Mark Edwards Uncensored - Is Local Radio Dead? In Some Ways It Is, But Owners Don't Know It Yet

http://markontheweb.blogspot.com/2011/11/is-local-radio-dead-in-some-ways-it-is.html?utm_source=Subscribers&utm_campaign=08e916d06e-TRI_11-08-2011&utm_medium=email

I was in an all day discussion with Mark about my perceptions on Radio. I thought I would present it here:

I did not see it mentioned - the exclusivity of Radio. Much like telephone and cable - radio and television stations also have a monopoly on access into the American home. (And you do not need to put a crappy looking antenna on the side of your house.) No net-neutrality issues here. If local stations could see this they would understand they have a captured audience whom they should customize their programming to.

Also there has to be a new model. Young people have short attention spans so too many ads break their attention and they move onto some other media, include fewer short adds directed towards younger people, and there must be topics of interest - relationships, tech stuff, local events, reviews of pubs, interviews with brew masters, breweries, interviews with local bands (The only place I learn about local talent is through weekend inserts in the local paper), local mom and pop wineries, non-chain eateries, talk about sex, love, parenting, jobs, careers, starting small businesses, interview (Young)small business people, young people in small towns, young people in city living, security (Way to many CSI police stories.), for some examples; include a twitter account to give young people the ability to customize the programming - and be willing to go with it. Understand young people all have something playing all the times, radio just has to figure out how it will be them i.e. advertise not wasting band width because it is delivered separately via radio wave streaming. Then deliver each programming segment in podcast form downloadable for a fee.

Finally radio must realize they have a great plus - most young people watch video podcasts and they know horrible programming when they see it. Ugly people, pontificating with lousy ideas and opinions - their young, with lousy voices - no one tells them they sound horrible and cannot be understood, with lousy rates of delivery and a constant stream of interrupting or talking over each other at a cascading rate of speed with tons of references to acronyms or initials to speed up the delivery. Most pod casts are only 40 minutes to an hour even though the material they have could be talked about for two hours. Pod casters could never sustain a three hour drive time program - pod casters are not this organized, their thoughts are not organized, succinct or able to be formatted into an easy to listen format. Asking them to prepare and create an agenda with professional transitions with guests who are great interviewers and carry this of over three hours - not happening - to much work.  But radio "still" has announcers who know how to do this. Radio personalities understand all of this and podcasters are satisfied with a million "hits" radio personalities are satisfied with several million listeners. Who is more hungry?

I used the word "still" because those in radio believe they are in decline so they exude this aura and young people who would like to break in with talent are discouraged and turned away. The older more distinguished seasoned, finished, professional and successful radio personalities are dissappearing leaving none to mentor, train and coach the new radio announcers. To say nothing about the producers being lost due to attrition.

MarkEdwards 1 hour ago in reply to Jim

Both the paid podcast model (with very few exceptions) and the "interactive" model (Listener Driven Radio, Jelli) have had little success. One of the most popular podcasters with a subscription model drew just over 3200 unique visitors in September, the most recent month I have metrics for.  Another podcaster draws about ten times that much traffic, but his show is advertiser supported, so there are still ads, just like OTA radio.

While some companies are working hard to shorten their ads, commercial broadcasting is still a business and sadly the cost of free over the air radio is commercials.  Remember Clear Channel's "Less Is More"?  Gone.  Companies that capped their spot loads have removed the caps on minutes, units, or both because they have to "hit their number". 

There is still a place for the young in radio, and I've worked with some immensely talented people just out of college or younger in the last few years.  These people will understand the declining value of sending out one signal for all to hear and embrace the concept, technology, and experience that local radio will need to evolve into over the next decade in order to thrive.  It can be done, but not by gimmicks or podcasting, but by creating individualized user experiences.

Mark,
I was not writing of a straight pod cast show. More like Michael Medved, Hugh Hewitt etc. where I can listen via AM radio to their regular show but their online content (Pod casts, interview transcripts, show notes, links discussion etc.) require a monthly fee for access. Two birds with one stone. With my limited understanding of Social Media (Twitter and Facebook) it is supposed to drive people to a product or company, help products or companies be better known to the internet consumer and to identify consumer trends for companies to capitalize on. Is radio outside such a model to be more listener driven through social media? 

