THIS IS A CALCULATED EFFORT TO END ELECTIONS IN AMERICA!
THERE IS NO ANALYSIS OF POLITICS.....NO DISCUSSION OF HOW THESE ISSUES WILL AFFECT THE PEOPLE, NO HISTORY OF POLICY STANCE. O'MALLEY WAS ELECTED ON HIS STANCE AGAINST GAMBLING IN HIS CAMPAIGN WITH EHRLICH. YOU WILL NOT SEE MAINSTREAM MEDIA MAKE ANY REFERENCE TO THAT BECAUSE IT WILL BE USED IN NATIONAL ELECTIONS. IT IS DELIBERATE AND IT IS HOW OUR NATIONAL ELECTIONS ARE COMPLETELY ORCHESTRATED TO OUR DETRIMENT.
BELOW IS A STANDARD NPR PIECE ON THE PRESIDENTIALCAMPAIGN. YOU NOTICE NEITHER CANDIDATE ARE FIGHTING FOR ISSUES......ROMNEY'S TAXES AND OBAMA'S HEALTH CARE REFORM ARE IT. NOT ONE MENTION OF POLICY THAT WILL ADDRESS THE NEEDS OF THE PEOPLE AND A HEALTHY DIRECTION FOR THE COUNTRY. THE REASON BEING THAT BOTH CANDIDATES SUPPORT THE SAME ISSUES. IF ROMNEY WINS HE WILL CONTINUE THE EDUCATION REFORM THAT OBAMA IS PUSHING, HE WILL CONTINUE THE PRIVATE HEALTH SYSTEM TO GLOBAL INDUSTRY POLICY FOR HEALTH CARE WITH ENTITLEMENTS BECOMING BLOCK GRANTS AS OBAMA IS DOING, HE WILL ADOPT OBAMA'S SECURITY PLANS, AND HE WILL CONTINUE MOVING CORPORATE TAXES TO ZERO JUST AS OBAMA IS DOING. THE POLICIES ARE NO DIFFERENT AND THAT IS WHY YOU ARE HEARING NOTHING OF ANY CONSEQUENCE IN THE CAMPAIGN-----------THEY ARE BOTH CORPORATE POLITICIANS WITH THE SAME POLICIES! THE DISTINCTION THAT THIRD WAY DEMOCRATS TRY TO MAKE WITH THEIR PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS OF GOVERNMENT AND CORPORATIONS IS SIMPLY A PLOY. THE RESULT OF THESE PARTNERSHIPS WILL BE PRIVATIZATION.
LOOK LOCALLY TO SEE HOW MEDIA IS FAILING US. I WENT TO A CONFIRMATION HEARING OF CITY OFFICERS. I GIVE MY PERSONAL VIEWS AS TO THE RESPONSIBILITIES THESE DEPARTMENT HEADS HAVE IN ADVOCATING FOR PUBLIC INTEREST. I DARE SAY THAT IF NOT A MAJORITY AGREE, THERE ARE A SOLID NUMBER OF PEOPLE AGREEING WITH MY VIEW, YET WE NEVER HEAR THEM ON BALTIMORE MEDIA.
I SPOKE YESTERDAY AT BALTIMORE'S PUBLIC TESTIMONY FOR SELECTED DEPARTMENT HEADS. IT IS WHERE CITIZENS COME FORWARD FOR THE ONLY OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE A STATEMENT ON A CANDIDATE DESIGNATED TO HEAD A CITY AGENCY. ONE LADY DARED ASK WHY SHE COULD NOT BE INVOLVED IN THE SELECTION OF THESE DEPARTMENT HEADS.......WHO WOULD THINK OF SUCH A THING?
YOU CAN FEEL THE TOTAL DISINTEREST IN WHAT THE PUBLIC HAD TO SAY AND YOU SAW YOUR ELECTED OFFICIALS SIMPLY WANTING TO GET THE AFFIRMATION OVER....AFTER ALL, THE PUBLIC COMMENTS WERE UNIMPORTANT. WHAT DOES FEEL GOOD AS A CITIZEN IS HAVING AN OPPORTUNITY TO FACE YOUR ELECTED OFFICIALS......BELIEVE ME YOU RARELY GET AN APPOINTMENT AS THE GENERAL PUBLIC AND ESPECIALLY IF YOU HAVE AN OPPOSING VIEW.......AND STATE TO THEM AND TO THESE NEWLY REAPPOINTED DEPARTMENT HEADS JUST WHAT THE PROBLEMS REALLY ARE. THEY ARE FORCED TO HEAR THE TRUTH.
