Can Republicans Win by Embracing the National Education Association?

"The National Education Association agenda is the exact opposite of the Republican Party's agenda, or at least what our agenda should be. What's next? Accepting money from the National Abortion Rights Action League, Handgun Control, Gay Marriage PACs and George Soros?"  -Republican candidate for governor of New Jersey, Steve Lonegan.

The RNC reported $24 million in the bank and no debt while the DNC reported $8.6 million on hand and $7 million in debt. Awash in funds, then why did the RNC accept a $15,000 donation from the National Education Association PAC, who runs counter to fiscal conservatives and taxpayers; educational choice advocates; home educators; merit based employment; and, simply, exceptional education for America's children?

One Republican candidate, conservative Steve Lonegan, running for Governor of New Jersey, has now called on Michael Steele to return it. (See Steve's announcement below.) You might want to do the same. Find your favorite contact at the RNC here.  Or send a fax or snail mail:

Republican National Committee | 310 First Street | Washington, D. C. 20003

p/202.863.8500 | f/202.863.882

LONEGAN CALLS ON STEELE TO RETURN NEA DONATION TO RNC

ORADELL -- Republican Gubernatorial candidate Steve Lonegan today urged Republican National Committee chairman Michael Steele to return a $15,000 donation from the National Education Association Political Action Committee

Politico reports that the NEA PAC donation was part of $90,000 collected from PACs in the last month, the first under Steele's chairmanship.

"I believe in raising money from people who share your vision of leadership," said Lonegan whose own campaign is closing in on the $2 Million fundraising mark including matching funds. "But I do not believe in asking for or accepting money from people or organizations whose mission differs from yours,” he added. "The National Education Association agenda is the exact opposite of the Republican Party's agenda, or at least what our agenda should be."

"What's next? Accepting money from the National Abortion Rights Action League, Handgun Control, Gay Marriage PACs and George Soros?" Lonegan wondered.

"Chairman Steele needs to return this $15,000 check to the NEA and stop the practice of asking our enemies to underwrite our activities. If Chairman Steele cannot run the RNC with the support of rank and file Republicans, then he should step down and turn the job over to someone else."

Lonegan said he was very disappointed in the first few weeks of Steele’s tenure.

"First he stepped out and attacked Rush Limbaugh, who has done more to galvanize taxpayers against the Obama agenda than the RNC has done. Then he said abortion was 'a choice' and now is taking money from the Teachers Union. While my opponent Mr. Christie and other party liberals may have no problem with Chairman Steele's actions, I do. We’re going to take back this country by standing tall for what we believe, not getting in bed with our opponents. And the battle to take back our nation starts right here in New Jersey, "Lonegan added.

Keep up with Steve's campaign by regularly visiting www.lonegan.com, where you will find all kinds of information, including Steve's calendar. You may also follow Steve on Twitter or request to be one of Steve's Facebook friends. There is also a great Steve Lonegan for NJ Governor Facebook Group not run by the campaign.

Can Republicans Win by Embracing the National Education Association?

"The National Education Association agenda is the exact opposite of the Republican Party's agenda, or at least what our agenda should be. What's next? Accepting money from the National Abortion Rights Action League, Handgun Control, Gay Marriage PACs and George Soros?"  -Republican candidate for governor of New Jersey, Steve Lonegan.

The RNC reported $24 million in the bank and no debt while the DNC reported $8.6 million on hand and $7 million in debt. Awash in funds, then why did the RNC accept a $15,000 donation from the National Education Association PAC, who runs counter to fiscal conservatives and taxpayers; educational choice advocates; home educators; merit based employment; and, simply, exceptional education for America's children?

One Republican candidate, conservative Steve Lonegan, running for Governor of New Jersey, has now called on Michael Steele to return it. (See Steve's announcement below.) You might want to do the same. Find your favorite contact at the RNC here.  Or send a fax or snail mail:

Republican National Committee | 310 First Street | Washington, D. C. 20003

p/202.863.8500 | f/202.863.882

LONEGAN CALLS ON STEELE TO RETURN NEA DONATION TO RNC

ORADELL -- Republican Gubernatorial candidate Steve Lonegan today urged Republican National Committee chairman Michael Steele to return a $15,000 donation from the National Education Association Political Action Committee

Politico reports that the NEA PAC donation was part of $90,000 collected from PACs in the last month, the first under Steele's chairmanship.

