So if you've been following my work lately, you know that there is a renewed effort underway to change Social Security, and that the fight officially began just this very morning.
Now what's supposed to happen is that a television ad buy sponsored by a Wall Street billionaire is supposed to get you enthused about cutting your own Social Security benefits in the future; this is the tip of a "disinformation iceberg" that is trying to get you to act, right now, because if you don't you will never, ever, ever, ever, see a single dime of Social Security when you get older.
I was on a "let's talk strategy" conference call today that laid out some ideas for the "next steps"; we'll be talking about that call over the next couple of stories...but for today, we're going to talk about something you can do that will bring the message right to your favorite Member of Congress.
It is my job to bring to you not just the news that took place, but the news that has yet to happen.
Today, that's exactly what we have.
There is a war coming to try to change Social Security from a social safety net to a "revenue stream" for certain corporate interests, and that war is set to begin Tuesday morning, according to information that was provided to me yesterday afternoon.
Follow along, and you'll be both forewarned and forearmed.
In New York City, once you've filled out the front of your paper ballot, turn it around and vote Yes or No on the two questions sneakily hidden on the back of the ballot. The Times has a rundown on what these questions are about here. Or check out Citizens Union's take here.
If you encounter problems at your polling place or suspect irregularities, call the DNC's voter protection hotline at 800-311-VOTE. If you're on Twitter, retweet that phone number here.
If you need to find your local Democratic Party office, click here.
Polls will be open statewide until 9 PM.
The weather forecast in the metropolitan area is sunny but chilly, so dress warmly.
Real-time election coverage, courtesy of The New York Times, here.
And when it's all done, have a drink with OFA, Drinking Liberally and ACT-NOW at Dewey's Flatiron, 210 5th Avenue (between 25th & 26th). RSVP on Facebook here. Not in New York City? No problem: post your after-party in comments.
It's been a few days now since we began a conversation that addresses the issue of how frustrated some number of LBGT voters are with the Democratic Party this cycle; this because they find themselves either frustrated at the lack of progress on the civil rights issues that matter to them, or because they see both the Democratic and Republican Parties as unreliable partners in the struggle to assure equal rights for all.
In an effort to practice some actual journalism, I assembled a version of an online "focus group" at The Bilerico Project ("daily adventures in LBGTQ"), with the goal of gathering some opinions on this subject in the actual words of those frustrated voters.
Part One of this story focused on "stating the problem", and today we'll take on Part Two: in this environment, with Election Day staring us in the face, what is an LBGT voter to do?
As before, there are a variety of opinions, including a very informative comment I was able to obtain from a genuine Member of Congress, Patrick Murphy of Pennsylvania's 8th District, and that means until the very end you won't hear much from me, except to help "set the stage" for the comments that follow.
We're in the home stretch. What happens in the next ten days will determine who governs this state for the next two to four years, who draws the district lines, and who makes decisions about your kids' future.
Gillibrand, Schneiderman, DiNapoli, & Jacobs to lead rallies in Manhattan, Nassau County, and Westchester County
This Saturday at 11 am Democrats will be holding a massive statewide day of action to build energy and spread the Democratic message.
Dubbed "Mobilizing for Victory," Democrats will hold simultaneous rallies in Manhattan, Westchester County, Nassau County, Bronx, Brooklyn, Queens, Suffolk County, Albany, Rochester, Syracuse, and Buffalo - followed by a coordinated canvassing operation to reach out to everyday New Yorkers on behalf of the entire Democratic ticket.
The show of force comes as the Democratic coordinated campaign ramps up its efforts going into the all-important final stretch. Since kicking off just three weeks ago, the Democratic Coordinated Campaign has already set up shop with 13 regional field offices, knocked on close to 200,000 doors, and called well over 100,000 voters.
Check the link for a list of locations and get out there.
Stories begat other stories, or at least they do for me; this two-part conversation came from a comment that was made after I posted a story suggesting that voting matters this time, especially if you don't want environmental disasters like the recent Hungarian "toxic lake" that burst from its containment and polluted the Danube River happening in your neighborhood.
Long story short, we are going to be moving on to ask what, for some, is a more fundamental question: if you're an LBGT voter, and the Democratic Party hasn't, to put it charitably, "been all they could be" when it comes to issues like repealing "don't ask, don't tell" or the Federal Defense of Marriage Act...what should you do?
Now normally I would be the one trying to develop an answer to the question, but instead, we're going to be posing the question to a group of experts, and we'll be letting them give the answers.