SO I LET THE FIRE CHIEF KNOW THAT THE PROBLEMS WITH PUBLIC PENSIONS WAS THE CITY COUNCIL AND MAYOR'S DEFUNDING OF THESE PENSIONS AND THE INVESTMENTS OF THESE PENSIONS IN RISKY FINANCIAL INSTRUMENTS THAT ANYONE KNEW WERE BAD INVESTMENTS. THE SOLUTION IS RETURNING TO THE STATE BILLIONS IN FINANCIAL FRAUD AND AS ELECTED OFFICIALS AND AS AN APPOINTED DEPARTMENT HEAD......THAT IS WHERE CLACK'S VOICE SHOULD BE, NOT MUMBLING ABOUT BUDGET SHORTFALLS. HIS SUPPORT FOR CUTTING WAGE AND PENSIONS AND CLOSING FIREHOUSES SHOWS HIS FAILURE IN HIS JOB.
NEXT, I LET THE BALTIMORE PUBLIC HEALTH COMMISSIONER KNOW THAT THE CITY'S CITIZENS ARE PRIMARILY MEDICAID AND MEDICARE RECIPIENTS AND THAT EVERYONE KNOWS A PRIVATE HEALTH SYSTEM WILL EXCLUDE ANY MEANINGFUL CARE FOR THESE TWO ENTITLEMENT PROGRAMS. i ALSO REMINDED HER THAT ENTITLEMENT FRAUD COSTS $200 BILLION EVERY YEAR TO THE SYSTEM......BILLIONS IN EACH STATE, THAT COULD GIVE UNIVERSAL HEALTH COVERAGE IN MARYLAND IF IT WEREN'T FOR THE FACT THAT MARYLAND HAS NO STATE LAWS ON HEALTH FRAUD AND CAPS AWARDS SO LOW AS TO MIRROR THE FINANCIAL FRAUD LAWS. I TOLD HER AND THE COUNCIL THAT FAILURE TO SHOUT LOUDLY FOR ATTORNEYS GENERAL TO PURSUE FRAUD AND LEGISLATORS TO INACT AND ENFORCE FRAUD LAWS SHOULD BE HER TOP PRIORITY.
LASTLY I SPOKE TO THE BALTIMORE TRANSPORTATION HEAD ABOUT THE MOVEMENT IN THE CITY AS IN THE STATE TO PRIVATIZE PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION WITH VEOLA. I SPOKE OF PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION BEING THE GREAT DEMOCRATIZER.....ALLOWING PEOPLE TO LIVE WHERE THEY CHOSE AND SUBSIDIES ALLOWING PEOPLE TO TRAVEL AS THEY NEED WITHOUT AGONIZING OVER COST. THAT IS A POLICY OF PUBLIC INTEREST. I LET THEM KNOW THAT I ATTEND STATE MEETINGS WHERE THE TALK OF PRIVATIZING MTA IS COMMON......THIS AS THE BALTIMORE CITY COUNCILMAN TRIED TO ASSURE ME THAT WASN'T THEIR INTENTION................OH, RIGHT! I LEFT THE TRANSPORATION HEAD WITH HIS MISSION AS AN AGENT OF THE CITIZENS OF BALTIMORE TO PROTECT AND STRENGTHEN THE MTA, WHICH HAS BEEN DEFUNDED AND LEFT IN ADMINISTRATIVE SHAMBLES.......JUST LIKE THE SCHOOLS......AS A WAY TO SAY THEY NEED TO PRIVATIZE TO FIX THE SYSTEM. PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION WAS BEEN THE BEST IN THE WORLD UNTIL IT WAS DEFUNDED AND IT WAS DEFUNDED BECAUSE OF EVER LOWER CORPORATE TAX REVENUE.
THESE BALTIMORE AND MARYLAND POLITICIANS ARE SAYING TO YOU AND I:
WE WILL GIVE CORPORATIONS EVERY TAX BREAK AND GIVE THEM YOUR PUBLIC ASSETS TO BOOT.......THAT IS THEIR COMMITMENT!
VOTE YOUR INCUMBENT OUT!!!!
