But Monserrate, who also bolted the Democratic Party to caucus with State Senate Republicans in 2009 and later year voted against marriage equality, refuses to vacate the Senate chambers. A special election has been called for March 16 to fill his seat and the Queens Democratic Party has chosen to run State Assembly member Jose Peralta for 13th District. Peralta’s opponent is none other than Monserrate himself, who is now running as Independent.

But there is still another sick twist on this unbelievable story of insolence and preposterousness. Monserrate, in hopes that a perceived connection to President Obama will launch him back in the State Senate, is now using a modified version of the Obama “O” symbol and the “Yes We Can!/Si Se Puede!” slogan on his Web site.

As Democrats, it is imperative that we stop Hiram Monserrate in his attempt to attach himself to our President and the Democratic Party when he has worked against the party and its values in the past. It is even more important for voters to know that the Democratic Party and President Obama is in NO WAY backing an narcissistic domestic abuser for the New York State Senate.

Please do what you can to support Democrat Jose Peralta in his run for Monserrate’s seat. Canvass, phone bank, donate, whatever you have the resources for. Afterward, please consider visiting Reboot NY’s Web site. We are the group that began the Fire Monserrate campaign last year. Also consider becoming our fan on Facebook or or following us on Twitter. It is imperative that we get the word out to as many New Yorkers as possible that our State Senate needs to be fixed.

Getting very little press, President Obama’s PERAB (President’s Economic Recovery Advisory Board) is where Obama’s economic wunderkind Austan Goolsbee was stashed away after the election, working under Paul Volcker, former Fed Chairman for Presidents Reagan and Carter.

PERAB is an advisory-only panel designed to review input and ideas from across the country and from all quarters, including the financial sector, industry and average American citizens just like you.

Since it’s first fully-transparent official meeting with the President (full video, full transcript), PERAB has opened their doors to leaders in business, labor and policymaking to discuss investment in infrastructure, green jobs initiatives such as home retrofitting, the role of community banks and credit unions, manufacturing and healthcare.

But PERAB is also going further, soliciting public and private input on a spectrum of tax reform proposals including filing simplification, shoring up enforcement and retooling our tricky corporate tax codes. PERAB is not, however, considering changes that would raise taxes on families making under $250,000.

PERAB will be compiling recommendations into an “almanac” of options that will be presented to President Obama, representing a broad range of viewpoints. Hundreds of suggestions have already been submitted by individuals, business groups and advocacy organizations, available for public viewing here.

Just this week, grants were distributed for 51 strategic transportaion projects including roads, rail, bridge repairs and more, demonstrating that PERAB initiatives do (eventually) find their way into real legislation. Last month, Goolsbee’s white paper became central to the White House proposal to limit risk-taking by banks who were recipients of bailout funding, curbing proprietary trading, hedge fund activity and more.

We should all endorse those reforms that increase economic and environmental sustainability, emphasizing localization, job creation and job retention over short-sighted wealth-creation. We should also advocate for regionalizing food supply lines, greater transparency in government and strengthening of the Earned Income Tax credit which recognizes the efforts of hard working families, manufacturing, production and service above “passive” income derived from dividends, investing, inheritance and other forms of “paper pushing” that benefit the already-rich.

Many do not realize it was then-governor Reagan who helped develop the Earned Income Tax credit as he successfully sought to incentivize work-over-welfare in California. As president, Reagan would later adopt “trickle down” incentives, lowering tax burdens for the rich in the expectation they might create jobs and not just pocket the cash.

Tempered by Newt Gingrich’s Congress, it was President Clinton’s expansion of the Earned Income Tax Credit that saw a record number of millionaires created in the U.S. while reversing the growth of the deficit dramatically. CBO projections then calculated that the deficit could be fully repaid by 2009.

But after 2000, President Bush reinstated tax cuts for the rich alongside unprecedented levels of debt spending and industry deregulation. Again, income levels flat lined as work hours increased, benefits were cut and the dollar weakened. By 2008, job losses soared and the economy was in a state of disaster by any measure.

Obama’s current proposal for a direct tax credit for the creation of each new job is preferable to the “supply side” method which devastated the American middle class both times it was tried. We should all hope America’s middle class can be revitalized by a more equitable distribution of tax breaks, seeing through the ruse of trickle-down theories, and rewarding ONLY those businesses who create jobs in their communities.

