(Additional reporting by Tim Gaynor in Phoenix; editing by Chris Wilson)
Thursday, May 20, 2010
Wilson Announces Formation of Governing Coalition
Tuesday, May 18, 2010
FAP Charged With Creating Government
Will Tyler Wilson be the fifth Prime Minister of the Franklin States of America? This is the question on voters' minds as the FAP won the most General Assembly seats on Election Day.
In a formal declaration this afternoon King Guy charged the Franklin Alliance Party and its leader Tyler Wilson with forming a government within two days. If Wilson fails to create a government in that time the PLP will be asked to create a government.
The pressure is on Wilson as he must balance the pressures and demands of creating a viable government with the demands of this base voters in a very divided electorate. Through seat analysis it is clear that Wilson cannot rely purely on a conservative coalition. A coalition of the FAP, TUPP, PFP, and CRP would give Wilson 175 votes but not the majority he needs to pass legislation. It is very likely that the PLP and LAP will oppose FAP legislation unless Wilson is willing to compromise and negotiate. With their control of half of the General Assembly seats these two parties will likely band together to defend the nation against FAP policies.
Thus the next move rests with Wilson.
FAP Wins 2010 General Assembly Elections
The Franklin Times -
The NEC is declaring the FAP as the party winning the most seats in the 2010 General Assembly Elections.
The results of the eastern states show wide support in those areas for the PLP and LAP, but not enough to overcome the FAP advantage elsewhere. In fact, while coming in third within the region the FAP won only six fewer seats than the PLP and only two fewer seats than the LAP. The region in total gave 58% of its seats to center-left parties (PLP and LAP).
In the four eastern states the seat totals for the top three parties are as follows:
PLP: 55
LAP: 51
FAP: 49
This brings total seat counts to:
FAP: 105
PLP: 93
LAP: 82
TUPP: 36
PFP: 20
CRP: 14
The voters message is not fully clear yet. While the FAP won the most seats it only controls 30% of the General Assembly and must now make a critical decision. Does it try to form a workable coalition to bring stability to its rule or try to rule in a minority government? Party Leader Wilson must now look to see what possible coalition partners are out there for him to approach and negotiate with.
NEC Releases More State Results
PLP takes Capital State with 37% of the vote; LAP second with 31%
PLP takes North Riegel with 30% of the vote; FAP second with 27%
PLP takes Schenck with 29% of the vote; FAP second with 28%; LAP third with 25%
LAP takes South Riegel with 27% of the vote; FAP second with 26%; PLP third with 25%
With nine states declared seat projections stand as follows...
FAP 56 seats
PLP 38 seats
LAP 31 seats
TUPP 23 seats
PFP 13 seats
CRP 9 seats
180 seats in Conover, Gearhart, Pennyroyal, and Wayne yet to be declared;
48.6% of seats have been awarded thus far
Monday, May 17, 2010
NEC Declares West
With 92% of all precendts counted the NEC can call the five western states.
The FAP wins Atrium with 50% of the vote
The FAP wins Bennett with 45% of hte vote
The FAP wins Gerke with 47% of the vote
The FAP wins Hampton with 46% of the vote
The FAP wins Hunter with 45% of the vote
TUPP takes second in all five with 16%, 15%, 23%, 22%, and 23% respectively
Based on NEC projections this will give the FAP 8 seats in Atrium, 5 in Bennett, 6 in Gerke, 7 in Hampton, and 5 in Hunter
Seat Count Projections through five states:
FAP: 31 seats
TUPP: 13 seats
PFP: 8 seats
PLP: 6 seats
CRP: 5 seats
LAP: 3 seats
FAP takes 46.7% of General Assembly seats from the five western states.
18.8% of seats awarded.
Overall turnout very high: NEC turnout estimate 74%
Counting slow in east. Will be morning before results are known.
Counting in central region (Capital State, Schenck, North & Sount Riegel) progressing...