"I believe in raising money from people who share your vision of leadership," said Lonegan whose own campaign is closing in on the $2 Million fundraising mark including matching funds. "But I do not believe in asking for or accepting money from people or organizations whose mission differs from yours,” he added. "The National Education Association agenda is the exact opposite of the Republican Party's agenda, or at least what our agenda should be."

"What's next? Accepting money from the National Abortion Rights Action League, Handgun Control, Gay Marriage PACs and George Soros?" Lonegan wondered.

"Chairman Steele needs to return this $15,000 check to the NEA and stop the practice of asking our enemies to underwrite our activities. If Chairman Steele cannot run the RNC with the support of rank and file Republicans, then he should step down and turn the job over to someone else."

Lonegan said he was very disappointed in the first few weeks of Steele’s tenure.

"First he stepped out and attacked Rush Limbaugh, who has done more to galvanize taxpayers against the Obama agenda than the RNC has done. Then he said abortion was 'a choice' and now is taking money from the Teachers Union. While my opponent Mr. Christie and other party liberals may have no problem with Chairman Steele's actions, I do. We’re going to take back this country by standing tall for what we believe, not getting in bed with our opponents. And the battle to take back our nation starts right here in New Jersey, "Lonegan added.

Keep up with Steve's campaign by regularly visiting www.lonegan.com, where you will find all kinds of information, including Steve's calendar. You may also follow Steve on Twitter or request to be one of Steve's Facebook friends. There is also a great Steve Lonegan for NJ Governor Facebook Group not run by the campaign.

Take Action: Tell Your Legislators to Support HCR4 and SCR4!

Limited government. I talk about it all the time. But where did it come from? Why is it important? The answers to those questions go all the way back to our nation's founders, their writings, and the founding documents they authored; you know, the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution.

We are seeing an expansion of government like we have never seen before. It tends to make you feel a little hopeless. What can we, as citizens and taxpayers do?

When our Constitution was written, there was a strong difference of opinion among the founders. Some favored a strong central government (the Federalists) and some (anti-Federalists) felt that if government became too strong, we could end up like England, with a virtual monarchy. It put the whole process of writing the Constitution in turmoil.

Part of the deal that finally got the two parties to agree was that after the Constitution was ratified, it would be followed by a Bill of Rights, the first ten amendments to the Constitution. These rights were all about reducing, as much as possible, the potential of the Federal Government becoming too strong.

The Tenth Amendment was written for the very purpose of protecting states rights. It was written to reassure the states that they would remain largely in charge within their own borders.

Anyone who is paying the slightest attention to the goings-on in Washington will easily recognize that the power of central government is growing exponentially. What can we do about this?

In several states, including Michigan, resolutions have been introduced to reclaim the sovereignty of the states as assured by the 10th Amendment to the Constitution.

Today is your opportunity to be heard. There is a statewide effort to contact members of the State Legislature and ask them to bring these resolutions to the House and Senate floors for a vote.

Senate Concurrent Resolution 4,(SCR4) and House Concurrent Resolution 4,(HCR4) are awaiting action in their respective chambers. They are very straightforward. They simply affirm Michigan's sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over all powers not enumerated and granted to the federal government.

Please call and e-mail your State Senator and State Representative today. You can find them here.

Sounds Like the Thought Police to Me

Here is a bill that prohibits an employer from using health status or "believed illness or health condition" from consideration in employment decisions. So, I guess a prospect who is turned down for employment can accuse the employer of "thinking I was sick" and therefore refusing to hire. And what kind of "believed illness" are we talking about? Physical health, mental health, psychological health? And who will be the judge of these health conditions?

But, if that isn't bad enough, anyone who was turned down for a job can file a civil suit and recover damages from the employer.

Bottom line, you not only can't refuse to hire because the prospect or a family member is sick, but you can't refuse to hire because you "thought he was sick." This creative legislation must have come from a consortium of trial lawyers and labor lobbyists.

