Silver Bullet Blog

The 2012 presidential election looks to be as close and more contentious than the 2000 Bush vs. Gore battle. With a solid 45%+ of the nation opposed to President Obama’s leadership, a small percentage of voters will be the deciding factor.

 Open primary: Voters of any affiliation may vote on the slate of whatever party they choose. Typically these states do not have party registration at all, but they do prohibit voters in X primary from going on to participate in Y's primary or runoff. However, this can be difficult to enforce.

The primary issue is "crossover" voting, which can contribute to the victory of a nominee closer to the center or radically further away. It most often involves members of Party Y (either in an area dominated by Party X or when Party Y's nominee is a foregone conclusion) vote for the Party X candidate whose views are the most reconciliable with their own. This brings the race closer to the center and blunts the injustice of partisan gerrymandering, but the Democratic and Republican party establishments don't seem to like it very much.

Occasionally, there are concerns about straightup sabotage or "party crashing," which involves voting for the most polarizing candidate in the other party's primary to bolster the chances that it will nominate someone "unelectable" to general election voters in November. Examples include Republicans voting for Hillary Clinton in 2008 and Democrats voting for Sarah Palin in 2012 (if she runs).

Closed primary: Only voters registered with a given party can vote in the primary. Parties virtually always have the option to invite unaffiliated voters to participate, however, under the Supreme Cour unless that party decides to use a semi-closed system that allows unaffiliated voters to participate. Often the non-dominant party will opt to greet independents, spurned by the dominant party, with open ar

Typically, independent voters are left out of the process entirely unless they choose to sacrifice their freedom of association for the opportunity to have a voice in who is on the November ballot and ultimately representing them. Closed primaries may also exacerbate the radicalization that often occurs at the primary stage, when candidates must cater to the "base" and the fringe of the party are typically more motivated to turn out.

In a few states, independent voters may register with a party on Election Day, but they remain registered with that party unless they change it back to "independent." A couple of states even allow voters registered with one party to switch their registration at the polls to vote in the other party's primary. In these rare instances, a closed primary can more closely resemble open or semi-closed primaries than the closed primaries of other states.

Semi-closed primary: Independents may choose which party primary to vote in, but voters registered with a party may only vote in that party's primary. The middle ground between the exclusion of independents in a closed primary and the free-for-all of open primaries, the semi-closed primary mostly eliminates the concern about members registered to other parties "raiding" another's election.

Of course people who align with Party X may theoretically still vote in Party Y's primary if they just register as independent, but it appears most voters do not think that way. Moreover, the potential for subterfuge through tactical party registration is also present in the strictest of closed primaries.

Top Two/ non-partisan blanket primary: This method puts all candidates, regardless of party affiliation, on the same ballot. The top vote-getters then face off in the general election. This type of system is used in California and Washington, as well as in Nebraska for non-partisan election such as for the state's legislature.

Note on terminology: “Top Two” primaries are often referred to as “open primaries,” but that terminology has long been used in reference to the type of party primaries  in which all voters may choose which party’s primary to participate in. By contrast, the systems adopted by California and Washington eliminate party primaries altogether. They are more accurately described as “nonpartisan blanket primaries.” For those hooked on the “open primaries” language, it would be more precise and less confusing to at least call them “nonpartisan open primaries.”

The following is a running list of states by types of party primary, updated June 2011:

Click here for list of states
 

To visit the original post from powerline blog click here. 

WASHINGTON – The Goodlatte-Walsh Balanced Budget Amendment, H.J.Res.1, is scheduled for a vote the week of July 18^th. This is the first time a Balanced Budget Amendment has been scheduled to come to the House floor for a vote since 1995. This amendment is the House-companion to the Senate amendment, which has unanimous support from all 47 Republicans and would require the President to submit a balanced budget to Congress prior to each fiscal year.

The amendment includes three key provisions: (1) requiring a balanced budget for each fiscal year, (2) limiting federal spending to no more han 18 percent of GDP, and (3) requiring a two-thirds vote in both Houses of Congress in order to increase taxes or raise the debt ceiling.

“We are at a crossroads in America,” said Rep. Goodlatte.  “The fact that Congress is once again debating raising the nation’s debt limit shows that we need to cut spending now.  Congress has not been restrained by the same realities that American taxpayers face.  When you are preparing a budget for your family, you know that you can’t spend more than you take in.  It’s a simple concept but one that Congress has failed to adhere to for far too long.  A balanced budget amendment to the Constitution is the only way to ensure that Congress curtails its spending on an annual basis regardless of which party is in control.”

