What is Yes We Can! Long Island really all about? Is it just an email message on important issues? Merely a website where people can post and debate news and commentary?

Yes We Can! Long Island is a lot more than that. It is concerned individuals like you coming together to take action to support candidates, policies, and ideas that put people first.

At a time when those who would divide America are pushing their agenda with support from billionaires like the Koch Brothers and the Fox News / New York Post right-wing media noise machine, Yes We Can! Long Island stands strong for progressive values. With your support we will continue to do so.

Here are just a few of the things we have done since 2009:

• demonstrated against Rep. Peter King’s intolerant congressional investigation of the Muslim community in America.
• supported the Wisconsin State Employees demand for fair collective bargaining rights.
• met with members of the Long Island congressional delegation to suggest ideas and offer our support.
• repelled the 2010 Republican tidal wave on Long Island by helping to reelect Timothy Bishop and Carolyn McCarthy to Congress.
• counter-demonstrated the Tea Party in Merrick.
• held numerous rallies and advocated for enactment of the Affordable Healthcare Act of 2010, the first major healthcare reform legislation since Medicare.
• hosted the “Going Green-Climate Change Conference” exploring safe and clean energy alternatives and the impact of climate change right here on Long Island.
• Instrumental in the historic election of Barack Obama, Yes We Can! Long Island has continued to fight for progressive causes and candidates ever since. When Tea Party activists rallied in our community, who stood up and confronted them? Yes We Can! Long Island.

Now, for the first time since the 2008 election, we must ask you to make/renew your financial support and commitment. The 2012 election is rapidly approaching, and the right-wing is lining up to try to recapture the White House, take control of the Senate, and maintain their majority in the House. It is time to re-energize and reorganize.

Please give generously to allow Yes We Can! Long Island to continue its important work.

We cannot do it alone. Thank you.

YWC!LI’s Board

YWC!LI resists any proposal designed to manipulate existing legislative boundaries designed for the purpose of advantaging a political party over the people it may govern.

A county judge has temporarily blocked Republicans’ proposal for redistricting of Nassau County from becoming law. A standing room audience at Monday’s legislative session loudly voiced its opposition to a plan that would violate the Voting Rights Act, moving almost half of the County’s population, well beyond one-half million people, into new legislative districts. Of equally great concern, this meeting was to be the only public hearing for consideration of the proposed plan. We are, in Nassau County and at this time, revisiting a sad part of this nation’s history that our country continues to struggle to put in its rear view mirror. Fifty years ago, this month, the Freedom Riders put their lives at risk for a basic human right. Fifteen years earlier a Journey for Reconciliation challenged segregation laws in the South. The struggle for equality of all citizens endures. Countless other acts of non-violent protest have advanced racial equality across America.

Sadly, the Republican Party in Nassau County pursues actions aimed directly at diluting the minority vote. The media continues to reveal the sad details of that strategy; the facts need not be repeated here.

Yes We Can! Long Island stands strongly in its opposition to the Republican redistricting proposal:

YWC!LI resists any proposal designed to manipulate existing legislative boundaries designed for the purpose of advantaging a political party over the people it may govern at a particular time. In 1961 people sat together in segregated restaurants, at lunch counters, and in hotels to bring an end to the violation of their human and civil rights. Five decades later, hundreds gathered at the Nassau County Legislature to raise, in unison, their voices in opposition to a gerrymandering effort that would set back voting rights for the minority population on Long Island.

A great lesson learned from the Freedom Rides is that change is the result of small steps taken by courageous people demonstrating their human rights. While May 2011 marks the fiftieth anniversary of The Rides, the same battle continues to be engaged across Long Island communities. Yes We Can! Long Island joins with those many voices in protest of the County’s Republican legislative majority to limit the voting rights of minorities.

He has two daughters studying at SUNY-Binghamton. His home is under water and he has been working two part-time jobs since being laid off as a civil engineer three years ago. He had stopped at the supermarket on his way home from a newspaper delivery route (in addition to the part-time jobs he worked).

I was immediately exhausted and, by the time my bags had been placed in a cart, emotionally drained. I sat in the car for a short time realizing, but for the grace of circumstance, that could have just as readily have been me and my wife, our kids, our home.

