When a virtual army of RLC endorsees including Senators Jim DeMint, Rand Paul, Pat Toomey and Mike Lee plus Congressmen like Jeff Flake and Ron Paul are all backing something you know it has to be a good idea and an important statement for smaller and more responsible government. While some congressional leaders like Sen. Mitch McConnell seem ready to sell out to the Obama administration’s demands for more taxes and spending, responsible leaders with principle are promoting the “Cap, Cut and Balance” pledge.

With the US facing an unavoidable debt crisis, we’re not going to be able to balance the budget and revitalize our economy on the backs of taxpayers or with superficial cuts in a few programs or cuts put off over long periods of time. We need real and substantial cuts now, including an end to our unnecessary wars, restructuring of entitlement programs and a program by program audit of every aspect of the federal government.

Faced with demands to raise the debt limit without implementing needed cuts, fiscal conservatives in Congress are signing the new “Cut, Cap and Balance” pledge which follows the guidelines of the Republican Study Committee and demands real and immediate cuts, enforceable spending caps, and Congressional passage of a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution.

As proposed by the Republican Study Committee, Cut, Cap, and Balance entails:

* Cut – Immediate spending cuts to reduce the deficit by half next year. According to March projections from the Congressional Budget Office, this would require spending cuts of approximately $380 billion in the 2012 fiscal year.
* Cap – Statutory, enforceable caps that bring spending into line with average revenues at 18% of GDP. Reps. Kingston and Mack have each introduced legislation that would ratchet total federal spending down to 18% of GDP over the course of 5-6 years.
* Balance – House and Senate passage of a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution that includes a spending cap at 18% of GDP and a supermajority requirement for tax increases. The House Judiciary Committee and all 47 GOP Senators have endorsed Balanced Budget Amendments along these lines.

You can show your support by signing the pledge too at www.cutcapbalancepledge.com.

And please help support our efforts to promote liberty issues and reform the Republican Party by joining the RLC today or by making a donation.

We’re in danger when the conservative instinct to defend law and order …  defies law and order.

Conservatives often talk about the Constitution and the importance of defending our founding charter. After all, without a strong rule of law, we could never have the kind of society worthy of conservative standards to begin with. One of the reasons many cite for voting Republican in a presidential race, even if they dislike the candidate, is that they believe at the very least, the Republican will nominate palatable Supreme Court Justices who interpret the Constitution conservatively, in effect defending the aforementioned centrally important rule of law. At times however, it seems that some people are confused about the context of the ‘conservative’ label. A conservative (IE: originalist) reading of the Constitution is not the same as a conservative (IE: political) interpretation.

The latter is judicial activism. It in no way differs from the “discovery” of rights that created the precedents necessary for Roe v. Wade to exist – and we all know one of the foremost conservative arguments against that case is based on the fact that it stands on rather shaky constitutional grounds; a defense rooted in a pro rule of law argument. But, it appears that for some (in particular the many pro-life Congressmen and Senators who favor the PATRIOT Act), it’s only convenient to use a constitutionally based argument when it suits your particular issue politically.

So what then, are orginialists who support the Constitution regardless of emotional arguments on issues deemed politically conservative, to make of last week’s PATRIOT Act renewal battle? Ultimately, despite the disappointment, it seems that Republicans with libertarian and constitutionally conservative values are at least making some progress.

Particularly positive is the fact that many freshmen who won on the tea party wave are taking seriously the fact that the PATRIOT Act does violate the Constitution. As Rand Paul, who filibustered the act, eloquently noted on the Senate floor, we cannot preserve the 4^th amendment without the 2^nd amendment, or the 1^st. In fact, we need the entire bill of rights; it cannot protect our freedoms unless it comes together as a whole.

In the Senate, with some shady maneuvering (what else is new?), Harry Reid bypassed Rand Paul’s attempts at a filibuster by tacking the vote to reauthorize the provisions onto the Small Business Additional Temporary Extension Act of 2011. While only four Republican Senators voted against the act, Heller, Paul and Lee (on the tea party side of the spectrum) and Murkowski (a moderate), we ought to keep in mind that one individual Senator has a great deal of power, and that three new Senators with tea party sympathies making a difference on this issue is a flicker of hope as we emerge from the darkness of the Bush era.

