Communist Party Statement on statewide elections

The 2010 elections:

Strengthen the fight for peace, democracy and equality!

The National Situation

We’ve got our work cut out for us.

Since the 2008 election of Barack Obama, the extreme right has gone on a rampage, especially with the formation of the so-called Tea Parties, perhaps the most openly racist “movement” this country has seen in decades. While polls show that they represent a very small portion of American working people, they have an undue amount of influence, as they are supported by, even created by, much of the mainstream media and the Republican Party, the tools of extreme sections of monopoly capital.

Labor and the people’s movements have won some amazing victories under the new balance of forces that was ushered in with Obama’s election, especially health care reform and the stimulus package of 2009—but much more needs to be done. Every good initiative by the President, by Congress and by the people’s movement has run up against immediate obstruction by the minority Republican Party. The recent attempts to deny extensions of unemployment compensation are but one example of their callous disregard for the well being of America’s working people.

This is why the 2010 elections are of historic importance: we could consolidate the victory of 2008 and move forward in a pro-people and anti-racist direction, or we could see the beginning of a big step backwards. In order to improve the economic situation and the situation of working people overall, and to beat back the Republican-Tea Party offensive, we need to ensure that the Republicans do not pick up seats in the midterm elections and to further turn the Congress against them. While the Democrats are far from perfect, the biggest obstacle to progress it the Republican extremists’ bloc.

The Situation in New York State

Using the current economic crisis as a pretext, monopoly capital—the corporations, the big developers and so on—is on a rampage to break unions and to decisively shift power even further away from working people towards Wall Street. Here in New York, their first line of attack has been to cut services and, as we’ve seen in the budget fights and the attempt to privatize schools under the guise of creating more charters, to break the public sector unions.

The assault on public workers is an assault on all workers: they hope to divide public and private working people in order to weaken the working class fightback overall.

While monopoly capital has a home in both the New York Democratic and Republican parties, the Republicans are leading the most vicious assault. And while there are Democrats in our state leadership who’ve taken some terrible positions, the legislative Democrats have by and large been the group that has been most responsive to the needs of working people. Senate Democrats, for example, were able to restore $600 million in education funding, and more in health care funding, to the budget. The prospects of overriding the gubernatorial veto would be much greater were there far fewer Republicans.

Consequently, as bad as Governor David Paterson has been, our main enemy is at the present time still the Republican Party, the preferred party of Bloomberg, Wall Street and the big developers. In the upcoming elections, working people have a great stake in ensuring that there are more Democrats and less Republicans in office.

Andrew Cuomo and the state Democratic ticket

Still, there’s absolutely nothing to be excited about when it comes to the Democratic candidate for governor, Andrew Cuomo. He’s been arguing for exactly the same business-friendly, anti-worker policies as David Paterson. Further, his shocking insensitivity to the African-American, Latino, Asian-American and Afro-Caribbean communities is despicable. How can it be that, in a state where millions of African Americans and Latinos live and contribute, there is not a single member of either of these communities on the statewide Democratic ticket?

The only possible response to this is condemnation.

The way forward in the fight against racism

While we understand the indignation felt by the African-American and other communities, we don’t consider the creation of the new Freedom Party, co-chaired by City Council member Charles Barron, to be a viable tactic to fight racism. We believe that history has shown that the only way to defeat racism is for all working people, Black, white, Latino, Asian, male and female, old and young, unionized and unorganized, to unite together in common struggle. We see the anti-union posturing and chauvinism that has come from some of the state Democratic leadership as two sides of the same coin. You can’t defeat one without the other. Consequently, you can’t win workers’ rights without all sections of the working class, and you can’t defeat racism without the participation of white working people.

When united, we win; divided we lose.

Council member Barron has said that African Americans have been used by Democrats. It is true that the African-American community has overwhelmingly supported Democrats in all of the most recent elections, including between 80-90 percent support for Spitzer in the previous gubernatorial elections. And we’re sure Barron is right to suggest that Cuomo is banking on the mature political sense of the African-American and Afro-Caribbean people of New York to vote, despite the obvious shortcomings and chauvinism inherent in his campaign, against the Republican candidate.

