Anytime there is an election, we are always bombarded with messages about how close a race is, how much the candidate needs donations, and how truly valuable your time would be if you could just stop by and help out a bit. Now, I don’t want to put down helping your favorite candidate during election season, but we get asked by many different causes on a regular basis to donate our time, our money, or to reach out to our contacts and eventually we get tired of hearing the same song and dance. With the Internet and cell phone plans offering unlimited long distance calling on nights and weekends, now we are asked to take part in races on the other side of the state or country by phonebanking. It’s impossible to tell what races really are close, and which are foregone conclusions, especially when you don’t know the people involved before a group asks you to help out.

But every so often there is a race that’s actually that close, where a few hours of your time would make a difference. Kathy Hochul’s race next Tuesday is that race. And I want you to know why.

One thing that doesn’t lie is unbiased numbers. And when we talk about elections, one of the hardest things to come across is actual, unbiased numbers generated by a firm that has no political connections. Siena College has been putting out just this kind of high quality data on New York races for years. It’s my personal Gold Standard for anything that’s happening in New York. And the best part? Their results are boring. They’re detailed. And they don’t come with any commentary.

So when I started to hear the buzz that the upcoming race in NY’s 26th congressional district was unusually close and I was asked to join a number of Hochul phonebanking efforts, Siena College is exactly where I looked to see just how close it really was. Now granted, the latest Siena numbers are about two weeks old, but that’s good enough to work with, and certainly enough to get an idea from. The headline numbers had Hochul down by 5 points, with 9% undecided, in a three way race. That got me to dig a little deeper, since that actually is close.

Since that time, I’ve come to the conclusion that beyond the “Rah! Rah! Help the Democrat!” I usually hear in connection with phonebanks for races outside of my area, this race is actually something that’s winnable, genuinely hanging in the balance, and a race that will have a long term impact in that district.

And why? Largely because of these points:

1) It’s become a serious three way race where three major candidates all are serious contenders to win. This means that unlike many races, a few points either way is actually a big swing. And in a special election, a few points is a very small number of voters.

2) The Siena data is two weeks stale; all of the more recent (and more partisan) polls I’ve seen have the the race in a statistical dead heat.

3) Jack Davis, the candidate running independently, is pulling 20%(!) of the Democratic vote for his “Tea Party” candidacy.

4) Even though the race is quite close, only 58% of Hochul voters actually believe that Hochul will win, and I would postulate this stems from this district historically electing Republicans. This kind of thinking can lead to a serious Democratic apathy at going to the polls; phonebanking that “this is a close election” and other get out the vote efforts are the only way to combat this.

5) This isn’t as Republican a district as we’ve been led to believe! While the tendency of the district is to elect “moderate” republicans, the actual breakdown of the voter registration is as follows:

Anyway, the point of all this is that these phonebanks will have a an impact on this race. And your time will have a stronger impact than I’m used to seeing in phonebanks for “winnable” races. This is a winnable race, but not one that will definitely be won.

Beyond that, the makeup of this district, means that this isn’t just a case where the Democrat will eek out a win due to a third candidate and immediately be dumped in the next election. This is a district where the incumbency advantage should be enough for a moderate Democrat like Kathy Hochul to offset the 8% registration advantage the Republicans have in this district, especially when she has a pool of 25% independent voters to draw from.

Please take the time to attend one of the  phonebanks that are being held in New York City this week. Your time will have a serious impact on this race. One that can turn a district blue, and keep it that way.

Greater NYC for Change is keeping a comprehensive and up to date list of all phone banks happening over the next few days here. Please take a look and get involved.

And if you can’t make it to one of those phonebanks, please consider taking the time to phone from home using www.callny26.com.

*Data used is from the Siena poll of April 29, 2011, available here, with the exception of district-party makeup data which is via the NYS DOE, updated as of Feb 16th, 2011, of active voter registrations in CD 26.

For videos of the event, click here. To see pictures, stay tuned. To check out some of the press we garnered, click here.

Though I will always extol the glory of being able to move about freely, even climbing right on some stage when shooting public events, it is very nice sometimes to roll out to a special event *without* my camera, so I can just stand back and take part. Because of my connection to the illustrious network maintained and operated by the Manhattan Young Democrats, I was able to walk into an exclusive reception with the President of the United States. It’s actually not how I figured I’d be spending my Tuesday until a few days ago.