This is the problem with on air advertising - does the show support the advertisements or the advertisements support the show. For young people who have grown up with so much access to media without advertising, reduced advertising or what I call passive advertising - banner ads and flashing ads around what they are attending to, but not interrupting or stopping the stream. They are used to this way of receiving advertisements and are not tolerant of interruptions. I on the other hand have grown up and had been desensitized to the interruptions. After no television or cable and getting my media off the web with no, or reduced number of ads I am appalled at the interruptions on television even though I do not believe the quantity of ads has increased. I also listen to AM radio and know when the hard breaks are coming and mute the advertisements. This is what happens to consumers when there is a choice. This is what has happened to commercial radio and television when the age old proven model (From the dawn of radio) ran into internet delivery. I think the answer is time because for most of the existence of the web content has been undervalued i.e. giving away content. Lately the internet has been more on a bent of locking down content and requiring a fee. As this behavior increases it will become the norm and consumers will understand the pay to play mentality. Best example is Netflix. The moment they proposed, what I saw as a modest increase, a whole lot of people bailed, why because they are used to undervalued content. Where are they going to go? Back to commercial television? No more streaming? Eventually content will be seen as more valuable and the older model of advertising interruptions or a Netflix style flat fee for content will win out making commercial television and radio competitive. (At least there is no up front fee to the Telephone Company or Cable Company to hook up to radio. Think about this. My Comcast bill currently is $39.99. That fee is necessary to visit any web site. To listen to radio requires no ISP or fee. And there are still advertisements when I get to most web pages. Radio has none of this tethering to an ISP.)

Your last paragraph is totally correct. But if you think of the internet as each web site is a radio station and each web site is out to capture a specific audience or provide a portal (Google) to all the other content. Web sites are not trying to capture all the traffic only a portion - your words - "These people will understand the declining value of sending out one signal for all to hear..." Most people who run web sites, blog, sell or provide content know they are targeting only certain people not "for all to hear" or read. If you can imagine a porn site with news, weather, interviews and a tech show wrapped around porn. You would say, "That is ludicrous, those who want the porn would be put off by all the other stuff and those wanting all the other stuff would be put off by the porn." Targeting your audience and competing for this select group - which station or web site provides the pertinent content, does it in an entertaining way, making it a finished product is going to get the listeners or the hits. I keep thinking of NPR "All Things Considered" and some of their other programming. My 23 year old son listens to these shows today. We never listened to NPR when he was growing up. I think the attraction is exactly these things. These are not gimmicks they are the nature of radio, the strength of radio and the history of entertainment in this country. Consumers will purchase great programming and radio has a history of providing such a product.

Wind Turbines, Hancock MA,, November 3, 2011 - Scott Wright Sawyer

http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=10150373431195502

What I said about the above video presented by Mr. Sawyer on his Facebook Wall:

     What a way to decimate the beauty and charm of New England ridge lines and forests. Yeah, in Texas, Wyoming, Oklahoma where there are desolate places nobody relishes living and not known for their beauty, but their starkness.

     I give it five years when we will read about towns and counties in New England, New York and the whole of the Northeast in litigation with bankrupt businesses over abandoned windmills; which will not only be eyesores, but monuments to an abandoned industry like the mills and factories all over the northeast, not to say a danger to public safety of falling apart, blowing down or attractions for the curious and thrill seeker. Expect regular budget items for securing these sites or their removal in governmental budgets in the future as bankruptcy stipulations disavow any responsibility by the failed business. Expect a new industry to arise, requiring enormous sums of money from taxpayers, to sweep behind this failed attempt at power generation and remove these windmills.

Defending Sarah Palin

Defending Sarah Palin

I wrote the following to my brother in-law and thought I would share it here.