That is, if I had not been fortunate enough to retire with a defined benefit pension. Friends with corporate 401K plans have seen their retirement investments shrink to a fraction of their not-so-long-ago value. Those nearing retirement will not see the values return to levels of accounts prior to the recession. Then there are those who never had a pension plan to serve as third leg of the “three legged stool’ model.

Leg one: family savings. What savings? How many members of the working/middle class have enjoyed discretionary income (not frivolous I say, discretionary) to set aside over the last decade? Whatever money had been carefully saved had most often gone to cover college tuition. Rainy day savings had gone to unexpected home/auto repairs, etc. The beat(ing) goes on.

Leg two: Social Security. Roosevelt’s program was never intended to provide a major part of retirement income. It is intended to be a ‘set aside’ of employee and employer matching payroll taxes to keep the average retiree and spouse from eating cat food in their later years. Workers get it the hard way–they earn it–throughout the duration of their working years.

Leg three: a personal retirement plan. Give me a break. As in the case of my recent confidante, the private-sector, unemployed engineer and his wife–forget about it. Corporate profit motives far outweigh their worker-families’ needs. Often enough insufficient funds have been contributed to plans by employers (public and private) to keep them viable. State and local government pensions are increasingly under-funded. This, in turn, necessitates raising taxes and laying off public workers–frequently union members. Well, of course! Who better to ask to pay for the obscene profiting of the (see below) robber barons?

Big-media appears to lament that private workers’ wages have dipped below that of public workers. You can do a lot with statistics, but this is a “Bachmann-esque” fabrication (see Sachs below). The media (other than the New York Times for the most part) repeatedly insists on using the term ‘entitlements’ like the money falls down from the heavens falling only into the outstretched hands of unionized public workers.

Setting the record straight: Pensions are not entitlements. Workers’ pensions are deferred wages derivative of collectively bargained negotiations. Workers give up current wages in favor of future income. Nor are benefits e———s. They are not found under a pillow, a gift from a fairy godmother (Oh, look what I found!). Workers trade present-day wages for health care coverage.

We must stop repeating the term ‘e———-s’. Take it out of your vocabulary and correct others when they use the word. This term is as intentionally destructive as is the phrase ‘death panels’. ‘trickle-down economics’, and the other flim-flam terminology invented by Lee Atwater, Carl Rove, and their ilk. Their strategy: Repeat the term often enough and it becomes part of the American lexicon. Unfortunately, it is a very effective propaganda technique that has corrupted the current debate.

I really wish I could have done something to help out my new acquaintance at the checkout counter. Imagine how terrible things must be to cause a grown man with an advanced degree in engineering to break down in front of a line of total strangers in a supermarket. He was not embarrassed. He was way beyond that emotion. I returned his hug, expressing my regrets for his situation and wishing his family well in the months ahead. I was reassuring, Things will get better, I’m sure”. Likely not.

Time to fight back. This is Class Warfare, seeded decades ago and flowering today. And such blossoming cannot occur without having applied a lot of fertilizer.

I have been told that there are 400 billionaires and a finite number of millionaires in America. They collectively own “Republican governors, backed by the Koch Brothers, (in turn) backed by extreme right-wing money”. Sen. Dick Durbin has described the status more succinctly, “They own this place”.

But–and this is a big ‘but’–the working/middle class has the numbers on its side. Hundreds of millions of working/middle class Americans who will need to fight for ourselves, our children and grandchildren. We witnessed the fight in Wisconsin. Hopefully recall elections will help the situation there. We have watched the battle in Cairo. Hopefully, Egyptians will gain human rights in return for putting their lives on the line. It will be done with numbers–but not dollar signs.

A must read/listen: Jeffrey Sachs of Columbia University brilliantly portrays the New Robber Baron period:

* Since 1973, the median take home pay of full-time workers is virtually unchanged on an inflation-adjusted basis.
* The top 11,000 households in America have more income than the bottom 25 million.
* Since 1976, 58% of real income growth has gone to the top 1% of Americans.

“We’ve reached the greatest income [and] wealth inequality in history,”

“This is a new ‘Robber Baron’ era, of course.”

