Archive for January, 2010

In 2003, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), a nonpartisan agency tasked with providing economic data to Congress, reported that an unsustainable fiscal policy,

“could result in an economic crisis. Foreign investors could stop investing in U.S. securities, the exchange value of the dollar could plunge, interest rates could climb, consumer prices could shoot up, or the economy could contract sharply. Amid the anticipation of declining profits and rising inflation and interest rates, stock markets could collapse and consumers might suddenly reduce their consumption.”

If that sounds bad consider that in the 6 years since the CBO’s dire prediction, the national debt has nearly doubled from $6.76 trillion to $12.9 trillion. Tack on a potential $1.04 trillion for proposed health care reform and all of the “coulds” mentioned by the CBO turn into “wills.” But while the public has grown more concerned about the rapid increase in the size of government and the deficit, the Obama White House continues their take-over spree. A recent ABC News/Washington Post poll showed that even before Obama’s recent legislation a majority of the public was very concerned about the size of the deficit:

Further, a USA Today/Gallup poll found that Obama’s recent proposals call for too much government spending:

The public’s concern has not deterred this administration which has quietly pushed the Student Aid and Financial Responsibility Act (SAFRA) through the House of Representatives. The bill will overhaul the student-loan market by ending the current system of government-guaranteed private loans and shifting all lending to the federal government’s Direct Loan program and Federal Direct Perkins Loan program.

The bill represents the government’s attempt at a solution to a problem of their own creation. In 1993, Congress established a government option to private lenders dealing in student loans, urging that competition would create more beneficial rates. In 2007, Congress mandated that lenders maintain interest rates at levels too low to turn a profit. To keep the system running the federal government began purchasing loans, promising it was a temporary foray into a traditionally private industry. Nevertheless, fast forward two years and the U.S. Department of Education is now set to become the exclusive originator for student loans (beware the parallels to health care reform.)

The downsides to a sole public option are diverse and numerous. First, it’s simply not popular among universities who will be forced to implement it. As Congressman John Kline, the top Republican on the U.S. House Education and Labor Committee said in his floor speech,

“[I]f it’s truly about competition, the best program ought to win in the marketplace. In fact, one program has won – the public-private partnership . . . which is the choice of three-quarters of colleges and universities today.”

Part of the displeasure comes from the poor customer service that walks hand in hand with government bureaucracy. In addition many universities worry about the cost of transitioning between the two programs when their budgets and time are already stretched to the breaking point. Even the U.S. Department of Education admits that “[o]f course, the school must ensure that its systems and processes are, if necessary, modified” and that “a full training calendar to assist schools” will be provided.[3]

Second, it removes choice, competition and the incentive for innovation. As Chuck Sanders, President and CEO of the state-run South Carolina Student Loan Corporation testified before Congress,

“[S]tudents, parents, and institutions are better off with the ability to work with the local, community-based or national organization they desire. If the Direct Loan program is indeed their choice, it should be for reasons other than having no other option at all.”

Choice ensures that lenders remain responsive to the needs of their potential customers as well as keep prices low through competition. On the other hand, a single market player eliminates the incentive to remain efficient, keep costs down, and remain innovative.

Third, the bill does address the underlying problem of the rising cost of a college education and instead will contribute to skyrocketing costs. The government is touting that the bill redirects $40 billion in efficiency savings to increase need-based Pell Grants which serve as the main scholarship vehicle for low income students. The SAFRA Bill increases the total amount of the Pell Grant award and indexes future amounts to inflation plus one percent.  However, this ignores the fact that the annual costs of college has increased 122% at public and 80% at private colleges after adjusting for inflation.

One of the main reasons for the rise has ironically been government spending to increase affordability. This arises from several reasons. First, students receiving grants and loans have less reason to advocate for lower tuition since they are not paying their own way. Included in this principle is that colleges have little incentive to cut costs or create efficiencies. Second, principles of supply and demand dictate that as more people can afford to attend college, prices climb.  According to the theory, the market for education has an equilibrium point at which the number of people willing to pay to attend equals the amount of spots available. However, a subsidy, such as the Pell Grant program, shifts the demand upwards by distorting the price equilibrium and leading to increase tuition costs. Third, colleges are rational economic actors who incorporate any federal assistance increases into their tuition decisions. As former secretary of education William Bennet said, “[i]ncreases in financial aid have enabled colleges and universities to blithely raise their tuitions, confident that Federal loan subsidies will help cushion the increase.”Thus, the SAFRA bill does nothing to address the underlying problem of affordability and will force the government to spend increasing amounts on education entitlement programs.