Sounds Like the Thought Police to Me

Here is a bill that prohibits an employer from using health status or "believed illness or health condition" from consideration in employment decisions. So, I guess a prospect who is turned down for employment can accuse the employer of "thinking I was sick" and therefore refusing to hire. And what kind of "believed illness" are we talking about? Physical health, mental health, psychological health? And who will be the judge of these health conditions?

But, if that isn't bad enough, anyone who was turned down for a job can file a civil suit and recover damages from the employer.

Bottom line, you not only can't refuse to hire because the prospect or a family member is sick, but you can't refuse to hire because you "thought he was sick." This creative legislation must have come from a consortium of trial lawyers and labor lobbyists.

"Big Brother" Getting Bigger?

Under legislation introduced this week, "a local unit of government may by ordinance require the fingerprinting of door-to-door solicitors, taxi cab drivers or other drivers for hire, or street vendors or other transient merchants for the purpose of obtaining criminal history record information on those individuals." House Bill 4601 would ostensibly provide us more security. Hmm, it reminds me of a quote attributed to Benjamin Franklin: "Those who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security deserve neither and will likely lose both." I have seen this quote in several different forms, but the essential truth is always the same.

The question is, how much of our freedoms do we really want to sacrifice for more perceived security. If one "undocumented taxi cab driver" robs or assaults a fare, does that mean we need to subject every taxi cab driver in town to fingerprinting? And even if we do, will it actually reduce the incidence of crime? A larger question might be, how much more power do we want to give to government? When will the citizens, the voters stand up and say, "Enough!" Stay tuned.

"Big Brother" Getting Bigger?

Under legislation introduced this week, "a local unit of government may by ordinance require the fingerprinting of door-to-door solicitors, taxi cab drivers or other drivers for hire, or street vendors or other transient merchants for the purpose of obtaining criminal history record information on those individuals." House Bill 4601 would ostensibly provide us more security. Hmm, it reminds me of a quote attributed to Benjamin Franklin: "Those who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security deserve neither and will likely lose both." I have seen this quote in several different forms, but the essential truth is always the same.

The question is, how much of our freedoms do we really want to sacrifice for more perceived security. If one "undocumented taxi cab driver" robs or assaults a fare, does that mean we need to subject every taxi cab driver in town to fingerprinting? And even if we do, will it actually reduce the incidence of crime? A larger question might be, how much more power do we want to give to government? When will the citizens, the voters stand up and say, "Enough!" Stay tuned.

March Madness...Basketball or Legislature?

Today is the first day of March Madness, that great Spring tradition of college basketball playoffs! The Legislature is in session, but they really should take the day off.

Oh no, they have a very important resolution to take care of today. In fact, it is the ONLY thing on the calendar in the House. House Resolution 31 to promote "Project Safe Passage." What is that, you may ask? You can read it here. The essence is this: it seems surveys have shown that many birds are flying into tall buildings at night because someone left the lights on in the office and the birds became confused. So, we need to encourage occupants of tall buildings to turn off all the lights from 11:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m.

If you live in a high-rise apartment, I guess it's no Conan O'Brien for you! And, speaking of March Madness, let's hope all the games are done by 11:00 p.m. Who knows? A confused Jayhawk may want to fly into your place to watch his favorite basketball team on TV!

March Madness...Basketball or Legislature?

Today is the first day of March Madness, that great Spring tradition of college basketball playoffs! The Legislature is in session, but they really should take the day off.

Oh no, they have a very important resolution to take care of today. In fact, it is the ONLY thing on the calendar in the House. House Resolution 31 to promote "Project Safe Passage." What is that, you may ask? You can read it here. The essence is this: it seems surveys have shown that many birds are flying into tall buildings at night because someone left the lights on in the office and the birds became confused. So, we need to encourage occupants of tall buildings to turn off all the lights from 11:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m.

If you live in a high-rise apartment, I guess it's no Conan O'Brien for you! And, speaking of March Madness, let's hope all the games are done by 11:00 p.m. Who knows? A confused Jayhawk may want to fly into your place to watch his favorite basketball team on TV!