This is a New Robber Baron Era

Alternative Site: Jeffrey Sachs, Daily Kos

Our need to fight back is undeniable. We will need to use every bit of energy, every resource, In every village, town, county and state throughout America. The working/middle class is ‘being forced to pay for tax breaks for the wealthy, corporate giveaways, wars, and economic crashes caused by Wall Street. Money continues to flow upward, and our already undemocratic level of inequality is worsening.’

This is just the beginning of a populist movement that will, over the next few years, diminish the power of the super-wealthy and see a re-growth of the labor movement in America.

A Timeline of Protesting Poverty, Unemployment, Corruption and Autocratic Governance

Tuesday, 1/25: Protests Begin, ‘Day Of Rage’
Wednesday, 1/26: Second Day Of Protests
Thursday, 1/27: Egypt Shuts Down The Internet
Friday, 1/28: Mubarak Speaks, Says He’ll Form A New Government
Saturday, 1/29: Anonymous Internet Users Help Egypt Communicate
Sunday, 1/30: Hillary Clinton: Egypt Must Transition To Democracy
Monday, 1/31: Egypt’s New Government Is Announced, Sworn In
Tuesday, 2/1: President Mubarak Says He Won’t Run For Re-Election
Wednesday, 2/2: Internet Service Returns In Egypt
Thursday, 2/3: Foreign Journalists Rounded Up
Friday, 2/4: “Day of Departure” Protests Held Across Egypt
Saturday, 2/5: Members Of Ruling Party Leadership Resign
Sunday, 2/6: Government Agrees On Concessions
Monday, 2/7: Google Executive Released In Egypt
Tuesday, 2/8: Freed Activist Energizes Protests
Wednesday, 2/9: Widespread Labor Strikes Throughout Egypt
Thursday, 2/10: Despite Rumors, Mubarak Refuses To Step Down
Friday, 2/11: Mubarak Resigns As President, Leaves Cairo

The tragic shootings in Tuscon have spurred me to write down these thoughts that have long been on my mind. It seems that the shooter was motivated by a combination of political ideology and mental illness. While I disagree – to put it mildly – with his support of the gold standard, this belief does not connote mental illness. However, it is likely that his troubles contributed to his outlook, and certain that they played a role in the shooting. This, however, is not the subject of this post.

Those in the broad mainstream of the American political discourse have rightly condemned the shootings. Many pundits and political observers have cited the loss of civility and tolerance necessary for a democracy. In an article written in reaction to the shootings, journalist Matt Bai complained of “a debate that often seems to conflate philosophical disagreement with some kind of political Armageddon.” [1]

Unfortunately, some pundits and political figures have made the mistake of conflating sanity with centrism, as if one cannot exist without the other. Some, like Michael Bloomberg and Jesse Ventura, have done so self-servingly, others may be alienated by their distrust of major parties, and still others simply assume those in the middle are the most reasonable, but these are only some of the possible motivations. Among the most prominent centrists or independents, I discern two basic classes – the technocratic Bloomberg model that believes that all problems can be solved by a pragmatic and scientific search for solutions (ones that are usually designed to satisfy the most ardent desires of the wealthiest, at the expense of the rest of us [2]), and the populist Ventura model that sees anyone who adheres to a party and ideological label other than “independent” and “centrist” as a radical who exemplifies everything that is wrong with American politics today.

The center’s intolerance of course does not reach the violent extremes that radical views do. It is much harder to become passionate about moderation than it is about radicalism. But centrists often have the belief, common to ideologues of other stripes, that theirs is the only respectable worldview, and that anyone who disagrees with them is an ideological crackpot.

Centrists see themselves as above ideology, and even as warriors against it, forgetting that centrism is an ideology in itself. Actually, it would be more correct to say that centrists have ideologies, since the actual political views that encompass centrism vary wildly. But ideology, when tempered by pragmatism, is important, as it provides us with frameworks by which we can view the world.

