Social Democrats have simply abandoned all messaging in the Democratic Party and that is driven by the loss of media balance----loss of national organizations for labor and justice-----and it comes from the deliberate deceptive progressive posing in neo-liberals and how they present bills in Congress, the Maryland Assembly, and Baltimore City Hall. Most of the outlets today on social media are Clinton neo-liberal outlet posing progressive----most of the petitioning outlets are Clinton neo-liberal.
Below are the most important deceptive messaging in media today-----the constant tie of Koch Brothers to far-right economic policy written by global corporations while installed by Clinton neo-liberals in Congress---state assembly---city hall. Baltimore citizens can see the same agenda here in Baltimore-----the same very, very, very neo-conservative environment described in this article----only our pols run as Democrats and are painted 'progressive'.
These Wall Street global neo-liberals
ARE PUSHING ALL OF THE AMERICAN LEGISLATIVE EXCHANGE COUNCIL POLICIES WHILE SHOUTING IT IS THE KOCH BROTHERS AND FAR-RIGHT REPUBLICANS DOING IT. There is nothing 'public interest' about ALEC.
Obama and Clinton neo-liberals have made every major policy these several years be ALEC global corporate policies. These are not small business Chamber of Commerce people---these are global corporations and ALEC is just a sample of what global corporate tribunal rule under Trans Pacific Trade Pact will look like.
Neo-liberals are constantly spinning messages blaming Republicans for policies they are installing and then national media repeats what they say----none of it being true.
About the American Legislative Exchange Council
The American Legislative Exchange Council is America’s largest nonpartisan, voluntary membership organization of state legislators. Comprised of nearly one-quarter of the country’s state legislators, business and thought leaders, think tank scholars and individuals, ALEC provides a unique forum for diverse groups to exchange ideas and develop real, state-based solutions that encourage growth, preserve economic security and protect hardworking taxpayers.
ALEC is a forum for exchange of ideas (a place for continuing education of state legislators)
ALEC provides nonpartisan study, analysis and research focused on protecting hardworking taxpayers, identifying the appropriate balance of power between the states and the federal government and determining innovative approaches to state policy challenges
ALEC works in the public interest. It brings together stakeholders for academic discussion of policy
Nearly all professions require some form of continuing education. State legislators should be no different
No legislator can be an expert on all policy issues, but their constituents expect them to be. Legislators join ALEC to stay current on state legislative trends and learn from one-another about what has and hasn’t worked in states around the country
ALEC members represent their communities’ perspectives (a majority of the American people)
All legislators are elected to represent their communities. If they do not, they will be held accountable at the ballot box
A majority of Americans believe that the government closest to the people (state legislatures) is best for addressing community policy
Americans desire real solutions that preserve economic freedom and security. They want to keep more of their hard-earned money and reduce the cost of everyday life. ALEC members discuss innovative models that put genuine accountability to work among state legislators and give hardworking taxpayers the government they deserve
ALEC legislators represent more than 60 million Americans and ALEC member companies give jobs to more than 30 million people in the United States. It is important for legislators to understand the policy perspectives of job creators to ensure economic security and opportunity in their communities
ALEC is a transparent organization
All ALEC model policy, drafts for consideration, agendas and financial information are available at ALEC.org
At meetings, journalists and the public are welcome to attend ALEC keynotes, plenary sessions and policy workshops
ALEC is one of many similar organizations in the state policy landscape
Many organizations including the National Conference of State Legislatures, Council of State Governments, State Innovation Exchange and National Black Caucus of State Legislators (among many others) bring state legislators and other stakeholders together at meetings to discuss state policy trends and issues and craft model policy, “legislative policy recommendations” (NCSL) or “suggested state legislation” (CSG)
Travel and expense reimbursement is commonplace and allowed by the IRS and state ethics guidelines
Legislators and all Americans have the right to associate and exchange ideas in any forum they choose. This right is protected by the Constitution, and no one should be intimidated by those who want to silence speech
Unlike other state policy organizations, ALEC is not taxpayer funded
The #2 issue for social Democrats is the dismantling and privatization of all avenues of communications------TV, radio, and internet neutrality. As important is the privatization of the Post Office. I read on a Baltimore news outlet that Maryland citizens polled as wanting the Post Office privatized. It is hard to believe that any majority of citizens in the US want to lose the Post Office. We saw poll after poll saying that. Yet, Maryland always comes up with a poll that says what global corporations want to do is what citizens want to do.