PLP and LAP leading in Capital State
Too Close To Call in other three (three way race in all three (FAP, LAP, PLP))
Sunday, May 16, 2010
Election Results Schedule
Voting begins around the country at 6:30a.m. EST in the eastern states of Pennyroyal, Wayne, Conover, and Gearhart. All states allow voting until 7:30p.m. The National Election Commission will release vote results and seat projections as they become available.
Things to watch for:
1) While finishing an hour behind the eastern states, the five western states (Atrium, Bennett, Gerke, Hampton, and Hunter) have a history of reporting their vote totals first. Analysts will look for a number of indicators. First, how large are the FAP margins. If the FAP can roll up large margins in these states things look good for Party Leader Wilson. However, if the rival conservative parties are able to peel away votes it may prove to be a longer night. Second, can the PLP or LAP hold any seats in the west. If these two parties can win seats in the west things look good for them.
2) The largest bank of votes and seats lie in the east. Only 18.8% of the seats in the General Assembly come from the lightly populated five western states. If the FAP hopes to remain competitive looking at the results of the central and eastern states will be critical. In 2007, the FCP was able to combine its huge margins in the West with strong showings elsewhere allowing them to win the most seats. However, in 2009 the RKP was unable to match this.
3) Will the liberal base hold? Perhaps the biggest question is how the central and eastern states will vote. If the PLP and LAP see high turnouts in urban areas within these states things look good. Both parties will depend on voters showing up in large numbers in the seat rich states of Conover, Pennyroyal and Wayne especially.
4) Will any party emerge with a majority or with viable coalition partners? If the recent polls are to be believed it is unlikely any party will win an outright majority. However, the real drama comes with potential coalitions. Can the PLP and LAP (likely ideological allies) gain a combined majority? Can the FAP's conservative also-rans garner enough seats to create a center-right government?
"The True Believers.." A Very Civil Debate.
Mr. Wilson and Miss. Mobley went neck to neck in the 2010 Franklin States debate. Both candidates made excellent points against each other, but did it in a civil respectable manner.
It's humorous how the two top candidates this year can be so well mannered towards each other in a debate. We expected differently.
After the countless attempts from the FAP to bring down the PLP's education policy, surprisingly the PLP hasn't attacked any party (including the FAP) on be hath of their policies. The PLP has defended them-selves, supported their own policies, while minding their own business.
Is the PLP too nice to lead the country? Will they not act against war and attacks from other countries because the PLP is currently not attacking any parties? Not exactly...
If the PLP keeps up with civil rights, and keeps their "Strength in Diversity" motto...there will likely be close ties with all nations who represent different races. Who would want to attack such a fair and pleasant leader anyway?
The FAP on the other hand has also done well. The FAP leader, Tyler Wilson, has kept up with most events and has posted many ads. The only concern we ask is why have all of these ads been negative? Does Mr. Wilson just want a fight? It is one thing to protect a country and another to lead a country into war. With all of these negative attack adds on the other parties, it is had to trust the FAP to lead the Franklin States positively and keep the people from harm.
In Conclusion, the debate was very successful, and we hope the best for both the PLP and the FAP. We wish them both the best of luck in the up-coming election.
Final Campaign Push
The National Election Commission invites the political parties to make one last argument to the voters for support. Those parties wishing to make a final statement or concluding electoral argument may do so by commenting to this post.
Friday, May 14, 2010
Endorsements Roll Out
With only days remaining in the 2010 election two interest groups announced their formal endorsements in afternoon press conferences.
On the steps of the General Assembly the Royal Veterans Association (RVA) announced their full endorsement of the FAP. In their statement, the RVA explained that only the FAP has addressed the urgent needs of veterans in this campaign. The group urged all its members and like-minded voters to support the FAP on Monday.
In Hunter, the Franklin Rifle Association also announced its full support of the FAP. Citing the FAP's support for gun rights, the group also urged voters to defeat PLP and LAP candidates throughout the country. "The PLP and LAP will rob us of our God-given right to bear arms."
These endorsements pose a problem for the other conservative parties. The FAP has now accomplished a clean sweep in its support from conservative aligned interest groups. However, only Election Day will reveal the full impact of this support.