I followed a link from NRO about defending Michelle Bachmann to the above commentary. I can't help but remembering, as a wet behind the ears voter hearing and - I have to confess - believing much of the same about another republican outsider called Ronald Reagan. I believe this is exactly why the American people adored him and the "chattering class" and "party elites" could not stand him. I know it is why I admire him. Wasn't there a phrase - "the Teflon president" to describe how all the crap thrown at him never stuck; all the while being gracious, humorous and - the dreaded word - detached. Now when he is gone, everyone comes out from whence they hid and say, "Yes he was one of the best presidents of all time." I can't help but feel the same way I did when Barack Obama came on the scene as the outsider claiming I am an outsider and I will change the atmosphere of Washington DC. I said, "I know these lies, I have herd these lies, I have seen these lies lead to ruin!" Oh, it is Jimmy Carter again!" Well I have the same affinity to Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachmann especially when the party elite say, "NO, no, no, she is unelectable, she is too conservative with her talk of constitutional government, not centrist enough for the independent vote with her patriotism and pride with American exceptional-ism. She will lead the Republican party to dooom, never to recover in our lifetime." I know these truths she talks about, I have heard these truths in the founding documents, I have seen these truths turn this country around and bring prosperity to millions who had little hope and dashed dreams ten years earlier. And I saw a president who believed all of this be despised and ridiculed, stick to his guns under relentless mockery and turn this country around because of his exceptional leadership. "Oh it is Ronald Reagan again." This is why I am all in for a crap shoot for Sarah Palin or Michelle Bachmann than the white elite smarmy big government centrists of Romney, Pawlenty, Gingrich etc. At least Palin and Bachmann generate the ire of the opposition and party elite which is worth a whole lot in political capital.

How Today's Conservatism Lost Touch with Reality

 http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2077943,00.html

An open letter to my son about the above article.

Thomas,
I read the article you sent me and I understand the argument about how non-conservatives could see this ongoing conservative unwillingness to see any other solution than budget cuts and lower taxes. I think this unwillingness is based on years of rising spending and taxing in this country. I also believe taxpayers have a sense they are getting less and less from the government for more taxes. On a personal note - do you think you should pay more taxes? And if you did how would you manage your budget if you had less money in your pocket because of raised taxes? Do you believe your money which you pay in taxes should be given to a bureaucrat to run an important government program? Or is your circumstance as important or more important than the above bureaucrat and government program? For me, you and Rachelle, your marriage, your dreams, the family you are going to create, your career are infinitely more important than 99.9% of government programs past, present and in the future. So I say do away with them all if it allows you two unlimited opportunities to be successful and accomplished. For me, as a conservative, I have come to believe I can waste my own money just fine, I really don't need government or bureaucrats wasting my money. In fact I believe this sediment runs so deep that in places like California - the state is losing billions in tax revenue because taxpayers are buying outside the state and having things shipped into the state therefore avoiding California sales taxes. A direct byproduct of the tax and spend attitude of California. I mean if a business treats you badly with customer service or the service they claim to provide is less than advertised do you or I continue to populate such a place - "Hell, no" we move on to businesses which treat us well. Why not a state government?

Another observation for conservatives to bolster their understanding of cutting taxes and spending; the situation in Greece, Spain, Portugal, Iceland, Ireland and soon to be England and France. These are all fantastic examples of the tax and spend mentality, followed by bureaucrats requesting just a little more taxes and the problems - they will go away. The problems have not been fixed in those countries and it appears the only out is default or austerity programs - cutting spending i.e. cutting government programs. This is a far larger disaster and hardship i.e. losing all your pension money, paying out of control inflation, double digit interest rates and having what savings you have wiped out by the same inflation than it is to have controlled reduction of government spending and more money in citizens pockets from reduced taxes so they can prosper rather than default in bad economic times. A side note to the reduction in taxes - the thinking is with less taxes collected this should lead to an offset of less programs because some conservatives are eternally optimistic that politicians will suddenly wake up out of their slumber and live within their means - has not happened in my lifetime.

Historically the writer is correct. Under Nixon, Jimmy Carter and Reagan economically it was probably harder than it is now. However what he did not say was... Lyndon Johnson! [Updated July 5, 2001 - supporting reference from Walter Russell Mead: http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2011/07/04/the-shame-of-the-cities-and-the-shade-of-lbj/ ]. President Johnson ramped up the Vietnam War, instituted the war on poverty and created Medicare during his presidency which all lead to unprecedented government spending (Deficits, inflation and a burgeoning national debt) and higher taxes - which all the above presidents followed and had to deal with the consequences of. So historically it is not today we should be most concerned about... it is the long term consequences of the current tax and spend behaviors. That is what is most disturbing. And let me be clear all politicians are fraught with this blindness - it is the nature of not always going to be around (Consequences) and special privileges which insulate them from real world circumstances. I find Republicans, Libertarians, Democrats, Socialists and Communists unable to think ahead into the future to see what they have set in motion and the eventual consequence.