So, we know Maryland pols intend to dismantle our Post Office and they are already doing so. Yet, in Congress you'll hear them shout they are fighting for our Post Office. CLINTON WALL STREET GLOBAL CORPORATE NEO-LIBERALS AND REPUBLICANS WILL END OUR POST OFFICE.
What a REAL social Democrat would be saying this primary election is I WILL BUY TV AND RADIO AIRWAVES FOR THE CITY OF BALTIMORE and then make those stations the platform for all community voice especially social Democrats.
Airwaves for the People
The FCC must ensure Big Telecom cannot manipulate what we can access on the web for their own profits.
By Katrina vanden HeuvelTwitterMay 6, 2010
Chairman Genachowski took a step in the right direction today by announcing the FCC’s intention to regulate broadband in order to ensure net neutrality. Media reform advocates are confident that this is good news for preserving the open Internet and promoting universal access.
The victory isn’t complete, however. While Genachowski proposed reclassifying broadband as a “telecommunications service” so that the FCC has clear authority to protect consumers and promote competition, the Chairman intends to use a procedure called "forbearance" to broadly waive all of the competition provisions of the Telecommunications Act. Considering that the National Broadband Plan noted that 96 percent of Americans have at most two choices of internet service providers–that we have a real problem with monopolies and duopolies–we need the FCC to make use of its statutory powers to address this issue.
According to The Washington Post, sources say that Federal Communications Commission Chairman Julius Genachowski will soon retreat from the Obama Administration’s pledge to deliver a new and more democratic technology agenda. Reportedly, the Chairman will continue the Bush-era classification of the internet as an unregulated "information service," rather than reclassifying it as a "telecommunications service" subject to FCC authority.
And why does this wonky bit of legalese matter?
Because if it’s not a telecommunications service, the courts have already demonstrated that the FCC will have little ability to ensure universal access to broadband, prevent blocked or censored content, or protect consumers from price-gouging or invasions of privacy. What is called "Net Neutrality" will virtually go up in flames, freeing Big Telecom to manipulate what we can access on the web for their own profits.
In fact, the FCC’s own general counsel wrote that the current classification might undermine the Commission’s ability to promote broadband access in rural America; connect low-income Americans, Native American communities, and Americans with disabilities; support the use of broadband by small businesses to drive productivity and innovation; and strengthen cybersecurity, consumer protection and privacy.
And here’s another important and rarely discussed reason we need to ensure that the FCC has the authority to protect a free and open internet—it will impact whether we are able to achieve a greater range of voices over our radio airwaves, or we continue to live with a virtual right-wing monopoly of misinformation. To understand that aspect of the reclassification issue—read on.
How bad is the political imbalance on our radio dial? Check out these stats from a Center for American Progress study: on the 257 news/talk stations owned by the top five commercial station owners, 91 percent of the total weekday programming is conservative, and 9 percent is progressive;
I WOULD MAKE CLEAR THAT PROGRESSIVE MEANS NEO-LIBERAL ----NOT SOCIAL DEMOCRATIC.
and each weekday, there is 2,570 hours of conservative talk compared to just 254 hours of progressive talk—more than ten hours of conservative talk to every one hour of progressive radio.
Even with limited opportunities, progressives like Bill Press, Amy Goodman, Stephanie Miller, Michel Martin, Jim Hightower, Laura Flanders, Tavis Smiley and Thom Hartmann are still thriving in radio. But if you believe in the marketplace—in this case, the marketplace of ideas—you should be troubled by how skewed this is. As populist talk radio and MSNBC broadcaster Ed Schultz said on his TV show recently, "The American people own the airwaves—licenses are given for station owners to operate the airwaves in the public interest."