Fourth, and most directly affecting the youth, SAFRA significantly expands the size of government while adding billions to the national debt. Despite proclamations for Democrats that SAFRA will create $80 billion dollars in savings and efficiencies, the numbers tell a different story:

• The Congressional Budget Office admitted that the methodology used for the figure “does not include the cost to the government stemming from the risk that the cash flows may be less than projected.” Afterwards, the CBO re-estimated the potential savings down to $47 billion
• Indexing Pell Grants to inflation lowers the CBO’s initial estimate by another $11.4 billion
• According to CBO estimates the bill requires a $13.5 billion increase in new discretionary spending which is not counted in the savings
• The government is claiming lower default rates than private lenders despite the fact that many of the new loans they will control are for community and two-year college students which have percentages of defaults
• The estimate ignores the possibility of ballooning costs if the governmental bureaucracy proves less efficient in administration and collection that private lenders

Despite the dubious savings and numerous question marks, the government is set to start spending the $80 billion dollar figure immediately. In addition to entitlement programs such as early childhood education, green construction grants, and money to develop online curriculums for community colleges, the plan adds a budget busting $46 billion to enlarging Pell grants. What is being touted as savings is really tens of billions in new spending. What is being touted as efficiency will add $100 billion dollars per year in student lending to the national budget.

At a time when Americans believe the government is doing and spending too much, the unbridled take-over spree continues. Ultimately someone has to foot the bill for these huge expansions in the size and scope of government deficit spending. That someone is America’s youth. So while Democrats continue to laud SAFRA as “landmark investment in higher education” the real story is one of unprecedented debt being handed to the next generation. One can only pray that the Democrats lofty goals of increasing affordability and graduation rates comes to fruition…students are going to need the best jobs possible to be able to afford it.

- Brandon Greife, Political Director

Obama has been a president defined by speeches. But if the old adages are true, that “actions speak louder than words” and “talk is cheap,” Obama must rise above rhetoric and get something done.

Every crucial moment and every tough decision of the Obama presidency has been accompanied by a speech. As, The Australian wrote of Obama,

Obama makes uniformly brilliant speeches. His presidency is so far more defined by speeches than any previous presidency. In his big foreign policy speeches you can often discern an internal tension, even struggle, between the postmodern pieties with their characteristic high-toned vagueness, and the hard-nut realism of Chicago.

Moreover, they’ve worked. Whenever Barack Obama opens his mouth you can be sure that it will be accompanied by some positive movement in the polls. For instance,

• Following a speech in September, a CBS poll showed a 12% jump in how people perceived Obama’s handling of health care – from 40% to 52% approval
• After a speech to Congress in February, Obama’s “approval ratings, as well as his likeability, believability and sincerity, increasing among all parties”
• Obama’s speech at West Point, laying out his Afghanistan strategy, boosted the number of people who approved of his handling of Afghanistan from 41% to 49%

This jump in support is not the norm. A study by political scientist George Edwards concluded that,

“…[S]tatistically significant changes in approval rarely follow a televised presidential address. Typically, the president’s ratings hardly move at all. Most changes are well within the margin of error— and many of them show a loss of approval.

That Obama can influence the polls with a speech speaks to the level that people want to believe him. He is able to sound both smart and unassuming. He is a master of both diction and cadence. If words and promises made up the entire job description there is no doubt his presidency would be among the most accomplished. But in the end, none of this matters. Like Peyton Manning facing the Jets defense, people will eventually figure it out, and then…game over.

Last night’s State of the Union resurrected many of the ideas and promises that Obama made during his campaign. Should we expect a different outcome? Obama promised that the stimulus plan “would create up to 4 million new jobs, 90 percent of which will be generated by the private sector.” As to health care reform he said that “the only thing we’re going to try to do is lower costs.”  On earmark reform he quipped that “when I’m president, I will go line by line to make sure that we are not spending money unwisely.” The point being that Obama talks a big game, but rarely follows through. Even Nancy Pelosi has taken a swipe Obama’s failure to turn words into action, saying “”[t]here are a number of things he was for on the campaign trail.”

But, Barack the-boy-who-cried-wolf Obama must now act, lest his latest grandiose speech become nothing more than another attempt to score as many political points as possible. The polls show that the strategy has worked thus far. In Year One voters have been content to support the nice-sounding but vague plans that Obama and the Democratic leadership have for the real life problems we face. But people, along with rank and file Congressional Democrats, are growing impatient with Barack Obama. If all Obama can accomplish is talk, there is a deep bench of Republicans ready to get into the game in 2010.