MY COMMENTS TO NPR:
I feel so sorry for America's journalists. The US had one of the strongest and most free press who fought to hold government accountable and fought for democratic principles. Now they are reduced to a Presidential campaign that pits tax returns over ObamaCare.
In case NPR journalists feel the need to bring media back to its former glory days, the issues for the people are:
Failure to bring back trillions in fraud from the massive financial fraud and enact financial reform protections; failure to reign in global expansion of corporations at the expense of domestic growth through economic policy; the breakdown in civil liberties across all sectors...civil rights, public privacy, and police state conditions; and the privatization of public education with Wall Street charter schools.
Don't you feel that as America's media, these issues should be front and center in any discussion of the candidates and the election"
THIS MEDIA PIECE IS RUBBISH!!! IT IS NPR
In Brawl Over Romney's Tax Returns, Harry Reid Gets Marquee Billing
August 8, 2012 by Don Gonyea NPR
Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney's decision not to release more of his past tax returns has fueled countless attacks and counterattacks.
The former Massachusetts governor has released his 2010 tax return and promises that his 2011 return is forthcoming. He says that's enough.
But that's not enough for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev. The result is an increasingly ugly fight.
Reid has been making allegations about Romney's taxes for a while now. Almost a month ago on the Senate floor, Reid spoke of Romney's father, George, who released 12 years of tax returns when he sought the GOP presidential nomination in 1968.
"Mitt Romney can't do that because he's basically paid no taxes in the prior 12 years," Reid said.
That accusation was overshadowed by Reid's other claim that day — that Romney couldn't be confirmed as a "dog catcher" given his secrecy over taxes.
Both statements were seen as classic Harry Reid.
"Reid has a history of what we call in Nevada 'Reidisms' — sort of saying things that oftentimes he has to ... walk back," says David Damore, a professor at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas.
Damore recalls the time Reid called President George W. Bush "a loser" or when he labeled former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan a "political hack." But Damore says this attack on Romney seems different.
"Usually, these are sort of one-line comments here. This seems to be more of a full-court press on Romney. He seems to see a vulnerability here, and keeps pushing it," Damore says.
Reid pushed the button again when he spoke to The Huffington Post last week:
"Saying he had 'no problem with somebody being really, really wealthy,' Reid sat up in his chair a bit before stirring the pot further. A month or so ago, he said, a person who had invested with Bain Capital called his office.
'Harry, he didn't pay any taxes for 10 years,' Reid recounted the person as saying."
Reid responded to the ensuing GOP cries of foul on the Senate floor last Thursday, saying: "The word's out that he hasn't paid any taxes for 10 years. Let him prove that he has paid taxes — because he hasn't."
That same afternoon Romney was on the radio show hosted by conservative Fox News personality Sean Hannity. When asked by Hannity if he had a response to Reid's accusation, Romney laughed, then replied: "It's time for Harry to put up or shut up. Harry's going to have to describe who it is he spoke with, because of course that's totally and completely wrong."
On the Sunday morning network TV talk shows, the topic was still hot. This time it was Romney's surrogates going on the attack against Reid. On ABC's This Week, RNC Chairman Reince Priebus said he wouldn't respond to Reid, calling him "a dirty liar."
And with that, Priebus gave the storyline yet another boost.
Romney himself has accused the White House and the Obama campaign of orchestrating Reid's comments. Jay Carney, President Obama's press secretary, has been peppered with questions about it.
On Monday, Carney said: "I would refer you to Sen. Reid. ... Only Sen. Reid knows his source."
But Carney was quick to point out that Romney's taxes first became an issue during the primaries, when his Republican rivals demanded that he release more of his returns.
Damore says there's little incentive for Reid to back down. He's not up for re-election until 2016.
"I don't think he sees any downside to this. Again, he's driving the narrative for these last couple of weeks," Damore says.
And in doing battle with Reid, Romney is up against someone who's not even on the ballot, who most Americans don't really know and — as a former amateur boxer — who clearly enjoys a good fight
BELOW YOU SEE A STANDARD STATEMENT ON MEDIA AND DEMOCRATIC ELECTIONS. THIS IS WRITTEN FOR NEW DEMOCRACIES FORMING FROM COLLAPSED REGIMES. TIME AND AGAIN I HEAR MEDIA MAKING STATEMENTS ABOUT WHAT IT IS TO BE A DEMOCRACY WITHOUT MEANTIONING THE FAILURES HERE IN AMERICA! OUR MEDIA IS FAILING THE PEOPLE OVERWHELMINGLY BY ALLOWING THE REAL ISSUES TO LIE DORMANT.