Deputy Prime Minister Splits Government Endorsements
On the heels of Prime Minister Chaffins endorsement, Deputy Prime Minister Taylor Jeromos voiced her strong support for the Progressive Liberal Party in an afternoon press conference.
Speaking in front of dozens of reporters, Jeromos explained her belief that the PLP represents the best possible alternative to continue the progress of the country.
"The Fanatical Party is particularly impressed with the education and environmental policies of the PLP. We see that they have a strong desire to improve upon the legislation of the FSA and to continue the commitment of government to better serve the people" said Jeromos.
The Deputy Prime Minister added that the Fanatical Party organization would be fully dedicated to assisting the PLP in its electoral effort.
Hot and Juicy Debate
Thursday, May 13, 2010
Prime Minister Chaffins Endorses
After a short stump speech highlighting his parties economic, education, and energy policies Kennedy announced his party's plans for a massive turnout drive over the weekend. Then with music blasting Kennedy introduced Prime Minister Chaffins.
Chaffins then spoke of the LAP's promise and complemented Kennedy's policy stances. The Prime Minister then stated his full and unconditional endorsement of the Librocrat Alliance Party. In his remarks, the Prime Minister also dedicated his dissolving TPP's resources to the LAP's electoral effort. The TPP ran a highly successful campaign and voter turnout effort in the 2009 elections which led to the greatest electoral victory in FSA history.
"It is clear to me and the TPP leadership that this nation is at a crossroads. On that we agree with FAP Leader Wilson. Yet, we fundamentally disagree with the direction FAP offers the country. To choose FAP or the other conservative reactionaries would set this nation back. I urge those voters who showed faith in my 2009 message to stay true to the promise. Vote for equality, sensible foreign policies, and for progress! Join us in the struggle to defeat the conservative agenda which promises only recycled ideas that have failed us in the past."
The endorsement by Chaffins should not strike many by surprise. It was unlikely for the Prime Minister to stay silent in the 2010 campaign and he chose a party that fundamentally agrees with him on the issues.
Yet, while not unsurprising, the endorsement could prove powerful. TPP's party machine could prove to be a powerful ally.
PFP Holds Rally at Wayne
The PFP traveled to Wayne to try to win some of the, ever important, moderate voters' support. During this rally, the PFP chose to outline three main points.
The event kicked off with party leader David Brownfield describing the party's foreign and immigration policies. Once again Brownfield voiced his strong support for protecting liberty. He also revisited ideas of commitment to border control and deportation.
The headliner topic of the rally this time was Health care. Party members addressed this issue, that is no doubt important to everyone, because there is no one to which it doesn't apply. Although the party does not support universal health care, stating they would rather make health care an individual choice, they do plan to offer incentives to companies that extent their coverage. Brownfield promised that, "tax deductions will be given to companies that will more easily accept people with pre-existing conditions to hopefully give everyone the opportunity to have easy access to health care."
There is no guarantee yet that this rally will win over moderate voters in the state of Wayne. But one thing is for sure, if the PFP wants any chance of winning a significant amount of seats, they must appeal to the moderate population as well as the conservatives.
Wednesday, May 12, 2010
PFP Rally in West
The Party for the People held a rally in the border crossroads of Gerke, Hampton, and Hunter this afternoon. Speaking before the crowd, Party Leader Brownfield highlighted his party's foreign policy agenda.
Declaring "Liberty is the most important virtue in the world today and something that must be defended at all costs," Brownfield laid out his party's central principles and tenets in the realm of foreign relations. Brownfield went on to chronicle the extreme importance of the Franklin-US relationship and his party's firm commitment to support the United States in all of its struggles.
Brownfield also addressed his party's tax stances and policies. Promising tax reductions and cuts to all, Brownfield made a firm commitment to ending the government's present "high taxation" and to returning money to the "people's hands".
The rally's speakers also addressed the issue of illegal immigration. A number of PFP speakers addressed the need for greater border security and a firm commitment to deportation.
