Jack Hunter has written an excellent article about the same-sex marriage debate where he correctly calls the issue a distraction and highlights the absurdity of focusing on such a thing while the federal government continues to spend trillions of dollars on numerous unconstitutional activities. The bottom line is that marriage is a state issue, not a federal one:

As with most things, simply following the Constitution would solve the gay-marriage dilemma. There is nothing in the Constitution that gives the federal government the power to regulate marriage.

On the national level, this in fact should be the end of the debate. Unfortunately, many Republicans keep this issue in the news, because they campaign on the promise of amending the Constitution to define a marriage as between one man and one woman. This in turn gives Democrats a perfect opportunity to pick up voters they may not otherwise have earned. The single most important thing about Democrats is that they believe the government should run the economy. This is antithetical to America and the success that this country has seen in its short history. Therefore, if this was the only thing Democrats ran on then they would lose miserably in every election. So instead, their strategy is to divide and conquer. They divide voters into blocks and classes, by race, sex, religion, income level, industry type,  and sexual practices. This is also antithetical to America and the spirit of our founding, but unfortunately it has been a very successful strategy. The people in the various demographic groups that the Democrats have targeted have been swayed by their arguments, despite their party’s history, and despite the fact that they want to control your life from the toilet you use to the car you drive to the things you can see on the internet. So how do we combat this as Republicans and win elections by large margins? Well, it is not by giving them more ammunition and more ways to divide Americans. In trying to use the federal government to define marriage, Republicans are trying to solve a societal problem by using a big government solution. This is exactly what the Democrats do. Furthermore, we are alienating an entire “demographic” that contains many members (such as Log Cabin Republicans) who might otherwise be ardent supporters of our cause. On a federal level, the same-sex marriage debate is not only a distraction, but it is also destructive to Republican campaign efforts. But what about the state level? Should we make this a big Republican issue in South Carolina? Jack Hunter makes a great point here as well:

The institution of marriage was under assault long before gay activists got involved. Divorce alone has been far more damaging to the institution of marriage than gay marriage. If I had my druthers, I’d get the state out of the matrimony business altogether and let churches and other social institutions decide what constitutes marriage.

Yet again, mister Hunter is right on. Around the mid-1950s in the U.S. several court rulings and state laws clearly recognized the many instances of no-fault reasons to end marriages. The immediate result was a spike in divorce rates during the 1960s. This same thing happened again with “no fault” divorces in the 70s, followed by another huge spike in divorces. So if the object here is to protect marriage, then we are fighting the wrong battle. Finally, there is a more fundamental, principled aspect to this debate that isn’t often talked about. Why does the government have the authority to control marriage in the first place? It didn’t always have that authority, marriage licenses issued by the government are  a relatively new thing in Christian history. With divorce rates up around 50% after thousands of years  in the single digits, maybe that wasn’t such a good idea? It is something to think about.    

CONCORD, N.H.—Today, the Republican Liberty Caucus of New Hampshire announces that it has acquired the political assets of the New Hampshire Republican Volunteer Coalition and has added NHRVC Co-Founder Steve MacDonald to its 10-member RLCNH Board to lead a merger effort and help carry on the mission of the NHRVC within the RLCNH organization.

“By merging the NHRVC into the RLCNH and adding Steve MacDonald to the RLCNH board, we are adding new vigor to our now substantially larger political action organization and ensuring the ongoing success of principled Republican activism in New Hampshire,” said Carolyn McKinney, chairman of the Republican Liberty Caucus of New Hampshire. “During the last few election cycles, the RLCNH and the NHRVC groups had been duplicating efforts to elect liberty-minded Republicans. It simply makes good common sense to merge our efforts so that we can motivate our now larger group of activists to pursue one effective mission.”

The NHRVC was founded in the wake of the November 2008 elections as a grassroots coalition of highly motivated activists working to elect principled Republicans who stand for low taxes, fiscal responsibility, free enterprise, individual liberty, and the U.S. and NH Constitutions. Founded by Kevin McHugh and Steve MacDonald, the NHRVC grew from just a handful of people trading e-mails to more than 4,000 members working to spread liberty through the Republican Party.

The RLCNH was launched in December 2004 to promote the ideals of limited government, individual liberty, personal responsibility, free enterprise and adherence to the N.H. and U.S. Constitutions among Republican Party officials and throughout the state by identifying and supporting candidates sympathetic with the organization’s ideals, and by supporting, through public education and outreach, initiatives in the N.H. Legislature that further these ideals.

