Republican Governor Cheerleads Tax Cuts That Destroyed His State
Sam Brownback, the Republican Governor of Kansas, cheerleads the tax cuts that have destroyed his state http://www.kansascity.com/opinion/opn-columns-blogs/yael-t-abouhalkah/article8687693.html ...
By: David Pakman Show
Read the original post:
Republican Governor Cheerleads Tax Cuts That Destroyed His State - Video
A republic is a form of government in which power resides in the people,[1] and the government is ruled by elected leaders run according to law (from Latin: res publica), rather than inherited or appointed (such as through inheritance or divine mandate). In modern times, the definition of a republic is also commonly limited to a government which excludes a monarch.[1][2] Currently, 135 of the world's 206 sovereign states use the word "republic" as part of their official names.
Both modern and ancient republics vary widely in their ideology and composition. In the classical and medieval period of Europe, many states were fashioned on the Roman Republic, which referred to the governance of the city of Rome, between it having kings and emperors. The Italian medieval and Renaissance political tradition today referred to as "civic humanism", is sometimes considered to derive directly from Roman republicans such as Sallust and Tacitus. However, Greek-influenced Roman authors, such as Polybius[3] and Cicero, sometimes also used the term as a translation for the Greek politeia which could mean regime generally, but could also be applied to certain specific types of regime which did not exactly correspond to that of the Roman Republic. Republics were not equated with classical democracies such as Athens, but had a democratic aspect.
Republics became more common in the Western world starting in the early 19th century, eventually displacing absolute monarchy as the most common form of government. In modern republics the executive is legitimized both by a constitution and by popular suffrage. Montesquieu included both democracies, where all the people have a share in rule, and aristocracies or oligarchies, where only some of the people rule, as republican forms of government.[4]
Most often a republic is a sovereign state, but there are also sub-sovereign state entities that are referred to as republics, or which have governments that are described as 'republican' in nature. For instance, Article IV of the United States Constitution "guarantee[s] to every State in this Union a Republican form of Government".[5] Similarly, the Soviet Union was constitutionally described as a "federal multinational state", composed of 15 republics, two of which Ukraine and Belarus had their own seats at the United Nations.
The term originates as the Latin translation of Greek word politeia. Cicero, among other Latin writers, translated politeia as res publica and it was in turn translated by Renaissance scholars as republic (or similar terms in various western European languages).[citation needed]
The term politeia can be translated as form of government, polity, or regime, and is therefore not always a word for a specific type of regime as the modern word republic is. (One of Plato's major works on political science was titled Politeia and in English it is thus known as The Republic. However, apart from the title, in modern translations of The Republic, alternative translations of politeia are also used.[6]) However, in Book III of his Politics (1279a), Aristotle was apparently the first classical writer to state that the term politeia can be used to refer more specifically to one type of politeia: "When the citizens at large govern for the public good, it is called by the name common to all governments (to koinon onoma pasn tn politein), government (politeia)". And also amongst classical Latin, the term "republic" can be used in a general way to refer to any regime, or in a specific way to refer to governments which work for the public good.
In medieval Northern Italy, a number of city states had commune or signoria based governments. In the late Middle Ages, writers, such as Giovanni Villani, began writing about the nature of these states and the differences from other types of regime. They used terms such as libertas populi, a free people, to describe the states. The terminology changed in the 15th century as the renewed interest in the writings of Ancient Rome caused writers to prefer using classical terminology. To describe non-monarchical states writers, most importantly Leonardo Bruni, adopted the Latin phrase res publica.[7]
While Bruni and Machiavelli used the term to describe the states of Northern Italy, which were not monarchies, the term res publica has a set of interrelated meanings in the original Latin. The term can quite literally be translated as "public matter".[8] It was most often used by Roman writers to refer to the state and government, even during the period of the Roman Empire.[9]
In subsequent centuries, the English word commonwealth came to be used as a translation of res publica, and its use in English was comparable to how the Romans used the term res publica.[10] Notably, during The Protectorate of Oliver Cromwell the word commonwealth was the most common term to call the new monarchless state, but the word republic was also in common use.[11]
Presently, the term "republic" commonly means a system of government which derives its power from the people rather than from another basis, such as heredity or divine right. This remains the primary definition of republic in most contexts.
Congressional Republicans launched a drive Monday to repeal a recent National Labor Relations Board rule updating procedures for union representation elections, setting up a likely veto showdown with President Barack Obama.
Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., said the GOP will employ a little-used law that permits the Senate to reject some federal agency regulations by majority vote and denies opponents the ability to thwart action through a filibuster.
Alexander said that by shortening the time between a union's request for representation and the actual balloting, the NLRB had cleared the way for a new type of "ambush election" to take place that will disadvantage businesses and workers alike.
In remarks on the Senate floor, he said that under previous rules, 95 percent of union elections take place in 56 days or less from the filing of a petition. He said that under the new proposal, that would be reduced to as few as 11 days, which he said could be before an employer understands what's happening.
In a written statement, NLRB chairman Mark G. Pearce countered that "both businesses and workers deserve a process that is effective, fair, and free of unnecessary delays, which is exactly what this rule strives to accomplish."