“In 1995, Congress came within one vote of passing a Balanced Budget Amendment,” stated Congressman Walsh. “At that time, our nation’s debt was $4.9 trillion, with annual deficits of $164 billion. Today, our debt is $14.4 trillion, with an annual deficit of $1.65 trillion. This is immoral and unsustainable, and the only way to fix it is to force politicians to live within their means by amending the Constitution.”

“Rep. Bob Goodlatte has championed the Balanced Budget Amendment since his first day in Congress in 1993. As a freshman elected to change the way Washington does business, I am glad work alongside him and see this historic piece of legislation come to the floor for a vote. We simply cannot raise the debt ceiling without structural spending reform. The Goodlatte-Walsh Balanced Budget Amendment is that reform.”
 
Congressman Goodlatte and Congressman Walsh are joined by 133 other House Members in support of this Balanced Budget Amendment.

Fundraising numbers released this week signal what could be the beginning of a new era in Capitol Hill's money wars.

Over the past four years, the National Republican Congressional Committee has toiled in the shadow of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee's fundraising dominance, an advantage that arrived with the Democrats' House majority and was solidified by the Obama White House. Since 2007, the DCCC has raised, on average, $18.6 million more each year than its Republican rival, excluding loans and lines of credit.

Then came the campaign committees' recent monthly filings with the Federal Election Commission.

For the first time this year, the NRCC significantly outraised the DCCC in a month, bringing in $4.6 million to the DCCC's $3.8 million in May. The reports also confirm that the Republican committee enjoys double the cash on hand — $10.6 million to $5.3 million — than its Democratic competitor.

The cash pendulum began to swing toward the House GOP in 2010, as Republicans were headed toward historic midterm gains and retaking the House majority. But could the new numbers signal a shift back to the fundraising dominance the GOP long enjoyed before losing the House majority in 2006?

The NRCC this week was reluctant to draw too much attention to the shift, acknowledging there may be some weak months in the short term. But the committee conceded that the playing field has finally leveled.

"The NRCC is fighting in a new ball game for resources against Democrats, who will bankroll their job-crushing agenda with President [Barack] Obama and big labor interests," NRCC spokeswoman Emily Davis said. "While Democrats' cash advantage last cycle could not overcome their unpopularity with the American people, Republicans know that we must redouble our efforts and stay on offense to ensure Democrats' defeat in 2012."

And just as some Democrats downplayed the numbers as the natural result of a House majority change, other Democrats highlighted the GOP gains.

"News just broke of the Republicans' huge fundraising haul for May," DCCC Executive Director Robby Mook wrote in a fundraising appeal to supporters this week. "We can't let Tea Party Republicans and their special interest backers like the Koch Brothers gain the upper hand. Especially after the Republicans' fundraising haul, we need every committed grassroots Democrat to get involved. Contribute $3 or more today."

Republicans, too, will try to use the May numbers to their advantage.

Inside the NRCC, there is the sense that fundraising success improves its selling power with Republican investors. And it hopes to see a snowball effect as the cycle progresses that will neutralize any strategic advantage House Democrats held in years past.

Democratic fundraiser Michael Fraioli said the DCCC would likely struggle to keep up with its Republican counterpart in the near future, in part because of the aggressive fundraising push by the Obama campaign and the attention paid toward maintaining the Senate majority.

"They're going to be sucking up the money out there," he said, noting that early DCCC fundraising success this year was likely the result of going after the "love money," or those donors who are most loyal.

After the Democrats' low-hanging fruit is gone, it will become progressively harder, he said.

But Republicans have their challenges as well.

Specifically, Fraioli suggested that the GOP push to go after entitlement programs like Medicare and Social Security could prevent Republicans from overpowering Democrats in the cash game. That theme certainly hurt Republican momentum in the recent New York special election.

"I don't know if there's a lot of money out there for throwing old people and kids under the bus," he said, adding that Democrats need to find a way to build off the surprise New York victory. "As long as things continue to look up for Democrats, as they did after the special election, the [fundraising] gap shouldn't be that big. But that enthusiasm has to continue. There has to be some optimism."

It should be little surprise, of course, that the balance of power has shifted. If anything, Democrats suggest they've done well to outraise the NRCC in the months immediately following the GOP takeover last fall. But the scope of the improvement within the House Republican campaign arm over the past two years is remarkable.