Both RLCNH and NHRVC have operated on the Facebook, Twitter and Yahoo Groups social media portals and have a Web site with a blog. The NHRVC social media portal sites and blog have been shut down. As part of the merger, NHRVC members will be migrated into the RLCNH social media sites (Facebook | Twitter) where members discuss political ideas and candidates, and they will be invited to sign up to receive the RLCNH Report of state legislative action items as well as to visit the RLCNH Web site and blog.

“Beginning today, I am inviting all former NHRVC members to continue their involvement in pursuit of the same aims, to whatever degree suits them, under a new banner,” Steve MacDonald said. “We will be able to engage in the same  debates on Facebook and start thousands of new ones, share important links and commentary on Twitter, and use our ‘boots on the ground’ mentality in the RLCNH Yahoo Group and beyond to connect our principled ideas with principled Republicans in New Hampshire and across the nation.”

Leading up to the merger decision, NHRVC Co-Founder Kevin McHugh handed the reins to MacDonald and resigned from the organization to focus more of his time on his work and family. It was at that time that MacDonald determined that the mission of the NHRVC could be more effectively fulfilled within the structure of the RLCNH. The merger plan was developed by MacDonald and members of the RLCNH Executive Committee during the past week, and today’s announcement seals the deal.

RLCMN credits and thanks Walter Hudson for providing this summary and resource.

 

Unions created their own dilemma by initiating force against competitors, which include other unions or individual workers wishing to contract with employers separate from a union. Federal law enables unions to establish contracts granting them exclusive representation, meaning they are the only entity which can negotiate on behalf of employees. It is these exclusive representation contracts, not right-to-work, which obligate unions to represent non-members and those not paying dues. The solution is simple, unions can change their contacts to give up exclusive representation. Under right-to-work, the choice for the unions would come down to maintaining a contractual monopoly and enduring the resulting "free riders," or giving up their monopoly and competing in a free market for labor. In either case, all parties concerned would retain their freedom of association. Whether with exclusive representation or without right-to-work, employees do not have the freedom to choose whether or not to associate with a union.

Excerpts from "Effects of Right to Work Laws on Employees, Unions and Businesses" by John W. Cooper

Federal law allows unions the special power to create “exclusive representation” agreements with employers. If they choose to create these exclusive representation agreements, they are indeed required to represent all members, both dues paying members and free riding members alike. However, it does not appear that unions are actually required to set up these exclusive agreements (Greer, Union Representation).

Some proponents of RTW laws rightfully argue: “Nothing in federal law prevents union officials and employers from negotiating contracts in which the employer recognizes the union for its members only” (Greer, Union Representation).

Therefore, it appears that unions are not required by law to enter into exclusive bargaining agreements with their employers, and that if they wanted to they could form member only bargaining agreements in which they only represent their members, only their members are required to pay union dues, their contracts only pertain to their members, and other people are allowed to work for the employer independent of the union.

In my journey through the liberty movement, I discovered that a free market approach to solving issues is about the best framework we can implement in order to solve out nations problems.  Finding an example which embodied those ideals, and shined with success in it’s implementation was much harder to prove, I was finding.  I feel that without an example to look towards as a template, most people have a hard time making a leap to something new, consistent and comfortable will always win the day.   I had to find an example to help showcase why I feel a decentralized form of government, limited federal government is the best way to provide the most freedom and opportunity to the people it hopes to govern.

To be clear, what I mean is the decentralization of policy, letting our local towns and cities try new laws and policies in order to let the free market work, and show us the most efficient and acceptable policy per the market.  Better put, let the people show us which policy is better, and which implementation of it, the most effective.  Not to mention the added benefit of allowing local governments to act as testing grounds for new innovative ways to deliver that service that the people demand.

I needed a government service or institution that is governed at the local level, which the majority feels is essential, and it’s implementation follows free market principles, perfectly suited to the people it serves.  I finally discovered that perfect example, something I could showcase which embodies those attributes and can be the proud example of limited government on a grand scale while maintaining it’s small town charm.

The Answer is Simple: The Fire Department!

The Fire Departments across our country are the perfect example of local government, market solutions, catered to the need of the people rather than a blanket rule handed down from the federal government.  In large cities, the people pay the salaries of the firemen and employ full time career firemen and woman to ensure they have the fastest response times possible, and the equipment to reach them when in need.  Investment in technology and training to provide the very best in fire safety, prevention and rescue also doesn’t come cheap.  It’s because of that, large cities like New York, Boston and Chicago value their fire departments more than their rural counterparts in terms of budgets.