There are two testimonies which the "raise more taxes and don't cut spending" criers usually will not mention. [July 5, 20011 update supporting article by Thomas Sowell: http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/271038/politics-vs-reality-thomas-sowell#.ThM1g4Z4MJk.blogger] President Kennedy's reduction of tax rates and cutting of spending and President Reagan's cutting of tax rates and cutting of government spending. Both created a huge increases in tax revenues being collected (President Kennedy's were the impetus for President Johnson's spending.) even though tax rates were cut! Why? Because people worked harder because they got to keep more of their money rather than sending it to the government - people like to do this - make more money without having to give it to someone who may not be working nearly as hard as they are. And because citizens have more money... they spend, save or invest their surplus money stimulating the economy.

Finally the last observation of conservatives is the economy - working, spending, investing, buying however you want to describe the act of money, goods and services - is not the responsibility of the government it is the exclusive area, authority, responsibility and privilege of the citizens to manage and run. That is why you see trillions legislated to "Shovel Ready Jobs" by the government to no avail! Why? Because the citizens do not like government legislating where money should go. (They really hate the slimy people who lobby the politicians into giving them portions of this waste.) See above - citizens want to be in charge of spending, saving and investing and resent the know-it-all politicians confiscating their money to waste. And when they get this feeling they hunker down, stop working hard, cut their expenses, pay less taxes, begin to barter and work under the table, move to places with better jobs and more amicable tax code and punish the politicians because they know they can persevere longer and get rid of them in the short term. If politicians want to stimulate the economy they jump in bed with the citizens and do what the citizens are doing - cutting expenses, paying off debt, saving and collect less taxes from them.

Love you,

Dad

Howard Dean warns Democrats Sarah Palin could beat Obama in 2012 - TheHill.com

Operative quote:

"Bruce Cain, a political science and public policy professor and director of the University of California Washington Center, subscribes to the prevailing view that Palin would be a weak opponent against Obama.

“I stand with conventional wisdom that she’s way too flawed,” Cain. “Polls show that many women and independent voters aren’t happy with her.”"

Wow! Then I guess the Democrats are looking for a new nominee? Because "conventional wisdom" is Barrack Obama has the same problem of being "...way too flawed..."

Let me clarify - polls also show "...that many women and independent voters aren’t happy with ...[Barrack Obama].” I would bet my bottom dollar that there are more women and independents unhappy with Barrack Obama than with Sarah Palin, or for that matter any of the known Republican nominees. What a bunch of gobbledygook from a nobody!

Netanyahu Addresses Congress - HUMAN EVENTS

The operative paragraphs I will be pulling from:

"Netanyahu knows that Israel is “the one anchor of stability in a sea of shifting alliances.”  It is the beacon of freedom and democracy in a land sick with violence and oppression.  “Israel has always been pro-America,” he told Congress.  “Israel will always be pro-America.  You don’t need to do nation building in Israel.  We’re already built.  You don’t need to export democracy to Israel.  We’ve already got it.  You don’t need to send American troops to Israel.  We defend ourselves!”

He contrasted Israel with the “medieval rule of Hezbollah inflicted on Lebanon after the Cedar Revolution,” and especially Iran, foremost among the “powerful forces that oppose modernity, democracy, and peace.”  Meanwhile, “only in Israel to Arabs enjoy real democratic rights.  Only one-half of one percent of Arabs are truly free, and they’re all citizens of Israel.”

As the Prime Minister put it, “Israel is not what is wrong with the Middle East.  Israel is what is right with the Middle East.”"