On March 29, the Democratic Party held a reception at the Studio Museum in Harlem to thank the biggest financial supporters of Senator Barack Obama in his 2008 presidential campaign. President Obama dropped in on the soiree to share his remarks. Perhaps people expected it would be a little chummy, but spacious, like at any good art opening. I have experienced thinner crowds at Radiohead shows, and more courteous crowds at Tool shows. But everybody chilled out a bit (even if the room did not) when Governor Tim Kaine took the stage and spoke for barely a minute in introducing in introducing the President of the United States.

We young’guns derived great amusement watching some of the wealthiest people in Manhattan come to grips with the old adage of political optics: “book a small room and fill it.” I am pretty sure some of them did not realize they’d have to stand with the middle class. But there we were.

The President spoke briskly about some achievements part way into his term, and about some of what remains unfinished. The issues he highlighted (for a putative new term) included immigration reform, energy policy, improved telecommunications access, and fiscal prudence. The last of that list did not really do anything for the crowd compared to the prior items. But overall, while the President spoke enthusiastically and ably, he was low key. On a lot of his speech, the crowd was far more excited than he was. Nonetheless, he managed to touch on many of the issues that matter to me most going into next year’s election. 2010 spoiled me in that I no longer feel I have to support any politician who I cannot get in the room with and so I am glad I got into this particular room.

—

From Sophia James:

On Tuesday, March 29^th, I had the fortunate opportunity to join fellow Manhattan Young Democrats and an intimate group of financial supporters and elected officials from the Harlem community at President Obama’s coveted reception at the Studio Museum in Harlem. President Obama’s visit was certainly symbolic due to his history with Harlem and the foundation that there’s no other black community that resonates domestically and internationally. Harlem is historically known as a center for black culture both in New York and nationally, but the evening was not principally aimed at African Americans but to all of us who believe in an economically sound and Democratic future.

The feeling I got that evening was the reception was not only about fundraising, but to renew faith and energy for the future, to gain momentum for what’s ahead in re-election efforts. Exuberant “Yes We Can” resonated throughout the President’s speech, but President Obama remained composed and focused. I can agree that these are serious times, as we battle with budgets and policy issues across the nation. In his speech, President Obama spoke on key issues, such as immigration reform, energy policy, building and expanding telecommunications access, and fiscal conservatism. It is most important during this time that we exhibit frugality…however, the education passionate that I am, wanted to know how far does that reach in education spending? Despite these concerns, President Obama relayed that it is “a challenging time”, he cannot do what he does without the knowledge that we support him – “that I have a lot of people rooting for me, a lot of people supporting me.” What’s more than showing him is by being present, front and center at Tuesday’s reception and in the upcoming months.

The Republican incumbents in these districts, 35 of them freshmen, remain largely unknown and appear very vulnerable in 2012 (depending on redistricting).  In fact, these incumbents are in a weaker position than Democratic incumbents were even in late 2009, or Republican incumbents were in 2007 in comparable surveys conducted by Democracy Corps.

Of course there is a note of caution:

…a lot can happen to change the political dynamic over the next 19 months, but right now, the playing field that Republicans must defend looks larger than it did for either Democrats in 2009 or Republicans in 2007.

This rally is important for two reasons: first, because we must hold our elected officials accountable for the pledges they make to the public during elections, and second, because we must take action now to reform the gerrymandered mess that is our state districts.

Over our lifetimes politicians in Albany have carved out ugly gerrymandered niches throughout our state to secure permanent seats in Albany.  The more secure politicians are in their seats, the less accountable they are to the public, and the less power we as constituents have to influence their decisions.  This must change.

For more information on how pervasive and dangerous this problem is to our state government, see the special series MYD recently did on redistricting.

If you would like to attend the rally, email Mike at mike@gomyd.com

Facebook event HERE.

The Deputy Mayor’s speech centered largely around the improvements we’ve seen in the city during the Bloomberg administration. A lot of attention was paid to the fact that New York experienced a smaller recession than nearly any other place in the US and was amongst the fastest to recover. He also made the point that crime is down and it’s never been safer to live in New York City. Afterward there were three main areas on which which Deputy Mayor Wolfson was questioned.