- Brandon Greife, Political Director

Like many Americans, we turned on the State of the Union last night hoping for a speech that would outline a vision for dealing with America’s many problems. The President did correctly identify many of the problems facing our country: a booming debt, fast rising healthcare and education costs and the lack of political will to fix these problems. However, rather than offer solutions, the President delivered a half-hearted lecture. Rather than advancing ways to pay off debt, the President proposed ways to pass the buck.

On the issue of America’s frightening national debt, the President announced that he would create a “debt panel” by Executive Order. The President long derided the idea of such a panel as a cheap stunt that passes on the responsibility of dealing with the problem. Despite his previous words, and despite the fact that the Congress voted down the idea just days ago, the President is going to move ahead with a proposal designed to do nothing more than give him and the Congress political cover to raise your taxes.

The President also elaborated on his previously announced spending freeze on discretionary spending. Unfortunately such spending is a miniscule part of the overall budget, and this plan does nothing to address the ticking time bomb of entitlement spending which is spiraling out of control. If the President truly cares about keeping America’s debt under control, he should work with Congress to find ways to tamp down long-term entitlement spending without destroying the services that such spending pays for. Instead the President proposed a budgetary gimmick that leaves the real problems for another day.

We heard nothing new on healthcare, and the President again refused to lay out his specific agenda on the issue. Rather than taking leadership by trying to unite a fractious Congress around a single set of ideas, the President decided not to offer any ideas at all.

Heading into the speech, many speculated that President Obama, humbled by a series of defeats and the manifest dissatisfaction shown him by the American people, would move toward the political center to craft solutions to America’s problems. Instead the President delivered a 71 minute long list of stunts, gimmicks and worn platitudes.

As the voice of young conservatives, it is more important than ever that College Republicans work for a Republican victory this fall so that responsible, sustainable government policy will once again have a chance in Washington.

This Week’s Theme: Reaching Out to Everyone, Obama Reaches No One

The Promise: Too Many Too Count

The Reality: As Mark Halperin told Chris Matthews: “I confess, I come here telling you, I have no idea what they are doing based on the excerpts that have been released. If they have a strategy, I can’t discern what it is…to me, it’s still too much of a hodgepodge.”

Issue 1: The Spending Freeze,

What he said: “Starting in 2011, we are prepared to freeze government spending for three years. Spending related to our national security, Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security will not be affected…Like any cash strapped family, we will work within a budget to invest in what we need and sacrifice what we don’t.

The reality: As the AP reports, “the anticipated savings from this proposal would amount to less than 1 percent of the deficit – and that’s if the president can persuade Congress to go along.” Moreover, this idea comes on the heels of a presidential campaign in which he undercut the idea of a freeze, saying “the problem with a spending freeze is you’re using a hatchet where you need a scalpel.”

The idea of a spending freeze following the most reckless year of government spending in the nation’s history is like a man coming home to his wife having gained 100 lbs. and saying “honey, I think I’m just going to stay at this weight.” It misses the point entirely, this nation needs to go on a diet! The fiscal diet plan should not exempt the growing entitlement plans like Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security and, as the Heritage Foundation suggests, must “take far tougher actions like cancelling TARP, ending the stimulus program, and turning his attention to the tsunami of entitlement programs that threaten to swamp our economy.”

Read More:  http://blog.heritage.org/2010/01/27/reaction-roundup-heritage-responds-to-the-state-of-the-union/

Issue 2: College Affordability

What he said: “In the United States of America, no one should go broke because they chose to go to college. And it’s time for colleges and universities to get serious about cutting their own costs – because they too have a responsibility to help solve this problem.”

The reality: This is absolutely true, college should be made affordable for everyone. But if the President is serious about this commitment he’s approaching it from the wrong perspective. Most colleges receive a great deal of their funds from states whose budgets are being squeezed by unfunded mandates from the federal government. The President’s plan to expand Medicaid would explode many state budgets which are already seeing decreased tax revenues because of the economic downturn. As colleges receive less money from state governments they are forced to raise tuition, pricing out many low-income students and leaving many in enormous debt.

The President’s plan to increase federal subsidies and grant programs is also tackling the wrong side of the problem. Universities, as rational economic actors, will simply increase tuition costs to capture the extra federal cash. As the House Joint Economic Committee Study found,

Colleges have little incentive to control costs and tuition. By increasing the availability of federal aid, the government increases the stream of revenue available to colleges, thus encouraging them to raise costs and justify tuition hikes. Colleges thus largely absorb increased funding.