'Bibi' Votes Republican - HUMAN EVENTS

"Undeniably, Netanyahu won the smack-down. The president was humiliated in the Oval Office, and in his trip to AIPAC's woodshed he spoke of the future peace negotiations ending just as Israelis desire and demand.   
Nor is this the first time Obama has been rolled by the Israeli prime minister. Obama came into office demanding an end to all new or expanded settlements on the West Bank and in East Jerusalem, and subsequently backed down from each and every demand. Fed up, his Mideast peace negotiator George Mitchell has quit. Politically, too, the president has been hurt. To the world, and not just the Arabs, he appears weak. In Israel, Netanyahu is seen as having stood up for Israel's vital interests and forced an American president to back down. His right-wing coalition is cheering him on.
Indeed, the issue is not whether Obama has been hurt, but why Bibi, raised in the U.S.A., who knows American politics better than any previous Israeli prime minister, did it. Why wound Obama like that?
Why would the leader of a nation of 7 million that is dependent on U.S. arms, foreign aid and diplomatic support choose to humiliate a president who could be sitting in that office until 2017?"


So what is the leader of Israel accomplishing in this climate in words and deeds? Well I believe the environment in the Middle East is positive for the future and the opening act to this positive change is already playing. Part of this first act has been taken by both Presidents Bush and Obama by both pushing for Israel to concede more land and concessions for peace; by refusing to ally with Israel in an attack on Iran's nuclear bomb production facilities; by not insisting on the symbolic move of the US embassy to Jerusalem and finally by not clearly delineating the vast chasm between Israel the Arab states and Iran in the middle east. So what would the leader of  a vibrant - powerful - democratic - prosperous - global - stable - resolute - nuclear nation, who sees a weak leader in the US President - who has by his remarks rebuffed the strongest horse in the Middle East and has instead thrown in with thugs and murderers - decide to do differently? I remember a line from a movie "I don't like you because you're going  to get me killed!" Benjhamin Netanayahu has decided going down the same road with Obama and the US is going to get a lot of Israeli citizens killed. For the first time a Prime Minister has stopped kowtowing to a US President and the US itself, put the strategic national interests of Israel as the priority and stated by his words and deeds we are going to make and take a new road - the democratic lead and go it alone. Look what he said to the Joint session of congress: "Israel will always be pro-America." Does that sound like the weak horse talking to the strong horse? Is it not historically said, "America will always be pro-Israel?"  Or this, "You don’t need to send American troops to Israel.  We defend ourselves!” How does the weak horse tell the strong horse we don't need you to defend us, unless you believe you are the stronger horse! Or this,“only in Israel do Arabs enjoy real democratic rights.  Only one-half of one percent of Arabs are truly free, and they’re all citizens of Israel.” Are not Arabs who are American citizens also free? Look at his deeds: "Obama came into office demanding an end to all new or expanded settlements on the West Bank and in East Jerusalem, and subsequently backed down from each and every demand." Or this, "The president was humiliated in the Oval Office, and in his trip to AIPAC's woodshed he spoke of the future peace negotiations ending just as Israelis desire and demand." There is no reference to Netanyahu in these quotes, but it is because of his leadership and resolution Obama's demands have been rebuffed.
I believe for the first time Israel, under Benjamin Netanyahu, has come out of the shadows of America  and stepped one up on the podium of democracies over America. Notice what Pat Buchanan alludes to: "Politically, too, the president has been hurt. To the world, and not just the Arabs, he appears weak." It reminds me of the scene in "Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid" where Butch's authority is being questioned - he humiliates the challenger in a fight to send a message. If you want your enemies and friends to know where you are in the pecking order you humiliate the top dog into deference and a clear message is sent. And Benjamion Netanyahu clearly sent a message to Israel's friends and enemies - Israel is not going to wait on the United States or the weak President to spank anyone of them. And what a time to send this message, because which legitimate Arab country is going to try and spank Israel? Egypt? Libya? Syria? Jordan? Saudi Arabia? Yemen? How about Iran? The world for more than half a century lived the delusion these were legitimate countries. We believed these "leaders" were leading legitimate countries. They are not, they are just despots, dictators supported by oligarchies and military's. The rest of the people have been, or know people who have been brutalized, or murdered by the loyal oligarchy. Despots usually kill any opposition leaders and any intelligent elite whom might be able to mount a rebellion or overthrow the dictator.. So any loyalty by the boots on the ground soldier is only to his survival. There is no loyalty to cruelty. If you assassinate the despot, wipe out the oligarchy and drop a few bombs on the military's foot soldiers they will run away into the desert. These "nations" have no identity, no national pride, no national values, no national institutions, no meaningful societal structure or stability. Any structure in place is to secure the dictators place in power. If you wipe out the top the "Arab Street" falls back into seventh century tribal affiliations and Islamic law. From the West's perspective neither the infighting of tribes nor the division of Islam into Shia and Sunni produces a peace or solidarity. Instead they have lead to an exponential number of killings among Arabs and Persians as compared to infidels. From where will the foot soldiers come from then to attack Israel? Will they be jihadists attacking Israels borders? We recently saw how well thugs did attacking Israel's secure borders.
In contrast Israel is a country with the necessary elements of a civilized nation, firmly rooted  in laws thousands of years old, a history thousands of years old followed by generations,  and with a resolve to never again be endangered by any nation or peoples. Israel's resolve is not just in the Jewish psyche, but it's manifested in it's military might and ability - the military has atomic weapons at it's disposal. America does not have the history of the Holocaust and the resolve which comes from such a horrific event. What fool thinks the mirages of Arab/Persian power and authority are going to somehow dislodge and overpower such a spirit? The fools in Iran believe they can by developing atomic weapons. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad denies the Holocaust at his peril for it is what drives the Jewish people of Israel to excel, succeed and prevail.  The only nation in the Mideast which can come close right now to Israels nuclear might is Pakistan but lo they have limited missile range (300 Kilometers) and F16's only for delivery (http://www.cdi.org/nuclear/database/panukes.html). So with Israels greater nuclear arsenal (estimated at 200) and vastly superior delivery system of missiles capable of 1500 kilometers (http://www.cdi.org/nuclear/database/isnukes.html#mirage5 - I noticed the date of publication is 1996 and submarine delivery was not mentioned which I believe Israel is working on.) can we conceivably assume Israel is on a long range strategic military offensive to stay on top of the heap? Of course they are. They are most assuredly retrofitting an airliner (http://www.jpost.com/Defense/Article.aspx?id=204626) into a midair tanker for long range flying, developing conventional bunker buster bombs, refreshing it's intelligence, retrofitting their fighters to counter antiaircraft missiles and putting into play the attack plan. The Stuxnet worm was the opening salvo - slow down the Iranian development and buy the Israelis time to perfect and practice the attack plan; assure the attack plan includes vital facilities in the chain of development of the Iranian nuclear bomb. Maybe the Israelis are actually preparing something more spectacular like missile attacks rather than conventional fighter delivery, or maybe both. How do I know this is happening? Because it is what a strong Israel will do with leadership from Benjamin Netanyahu. It is what an America with strong leadership would do! Which brings me back to who is on top of the heap. Who would you bet on in this little skirmish?

