If every state Republican Party followed the lead of the Equality State Republicans, our nation would not be in such a time of crisis.

Earlier this week, legislation banning recognition of out-of-state gay marriages was narrowly voted down in Wyoming. Out of 30 legislators in the Senate, only four are Democrats.

The bill failed 14-16. Twelve courageous Republicans voted to keep The Equality State equal.

These Wyoming Senate Republicans rejected a discrimination measure against gays. RLC-endorsed State Senator Cale Case, Ph.D. (2nd photo from the left, above) made economic and personal liberty arguments in opposition to the bill.  In the State House, RLC-endorsed member Sue Wallis made similar arguments. The RLC hopes that these pro-liberty, fair-minded legislators can help the Republican Party change its course nationally.

Supporters of the legislation said it was needed to resolve a conflict in Wyoming law, which defines marriage as a contract “between a male and a female person” but also recognizes any valid marriage performed outside the state. Earlier in the day, the bill barely passed the Wyoming House 31-28.

Wednesday’s vote on HB74 marked the latest in series of late-session defeats for social conservatives in Wyoming, who had been heartened by last year’s election results. Wyoming Republicans enjoyed their largest legislative majorities in 90 years and swung the Legislature noticeably to Republicans.

Last week, lawmakers killed a proposed constitutional amendment banning gay marriage as well as legislation requiring abortion doctors to offer an ultrasound to their patients.

Maybe the social conservatives didn’t count on the fact that many of the Republican State Senators — shown above — have strong libertarian leanings.

Medical marijuana is currently legal in 15 states and DC. A coalition of libertarian Republicans and Democrats in the New Hampshire legislature are hoping to make medical marijuana legal in that state soon.

The Democratic-controlled Legislature passed a bill allowing medical marijuana in 2009, but Democratic Gov. John Lynch vetoed it. The House overrode the veto, but the Senate came up two votes short, according to The Concord Monitor.

According to the Monitor:

State Sen. Jim Forsythe, a Strafford Republican and former chairman of the state Republican Liberty Caucus, said the challenge for libertarian-leaning Republicans will be to convince more socially conservative party members that allowing medical marijuana fits with conservative values. “Conservatives traditionally oppose Obamacare because they want government out of doctor patient relationships, and medical marijuana helps satisfy that,” Forsythe said. “We believe in minimal regulation, and this helps toward that.”

The impetus behind the bill is individuals like Clayton Holton, who has muscular dystrophy, and Nicole Rockwell, who has spinal muscular atrophy. Rockwell, of Manchester, told the House Health, Human Services and Elderly Affairs Committee yesterday that marijuana helps her eat, sleep and alleviate the depression and pain she has suffered her whole life.

The bill would allow patients who suffer from debilitating medical conditions to possess up to 2 ounces of marijuana, with a doctor’s prescription and an identification card proving the patient is allowed to have marijuana. It would set up “alternative treatment centers” to distribute the marijuana, which would be subject to extensive regulations.

The bill is expected to advance through the House and may receive support from the Governor this time due to specific concerns it addresses. However, the Republican-controlled New Hampshire Senate — which has just five Democrats and 19 Republicans — is going to be a significant obstacle for passage. You can bet that Senator Forsythe will work to convince his colleagues of the bill’s merits. Contact other New Hamphire State Senators here.

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.

The resurgent interest in constitutionalism and sound economics within the Republican Party has been an encouraging sign. The debate within the conservative movement has advanced in a healthy direction thanks to the prodding of the Tea Party. Whether these moves by politicians were genuine or done out of pure survival purposes is still an open question, but the fact remains that the rhetoric has changed substantially during the post-Bush era.