So, is there a solution?
Well, it won’t be easy. Decades of deregulation and conglomeratization have taken their toll. Progressives have long focused on restoring the Fairness Doctrine. Overturned by the FCC in 1987, it required broadcasters to offer alternative points of view on controversial issues. But it’s become a red herring, manipulated to charge Democrats with trying to censor their critics. And according to Josh Silver, executive director of the media reform advocacy organization Free Press, it’s "constitutionally on very weak footing."
But there are other steps that citizens can fight for to make real the concept enshrined in the 1934 Communications Act that our airwaves belong to the people and should be operated in the public interest.
FCC Commissioner Michael Copps—a man dedicated to the public interest and who has thought long and hard about how to address this imbalance—told me, "We won’t restore balance until we restore enforceable public interest guidelines to the people’s airwaves. These guidelines must put a premium on a station producing news in return for its license—real news that reflects what’s actually happening in the community, provides watchdog journalism, does justice to minorities and to different viewpoints, and nourishes the civic dialogue needed to sustain democracy. In exchange for free use of the public airwaves, broadcasters need to do this; the country needs it, too."
Look for the Commissioner to push specific proposals along these lines in the near future. In the mean time, there are both long- and shorter-term solutions that will help end the right-wing propaganda monopoly of our airwaves.
Free Press’s Silver said Low Power FM licenses are on the horizon and will add a range of diversity. The House already passed the Local Community Radio Act, and the Senate version introduced by Senators Maria Cantwell and John McCain awaits a vote on the Senate floor.
"We believe that after many years of lobbying there will be more low-power fm radio licenses granted to not-for-profit entities in the next few years," said Silver. "That will provide literally hundreds if not thousands of new low-power FM licenses that will be up for grabs—particularly in rural areas, and that’s positive."
But Silver believes the true long-term solution is "ubiquitous, wireless broadband instead of traditional radio signals." The current obstacles to diversity on the radio dial are "a scarcity of licenses to scarce spots on radio dials, and a high cost of overhead for stations that operate on them," he says. "As a result, progressive voices can’t get on because they either can’t get a license or they can’t afford to run the station."
Silver says wireless radio—either satellite radio or digital wireless—could bring "limitless spots on the dial" and "an environment where you can really let a thousand flowers bloom. People who are concerned about progressive issues need to get behind efforts to bring fast ubiquitous internet to the country—to everyone, rural and urban, rich and poor."
Which brings us back to the issue of FCC reclassifying the internet as a "telecommunications service."
A recent court decision said the agency has no authority to regulate the internet under the current political structure. (In that case, the court said the FCC could not force Comcast to stop blocking the file sharing application BitTorrent.) It seems when the Bush FCC decided to reclassify broadband as an "information service" it tied the FCC’s hands in terms of protecting consumers, promoting competition, or deploying the national broadband plan.
The good news there is the FCC can reclassify the internet as a “communications service” with a simple up or down vote. According to CongressDaily, Commissioners Copps and Mignon Clyburn have said they would support such action, so the votes are there if Chairman Genachowski refuses to cave to Big Telecom and stands firm for a pro-technology agenda. But that’s a big if.
"The Chairman of the FCC has to have a backbone and be willing to face up to the cable and phone companies which represent the second largest lobby in Washington after pharmaceuticals," says Silver.
As Commissioner Copps told Bill Moyers on his show last month, "If your big issue is energy dependence, or climate change, or health insurance, or expanding equal opportunity—this issue of the future of the media, now the media on broadband, has to be your number two issue. Because—on that one—depends on how your number one issue gets filtered and funneled to the American people."
By empowering the FCC to take action over the long haul we will ensure that a full range of views and voices in this country will be heard over the people’s airwaves, and a free and open internet is a tool which every citizen is able to access.