Later the same day, the House voted on the provisions, which were reauthorized with the support of 196 Republicans and 54 Democrats. Given Harry Reid’s suggestion that Rand Paul’s attempts to filibuster the PATRIOT Act indicate support of terrorism, I suppose the 122 members of his party who share Senator Paul’s position must also be in consort with our enemies. But Reid didn’t say that, did he? The Majority Leader’s insanity aside, it’s interesting to consider the House Republicans who voted against this renewal.

Out of the 31, 13 were freshman, which certainly indicates a step in the right direction. Particularly notable is the fact that two of the aforementioned freshmen are career military men – Allen West and Chris Gibson. While West, who openly ran as a tea party candidate, is considerably hawkish from a non-interventionist standpoint, he deserves credit for his statements against irrational nation building and these PATRIOT Act provisions. It clearly shows that, as someone with the experience, West is at least somewhat capable of distinguishing between needed powers and ‘it will keep us safe’ rhetoric; even if he supports a broader military presence than some of his more libertarian colleagues. Gibson is of interest because he has stated:

“Since the fall of the Soviet Union we have not reviewed in a meaningful way what our requirements are to protect our cherished way of life so that it reflects the realities of the 21st century, not the second half of the 20th century. There are still four combat brigades in Europe. I think they should be brought home. I don’t think we need forces in Okinawa. We have troops in over 100 different nations. We’re all over the world. I think we need to reassess that.”

Although the offending provisions were ultimately renewed, it’s promising to see that at least some newly elected Republicans are shifting paradigms. Genuine conservatives concerned with long term law and order are putting fidelity to the Constitution before partisanship and the kind of elitism that leads elected officials to believe that it’s permissible for controversial powers to be given to government as long as they are controlling things. The problem with that view, of course, is ultimately that trustworthy people won’t always be the ones in positions of influence, government almost never shrinks, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

On the other hand however, we have Congresswoman Michele Bachmann as a negative example on this matter. She has branded herself as a tea party leader and constitutionalist – she’s even flirting with a presidential run. Despite these factors, Bachmann not only voted in favor of renewing the PATRIOT Act provisions in question, she passionately defended them on the House floor in her capacity as a member of the House Intelligence Committee.

Bachmann, however, struck a noticeably different tone when discussing the matter on Freedom Watch with Judge Napolitano last month. Pressing her about the inconsistency of her support of the PATRIOT Act and the Constitution, the Judge said to the Congresswoman:

“The PATRIOT Act lets federal agents write their own search warrants in violation of the 4^th amendment – why did you vote to reauthorize it? Isn’t the whole concept of the PATRIOT Act, that the government can bypass the Constitution in hard times, one that you, and I, and that people who are faithful to the Constitution would reject?”

Instead of disagreeing with the Judge’s premise, Bachmann replied by beating around the bush with rhetoric about bipartisanship and technicalities regarding recent votes as not reauthorizing the act fully (not acknowledging the fact that she’s always voted for the act in any form it has been presented).

Congresswoman Bachmann said:

“What we need to do is we need to make sure that American’s 4^th amendment right to be free and secure of unreasonable search and seizure by the federal government is protected, I don’t back down from that at all – or 1^st amendment protections as well. We need to make sure that those amendments are held strong in a bipartisan manner.”

It’s clear that Bachmann never had the concerns she claimed to on Freedom Watch when pressed to discuss the matter. On the House floor after the vote, she explained her support of the ‘lone wolf provision’, which clearly allows federal agents to go after suspects without warrants. If that’s not a 4^th amendment concern, then I don’t know what is. This all being the case, I’d simply request that Bachmann and her other ‘constitutionalist’ colleagues grace us with some intellectual honesty. Don’t pretend to be a defending our founding charter simply because it’s rhetorically – and electorally — pleasant to do so.