The rally was met by a small group of counter-protesters calling Brownfield a hypocrite in his commitment to liberty. Many of these pro-gay marriage demonstrators carried signs reading "What about my liberty?" and "Liberty for all?"
It is clear that the PFP is attempting to compete with the FAP in the western regions of the country, the heart of conservative thought in Franklin. If the PFP hopes to rescue its floundering electoral chances it is clear the party must do well here.
FAP Picks Up Endorsement
Franklinites for a Conservative Change (FCC) announced this afternoon that their national council has voted to fully endorse the Franklin Alliance Party (FAP) for the 2010 General Assembly Elections.
In a formal press conference FCC President John Irons stated his group's belief that the FAP fully represents the conservative cause and is clearly the conservative party best positioned to win. "We highly encourage our members to support FAP in the upcoming election. With our assistance the FAP can begin to restore fiscal sanity to our government and check the expansive role the national government has taken since the election of Prime Minister Chaffins."
The FCC endorsement should benefit the FAP within the block of conservative voters. It remains to be seen if the FAP and its leader can continue to navigate the uneasy waters between their natural conservative base and moderate voters necessary for electoral victory.
FAP March Continues
Continuing his campaign themes, Party Leader Wilson spoke at both rallies. Wilson reiterated his claim that the FAP represents the only viable conservative party.
Pointing to strong poll support and massive rally turnouts Wilson stated, "The FAP represents the only mass-based conservative voice in this election. Only a vote for the FAP can assure a conservative government after Election Day."
It is clear that the FAP is building on momentum. It has enjoyed increasing poll numbers and is acting confident about its electoral chances. No other conservative party has challenged the FAP on its right flank meaning Wilson has been able to move his message to the center to appeal to moderate voters.
As Wilson explained himself, "My moderate brothers and sisters, join us in the struggle to end the horrendous policies of the TPP and Prime Minister Chaffins that have done nothing to solve our deep economic challenges."
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
Monday, May 10, 2010
The Power of the Executive?
President Barack Obama’s nomination of Solicitor General Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court is sure to be front page news tomorrow. But its significance may be appreciated only after reading today’s stories about Obama’s desire for new legislation permitting federal investigators to question terrorism suspects without issuing a Miranda warning.
Given Kagan’s record on executive power—and the Miranda news as the latest example of executive power claimed by this administration— we might now begin to conclude that, even with a Democrat in the White House, there will be no broad-scale limitations on presidential power anytime soon.
It is time to realize that broad presidential power is a structural issue—not a Bush Republican or Obama Democratic one.
If confirmed, Kagan will probably not play a role in scaling back presidential power in any meaningful way. It is certainly true that she probably won’t be as solicitous of presidential power as the Bush administration. In a speech at West Point in 2007, for example, Kagan was critical of the views of executive power expressed by the lawyers in the Bush Justice Department.
But there is no indication in her background that she desires significant constraints on presidential power. And there are at least some reasons to think that things might head in the other direction.
Kagan, after all, is to replace John Paul Stevens, the justice who wrote perhaps the two leading opinions —one a majority opinion, one a dissenting — calling for the limitation of executive power during the Bush administration.
By far her most significant academic article is a pre-9/11 robust defense of presidential power. The article summary indicates that Kagan’s views of executive power were “broad though not unlimited.”
During her confirmation hearings to be solicitor general, Kagan said that the president could indefinitely detain someone suspected of offering financial support to Al Qaeda. Given her experience in the executive branch during the Clinton administration, Kagan is likely to follow in the footsteps of past nominees with significant experience in the federal executive branch — like Justice Antonin Scalia or Chief Justice John Roberts — and be deferential to claims of presidential power.
If the Kagan nomination means that the Supreme Court will not be limiting presidential power anytime soon, Obama’s recent actions suggest that he will not be limiting presidential power anytime soon either. While the administration has scaled back in substance and in rhetoric from many of the Bush administration’s more extreme positions, it has also embraced many robust claims of broad executive power.