We see the answer to this differently, however, and also take note of the fact that no other leaders of the African American community have as of yet endorsed Council member Barron’s proposals. We have to ask the question of how the working class, the racially and nationally oppressed, women and youth can build up the movement to push the state Democrats to offer better choices. We’ve seen that, in communities across the state, we’ve been able to do so: all one has to do is to look at the progressive, labor-oriented, Black, Latino and Asian city council members. There are many in the Democratic Party, and even more in its orbit, who are part of this fight: the labor movement, especially the transport workers, the service workers, SEIU 32BJ and 1199, and the teachers; organizations of racially and nationally oppressed people; women’s rights organizations—all of these groups especially, as well as the African-American and Latino Democratic clubs, the progressive Democratic clubs, the peace movement and so on. This movement must defeat the Republicans in November, but at the same time it has to strengthen the anti-corporate, anti-racist currents pressuring the state Democratic Party. Many of these important progressive forces are working within the Working Families Party.

In doing all this, these forces help to build their own independence.

We should throw ourselves into the fight with the optimism of knowing that, despite Cuomo’s shortcomings, we can build the movement stronger and better, and the November elections can be a huge step forward in defeating the anti-worker, racist extremists and building a broader and more united movement for peace, equality, civil rights and democracy, both at the state and national levels.

State Committee

New York State Communist Party

NY progressives begin to line up behind Gillibrand

Despite the early date on the political calendar, Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., appointed to fill the seat vacated by now-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, has already picked up a spate of endorsements from labor, progressives, leaders of the African American and Latino communities, Democratic Party leaders and others.

Former New York City Comptroller Bill Thompson, who with a campaign budget of less than $10 million was able to come within five points of beating out billionaire mayor Michael Bloomberg in 2009, was the latest to offer his seal of approval. Gillibrand, according to Thompson, has been "putting more New Yorkers back to work and fighting for justice, fairness and equality for every single New Yorker."

Many are saying that, for a Democrat holding a statewide federal office, Gillibrand has strong progressive credentials. Indeed, a campaign has been organized by health care activists to call Gillibrand's office to thank her for taking a lead in the fight for health care reform. Gillibrand recently signed a letter urging Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to, despite the recent defeat in Massachusetts that took the Democrats' filibuster proof majority, ensure that real health care reform-with a public option-is passed. The letter advocates using the budget reconciliation process, which requires only 51 votes.

While 119 House Democrats have signed the letter, as have 300,000 grassroots activists, only a few Senators have added their names.

The early endorsements are necessary, many argue, because Gillibrand will likely face a stiff Republican Party challenger in November, and she's also likely to be targeted by African American conservative Democrat Harold Ford, a former member of Congress from Tennessee and current and vice chairman of Merrill Lynch.

While Ford's policies favor Wall Street over Main Street, Gillibrand has "worked every day to pass health-care reform that protects New York workers, covers the uninsured and makes health care affordable for working families," Raglan George, leader of AFSCME District Council 1707, the first citywide union to endorse Gillibrand, said. "And she's been working hard since day one to make sure every worker receives the fair and equal pay they deserve."

Ford, a leader of the conservative Democratic Leadership Council has sought to portray himself as a moderate, but his past has put progressive organizations on edge.

On national security he's said, "We've got to get tough on ‘illegals.'"

While a member of Congress, Ford voted for restrictive measures sought by anti-choice advocates: parental notification laws banning late term abortions.

NARAL Pro-Choice New York's Kelli Conlin, after meeting with Ford for forty minutes, said that while he can't be classified as "pro-life," he also can't be classified as pro-choice. Consequently, NARAL's national and local organizations endorsed Gillibrand, who has established herself as a pro-choice candidate. Even back in 2006, while campaigning for Congress, Gillibrand told the national conference of the National Organization for Women that the extreme right was undermining democracy and women's rights to choice in particular.

Many have argued that they will support Gillibrand because she has a proven ability to beat Republicans, even on their home turf. In 2006, Gillibrand was able to win the seat representing New York's 20th Congressional district, an area with a much larger number of registered Republicans than Democrats.