Mirroring divisions in Congress, NLRB rule-making is often politically charged, with Republicans taking the side of business while Democrats are aligned with unions. In the case of the rule approved in December, the labor board split 3-2 along party lines.
The rule, which has been cheered by organized labor, eliminates a previous 25-day waiting period and seeks to reduce litigation that can be used to stall elections. It also requires employers to furnish union organizers with email addresses and phone numbers of workers.
The NLRB rule is scheduled to take effect in April.
Alexander's announcement was fresh evidence of the Republicans' determination to use the power won in last fall's elections, when they captured a Senate majority and strengthened their grip on the House. Obama has already threatened to veto 11 bills.
Alexander said the vote to overturn the union election rule would take place under the Congressional Review Act, which limits debate and bars any changes in the repeal proposal. Obama may veto the measure, however, and it takes the customary two-thirds vote in each house of Congress to override him.
Continue reading here:
Republican-Controlled Congress to Vote to Repeal NLRB Rule
With one year to go before the New Hampshire primary, the field of Republican candidates remains wide open.
Former GOP nominee Mitt Romney made some wave recently when he said he was considering running again. Although many observers began to believe that another campaign as in the works, he announced in January that he wouldn't run again.
Romney's decision meant that his former supporters are now shopping for another candidate.
"They're all wondering where to go, wondering what to do next, as am I," said GOP strategist Jim Merrill. "So I think they are going to take their time. They're going to evaluate the field closely, carefully. I think (former Florida Gov.) Jeb Bush will benefit, but I also think (New Jersey Gov. Chris) Christie, (Wisconsin Gov. Scott) Walker and (Florida Sen. Marco) Rubio are the other three in addition to Jeb that will benefit from Mitt's departure."
In terms of fundraising and name recognition, Bush might be the favorite in the wide field of potential candidates. Former New Hampshire Gov. John Sununu said he might wait a while to pick a candidate to support, but he leans toward governors.
"I still maintain that it ought to be a governor that Republicans put forward," Sununu said. "A former governor, a current governor. There's a huge collection of people running, and I think it's going to be a great primary in New Hampshire."
Four potential Republican candidates have visited New Hampshire or plan to soon and have pushed their conservative politics. Former Texas Gov. Rick Perry was in the field in 2012, but he didn't fare well in New Hampshire.
After a couple of high-profile missteps and a chronic back problem that added to his stress, Perry finished sixth in the primary. Perry, 64, admitted that he wasn't ready.
"The running for the nomination of the presidency of the United States requires a substantial amount of time, effort, discipline," Perry said. "I didn't put that in, and it showed."
Now healthy and energized, Perry said that this cycle, New Hampshire voters will see a different candidate.
Read the original here:
Potential Republican field in 2016 wide open
Republican legislators grilled public safety Commissioner Dora B. Schriro Tuesday over problems in her previous job as head of New York City's prison system including violent abuses of teenage inmates under her watch but she still won a legislative committee's approval for four more years as commissioner.
"This is really bad," Republican state Sen. Rob Kane, R-Watertown, told Schriro at her confirmation hearing before the executive and legislative nominations committee. He was referring to a scathing report last August by the U.S. Department of Justice that said young inmates' civil rights were routinely violated from 2011 to 2013 by correction officers' use of excessive force in a "deep-seated culture of violence" at the Rikers Island prison complex.
"I read it last night and I was flabbergasted by it," Kane said.
Schriro left her job as New York City's correction commissioner to accept Democratic Gov. Dannel P. Malloy's appointment in January 2014 as commissioner of the state Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection, which includes the state police. Malloy's renomination of Schriro requires approval from the state House of Representatives, and Tuesday's committee hearing was the first legislative step toward that.
Although Kane was vocal in his criticism, only House members of the committee could vote when it ended and Schriro was approved 7-3, with all the "no" votes coming from Republicans on the Democrat-controlled committee.
Schriro, who holds a law degree and a doctorate in education but never served as a police officer, calmly defended her four-year tenure in New York, just as she has in recent months when asked by The Courant about the August report and subsequent news stories in the New York Times that raised questions about her actions.
Schriro said she inherited a bad situation in New York and instituted new measures to combat abuses, including adding 2,000 surveillance cameras inside the prisons a 70 percent increase.
But Kane hammered her with questions about a Times report last September that Schriro used her authority in New York to order that critical comments about two key subordinates a warden and deputy warden be removed from a 2012 report on an internal investigation. That report found that hundreds of inmate fights were omitted from correction department statistics, making it appear that Warden William Clemons and Deputy Warden Turhan Gumusdere had dramatically reduced violence in the prison. The edited report, not the original version by internal investigators, was later turned over by city officials to federal investigators.
"How could you accept that type of data when it's untrue?" Kane asked.
Schriro responded that she had immediately corrected the public record concerning the flawed statistics, but had removed a recommendation from the report that Clemons and Gumusdere be demoted because they hadn't had a chance to defend themselves in a disciplinary process. She said she had not handled the Justice Department's request for all relevant city reports and had nothing to do with which version was handed over.
Link:
Public Safety Chief Grilled Over Prior Job, But Wins OK For Reappointment