It's Time to Regulate...FLAGPOLES!

A Kindergarten student was tragically killed a couple of years ago when a flagpole fell on top of her during a windstorm. A Michigan lawmaker has come to the rescue, offering legislation to regulate flagpoles.

Do we really need to make a new law every time someone is injured or killed? As the article points out, the flagpole was not poorly designed or defective, it was rusted. The article also mentions that a civil lawsuit ensued. That is what the legal community is there for, to provide us the Constitutionally protected right to file for redress. If there was negligence on the part of school, the lawsuit will sort it out and provide compensation. Will that replace the loss of a human life? Of course not. But it will, among other things, encourage just about everyone who owns a flagpole to check and see if it is in danger of collapse. In fact, the district immediately went out and inspected all their flagpoles, and I suspect every school district in the state that heard about the incident probably went out and did the same thing.

The point here is, it should not be the responsibility of government to make sure we are safe from every possible ill or injury. We need to practice individual and corporate responsibility. When we don't and tragic accidents do happen, we have the courts.

I cannot help but ask the question, if one person dies from a freak accident when a flagpole falls, what should we do about the dozens of people who die from trees and tree limbs that fall? Should government regulate every tree that grows on public property?

It's Time to Regulate...FLAGPOLES!

A Kindergarten student was tragically killed a couple of years ago when a flagpole fell on top of her during a windstorm. A Michigan lawmaker has come to the rescue, offering legislation to regulate flagpoles.

Do we really need to make a new law every time someone is injured or killed? As the article points out, the flagpole was not poorly designed or defective, it was rusted. The article also mentions that a civil lawsuit ensued. That is what the legal community is there for, to provide us the Constitutionally protected right to file for redress. If there was negligence on the part of school, the lawsuit will sort it out and provide compensation. Will that replace the loss of a human life? Of course not. But it will, among other things, encourage just about everyone who owns a flagpole to check and see if it is in danger of collapse. In fact, the district immediately went out and inspected all their flagpoles, and I suspect every school district in the state that heard about the incident probably went out and did the same thing.

The point here is, it should not be the responsibility of government to make sure we are safe from every possible ill or injury. We need to practice individual and corporate responsibility. When we don't and tragic accidents do happen, we have the courts.

I cannot help but ask the question, if one person dies from a freak accident when a flagpole falls, what should we do about the dozens of people who die from trees and tree limbs that fall? Should government regulate every tree that grows on public property?

Legislature Voting on Potential Property Tax Increase This Week!

In 1994, voters passed Proposal “A”. It increased sales taxes by 2%, significantly lowered property taxes, and provided a steady stream of income to K-12 public education. Since passage of Proposal “A”, enrollment has increased by 2%, inflation has gone up about 33%, but revenues to public schools have increased 99%! On top of that, local millages have caused school debt taxes to increase by 269%.

In spite of the increases, the public education lobby never seems to have enough funding. Since 2000, a bill has been proposed every two years to relax the restrictions on “sinking funds” as a way to raise additional cash.

This year is no exception. HB 4313 has been introduced, which would empower school districts to request five additional mills for any purpose using sinking funds.Under current law, a district’s sinking fund can only be used to help finance capital projects.If HB 4313 were passed, your property taxes could be increased to fund any item: social programs, administrative pay raises, new furniture, you name it.

This truly violates the intent of Proposal “A” whose purpose was to provide relief to homeowners from spiraling property taxes. HB 4313 would turn sinking funds into a virtual slush fund for school districts. It has been estimated that this bill could lead to over $3 billion in new property taxes on homeowners, district by district.

The bill has already cleared the Education committee and is likely to be voted in the House this week. Please contact your State Representative today and ask them to honor Proposal A by voting NO on HB 4313. Find your representative here.

Legislature Voting on Potential Property Tax Increase This Week!

In 1994, voters passed Proposal “A”. It increased sales taxes by 2%, significantly lowered property taxes, and provided a steady stream of income to K-12 public education. Since passage of Proposal “A”, enrollment has increased by 2%, inflation has gone up about 33%, but revenues to public schools have increased 99%! On top of that, local millages have caused school debt taxes to increase by 269%.