A number of commentators have openly wondered why Ford is running: Is he backed by Republicans, they ask, in order to weaken Gillibrand in the general election?

Others who have endorsed Gillibrand make up a broad cross-section of New Yorkers: the vast majority of Democratic Party county chairs, Rep. Nydia Velzques and a number of other members of New York's Congressional delegation, Emily's list, the pro-GLBT rights Human Rights Campaign, the Rev. Al Sharpton, the New York State United Teachers, the Public Employees Federation, as well as numerous other leaders and groups. Also, the White House has made clear that it supports Gillibrand.

Communist Party on NYC council election results: The struggle continues

New Yorkers elected a new city council November 3, with some remarkable, and contradictory, results. Some incumbents were sent packing, some new progressives were elected and some important victories were gained over the Brooklyn Democratic Party machine. At the same time, the pernicious effects of racism were exposed in some races, most notably the 19th district, in Queens.

Overall, the election results were better than might have been expected. Some of these important results are mentioned above. Another is that, for the first time in this city's more than 400-year history, most seats in the council are held by an African American, Latino, or Asian American, meaning that the council much more accurately represents the complexion of this predominately racially and nationally oppressed city. Four members, or about eight percent of the new council, will be openly gay, the highest number yet.

In addition, about 25 percent of the incoming council's members will be non-incumbents, i.e. new members. This is for various reasons: some went off to fight for higher office, others simply retired. But there is another, more important reason: popular revulsion with those city councilors who agreed to go along with Bloomberg's plan to override the will of New Yorkers and overturn the results of two term limits referenda-thus paving the way for himself to run for a third term. Many have seen this as an undemocratic power grab. Five incumbents were defeated, at least partially due to complicity in Bloomberg's power grab, marking the highest number of sitting councilors thrown out in nearly two decades.

At the same time, there were some serious setbacks. Two council seats were lost to Republicans, giving that party a total of five out of 51 seats. Worse still, one of the seats they picked up can be attributed to anti-Asian racism.

John Liu, the first Asian-American ever elected to any city office, left his council seat in the 20th district, which includes Flushing and surrounding Queens communities, to fight for-and win-the seat of city comptroller. There were several Democratic candidates who ran in the primary. Two Korean Americans, two Chinese Americans and a white candidate. In this district, the necessity was to build a coalition of Korean and Chinese people, as well as the relatively small African American community and some of the white population in order avoid a vote fractured along ethnic lines-and losing to the Republican.

John Choe, one of the Korean American candidates and Liu's former chief of staff, was in the best position to do this: he had worked for years with the entire community, and had the backing of the Queens Democratic Party. However, his candidacy was not able to overcome the divisions, especially given that another candidate, S.J. Jung, also a Korean American, received the backing of the Working Families Party. Choe ultimately lost to the little known Chinese American candidate Yen Chou, who lost to the (also Chinese) Republican candidate Peter Koo. It is worth noting that the margin of difference was less than the total number of votes cast for the Working Families Party and Green Party candidates if they were combined.

In the 19th council district, in Queens, Democrat and Korean-American Kevin Kim lost to Republican heathen Dan Halloran for the seat given up by Democrat Tony Avella. This, the other Republican pickup, looks to be due entirely to racism. Halloran ran an almost openly racist campaign, in which he essentially told voters that were Kim to be elected, Asian developers would change the entire community to look like (overwhelmingly Asian) downtown Flushing.

To make matters worse, the term used above, "heathen," was not an insult: this is what Halloran calls himself. In fact, he's a member of a bizarre religious sect called Theodism, which describes itself as heathen. This sect worships the gods and goddesses of Northern Europe-and has been linked to extreme racial beliefs.
Also, Kim's Asian campaign workers were reportedly harassed and surrounded by white thugs who chanted "white power" and "Asian man out!" all while carrying Halloran paraphernalia. It is clear that, in a district that is very much Catholic-and therefore not predisposed to vote for heathens and where Asian American campaign workers were set upon, and which had been previously Democratic, that the use of racism was the primary reason for Kim's loss.

It would be wrong to paint all whites in the 19th district as racist, of course. Halloran, beat Kim by only about 1,300 votes, so it is clear that at least a good section of the area's white population voted for Kim. Clearly, there is a basis here for the struggle against anti-Asian racism going forward.