#3 issue for social Democrats-----outing the Affordable CAre Act as a Republican corporate and wealth dream policy that needs to be replaced state and locally by EXPANDED AND IMPROVED MEDICARE FOR ALL. In Baltimore, there is absolutely no conversation over health care access and we know people are exposed to the worst of access. This bond market crash and economic crash will take out all pensions and health benefits for unions---and other corporate plans.
If this health care reform had anything to do with cost containment in health care these global health insurers would be in state run health systems to be the cheapest because of their size. Since that is not what state health systems are for----almost all of the largest health insurers are not interested. They are only interested in the global health systems and the world's rich.
So, the American people now have state health systems designed specifically to make it too expensive to access the most needed of care----but as KAISER tells us in commercials----THEY KNOW HOW TO DO PREVENTATIVE HEALTH CARE. The entire state system is geared to end Medicare and Medicaid and create this system of corporate non-profits and individual health chains tied to preventative care.
United Health is the largest US health insurer and is global. If it refuses to price health plans at a reasonable rate----no one will. It's like WalMart being so large it can sell products cheaper. These state health systems are simply replacing our Federal public health Medicare and Medicaid and will be one big pool of preventative care for all citizens.
MR OBAMA, INSTEAD OF PENALIZING PEOPLE FOR NOT HAVING INSURANCE-----WHY DON'T YOU PENALIZE INSURANCE CORPORATIONS FOR MAKING THEIR INSURANCE PREMIUMS TOO HIGH TO AFFORD?
UnitedHealth Raises Doubts About Its Participation in Affordable Care Act
Insurer cuts earnings outlook, citing losses from health-exchange products ENLARGE
Pedestrians pass in front of a UnitedHealth Group Inc., storefront in Flushing, N.Y. UnitedHealth is evaluating to what extent it can continue to serve the public-exchange markets in 2017. Photo: Michael Nagle/Bloomberg News
Anna Wilde Mathews
Updated Nov. 19, 2015 8:04 a.m. ET
UnitedHealth Group Inc. said it expects major losses on its business through the Affordable Care Act’s exchanges and will consider withdrawing from them, in the most prominent signal so far of health insurers’ struggles with the health law’s marketplaces.
The disclosure by the biggest U.S. health insurer, which had just last month sounded optimistic notes about the segment’s prospects, will sharply boost worries about the sustainability of the law’s signature marketplaces, amid signs that many insurers’ losses on the business continue to mount.
UnitedHealth Group’s chief executive, Stephen J. Hemsley, said it made the move, which included a downgrade of its earnings projections for 2015, amid reduced growth expectations, the expected shutdowns of the majority of the health law’s nonprofit cooperative insurers, and signs that its own enrollees continue to increase their use of medical services, raising costs.
As a result, UnitedHealth said it is pulling back on marketing its exchange products, as open enrollment is currently under way for plans that will take effect in 2016. And the insurer said it is “evaluating the viability of the insurance exchange product segment and will determine during the first half of 2016 to what extent it can continue to serve the public exchange markets in 2017.” UnitedHealth had previously expanded its exchange offerings to 11 new states for 2016, and said in October it had around 550,000 people enrolled.
UnitedHealth said it was revising its 2015 earnings projection to $6 a share, from a previous range of $6.25 to $6.35. The move reflected “pressure” of $425 million, or 26 cents a share, tied to individual plans sold under the health law, it said. The $425 million includes $275 million related to the “advance recognition” of losses it expects to incur in 2016. UnitedHealth also said it expects its 2016 earnings to be between $7.10 and $7.30 per share in 2016; previously, the company said it thought next year’s earnings would be within the range of analysts’ projections, then around $7.09 to $7.55.
Chris Rigg, an analyst with Susquehanna Financial Group, wrote that it was likely “this is more of an industry issue,” and if the exchanges don’t stabilize, he would expect UnitedHealth to “exit this business line.”
UnitedHealth’s announcement comes as other insurers have been sounding alarms about their exchange business, but the big insurer went considerably farther than its peers in flagging the recent rapid deterioration of its performance and raising concerns about future viability. UnitedHealth also changed its own tone markedly from its Oct. 15 earnings call, when it said it expected “strikingly better” results on the exchanges in 2016, due partly to price increases that it said averaged in the double digits.
