New York Post | The #Resistance is pushing Republicans to back Trump New York Post That's the choice #TheResistance has created for many moderate Republicans, right-leaning independents and movement conservatives concerned about Trump. That is to say, they offer no choice whatsoever. They offer plenty of hysteria, hypocrisy and ... |
See more here:
The #Resistance is pushing Republicans to back Trump - New York Post
RALEIGH - Once again, Republican state lawmakers have filed legislation that threatens fellow Republican politicians in Fayetteville and Cumberland County.
Further, if these bills become law, it will be much harder for two of Cumberland County's incumbent judges even to get on the ballot to run for re-election. Those two judges don't belong to any political party.
Republican Rep. Justin Burr of Albemarle filed legislation last week to convert all of the state's judicial elections from nonpartisan to partisan elections.
Republican state Sen. Ron Rabin of Harnett County filed a bill on Thursday that would change nearly all of the state's nonpartisan elections - including board of education, city council and town council, as well as for judgeships - into partisan races.
It's true that many voters want to know the candidates' political parties and want this labeled on the ballot. They find it helpful, especially in elections in which they are less familiar with the candidates.
"Common sense says that elections at all levels and all categories should include the candidates' political affiliation because that reflects part of their belief system," Rabin said in a statement.
Rabin has to consider whether to sacrifice Republican Fayetteville Mayor Nat Robertson for that principle. Republican Cumberland County Board of Education Chairman Greg West could be at risk, too, in this county where partisan Democrats hold tremendous sway.
Robertson had an extremely tight race against Val Applewhite in his 2013 election.
If that race had been partisan, would Democrat Applewhite have beaten him?
Meanwhile, Senior Resident Superior Court Judge Jim Ammons and Superior Court Judge Claire Hill both recently abandoned the Democrats Party. They now are registered unaffiliated.
Fayetteville City Councilman Ted Mohn is also unaffiliated.
The Burr and Rabin bills punish unaffiliated candidates for standing on their principles. State laws written by Democrats and Republicans already punish unaffiliated candidates in the partisan elections for county offices, the legislature and and statewide races.
By law, in partisan races an unaffiliated candidate can't run unless he persuades enough voters to sign a petition to put his name on the ballot. In small places, this can be a few dozen or a few hundred. As the population rises, it runs into the thousands. In Cumberland County, the threshold is 8,541 for a county-wide race.
For statewide office, the minimum is 94,221 signatures.
Nearly 30 percent of North Carolina's voters, more than 2 million people, reject the political parties. If they want to run for office, they have to jump through that signature hoop.
Either that or the candidates can visit the Board of Elections and sign a piece of paper claiming allegiance to a political party that they dislike.
Burr contends that it is easier for unaffiliated candidates to get on a general election ballot than a party member. It's far less work and less expensive to collect signatures for a petition, he said, than it is to raise money, campaign and get out the vote for a primary.
If that's the case, perhaps Burr will quit his party and start collecting signatures to save himself the time, trouble and expense of the next GOP primary for his House seat.
I suggested to Burr it would be most fair to have open primaries in which anyone can file to run without petitions. All candidates of all parties and of no party would face each other from the start.
The ballots would include party labels to help those who want to know the candidates' affiliations.
The top two winners of the primary, regardless of party, would move on to the general election. A Republican could face a Republican, guaranteeing a Republican Party victory.
And there would no longer be three-way races, where the winner has less than half the total vote, such as we saw in recent U.S. Senate races and the governor's race. Former Gov. Pat McCrory, defeated by about 10,000 votes, certainly could have used some of 102,977 votes that went to the Libertarian candidate.
Burr thinks an all-face-all primary has risks for gamesmanship and corruption. For example, people might vote across party lines to try to sabotage the opposition by picking the weaker candidate, he said.
He prefers the two-party system as it is, with each party selecting its candidates for the general election.
So he will push to expand partisan primaries to our Superior Courts and District Courts.
And the state may again expand the ballot-access barrier it already imposes on 2 million potential candidates.
See original here:
Capitol Affairs: GOP bills could defeat Fayetteville Republicans and block unaffiliated candidates - Fayetteville Observer
Republican lawmakers are forgingahead with a series of bills that would impose new restraints on the Colorado public retirement system and its managers, setting the tone for a debate that is all but certain to spill into the next legislative session and an election year.
On one thing all sides agree: For the second time since the Great Recession, the Public Employees Retirement Association finds itself in a precarious financial position. Retirees are living longer, and investment returns are lower than PERA expected when a broad reform package was passed in 2010.
The situation isnt as dire as it was then, but it has deteriorated to a point thatPERA officials will have to return tostatelawmakers with a plan tocut benefits, boosttaxpayer contributions or both to restore the pension system to its recommended funding levels.
So far, the battle for reforms is shaping up as a partisan fight, with Republican State Treasurer Walker Stapleton a potential gubernatorial candidate in 2018 at the center.