Truly upholding the Constitution requires taking the moral high ground and looking at the long-term picture. Sadly, most people seem to want instant gratification without considering the consequences. Not surprisingly, our representatives end up reflecting that fact; and then we wonder why our government is cumbersome, spends unsustainably, and is largely ineffective.

Ultimately, we need to remember that these issues are not limited to our time and a government we might trust to ‘protect us’ in the interim. Conservatives are falling into a dangerous trap if we allow ourselves to forget our nation’s history. Yes, times are different, but it doesn’t mean that we should abandon basic due process laws that have been valued in western jurisprudence for several centuries and enshrined in our Constitution. While I think Congresswoman Bachmann and many of her colleagues have the best of intentions, the fact remains that their conservative instinct to defend law and order is ultimately defying it.

As Senator Paul so eloquently put it:

“(The PATRIOT act allows) warrants that are written by FBI agents; no judge reviews them. This is specifically what James Otis was worried about when he spoke about general warrants that didn’t specify the person or the place, and were written by police officers…. We have checks and balances to try to prevent abuse ….. It will not always be angels in charge of government. You have rules because you want to prevent the day that may occur when you get someone who takes over your government through elected office or otherwise, who is intent on using the tools of government to pry into your affairs, to snoop on what you’re doing, or to punish you for your political and religious beliefs. That’s why we don’t ever want our laws to become so expansive.”

(For future reference, Young Americans For Liberty put together a timeline of the PATRIOT Act battle between Reid and Paul, spanning from February until the vote in May.)

This week Senator Rand Paul (RLC-KY) sent out a lengthy letter urging Republicans to sign a petition to Congress on behalf of the National Right to Work Committee in support of the National Right to Work Act which is being considered in the Senate. The email was almost bizarrely long, but I think I can summarize the idea in a few short words. The act would protect workers from being forced against their will to join unions and pay inflated dues which often support political causes they personally oppose.

Those of you familiar with the traditions of the Republican Party – the traditions which the Republican Liberty Caucus wants to restore – know that a cornerstone since the founding of the party has been the idea of free labor. That workers should have the right to choose where they work and to change jobs without coercion from government, employers or unions. This includes the right to join a union, but also the right not to join a union if they prefer not to. It includes equal access to employment for which they are qualified, but also the right of employers to make their own decisions on their own criteria for hiring. Just as we need free markets in goods and services a free society demands a free market in labor.

The text of the petition reads:

Whereas: Federal law permits Big Labor to confiscate $8 billion from American workers’ paychecks every year just to get or keep a job;

Whereas: This forced unionism breeds violent strikes and a hate-the-boss mentality which drive good jobs overseas, jack up prices and risk re-igniting inflation:

Whereas: Union bosses use this forced-dues fortune to corrupt our political system with over a billion dollars every election cycle;

Whereas: Union-puppet politicians routinely vote for higher taxes, bailouts, job-killing bureaucracy and even more porkbarrel spending keeping our nation locked in recession;

Therefore: I urge you in the strongest possible terms to strike a blow for freedom and American prosperity by co-sponsoring and casting your every vote in favor the National Right to Work Act.

Please help support our work to bring our government under control and restore our liberties by donating using the PayPal link below. You can also join the RLC to become part of our network of member-activists. To make a recurring monthly donation try this link: Enter the maximum amount to pay each month: $ USD Sign up for

The bill is authored by Jim DeMint (RLC-NC) and co-sponsored by all of the RLC endorsees in the Senate. Information and the actual text of the act can be found on OpenCongress.org.

I want to encourage all RLC members and supporters to sign the petition and support this effort. Protecting the rights of workers and employers against the increasingly abusive force of unions is the best way to strike a blow at the heart of the progressive agenda promoted by the Obama administration.

You can find the petition on the NRTW Site. And don’t forget to make a donation to the RLC while you’re here (see links to the right). We need your support to keep aggressively promoting pro-liberty and smaller government legislation like this.

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)

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.

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.

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.