The impact of the insurance industry’s struggles is already clear in the products currently on offer in the marketplaces, many of which are aimed at stanching a flood of red ink. For these plans, which will take effect in 2016, many insurers have raised premiums in order to cover the medical costs of enrollees, which have run higher than many companies originally projected, fueling this year’s losses. Insurers have also shifted to offering more limited choices of health-care providers. The majority of the startup cooperative insurers created under the health law are slated to shut down.
Analysts say the danger is that higher rates might discourage enrollment, particularly by the younger, healthier consumers that the marketplaces need to draw in, since they are the ones that are most likely to feel they can go without insurance. That would have the effect of driving premiums even higher in the future, because insurers would need more rate increases to cover the costs of a smaller, sicker pool of enrollees. At its worst, this cycle can feed on itself, creating what the industry calls a “death spiral.”
However, in the ACA’s marketplaces, the impact of rate increases on consumers is blunted by federal subsidies that cover much of the cost of coverage.
The Obama administration has said it aims to have about 10 million people with paid-up coverage on the state and federal health-law exchanges by the end of 2016. But that falls well short of some earlier projections: the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office earlier this year estimated that at least 20 million people would buy policies under the law for 2016 coverage.
In mid-October, UnitedHealth said that the exchange business was hurting UnitedHealth’s performance on a key measure called the medical-loss ratio—which tracks the share of premium revenue spent on patient care—but UnitedHealth still expected its overall MLR for 2015 to be within its projected range.
David S. Wichmann, UnitedHealth’s president and chief financial officer, said then that the company expected the health-law marketplaces “to develop and mature over time into a strong, viable growth market for us.” The exchanges represent a small share of UnitedHealth’s overall insurance enrollment.
Several other big publicly traded insurers also flagged problems with their exchange business in their third-quarter earnings. Anthem Inc. said enrollment is less than expected, though it is making a profit. Aetna Inc. said it expects to lose money on its exchange business this year, but hopes to improve the result in 2016. Humana Inc. and Cigna Corp. also flagged challenges.
A recent analysis by McKinsey & Co. found that in 2014, the first year of the exchanges, health insurers lost a total of $2.5 billion, or on average $163 per consumer enrolled, in the individual market.
There are signs that broad pattern has continued—and in some cases worsened—this year. A Goldman Sachs Group Inc. analysis of state filings for 30 not-for-profit Blue Cross and Blue Shield insurers found that their overall companywide results were “barely break-even” for the first half of 2015. Goldman analysts projected the group would post an aggregate loss for the full year—the first since the late 1980s.
The analysis said the health-law exchanges appeared to be a “key driver” for the faltering corporate results, and the medical-loss ratio for the Blue insurers’ individual business was 99% in the first half of 2015—up from 91% at that point in 2014, and 82% for the first six months of 2013.
Such losses are helping to drive shifts in offerings on the exchanges, where open enrollment is currently under way. Premiums for a type of plan that is closely watched as a signal of consumer costs—the second-lowest-priced insurance product in the law’s “silver” metal tier—are increasing 7.5% on average across the roughly three dozen states that rely on the federal HealthCare.gov marketplace, according to the Obama administration. Some individual increases are far sharper.
An analysis by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation found that a number of insurers are cutting preferred-provider-organization plans, which tend to have more open access to health-care providers. Among silver-tier plans on the exchanges, only a third of 2015 PPO offerings remained the same for next year, with the rest either dropped or reduced.
#4 issue for social Democrats is low-income housing----it is #1 for many. If a politician has not been shouting these several years that Obama is using Execute Order to pretend he can ignore all of Equal Protection Constitutional law especially around housing and education----THEY ARE NOT A SOCIAL DEMOCRAT.
Obama did the opposite----he created a Federal funding scheme that sent all funding to outsourced global development firms who then used these funds for corporate development in US city downtown areas. So, hundreds of billions of dollars from HUD that should have shored up underserved communities went to build Wall Street banks and global life insurance campuses----and don't forget Johns Hopkins and East Baltimore.