One of the most demonstrable shifts has been the manner in which Republicans discuss the very institution of government. Our founders, in their rich understanding of private property and desire to zealously guard the liberties of the new nation’s citizenry, spoke of government in generally unflattering terms. While recognizing its presence in some restrained form was required, it was looked at as little more than a necessary evil. The notion of an income tax, federal welfare programs, corporate subsidies, and a fiat currency would have been abhorrent to the framers of the Constitution. In their minds, the main reason for a central government was national defense. The idea of government becoming a charitable institution was an aberration, as this was correctly viewed as the function of churches and individuals.

George Washington summed up these views when he stated that “Government is not reason. It is not eloquence. Government is force; like fire it is a dangerous servant — and a fearful master.” As recently as Ronald Reagan, our nation had a president who was well read in free market concepts and at least made an effort to relay these concepts to the country he served. “Government is not a solution to our problem, government is the problem,” the fortieth president famously said, strong words to a country that had become comfortable with New Deal and Great Society programs. But this reinforced a crucial point that conservatives forgot in the following years. The Ayn Rand and Jeffersonian view was banished, and government became something to be adored and used towards one’s own ends. It became the solution instead of the problem to many beltway Republicans, and they paid for it dearly in ensuing elections.

The philosophies of our current presidents reflect the attitudes a majority of Americans have come to hold toward government. During the Bush years, the force of government ceased being viewed in negative terms by Republicans, and instead was embraced. If one was unaware of the history and aims of conservatism, words spoken by men like Reagan and Goldwater would have seemed downright foreign in the initial years of this new century.

Unfortunately, it took a president like Barack Obama and a movement like the Tea Party to finally wake up a critical mass of conservatives. Not only is the government viewed as the solution by the Obama administration, it is touted as the savior and embodiment of all things virtuous. The combination of coercive force and worship of the state became embraced to a degree which even exceeded the previous administration, revolting millions of Americans who value the concepts of self government. Let us hope that eloquence and slick productions are no longer all it takes to make Americans forget that a government operating outside of the bounds of the Constitution is not their friend, but instead a fierce foe.

Barry Goldwater, icon of the post-World War Two conservative movement, summed up the genuine conservative’s mindset when he said: “I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. I do not undertake to promote welfare, for I propose to extend freedom. My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them.”

We know the conservative movement will never quite embrace the Obama version of rampant statism. But despite this, they had come pretty close in recent years, and are left with a major decision to make: will they settle and continue down the path of Bush-style, big government conservatism, or do they finally return to their Goldwater roots and begin stripping down the state to its constitutional size?

In essence, they must decide once and for all if government is a source of reason, or instead just a cleverly crafted form of brute force.

During the scramble for victory in Republican primaries, one of the most oft-repeated assurances each candidate attempts to make is their commitment to pro-life principles. Leaving aside a few socially liberal Northeast states, most Republican races consist of candidates offering reassurances that they will stand by these convictions and take steps to implement them once in office. While the track record is spotty at best when it comes to making progress in this department, it certainly is an issue that any candidate seeking to distinguish themselves as a conservative attempts to set the record straight on.

And this is admirable rhetoric. Protecting defenseless life is one of the few primary justifications for the institution of government, so a worldview that seeks limits on abortion does not conflict with a firm belief in smaller government. Though there could be a robust debate over whether this should be handled at the state level as many murder cases are, or at the federal level by way of constitutional amendment, seeking ways to curb abortion is nothing to be scoffed at. A recent Rasmussen Reports poll showed 50% of Americans describe their views as pro-choice, so this remains a touchy and divisive issue which ends up falling largely along party lines.

With the trend of evangelical Protestants joining the Republican party that began as a trickle in the 1970s before morphing into a full blown stampede in the 1980s, social issues like abortion became much more of a deal breaker within the party. This cycle became complete in 2008 when John McCain received upwards of 80% of the evangelical vote in many states, a percentage crossing north of 90% in some. And considering most of these voters are salt of the earth, hard working, church-going individuals, dissecting their voting patterns is vital to seeing where the heartbeat of America is during any given election period.

