This election is about students. Schwanke understands the needs of students because he is one. Students make up 35-40% of the district.  Education costs are high.  Schwanke knows this, he is currently living through this.  This just makes electing him that much more important. He will work to bring down the cost of higher education by reforming the way the University of Minnesota spends the money it gets from the state.  Administration costs at the University of Minnesota are the 2^nd highest of the Big 10 schools. This needs to change.  Tuition money should be used to help the students, not to continually grow school administration costs as educational quality continues to underperform.

The DFL candidates were full of ideas, but they all involved increasing the size and scope of government.  In Minnesota, the burden on the taxpayers is high enough, no wonder we are not bringing in new jobs.  Raising taxes just does not make sense.  At the debate, all of the liberal candidates failed to realize that we need to live within our means.  Paul Ostro wants to make Minnesota less competitive by taxing internet sales and clothing.  Jacob Frey does not understand that taxing job creators makes less, not more, jobs.  Kari Dziedzic said she wanted a “balanced approach,” but when she was questioned by Schwanke on this, she could not name one area of government that she would cut.  None of them seemed to grasp the concept that we cannot tax and spend our way to prosperity.  If we are going to get Minnesota back on track, we must vote against policies that will only make things worse.

The clear choice from this candidate forum was Ben Schwanke. Please join us and support Ben in his election on January 10, 2012.

Check out Ben on Facebook.

Need to vote absentee? Click here!

The Constitution clearly dictates the role of the federal government, and for the past 100 years there has been an explosion of power in Washington and a grave misinterpretation of what the founders intended. When dealing with trade, the Constitutions is quite clear:

“[The Congress shall have the power] to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes”
-Article I, Section 8, Clause 3

The word ‘regulate’ means ‘to make regular.’ The Commerce Clause says that the government’s role is to make trade regular between the states. The founders meant for America to be a free trade zone. Today, trade between the states is largely unfettered free trade. Free trade creates prosperity, but it also creates peace and cooperation between people, which is why we don’t scorn every time that we buy a product made in Florida or New York. However, regulations from the federal level have been encroaching on the power of states and individuals. The Obamacare law is absolutely unconstitutional because it attempts to regulate inactivity. Repealing the new healthcare law will restore constitutional sanity to Washington, but the de-federalization of the entire healthcare industry will lower the cost of healthcare for everyone.

The Commerce Department is due for quite a bit of trimming. For instance, the federal government has no authority in the Constitution to give subsidies. Therefore, we should cut subsidies to businesses, giving grants for economic development, and technology improvement subsidies, that will save the taxpayer upwards of $16 billon. All of these are harmful regulations because they disrupt the free trade.

Free trade must also be applied abroad and at home to guarantee the greatest climate for creating jobs.  If you look at the relationship between states and countries the idea of free trade losses to nationalism. What people do not understand is that tariffs, embargoes, and quotas compel nations to engages in nasty behavior like trade wars and even wars themselves.  Frederick Bastiat, a great free market thinker, explains it best.  ”When goods don’t cross borders, armies will,” he said. “Without trade, there is less to lose from the mass destruction that war implies. Countries that trade have a mutual stake in the preservation of open, friendly relations. This is one reason that free commercial activities promote peace, and why protectionism and trade sanctions generate war tensions.

One perfect example of nationalism causing war at the expense of free trade was the events leading up to WWII.  Huge tariffs were imposed, leading to tension.  When nations depend on each other for trade, they realize that going to war is not worth the loss of a trade partner.

If America wants to achieve greater prosperity we need to remove all barriers to trade so companies will invest here again. That also includes lowering taxes to give America the upper hand. If you want more jobs in an economy that is struggling to recover, you have to look to the free-market to solve the problems that government created.

This past Saturday, a spin-off of the liberal “Occupy Wall Street” protests occurred in Fargo under the banners “Occupy Fargo-Moorhead” and “Occupy North Dakota”.

Concordia College Republicans and Conservatives had about a week’s forewarning about the event because we “liked” the group’s facebook page and got the date and time from there. We were disgusted to find out that these people would dare hold and “Occupy Wall Street” type protest in North Dakota, which has 18,000 jobs available, has 3.3% unemployment, and is the best state in the union economically.