The administration has announced a modified state-secrets privilege, though it still permits the Justice Department to ask courts to dismiss many private lawsuits because they might endanger national security. The administration has advocated changes in the military commission system, but still supports using these commissions in some cases. The administration has also argued that detainees being held at the Bagram Air Force Base in Afghanistan have no habeas rights to petition for their release.
The Kagan nomination, combined with the administration’s record on presidential power, could mean that the executive branch is likely to continue to increase in power – if in far smaller increments than during the Bush administration.
But rather than continuing to hope for a presidential knight in shining armor to restore balance to the separation of powers, perhaps these events will now force us to consider that we should not depend on a president—or the justices a president nominates—to limit the power of the executive branch.
David Fontana is associate professor of law at George Washington University Law School.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0510/37014.html#ixzz0nYfyaz00
The Welfare State's Death Spiral
WASHINGTON -- What we're seeing in Greece is the death spiral of the welfare state. This isn't Greece's problem alone, and that's why its crisis has rattled global stock markets and threatens economic recovery. Virtually every advanced nation, including the United States, faces the same prospect. Aging populations have been promised huge health and retirement benefits, which countries haven't fully covered with taxes. The reckoning has arrived in Greece, but it awaits most wealthy societies.
Americans dislike the term "welfare state" and substitute the bland word "entitlements." The vocabulary doesn't alter the reality. Countries cannot overspend and overborrow forever. By delaying hard decisions about spending and taxes, governments maneuver themselves into a cul de sac. To be sure, Greece's plight is usually described as a European crisis -- especially for the euro, the common money used by 16 countries -- and this is true. But only up to a point.
Euro coins and notes were introduced in 2002. The currency clearly hasn't lived up to its promises. It was supposed to lubricate faster economic growth by eliminating the cost and confusion of constantly converting between national currencies. More important, it would promote political unity. With a common currency, people would feel "European." Their identities as Germans, Italians and Spaniards would gradually blend into a continental identity.
None of this has happened. Economic growth in the "euro area" (the countries using the currency) averaged 2.1 percent from 1992 to 2001 and 1.7 percent from 2002 to 2008. Multiple currencies were never a big obstacle to growth; high taxes, pervasive regulations and generous subsidies were. As for political unity, the euro is now dividing Europeans. The Greeks are rioting. The countries making $145 billion of loans to Greece -- particularly the Germans -- resent the costs of the rescue. A single currency could no more subsume national identities than drinking Coke could make people American. If other euro countries (Portugal, Spain, Italy) suffer Greece's fate -- lose market confidence and can't borrow at plausible rates -- there would be a wider crisis.
But the central cause is not the euro, even if it has meant Greece can't depreciate its own currency to ease the economic pain. Budget deficits and debt are the real problems; and these stem from all the welfare benefits (unemployment insurance, old-age assistance, health insurance) provided by modern governments.
Countries everywhere already have high budget deficits, aggravated by the recession. Greece is exceptional only by degree. In 2009, its budget deficit was 13.6 percent of its gross domestic product (a measure of its economy); its debt, the accumulation of past deficits, was 115 percent of GDP. Spain's deficit was 11.2 percent of GDP, its debt 56.2 percent; Portugal's figures were 9.4 percent and 76.8 percent. Comparable figures for the United States -- calculated slightly differently -- were 9.9 percent and 53 percent.
There are no hard rules as to what's excessive, but financial markets -- the banks and investors that buy government bonds -- are obviously worried. Aging populations make the outlook worse. In Greece, the 65-and-over population is projected to go from 18 percent of the total in 2005 to 25 percent in 2030. For Spain, the increase is from 17 percent to 25 percent.
The welfare state's death spiral is this: Almost anything governments might do with their budgets threatens to make matters worse by slowing the economy or triggering a recession. By allowing deficits to balloon, they risk a financial crisis as investors one day -- no one knows when -- doubt governments' ability to service their debts and, as with Greece, refuse to lend except at exorbitant rates. Cutting welfare benefits or raising taxes all would, at least temporarily, weaken the economy. Perversely, that would make paying the remaining benefits harder.