But regardless of where you weigh in on today’s economic debates, you all have a chance now to be a part of the process and let the President’s Recovery Board know what YOU think. You can submit your ideas here using this web form, or direct email here.

There’s already a lot of finger pointing going on. Martha Coakley is pointing fingers at the party, the party is pointing fingers back. They both share in the blame. That neither Democratic National Chairman Tim Kaine nor Coakley saw this train wreck coming tells us that we had the wrong people at the helm.

Coakley won’t be going to the Senate, but Kaine continues to chair the DNC. He’s keeping his job, it seems. But I think that Democrats must wake up now and realize that Tim Kaine is no Howard Dean.

The media is having a field day with Kaine’s counterpart, Michael Steele. They doubt every move he makes and ridicule every off-the-cuff remark. Steele, in the eyes of the media and many Republicans, is nothing more than a buffoon. I happen to agree. The Republican Party is in trouble: they have no cash, there’s dissent within the party, and they continue to partake into wedge-issue politics. The GOP’s pick of Dede Scozzafava to run for an open Congressional seat in New York was a blunder of epic proportions. Bill Owens barely winning in that district was not so much a victory for the Democrats as it was a default decision since he ended up with no Republican Party rival.

But Michael Steele, as incompetent as he is, has also won two important gubernatorial elections and one Senate election. Tim Kaine has not won anything for his party. He didn’t even win the Virginia Governor’s Mansion that he vacated for his party. If Michael Steele deserves no credit for the Republican victories in Virginia, New Jersey and Massachusetts, then Tim Kaine deserves all the blame. If you can’t outmaneuver a fool like Steele and let him take three leadership positions away from your party, what worth are you to your party?

You can’t just dismiss these three elections by claiming that one state was leaning conservative, another hated its governor, and the third was hobbled with a bad Democratic candidate. There are no excuses! Just a year ago, the Dems, under Howard Dean, greatly increased its presence in State Houses across the nation, in governor’s mansions, in the House and Senate, and it’s Presidential candidate won by a landslide. The Democrats were crushing the Republicans. Some pundits thought it was the end of the Republican Party.

Then Dean stepped down as DNC chair and Kaine took the reins. Kaine has gone back to the old strategies of raising money and hoping that your candidates can win without a message.

This is what the Democratic Party has returned to: Take money from lobbyists, give into their demands on legislation, and try to win elections by outspending the opposition. The problem is: that doesn’t work. Voters are starting to believe that the Democratic Party is selling out to corporate interests and I’m not so sure they’re wrong from the looks of the latest Health Care Reform bill.

Now we’re getting our asses kicked by a party that’s continues to be in disarray and that’s lead by an obvious bonehead.

One sad thing that I noticed in the Massachusetts Senate race was that that quite a few single-payer health care proponents were supporting Brown. They wanted to “Kill the Bill” as it now reads, because all it guarantees is access to health care, without dealing with affordability, and requiring mandates. So, the Democrats lost their progressive base in a progressive commonwealth. So explain to me how do you win without your base?

In Massachusetts, they’re currently suffering over a poorly cobbled together health care law—Mitt Romney’s crowning achievement by the way—that has been a disaster because premiums are skyrocketing in the state and it’s killing small business owners. Now we have a Democratic Party that is trying to pass through a similar, watered-down health care bill on the national level. So what do you expect from the residents of the Bay State? It’s no wonder why so many Democrats voted for Brown.

Yes, Coakley ran an extremely bad campaign. She acted aloof and entitled. She became the Rabbit to Brown’s Tortoise. All Brown had to do was drive a pickup truck through the Commonwealth, get the attention of a few tea-party crazies to go with the angry (but misguided) moderates and independents that began to lean his way and he had a enough troops to make it a race.

Meanwhile, the progressive base of the Democratic Party—those that were motivated to get out the vote in 2008—have been neglected ever since that election. Rahm Emanuel insulted progressives at every turn and Tim Kaine said nothing. President Obama governed from the right-center, not even throwing these stalwarts a bone.