And just because you, The Valued Reader, deserve the extra effort, for Part Two we've trying to get you a "Special Bonus Expert" to add some input to the conversation: a Democratic Member of Congress who represents a large LBGT community.
Those of you who've followed my work over a period of time know that I'm usually the one suggesting moderation and keeping everyone in the big tent, and, even in this most difficult year, I'm the one telling folks that sometimes you just have to hold your nose and vote for the candidate that sucks less.
And even though the last thing I'd ever want is a Speaker Boehner or a Leader McConnell (or even worse yet, DeMint), the fact remains that there are two Democratic Senators I would actually vote against, even if the candidate that sucks more does win...and those two are Arkansas' Blanche Lincoln and Nebraska's Ben Nelson.
One of those two is up for re-election this year, and thanks to a particularly ridiculous vote by Senator Lincoln, we found ourselves in a bit of an email exchange, which is what we'll be talking about today.
Sometimes stories happen because of planning; other times serendipity intervenes, which is how we got to the conversation we'll be having today.
In an exchange of comments on the Blue Hampshire site, I proposed an idea that could be of real value to unions, workers...and surprisingly, employers.
If things worked out correctly, not only would lots of people feel a real desire to have unions represent them, but employers would potentially be coming to unions looking to forge relationships, and, just to make it better, this plan bypasses virtually all of the tools and techniques employers use to shut out union organizers.
Since I just thought this up myself, I'm really not sure exactly how practical the whole thing is, and the last part of the discussion today will be provided by you, as I ask you to sound off on whether this plan could work, and if so, how it could be made better.
It's a new week...so let's all put our heads together and rebuild the labor movement, shall we?
Netroots Nation will be in Las Vegas in just a few weeks; with that in mind we are going to play "piano bar" and fulfill a couple of requests, one today and one tomorrow, from folks who would like to bring a couple of things to your attention.
Today's topic: climate change.
As you know, there is a lot of legislation floating around Capitol Hill that would begin to use some sort of market-based mechanism to reduce the amount of carbon we emit.
None of it will move unless it moves through the Senate, and today, that's what we'll be talking about.
The fallout from the DSCC fundraising pay-to-play scandal, now in its second day, continues to rain scorn and disbelief on the embattled committee.
Jimmy Vielkind reports a second fundraising memo - this one directed at business, not labor - but with a lower price tag: $25,000. Others are forthcoming, apparently.
You know things are really bad when a good government group feels compelled to chide state lawmakers for selling access in return for campaign contributions and call for a ban on the practice.
I'm sorry. I thought quid-pro-quo was already illegal.
And speaking of the Daily News, the lead editorial today is nothing short of devastating:
It's breathtaking how completely the state Senate Democrats have betrayed their vaunted promise to clean up Albany.
A mere 15 months after coming to power, the self-styled reformers who run the chamber are now stonewalling a major ongoing corruption investigation - and shaking down special interests for cash in a brazen move that's as close to extortion as you can get.
Given how thoroughly other essential constituencies, specifically LGBTs over the abject marriage failure, have been disenchanted with Senate Democrats, you do have to wonder: after the gays, the reformers, labor, who's left?
If you didn't read about it here this A.M., you might have caught the story via Liz or Azi: DSCC's newest, unutterably tone-deaf fundraising letter.
Or, to quote Sen Dem head honcho John Sampson:
"The Senate Republicans have done it. Just because people do it, does that make it correct? Does that make it illegal? I think the bottom line is...this is a fundraising initiative. Nobody's twisting anybody's arms. If every [sic] knows me, there's always access, free access, for everybody to come and talk to me about any single issue."
Well, that's just brilliant - the other guy does it too, so what's your problem?
The answer is simple: because there's an appearance of impropriety. Lame-ass cop-outs like pointing at the other guys don't cut it. There's a reason we voted for Democrats and gave them a majority: to end this kind of Bruno-esque (apparent, too-close-to) pay to play.
You can say many things about the Murdoch Post's Fred Dicker - call him crotchety, irritating, a pain in the ass. What nobody disputes is that the man has the best sources in casino Albany.
And today, we learn that Senate Democrats have put a big fat For Sale shingle on the front door.
ALBANY - Democrats in the state Senate are up for sale - and they don't come cheap!
The Capitol's scandalous "pay to play" culture descended to a new low as Democratic lawmakers told top labor leaders that they would have to pony up $50,000 each in donations if they want special access, The Post has learned.
In a shocking letter to union bosses who are battling state budget cuts, state Sen. Jeff Klein of The Bronx offered to sell them "chairmanships" on a newly created "Labor Advisory Council."