Teacher Tenure
Given the economy and the difficulty that older people have finding jobs in particular, there was a lot of questioning regarding the potential implementation of new criteria for letting go of teachers. The Deputy Mayor defended the proposition that teacher retainment should be based on some other criteria than only seniority and expressed a strong personal preference for changing the current system. When asked about what the new criteria would consider he said whether a teacher has

• been convicted of a felony (apparently not a consideration right now)
• been chronically absent
• has received an Unsatisfactory (U) rating

He also mentioned that this is nothing like declaring war on older teachers. For example, only about 2.5% of teachers have even received a U rating. Firings or layoffs will have a clear rubric and will not be dealt out “willy-nilly” amongst the current workforce. He was clear, however, that the Mayor’s office thought “we can do better than just seniority.”

MTA Funding
Close behind teacher tenure was the question of what’s to be done about the ailing MTA. Service cuts and fare raises are cutting New Yorkers even as the State fails to properly fund it; and there’s the problem. Deputy Mayor Wolfson stressed the point that the city does not have control over the MTA and that its 4 members on the board comprise a minority.

When asked about whether congestion pricing for motorists in the city would be revived, he said that it would likely not be as the city had already unsuccessfully made that attempt at a solution, as well as others before, and the political situation in Albany has not really changed. He did make many references to the way the MTA operated in the 1970s, though, and said that no one wanted to return to that.

Rent Control
A huge issue coming up this year which we’ll all be hearing a lot more about is rent and vacancy de-control. If rent control isn’t extended all those lovely affordable units where people are living for less will re-adjust to market rates. When asked whether Bloomberg was going to advocate for Albany to extend rent-control Mr. Wolfson said he was unable to commit the Mayor to that stance at that time.

Other things
Mr. Wolfson also fielded questions about where Mayor Bloomberg was during the blizzard (he was not at a public event so his whereabouts will not be made public. Although he did admit the city and Bloomberg administration did a less than stellar job dealing with it), whether Bloomberg attempted to buy the Independence Party line by making a large contribution to that party (not according to the Deputy Mayor; the Mayor made a legal, individual contribution) and whether Senior Centers will be closed in response to the State budget cuts (unfortunately, that is the fiscal reality).

Conclusion
All told it was a very energetic and educational meeting. If you’re interested in getting more involved and getting opportunities to talk to electeds and government officials in a small setting it’s election year – sign up to run for an open County Committee seat by emailing  openseat@gomyd.com.

I wanted to pass this opportunity to talk to one of the most well-respected political minds in the entire country, David Plouffe.  If you’re not already aware, David Plouffe was the Campaign Manager for Barack Obama’s historic run to the White House in 2008, a campaign that many regarded as generation defining and one of the most well run campaigns ever.  Plouffe had previously served as the Executive Director of the DCCC and before that as Deputy Chief of Staff to House Majority Leader Dick Gephardt.

Plouffe will be joined by Stephanie Cutter, the Assistant to the President for Special Projects.  The White House Senior Staffers will be discussing topics ranging from jobs and the economy to health care to education.

In order to participate in this conversation, you must sign up online ahead of time and call-in information will be emailed directly to you.  You can sign up through the White House website or by clicking here.

Fascism

– Noun

1. A government characterized by the merger of corporate interests with state power to suppress opposition and subjugate workers

Anytime you use the word “fascism” to describe anything in American politics, you leave yourself open to criticism from all sides for being unnecessarily hyperbolic. And often the criticism may be entirely warranted. But it’s worth noting how recent developments in politics pose striking resemblances to what you would likely find in a fascist government – that is, a government controlled by BP, Exxon, Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan and Lockheed Martin, among other corporate giants, and whose elected officials work primarily on behalf of and at the behest of these so-called “special” interests.