Being mocked by Emanuel and ignored by Kaine and Obama upset many of my progressive colleagues, and many of them won’t raise a finger to help Democrats now. Some of them, as I said above, even voted for the other side. They feel used. After all, it was the progressives that gave the Democrats a majority in 2006 and an unprecedented majority and the White House in 2008. And then they were kicked to the curb.

While this race should be a wake-up call for the Democrats to run better candidates, I think it proves my theory that without your base, you’re nothing. And the progressives are the base of the Democratic Party.

Tim Kaine lost yesterday’s election. He also dismissed the progressives since his ascent to the DNC Chair a year ago, which helped the Democrats lose that election. It’s now the turn of progressives to toss Tim Kaine.

–
The opinion in this column is the viewpoint of the author and not necessarily that of the Rockland Progressive Democratic Caucus.

Formerly Obama For America, the President’s former campaign apparatus turned activism-outreach program is seeking student interns to work a minimum of 12 hours per week for OFA’s 2nd year of grassroots community organizing in support of President Obama’s agenda. You can get college credit and valuable experience.

Though we cannot define what “change” means for everyone, we can say the OFA presence in Rockland County could be bigger and more visible. Did you know Rockland County residents can register, blog and comment on Obama’s OFA website? 

In September 2008, one OFA rep attended a RPDC meeting in Rockland, listening attentively to our folks and speaking herself in support of health care reform. This led to OFA’s participation in our Healthcare For All Rally in October. 

Though we might take issue with Obama policies on particular issues, we here at RPDC would like to see more interaction with OFA, solidifying common ground and conveying our hope that “change” will include even more transparency, sustainability and diversity.

OFA Internship Application for Spring 2010.

It’s understandable that partisan politics, even and especially on a local level, can be off-putting for many. Much of what passes for debate and argument in today’s politics is driven by division and personal destruction. However, perhaps the biggest reason that people are turned off by politics is because the issues and debate often seem irrelevant to them. Many people feel that political parties manipulate them because they’re often asked to make hasty choices based upon labels such as “Democrat” or “Republican.”

But the truth is, political divisions are inherent in all political discourse. In Michigan, where I was born and lived until 15 years ago, most municipalities did away with partisan elections decades ago. This, however, did not end of partisan politics in those municipalities. The void left by political parties is now filled with alliances, coalitions, and confederations that are not transparent to the typical voter. Even worse, by their very nature, voters created their own quasi-parties based on racial, ethnic, and religious lines. Without political parties, we default to creating our own political apartheid, making local politics even more off-putting, and voters become even more confused by byzantine schisms within their communities.

Needless to say, it was refreshing when I moved here and found that I could vote for individuals that I could bond with on issues that were grander than the office they sought. When I first moved here, it was good to know that then South Nyack Trustee Tish DuBow was a staunch supporter of women’s rights and that Thom Kleiner once worked advocating for consumers. It was obvious to me that these people shared my core values, and it made it easier for me to vote for them even before I got to know both of them personally.

I understand that most people don’t live their lives identifying their values as being “blue” or “red” just as most people aren’t staunchly religious or secular, pro-management or pro-union, pro-development or pro-environment; we all fall somewhere on the spectrum on many issues.

However, for the people that are politicians, I don’t believe they compromise themselves by aligning and remaining loyal to a party, whether that party be the Democratic, Republican, or Independence Party. I think they do the voters a service by defining not only how they stand on current issues, but by giving their constituents an guideline on how they will respond to matters that nobody has yet considered.

I understand, however, that many people long for a politics where we have real vigorous disagreements and debates about the issues and where party affiliation is not part of the debate. They like politicians that don’t insist on having a monopoly on what is right or wrong, and don’t demonize our political opponents and their followers.

Barack Obama has asked that politicians extend themselves beyond partisan politics by espousing a “fair minded” approach to public service. He believes in a philosophical approach to politics that understands that truth and certainty are not the same thing. It is a philosophical approach that ultimately has as its goal the pursuit of the common good. It’s politics that espouses cooperation above competition. This is how politics should work on all levels, not just the local level.

However, it is also true that President Obama has had to take up the mantle of party leadership when his “common good” politics is attacked by ideologues and hate mongers. The uncomfortable truth is that not everybody, politicians nor citizens, play by these rules and to defend the common good, a politician must often fall back on the comfortable principles and parameters of the political party.