In spite of the increases, the public education lobby never seems to have enough funding. Since 2000, a bill has been proposed every two years to relax the restrictions on “sinking funds” as a way to raise additional cash.

This year is no exception. HB 4313 has been introduced, which would empower school districts to request five additional mills for any purpose using sinking funds.Under current law, a district’s sinking fund can only be used to help finance capital projects.If HB 4313 were passed, your property taxes could be increased to fund any item: social programs, administrative pay raises, new furniture, you name it.

This truly violates the intent of Proposal “A” whose purpose was to provide relief to homeowners from spiraling property taxes. HB 4313 would turn sinking funds into a virtual slush fund for school districts. It has been estimated that this bill could lead to over $3 billion in new property taxes on homeowners, district by district.

The bill has already cleared the Education committee and is likely to be voted in the House this week. Please contact your State Representative today and ask them to honor Proposal A by voting NO on HB 4313. Find your representative here.

Lawmakers Keep Finding New Businesses to Regulate

Does Government need to regulate everything?

The continuing efforts by the state legislature to regulate, license, punish, and literally drive business out of this state seem to be unabated. The latest examples are House Bills 4458 and 4459. These bills would require “Trauma scene waste management practitioners” to register with the state. I bet you didn’t know there even was such a thing as a trauma scene waste management practitioner. Well, there is, but if this law goes into effect, there will likely be fewer of them.

Here are some of the onerous things this legislation would do:

• Give regulatory authority over any medical waste producing facility to the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ).

• Require anyone in the business to register as a trauma scene waste management practitioner

• Establish registration fees of $75

• Change administrative fines to civil fines

• Create criminal penalties for violations

• Give current practitioners 30 days to apply for a permit

• Require practitioners to submit a management plan and proof of insurance

• Require a fee for background checks of all owners, officers and employees.

• Force practitioners to submit to “unannounced inspections”

• Require labeling and storage standards

• Allow civil fines of up to $2,500 per violation and $1,000 per day while violation continues

• Allow the MDEQ to promulgate rules, which, if violated, would be punishable by up to six months in prison and $1,000 fine.

• Allow the MDEQ to shut down any facility that it believed to be in violation.

This legislation is apparently on the fast track. It was introduced in late February and has already cleared committee. It is awaiting final passage on the House floor.

Can you imagine being a business owner who has to face all these new regulations, fees and potential fines, not to mention the potential for jail time if you do not comply with arbitrary DEQ rules? This is quite possibly a violation of the constitution, to give an agency of the executive branch the authority to write rules, which could land you in prison if you don’t comply. One thing is certain; this legislation will not lure new business to Michigan, but will surely drive more businesses OUT of Michigan.

Click here to find your Representative, then let them know you think this is just too much regulation.

Education Alert

Compulsory Attendance Bill Vote Scheduled for Wednesday

In February, the House Education Committee recommended HB4030 and HB4132 for passage in the full House. These bills are scheduled for a roll call vote on the House floor tomorrow, March 3. There are several reasons why these bills should be defeated.

