source: www.ny1.com

In was an on again, off again light rain that fell as we all stood on line to get into yesterday’s city council meeting on the living wage bill.  Movement slowed to a snail’s pace when the space for visitors inside the chamber filled up long before the meeting even began. Though despite the wait and the weather, neither factors greatly deterred the overwhelming majority of those who came in support of the Fair Wages for New Yorkers Act from waiting out for an opportunity to go inside. While standing on that line you could sense that there was a lively and confident mood among supporters, probably still resonating from the amazing rally the night before at Riverside Church where 2,500 came to hear CEO of the NAACP Ben Jealous speak as to why the work this coalition was doing was so important to combating the issue of wage inequality quickly increasing in our city and and nation-wide. The energy in the air was all the convincing many of them needed to wait the length of time it took to get inside which ranged from 30 minutes to 1 hr 1/2 for others.

Once inside the debate was already in full swing, with a majority of the city council in attendance, questioning experts, businessman and union leaders from New York and around the country. Witnesses testified on both sides of the issue regarding the new amendments to the bill, how it would impact workers, business owners and the local economy.  (If you need a refresher on the details here is some information on the basics)

Since the Manhattan Young Democrats are long time supporters of the living wage bill and our organization is a founding member of the Living Wage NYC Democratic Caucus, we submitted testimony to make sure the voice of Young New Yorkers would be present in this discussion.

This was just a second hearing and how this will eventually shake out is still unclear. The proponents of this bill , as always, have made themselves available for reasonable suggestions from the developer and business community. As active participants and organizers we look forward to seeing how those discussions pan out if and when the opponents are interested in coming to a compromise – something they were willing to do not that long ago.

If you have any questions or are interested in learning how to get involved please feel free to email me at vp@gomyd.com.

Happy Thanksgiving

Many Voices, One Goal: Supporting a Living Wage in NYC

When: Tonight November 21st

Where: Riverside Church (490 Riverside Drive – take the 1 train to 125th Street)

Time: Doors open at 5:30pm, Program starts at 6pm

Contact: Ahmed – vp@gomyd.com

In 2008-2009, when the downturn began to show how truly in trouble we were, our elected officials decided on a course of action that infused our economy with tax-payer money to prop up the financial market, stem the collapse of the auto industry (and thousands of its connected vendors) and pay to keep teachers behind desks and police officers on the street. Personally I supported these stimulus measures because I understood this was a necessary investment by the federal government of public dollars to reduce the pain the crash was inflicting on American communities nationwide.

Viewing local public subsidies in the same light is why I support the Fair Wages for New Yorkers Act or otherwise known as the Living Wage Bill. The legislation would require any developer who takes over $1 million in tax payer subsidies to create jobs that paid no less than $10 an hour with benefits or $11.50 without benefits. It’s important to be clear about one point – if a developer doesn’t ask the public to invest a critical stake in their project then this law does not apply and they are free to make decisions on equitable wages as they wish. But millions of dollars that are distributed each year in subsidies with the intention of being used for economic development is the public’s money and should be subject to our input. If that is true then we have to ask ourselves if supporting job creation where people are working 40 hour weeks and still living below the poverty line is actually a wise investment in the long-term.

The public has decided in many instances that poverty-wage jobs are a waste of tax-payer dollars and proof that it works can be found across the country. In 2007, there were approximately 140 living wage ordinances in place throughout the United States. Additionally, as a result of ballot initiatives, twenty-nine states and the District of Columbia, representing nearly 70 percent of the total U.S. population, maintain minimum wage standards above those set by the federal minimum wage (taken from: A Measure of Fairness: The Economics of Living Wages and Minimum Wages in the United States – Jan 2008) According to Labor scholar Stephanie Luce the bill has led to increased, though modest, improvements while resulting in “higher worker morale and more productive employees.”

Its also important to note that the current bill involved ideas from workers and business as the drafters listened to the concerns of small businesses and local industry when they included protections like excluding manufacturing firms, companies with less than $5 million in annual revenue and those that receive less than $1 million in city subsidies. In addition the requirement would only be the first 10 years after they receive any subsidies. All parties these provisions answer many of the oppositions issues with the bill and still allows it to focus on reversing the most egregious cases of wasted public investment.

If this is something that makes sense to you, tonight hundreds are gathering at Riverside Church starting at 6:30pm to send a clear message to our elected officials as to how important passing this bill is for all of us. As a coalition for change we are saying that in this time of austerity and dwindling resources we may not have much we can use to fight inequality but the tools we do have as tax-payers, like the terms we dictate for giving out our money, should be used to create good jobs that pay a decent wage.

Hope to see you tonight !