To say things were bad in 2009 was an understatement.

The NRCC's former treasurer had been charged with embezzlement several months earlier. Republicans were crushed in their second consecutive election cycle. And national magazines suggested that the GOP brand was nearing extinction.

It was a dark year for House Republicans, who had little idea of the historic gains they would enjoy in 2010.

The NRCC raised just $36.2 million in 2009, its worst showing in 12 years. The DCCC, meanwhile, generated 54 percent more, or $55.6 million.

"With energy comes money and in 2009 the NRCC was lacking both," said a GOP strategist familiar with NRCC operations last cycle. "But the team that was in place then — many of whom are still there — put in place a plan in preparation for the eventual shift in the political environment."

Rep. Pete Sessions (Texas) became NRCC chairman in January 2009. He brought with him an optimism that was ridiculed at the time (he set out to end Nancy Pelosi's run as Speaker) and connections to a wealthy Texas donor base.

It's too soon to say whether the NRCC's May advantage will persist. Through the end of the May, the committees fundraising numbers were essentially tied for the year; the DCCC reported $27.45 million to the NRCC's $26.82 million.

The DCCC, while downplaying expectations for the next quarterly filings, offered an optimistic assessment of the situation.

"Despite being in the minority, the DCCC is in a dead-heat with the NRCC in year-to-date fundraising but there's no amount of money Republicans could raise that could explain why they voted to end Medicare so they could protect taxpayer giveaways for Big Oil," said DCCC spokesman Jesse Ferguson. "In town hall meetings and poll after poll, buyer's remorse is setting in."

Look to the next batch of quarterly campaign filings, however, to see whether that "buyer's remorse" has any effect on the cash battle.

To see the Original Post Click Here

Team Obama, perpetual spin-masters empowered by the mainstream media, is working to characterize the Republican budgetary proposals as ineffective, disingenuous, and generally lacking in compromise.

This could not be further from the truth. In recent weeks, Republican leaders have put forth several policy proposals that would have die-hard conservatives rolling in their graves, in light of what major concessions the plans make to the Left.

In particular, the media seems to have glossed over completely the fact that a reform package put forward by Senators Lindsey Graham, Mike Lee, and Rand Paul (the latter two being Tea Party candidates, no less), calls for means testing of the Social Security program, in which Social Security payments would be doled out based on need.

As entitlements schemes go, Social Security already has built-in favoritism toward lower income Americans. Currently, while the wealthiest pay the most into Social Security (the program’s tax is a percentage of income), they receive the same amount when they retire. This is the sort of needs-based system that Americans seem to generally accept. But means testing represents a new phase in entitlement schemes. Now means testing will be occurring on both sides of the equation—in taxable income over one’s career, as well as in one’s retirement.

Admittedly, conservative economists seem to increasingly agree that means testing is an inevitable aspect of Social Security programs in the future. This entitlement program has grown so vast that there is no other way to keep Social Security intact. This year is the first year that the Social Security program will disburse more money than it takes in—and that pattern is bound to continue as the Baby Boomers retire en masse in coming years.

However, although means testing seems to be inevitable, Republicans ought not to let the train move forward without acknowledgment from the Left that this represents a concession and that some subsequent concession on the part of Democrats is necessary to make a deal.

The issue with means testing is not the money: Under a means testing system, America’s wealthiest retirees are not going to miss the monthly peanuts payments when those checks are diverted to lower-income citizens. The issue is rather that means testing fundamentally grows the culture of entitlements. And it is the culture of entitlements that is the underlying cause of much of our budgetary crisis.

Consider history. No doubt the creation of the Social Security program during the New Deal fundamentally changed the way people think about their retirement—savings is still important, but it is not essential. This sort of scheme allows for a family with an annual income of $40,000 to live in the manner of a family with a higher income, because Social Security programs ensure that Americans are at least somewhat supported in their retirement—no one is forced out on the streets. In fact, many of America’s retirees live quite contentedly on the modest Social Security payments they receive each month.

However, because those payments are so modest, many Americans are still induced to save: Uncle Sam may take care of you in your retirement, but it’s certainly not going to be the Ritz (and the payments you receive will be the same as everyone else’s).