During the week preceding the event, we spent our time planning a counter-protest.  On that Saturday, we arrived early and set up a table with job information, resume buffers, job websites, and other handy material for finding a job to hand out to the poor souls that showed up to protest. We saw this movement as a “cry for help”, and we were determined to help these people get out of their parent’s basements and become responsible job-holders and tax-payers. When the protesters showed up, we took up our signs (saying things like “occupy a job” and “Become the 53%”)  and information and tried to help these people see reason. We shouted our chief slogan: “Occupy a job!”  Even though there were only about ten of us against one hundred and fifty of them, we made ourselves heard.

I, along with members of my group, were interviewed by the local fox affiliate, another TV station, and the local paper.  Our group even got media coverage in Indiana, that’s how far news of our protest spread. The impact of our presence was immediate: the other side became out of sync. They didn’t know how to respond to our points except through personal attacks, and only when one of them led them in a group chant did they really say anything (which wasn’t much).

Last Thursday MacGOP presented a “free speech wall” to the students of Macalester College. Constitution Day had been two weeks before, which left little time to prepare an event. However, our constitutional rights are exercised every day, so we decided it was as good of a time as any to celebrate our right to free speech.

The effort to build the wall was an event in itself. The day before, I drove a U-Haul truck around the Twin Cities purchasing the wood and other materials to start building. We later met at a member’s house off-campus. Within a few hours, the task was complete: an eight-foot long wall made of plywood and framing lumber. We added the finishing touch with a stylistic representation of President Reagan and celebrated with a round of “Leninades” (a soda advertised with the description, “Get Hammered and Sickled!”)

Then came the big day. Early in the morning, crowds were small but steady. We had members of our chapter manning the wall throughout the day, encouraging passing students to write any message they wished. MacGOP member Drew Ojeda stood on a nearby bench and read the entirety of the Constitution as students headed for their classes. Later in the day crowds surged with groups of twenty at a time reading the wall and adding their own messages. Topics ranged from sports and politics to Van Halen and the absurd. There was no space left by 1:30 PM- we had to open up the frame itself to writing as students continued to exercise their right to free speech.

The event was a resounding success. Numerous students thanked us for the opportunity to write down their thoughts (even a former chair of our rival, MacDems!), providing us with an excellent opportunity to reach out to the student body. I cannot thank our College Republicans here at Macalester enough for their hard work on building and publicizing this wall; it was a team effort that led to an amazing day.

Cory recently won the primary election with over 85% of the votes and is now the republican endorsed candidate for the Brooklyn Park and Brooklyn Center area.  With the special election coming up on October 18th, it is very important that we remind the voters of SD 46 how important this election will be.

This seat was previously held by the DFL, so getting out the vote has never been so important. The College Republicans knocked on hundreds of doors, handed out tons of lit and met with a lot of different people.  We are really excited about the positive feedback we received and we hope to see a victory on October 18th.

In this day in age, words like competition, capitalism, and choice get thrown around to convince people that certain policies are free-market. However, merely saying it does not make this so. In order to understand what is meant by all this smooth talking we first have to understand what free-market capitalism entail.

“Free-market capitalism refers to a system of production and exchanges that is based on the rule of law, on equality of rights for all, on the freedom to choose, freedom to trade, freedom to innovate on the guiding discipline of profits and losses, and on the right to enjoy the fruits of one’s labor, of one’s savings, one’s investments, without fearing confiscation or restriction from those who have invested, not in production of wealth, but political powers.” (The Morality of Capitalism, p.9)

Any politician that claims that they can create more competition, more freedom, more choice with bigger government is lying through their teeth. President Obama was swept into office promising a new future with government leading the way because the supposed failures of the free-market created some sort of obligation for government to act. One of those ‘failures’ of the free-market was the lack of what some people call ‘green’ energy. According to the government, this is the future of America’s energy and if you don’t agree well you are out of luck.

Lately we have seen Obama’s green economy fall apart with the bankruptcy of Solyndra; the brain child of the future of renewable energy. During the spending spree of Obama’s first years, the solar panel company Solyndra received more that $500 million in federal loans. The process appeared to be expedited and politically motivated.  Indeed, instances of foul play is nothing new in the Obama administration, cases of Obamacare waivers going to friends of the administration are widespread

Right now Solyndra is being investigated by the FBI for undisclosed reasons. What we should take from this scandal is that government directed economic policies never work because a central authority does not need to consider the economic ramifications of a bad investment the way the private sector does. Similarly, politically motivated actions are not the way of the future. This should not take away from the free-market advances in green energy that have occurred of the years. Green energy may very well be the future of America’s energy or maybe not. Either way it is not important because the real lesson is that government should not decide what the future should be, but rather we, the people, should.  After all, that is essentially what the economy is: people.