In mid- 2010 when State Republicans were not sure how the power pendulum would swing in New York State’s upper house the Senate GOP, lead by Dean Skelos, gave their support for the immediate creation of an independent redistricting commission and progressives saw a huge victory for government reform within reach. However after capturing the majority, those same politicians that cried for transparency proved that their words were as fragile as the paper the pledges they made were printed on and slowly back peddled away after realizing how heavily gerrymandered their districts had to be drawn to get in the position they were. They were further dissuaded to follow through once realizing that their majority was only possible by altering lines to reflect inflated population totals created by counting prisoners in upstate counties where they are incarcerated instead of in the communities where they came from and will most likely return to (an error thankfully corrected with a law eliminating prison gerrymandering in 2010). Some analysts suggested that they could lose up to seven seats if the lines were drawn to reflect this new reality.  So after months of stalling the GOP surprised no one and instead moved along with the same old legislative road show we’ve seen over and over again.

Despite the set backs and energized by Governor Cuomo’s promise to veto any partisan maps that are put on his desk , advocates have refused to be defeated and instead have taken the debate to LATFOR by organizing people to show up to public hearings being held by the legislative taskforce all across the state. They are asking people to give testimonies in their own words stating why they believe “one man, one vote” shouldn’t be manipulated for any elected official’s political gain. The taskforce has already had hearings in Queens and the Bronx with Manhattan, Brooklyn and Staten Island being scheduled for next week.

Manhattan Young Democrats will be participating and are asking anyone who is interested and available to come to the Manhattan hearing on Wednesday September 21st @ 250 Broadway, 9:30am. Please email vp@gomyd.com so you can receive information about where to meet that morning. (Its recommended that you call 212-618-1101 ahead of time to reserve a speaking spot).

Testimonies do not have to be long or elaborate (though preparing something on paper for yourself is always a good thing) – you can simply just say why you believe your neighborhood, your borough, your city or your state deserves a process that isn’t warped by individual ambitions or the casting aside of your community’s geographical, socioeconomic or cultural integrity to meet electoral probability targets.  Redistricting should be about providing fair representation to the people they affect. No more, no less.

If you have any questions or would like to get more information on the work being done to make fair maps a reality in New York visit the ReShape NY coalition at www.reshapeny.org or the Senate Democrat’s site at www.passthepledge.com

Voter ID legislation has been a major area of debate among state legislators for years, however action had picked up considerably after the Supreme Court decision in 2008. In a 6-3 vote, the court ruled in favor of Indiana being allowed to uphold their own Voter ID law after Indiana State Democrats brought suit against them based on what they saw as the foundation for disenfranchising voters. In 2011 alone we have seen own fair share of changes:

So far this year, all but a few of the 20 states that didn’t already have a voter ID law took up legislation to impose the requirement, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL). Of these, two states — Kansas and Wisconsin — enacted such laws, while similar bills await gubernatorial action in New Hampshire and North Carolina.

Meanwhile, 14 of the 27 states that already had voter-identification laws on the books sought to further strengthen them. Four of these states — Alabama, South Carolina, Tennessee and Texas — succeeded, although the U.S. Department of Justice must approve the South Carolina and Texas laws before they can take effect.

You can view an interactive map with information on up-to-date Voter ID legislation for each each state by clicking here

The article discusses why Democrats in Rhode Island, members of a party who traditionally have been staunch opponents of Voter ID laws, would get behind this kind of legislation. Suggestions range from effective testimonials given by people who claimed to have witnessed voter fraud to the emergence of a more moderate agenda when you’re the dominant, “Big-Tent” party in the state. Regardless, Rhode Island has put Democrats in an uncomfortable spot – do we support their actions or view this as a rogue branch that has taken the wrong side on an important issue? Also is this going to be a problem that drags on Democrats nationally? While our opposition to voting barriers is an definitive way to draw clear governing differences between Republicans and Democrats on the value of protecting the right to vote, Rhode Island Democrats might be showing us a way to take a wedge issue out of the hands of GOP opponents running in moderate districts in future elections. While Republicans concentrate on generating fear of a voter fraud onslaught to create logistical and economic hardships for likely (democratic) voters to cast ballots, once again Democrats can take leadership and incubate in a fairly liberal state a pragmatic approach to finding a middle way.