Let’s start with the Republican class of ’11 (we’ll get to the Democrats in a second). It was only a few months ago that Ron Johnson, a wealthy Republican businessman running for the US Senate in his home state of Wisconsin, accused his opponent, Sen. Russ Feingold, of being “on the side of special interests and lobbyists.” Throughout the campaign, Johnson argued that he was running for the Senate to go to Washington to clean up our corrupt government and work on the behalf of Wisconsin families, whereas his opponent was on the side of K-Street lobbyists and special interests. Leaving aside the fact that there was arguably no greater ally in the Senate for government reform and middle class families than Russ Feingold, the Johnson campaign drummed this narrative into the collective consciousness of Wisconsin voters, and ultimately went on to beat Feingold in the midterms. After winning the election, however, Johnson quickly abandoned such rhetoric and hired Donald H. Kent, a “homeland security lobbyist” (i.e. defense industry lobbyist) as his chief of staff.

Surprised? While it may be unfair to infer from the fact that Johnson appointed a corporate lobbyist to run his entire senate office that he is somehow not serious about the campaign pledges he made to the voters of Wisconsin, it’s certainly not a stretch to question what this appointment tells us about where Johnson’s political goals and aspirations really lie.

Mike Lee, the newly elected senator from Utah, is yet another example of political hypocrisy. Ushered in on a Tea Party platform of reform and fighting government corruption, Lee ousted former-Senator Bob Bennett in a heated Republican primary and then went on to win his seat in a general election handily. Yet immediately after his victory, Lee appoints “energy” lobbyist Spencer Stokes as his chief of staff, known for being one of the most prominent corporate lobbyists in Utah. Rand Paul, the newest Tea Party senator from Kentucky who beat his state’s Democratic Attorney General, Jack Conway, followed Lee’s lead and within days appointed anti-union corporate lobbyist Douglas Stafford as his chief of staff.

This is by no means a comprehensive list of the new members of the Senate and the House, elected to represent their constituents, who chose to hire corporate lobbyists to head their offices. New Hampshire Representative Charlie Bass recently appointed food industry lobbyist (think: Pepsi, Coca-Cola, Sodexo, McDonalds, Monsanto, etc.) John W. Billings as his chief of staff. Minnesota Representative Chip Cravaack has hired lobbyist Rod Grams as his chief of staff, an individual who lobbied on behalf of 3M, Norfolk Southern, and the Financial Services Roundtable. The Washington Post notes that “Other incoming GOP lawmakers who have recruited staff from K Street include Robert Dold (Ill.), Steve Pearce (N.M.) and Jeff Denham (Calif.). John Goodwin of the National Rifle Association, one of Washington’s most powerful lobbying groups, has signed on as chief of staff for Rep.-elect Raul Labrador (Idaho).”

Arguably the most insidious example of the revolving door between Washington, K-Street, and corporate multinationals is the recent election of former Indiana Senator Dan Coats to the US Senate. If Senator Coats weren’t occupying such an important position within our government, the irony of his election would be truly laughable; however, since he is one of only one hundred citizens of our nation that control one fourth of our Federal government, his election marks an ominous turn in what we can expect from our future senators. This is a guy who used to be the senator from Indiana, but retired in 1999 to pursue a lucrative career as a corporate lobbyist. As a lobbyist for the last decade, Coats represented a lot of corporations; most notably, he headed a team of lobbyists who represented a Texas corporation named Cooper Industries. His task: to help Cooper Industries move their headquarters from Texas to Bermuda to evade paying hundreds of millions of dollars in US taxes. Needless to say, as a former senator, the tremendous access to the senate he enjoyed made his services incredible valuable, and Cooper Industries was ultimately successful in moving their HQ to Bermuda, thereby safeguarding hundreds of millions of dollars owed to this nation’s treasury. After making millions, he decided that he missed the power that comes with holding elected office, and ran to replace retiring senator Evan Bayh, winning re-election last November.

I could go on for pages – and trust me, I’d like to (Orrin Hatch’s connections to the lobbying industry are particularly juicy) – but for the sake of brevity, I think I’ve made my point. There is little difference between corporate lobbyists, the corporations for whom they work, and many of our so-called public servants in Washington. How can we not call this fascism? How about Fascism Lite? Dan Coats is a corporate lobbyist in disguise as a politician. The only logical explanation that one can make to explain why Indiana voters chose to elect this individual was that they were either ignorant of his past or apathetic about who goes to Washington. I refuse to accept that Indiana voters knowingly and actively pursued to elect an individual with such a long history of helping corporations evade taxes, among other blatantly anti-American activities.