"Advisory Council chairs will have the unique opportunity to advise the Senate Dems on the structure and focus of the Labor Advisory Council," says the letter from Klein, chairman of the Democratic Senate Campaign Committee.
"In addition to all meetings, conferences and events that are included with Advisory Council membership, the advisory chairs will be invited to an exclusive meeting with the Senate majority leaders," the letter states.
All signs point to a decision this weekend by the U.S. House of Representatives, a final vote, on whether or not America will expand healthcare coverage to an additional thirty million Americans.
Of New York's 29 Representatives - technically, 28 after the Eric Massa debacle - two are republicans (Peter King of Long Island, king of the teabaggers, and Chris Lee in the 26th).
Those you can write off.
Of New York's remaining 26 Democratic Representatives, 24 have signaled that they will support President Obama's signature domestic policy. Two remain to be heard from: Michael Arcuri (NY-24) and Michael McMahon (NY-13).
It seems that many of those who are regular guests of this space are committed to a worldview based on some degree of reason and rationality.
That's a handy thing if the "Covert Alarm Locator Apparatus" in your Isaac Daniel® Compass Global 1000 GPS sneakers should happen to fail and you need to find your way back to where the rest of us are; sadly, not all voters are equipped with such a helpful worldview.
Luckily for them, there are lots of conservative "mouth organs" ready to fill the "information gap".
They send out lots of emails every day, spreading their Word, and as a public service I receive several of them; this to help keep track of just what's out there, exactly.
If you ever wondered why otherwise normal people believe some of the craziest things about "Obama's Secret Death Care And National Virgin Sacrifice Program", have a look at some of the things I get every single day, and it might all make a bit more sense.
How bad must it get for an 85-year-old former mayor of the City of New York - not an easy job, that - to leave retirement and start rattling the cage?
Pretty bad.
The following is an op-ed that went out by email to the mayor's list.
The New York Uprising Begins
Last Friday, at the New York City offices of my law firm, Bryan Cave LLP, for a group of us, the New York Uprising began.
A hundred men and women came together to commit themselves to the overhaul of the New York State legislature, which the Brennan Center for Justice appropriately called "dysfunctional" six years ago, and which has alarmingly deteriorated since. The legislature in Albany is an abysmal failure and a disgrace to the Empire State.
The New York Uprising was convened by Dick Dadey of the Citizens Union, Henry Stern of New York Civic and myself. The purpose for the meeting was a brainstorming session aimed at developing a strategy for reforming the state legislature, both the Assembly and Senate.
Compounding New York's government problem is its non-functional governor who is beset with allegations that he may have committed a crime by swearing falsely before the New York State Commission on Public Integrity, as well as allegations of possible obstruction of justice now being investigated by the New York State Attorney General. The latter recused himself from the investigation -- he is a perceived candidate for the office of governor in the November election -- and selected Judith Kaye, retired Chief Justice of the New York Court of Appeals, to oversee the investigation by the Attorney General's staff.
Attending the March 12th meeting were Frank Baraff and Brian Keeler, leaders of a coalition of New Yorkers called Reboot New York, who are organizing upstate and Long Island citizens to push for reform in Albany. Other citizen-based organizations are being established around the city and state, including Unshackle Upstate, headed by Brian Sampson, as well as various reform-minded groups of business people. Five respected good government groups - the Brennan Center for Justice, Citizens Union, Common Cause NY, League of Women Voters/NYS and N.Y. Public Interest Research Group - have organized to address Albany reform. The Westchester County Association, led by former Lieutenant Governor Al Del Bello and Bill Mooney, is taking up the effort in Westchester.
LANGUAGE WARNING: Today's story is uncharacteristically blunt, and from this moment forward we will be using lots of inappropriate language in making our points.
It is by now fairly well known that Rahm Emanuel, President Obama's White House Chief of Staff, had a bit of a blow-up with liberals who were ready to start running ads against "blue dog" Democrats who were working very hard to shut down the health care reform effort.
Now we're not gonna get in the middle of that argument today; instead, since we're finally getting a chance to talk, I figured me and Rahm could get a few other things out of the way that have been on everyone's mind for the past year or so.
We strive to be, if anything, a participatory space around here, and I've had a question come to my inbox that is very much deserving of our attention.
To make a long story short, our questioner wants to know why, on the one hand, despite the passage of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA, also known as the "stimulus"), unemployment in the construction industry continues to increase, and, on the other hand, why there is such a giant disparity, on a state-by-state basis, in the cost of saving a job?