About a dozen conservatives, including Republican Orangetown Supervisor candidate Paul Whalen, attended yesterday’s Organizing for America (formerly Obama for America) meeting at the Pearl River Library last night. Many of these right-wingers went on to heckle the Obama organizer and disrupt the meeting.

The hecklers interrupted the meeting by shouting down those that support health-care reform, with taunts, and with generally disrespectful behavior. One of the hecklers stood before the crowd with a menacing look and a sign that said, “Obama’s healthcare and other policies will take care of us like Teddy took care of Mary Jo.”

Another agitator insisted that the meeting was actually an ACORN meeting and manically shook a DVD box of the science-fiction movie Soylent Green in front of his face. Others were a somewhat more respectful; some just stood outside the library, smoked cigarettes, and carried anti-Obama picket signs.

Many of the blathering wing-nuts unwittingly tipped others off that they were associated with and mobilized by insurance-industry lobbying groups and the Christian conservative movement. The disruptors used media and talking points supplied by the National Center for Policy Analysis, an organization funded by the insurance-industry and the Liberty Counsel, a conservative, “family values” group begun by the late Rev. Jerry Falwell. 

Whalen, for his part, did not participate in the heckling, but did nothing to stop his fellow conservatives as they tried to disrupt the meeting. Later, I approached Whalen about a pickup truck that several of us have witnessed that carries one of his campaign bumper stickers next to a Confederate Flag. Whalen chuckled, “I guess I’ve got fans all over, North and South.” I informed Whalen that I found this to be an unfortunate juxtaposition and asked him what he thought about having supporters who are open racists. Whalen huffed away without answering and left the meeting.

In the end, the disruptive element failed and did nothing more but embarrass themselves. I’m not sure what Whalen’s role at the meeting was. Was he supporting the hecklers, or does he support the President’s health-care reform? In the end, the OFA organizer was able to get the productive members of the audience to break down into groups and work together in trying to create a canvassing strategy for the county. The hecklers failed, and very few reform supporters appeared shaken by them.
–

The news and diaries posted on the Rockland Progressive Dems site are the individual opinions of the members of the Rockland Progressive Democratic Caucus. They appear on this Web site to provide a progressive forum for Rockland County residents. While the Executive Committee of the caucus may edit some of these posts for clarity, length, and accuracy, it does not necessarily endorse the contents of each post. All members of the Rockland County Democratic Caucus are invited to share their viewpoints and comment on those viewpoints on this site.

Engel told Politico: “Without that [public] option there will not be enough votes in the House to pass that bill.”

The Congressman, who represents parts of the Bronx, Westchester, and Rockland, also chastised Senate Democrats, particularly Montana Senator Max Baucus (D) for holding the legislative process hostage:

“The Senate needs to understand that they are one-half of the process, not the entire process,” said Engel. “This is not a matter of [Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max] Baucus or anybody else negotiating a bill, than coming to the House and saying, ‘take it or leave it.’ That’s not how it works.”

While Engel’s words are a strong warning to the Administration and Sen. Baucus, he is not among the 57 House members that sent a letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi this week and 18 more that took a pledge stating that they would vote against any health care reform bill that didn’t include, at the minimum, a robust public option.

It is not clear whether the White House is shifting away from the public option, but the rhetoric has been softened as of late. President Obama said on Saturday that the public option is just a “sliver” of the overall package, followed by Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius commenting that it wasn’t essential. However, administration spokespersons are now backtracking and saying that the alleged shift away from the public option is no shift at all and that President Obama still insists that the public option is the best way to provide needed competition with the insurance industry.

Along with Engel, representatives Nita Lowey (D, NY-18) and John Hall (D, NY-19), who also represent parts of Rockland, support the public option and according to Rockland Business Digest, all three will hold public forums on the health care plan. Spokespersons for Lowey and Engel say they plan to hold town halls sometime in late August, with times and venues to be announced. And although his staff did not confirmed it when talking with Rockland Progressive Democratic Caucus members, it is rumored that Hall will hold four town-hall style events across his widespread district.

This article is cross-posted at the Nyack News and Views Web site.

Thousands of these videos were submitted, but only a few were answered, so that’s some achievement. President Obama called Steve’s question “terrific.”

I think Steven did quite well, and I’m still torn between the single-payer and public-option models.

Steven’s question for President Obama