When these reports first surfaced, I initially dismissed them as little more than typical Republican protocol. “This is what Republicans do,” I said to myself, feeling relatively little shock or outrage. But then President Obama picked Bill Daley (former JP Morgan Executive) as his chief of staff, which forced me to reconsider many of the assumptions I previously held with respect to the differences between the Republicans and the Democrats in Washington. Sure, Democrats are far better than Republicans on social issues, and all else being equal, this fact alone is sufficient for me to support them over their Republican challengers. But when it comes to economic issues, as well as how they raise money and cultivate support, I questioned whether there is really any significant difference between the two parties these days.

When reports surfaced that Peter Orzag, Obama’s former Budget Director, had left the White House to pursue a lucrative career (we’re talking multi-millions of dollars) at Citigroup, I also began to question these assumptions. What’s wrong with this, many may ask? Why shouldn’t Peter Orzag, after having worked hard for the Obama Administration, go on to sell his labor in the market to the highest bidder? From my perspective, there are two things wrong with this, neither of which necessarily have anything to do with Peter Orzag being corrupt or a bad person per se, but have more to do with the dysfunctional structure of our system. The first problem is that, as long as it is legal to go back and forth between working for the government, which is supposed to be a public service, to working for corporations, which is, by law, a job that requires its employees to maximize the narrow interests of the corporation, government employees will not risk alienating their future employers when the interests of the public conflict with the profits of corporations. To the contrary, many will do everything in their power to endear themselves to the corporations for whom they hope to one day work. What incentive does Peter Orzag, Bill Daley, Robert Gibbs, or, for that matter, Barack Obama, have to truly work on behalf of the American people when they know that if they instead work to further the interests of, say, Citigroup, they will increase their chances of having a lucrative career waiting for them when they decide to retire from government? This system creates perverse incentives to make bad policy decisions, many of which serve to undermine the general welfare of our nation by propping up the narrow interests of concentrated centers of power.

The second problem with this is that it blurs the line between public service and business, which are supposed to be two very different institutions. There is a fundamental difference between what one ought to do in government and what one ought to do in a private business: the former is to work to maximize the general welfare of our nation, the latter is to maximize the narrow self-interests of oneself or one’s business. They are not the same thing. But insofar as Peter Orzag and Dan Coats, et al, are able to seamlessly move back and forth between the two, it makes commonplace a view of government that ought to be extreme and widely rejected: that it is acceptable for public servants to treat the government like a market; to use government for one’s own personal benefit. This view, when widely accepted, invariably leads to engendering an apathetic, careless citizenry, which ultimately serves to undermine democracy as a functioning institution.

What are we to do to prevent the corrupt, insidious revolving door from continuing? In a recent Manhattan Young Democrats executive board meeting, for which, as the Health Care Committee Chairman, I was in attendance, I found myself arguing with a fellow member of the e-board about both the feasibility and efficacy of enacting meaningful campaign finance and governmental ethics reform on the federal level. In opposition to my views, this member argued that “it didn’t make any sense” to try and prevent individuals from moving back and forth between government and corporations, for two reasons.

First, because it would be unfair to restrict individuals who have, say, relevant experience in the oil industry but happen to work for the government for a few years from returning to ExxonMobil after his or her tenure as a government employee had ended. And second, because it’s unnecessary, in that such activity – going back and forth between industry and government — is neither illegal nor harmful to the public. Presumably, it is perfectly acceptable for a Democratic president to pick an oil executive to head the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, because that person has relevant expertise in the pertinent field for which this agency is responsible to regulate, and then allow that executive, after his tenure as head of this agency has ceased, to go back to running the oil company for which he once worked.

What are we to make of these arguments? Per the first argument, I believe that we need to erect an iron wall separating corporation and state, even if this results in preventing Peter Orzag or Dan Coats from working in the private sector as lobbyists, bankers or executives for a decade. We could make the regulation very simple: a former government employee cannot accept any money — directly or indirectly — from the industry for which he or she was tasked to regulate or whose actions may have affected the industry for which he or she was tasked to regulate for a decade after leaving government. In the off chance that Peter Orzag or Dan Coats, because of this regulation, have trouble finding work after their tenure as government employees has ended, then we could write into the law a provision that government workers could be eligible to continue to collect their modest government salaries until they find jobs as college professors or journalists or TV pundits.