At the same time, there were strong gains for Asian Americans. As mentioned above, John Liu, who was born in China's Taiwan province, has become the first-ever Asian-American elected to any citywide position. Also, Margaret Chin defeated incumbent Alan Gerson in the Democratic primary in the first city council district in Manhattan, making her the first ever Chinese representative of the district that includes Chinatown. Both of these elections are historic steps forward for the Asian American community, and New Yorkers should celebrate them.

In the 34th district, which represents Williamsburg and Bushwick, Brooklyn, as well as Ridgewood, Queens, incumbent Democrat Diana Reyna handily defeated, by a margin of 60-35 percent, her main opponent, Maritza Davila.

While Reyna is an incumbent Democrat, this race represents a victory for the grassroots. Vito Lopez, who represents the Brooklyn Democratic Party machine, and is notorious for alleged patronage and corruption scandals, and who is known to place people into office based on their allegiance to him, backed Davila, because Reyna, in essence, decided to fight for affordable housing instead of take Lopez's orders.

Even though she lost the Democratic primary, Lopez decided to take Davila to the general election anyway, on the Working Families Party line: He made an unholy alliance between himself, Democratic clubs he controls, the WFP and the Catholic Church. (The Brooklyn diocese is particularly thankful to Lopez for helping to scuttle state-level legislation that would have lifted the statute of limitations on child rape; the church claimed that if all their victims in Brooklyn and Queens were awarded compensation, the diocese would likely be bankrupted.)

Lopez failed miserably, delivering a rout to the Brooklyn Democratic machine, and empowering progressive currents within the party there.

On Staten Island's north shore, in a blow against racism, Debi Rose was elected the first African American council person to serve any area of the Island. In addition, Rose is openly progressive; she's a member of Staten Island's Peace Action and other organizations.

In uptown Manhattan, Ydanis Rodriguez, who is connected to Dominican left organizations, won with 94.7 percent of the vote-10,672 ballots to 592-after winning about 60 percent of the vote in a six-way primary. Rodriguez has been a staple figure in New York City progressive politics, especially in the fight for immigration reform.

In the primary elections, Jumaane Williams beat incumbent Kendall Stewart in the 45th district in Brooklyn, making him the first Grenadian to ever occupy a seat in the council. So ebullient was the Grenadian population, in New York City and abroad, Williams and his family were invited to meet with, and be congratulated by, the Prime Minister of Grenada. Williams beat Stewart in a six-way primary race by 12 points. Stewart, unpopular for siding with Mayor Michael Bloomberg in changing city term limit laws over the objections of city voters, ran on the Independence Party line in the general elections, after running an extremely dirty campaign. In that election, he suffered an even worse defeat, by a difference of 59.1 points.

Williams, who is only 32, has worked with progressive city council members, including Rosie Mendez, D-Manhattan and others, and has spent his time fighting for housing rights.

Of course, New York City has a number of progressive city councilors who were reelected. Perhaps the most well-loved on this list would be Letitia James, who enjoys an almost celebrity status in Brooklyn, as well as around the other boroughs, for her work in civil and human rights, as well as leading the fight against Forest City Rattner, a multi-billion dollar developer aiming to demolish much of the Fort Greene and Prospect Heights sections of Brooklyn in order to build luxury condos.

Twice in this discussion the Working Families Party was mentioned as playing a nefarious role. This fact cannot be avoided, but, at the same time, it is important not to demonize the WFP. Virtually all of the elected progressives (aside from Reyna) were backed by them. As the party is based in the city's labor movement, both the progressive and reactionary trends on display in the latter are also on display in the former. As we were so glaringly shown in the mayoral race, there are some big divisions in the labor movement-and they were also on display in these elections as well. The question for progressives becomes not how to defeat the Working Families Party, but how to help it, and all of labor, become more united, and to defeat reactionary trends. A weakening of the WFP would be a weakening of the progressive movement. The same goes for labor overall: progressives must work to help unite the labor movement.