Personally I believe the push for Voter ID is an obstruction of our basic right as citizens but out of the 29 states that feel otherwise, Rhode Island’s approach appears to be the most equitable. A closer examination of Rhode Island’s law reveals regulations not nearly as oppressive or restricting as similar laws passed by GOP-lead states such as Texas and Tennessee . Compared along side each other, Rhode Island’s law allows multiple forms of Photo ID to qualify and in the event the voter does not have a Photo ID, the state will still accept and approve a provisional ballot with a signature that matches the voter registration card. Republicans in Texas and Tennessee enacted draconian regulations with a rigid list of permissible ID’s and no exceptions based on a voter’s registration signature match. Their timelines for enacting their new laws are respectively harsher with Texas and Tennessee moving to implement this law Sept 1^st (Texas) and Jan 1 2012 (Ten) and Rhode Island allowing for a slow phase in to be completed by 2014.

Fighting against the erecting of barriers between citizens and their voting booths is one of the main pillars of our national Democratic Party, but Democrats in Rhode Island decided to go a different route. The results of their work and the motives of their actions will be under review for sometime but at the very least local legislators seemed to have taken great pains to address possible verification problems and hampering the chances of widespread voter dissatisfaction. So where the fight is hardest, in conservative states that do not seek to make those safeguards against disenfranchisement, lets hope Rhode Island’s example serves as a counterweight to the oppressive systems being laid out elsewhere.

Since 2006, the number of Hispanic Democratic officeholders has shrunken by nearly 2 percent. Meanwhile, the number of Hispanic Republicans in office has increased 22.5 percent. Hispanic Republican candidates have been especially successful in the kind of targeted, high-profile elections — for Congress and governor — that could influence the 2012 presidential contest. And in statewide offices, Republican Latinos now outnumber Democrats.

But once you get past the spin and look at the graph based on figures from the National Association of Latino Elected Officials (NALEO) revealed later, you can see that the number of Democratic Hispanic representatives dwarf those who identify as Republicans 1380 to 158. To clarify things further, a recent Pew poll showed Republicans only making gains with whites voters and actually losing support among Hispanics which could suggest that many of the state level anti-immigrant policy bills being pushing by GOP legislators could be eroding any goodwill earned.  Both the DNC and Karl Rove’s American Crossroads have began to take their pitch to the airwaves with Spanish-language television spots as the media begins to focus more on 2012. (see both ads below)

What’s the big take away ?  Maybe the decrease of 25 Democratic legislators to the gain of 25 for the GOP over the last four years tells us complacency could become our own worst enemy. We can’t assume that because we are the party that is typically associated with social and economic equity our messaging is still being accepted as truth in the Hispanic community. During a period where the community has endured higher levels of unemployment than the national average and witnessed two major pushes – The Dream Act and National Immigration Reform – stalled in Congress, Democratic leaders in state and local parties should take these cues seriously. In the end, without state and county parties visibly doing more to recruitment Hispanic candidates, hire bilingual field staff, increase voter registration in low turnout communities and push our Democrats in office to make legislation important to the Hispanic community a top priority, we can very well be on the verge of a electoral problem.

DNC’s Spanish-TV AD “En quien confiar” (Who to trust)

America Crossroads AD  Spanish-TV “Despertarse” (Wakeup)

Without going back over the atmosphere of vitriol created during the initial arguments over the downtown mosque debate, it is astonishing how Turner decides to use his precious campaign dollars and available time to communicate with voters on a project in lower Manhattan instead of issues in the actual community he is running for. Wouldn’t his time with voters better be spent on subjects like jobs, public infrastructure repair and homeowner and rental housing issues? In a district which include communities that serve as a home for people of Polish, Irish, Italian, Eastern European, Indian and Pakistani descent, celebrating faiths from across the spectrum – why would they choose someone who would rather talk about wedge issues that alienate an important part of the community instead of how to solve the issues they really need taken care off. You can tell a lot about a candidate based on what they decide to allow aired with their permission – Turner just showed his true colors with this ad.

If you live in the Congressional 9th District or want to help volunteer to keep that seat blue please visit www.weprinforcongress.com to find out more

Last week the White House responded to their frustrations with an announcement that the US Department of Education will be granting waivers to those seeking relief – but with the condition that states adopt an alternative set of accountability and reform measures like approved college-ready programs and teacher effectiveness matrixes. These measures are being received with mixed reviews by elected officials and education administrators however Duncan says that he was forced to act because Congress did not this year (and because of partisan paralysis probably not till after the 2012 elections)

The first question is whether states will bite? Even before Duncan announced the waiver program, several states like Idaho, South Dakota and Montana had discussed refusing to comply outright regardless of the consequences so in the end would Duncan have the political capital to hold the line and refuse them federal funding if he chooses to? If this is just a situation being used to insert parts of the White House’s Blueprint plan for education, will adding them now before it has a chance to be discussed and filtered through Congress create any obstacles when the modified version is implemented later as law? Another legal quagmire is to what extent Duncan has the power to replace one set of standards, made binding by law, with another set of standards being pushed by the administration and like-minded advocates.