Raising the compulsory attendance age will not reduce the dropout rate. In fact, the two states with the highest high school completion rates (Maryland, 94.5%, and North Dakota, 94.7%) compel attendance only to age 16, but the state with the lowest completion rate (Oregon, 75.4%) compels attendance to age 18. (These figures are three-year averages, 1996 through 1998.) Most states (28) only require attendance to age 16. An estimated 20,000 students between the ages of 13 and 15 drop out of the Michigan school system each school year. Yet there is little or no enforcement of the current truancy law, since few schools employ truant officers. The proposal, while well intended, is a premature action that will have little impact, since it does not address the issues which cause the dropout problem. Older children who do not want to learn cause classroom discipline problems, disruptions, and violence, making learning harder for those who truly want to learn. Unwilling students who are forced back into the classroom are unlikely to benefit from one year of additional schooling. It is important to re-establish the right of parents to decide when their children are ready to begin formal education and of young children to enjoy the brief years of childhood without the threat of government interventions. The failures of the public school system and the successes of home schooling demand that a thoughtful dialogue move forward on whether or not compulsory attendance laws should be retained. It would take away the parental freedom to decide if a 16- or 17-year-old is ready for college or the workforce. Some 16-year-olds and 17-year-olds who are not academically inclined benefit more from valuable work experience than from being forced to sit in a classroom. Another significant impact of expanding the compulsory attendance age would be an inevitable tax increase to pay for more classroom space and teachers to accommodate the additional students compelled to attend public schools. When California increased the age of compulsory attendance, unwilling students were so disruptive that new schools had to be built just to handle them and their behavior problems, all at the expense of the taxpayer. Three years after implementing policy that increased the compulsory attendance age to 18, Texas reported only a .3% reduction in the dropout rate and a .1% increase in the completion rate. Four years after implementing a similar policy, Kansas reported a .89% reduction in the dropout rate, but no change was reported in the completion rate. Both states failed to meet even a 2% improvement in dropout and completion rates. Raising the compulsory school attendance age from 16 to 18 would create additional costs for the state and school districts. If all students actually remain in school until age 18, it could raise pupil memberships by approximately 30,000 statewide. At the current per pupil weighted foundation allowance of $7,668, the bill could cost $230.0 million annually, dollars that are not available. There is a question of the constitutionality of the legislation. If it were it enacted into law, it would likely be challenged as infringing upon the parental right to educate children. An exemption for home, church, and private schools is therefore in order. Please forward this information to anyone interested in this issue and call or e-mail your representative tonight or tomorrow morning to let them know your opinion on this legislation. Members who are on the Education committee are listed below. To find your representative, click here. House Education Committee: 1. Tim Melton (D-Pontiac), Chair 517-373-0475 timmelton@house.mi.gov 2. Lisa Brown (D-Bloomfield Hills), Vice Chair 517-373-1799 LisaBrown@house.mi.gov 3. Tim Bledsoe (D-Grosse Pointe) 517-373-0154 TimBledsoe@house.mi.gov 4. Barb Byrum (D-Onondaga) 517-373-0587 barbbyrum@house.mi.gov 5. Marc Corriveau (D-Northville) 517-373-3816 marccorriveau@house.mi.gov 6. Doug Geiss (D-Taylor), Bill Sponsor 517-373-0852 DouglasGeiss@house.mi.gov 7. Jennifer Haase (D-Richmond)517-373-8931 JenniferHaase@house.mi.gov 8. Deb Kennedy (D-Brownstown) 517-373-0855 DebKennedy@house.mi.gov 9. Steve Lindberg (D-Marquette) 517-373-0498 stevenlindberg@house.mi.gov 10. David Nathan (D-Detroit) 517-373-3815 DavidNathan@house.mi.gov 11. Gino Polidori (D-Dearborn) 517-373-0847 ginopolidori@house.mi.gov 12. Sarah Roberts (D-St. Clair Shores) 517-373-0113 SarahRoberts@house.mi.gov 13. Joel Sheltrown (D-West Branch) 517-373-3817 joelsheltrown@house.mi.gov 14. Mary Valentine (D-Norton Shores) 517-373-3436 maryvalentine@house.mi.gov 15. Phil Pavlov (R-St. Clair Township), Minority Vice Chair phillippavlov@house.mi.gov 16. Justin Amash (R-Kentwood) 517-373-0840 JustinAmash@house.mi.gov 17. Richard Ball (R-Laingsburg) 517-373-0841 richardball@house.mi.gov 18. Larry DeShazor (R-Portage) 517-373-1774 LarryDeShazor@house.mi.gov 19. Tom McMillin (R-Rochester Hills) 517-373-1773 TomMcMillin@house.mi.gov 20. Tom Pearce (R-Rockford) 517-373-0218 tompearce@house.mi.gov 21. Paul Scott (R-Grand Blanc) 517-373-1780 PaulScott@house.mi.gov 22. Sharon Tyler (R-Niles) 517-373-1796 SharonTyler@house.mi.gov 23. John Walsh (R-Livonia) 517-373-3920 JohnWalsh@house.mi.gov