This regulation would also have the correlative benefit of preventing individuals whose primary aims are to enrich themselves or their past or future employers from joining the government, for fear of being banned for a decade from the profitable industries for which they currently work. It would create a system that only draws individuals who are genuinely interested in public service to the government, and weeds out those who see public service as just a stepping-stone to furthering their own careers as lobbyists or future corporate executives. Having worked in the non-profit sector for some time now, trust me when I say that there are plenty of Americans who would gladly work in the government knowing that there awaits no future payoff. This is not a comprehensive solution to a problem that pervades every corner of both our federal and state governments, but it’s certainly a start.

It’s possible, however, that the real source of my frustration comes not from the predictable GOP talking points, but from the baffling Democratic response to these talking points. Of course, it’s been widely understood for some time now that the role of the post-Reagan Democratic Party has been to be the Beta-party, the one that caves and compromises on everything, that punches back with kid gloves in response to being maliciously kicked in the face; the party that really has no discernibly strong principles, other than reflexively lending credence to every far-right, intellectually bereft policy prescription that comes out of the annals of the Heritage Foundation; the party that is always on defense, that never misses an opportunity to miss an opportunity, that compromises on everything before they need to; that finds it necessary to attack their own base more than to attack their political opponents gunning to drive them out of Washington; and that evidently cares about the middle class in symbolism only, not in substance.

But given all of this, I at least thought they could win this argument. Raising taxes on the rich by three percent, raising capital gains taxes to less than what they were during the 90’s, and reinstating a tax system that would make great strides towards paying down our national debt by seven-hundred billion dollars – these are all widely popular policies that, if pushed for, wouldn’t cost the Democratic party much, if anything, in terms of political capital. Instead, they allow the airwaves to be inundated with flagrant GOP lies about how “tax cuts pay for themselves” and that “small businesses will be hit by raising taxes” and how “we shouldn’t be raising taxes on anyone in a time of recession,” that now the entire debate is skewed, forcing the Democrats to play defense instead of advancing reasonable governing policies for our nation.

The Democrats are now ready to compromise on borrowing more money from China to give to millionaires and billionaires who, by and large, didn’t experience a recession – employment for the wealthy is at 97 percent, while corporate profits are at an all time high – instead of helping the majority of struggling workers in this country. Instead of borrowing money from China and the Saudi Royal Family to give to the wealthy two percent, who have reaped a disproportionate share of the benefits from this miserable Bush-economy, we should, at minimum, be borrowing seven hundred billion dollars to create a jobs program for the unemployed. This is, after all, what Obama promised us during the campaign.

The Democrats lost last month because their economic policies geared toward helping the Middle Class largely failed: they were too modest and too conservative, and they did little to dig the workers of this nation out of the hole from which it was plunged after three decades of Reaganomics. On the other hand, as we all know, the Democrats’ economic policies geared towards saving Wall Street and Corporate multi-nationals were a great success: 3.3 trillion dollars of our tax money dedicated to bailing out a bevy of different corporate giants and Wall Street houses has effectively restored these titans to the top again. Imagine if our government, which is supposed to work for the people, not for those who sit in corporate boardrooms, spent that 3.3 trillion on the middle class instead of on padding the pockets of the rich? What if they had spent that money on bailing out our communities, our neighborhoods, our friends and co-workers, instead of Bush’s buddies?

We are at a turning point: if the Democrats cave on this, it’s over for me supporting this administration. Granted, this administration has accomplished some moderate policy reforms, and has sent some decent judges to the Supreme Court – for this, the Obama era will be remembered in history for making some good decisions. But ultimately, they have failed to save our nation from the economic peril in which we have been forced to endure: the erosion of the Middle class, by way of the erosion of the New Deal. The Obama administration has failed to reverse this trend, and if they vote to extend the regressive tax system of current, they will have sealed their fate as an extension of the Reagan war on the middle class, instead of a clean break with this miserable political era.