Finally – Is this what President Obama can look forward to as his main instrument for improving education over the next year as his colleagues in the legislative branch refuse to put politics before finding a middle ground on best practices for learning? Whether it’s the debt-limit or education reform having to invoke amendments or using backdoor strategies for policymaking is not a sustainable way of running government. But given our limited options, we just have to wait and see to what extent the Duncan’s waivers will give states the flexibility they need to realize their own roadmap to improving schools and whether or not this issue becomes of concern enough to be debated in the halls of Congress any time in the near future.

More soon…

video below is a recording of Sec. Duncan’s testimony regarding the White House’s Education Blueprint for America

One of our projects that exemplifies that strength and now has become a bi-annual tradition for MYD is the Open Seat Project. Beginning in 2009, The Open Seat Project was created to address our concern that hundreds of seats within the New York County Democratic Party structure remained vacant year after year. The position we’re specifically speaking about is that of county committee person: a two year unpaid term representing one of hundreds of election districts through out the borough. We decided that by recruiting members to run for these seats we would be carrying out our mission to strengthen local participation in the Democratic Party and ensure our leaders are responsive to the issues that are important to young people.

Open Seat Volunteer Dan Lewkowicz

The Open Seat team recruited members to consider running while simultaneously creating working partnerships with county leaders within the individual assembly districts that cover parts of Manhattan.  This year, recruitment for the Open Seat Project was especially focused on recruiting women, minorities and members of the LGBT community who are drastically underrepresented in elected office. We want the Democratic party — and ultimately, the leadership of our city, state, and nation — to be more reflective of the American electorate.

CC Candidate Neha Dewan

As of midnight last Thursday, July 14th, we concluded the main thrust of this year’s project and are happy to report that 90 people submitted qualifying petitions with their respective democratic clubs to the board of elections for county committee positions. Though County Committee represents areas as small as one or two blocks, our members who heeded the call and decided to run for this political elected position gained a wealth of knowledge about campaigning and the rules governing the election process.

75th AD Part A Female District leader Mary Dorman and CC candidate Lisa Marut

Another connection we hope will remain central with the members who ran is the relationship they forged with their local democratic clubs. The roughly 35 democratic clubs throughout the borough act as the grassroots voice of our party. The district leaders and club presidents who went out of their way to work with us have been great partners.  We have built a stronger working relationship with them on policy issues facing our city and state moving forward.

Throughout this process, our team learned a great deal about how little our members (and New Yorkers in general) know about our party and our electoral system. Our experience has solidified our belief that supporting civic education as a mantle our organization needs to continue.  We must remain committed to increasing the level of participation in the public discourse, not only of our own demographic, but of our friends, family members and co-workers. In the coming months, we’ll be working on putting much of the information we learned online.

But for now: we’ve been written up in the Times and we’re excited to congratulate the 90 new Open Seat voices who earned themselves “a seat at the table” — and we’ll be toasting their efforts at our annual “Young Gets It Done” Awards ceremony in late August. And as for the rest of you who could not or did not run this year…2013 is only a short time away. Will you run?

The bill co-sponsored by Councilman Oliver Koppell and 28 other councilmembers would require all employers in developments that receive more than $100,000 in city subsidies to pay workers $10-per-hour if the employer pays health care benefits, or $11.50 an hour if they do not. We’re encouraging young people to show up and call on their city council members to support this important legislation. With the administration’s economic development plan partially dependent on the growth of the service sector to meet the need for more jobs, the lack of regulations to ensure that they are fair-wage positions could contribute to the alarmingly growing gap between our top and lowest earners. Without this common sense legislation that has already been passed in cities like Boston, Los Angles and San Francisco, low-to-moderate income families will continue to struggle to meet the rising costs of living and as responsible citizens we should demand that our tax dollars are invested in development that addresses those problems. Like our fellow democrats at StoneWall, let’s demand that our city remains a place where good jobs can still be found by making your voice heard at the rally this Thursday. Come support the fight to make the living wage bill into law.

For more information or to find out how you can get involved please visit the homepage for the LivingWageNYC Campaign at www.livingwagenyc.org.

Reasons cited for this falloff in applications (only 341 people expressed interest in 425 available seats) include the non-binding effect of their eventual decisions and prior restrictions that have now been lifted such as the exclusion of PTA presidents. By extending the deadline for applications to April 22nd DOE officials hope that a new beginning with Chancellor Wallcott will curry goodwill among parents and convince more to see merit in giving their time.

You can find out more about the position or applying for your own district by going to the DOE website or clicking here