Greece illustrates the bind. To gain loans from other European countries and the International Monetary Fund, it embraced budget austerity. Average pension benefits will be cut 11 percent; wages for government workers will be cut 14 percent; the basic rate for the value added tax will rise from 21 percent to 23 percent. These measures will plunge Greece into a deep recession. In 2009, unemployment was about 9 percent; some economists expect it to peak near 19 percent.
If only a few countries faced these problems, the solution would be easy. Unlucky countries would trim budgets and resume growth by exporting to healthier nations. But developed countries represent about half the world economy; most have overcommitted welfare states. They might defuse the dangers by gradually trimming future benefits in a way that reassured financial markets. In practice, they haven't done that; indeed, President Obama's health program expands benefits. What happens if all these countries are thrust into Greece's situation? One answer -- another worldwide economic collapse -- explains why dawdling is so risky.
Conservatives Rally in Schenck
In an attempt to match the organizational power of the PLP, the FAP held a massive rally in the classically swing state of Schenck. At the Royal Park in St. Paul, Party Leader Tyler Wilson spoke to a crowd which city officials estimated to be 25,000 strong.
Speaking in his home state, Wilson promoted what he called a "new direction" for the country. Promising to continue the war on terror and to promote the ideals of limited government, Wilson laid out a clear conservative agenda.
"Fellow citizens of Schenck, tonight I address you in a common appeal to reason. Government has grown too large over the past year and it is time for new direction and new leadership," explained Wilson. He added, "The FAP represents the only viable conservative voice in this election. Only this party can deliver on the conservative principles that have made this nation great."
The rally's turnout was impressive and showcases a growing FAP state organization. As the past elections have shown, parties who are organized at the grassroots level tend to perform better on election day.
The decision to hold the rally in Schenck is a deliberate but unsurprising one. Wilson has deep roots in the state serving in local and state-wide elected offices for years. A push here and in like-minded moderate states could prove to be the secret for electoral victory.
The FAP is already showing itself to be the dominant political force in the western states with little competition from the right in this traditionally conservative area. "The other conservative parties simply are not competing in the west giving the FAP a free ride to potentially rack up large margins in these states," commented Eric Cantor, Political Science Professor that the National University.
It's Debate Season!
Please sign up to attend by commenting. (RSVP) Other party leaders/members are encouraged to attend and view the debate.
LAP and TUPP are invited to participate in the 2010 Franklin States Debate on May, 13 2010 at 2:40 p.m. and CRP and PFP are encouraged to be there after for their debate.
If the time and date are inconvenient please contact one of the TRIO media members: Emily, Jacob, or Sam at emsimpson93@gmail.com Also feel free to submit any questions you have that you would like the media to ask the party leaders in their debate session.
Interest groups that will be in attendance include: EPC, CLC, and the FCC.
-Trio Media Announcement
EPC Announces Endorsement
Yesterday, the EPC announced its endorsement of two parties. Eric Greene recognized the environmental stances of both the LAP and the PLP.
Sunday, May 9, 2010
Saturday, May 8, 2010
First Televised Interview
The NEC will host the first formal televised PM candidate interview on Tuesday, May 11th, 2010. The one-on-one interviews will be conducted by Mr. J. McFarland, Chairman of the NEC before a live audience. The interview questions will be far ranging and focus on policy and personal matters.
The interview will provide the party leaders a tremendous opportunity to reach a wide audience with free airtime. However, performance is key. A bad showing in the interview can go just as far as a solid performance in sealing a party's electoral fate.
FWA Joins NWU In Endorsement (at least in part)
Citing each party's support for workers’ rights, the Alliance stated, "the Progressive Liberal Party and the LAP represent the only real chance we have for saving Franklin's jobs and stopping the injustice represented by the money driven free traders."
This represents a political victory for both parties, especially for the PLP which now has been endorsed by the two major labor organizations.