So what is the middle east going to look like when Iran is spanked? Will the naysayers tremble at the upset of power by such a provocation? Oh wait where are the legitimate naysayers? The U.N.? Hah, there is a den of whores, thieves, despots and delegitimate cretins. The EU? The beaurocrats in Brussells will deliver proclamation after proclamation with meaningless authority as will the U.N. Oh and the powerful Arab League - see above. China? Russia? Japan? No, I count a few legitimate countries which I would see as holding sway and the U.S. is clearly not one of them - again see above. The two I see as bringing strength to bear are Canada and Germany by their economic strength, but alas where are their military's? Where is their strength of force - they obfuscated it to a super power which appears to no longer want to be a super power - kind of a dilemma when you want to have legitimacy. So Israel will do what it needs and nations will lament and foment with rhetoric about the Jewish Zionist nation stepping out of line, all for naught - Israel will still be on top. Will the Iranian's boldly mine the Persian Gulf and attack tankers to disrupt the oil supply chain? Or is there a more positive outcome of the attack - cutting the legs out from under Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and making him a weak power by destroying the thing which would bring him legitimacy. By undermining his legitimacy might this do more to hasten his exit by the people, to embolden the opposition, to deflate the Imams, Hamas, The Taliban and Al Queda of the notion of a Calaphate and instead bring about the rebirth of the Jewish state of  The Old Testament?

