kentucky senator Rand Paul recently proposed cutting off the entirety of American foreign aid, his plan was immediately denounced by almost every corner of the ideological spectrum. Most of the disagreement centered on his willingness to do away with foreign aid to Israel, a suggestion many Americans find unacceptable when it comes to our long-time Middle East friend. Paul found himself with few allies, a scenario underscoring just how difficult it will be to ever truly get our deficit under control. Though the $3 billion in annual aid provided to Israel is a drop in the bucket compared to overall annual federal expenditures, the fact that conservatives and liberals alike cannot picture a world without foreign aid is quite telling.

One of the fallacies that leads many to oppose cutting foreign aid, be it to Israel or another nation, is the assumption that the absence of federal aid to Israel would somehow impoverish the nation having funds cut off.  But this notion is very suspect. Americans are a notably charitable people, and the wide support for Israel demonstrated by public opinion polls indicates Americans would be apt to generously give to that nation by way of private donations. Sure, there will be initial howls and obligatory accusations of callousness. But the public dole would quickly be displaced by donations from private organizations and individuals, which is the means conservatives are supposed to favor when it comes to helping those in need. Numerous Jewish and evangelical Christian organizations would no doubt pick up any slack left over from the elimination of government funds.

Domestically, we refer to recipients of government transfer payments as ‘welfare recipients’, but as far as I know this title is rarely applied when referencing foreign aid. Rand Paul indicated as much when discussing his foreign aid proposal; do conservatives really think the Israelis so lack self-sufficiency that they would be an economic basket case if not for U.S. taxpayer dollars? Do we really want other countries who receive the other $22 billion worth of foreign aid to feel as if America is merely buying their goodwill, or would we instead prefer to have peaceful exchanges of trade and commerce with them that foster reciprocal good feelings?

Whether applied to Israel or Egypt, conservatives should not favor the spreading of American’s tax dollars around the globe on the whim of a D.C. politician. Instead, individual donating on their volition and time would not only be more rewarding for all those involved, but it would allow our government to take a small step in the direction of solvency.

For years, we have given money to Israel’s avowed enemies, some of whom even share a physical border with that small nation. The subsidization of Mubarak in Egypt was just one of many foreign dole practices that should cause Americans to scratch their heads. Would not an even handed approach dictate that we simply cut off the spigot of money to all overseas governments? It is astonishing that our politicians are all but oblivious to this sentiment, one that is widespread among the everyday public.

After all, we are rapidly nearing $15 trillion debt; at what point do we begin taking the steps necessary to get our own house in order and cease subsidizing the lifestyles and military budgets of countries thousands of miles from our shore? Some might incorrectly call this “isolationism”, but our current foreign aid policy, when you get down to it, comes perilously close to qualifying as socialism. Is that any better?

We need to begin treating the Israelis like the grownups they are and stop interjecting ourselves in their finances and internal affairs. To do so is in no way to be anti-Israel, but instead would be a commonsensical approach for fiscal conservatives to adopt across the board. The minimal amount of money saved would pale in comparison to the feelings of sovereignty this would grant both to Americans and Israelis, as a recent Jerusalem Institute for Market Studies study shows.

Countries who formerly received aid would no longer need a paternal figure looking over their shoulder as they are freed up to manage the affairs in a manner they, not America per se, see fit. Many of us have been taught as conservatives that success should be defined as how many people are able to leave, not sign up for, welfare programs. This line of sound reasoning need not be divorced from our approach to overseas assistance either.

Douglas Casey once stated that: “Foreign aid might be defined as a transfer of money from poor people in rich countries to rich people in poor countries.” This quote has a lot more truth to it that those in Washington are willing to admit.

Perhaps the time has come to stop forcing Americans to aid those in poverty overseas by gunpoint, and instead let them do so out of the goodness of their own hearts.

by Ron Paul

This is the Appendix to Ron Paul’s new book, Liberty Defined.

1. Rights belong to individuals, not groups; they derive from our nature and can neither be granted nor taken away by government.
2. All peaceful, voluntary economic and social associations are permitted; consent is the basis of the social and economic order.
3. Justly acquired property is privately owned by individuals and voluntary groups, and this ownership cannot be arbitrarily voided by governments.
4. Government may not redistribute private wealth or grant special privileges to any individual or group.
5. Individuals are responsible for their own actions; government cannot and should not protect us from ourselves.
6. Government may not claim the monopoly over a people’s money and government’s must never engaged in official counterfeiting, even in the name of macroeconomic stability.
7. Aggressive wars, even when called preventative, and even when they pertain only to trade relations, are forbidden.
8. Jury nullification, that is, the right of jurors to judge the law as well as the facts, is a right of the people and the courtroom norm.
9. All forms of involuntary servitude are prohibited, not only slavery but also conscription, forced association, and forced welfare distribution.
10. Government must obey the law that it expects other people to obey and thereby must never use force to mold behavior, manipulate social outcomes, manage the economy, or tell other countries how to behave.

© 2011 FREE, Inc.

Will Reince Priebus exclude Ron Paul and Gary Johnson from the 2012 RNC debates?

Despite the fact that no candidates have formally announced for President, we know that campaign season is upon us because the usual suspects are working to find a way to exclude new ideas from the Presidential debates.

Presidential debates in our country have often been exclusionary, especially since the formation of the Commission on Presidential Debates after Ross Perot’s successful third party campaign in 1992. The Libertarian Party candidate has never been included in a nationally televised debate. Congressman Ron Paul was excluded from at least one debate in Iowa in 2007, but was ultimately included in the important debates. If he had not been included in the debates, both his ideas and his popularity would have suffered as a result. Perhaps the Tea Party never would have formed.