Means testing runs the risk of further decimating any semblance of a culture of savings in America. In a means testing scenario, if two people in their thirties are each making an annual income of $50,000 and one is spending to his limit while the other is saving, the one who is spending suddenly has far less incentive to save, because he’s going to get more in his social security payment than his saving-counterpart. Entitlement programs traditionally punish people with higher incomes—in contrast, means testing literally punishes saving.

In short, Republicans ought to insist credit is paid where credit is due: Means testing is a huge concession to the Left. For Republicans any such concession  means conceding a fundamental point.

Republican leadership must demand a similarly large concession from the Democrats. We are in a budget crisis that requires ideological generosity from both sides to solve.  To put this meltdown in perspective: If the government seized the assets of every American billionaire, we could not cover the costs of this year’s deficit alone. As our national debt grows beyond $14 trillion and our national deficit hurls beyond $1.4 trillion, Democrats ought also to consider what concessions they can bring to the table, such as a federally mandated balanced budget amendment or an agreement to cease the continued cries for never-ending spending.

If Republican leaders do not demand offsetting concessions, it will be impossible to restore our nation to fiscal sanity,

Chuck Warren is a Partner with Silver Bullet, LLC, a Nevada-based public affairs firm specializing in initiative qualification, grassroots and crisis communication. He is on the board of Pass The Balanced Budget Amendment (www.PassTheBBA.com)

Here’s Nancy Pelosi from a press conference on September 7, 2006:

[E]ven if [Osama bin Laden] is caught tomorrow, it is five years too late. He has done more damage the longer he has been out there. But, in fact, the damage that he has done . . . is done. And even to capture him now I don’t think makes us any safer.

And here’s Nancy Pelosi yesterday:

The death of Osama bin Laden marks the most significant development in our fight against al-Qaida. . . . I salute President Obama, his national security team, Director Panetta, our men and women in the intelligence community and military, and other nations who supported this effort for their leadership in achieving this major accomplishment. . . . [T]he death of Osama bin Laden is historic. . . .

This devastating then-and-now comparison comes to us courtesy of John Hinderaker of Power Line. It underscores the degree to which partisanship can ravage people’s fair-mindedness and, in the process, make them look like fools and hacks. Such things aren’t uncommon in politics—but what is rare is to see such intellectual dishonesty proven so conclusively.

View original post here

Anyone who thinks voter anger over tax increases, arrogant government officials and outsized public employee pay has died down should look at what happened in Miami on Tuesday. Mayor Carlos Alvarez, a Republican, was recalled by a vote of 88% to 12%. County commissioner Natacha Seijas was tossed out by a similarly lopsided margin. Hosni Mubarak wouldn't have lost an election by that much.

What incited the voter eruption was Mr. Alvarez's mishandling of a budget crisis and $400 million deficit. Instead of tightening spending, the mayor and city council approved an intensely unpopular 14% property tax increase to raise $178 million—though home values in south Florida have collapsed by as much as half. He supported pay raises for public employees, who already pull in more than the average Miami resident, and at a time when family incomes have been flat or falling. He padded the six-figure salaries of his staff because, he claimed, their work load had increased.

Mr. Alvarez also spent lavishly on himself (salary and benefits of more than $300,000 a year) and he rode around town in a taxpayer financed BMW 55 Gran Turismo, which became a symbol of reckless spending. The mayor also angered voters by providing up to $500 million of public financing for a new Florida Marlins baseball stadium.

What really seems to have sent the recall into nearly unanimous territory is that the mayor and his government used both taxpayer and union funds to finance their fight to stay in office. Government agencies joined public employee unions to launch a PR blitz defending the mayor, the tax hike and the pay increases. Thousands of transit, water and sewer and park department employees received pay for the time they were deployed in an "education" campaign to retain the mayor and keep the tax increase. When the county manager was asked about this use of scarce tax dollars, he responded: "What are we supposed to do? Surrender?"

The recall campaign was partly financed by billionaire Norman Braman, who once owned the Philadelphia Eagles, but Republicans may want to take note that among the voters most enraged by the taxes and government extravagance were low- and middle-income Hispanics. Thousands of residents wore shirts and carried signs saying "vote si."

Union protesters in Madison, Wisconsin have commanded the headlines of late, but what happened in Miami on Tuesday is a reminder that the taxpayer revolt against elected officials who treat voters like cash dispensers is alive and well. Every Governor and Member of Congress should be warned.

for read original post click here

 

There’s a term used to describe the situation where a debtor repays a debt through labor. It’s what’s known as debt bondage, and it’s an ugly scenario that involves work for little pay and a devaluation of labor and skill. It’s conceptually similar to indentured servitude, an idea that makes modern Americans cringe.