Massive Rally in Bordeaux
On the steps of the newly opened party headquarters, in Pennyroyal's capital of Bordeaux, PLP Party Leader Mobley and Party Leaders Ruppert and Reynolds greeted a large crowd of some 25,000. In prepared remarks, the PLP highlighted a legislative agenda that it clearly believes to be a winner. Speaking to the crowd, Mobley highlighted her party's economic plan and quest for alternative energy. It is clear that the PLP views the economy as the winning issue and recent polls appear to bare this out. This has only become more acute as new unemployment figures put the nation's rate at 9.8%. This represents a dramatic jump marked by layoffs in the manufacturing and service industries.
The stop in Bordeaux is no accident, for this is the heart of liberal ideology in Franklin. Long a liberal bastion, Bordeaux and much of the state of Pennyroyal have lent their political support to center-left parties. In the 2008 elections, Pennyroyal voters gave center-left parties 53 of their 68 legislative seats and the TPP and FP saw massive wins in this state in 2009. A play is being made and so far no organization can rival the program being created by the PLP.
Major Endorsement Announced
At a rally today in Conover, the PLP revealed a major endorsement that may impact the race to control the General Assembly. After being introduced by her Party Spokesman, PLP Leader Mobley took the stage in Wayne’s capital. Mobley’s message was clear and direct. She called for a government of reform. Pointing to the economic crisis gripping the country, Mobley highlighted her party's plans to reform the education, energy, and economic systems.
Then to highlight her party's economic message she made the surprise introduction of National Workers Union President Doug Miller. Miller then took the podium and announced that his organization, the largest labor union in Franklin, was formally endorsing the PLP in the upcoming elections. Miller explained that the PLP was committed to the working and middle classes.
He added, "The PLP is the best representative in this race to represent the interests of middle class Franklin. Their policies will maintain jobs here while preserving our nation's ability to compete in the global economy. The NWU's membership fully supports this party and will actively work for its electoral victory."
The NWU endorsement will only add to the organizational strength the PLP has built. In the past two General Assembly elections, organized labor was very efficient at turning out its membership for their political allies.
What is manageable defense spending?
Economic slowdowns naturally lead to fiscal problems. Governments are continually forced to cut back spending in many areas and now it looks like our neighbor to the south is confronting this very issue. Yet, the conversation goes beyond simply addressing the growth trends in entitlement and social programs. The Defense Secretary and Pentagon are also confronting possible trimming in their own budgets.
As our nation confronts mounting debt levels we may find ourselves asking similar questions.
Gates: Urgent need for big defense cuts
Pentagon urges decrease in spending on troops
The Trials and Tribulations of Coalitions
As the British election results are finalized it appears no single party will emerge with a majority of the seats in Parliament. This fact has led the parties to scamble to form a viable governing coalition. How is this process proceeding? Please read below for our country may soon face a similar situation.
Clegg meets Cameron on power deal
Election 2010: Hung parliament is a 'numbers game'
'There is an alternative'
Thursday, May 6, 2010
Interest Group Releases Scathing Ad
Through its first three elections, our nation was immune to the ads produced by unaccountable interest groups that seems to dominate the campaigns of our southern neighbor. Yet, with several legal decisions in the last year it is clear this will no longer continue. The national courts have ruled in two separate cases that NEC policies preventing so-called "issue ads" violated basic free speech protections.
These decisions look to have already opened the political floodgates. A group calling itself Concerned Franklin Workers has purchased massive air time in seven competitive states to run a blistering ad against the FAP (the ad can be found below). The impact of this anti-FAP ad is uncertain as analysts agree that our nation is moving into uncharted waters.
Wednesday, May 5, 2010
The Immigration Controvery Hits the Franklin States of America
The state of Hampton is becoming a topic of controversy here in the Franklin States of America. Just recently, a bill was introduced involving immigration. This bill gives one a feeling of intense familiarity. Perhaps this is because it is very similar to Arizona's bill that is causing so much heated debate in the United States.