Last week, RNC Chairman Reince Priebus formed a committee comprised of RNC member Jim Bopp, former RNC Chair Mike Duncan, former Florida GOP Chair Al Cardenas, and former Congressman Dick Armey to decide whether the Republican National Committee should sponsor debates to raise money for themselves. According to James Bopp, “The RNC or its designee may at its discretion determine the time, place, co-sponsors, format , subject matter, moderators and participants” for the debates.

“Those candidates invited to participate in RNC-sanctioned debates will be allowed to participate in a list exchange with the RNC,” wrote Bopp.

And therein lies the problem. Certain candidates will be invited and other candidates will be excluded.

This is exactly what I warned of when I asked you to write your RNC member to oppose the nomination of RNC Chairman Reince Priebus just a few months ago.

The RNC is planning to pick favorites. If conservative talk show host Hugh Hewitt — who thinks this is a grand plan for the Republican Party — has his way, Congressman Ron Paul and Governor Gary Johnson will be excluded from RNC-sanctioned debates. Writes Hewitt:

“Bar the stage to those candidates who simply cannot win the nomination, even under Iowa-upset circumstances. Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., and former Sen. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania are long-shots, but they have a plausible path to the nomination. Former Rep. Buddy Roemer of Louisiana and former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson do not. If Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, asks for another giant chunk of valuable time, the RNC should say no, and put up with the howls from the 1 percent who will scream.“

Fortunately, some debates are already scheduled, including a May 5 South Carolina debate, a June 7 New Hampshire debate, an August Iowa debate, two debates in Florida in September and October, and the Politico/NBC debate on September 14 in California. However, if the RNC continues with its plan, they could simply adopt some of these debates and begin excluding whomever they want — just as the bipartisan Commission on Presidential Debates excludes third party candidates each Presidential election cycle.

TAKE ACTION

Please contact RNC Chairman Reince Priebus, RNC Chief of Staff Jeff Larson, RNC Committeeman from Indiana Jim Bopp, RNC Committeeman from Kentucky Mike Duncan, FreedomWorks’ Dick Armey, and American Conservative Union’s Al Cardenas. Ask them for inclusive debates that include Congressman Ron Paul, former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson, former Louisiana Governor Buddy Roemer, and former Reagan official Fred Karger.

Here is a sample letter:

Dear Committeeman Bopp,

I recently learned that the Republican National Committee is sponsoring its own debates to raise money for the RNC.  I am a Republican party activist and am also involved with my local Tea Party.  I saw conservative commentator Hugh Hewitt comment that certain candidates should be excluded from the RNC-sanctioned debates.

Mr. Bopp, rest assured that I will not donate to the RNC if they exclude candidates like Congressman Ron Paul, Governor Buddy Roemer, or Governor Gary Johnson.  I want to hear as many voices as possible so that the Republican Party can have its best choice to defeat President Obama in 2012.

If your debates are going to be inclusive, then please forge ahead.  However, if you’re going to exclude candidates and ideas from the process, count me out.

Best Regards,

[Your Name]

You may also want to write to Hugh Hewitt to ask him why he believes American voters should be isolated from new ideas and different approaches to solving our problems.

GET INVOLVED

This leads us to the most important point about the discussion: We need more liberty-loving Republicans involved in the Republican Party so our voices can be heard.

Please join the Republican Liberty Caucus today and get involved in your state or local chapter.

If we’re not able to change the Republican Party from within, liberty will lose.

It’s really that simple. We choose to inject libertarian ideas into the party, or we give up. Those are our options.

“In 2005, I wasn’t involved in politics in any substantive way. I had never really thought about running for office. I began looking for organizations that shared the beliefs I had — and that’s when I came across the Republican Liberty Caucus. And, really, it’s what’s started my move toward running for office.” – Justin Amash

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.

Last weekend, Republicans in California gathered for their 2011 GOP Convention in Sacramento. Members of the Republican Liberty Caucus of California hosted their Convention on Friday night and participated in numerous activities throughout the weekend at the state GOP Convention.

On Saturday, the RLC-CA hosted a straw poll at its booth at the CAGOP Convention at the Sacramento Hyatt. Participation in the straw poll was limited to convention delegates, party activists, and registered Republican voters.

Republican Congressman and RLC Advisory Board member (and past Honorary Chairman) Dr. Ron Paul of Texas won the 2012 Presidential straw poll with 17.8 percent of the vote.

On Wednesday afternoon, Ron Paul appeared on Neil Cavuto’s program on Fox News and was asked specifically about the RLC straw poll victory (see screenshot above). Watch the clip.

Below, members of the California RLC administer the straw poll at the booth.

Republican Liberty Caucus favorite Senator Rand Paul is contemplating his future, according to today’s Charleston Post & Courier newspaper. Quoth the paper:

U.S. Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., is visiting Charleston today talk about his possible presidential bid, how to reign in the national debt and the current military action in Libya.

Paul, a Tea Party favorite who won his Senate seat last fall, is visiting several early presidential voting states independently of his father, 2008 presidential contender and current U.S. Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas.

“The only decision I’ve made is I won’t run against my dad,” Rand Paul said, adding that he wants to see the Tea Party influence the 2012 GOP nominee. Paul is set to appear this afternoon before the College of Charleston’s bully pulpit series.

This evening, he will address the Charleston Meeting, a new invitation-only, center-right organization that invites prominent politicians to address its members off the record.

I previously opined that his father, RLC Advisory Board member Dr. Ron Paul, would likely pass on running for President for the third time. I mentioned that the status of Ron Paul’s son Rand may factor into his decision.

So which Paul, if either, will run for President in 2012?

I guess we’ll have to wait and see.