But there was a time when Americans accepted indentured servitude as a fact of life, and if the United States accepts President Obama’s budget plan, indentured servitude is something we may find ourselves having to accept again. This time, however, the masters of our fate will be those foreign nations that own U.S. debt. Make no mistake: they are many, and our debt is large.

According to some estimates, President Obama’s new budget will increase new spending by $8.7 trillion and new borrowing by $13 trillion over the next decade. The budget also sets discretionary spending at $353 billion above the recommendations of President Obama’s own debt commission. What this means is that the United States will continue to slide into debt over the next 10 years because spending will increase. It also means that tax hikes will be imposed on families and small businesses, ostensibly to raise money toward shrinking the deficit — which is defined as the amount the U.S. government spends over the amount it raises in taxes. The budget plan suggests an all-time record deficit of $1.65 trillion this year.

It also means that those countries that own our debt, such as communist China, can begin to influence our policy in areas where we have historically clashed. For example, the Chinese may be able to influence our foreign policy decisions or insist that we look the other way at their many human rights abuses. And the U.S. will comply because our creditors are our masters.

Further, those investors who lend the U.S. money will likely consider investment here riskier and will therefore demand a higher return on their investment. The law of supply and demand dictates that if this begin to happen, mortgage rates, the cost of doing business and just about everything else in the country will increase in cost. This will be another tax on working families.

And here’s where the idea of bondage — slavery of a sort — should be taken seriously. Considering the amount of money we owe to countries such as China ($891.6 billion), Japan ($883.6 billion), and various oil exporters ($218 billion), what recourse would we have if we refused to stop spending and continued to increase our debt?

Our new reality will be comprised of harder and longer workdays for lower wages. We’ll be made to accept substandard products, lower standards of living and higher costs. The trend of outsourcing employment will accelerate and the American dream of the self-made man and woman will slink off to wherever dreams go to die.

Even more sobering is the realization that although the few creditors mentioned above top the field, there are many others. The list is more than 20 strong and the amount of debt we owe totals over $4 trillion.

There may be a glimmer of hope on the horizon for those who’ve begun to recognize that their future may have to be sold to pay off a debt: Republicans are beginning to wake up. A new House Republican Study report found that “the amount of new debt proposed by the new Obama budget released [Monday] is more than the total amount of debt accumulated by the federal government from 1789 until January 20, 2009.” Republicans have begun to push back, so much so that President Obama was forced to immediately hold a press conference following the release of his budget to address the opposition to it. He told the country he was applying a scalpel to the budget rather than a machete.

It is important in the face of this immediate backlash that conservatives hold their stance and continue to back forward-thinking legislation such as the Balanced Budget Amendment. Of course, leaders such as the Hon. Ken Blackwell, chairman of Pass the Balanced Budget Amendment, recognize the importance of such bold legislation. It is crucial that Congress passes this amendment now to protect not only future generations but also today’s working families.

Mr. President, now is not the time for meaningless gestures, superficial tweaks and minor cosmetic touches. The budget needs major surgery; the kind that may require substantial recovery time but is absolutely necessary for the health of our nation’s economy and our future. We will cope with that painful recovery if it means breaking the chains that bind us instead of passing a legacy of debt slavery on to our children.

Chuck Warren is a Partner with Silver Bullet, LLC, a Nevada-based public affairs firm specializing in initiative qualification, grassroots and crisis communication. He is on the board of directors for Pass the Balanced Budget Amendment.

For a movie of sharp performances and realistic portrayal of life on the campaign trail, "The Candidate" has come to be best known for the film's last line and final image: Having just won his election for U.S. Senate, Robert Redford (in the role of Bill McKay) asks his campaign manager a single question: "What do we do now?" McKay never gets his answer. Fade to black.

Many long-time Republican Party stalwarts and donors have asked themselves this question repeatedly, only to get the same answer McKay did: none. For years, the Republican National Committee couldn't decide if it was a show horse or a workhorse; an institution of patronage or a conduit to getting Republicans elected.

There were whispers after the fiascos of 2006 and 2008 that the GOP may go the way of the Whigs. With that ominous vision in mind, 168 members of the RNC recently gathered and voted on which road it should follow.