Read more about why the President’s big government solutions won’t work: http://www.house.gov/jec/fiscal/tx-grwth/college/college.htm

Issue 3: Aid to Small Businesses

What he said: “So tonight, I’m proposing that we take $30 billion of the money Wall Street banks have repaid and use it to help community banks give small businesses the credit they need to stay afloat.  I am also proposing a new small business tax credit-one that will go to over one million small businesses who hire new workers or raise wages.”

The reality: Another example of what the President did best in this State of the Union: make a lot of small promises on a lot of different issues which are aimed at giving him a political boost. It’s hard to argue against giving aid to small businesses or lowering education costs – but it’s like handing people a Band-Aid after he’s just chopped your arm off.

Congressional Republicans responded by pointing out the many policies over the past year that have burdened small businesses,

The President’s budget contained over $1.5 trillion in crushing tax increases over the next 10 years. . . The President’s government takeover of healthcare would impose billions in new taxes on businesses who cannot afford to finance their worker’s health coverage.  The Congressional Budget Office has confirmed that this tax on jobs masquerading in the form of a “pay-or-play” mandate “could reduce the hiring of low-wage workers,” and could also lead to wage stagnation as wage compensation is diverted to comply with new federal taxes and mandates.

Read more GOP responses: http://www.gop.gov/policy-news/10/01/27/a-review-of-the-presidents

Bottom Line: This is just a fraction of the myriad issues brought up in the State of the Union. But by attempting to discuss so many things he failed to provide real answers to any of them. This has been a presidency defined by speeches. Eventually, the talk and rhetoric must give way to solutions and action. We’re still waiting.

- Brandon Greife, Political Director

It has been a tough year for America’s youth. We liked Barack Obama. It may not be the best reason to vote for someone, but the fact remains, he was the coolest politician of our lifetime. Throughout the campaign he made it a point to speak directly to us. In return, we made him a walking, talking viral video and carried him into office. More than a year later many young adults find themselves out of work, dissatisfied with the direction of the country, and left with plenty of time to wonder what happened to the change that was promised.

Part of the problem was that the campaign left people expecting a revolution. Things much deeper than the simple color of his skin sent the message that he was going to be different. It was that much more of a surprise then that business continued as usual in the White House. But from the youth perspective, the most disturbing part of the continuation of a tired status quo, was that Obama seemed to forget about young adults. As Erica Williams, policy and advocacy manager for Campus Progressives explains,

“While we were still largely supportive of the administration and the president, we were a little disappointed in the compromises that had been made, the lack of engagement between the administration and young people,”

The lack of engagement has become the clearest on the issue of job creation. A new report by Reuters shows that only 26 percent of American teenagers aged 16-19 had jobs in late 2009 – a record low since statistics were first kept. Moreover, “the disconnection rate – Americans aged 20 to 24 who were neither in school nor working – jumped to 28 percent last year from 17 percent in 2007.”

The staggering unemployment figures threaten to create a lost generation among America’s youth. Being squeezed from the top by experienced middle-aged workers and from the bottom by the constantly refilling ranks of graduating classes, young adults have been desperately looking from a quick response to the job crisis. As Edward DeJusus, President and Founder of the Youth Development and Research Fund, said,

“In a society where the world has become increasingly fast-paced and technologically progressive, it is imperative to not only involve today’s youth in the future of job creation, but also to recruit their efforts. “

There is a growing notion that Obama has failed to involve today’s youth in how to create more jobs. It is no surprise then that there is a parallel trend in which young adults feel that the country is headed in the wrong direction. As Rasmussen polls show, the number of 18-29 year olds who believe the country is headed in the right direction has dropped by 20 percent in just four months while the number who believe we are going in the wrong direction has increased by 20 percent.

Young adults are suffering. We need jobs. We also need a President or a party who is will make our concerns a priority. As Pete Levine of the Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement explains the importance of young adults, “[The recession is] a more formative experience than anything any politician is going to do. If it turns out that we’ve already seen the worst, that’s one story. If it lasts for years, it’ll also be very influential.” Republicans would be wise to listen. Barack Obama was able to capture young adults in 2008 based on a promise, Republicans can win their vote forever by including them in a plan to improve the economy.

- Brandon Greife, Political Director

Yes we can or yes we will? It is about time Obama stepped out of the hypothetical and into reality. After all, he was elected because he promised a fundamental change in Washington. It is little wonder then that after an underwhelming first year in office, conservatives and liberals alike are wondering when he will finally take ownership of this presidency. If recent news is any indication, Obama may be forced to do so soon, if for no other reason than blaming Bush, rather than coming up with working policies, is falling flat.

The Bush attacks are coming from all over:

• A campaign advertisement for Jon Corzine closed with “Chris Christie: Bush’s friend. Bush’s policies. Bad for New Jersey.
• A radio ad from Creigh Deeds in the Virginia gubernatorial race featured dialogue like, “George Bush – what a disaster for our economy,” “What I can’t figure out is why this Bob McDonnell wants to do it just like Bush” and “Creigh Deeds: a little more Mark Warner and a LOT less George Bush”
• Or the Massachusetts Democratic Party which ran a mailer for the Coakley campaign that said, “What can Brown do to you? He can reward corporations that ship your job overseas just like George W. Bush.”

So what do all of these have in common (beyond a backhanded shout-out to George Bush)? They all lost; with two of the races representing upsets in key Democratic states.

But not all liberal pundits have learned from the mistakes. In his recent article “Democrats Need to Learn the Blame Game” James Carville argues that,

“Democrats would not be playing the blame game with one another for the loss for the healthcare debacle if they had only pointed fingers at those (or in this case, the one) who put Americans (and most of the world) in the predicament we’re in: George W. Bush.”

If this is the best strategy Democrats can come up with to try and regain the momentum they have lost over the past year, consider me ecstatic. After all, as Steve Hidebrand, a top aide on Obama’s presidential campaign told Politico,

“Voters are pretty tired of the blame game. . . What a stupid strategy that was.”

But more importantly, it sends a signal that the Democrats are out of ideas. The public, fearful of a the words “trillion” and “debt” being used so often in the same sentence had long abandoned many of the Democrat’s plans. The stimulus was a waste. The bailouts were a bust. The only arrow left in the Democrat’s quiver was supposed to be the one that would win the war – health care. But with Scott Brown’s upset bid signaling that the public didn’t want the Democratic health care plan, the party has been left searching for answers. Thus far the only thing they have been able to come up with is a freeze on discretionary spending that Obama previously called “a hatchet” when we really need, and “a scalpel.”

With their fragile house of cards, constructed in back room deals and glued together with the mortar of Barack Obama’s personality, now in ruins, Democrats are resurrecting their favorite villain…George Bush. But going negative won’t work. Not for the party whose slogan in 2006 was “A New Direction for America.” And it especially won’t work with the young adults who carried him into office.

Young adults engaged in campaigns and showed up at the polls in record numbers based on the promise of “change.” They wanted change from the passing the buck blame game that had become politics as usual in Washington. A grassroots campaign which mobilized and organized enormous numbers of young adults convinced people that Barack Obama was that change. As Patrick Ruffini explained on the NextRight,

[W]hat happens when the campaign goes away? What happens when the enthusiasm inevitably ebbs and the hard work of governing begins? The immediate benefits of a bottom-up strategy become less clear. You revert to traditional instincts, where powerful obstacles stand in the way of getting things done — even amongst your base, and the wielding of massive political machinery cannot be left to amateurs.

More than simply reverting to top-down governing, it appears that the Democratic leadership has relapsed ever further – to playing the blame game.

As 2008 made clear, we are tired of leaders passing the buck, we want results. It is time for the President to take ownership of the mistakes he has made on the economy, on health care, and on the stimulus. Young adults are smarter than to have their attention diverted from the recent causes of our lack of progress. It’s time to put the Bush-blaming to bed. But do Democrats have any ideas left to take its place?

- Brandon Greife, Political Director (Hat tip to Political Intern, Amy Burggraf)

The Washington washing machine has been set on spin cycle for the past few weeks. Spin-sters from both sides of the aisle have been working hard to make sure their party comes out of Massachusetts special election looking squeaky clean.

Many Democrats have interpreted the loss, not as a repudiation of their agenda, but as mandate to move further to the left. According to this view, Democrats are falling out of favor because they are governing too close to the center and thus alienating the liberal-minded base which got them elected. As Howard Dean put it curtly to Chris Matthews,

Yesterday the problem was that people wanted more.

On the other hand, Republicans have been quick to construe the Massachusetts race as a representation of the public’s fundamental dislike of the Obama Administration’s policies. After all, Scott Brown won in a liberal state after running a campaign based around being the 41^st Republican vote in the Senate. Oddly enough, some Congressional Democrats have echoed this view. As Sen. Evan Bayh (D-IN) said,

“There’s going to be a tendency on the part of our people to be in denial about all of this, [but] if you lose Massachusetts and that’s not a wake-up call, there’s no hope of waking up. . . Whenever you have just the furthest left elements of the Dem party attempting to impose their will on the rest of the country – that’s not going to work too well.”