 I believe a time is coming when Israel will be the preeminent and soul major power in the Mideast even eclipsing America's influence. If Israel draws itself up for the monumental task - there will be sacrifice and loss of life in the destruction of the Iranian nuclear weapon. The jihadists will delight in, cheer and feel emboldened by the death of the infidel Jews, but miss the bigger historical significance of  "The Little Satan" Israel decapitating the greatest Islamic nation - it's worst threat ever and ending up being the 21st century democratic nation.

End Medicare - Andrew C. McCarthy - National Review Online

The operative quote - and this is a very well written piece about Medicare and it's history all taxpayers should read -:

"Medicare is a scam. The people who designed and perpetuated it would be serving more jail time than Bernie Madoff if they pulled a fraud like it in the private sector. As it is for the victims Madoff swindled, so it is for we who’ve been swindled by Washington: The money is gone. We can make provisions for the needy elderly who are about to hit eligibility and have relied on Medicare in their assumptions. But the party is over — and the sooner we grasp that, the fewer victims there will be.
Preserving a scam in the vain hope of making it less offensive may be well-meaning, but it’s not right, and it’s not courageous."

My first thought is to substitute "Social Security" anywhere there is a "Medicare" since I consider both scams. So if this was a private investor who scammed me out of my money I would be talking to them about, "What is it that you do have for me to compensate me for my loss?" "That or jail time, which shall it be?" Well I believe this is the answer for taxpayers, yes you - The Federal Government - the bureaucracy - and our representatives - long dead socialists shysters have scammed us, "So what do you have for us to compensate us for your incompetence, lying and stealing?" "It's that or go to jail" "So how about - at 65 years of age as long as I never take a penny of Social Security, pay for my own medical needs out of my own pocket, ah, lets see, um, I don't ever have to file a federal tax return or have any federal taxes or medicare taken out of my paycheck whether I am working or not!" This means all I file is a tax exemption form with an attached document from Social Security and Medicare stating I am 65 or older and have not accessed either program for that year. The minute I use either program I fall back into the "regular tax scam" called the "Tax Code." Or we could offer a stepped approach you don't use Social Security but you access medicare then you pay half federal taxes no social security and full medicare taxes. If you use Social Security but not Medicare then vise versa. The point is you scammed us, you - bureaucrats and politicians - said it would be solvent the money would be there, it is not so we want a real "New Deal" without your dirty corrupt hands controlling our retirements and old age.

So I can think of three arguments against - "It would be unfair to those who have to stay on Social Security and Medicare!" How is a scam fair in the first place? Now some may say it is unequal and it is, but the alternative is no Social Security and Medicare security for those who need it, and that would also be just as unequal.

The second argument is that what about those paying into the system how is it fair to them. My answer is there are two parts to deconstructing Social Security and Medicare. The first is the payees the baby boomers who were born in the middle of the last century - which I addressed above, they were the ones the grand promises were made to by long dead socialists shysters and who paid into both these programs from the day they began working - and the payers who were born in the eighties and nineties of the last century and they have not been promised anything and probably believe they will never draw anything from these entitlement programs. These are two separate problems which when combine make up Social Security and Medicare. They are also two different mind sets - one an expectation of deservedness and the other and expectation of unjustness. So the incentive for those paying into Social Security to do something different will be different from those who are receiving payments. So the answer is to offer an incentive as lucrative to the payer as the incentive to the payee.

The third argument is: "We will always need Social Security and Medicare. The stock market, retirement plans and medical costs are unreliable and most Americans cannot manage this by themselves, why look at the situation we are in right now the Stock Market is down, retirees are not making any interest on their accounts, etc., etc., etc!" (Sound of gnashing of teeth, wailing and bemoaning) And how is that going - which institution is in the news right now predicted to default - the stock market or, or, or the federal government! So much for reliability! And why is it that countries are not buying US treasury securities, yes you guessed it they are worthless! But the Stock Market is up. So the answer as always is to give American citizens an incentive to go it alone without the federal governments interference.

My mindset for all voters when listening to politicians speak about solving Social Security and Medicares insolvency; if they are not talking about fundamental change from the last century model of government managed to the 21st model of citizen managed they should turn away and listen for the lonesome voice for real change.