But there is a subtle danger posed when being pro-life is seen as the primary distinguishing trait of a conservative candidate. For example, if an issue such as abortion becomes the sole reason a conservative votes the way they do, this opens up the sorts of opportunities seized by Southern Democrats like Gene Taylor, Dan Boren, Heath Schuler, and Chet Edwards through the years. If it becomes the sole focus, traditional conservative values like constitutionalism and governmental restraint can become secondary, if not outright ignored.

It can also work for fiscally liberal Republicans who actually possess little commitment to smaller government, as demonstrated by the presidency of George W. Bush. No matter how much federal spending and entitlements expanded, defense of his alleged conservatism would always center around the claim of “well, but he is pro-life.” The fact that nothing ever gets done on this issue no matter the makeup of Congress might lead perceptive observers to wonder if it is little more than a political football, something Republicans running for office can always tease voters with. “Just re-elect us one more time, and we will close those abortion clinics once and for all” is seen as sufficient bait to maintain political power.

If it holds true that being pro-life translates into a more broad based commitment to limited, decentralized government, then looking at the relative economic freedom of countries with more restrictive abortion laws should reflect this. But these two are not necessarily synonymous. Venezuela, a country ruled by the iron-fisted Hugo Chavez and which grants its citizens minimal economic liberty, also happens to heavily curb access to abortions. Though its Catholic leanings influence this, it shows no correlation between views on social issues like abortion and those held regarding economics. Further evidence that a country’s willingness to curb abortion access is entirely unrelated to opening up other freedoms for its inhabitants is present. Chile, Mexico, El Salvador, and Argentina boast some of the most restrictive abortion laws in the world, but according to the 2011 Index of Economic Freedom rankings published by the Heritage Foundation, these countries were 11th, 48th, 68th, and 138th respectively.

This is not to say that individuals can hold pro-life views while subsequently desiring governmental non-interference in the economic sphere. The majority of conservatives certainly hold to these convictions simultaneously. But neither necessarily dovetails with the other, something many libertarians are quick to point out. Strongly desiring to legislate against aggressive action towards an unborn child is a worthy devotion to have, but confusing this for a well-rounded conservative philosophy can cause confusion. Labeling this candidate or that “staunchly conservative” based merely on a laudable pro-life stance can lead to the election of officeholders that hold little else in common with their constituents aside from this one position.

As evidenced by the economic freedom of nations like El Salvador and Argentina, one could have a full blown statist orientation while accordingly holding pro-life views. Conservatives must be more cognizant of this next time they go to the ballot box to act on the empty words of a cynical politician. Blind faith that platitudes promising to protect the liberty of the unborn will somehow translate into the guarding of the freedom of the born has proven to be unfounded.

While Republicans in The Badger State Have Finally Gained a Backbone,
Some Wisconsin Teachers Have Failed Their Students

by Aaron Biterman

Recent protests in Wisconsin have captured the attention of residents in that state and anyone paying attention to politics nationally. Governor Scott Walker, elected in November after many years of total Democrat control, proposed what he calls a budget repair bill to close the $3.6 billion shortfall. The legislation, which has support from large majorities of the Republican-controlled House and Senate, will significantly curb the collective bargaining rights of public employees in the state and would require most government workers to contribute to their pensions and health care premiums.

Specifically, if passed, state employee wage increases will be in conjunction with inflation such that employee pension contributions will rise to 5.8% of each employee’s salary, health insurance premiums will rise to 12.6% of their total premium, state workers could opt out of paying union dues after current contracts expire, and union dues could no longer be collected automatically.

Governor Walker says that these items are necessary to prevent furloughs while also reducing the $137 million deficit, but the Wisconsin Educational Association (WEA) and President Obama claim that Walker is using his political power to take away worker rights while reducing union power in the state. Of course, as the 2012 election moves closer, Democrats nationwide are concerned about Wisconsin – a key swing state – and rightfully so. Democrats receive 65% of union contributions while Republicans receive roughly 1%; roughly 34% is given to non-partisan causes.