Further, the Working Families Party is now leading or has recently led a number of important campaigns: it is fighting to ensure that all New Yorkers are eligible for paid sick days; it fought for fair share tax reform a few months ago; and, in what may have been its most heroic move this election cycle, the party fought a strong, if unsuccessful, battle to stop Bloomberg from overturning the term limits law.

This is only a brief sampling of some of the more exciting races, and some preliminary analysis, but even here it can be seen that the results of the elections were contradictory: some reasons for jubilant optimism, as well as reasons to renew important fights, especially against racism (as the mayoral election showed) are on display.

The struggle continues.

Statement on Disqualifications of DeBlasio and Alan Gerson from Ballots

Every so often, something happens that shines a light on an important problem that is usually hidden. The actions taken by the NYC Board of Elections, in which Bill DeBlasio and Alan Gerson were thrown off the ballot for Public Advocate and City Council, respectively, illustrates the point.

DeBlasio needed less than 10,000 petition signatures to get on the ballot in September; he turned in around 125,000. Why was he thrown off? An idiotic technicality: His campaign staff filled out a form wrong—by a single digit. The campaign turned in 132 folders of signed petitions, but mistakenly wrote on the form that they had 131 folders. The fact that this error would actually count against DeBlasio, making it seem that he had less signatures, and therefore couldn’t possibly be in any way interpreted as fraud didn’t matter—he was disqualified from the ballot.

For Gerson, it was the same type of thing: Gerson needed only 900 petition signatures, but turned in around 7,000. Unfortunately, because of an error made by Gerson’s printer, his wrong home address was displayed on the forms: Instead of his house number being listed correct as 505, it was listed as 1505. Gerson’s team corrected the error; they crossed the extra digit off. But that didn’t matter either—Gerson was disqualified.
Whatever one thinks of DeBlasio or Gerson, this is sheer lunacy.

Both DeBlasio and Gerson are scheduled for a hearing at the Board of Elections. If they lose there, they will go to the courts, which will most likely reverse the negative BOE decisions. Nonetheless, New York’s system is full of this kind of preposterous nonsense. These hyper-technical rules, the intricacies of getting on the ballot, are pointless. Worse than that, they are anti-democratic. For example, a candidate with strong support in his or her community but who is underfunded may not be able to go to court to challenge such disqualifications.

Under this system, candidates with less money—less money to employ lawyers to make sure that all of the city’s arcane filing regulations are fulfilled, and less money to fight battles if the Board of Elections says they’re not—are at a disadvantage.

In the interest of democracy and allowing New Yorkers the right to vote for whom they wish, we call for the city’s filing regulations to be simplified dramatically. There is simply no real argument for these rules.

The law allows for finding submissions valid if the error is insignificant, thus leaving room for the BOE’s discretion. The problem is that the Board of Elections is controlled by the right wing of the Democratic Party machine. We believe that either an independent review panel should be set up to handle any of these types of issues and to watch over the BOE, or to at least put it fully under the control of the city council.

This would be another step, albeit a small one, towards a more democratic New York.

By Dan Margolis
New York State Communist Party

Upset could shift Empire State politics

By Dan Margolis

QUEENS, N.Y. — A major shift in the politics of New York state may be under way, and a local state senate race here may play a big part.

The race, in New York’s 15th State Senatorial district here, could help decide the fate of the state’s Legislature post-Nov. 4. The diverse district, long a Republican stronghold, could flip Democratic and in so doing, if the Democrats maintain their current seats and flip one other district in the state, would help elect the first Democrat-controlled State Senate in decades.

That, many say, would be a huge victory for the labor movement, tenants’ organizations and women and a defeat for big developers and the Republican right.

In this hot race, New York City Council member Joseph Addabbo is challenging Republican State Sen. Serphin Maltese, who has held the district’s seat for 20 years. Maltese has been a conservative icon for years, and was a founding member of New York’s far-right-wing Conservative Party.

A wide array of organizations have been involved in Addabbo’s campaign, including labor, women’s rights organizations and the Working Families Party, a statewide political party founded by unions and community organizations. The WFP has become influential in the state’s political scene, and is credited with providing the margin of victory for a number of progressive Democrats.