Obama wanted to provide choice in energy, but instead he created a boondoggle. He violated every rule in a free society by attempting to please the corporate interests and boast his political clout. It is simply a failure of philosophy that government can solve any of our problems by creating more.

Americans should focus on three things when it comes to oil and energy production. First, we cannot just focus on one area of energy production, we should be looking at the wide variety of sources we have at our disposal. Second, we must continue to safely develop our abundant natural resources, including oil. Development of resources and conservation of the environment can occur side by side. Third, we must realize that energy production is vital to the security of our country. I am optimistic about our energy future in the United States. Yes, eventually we will run out of fossil fuels, but there is not a problem that we will encounter that cannot be fixed with American ingenuity.

When it comes to energy, as Americans, we should not let our economy depend on just one form of energy. My solution to our energy problems is an “all of the above” approach; we should look at every option when considering our energy choices.  Everyone knows that fossil fuels are a finite resource, but right now, our way of life depends on them.^3.  We must realize that our current prosperity and high standard of living is due to the fact that we have a cheap source of energy. ^1.  Currently, most renewable sources are not economically feasible without heavy government subsidy, which we’ve seen recently, is not sustainable. As Americans, we should be looking at every option when it comes to solutions to our energy problems. Solar, wind, hydroelectric, nuclear, biomass and geothermal are all sources that should be developed further. These will help provide long term solutions to our energy needs.  The free market will show us the answer once the traditional sources of energy begin to run out. ^1.  As power generated from those sources becomes scarce, there will be great incentive for companies and individuals to invest in alternative sources. As we work to develop these future sources, we should continue to “Drill, Baby, Drill” and extract energy from our proven reserves of oil, gas, and coal.

We have a duty to responsibly develop our abundant natural resources. Our Federal government bought vast tracts of land, like the state of Alaska, with the days and years ahead in mind. The state’s motto, “North to the Future” reflects how important it will, and has, become in the energy debate. It is important that we use our resource rich states to help raise the standard of living for all of our citizens. The energy sector provides many, stable, high paying jobs, many of which are resource development jobs that cannot be shipped overseas. The United States has some of the highest environmental standards in the world.^2.  Do it right and do it here, we know that we can do it more effectively and safely than any other country on the planet. We can be pro-business and pro-environment; the two are not mutually exclusive.  I was raised on the Iron Range in northeastern Minnesota where the local economy was dependent on the neighboring iron mines. I grew up in the great outdoors, I love canoeing, fishing, hiking, camping, and all of the things that the north woods has to offer. I would never want to do anything that would jeopardize these activities for future generations. I have seen firsthand that resource development and the environment can safely coexist. This is not to say we should let mining companies do whatever they want. We should, to quote President Ronald Reagan, “trust but verify”.  As citizens, we must elect public officials that will hold these companies accountable. Put reasonable regulations in place and make the resource developers abide by those standards. As energy consumers we cannot afford to let extreme environmentalists drive the debate. Many of these people would have us not develop our plentiful resources and force energy prices to skyrocket. ^3.  Our government did not set aside millions of acres of oil and natural gas rich land, like the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska, to let the resources sit in the ground; they were intended to be developed. Environmentalists tried to stop the very successful Trans-Alaska Pipeline from being built by spreading lies about its effect on the native caribou populations; forty years later, the caribou are thriving.

The final reason I believe in developing our oil reserves has to do with national security. When we have proven reserves of oil in various parts of the United States^1., we should not be buying oil from foreign countries with dictators who do not have our best interests at heart. America cannot afford to have its supply of energy rest on the whim of a volatile foreign ruler; especially when we have reserves here at home that we are not developing. It should frighten most people that we rely on countries like Saudi Arabia for large portions of our economic lifeblood. ^4.  Unfortunately, it will take more effort politically to open up our own resource rich lands and stop giving money to countries that fund terrorism.  We have the resources here in the United States and there is no reason that American cannot become energy independent. ^3.