The WEA and the Wisconsin Federation of Teachers have a combined annual revenue of nearly $30 million, according to the Center for Union Facts. Additionally, while nearly 10% of private school teachers are fired due to poor performance annually, less than two percent of Wisconsin teachers are let go as a result of inadequate performance. This is because Wisconsin public school teachers are virtually untouchable after three years of service, after which they receive tenure.

Now Wisconsin teachers have taken to the streets of Madison to protest the budget-balancing act of their newly elected governor. Meanwhile, the 14 Democrats who are members of the Wisconsin State Senate decided to leave their state and their constituents to block the Walker budget repair bill. By hiding out in Illinois, the Senate Democrats have blocked the 20 votes needed to obtain a quorum because Republicans only have 19 State Senate votes to pass the bill.

Ironically, from 2006 to 2010, when Democrats controlled the legislature and governor’s office, the same Democrats who fled their state also spearheaded controversial legislation that Republicans were not able to block, including, but not limited to:
▪ State borrowing of nearly $1.5 billion despite an unemployment rate less than the national average;
▪ Raising taxes to the tune of $900 million on cigarettes, hospitals, oil companies, and real estate in 2007;
▪ Raising taxes with a $1.1 billion tax package in 2009 which broadened the corporate tax base, increased the top personal income tax rate, reduced the capital gains tax exclusion, and increased hospital taxes; and
▪ Each of these tax hikes was in conjunction with increases in spending.

In these examples, Republican lawmakers chose to show up and make their arguments in opposition to the Democrat majority. They did not flee to another state as the 14 Democrat State Senators have.

This brings us back to the sad truth about the Wisconsin union protests: Many teachers have left their students behind for their own self-interest.

That’s right; some teachers in Madison and Milwaukee have skipped school to enhance their own wages despite the fact that 90% of black fourth-graders in the state are not proficient readers, thereby making them last in the nation in this demographic group according to the Wisconsin Policy Research Institute. In 2009, 19% of Wisconsin high school students failed to qualify for service in the U.S. military as a result of their poor scores on the Army’s Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery (ASVAB). Student achievement in Wisconsin is disparate with mediocre results, yet some teachers had the nerve to leave their students in the dust to picket at the Capitol for days at a time.

When it comes to teacher quality, Wisconsin’s results are even worse than its student achievement rates. The National Council on Teacher Quality gives Wisconsin a “D” (with “F” meaning a total failure) in four out of five categories from its 2009 “State Policy Yearbook.” The state fails to deliver well-prepared teachers, expand its pool of teachers, identify effective teachers, and remove ineffective teachers. Specifically, the study concluded that Wisconsin “fails to make evidence of student learning the preponderant criterion in teacher evaluations” and “lacks an efficient termination process for ineffective teachers.”

The essential truth about the budget repair bill is that teacher union bosses across the country are watching Wisconsin. They know that if a Democrat-leaning state like The Badger State reduces the special privileges of its state employees, they could lose tens of thousands of forced dues dollars, some of which are earmarked for the campaigns of politicians like President Obama. States like Alabama, Maine, New Jersey, Ohio, Tennessee, and Virginia are considering following Governor Scott Walker’s lead on this issue to nip their budget shortfalls in the bud, too.

Freedom of association is a constitutional right and workers should be free to come together to organize. By the same token, teachers who don’t show up to class, legislators who run to another state, and doctors who write false sick notes should be held accountable. Thank you to Wisconsin’s teachers who continue to show up for work. These are the teachers that Wisconsin students can look up to as examples. Those who are not showing up have embarrassed themselves and their profession, and that’s the sadness in the Wisconsin union uprising.

Assuming the budget fix moves forward, there are some positives in the situation, too: the budget may finally balance, other states could follow the Wisconsin model, and a much-needed discussion about the special privileges that union power wields for public sector employees will have entered the public cognizance. We owe a debt of gratitude to Governor Walker and the Republicans in the Wisconsin legislature for their collective backbones.