Media Freedom and Democratic Elections Democracy Assistance, Elections
Anthony Clive Bowyer, Program Manager, Caucasus & Central Asia
April 26, 2011 - IFES
A strong correlation exists between a free media environment and the degree to which we can call an election “democratic;” that is, assessing an election’s outcome not in the sense of who wins and who loses, but whether the process itself is free and fair. A free and independent media is essential to the integrity of the election process because a poll cannot be considered open and fair unless the mass media in a country are able to report on all aspects and stages of the election cycle without interference on a fair and equitable basis.
The media help make elections more free and fair in many ways. First, they shed light on issues the public needs to be aware of when it comes to politics and candidates. Second, they can have a galvanizing effect on voters as diversity in the way the issues are covered and the different creative and technologically savvy ways of message delivery can cut through electoral weariness and voter apathy. Third, they add to a country’s accountability efforts by constantly assessing where politicians stand on their promises and by pointing out what needs improvement in the country. The media also helps foster and promote the democratic debate in a country by providing a platform to different factions.
The following two legal guarantees highlight and protect the role of media in elections: Article 7.8 of the Copenhagen Document (1990) states that “to ensure that the will of the people serves as the basis of the authority of government, the participating States will provide that no legal or administrative obstacle stands in the way of unimpeded access to the media on a non-discriminatory basis for all political groupings and individuals wishing to participate in the electoral process.”
The OSCE Standards on Democratic Elections further defines the role of media in elections in terms of best practices, in that, “all candidates and political parties must be provided sufficient access to media in order for voters to become adequately informed of views, programs and opinions of the electoral contestants; the formula for allocating media access among candidates and political parties must be fair, understandable and capable of objective application; coverage by state supported or sponsored media must be neutral, unbiased, and on a non-discriminatory basis.”
BALTIMORE'S WYPR HAD POLITICAL COMMENTATOR BASU ON AIR TO SAY THAT THE WELFARE REFORM BY CLINTON WAS A RESOUNDING SUCCESS. I WROTE IMMEDIATELY TO TELL THEM THAT ALL RESEARCH INDICATES THAT THIS REFORM WAS A CATASTROPHE FOR POOR FAMILIES WHO CAN'T FIND JOBS. IT WAS THE PRECURSOR OF THE EXPLODING BLACK MARKET OF DRUGS AND PROSTITUTION IN UNDERSERVED COMMUNITES AND YET........ON PUBLIC MEDIA......WE SEE PROPAGANDA AND NOT FAIR, INVESTIGATIVE JOURNALISM. IT IS CRITICAL TO HOLD YOUR LOCAL STATIONS ACCOUNTABLE FOR THEIR FAILURES AS THEY ARE A DEMOCRACY'S GATEKEEPERS!
How Welfare Reform Failed Families In Poverty In Two Charts
By Pat Garofalo on Aug 8, 2012 at 3:45 pm
Bill Clinton signs welfare reform.
The Romney campaign on Tuesday accused the Obama administration of attempting to “gut welfare reform,” a charge that former President Bill Clinton — who signed welfare reform into law in 1996 — called “not true.” All the administration has done is give states the ability to experiment with new programs, provided that they still meet federal requirements.
In the meantime, Romney has been blasting around press releases noting that Obama was opposed to the 1996 welfare reform law, with the obvious implication being that the law was successful. However, the current welfare program, called Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, is far less responsive to the needs of Americans than its predecessors. It fell woefully short during the Great Recession, getting aid to just a fraction of those who needed it.
As this chart from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities shows, in 1979, welfare reached 82 out of every 100 families with children who were living in poverty. By 2010, that had dropped to just 27, leaving many impoverished families out to dry:
These troublesome characteristics also pre-date the recession. This chart shows the drop in poor children receiving benefits that occurred between 1988 and 2003:
As the American Prospect put it, “At the heart of the worst recession in 80 years, TANF funds only reached 4.5 million individuals, or 28 percent of those living in poverty. By contrast, in 1995, the old welfare system covered 13.5 million individuals, or 75 percent of those living in poverty.” This drop occurred for a host of reasons, several of them tied to the 1996 law.
The social safety net is supposed to be available for those who need it during an economic emergency, and TANF was simply inadequate for the task at hand. But this hasn’t warranted any campaign trail discussion