Centrists rant against political parties, but parties, for all their faults, are vital. Political scientists have done much work on their importance, but I will only list a few points here. Parties are important mechanisms for political action, creating political platforms and mobilizing support for legislation. They provide natural coalitions in Congress – members can figure out who their natural allies are, saving time in the legislative process. Most importantly for the average American, party labels are useful guides to voters as to what a candidate’s views are. While I would certainly encourage voters to learn everything they can about every candidate on the ballot, the fact is that most voters will not or cannot. People want to invest what little free time they have in things other than studying the economic philosophy of their local candidate for dogcatcher. By observing the candidate’s party label, however, they can get a reasonable idea of what his views are.

I am no centrist, at least not in the American sense. I believe that most of the answers lie not in the center, but towards the left. I believe in a government that helps out those left behind by the free market, providing a safety net for those who have fallen on hard times. I believe that we need to reduce military spending. I believe that the immediate focus needs to be on a full economic recovery, and that only once this has been accomplished can we move on to the deficit reduction that we so badly need. I vote a straight Democratic ticket, and while I do so amid frustrations with my party, I do so proudly. All this places me well to the left of most Americans, but it does not make me a dangerous radical. While I detest my Congressman, I would be appalled if an event like the one in Tuscon struck my district.

Americans have long prided themselves in resolving their differences by the ballot, not the bullet. We hate our politicians, but we do not shoot them. The breakdown of our political discourse threatens the very fabric of our political system. It is important, however, to remember that while radicals that espouse violence deserve condemnation, those on the left and right that possess strong political views, passionately defend them, and engage in political activism, while respecting that differences of opinion do not deprive individuals of their humanity, are a vital component of our civil society.

[1] Matt Bai, “A Turning Point in the Discourse, but in Which Direction?” New York Times, January 8, 2011, http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/09/us/politics/09bai.htm



[2] Alex Pareene rightly views Bloomberg’s “No Labels” movement as “pure, naked corporatism.” Thus, Bloomberg’s brand of “centrism” is self-serving in two ways: portraying himself as a non-ideological problem solver helps him politically, while his policies help him and his billionaire friends economically. See Alex Pereene, “Michael Bloomberg Offers ‘Middle Way’ to Glorious New Gilded Age,” Salon, December 8, 2010, http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2010/12/08/bloomberg_serious_business/index.html

A BLIZZARD WARNING REMAINS IN EFFECT UNTIL 6 PM EST MONDAY.

PRECAUTIONARY/PREPAREDNESS ACTIONS…
A BLIZZARD WARNING MEANS SEVERE WINTER WEATHER CONDITIONS ARE EXPECTED OR OCCURRING. FALLING AND BLOWING SNOW WITH STRONG WINDS AND POOR VISIBILITIES ARE LIKELY. THIS WILL LEAD TO WHITEOUT CONDITIONS…MAKING TRAVEL EXTREMELY DANGEROUS. DO NOT TRAVEL. IF YOU MUST TRAVEL…HAVE A WINTER SURVIVAL KIT WITH YOU. IF YOU GET STRANDED…STAY WITH YOUR VEHICLE.

Partisanship has been a reality of American politics since one of our parties was called the Loyalists. But it’s hard to shake the feeling that lately it has trumped statesmanship in Washington, and that scoring political points has replaced governing.

After this election cycle, there can be no doubt that the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision and the subsequent flood of anonymous special-interest money into the political process has led to a sharp increase in partisan attacks on TV and radio.

Since Citizens, any person or group can spend an unlimited amount of money to advocate for or against a candidate in federal elections. It’s a clear example of judicial activism that overturned a century of legal precedent and successful laws, like McCain-Feingold, that were designed to limit the influence of special interests in politics.

Anonymity breeds both incivility and misinformation, two words that characterize the attack ads unleashed this year. I should know: More than a million of these anonymous special-interest dollars were spent against me in a matter of months. I have faced tough opponents funded by out-of-state interests in past campaigns, but in the past, disclosure laws ensured a measure of transparency for voters.

One new group that attacked me this year, the so-called Alliance for America’s Future, consists of anonymous donors, a post office box in the Washington, D.C., suburbs and a one-page website with a 26-word mission statement. Yet, this group spent more than $500,000 to influence a congressional race on Long Island.