_____________________________________________________________________________
Aaron Biterman is a native of Milwaukee, Wisconsin and is a certified teacher in The Badger State. In 2007, he moved from Wisconsin to Virginia, where he currently resides. He is an Advisory Board member of the Northern Virginia Tea Party and is Vice-Chairman of the Republican Liberty Caucus.

This is a very brief rebuttal to LewRockwell.com/Campaign for Liberty author Anthony Gregory’s blog post entitled “Republicans as Bad as Ever.” Gregory opines:

“On war, the most important issue. In the tenth year of a ridiculous, illegal, and completely counterproductive war of aggression, Justin Amash, a Michigan freshman Congressman with some libertarian leanings whom I was told to keep an eye on, joined the 97% of his party in the House voting against a completely reasonable and moderate plan to withdraw troops from Afghanistan.

As an aside, this alone would have saved $100 billion a year. Another epic fail from the Tea Party.”

Congressman Amash, the second-youngest member of Congress and a keynote speaker at the 2011 Republican Liberty Caucus National Convention, defended his vote as follows:

Here’s the roll call for Amend. 232, which defunds Afghanistan ops. It was not a policy bill to end the war. I would support that. Instead, it cut funding to a level that Rep. Nadler (D-NY-08) claimed would allow for safe withdrawal. His word cannot be the final analysis for a new Rep., and it wouldn’t have been if I didn’t have 600 other amendments to review. I voted no. “Present” is for genuine procedural concerns.

Mr. Gregory made the same mistake that his LewRockwell.com colleague Laurence Vance made when Vance criticized the Republican Liberty Caucus in January. Mr. Gregory doesn’t understand how Congress works in the same way that Mr. Vance had little knowledge about the goals of the RLC. (Since then, Mr. Vance has learned more about us and even featured my article about Paul Ryan at his blog.)

A simple suggestion to those in the liberty movement: Please understand the topic you’re writing about before sharing your opinion. This will make you much more effective when trying to convince audiences of an opinion.

And, another suggestion: It’s more important to focus on the more than 400 members of Congress who do not share *any* libertarian principles than the 30 or so members who are actively working to preserve our country.

The politicians endorsed by the Republican Liberty Caucus are working to save our nation.

Let’s spend less time scrutinizing their votes and more time trying to either persuade or boot out the 400 politicians in Washington (and countless Administration bureaucrats) who have little concept of individual liberty or limited government.

At the 2011 Republican Liberty Caucus National Convention in Arlington, Virginia, elected officials from across the country made the case for political participation among students and activists in the liberty movement.

Congressman Justin Amash, in his short speech to delegates, spoke positively about the Republican Liberty Caucus, saying …

“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.”

Listen to more of our elected liberty Republicans below. Please join or get involved (or both) in the Republican Liberty Caucus today.

Congressman Justin Amash – Part 1

Congressman Justin Amash – Part 2

Elected Liberty Republicans – Part 1 (Dan Halloran)

Elected Liberty Republicans – Part 2 (Jamie Callender)

Elected Liberty Republicans – Part 3 (Terri McCormick)

Elected Liberty Republicans – Part 4 (Mix)

Elected Liberty Republicans – Part 5 (Mix)

Governor Gary Johnson – Part 1

Governor Gary Johnson – Part 2

A few weeks ago I received an unexpected call from Senator Olympia Snowe’s outreach coordinator inviting me, as Maine RLC Chair, to a meeting with the Senator. Also invited were representatives from other conservative organizations including tea party activists, constitutional conservatives and libertarians. Guests includes representatives from the Maine Legislature and the Republican State Committee.

The meeting was on neutral ground in a hotel conference room in Augusta. Ten of us sat around a rectangular table with Senator Snowe and two aides at the head of the table. The common thread was that all the participants represented factions of the Republican Party that were either critical of Senator Snowe’s moderate track record, and in some cases outright hostile to the Senator. The meeting was clearly an effort to reach out to the “right wing” (although, as a libertarian, I reject that label) of the Republican Party.