Through their votes and elected officials, the people voice their desire for the fire department which will provide them the level of service they feel can be prepared to respond to the task at hand given the environment.  For major cities, where someone 14 floors down can put your family at risk by falling asleep with the stove on, h

aving a highly trained and professional department of firemen ready to charge up those stairs and save you is important.  That training, courage and resolve is only achievable with proper funding and full time, experienced personnel, only achievable with higher taxes, and budgets.

In more rural areas, you’d be lucky to find a building which is taller than 3 stories, and most of those are grain elevators.  The people of these communities do not require the rigorous needs of a highly trained, funded fire department in comparison to large cities.  In most parts of the country, firemen and women are rarely paid and operate as volunteer associations to provide protection and assistance in emergency situations for their community.   These volunteer associations in turn cost far less to operate on smaller town budgets, making a perfectly suited policy, for the people, and the

Some fire departments will not even put out the fire unless you have paid your service fee for the year.  Last year a couple living in Obion County Tennessee had to learn this lesson the hard way when their mobile home caught fire.  After calling 911 and reporting the fire only to have to save their own belongings as the south Fulton fire department watched on, on the ready in case anyone was in harm’s way.  When a reluctant resident fails to pay their fee, these fire departments will act when life is at danger.

This kind of fee-for-service approaches to government teaches a valuable lesson of personal responsibility that is sorely missing in today’s’ society,  More importantly, if Obion County, or any other rural citizens want to ensure they are covered in the event of a fire, it is within their power to vote for higher county taxes in order to pay for that service.  Many of these fee based fire protection programs are incredibly affordable too, for $75.00 a year (21 cents a day), that couple could have been protected in their time of need.

Why does any of this matter?

Looking towards this model of providing government services, at variable levels is a perfectly American approach to government; it’s why our founding fathers were so adamant about State’s rights.  Ensuring that what might work for you may not necessarily work for me.  It’s the perfect Constitutional argument on how local decisions provide the best form of government for the people and by the people, If at any time the current situation isn’t working for a town, county, or state, they can organize and vote to change the way they are governed.

It’s the perfect example for how all the issues should be solved in today’s federal government.  I always knew a decentralized approach to government was the best form, but I never could find an example that so readily embodies the lessons and structure of this as does the Fire Departments across this country.  People will always find the best solution for them and their family, and their community.

Washington rarely has a perspective which can understand the wide ranging needs of the people of this country.

Most important issue we lose at when we implement federal policy as a blanket policy, we lose the ability to innovate and discover new methods on how to deliver, manage, or provide a service which the people are looking for.  When we allow the states to decide how best to provide for their people, we have unique labs across the country testing to see which one works the best.  The Free Market, allowed to spur on innovation and ingenuity will dramatically help craft and implement the best policy over time for all, and that’s not just my opinion, that’s our history.

So next time when someone rolls their eyes at the idea of empowering the people to find the best solution, whether it’s healthcare, or social issues, you can point to the best fire departments in the world and show them that we the people can determine how best to suit out needs, not Washington.

 

The Republican Liberty Caucus of Minnesota believes every citizen has the freedom of association.  This includes the freedom to decide on their own whether to join or not join a union and whether to pay or not pay union dues.  Just like workers in 22 other states, Minnesotans should not be forced to join a union or pay dues to an organization if they do not wish to belong.

House File 2140 (Senate File 1705) proposes that all citizens be granted the freedom to decide to join or leave a union as well as to pay or not pay dues without having it affect their employment status.

The Republican Liberty Caucus of Minnesota encourages the Minnesota Legislature to pass a constitutional amendment, during the 2012 legislative session, giving individual voters the freedom to decide whether to become an employee freedom state.

 

Thank you Sen. Thompson and Rep. Drazkowski - both are RLCMN endorsed members of the Legislature.

 

 

SENATOR DAVE THOMPSON, REPRESENTATIVE STEVE DRAZKOWSKI ANNOUNCE EMPLOYEE FREEDOM CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT

St. Paul- Senator Dave Thompson (R-Lakeville) and Representative Steve Drazkowski (R-Mazeppa) announced the introduction of a constitutional amendment that would give Minnesotans the opportunity to vote on whether or not Minnesota workers should have the freedom to join a union or not. Currently, if someone is hired by a company with a collective bargaining agreement in place, that person is required to join the union or pay fair share dues.