They're great questions, and, having done a bit of research, I think I have some cogent answers.
It was a long hot August for those who would like to see health care reform, as rabid "Town Hall" protesters proffered visions of public options that would lead to death panels and socialism and government tax collectors with special alien mind control powers that would use sex education and child indoctrination and black helicopters as the means for gay people to impose their dangerous agenda on the innocent, God-fearing citizens of someplace in Mississippi that I'm not likely to ever visit.
Part of the reason that opposition was so rabid was because health care interests were spending millions upon millions of dollars doing...well, doing whatever the opposite of giving a distemper shot to the angry mob might be, anyway.
So wouldn't it be great if all the CEOs of all those health care interests were to gather at one time and place so you could, shall we say, gently express your own thoughts regarding the issues of reform and public options?
By an amazing coincidence, that's exactly what's going to happen Thursday in Washington, DC, as the Patient Centered Primary Care Cooperative (PCPCC) holds its Annual Summit.
Follow along, and I'll tell you everything you need to know.
First, a critique. Keep in mind that because we did not start at single-payer, the public option was the progressive proposal instead of the compromise. So now we are in a position where we need to compromise. That's politics. A strong robust public option can pass both houses and a comprehensive health care reform bill should be passed. Progressives need to stand strong and Democrats need to remember which party they belong to and quit siding with the Republicans/conservatives on this issue.
It's real simple: Either you want reform or you want a primary. Your choice.
The opt-out provision can be the compromise. It should be the compromise solution and it isn't complicated. All the opt-out provision does is it allows states to "opt out" of the public option if they do not wish to take part.
So the new idea seems to be a public option offered at a national level, but with states having the right to opt out - that is, make it not available to their own residents.
At first blush, that sounds good. It's true that the states most likely to opt out will probably be small states that really need the competition. But many states, with probably a majority of the population, would opt in. And if the public option works well, there will soon be pressure on politicians in the others to do the same.
I guess there's a possible issue of principle: if states can opt out of one component of reform, why not all? But I haven't noticed principles playing much role in this process! And the idea of putting red-state governors on the spot, having to decide whether to deny their voters cheaper policies, definitely has some appeal.
I emphasized that last part because that is the key portion of this provision which could be our greatest asset.
The point is that it would be good for the Democrats to put the GOP in this position. If they don't want the public option (or what they call "socialized medicine" and "government-run health care") they can explain that to the citizens of their state instead of disrupting the national debate. States like New York would surely welcome the public option. But the red state governors would be put in a position where they would either have to accept the public option or tell their citizens that the public option won't be offered to them because they would rather put politics above their best interests.
This is not a bad provision. It's a lot better than "triggers" or any other past compromise proposal. Because the reality is that there probably won't be anyone who, as governor, would want to kill the public option in their state out of fear that they would lose re-election as a result.
Bill Owens isn't a Democrat (not officially, anyway, until he votes in November) and since he wasn't an elected official, much isn't known about him. I started looking at Owens and came up with a number of different positions, but there were more questions that came from that post.
Obviously, health care is a big issue. There has been some debate about where Owens stands. But now, at least to me, his stance is clear.
The question about Owens and his support of a public option might seem complicated, but it really isn't. Owens isn't opposed to a public option. That, to him, isn't the biggest piece.
He has outlined his ideas for health care reform already. If a public option is in a bill that meets his objectives, he will support it. That has been repeated to me over and over again. It's not the public option that he is opposed to. He wants to see a strong comprehensive bill. I think we all can agree that there is a such thing as a weak health care reform bill even with a public option. Because if we don't reform the whole system and just throw in a public option as a deal sweetener, that's not much of a reform package.
Owens wants a strong comprehensive bill. I think that's something we all want.
The Owens campaign also confirmed that Owens supports climate change legislation. When asked specifically about the bill that passed the House earlier this year, Owens said he would have supported (and supports) that legislation.
It is easy to look at Owens and say he is going to be a "conservaDem" or a "Blue Dog." He doesn't see himself as conservative or progressive. He seems himself as a moderate independent. Is he going to be the next Alan Grayson? Probably not. But I don't see him as the next Mike Ross either.
With Bill Clinton and the Working Families Party getting behind Owens it is time that we get behind him. Is he the perfect progressive? No. But he is a moderate that we can work with. He's a vote for climate change and for health care reform. He is for job creation and ending regressive taxation and wasteful tax cuts. Those are all good things we can get behind.