Working Families Party spokesperson Dan Levitan said Maltese “has helped block basic, fundamental things like raising the minimum wage or establishing a paid family leave program — simple, common sense things that most normal people favor but the Republicans in Albany have been able to block.”

“He is the most pro-landlord member of the state senate,” said Michael McKee, treasurer of the tenants’ rights organization TenantPAC. Maltese has not attended any meetings with organized tenants in at least 15 years, though he routinely meets with local property owners’ associations, McKee noted.

Addabbo’s victory is “entirely probably, but it's not guaranteed by any means,” McKee warned. Victory will likely be determined by who has the best get-out-the-vote operation on Election Day, he said.

To help bring in an Addabbo victory, Levitan said, the Working Families Party is bringing its experienced field operations into the race. “There are tons of volunteers; we’re knocking on tens of thousands of doors,” he said.

Some in the labor movement have argued that it is good for labor to have a divided Legislature because it means Republicans and Democrats have to fight for labor’s support, and therefore will pursue a pro-labor agenda.

“We disagree,” Levitan said. “We think that there are some big issues that need solving in New York, and the Republicans have clearly expressed their desire not to deal with them.”

Recently, some unions that used to support the divided-Legislature concept, like 1199SEIU Healthcare Workers East, an electoral powerhouse, have moved away from this idea, and although it still accepted by some unionists, it seems to be on its way out.

There are a number of other races across New York state where a Democrat may win a Republican seat, including such diverse places as Western New York and Westchester County.

Progressive activists across the board agree that a Democratic victory will be just a start. Levitan said, “There’s still going to be work to do. In fact, we’ll have to work just as hard.”

But at least, he said, “one major obstacle will be gone.”

Reprinted from the People's Weekly World

Bloomberg Tries to Slip in a Third Term

Last week New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg announced his intention to run for a third term as mayor of the country’s largest city. He called on the City Council to pass legislation that would change the City Charter, which currently bars him (and City Council members) from holding office more than twice. City Council Speaker Christine Quinn has obliged the Mayor and helped introduce a bill extending city offices to three terms instead of two. A competing measure was introduced by City Council members Bill de Blasio and Letitia James calling for a new public referendum on the issue of term limits. Two such referenda in 1993 and 1996 established then reaffirmed term limits.

The long-rumored move by the mayor has thrown city politics for a loop. Whether or not they support term limits, many New Yorkers are outraged at the prospect of the City Council overturning two voter referenda just weeks before the Presidential elections.

The debate over term limits is important. Frankly we are largely against term limits. But the proposal of the mayor does little to facilitate a real discussion of the pros and cons of the issue. It is a last-minute ploy for the mayor to hold power past his 2009 final year. Just as the introduction of term limits 15 years ago through a highly financed publicity campaign, the process largely serves the interests of city’s elites.

Any legislation, and certainly a major decision such as this, must be judged by its impact negative or positive on the working people of New York: all the workers, the racially oppressed people, immigrant, women and youth of the city. This proposal puts the city administration back in the hands of Bloomberg who has been a loyal servant of his fellow billionaires, monopolists and financiers. We need a champion of working people and their issues, not a budget-slashing billionaire who puts private development first and will be quick to tighten belts while he is immune to the suffering.

Bloomberg, who was recently ranked the 8th richest man in the U.S. by Forbes Magazine, has been good to the big developers and his Wall Street buddies over the past seven years. The mayor has championed massive capital developments like Atlantic Yards, various sports stadiums that are receiving huge city subsidies and tax breaks and other private projects that use public financing. City elites are unhappy to see such a friend leave office. A recent New York Times article detailed how developers, financiers and other mega-rich New Yorkers were desperate to find a Bloomberg clone to replace him. With an extension of term limits they don’t need one.

Richard Lauder, another billionaire on Forbes’ list, financed the original campaign to impose term limits. Lauder and other big business elites supported term limits at the time because it suited their interests. They wanted to keep the revolving door on city offices turning to minimize the impact of progressive and even centrist elected officials. Lauder and Bloomberg recently said they were against changing term limits. But now Bloomberg remaining in office serves the billionaires’ interests. Under the pretense of the financial crisis, they claim they were forced into the change. Suddenly Bloomberg has reversed himself and even Lauder is now on board, because “these are extraordinary times.” Of course, the mayor has also promised to make Lauder head of a “Charter Revision Commission” to bring a term limits referendum before voters in 2010. Apparently the mayor believes a unilateral decision to put another billionaire in charge will make the process very transparent and unbiased. We think not.