The Republican-controlled Senate this month passed a Stapleton-backed bill to cap taxpayer contributions at 2018 levels a policy designed to take additionalpublic supportoff the table as PERAs staff and board of directors consider how to shore up the systems finances.
Republicans say its a needed safeguard for taxpayers, whose contributions have gone up every year since the reforms took effect. Different divisions contribute different amounts. But as an example, school districts today are contributing45 percent more toward PERA than they were in January 2010.
This is an issue of such import, Stapleton told lawmakers at a committee hearing this month.The giant sucking sound of a drainis real and its coming for the budgets of our school districts and our cities and our government.
Democrats counter that Republicans are putting the cart before the horse, sayinglawmakers should wait for PERAs staff to complete its own review and make recommendations, after a planned statewide listening tour set for later this year.
I personally think that we should work closely with PERA rely on the professionals and actuaries who do this, Sen. Andy Kerr, D-Lakewood, who co-sponsored the 2010 reforms, said in an interview. Other peopleseem to think that throwing bombs is the better course of action.
Were nowhere close to where we were seven to eight years ago, Kerr added.
When the reforms were passed in 2010, PERA assumed an 8 percent annual return on its investments. That target was later reduced to 7.5 percent, then to 7.25 percent last year. Stapleton believes even that is too optimistic he has advocated for an assumed 6 percent return, which would make PERAs finances look even worse than they do now.
In reality, PERAs returns fluctuate wildly from year to year. Over the past five years, PERA has averaged a 7.5 percent return. Over the past 10, it achieved 6 percent, and over the last 35, it yielded 9.5 percent.
Caught in the middle of the legislative battle are PERAs550,000 current and future retirees, who fear what further changes will do to their retirement livelihoods. SecurePERA, a group that represents PERA members, argues that employees alreadybore the brunt ofthe sacrifices in the 2010 reforms.
Some of the increased taxpayer contributions effectively came from the employees pockets, because PERA took a portion of each annual pay raise employees would have otherwise received. Retirees took an evenbigger hit from benefit reductions, such as annual cost-of-living increases that were scaled back.
Other Republican-sponsored bills would shake up the membership of the board of directors and give the treasurer access to financial information that today is considered confidential, two moves that Stapleton says are neededto increase accountability.
PERAsboard of directors voted to opposeall three bills, and theyre unlikely to pass the Democrat-controlled House.
The Board did not believe that these bills would improve the administration of PERA or benefit the PERA membership in any way, Timothy OBrien, the board chairman, said in a statement.
The contribution cap measure, in particular,is largely symbolic. Current law freezes contributions in 2018, anyway and lawmakerswould have to pass a bill to change that. But it sends a message to the PERA board to think carefully before asking taxpayers to spend more.
Broader reforms arent expected tohappen until next year at the earliest. But the statement bill from Republicanscomplicates legislation that was expected to be introduced this year to addressthe judicial division, which is in the worst shape of any of PERAs retirement funds.
PERA officials have declined to say what solutions theyre considering to shore up the judiciary, but in a message to its members, SecurePERA, the advocacy group, suggested that higher taxpayer contributions are among the options beingnegotiated. Because it was in better shape than the other divisions in 2010, the judiciary was exempt from the contribution increases required ofother government agencies.
Many of the solutions the judicial division and PERA are talking about to reduce the number of years before the judicial division is 100 percent funded require additional employer contributions, SecurePERA officials wrote in a message to theirmembers. This bill would prevent that fix.
The early message from Republicans is thats just fine with them.
Maybe they need to come up with more creative financial (solutions), said state Rep. Justin Everett, R-Littleton, who sponsored two of the three bills. Theres other ways to skin a cat.
Follow this link:
With reform fight looming, Colorado Republicans push to rein in PERA - The Denver Post
Common Dreams | The Same Republicans Who Pushed For Invasive Surveillance Are Complaining About It Now Common Dreams On multiple occasions in the past decade, Nunes, along with the other Republican lawmakers now complaining about the surveillance, has enthusiastically backed the law that allows the warrantless domestic collection of millions of Americans' calls and ... |
See original here:
The Same Republicans Who Pushed For Invasive Surveillance Are Complaining About It Now - Common Dreams
The Real Time host asked why they were so willing to give their politicians or at least the ones with the magic capital R after their names such an easy ride.
Because if you have one of those [the capital R], you can get away with pretty much anything when it comes to selling out, cursing out or compromising your own country, said Maher.
In just four weeks of office, Maher said Republicans had allowed GOPPresident Donald Trump to get away with things they would never have tolerated from former Democratic President Barack Obama and 2016 Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton.
I gotta say to all you flag-waving right-wingers who always say, Im not just gonna stand here and let you run down America youre standing there and letting Trump run down America, he said.
Check out the full segment above.
Link:
Bill Maher Shreds Republicans For 'Letting Trump Run Down America' - Huffington Post