And, with the ink on my election certification barely dry, I’ve already been targeted again by the endless political attack machine funded by anonymous special interests. Crossroads GPS, headed by Karl Rove, is running radio ads in several districts where the Democratic incumbent prevailed in a close election. In my case, the ad used a hodgepodge of hackneyed talking points and misleading language to urge me to support the tax cut package.

The problem is, I’d already announced my support for the package, since it addresses middle class priorities. But Crossroads GPS isn’t interested in accurately representing my positions, much less having a debate about policy. As an article on Politico.com notes, the ad is part of the “first offensive of the 2012 election cycle.”

My election was certified a mere week ago, yet there are already groups lining up political attacks and looking toward the next election. Just think of the poor radio listeners who hear holiday music on WALK, followed by a political attack ad – and think they’re in a time warp.

The timing of this ad may be almost comical, but it highlights just how broken our system is. By treating every issue as the same kind of political football, these groups motivate lawmakers to make decisions based on political expediency. When we play this game, everybody loses.

The Citizens United decision has led to a growing permanent political class that thrives on partisanship and, it appears, a 365-day-a-year campaign cycle.

I’m hopeful we can take bipartisan action to enact campaign finance reform in the coming Congress. Good public policy requires two sides willing to come together and compromise, an impossibility in a superheated partisan environment fueled by anonymous attacks. Given that most of these groups targeted Democrats last cycle, some may accuse me of having partisan motives. To those cynics, I would say one thing: There are Democratic billionaires, too.

So, do we want an escalating political arms race or commonsense campaign finance reform that limits the influence of special interests and requires full disclosure?

The current attack ad against me poses the question, “Whose side is Tim Bishop on?” – an interesting question from a group that doesn’t have the courage to report its funder. Fortunately, these groups are only as effective as their ability to deceive the public. So, the next time you hear an attack ad, listen to the end to find out who paid for the ad. If you’ve never heard of them, you can be sure they’re on someone’s side, just not yours.

Source: Newsday

After the Democratic “shellacking” in the midterm elections, everyone wondered how President Obama would respond. Would he show what he was made of? Would he stand firm for the values he believes in, even in the face of political adversity?
[....]
Whatever is going on inside the White House, from the outside it looks like moral collapse — a complete failure of purpose and loss of direction.
[...]
So what are Democrats to do? The answer, increasingly, seems to be that they’ll have to strike out on their own. In particular, Democrats in Congress still have the ability to put their opponents on the spot — as they did on Thursday when they forced a vote on extending middle-class tax cuts, putting Republicans in the awkward position of voting against the middle class to safeguard tax cuts for the rich.

It would be much easier, of course, for Democrats to draw a line if Mr. Obama would do his part. But all indications are that the party will have to look elsewhere for the leadership it needs.

Read the full column @ NYTimes.com.
Some Yes We Can! Long Island Board Members expressed their opinions on this column.

Marvin had the following comment:

Agreed. I made this point over and over at yesterday’s meetings. I am at
my most conflicted level since the 2008 election. Hopefully, backbone will
persist and the State of the Nation speech will bring honor and conviction
back to where it had been no so long ago.

Susan said:

I’m really sad to say that I agree with Krugman

Phil said:

I think Mr. Krugman badly misses the mark with today’s column ” Freezing Out Hope”. To begin, the freeze on Federal pay, although small in the overall picture, is important symbolically. The public’s perception is to a certain degree correct, government employees have not suffered nearly as much as the general public who have experienced near depression level unemployment, many out of work for years or otherwise underemployed just to keep food on the table. Seniors didn’t get a COLA this year, rightly so because the cost of living has not gone up. Why should Federal employees get cost of living increase? Furthermore “a freeze” is somewhat the equivalent of the unilateral ban on “ear marks” by Republicans. The “ban” was also symbolic, welcomed by not only tea party type but also by independents. I think both the “freeze” and the ‘ban” are good unilateral politics.

As far as the bigger issue of the Bush tax cuts we have to ask ourselves who will be hurt more if the cuts expire for everyone including the middle class taxes? Who will be blamed when a family earning on $60,000 per year has to pay almost $3000 more in taxes or almost $6,000 for a family earning $120,000. Who will be blamed the President or the Republicans? Is it a bigger risk for politicians or the middle class?