Of course, Bloomberg’s relative popularity is what makes the move appealing to the mayor and his backers. If he was lagging in the polls, you can bet that none of them would be raising the issue of term limits. Despite the skyrocketing rents, crumbling schools, devastation to communities, corruption and cronyism, erosion of construction regulation and enforcement, police abuse and misconduct and a host of other problems that New Yorkers face, many do not blame Bloomberg. Many of the mayor’s worst policies are invisible to the average New Yorker. And Bloomberg is masterful at the PR game (he is, among other things, a media mogul after all).

Even if term limits are extended, the election for mayor is a year away. It remains to be seen if Bloomberg’s popularity can stand up through the deepening economic mess, several major labor contract negotiations and increasing anger of gentrification.

Some commentators have hinted that New York ”needs” a billionaire like Bloomberg since he understands the Wall Street crisis, which is having disproportionate impact in the city. Of course, they fail to mention that Bloomberg and his friends in the financial district are part of the problem that led us into this mess. Bloomberg is a creature of Wall Street. He worked for Salomon Brothers, did business with Merril Lynch, and cuts deals every day with the very crooks who got rich playing games with the economy. Famously he promised $1.65 billion in tax breaks to Goldman Sachs to lure their headquarters to their Ground Zero site.

Bloomberg despite shedding his GOP membership to become an “independent” is of the same opinion as Bush, McCain and the Republican Party that regulation is bad and that “the market knows best.” The Bloomberg policies have brought cranes crashing down around our ears just as the financial house of cards has come tumbling down. The U.S public has been bombarded with the idea that business can fix what government screwed up. The financial crisis and the $800 billion-plus government bailout of the private banks should put that lie to rest for good. Bloomberg, however, is hoping to use this false logic one more time to get reelected in 2009. He remains the CEO Mayor.

Many people are also upset by the way the mayor wants to make the change. “People—even elected officials—are allowed to change their minds,” The Working Families Party (WFP) stated in a press release. “But doing so on a momentous, constitutional change deserves full deliberation and patience.” WFP has set up a website, www.ItsOurDecision.org which calls for New Yorkers to oppose City Council action whether or not they support term limits. They and others believe the problem is the City Council overriding the will of the people.

But that’s only part of the issue. The imposition of term limits at this time by the mayor is clearly aimed at manipulating the public fears over the financial meltdown and slipping the proposal in during the buildup to the Presidential elections. Bloomberg had time to introduce a referendum on the ballot for November, but he played coy (as he did with running for President) in order to play his advantage. The process should be slowed down and thoroughly debated.

Communists have long believed that term limits are largely undemocratic, taking away the right of the people to elect who they will. Proponents of term limits argue that incumbents have an unfair advantage and can rarely be elected out of office. They believe that term limits ensure new blood in the political arena. It may, but it also ensures that strong representatives for working-class constituencies have to leave office just as they become experienced and effective advocates.

Since term limits became law in 1993 by popular referendum, the rule has also created political seat-hopping which often pits progressives against each other for higher office once their City Council terms are up. This musical chairs scenario is costly and encourages using public office as a stepping-stone instead of encouraging elected officials to be real representatives of the people and their interests.

But the previous referenda should not necessarily the final word on the matter. It has been over a decade since the last public referendum. The vote at the time was heavily influenced by a big money public relations campaign to influence public opinion. And leaving he current matter to referendum faces the same problem. The public may swing the other way due to fear mongering and well-financed campaigning by Bloomberg and Co. Or people will support the change because of the candidate not the principle. The point is not just how term limits changes, but who it changes for and what they stand for.

At the federal level, Members of Congress and Senators face no term limits. Only the Executive Branch, the office of the Presidency is subject to term limits. This is part of the checks and balances that developed over time. The executive branch is perhaps too powerful to go on without limit, while the Congress is the voice of the people and needs stability to stand up for the people.