Senator Snowe began the meeting by thanking us for attending and stating that she wanted to have an open and frank discussion of issues facing the country as well as hearing criticism of her own voting record in the U.S. Senate.

Wow! That was certainly a bold thing for her to do given the ideological demographic of the room. What followed was a very civil yet frank discussion of the big issues facing the country. Olympia Snowe is one of the most seasoned and skillful politicians in the country. Her skills shone as she defended her record. She spoke extensively about some of the truly beneficial work she has done for the State of Maine: saving the Domtar paper mill in eastern Maine, saving the Kittery naval shipyard and consistently working to bring Federal funds to the state. There is no doubt that a good deal of her political success can be attributed to her excellent constituent service work.

Senator Snowe ably defended her voting record on health care. Some in the room thought that her support in committee for Obamacare was a decisive vote. In fact it wasn’t, and she made that clear. She explained that she had voted for the bill in committee in exchange for a promise from Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid that the legislation would be open to Republican amendments when it reached the Senate floor. Reid broke his promise, she said. Snowe insisted that she is not only opposed to Obamacare now, but that she supports full repeal of the law. A recent vote of hers has actually borne that promise out.

At one point in the meeting when Snowe was accused of “voting against Republicans” we saw her become somewhat emotional. She recounted the time when her husband John “Jock” McKernan was the Governor of Maine. He was in the midst of a government shutdown resulting from a standoff with the legislature over workers’ compensation reform in the late 80′s. Then-Congresswoman Olympia Snowe was on the phone with her husband and she could overhear shouts and insults from protesting State employees who had been admitted to the state house by then-Speaker John Martin. Snowe commented that she and Jock felt that they were not supported by many Republicans at the time.

Olympia Snowe also defended her vote for TARP (the 2008 financial bailout bill) arguing that the country was at the edge of an abyss. She went on to announce that she would be sponsoring a constitutional amendment to require a balanced budget as well as a higher threshold (3/5 vote) to raise taxes. The balanced budget amendment sat well with the invitees in the room.

What fell flat, in my opinion, were some of her answers to questions that should have been predicted from that crowd. Snowe seemed puzzled by a suggestion that the recent food safety bill was unconstitutional because it affected farmers who don’t sell their produce across state lines. Snowe even boasted that she was able to include a provision that farmers with revenues of less than $500,000 would be excluded. What about the potato farmer who brings in $500,001, but doesn’t ship one French fry outside of Maine?

Some in the room questioned the Senator’s membership of the Council on Foreign Relations and even asked if she supported George H. W. Bush’s reference to a “New World Order”. At that point we were getting into some really esoteric conspiracy theory territory. Nevertheless one would expect the Senator to at least understand the context of the comments and be able to respond appropriately. It really seemed to me that she was flummoxed (although she might have been just carefully considering the question). In fact I found myself in the awkward position of having to explain the issue. I also made clear my view that while there is a real threat to our constitution from those who would undermine US sovereignty with globalism, that wasn’t what Bush 41 was referring to in 1991. I would think that someone on her staff would have briefed her about this stuff before going into a meeting that included devotees of the John Birch society.

The genesis of this meeting was clearly a concern by Olympia Snowe’s political operation that she may be facing a primary challenge (we now know that she is) to her upcoming reelection effort in 2012. Snowe has long been seen as a thorn in the side of the “right wing” (again, as a libertarian I exclude myself from that label) of the party. It would be one thing if she were simply a social moderate and a fiscal conservative. That would certainly be okay with me and other libertarians. Her real problem lately has been on the fiscal conservative side of things. I refer specifically to the elephant in the room. The elephant that was never acknowledged at this meeting. That is the Obama stimulus bill. The gigantic budget-busting $800 billion attempt to stimulate the economy in early 2009. Senator Snowe was instrumental in the passage of that bill. The Tea Party movement was a direct reaction to the Stimulus bill, Obamacare just threw fuel on the fire.