What neither side seems to grasp is that their positions are not mutually exclusive. The national mood remains very similar to 2008 when the electorate overwhelmingly voted Barack Obama into office. Now for something shocking: this is great news for Republicans.

In 2008 people were tired of the GOP’s perceived tone deafness. They felt anger that the Bush White House consistently failed to listen to their concerns, almost stubbornly insisting on its own way. Voters demanded change and Obama, better than any other candidate, was able to tap into this sentiment. Fast-forward one year and Democrats have lost the monopoly on change. Coming face to face with the largest issues of the day, Democrats have been unable to come up with workable answers. More importantly, people perceived the administration has continued the business as usual politics of an out of touch government. Rightly or wrongly, partisan bickering, special interests, backdoor deals, pork barrel politics, and a lack of transparency are all stories that have dominated the headlines over the past year.

This has opened up the opportunity for Republicans to once again become the party of change. What we must understand is that 2008 did not represent a fundamental revolution in the electorate’s ideology, it represented a change in the public’s perception of how each party matched up with those ideals.  As a new Wall Street Journal poll shows, the electorate’s ideological stance has remained consistent, but there was nevertheless seismic shift towards the Democratic Party.

The same wave that carried Obama into office could now sweep Republicans into the majority, but they must embrace the opportunity. We cannot be content to merely label Democrats as “too far to the Left” or become comfortable with the idea that people are unhappy with their policies, we must take action. To succeed where Democrats have failed we must become the party of change against the establishment Democrats. But more importantly, to have lasting effect, we must carry more than a label…we must back it with substance. As Massachusetts showed, if we can convey the mantle of change,  we can and will win everywhere.

- Brandon Greife, Political Director

Being a College Republicans is about more than politics, it’s about wanting to uphold the principles that made this nation great. One of those principles is a sense of generosity. The United States throughout most of its history has enjoyed an unrivaled level of prosperity. Although we have faced tough times recently, it has not dampened our desire to give to those who are less fortunate.

The Oregon State College Republicans have exemplified America’s tradition of generosity, creating a fundraiser for earthquake-ravaged Haiti. I had the chance to speak with RJ Friedman, President of the Oregon State College Republican chapter who explained not only the importance of giving to Haiti, but also the importance of working “across the aisle” to ensure it was a success,

After realizing the devastation created by the earthquake in Haiti, I wanted to help, and so I designed a bracelet saying “Because there are some things more important than politics” on the outside. The bracelets are red and blue, which are not only the colors of the Haitian flag but, more familiarly, are also the colors of America’s two largest political parties.

The words on the bracelets say it all – there are some things that are quite simply more important than politics, and we should not hesitate to work together with people who are across the isle or across the world. Some members agreed that we should sell these with the College Democrats, and so I called the President of the College Democrats here on campus and she agreed to help us sell the bracelets. As a result I added “College Republicans” and “College Democrats” on the inside of the bracelet. Our goal will be to raise as much money for the relief efforts in Haiti as we can.

I ordered about 2,000 bracelets the other day and they should be here in little over a week. We already have buyers, and I think we will fly through the 2,000, which we are selling for $1. All proceeds will be going to Mercy Corp, a local non-profit helping out in Haiti.

College Republicans are united by a common bond, usually evidenced in supporting candidates that best embody our values, but more fundamentally – to ensure this remains the greatest nation on earth.

- Brandon Greife, Political Director

As I type this, I am sitting in an airport in Birmingham, Alabama waiting to hop on a flight to Charlotte, North Carolina where I will catch a connecting flight back home to Washington D.C.

I traveled to Birmingham this weekend – a city which has a statue of the Roman God for steel – to attend the Alabama College Republican convention.

I am happy to report that in one of the most red states in the country, College Republicans are thriving. Alabama has nine College Republican chapters and total statewide membership of more than 3,000. The convention, held on a rainy Sunday afternoon, was attended by six chapters and more than 50 College Republicans.

The College Republicans who attended heard great presentations on social media and get-out-the vote strategy. They also heard from six-foot-nine Attorney General candidate Luther Strange and Lt. Governor candidate Hank Erwin. Candidate for Governor Bradley Byrne was unable to attend, but was kind enough to put together this video specially for the Alabama College Republicans thanking them for their hard work.