“In Minnesota law, if a worker refuses to pay union dues, they are fired. This isn't fair and it's definitely not free,” Representative Drazkowski said. “To me, this is the most important pro-jobs bill we can pass this session. It's estimated that had Minnesota passed this amendment 30 years ago, the average Minnesota working family would be earning an additional $7,000 or more every year. Nearly 70% of Minnesotans support employee freedom - let's allow the people to decide whether they want to guarantee this fundamental right in our constitution.”

If Minnesotans vote in favor of this amendment, every Minnesota worker would still have the right to join or support a labor union, only now it would be his or her own decision. Union employees would still be able to collectively bargain the same as under current law.

“Our bill is simple: let’s allow Minnesotans to vote on whether or not an individual should be forced to pay a third party in order to work. Jobs are our number one priority – this bill recognizes Minnesota workers’ ability, and right, to decide whether or not they’d like to be part of a union. States that have granted employees this freedom have experienced rapid growth in business, leading to greater job growth. From 1993 to 2009, private sector employment increased nearly 38% in those states versus only 19.6% in forced-unionism states,” said Senator Thompson. “We have an opportunity, as a state, to increase freedom and grow jobs – it’s an opportunity Minnesota cannot afford to turn down.”

###

CONCORD, N.H.—The Republican Liberty Caucus of New Hampshire rebukes the idea that Republicans should remove uncertainty by establishing a state health insurance exchange under the terms of Obamacare, as such a move would voluntarily bind the state under the control of the U.S. Health and Human Services Department while sending New Hampshire taxpayers the bill.

Contrary to arguments from some insurance regulators, insurance companies and industry groups, creating a state exchange will remove New Hampshire’s local control and ensure Obamacare is fully enacted in New Hampshire, whether the federal law is repealed or not. In addition, establishing a state insurance exchange under Obamacare requires the state to pay for the full cost of implementation starting in 2015, which could cost New Hampshire taxpayers anywhere from $10 million to $47 million a year, according to HTMS, a North Dakota health care consulting company.

“The bottom line is that the federal government has created uncertainty by passing an unworkable federal law that depends on states to put in the time and money to fix all of its faults,” said Carolyn McKinney, chairman of the Republican Liberty Caucus of New Hampshire. “The cloud of uncertainty created by President Obama and the Democratic Congress won’t go away just because we accept Obamacare by creating a state health insurance exchange. In fact, these exchanges will distort the market, which will make for even more uncertainty.”

Those arguing for a state insurance exchange have clamored for predictability, but by establishing a state insurance exchange, the only predictable outcome will be that the state will be voluntarily implementing the terms of the Obamacare law that voters soundly rejected in 2010. The mammoth state bureaucracy created would only serve as a nominal state organization, but it would take all of its orders from Washington bureaucrats, who would set the rules for selling insurance plans within the state, thus reducing real competition and increasing the costs of providing health insurance.

What makes matters worse, under SB 163, the N.H. Senate bill that establishes a state exchange, “poison pill” language would eliminate only those sections found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court or repealed by the Congress, but it would leave everything else in place. If the bill passes, it would keep a state health insurance exchange in place even if the federal government fully rejects New Hampshire’s proposal, thus leaving us with a federal exchange plan funded by New Hampshire taxpayers.

The better approach is HB 1297, which would prohibit the state from enacting an exchange and make it harder for the federal government to implement the law. In fact, the more states that opt not to create a health insurance exchange will then send the federal bureaucrats scrambling to come up with one, without the time or funding to create one that will work. If New Hampshire and other states around the country say no to a state health insurance exchange, it all but guarantees that Congress will have to repeal or replace Obamacare, which is what the people want.

“Creating a state exchange voluntarily accepts Obamacare in New Hampshire,” McKinney said. “If we do that, this Republican Legislature will be directly opposing the voters who sent them to Concord to stand up against this federal overreach. These Republicans, and not the Obama Democrats, would be responsible for the consequences of Obamacare in New Hampshire.

“If Republicans act now to definitively reject a state exchange, however; the Republican Legislature stands a better chance of fulfilling the mandate of New Hampshire voters and leading the way toward true health insurance reform,” McKinney said.

For more information about the conclusions reached by RLCNH about state health insurance exchanges under Obamacare, please refer to these studies by the Cato Institute, the Idaho Freedom Foundation, and the Goldwater Institute.

RLCMN Secretary Rudy Takala wrote an article that was featured by American for Taxpayer Reform.  Congratulations Rudy!

 

 

 

 

 

An excellent and in-depth interview with Carolyn McKinney, Chair of the RLC of New Hampshire from Saturday. Good material here for other state chapters to pay attention to. And chapter leaders should remember that they should be prepared for an opportnity like this if it comes their way during the election cycle.