Perhaps the same should be true at the city level. As the real debate about term limits continues and New Yorkers decide how the city should be governed, why not propose that the Mayor’s office be limited to some number of terms while the City Council—which, of course, is much more susceptible to being voted out if they lose the favor of the people—have no limit.

Of course, the other tragedy of the timing of Bloomberg’s move is that is distracts everyone from the urgent issues facing working-class New Yorkers right now: the financial crisis and its impact on local tax revenues, jobs, etc.; the attempt to renew disastrous mayoral powers over public education; the proposed social service and jobs cuts in Albany and City Hall; negotiating fair contracts with city workers, transit workers and others; the impending crisis in public transit, etc. A decision on term limits will help determine the occupancy of the Mayor’s Office and the City Council for 2010, but working people have urgent concerns still in 2008. Finally, this is a big distraction from the most important election of our time, just weeks away.

Nonetheless, we encourage everyone to come out to the public hearings October 16 & 17 in City Hall and voice their opposition not just to the way these term changes are being introduced but also to the Bloomberg Administration and his policies. This issue is not clear-cut. Progressives, unions and grassroots organizations have ended up on both sides of the question and many others remain neutral or just downright confused. We have to approach it with an eye toward the main problem we face: a possible four more years Bloomberg Administration.

The real criteria for any decision should be, what is good for the working people of the city, the great majority of the people? What gives them the greatest voice and power in a city more and more ruled by a small set of billionaire elites, with Bloomberg as their direct representative?

NYC Labor Day: Time for a Change

This Labor Day working people and their families in New York State are in an exciting and challenging moment. For the first time in years, the labor movement together with its broad movement allies, has the potential to change the course of the country in a more positive direction.

The 2008 Presidential election is historic. Not only has the Democratic Party nominated an African American as its candidate for the first time, but there have also been record turnouts in the primaries and a vibrant grassroots movement has developed.

What’s at stake for working people in the election couldn’t be starker.

McCain represents four more years of the failed Bush policies of war and aggression, tax-breaks for the rich and big corporations, and destruction of social services vital to working-class communities. On the other hand, the candidacy of Barack Obama reflects and represents the massive desire for change: for a livable environment and a sustainable world, for jobs with justice, for peace and progress, for fair taxes and a program to rebuild our cities and towns. Let's be clear, there is a big difference between these two choices. McCain is no "maverick." He is a real conservative who puts the "rights" of the rich and corporations ahead of the needs of the working majority. McCain received a dismal zero percent pro-labor voting record for 2007 while Obama has a stellar 100 percent record and said he looks forward to signing the Employee Free Choice Act into law as our next President.

25 percent of the Democratic Party’s Convention delegates were union members, while the GOP Convention speakers took turns bashing unions and blaming them for the economic crisis in the country.

Of course, deeper Democratic majorities in the House and Senate and in an increase in progressives in the Congress will also shift the terrain in Washington, opening the way for legislation to turn-back the damage of the Bush years, and to repair the country from 30 years of right-wing rule. This is no time to sit out the election.

We not only have a chance to undo the Bush Agenda, but to win big transformative victories and set the stage for higher levels of struggle. A decisive electoral victory in November will lead the way to passage of the Employee Free Choice Act, the end of the occupation of Iraq and implement some form a of national health care. The working-class has been on the defensive for decades, this election has the chance to put the movements back on offense, to set the agenda for the country.

The potential for change is not just in Washington. There is a chance for a shift in the balance of forces in Albany as well. For the first time in decades, the Republicans could lose control of the New York State Senate. No longer will they be able to block progressive legislation, block taxation on the rich, and block reform of out-of-date laws like the Taylor Law, which bans public workers from striking.

A big people’s victory in November is not the end of the struggle, but a new beginning on more favorable ground. The mass movements of the people: the peace movement, student movement, civil rights movement, women’s movement, and labor movement have to keep the pressure on to ensure a new Democratic Administration and Legislature keep the promise to meet the people’s needs.

Together, we can win in November and together we can go on the to change the world.