To a large degree this problem of communication and symbolism was almost two years in the making. As President Obama has admitted they did a poor job of explaining successful legislation. For example: one third the “stimulus” was a tax cut but almost no one realizes it? The Health reform debate dragged on for a year and showed the worst part of making the legislative “sausage”.

Much of it to placate democrats and independents such as Senators Nelson and Lieberman, not republicans. Finally the bail-out of Wall Street was done without caps on bonuses. As a result Wall Street will give out a record $20 billion in 2010 in bonuses, while the middle class is suffering.

The President can’t make the same symbolic mistakes again. I fear he will be blamed for gridlock if he loses this “game of chicken” but the tax cuts expire and the middle class ends up paying thousands of dollars per year in additional taxes. Since the president won election partially on the basis of post-partisanship, and if he loses the battle of chicken, I think the President should instead extend the tax cuts temporarily (for all) but not for more than 2 years and live to fight in 2012 for his re-election? But certainly I don’t think it an easy answer.

Ben Brodsky posted a comment on the comment section of the column:

Hope is more than just a pay raise.

While I agree with your premise – freezing federal workers salaries will do very little to effect the deficit – and these actions will not help President Obama in finding support from the Republicans, it should not be looked at as an attack on liberal values. A two year pay freeze, while inflation is very low, at a time of such economic upheaval and uncertainty isn’t the end of the world.

A temporary freeze, while possibly misguided, can have some positive benefits, such as giving these agencies more money to hire new employees or improve the efficiency of their department. At least the employees know they have a job that isn’t going anywhere, and right now, that is probably has more value than a pay raise. Stability.

As for your assertion that President Obama is in some way attacking his liberal supporters with this and other policies, I can’t help but question the basis for this assessment. President Obama was not the liberal/progressive candidate some labeled him. Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel were the only two true liberal Democratic candidates in 2008. Though he had many liberal values and views, many assumed he was far more consistently progressive then he ever claimed to be.

President Obama spoke of admiration for Ronal Reagan, of his opposition to legalization of cannabis, of his support of the Afghanistan War – clear examples of his not-so-liberal tendencies. He spoke more of pragmatism and compromise — remember his Red State/Blue State speech?

His focus since his inauguration appears to be a longterm plan to gain support amongst a wide cross-section of America, not based on traditional dividing points in American society, but a better tomorrow achieved through common sense.

In 2 years time, will a Tea Party activist who sees better Health Care for a dying parent realize that President Obama might have done some good with health care reform? Will the Wall Street banker appreciate the booming economy that is based on real small business growth, putting the days of financial wizardry behind them? Will the middle-class family be better off when their child, who was able to get reasonable student loans from the government, can stay on the family health care until 26? Will the soldier appreciate not being sent to war in a nation that we had no business fighting in? When the soldier can also discuss his sexual orientation without fear of reprimand? Will the bloggers appreciate the trove of government information now in the public domain?

Those expecting a liberal, progressive dawning of America with the election of Barack Obama were only fooling themselves with their own hopes. The fact is President Obama has been doing great things for the future of America while focusing very little on the short-term political benefits of his actions. I wonder how many of his supporters actually check out the White House website and blog on a regular basis or if the majority of them just find out about his presidency through watching MSNBC and reading liberal blogs?

We are a fickle people in America, not because we change our minds, but because we refuse to evolve our thinking and reconsider our actions. So many supported President Obama so vehemently during the campaign in 2008, yet today are so often disappointed because they found out he wasn’t exactly what they hoped he would be.

Well, it is time to wise up and support our President and country at this time of great challenge. We should not be looking for “hope” and “change” in our personal hopes and dreams, but we must have hope in a better future for ourselves, our nation, and our planet, even if it ends up being more than two years away.

These times might not be as dire as the times that try men’s souls in 1776, but a great deal of similarities exhaust between then and now. I suppose we shall see if we as a nation are better or worse at being patriots than we were at the founding of the nation.

“I see no real cause for fear. I know our situation well, and can see the way out of it.”