Although it will not be easy, I am confident in America’s future and our ability to become energy independent. As long as we consider all of our options, responsibly develop our plentiful resources, and understand the connection between energy and security, we have a bright future when it comes to energy. American’s have what it takes and I believe most of them know that we don’t have to choose between the environment and our high standard of living. We can have both.

The Concordia University St. Paul College Republicans and Veterans Club co-sponsored the Young America’s Foundation 9/11 Never Forget Project on-campus. With the help of several CSP students and MNCR members, we were able to set up nearly 3,000 American flags near the campus chapel. Each flag represented a life that was lost in the attacks.

Dozens of students gathered together to share their memories. For many of us, we were children, and the events that occurred that day changed our childhoods forever. The tenth anniversary of the September 11 terrorist attacks on America reminded us not only of the tragedy and the lives lost, but also of the innocence that was taken away from a generation.

Buildings fell, but together as a nation we rose up and we will never forget.

It is ultimately puzzling for those who understand anything about politics that
politicians in Washington can create anything except more debt. From a purely
economic standpoint, the government creating jobs cannot occur because the
government does not create wealth: only the private sector does this. The reason is
because the government has to take from the pockets of taxpayers to create
fictitious jobs.

What many people do not grasp is that jobs may be important, but the driving
factor behind the creating of jobs is wealth creation. If we wanted jobs we could pass
numerous laws that would give us just that. For instance, the great economist Milton
Friedman on a tour of China was shown a huge mining project. Upon closer
examination Milton Friedman asked why the workers were using shovels instead of
large moving equipment. The person in charge proudly explained that this was a jobs
project. Milton then asked, “if this is jobs project then why not give the workers spoons
instead of shovels?”

The government was shortsighted.  A lot more people would be employed temporarily if we were to ban anybody from using a laptop.  This is pointless, however.  Government should let society advance on its own and let the jobs created be a response to a growing and changing economy.

If America want more jobs, we need to let the free market deliver and stop getting in the way.  One example is the minimum wage laws. At first glance the laws seem well-
intentioned and beneficial, however the minimum wage law creates a price floor on the
salaries of jobs. This is not an issue for people who already have a skill in which they
make substantially more than the minimum wage, but is devastating to those that are
unskilled. This is because the minimum wage destroys jobs that could only exist if
employees could be paid less that the government standard. This is exactly the reason
teen unemployment is at 25%.  The law effectively forces employers to discriminate against low-skilled workers.

Another area that would promote competition to create jobs is to work on reducing
tariffs and trade restrictions. The economy is made up of people and the government
has no business telling us where and how we can spend out money. Tariffs are
extremely anti-free-market simply because they manipulate the price mechanism to fool
you into buying American goods that you would not otherwise buy.

One common rebuttal to this statement is that buying American will save American jobs. This is one of the greatest economic fallacies of the them all.  Trade makes everyone richer because comparative advantage utilizes the division of labor to allocate resources more effectively. If you believe that everyone
would buy American then why should we not buy Minnesotan? Why should we buy from
other cities? By this logic, they are just stealing our jobs.  At this rate, we will soon find ourselves alone with the task of making everything on our own and without the benefits of free enterprise and the convenience that comes with it.

One enormous enemy of American business is the horrendous tax code.
Whether you advocate for something like the Fair Tax plan or even a flat tax, the point is that any would be better than the mess that we have today.  The code is so complicated that many of us have to outsource the labor to an accountant that will try to get as much of your money back as possible.

Government intervention is the biggest problem in our economy and if we want the return to prosperity we need to work to reduce that problem.  America is great because it
empowers the individual by allowing every person to engage in their own pursuit of
happiness.  This is what has gotten us this far, and will continue to take us forward.

Never has the diversity within the College Republicans been so clear than during the last GOP Candidate Debate. There we were, squished onto my futon, being forced to watch MSNBC and we were definitely not agreeing. In fact, our disagreeing got loud enough that one of my freshman residents came to tell me to shut up and close my door.

The conversation ranged from the pros and cons of Ron Paul to why RINO is a bad word and why Mitt’s hair bothers us.  Things got heated over whether TSA is actually doing anything worthwhile and whether we should be able to use racial profiling.

Recognizing and respecting the diversity within your organization is vital to its survival. Differing views within your group encourages innovation, spontaneity, and friendship. Alienating members because they are pro-choice, didn’t like Bush or think marijuana should be legalized isn’t going to get anyone anywhere. Everyone has something to teach, even within your chapter.