We all recognize how high-rise public housing didn't work---but we are watching as this inclusion model comes with absolutely no safeguards for inflation----as under-developed becomes gentrified. Look at who gets these subsidies now ---
I saw a property that was built with LIHTC. What is LIHTC?
Low Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC) is a Federal housing assistance program that provides tax incentives to owners of affordable housing. The program does not provide direct assistance to renters and is strictly used to finance the construction (not the operation) of rental properties. Usually, LIHTC properties have units available for families earning 60% or less of the Area Median Income (AMI). The rental properties are usually of very high quality and are often mistaken for luxury apartment communities. LIHTC is America's most successful affordable housing program having created millions of affordable rental units since its inception in the late 1980's.
This is not the mission of HUD----and Obama effectively dismantled its original mission with the goal of eliminating all of the public housing/low income housing goals. Look below what media spin is being played by Clinton neo-liberals and Obama this 2016 election year.
When we watch affluent development in city centers we see the term 'affordable housing' attributed to a 'mixed income' plan. What does affordable mean when the rents rise in that area to $2,100---2,500? That's where global corporate pols are posing progressive. WE NEED RENT-CONTROLLED housing in these city center areas.
YOU DON'T HAVE TO PASS A SPECIAL FEDERAL REGULATION TO ENFORCE EQUAL PROTECTION IN HOUSING.
MissionHUD's mission is to create strong, sustainable, inclusive communities and quality affordable homes for all. HUD is working to strengthen the housing market to bolster the economy and protect consumers; meet the need for quality affordable rental homes; utilize housing as a platform for improving quality of life; build inclusive and sustainable communities free from discrimination, and transform the way HUD does business.
We all recognize how high-rise public housing didn't work---but we are watching as this inclusion model comes with absolutely no safeguards for inflation----as under-developed becomes gentrified. This subsidy for 'affordable housing' in wealthy neighborhoods looks simply to be a way to send money to developers anywhere they build.
HUD wants to require 'affordable housing' in wealthy neighborhoods
Jun 11, 2015, 11:50am EDT Updated Jun 11, 2015, 2:40pm EDT
Industries & Tags
Kent Hoover Washington Bureau Chief Related Content
Republicans hope to block a proposed federal regulation that would force localities to take additional steps to integrate segregated neighborhoods and bring affordable housing to wealthy areas.
If localities fail to take such actions, they would no longer be eligible for community development block grants and other housing-related grants.
At issue is the " Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing" (AFFH) regulation, which was proposed by the Department of Housing and Urban Development in 2013. The AFFH rule would require states and localities to integrate data on race, poverty, and access to education and employment into their planning decisions. HUD would review whether localities are doing enough to ensure that their housing policies promote equal opportunity.
This week, the House voted 229-193 to block the regulation, which was in an amendment that was attached to legislation funding HUD.
The amendment’s sponsor, Rep. Paul Gosar, R-Ariz., said the regulation “is one of the most far-reaching attempts yet to punish communities that don’t submit to the president’s liberal ideology. American citizens and communities should be free to choose where they would like to live and not be subject to federal neighborhood engineering at the behest of an over-reaching federal government.”
“Furthermore, HUD officials shouldn’t be holding hostage grant monies aimed at community improvement based on its unrealistic utopian ideas of what every community should resemble,” Gosar said. “Local zoning decisions have traditionally been, and should always be, made by local communities, not bureaucrats in Washington, D.C.”
The Senate would have to go along with this amendment in order to block the AFFH regulation, but at least one conservative commenter speculated the rule could become an issue in the 2016 presidential campaign.
“Because the Obama administration has delayed this political hot potato to the end of the president’s term, it is the next president who will actually determine whether AFFH is entrenched or cast aside,” wrote Stanley Kurtz, a senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, in National Review. “So if the Gosar amendment fails and Obama finalizes the rule, AFFH is almost certain to become a significant issue in the presidential campaign.”