Over her career, Olympia Snowe has certainly been a moderate, but a moderate with a libertarian angle. Every year the Republican Liberty Caucus ranks members of Congress on the Nolan chart-inspired Liberty Index. The Liberty Index ranks members of Congress on a pro-liberty voting index equally weighted between social issues and economic issues. Sen. Snowe has consistently scored above 50% on both axis. In fact, most recently she scores in the conservative quadrant with a better record on economic issues than social issues. That record has always earned Olympia Snowe support from me in her previous election campaigns. The question I struggle with now is whether her vote for stimulus was a deal breaker in the next campaign.

I wanted to keep RLC membership informed of this development. We should certainly make time to discuss it during our upcoming Maine RLC Leadership Conference — which is scheduled for April 23, 2011 in Augusta, Maine.

Ken Lindell
Chairman, Maine RLC

Wisconsin RLC Praises Governor Scott Walker’s Budget Repair Bill
State RLC Congratulates Endorsed Legislators, Governor

Yesterday, the Republican Liberty Caucus of Wisconsin, which has made state and national news as a result of several prominent events in their state over the past year, issued a statement supporting Governor Scott Walker’s budget repair bill.

Wisconsin RLC Chairman Michael S. Murphy of Milwaukee spoke in strong support of the repair bill. “The RLC-WI supports Governor Scott Walker and the Republican Legislation in their efforts to curtail runaway government spending. We also want to commend these brave lawmakers for standing strong against oppositional union forces, which have resulted in numerous threats to their safety already. The RLC-WI stands behind this effort 100% and we hope that not one Republican Legislator waivers in their decision to support this bill before it is made into law.”

Murphy continued, “We are especially proud of the seven RLC-WI endorsed State Representatives, who recently took office after winning their respective elections in November. They are truly upholding the RLC standard and keeping their committed promises to reduce government spending.” (Note: Wisconsin RLC Vice Chair Terri McCormick, who recently spoke at the RLC National Convention in DC, is herself a former three-term State Representative.)

The Wisconsin RLC continues to be the only voice for limited government and individual liberty in the Republican Party in Wisconsin. Governor Scott Walker has exceeded the Wisconsin RLC’s expectations and wishes the Governor well in the coming weeks.

Photo above: Wisconsin RLC members gathered in 2009 to form their state chapter.

Florida RLC Applauds Governor Rick Scott’s High Speed Rail Decision
State RLC Issues Press Release and Congratulatory Letter

Florida Governor Rick 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 sent today from the Republican Liberty Caucus of Florida.

In the letter, Florida RLC Chairman Matthew Nye told the governor, “When you spoke an RLC event back in September, you promised you would be making the tough decisions to get Florida back in fiscal order. With this decision, you are doing just that — and we commend you.”

The letter cites the recent Reason Foundation study titled “The Tampa to Orlando High Speed Rail Project: A Florida Taxpayer Risk Assessment,” which suggests the ultimate cost of the project could exceed expectations by $3 billion and these overruns would be borne by Florida taxpayers.

As noted by Florida RLC Vice Chairman John Stevens, the other issue at stake is our responsibility to demand fiscal responsibility at the federal level of government. “With a $13 trillion dollar national debt and deficits as far as the eye can see, state governors and legislators must send an unequivocal message to Washington DC that spending beyond our means — even if it would benefit their state — is no longer acceptable.”

A thank you letter was also mailed to Senate President Mike Haridopolos, who announced today he would stand by the governor’s decision. The press release was sent to about 90 media outlets across the state.

To let your legislators know how you feel on this issue, go here.

Florida RLC members gathered in 2009 to protest tax-increasing High Speed Rail. They just obtained a victory when Governor Rick Scott, an ally of the Florida RLC, blocked the rail plan.