Hampton has always had an abundance of immigrants. This is partly because of its southern border with the United States - Many Latinos travel through the U.S. to our borders - and partly because of its rich agricultural economy. Many Latinos come to Hampton in search of jobs, and many places are willing to hire them because they work at extremely cheap rates.
The proposed bill takes steps to try to control the number of illegal immigrants. The bill says that immigrants must constantly carry registration documents so they have proof on hand in case they are questioned by law enforcement officials. If an official has someone stopped to look into another crime, they must ask that person (if the official has reason to suspect they are an illegal immigrant) for his/her registration. And if that person fails to produce sufficient documentation, he/she will be arrested.
The questions that arise in this debate are numerous and both sides have valid points to consider. Is this racial profiling? Does the bill plan to go too far? Is this what is necessary to control immigration? Is immigration really that big of a problem or does it help us more than hurt us? One thing is for sure, there are definitely many things for our brains to mull over.
http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/04/30/arizona.immigration.law/index.html?iref=allsearch
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/04/20/arizona-immigration-enforcement-stirs-national-debate/
The Politics of Disasters
What role do disasters play in government? Do they provide a political advantage? As our election approaches these are serious questions all parties need to ask themselves.
Good Government: Does the spate of disasters help the party associated with activist government?
How do we deal with terrorism?
The recent events in New York City raise numerous questions that all nations must carefully consider and weigh. What is the proper balance between security and protecting constitutional rights? Some thoughts from the U.S. can be found below.
Obama administration owes answers on how it handled Times Square suspect
Smoking Car to an Arrest in 53 Hours
A Renewed Debate Over Suspect Rights
Monday, May 3, 2010
Fear of Immigrants?
The right’s anxiety about African-Americans has been replaced by anxiety about immigrants. Peter Beinart on how Arizona’s new law has ignited the civil-rights struggle for a new century.
Why are large chunks of the American right so freaked out by illegal immigrants? Because they are no longer so freaked out by African-Americans.
Tory Lessons for Republicans
WASHINGTON -- "There's something else you need to know about me," declared the earnest young politician, "which is I believe the test of a good and strong society is how we look after the most vulnerable, the most frail and the poorest."
This lovely bleeding-heart liberal sentiment was part of the closing statement offered by David Cameron, the leader of Britain's Conservative Party at last week's final debate before this Thursday's election. And after a rocky campaign start, Cameron now leads in the polls and may well become the next prime minister...
The Battle for Congress
After Four Years, a Republican Takeover of the House Is Possible
By DAVID CHALIAN
WASHINGTON, May 3, 2010
It took Democrats 12 long years to fight their way back to the majority after their stinging defeat in 1994. And the party is in danger of handing control back to the Republicans after just four years at the helm...
Greed, negligence behind BP oil spill
May 3, 2010 5:19 p.m. EDT
(CNN) -- I spent a restless night, worrying that another man-made disaster might devastate my beloved hometown, New Orleans, just as its post-Katrina motto "Recover, Rebuild, Rebirth" was becoming real...
How will the oil spill affect future offshore drilling plans?
The citizens of the United States are worried that the oil spill will damage the environment and economy around the Gulf States for a long time to come.
Eric Green from the Environmental Protection Council (EPC) is concerned about the wildlife around the area, and proclaims, "BP is responsible for this mess, and they are going to clean it up well...or there will be a price to pay, the price of destroying our shared earth."
The Prime Minister has taken little action to solve the oil spill issue. He stated, "The government will be leaving the clean-up to BP, for it is their responsibility."
The Prime Minister still believes that the current method of offshore drilling is an "important part of the strategy for energy security, and is domestic.” The enthusiasm from administration officials that were once for the Prime Minister’s plan has subsided.
Eric Green from the EPC went on to say, "The Prime Minister is partly accountable for these actions for previously promoting the offshore drilling in his State of the Union address. Therefore, the government should be taking action to help preventing it from happening in the future, and cleaning up the mess."
Now we the people ask the Franklin States: Will we keep this method, or create a new and better plan that does not risk the environment and economy? Will the government help clean up the oil spill, or will they let BP handle it all?
Similar Article: