www.editedforbias.com » politics

Beware low bridge ahead…Constitutional views from the left

Ed F Bias — Fri, 24 Jun 2011 02:00:35 +0000

Today Mark Levin scared us all with a reading from Time magazine’s Managing Editor. I felt required to make sure this article was posted with the necessary and obvious rebutles. I was happy to see that a equally angered Conservative (@AaronWorthing) was faster at the keyboard than I and had already done the bulk of my work in his piece.

Please give him the courtesy of reading his post. He obviously spent a great deal of time finding the proper references to trounce the editor. This is precisely the kind of article and factual rebuttal that I wanted this site to bring to the fore. I still have not reached those lofty goals but still plan to build that platform. People like Aaron prove the will and articles like this one from Tinme continue to prove the need.

News Busters also covered this as well here.

Turning Budget Battle Lemons into Lemonade

Ed F Bias — Fri, 15 Apr 2011 03:28:38 +0000

The budget battle has shown weakness in the GOP leadership. It has shown they cannot negotiate under the barrage from the left and the mainstream media. They won elections stating they would get control of the budget. That they would start by cutting 100 billion from the 2001 budget. Then it turned into a prorated 61 billion, then down to a “negotiated” 38 billion.. or wait..then as AP points out, really about 20 billion. The political right wants to claim this as a victory. That we have changed the debate from increasing spending to cutting spending. That debate was won in the election, it was then lost with this compromise. Every time they defend this compromise they lose more votes.

A few simple questions. If the Democrats and Obama increased budgetary spending by over a Trillion dollars since 2008, why can’t almost all of that unspent money be stopped? Since the GOP controls the house, it techoncally can. But out of the Trillion in brand new spending they could only find 20 billion of real cuts?

All is not lost in the debate. We can turn these financial debate dibacle lemons into lemonade. Leadership needs to come out and turn the argument in a new direction.

Starting, “this was the best deal we could get”, fine. “Now the rest of America can see what they’re up against. The Democrats have no desire to stop spending. Their drive for deficits to give kick backs to funding partners is insatiable. Many did not understand how entrenched they are in their special interests. You see it now. They have increased the deficit to almost two trillion dollars and as we see, have no will to stop.

There is no leadership in the Democratic Senate. Harry Reid refused to even bring it to a vote. They would not put their names on a plan and negotiate in good faith. Basic business management will tell you, leaders do not just bring problems; they also bring solutions. Harry Reid is has shown himself to be no leader.

Democrats do not care to stop the economy from the inevitable train wreck. They want to continue to spend regardless of the outcome. Some are saying that the concern over the deficit is overrated. Others believe inflation will allow us to pay this down with cheaper funds and take advantage of our creditors. They manipulate the inflation rate to avoid Cost Of Living Increases. For those in massive debt that may sound like a good idea but for those of you with investments, savings or are on a fixed income; this IS disaster.

Demagoguing these cuts as causing people to live on the streets, women without health care, dying children and the elderly… oh the humanity and destruction this … 20 billion will cause! We now see there is no seriousness in the Democrat party. If you think this obstructionist rhetoric was bad, the debate has only begun. This was a hard fight to even get them to agree to a minor adjustment.

So we move forward. We avoided a government shut-down and we saw the lack of leadership in the senate. But even that is that is demagogue. The government would have continued to run all essential services and provide the necessary safety net to those most needy. I remind you again because this fight is not over. We will make sure we clarify, in writing, the essential services we believe need to continue during a funding slowdown but the final choice is the President’s.

We fully expect to reach this point again, during the budget debate for 2012 and the increase in the debt limit. These are important issues that require tough choices and leadership. Democrats will say again we’re trying to put people on the streets and take food off their table. They will say we are trying to default on our debt. Once again, their true motive is to continue this new level of spending and continue to grow the federal government’s grip on every aspect of daily life.

We will not default on our debt. We have enough money to pay those bills. But we cannot allow continued spending at this rate. The credit card is maxed out we are paying the interest with another credit card. We will not simply extend the credit limit without major behavioral reforms. It is time we talk seriously about changing this game we play in Washington. If necessary we’ll slow down the functions of government. We will service our debt and continue essential services, but we will also make sure our current path is changed and the future of these programs and our economy is preserved.”

UK a harbinger of US future?

ukdad — Wed, 20 Jan 2010 20:47:23 +0000

This is an email from last year that was held privately for a while. I have received enough follow-up that I believed it needed to be posted.

As you know [or maybe not] I have just come back from England and the Labor Government is just as shameful as our Democratic one. The MP’s are currently enjoying a scandal of padding expenses, including prime minister Brown, to levels you would not believe and they are bending over backwards to give illegal aliens benefits, money and civil rights, etc., without their earning it, just as here and their National Health program and economy is already a disaster.

These problems are causing the rise in popularity of the British National Party [BNP] likened to Hitler’s Nazi’s of the past who have already gained two seats representing Britain in the European Parliament and it looks like they are gaining momentum to such an extent that they will be seating MP’s directly into the British Parliament; after the horrors of World War II, who would have imagined such a thing. They [the BNP] want to control [stop and reverse] immigration, kick out illegal aliens and establish very racially unacceptable laws, etc., and not necessarily in a civil manner; you should see the hooligans that walk around protecting their leader! They are prepared to do what Hitler and his brown shirts did! The people voting for the BNP generally, I believe, don’t really believe in the policies of the BNP, but they are simply fed up, as we are here, with what is happening and what the stupid government is letting happen. Can this happen here?

What is happening here, it seems, is the destruction of our country from within. Look at what Obama has done so far, look at the people we have in high places helping him, including his gang of friends, people who are not even qualified or were elected, etc. Do these people understand what is happening, are they doing it deliberately? Or is it simply,” pull up the ladder Jack I’m alright?”

However, if you think it can’t get any worse, take a look at the attached; something that will be showing in your neighborhood very soon! From my perspective, this is nothing less than treason and they should be arrested and deported or worse.

Heaven help us; please!

…Think this can’t happen here? Remember that Europe is a decade “ahead” of us on these social issues (i.e Healthcare) and we are running full speed in that direction. We need to learn from their mistakes. Use this Google search to keep up with the articles and stay informed .

Haiti and Scott Brown

Ed F Bias — Wed, 20 Jan 2010 14:04:13 +0000

An odd combination but they have something remarkable in common… The American People.

Both have served to show, that when it comes down to it; Democrats, Republicans and Independents, there is a lot we share as Americans. The media, in pursuit of the every important rating point (dollars but the Liberals don’t like to admit it), will continue to accentuate the differences and polarize the American people. Politicians, in pursuit of reelection (let’s not kid ourselves that is money and power as well) try to convince us that crossing party lines and.or that “other guy” will destroy the country. Haiti and Scott Brown tell us otherwise. They tell us that we as Americans have far more in common.

A disaster in a foreign country, during a global recession, cannot stop the American people from donating millions of dollars or their ever-shrinking savings. Thousands give even more through their time and sweat. No political lines, no borders, just people helping people in need. It is what makes America (and the free world) special. It is what many fear is hampered by government control, mandates and heavy tax burdens. Haiti shows us that even with all that is against us; keeping us from buying a new car or a new TV; cannot kill our spirit and love of our fellow man. It took a disaster in a foreign country to break through the media and political spin and remind us of it.

That spirit lives on in all us, even in Massachusetts. Even there where a Republican public official is a rare as a Yankees fan, people came together. They came together to shatter the political spin and media love affair with all things Obama. They came together to tell Washington and the rest of the country that we are all Americans, we are still in charge and we are still free.

Those whose livelihood depends on their power in Washington will continue to fight. But I am heartened today. Today is a new day. We have taken two great steps in the direction of our founding and begun anew to walk the path destined to us. 2010 has indeed brought us a new beginning and Washington can definitely hear us now.

NY-23 Gingrich could not be more wrong

Ed F Bias — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 12:50:27 +0000

“If you seek to be a perfect minority, you’ll remain a minority,” Gingrich said in a written statement. “That’s not how Reagan built his revolution or how we won back the House in 1994.”

Why is Newt trying to rewrite history, including his own? Does he believe sucking up to the Liberal Republicans will ensure his nomination in 2012? He could not be more wrong, and hopefully in both counts. This does not come easy because Gingrich used to be one of our favorite Republicans. His belief in American exceptionalism, his desire to educate at local universities, his desire for smaller government, have all taken a backseat to his seeming desire to be liked and be on TV.

What propelled Reagan and propelled the GOP into power in 1994 was LEADERSHIP. Nothing more, nothing less. Following the GOP where they tell you to go is not leadership. Trying to build a “big tent” by having no values is not leadership. I do not advocate exclusionary policies, but leadership does mean taking a stand and letting the cards fall where they may.

Reagan did not bow to the Soviets to change ???tax policy to include others in the party. He articulated his beliefs clearly and effectively and convinced other to follow his lead. Reagan was probably more conservative then the population but he convinced them to trust his leadership and led us to success. The contract with America was similar. Not everyone agreed with every policy, but they agreed with the tenants of smaller government and appreciated the willingness of Republicans to write down there ideas and stick to them. Republicans both leaders and followers were brought into power in a wave of public support.

Republicans have lost since, not because they became more conservative then Reagan (more on that to come). They lost because they lost leaders that were able to articulate what they believe. Many that remain are simply followers left to wander Washington DC alone, brought in with Reagan and/or “the Contract”. Looking for leadership, and lacking it themselves, they latched on to pseudo-leaders in the Senate and House. Then again a pseudo-leader in President Bush. All of which have led them astray.

The Republican party is conservative. The country is conservative. Heck, the Democrats that defeated the Republicans in 2006 were conservative. What the Republicans need is not liberal Republicans and a big tent. What they need is leadership.

Understanding the lefts view of health care reform

Ed F Bias — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 11:24:17 +0000

It is often difficult to connect on these complex issues. In many cases we start with different viewpoints and a belief that we are diametrically opposed. In many cases these divisions are driven by the news media and politicians to make their points. A friend posted a video he found compelling arguing for socialized health care. Since he bothered to post it, watching it was the polite thing to do. It was instantly apparent that there is a disconnect brought on by a misunderstanding about America and the loose facts that were represented. To not besmirch the unknown author, we will believe the misrepresentations were not an act of malice or manipulation, simply a different yet uninformed point of view. Let’s discuss the video’s points, in the hopes of connecting a few dots and assist those that are willing to listen understand why the public option and socialized medicine is so wrong to so many.

The video heads off track quickly with the lead argument that education, fire and police protection, water treatment and the postal service are already socialized. ..WHOA moment! Fire and police protection are not Federal programs they are locally run and supported predominantly by local tax dollars. Water treatment does have more federal oversight for use but is still managed at the state and local level (I pay my city not Washington DC) and get my water from local resources. The post office and public education are not the best examples of great social programs. The post office is going bankrupt and customer service is severely lacking. Public education spends 1000s more per student than private schools and continues to deliver a substandard product (judged by the world testing standards that liberals love). Judged yet another way, politicians elect to keep their kids out of public schools and voucher programs in any form have waiting lists. Hardly the goals we should set for our health care.

Needless to say it started badly… but we listen on…He said these were all essential services, just like health care. I admit without health you are missing much. What about food, shelter and clothing? Are they less important then fire, postal service and public education? Should the federal government mandate housing, food products and issue standard clothing (brown shirts) to all citizens? These are far more essential then any such services. In fact, only the Post office is enumerated in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. The rest, as documented and reiterated in the 9th and 10th amendments, are left to the states (besides standards and regulations set forth).

40 seconds in …we plow on…He gives a basic and not invalid description of insurance. But leaves out the glaring fact that a large population of people using the pool of money are not putting into the pool. That is not insurance, it could be called a loan, but with no plan to ever pay it back it is closer to robbery or extortion. Let it ride…

Now on to the newest talking point for the left the “Big Insurance” company and their evil profits. Again a blatant lack of understanding…this one borders on flat out known manipulation. He states that the profits are taken from people. Basic math knows that profit is left over when expenses are subtracted from income. The wording he uses is intentional. The belief put forth is that by raising premiums they increase income. By denying valid claims the companies limit expenses. Therefore, increase profits on the backs of their customers. Not untrue on the whole but a bit overstated. It is missing the fact that should this be known and publicized in the courts and private sector the company would lose business, destroy its reputation and fail. Customers would find another company with which to do business. That is how the free market operates. That is, if the government would allow sufficient competition between insurance companies to give consumers a choice [i.e. purchasing across state lines, personal insurance policies]. What choice do you get in a socialized system when you get abused or denied? You get to suffer and die. See Canada, UK and closer to home Portland, OR.

And those evil fat cat investors he references. ..401k , mutual funds and pension plans? A basic lack of understanding about the “owners” of public companies. Let’s take a quick look at any… I picked Aetna.

% of Shares Held by All Insider and 5% Owners:	0%
% of Shares Held by Institutional & Mutual Fund Owners:	90%
% of Float Held by Institutional & Mutual Fund Owners:	91%
Number of Institutions Holding Shares:	525

To translate.. all stock owned by Aetna employees (insiders) and personal investors with 5% or more stake totals 0%. 90% of all Aetna stock is held by funds and institutions (i.e. Pensions). I am sure some rich people have invested in those funds as well but they do not control them. The illusion of a few rich owners is wholly invalid. Simple math…that leaves 10% of the company held by all private investors combined. To whom are they beholden?

We digress….

Back to it…2:10 in…He moves on to non-profit solutions. Based on his misunderstandings of free markets and undue credit for local government’s value…he surmises that non-profit government run health care would be good for us. Using Medicare as his hallmark example he touts a 3% overhead compared to 10%-20% for insurance companies. Quick return to Aetna…26% gross profits in 2008…ewww. Ok, now adjust for operating expenses and reinvestment (and don’t forget taxes..790 million$) and you drop to 4.4% net income to investors that loaned their hard earned money to Aetna (via stock).

He right that their overhead is higher at 28% in 2006 and dropping to 18% in 2008. A recession is a good way to trim excess out of the system…unless you are government which is growing. That extra overhead has a lot to do with advertising and sponsorships which cost money. The government program needs no such overhead, since they simply take the money from your paycheck and every paycheck of working Americans. It also ignores the cost of regulation on the private doctors, the costs of government buildings it does not own. Also think again about simple math… the government program serves the unhealthy older population which have higher and more recurring claims then most private companies which include younger working Americans. Therefore, with less overall people they can process more money out the door, thus lowering their overhead as a % of outlays. Translated: double the denominator ($6000+ versus $2700 annual outlay per person) and the result is halved. Government programs also do not pay taxes back to the government. So this comparison is mostly invalid. Should we desire to take his data at face value…Medicare’s operating expenses are 3% which is better as a non-profit. Problem, Medicare is not non-profit, it is net negative. In fact it’s unfunded liabilities over the next 10 years is 2.7Trillion dollars. What would their numbers look like if they actually had to pay for the expenses with income? What will your expenses look like when “the pool” grows to include 100% of residents (not 100% of citizens)? In summary, if you can run at a loss, excluded major expenses and mandate expenses on your competitors through regulation you can make your numbers look better. By some estimates that attempt to equalize the numbers Medicare is running at8% or higher (some as high as 27%).

Moving on… can it get worse? Oh and it does. He moves on to a comical yet invalid metaphor about “what if Fire worked like health”. The problem here goes beyond the fact that fire is a local service and not controlled by Washington DC. Start at about 3:15. It is worth getting his take on it. So in his metaphor he claims that Fire protection is free and goes so far as to claim that the repair to the house is free as well. The Fire Department does not fix your house and in no way covers you for damages. Fire is “emergency service” and they put out the fire. Home owners insurance fixes the house. That insurance could deny your claim if you started the fire via negligence or arson.

The metaphor is great because it fails so badly to prove his point that is proves the opposite. Does your home owners insurance cover you changing the air filters in your furnace? What about cleaning the dishes? Do the firemen come to your house and conduct routine maintenance and trim trees to prevent a future problem? Could you buy home owners insurance after the fire and ask them to fix it (pre-existing condition)? On the health care front the metaphor follows. Emergency services (emergency room care) cannot be denied by law and is provided at other insurance carriers expense. So we already meet the comparative standard defined by his argument.

Many have come to believe the Health Insurance should be different. That it should pay for everything and ignore the past. That is nonsense. Health insurance should be a personal policy to covers the services you elect to pay for and protects you in case of unforeseen catastrophe, just like home, life and auto. See, we can agree.

Obama speaks to your children

Ed F Bias — Mon, 07 Sep 2009 11:23:29 +0000

There has been a lot of hype about President Obama’s planned speech to public school students. Over the long weekend that fervor hit our social network. The simple question was, “what is the big deal?”

The simple answer (the one the left could not hear) was not the fact that he wanted to speak but the pre-meeting notes sent out by the White House. Specifically, the statement asking students to write about how they can help the President (read his agenda). Combine this with the lack of speech text and the current state of the Health care debate, and parents rightfully asked, “What is he going to say?” Will it be political or simply about the importance of education? Was he going to tell students to help him save health care in this country? Was he going to explain that Grandma will not be denied health care under his plan? More generally, was he talking to high school students, middle school, elementary school students? Was it really appropriate for all? All good questions but with no forth-right answers made parents a bit nervous.

Add to this a short basic education on education. School boards spend months (even years) planning and tuning their education programs to meet Federal and State guildelines. This job is one that many spend much of the “summer break” to manage. In general, the actual curriculum is controlled and set forth the counties and implemented through your local school administrators and devout teachers to try to meet or exceed those guidelines. Weeks before school starts lesson plans are put in place, schedules set, students placed into classrooms. Involved parents pay attention and offer input/feedback in much of this process. Why does the President expect all of this to be placed on hold (at all grade levels) for a special assignment dictated from Washington? It smacks of Federal control of our students education. A visceral reaction of Americans should have been expected and frankly am I glad it occurred. This country is not as far gone as many have feared.

So all this concern from the “right wing” was met with understanding and clarity from the left…oh sorry…was met with comments such as “Obama is being asked to sit in the back of the school bus.” “All Presidents speak to classrooms. This is no different.”

The racists comments will be taken as they always should be, as proof that their argument is lacking in facts and they have no intellectual foothold. The second point is worth some clarification. All Presidents speak to classrooms, I agree. George Bush was reading to a classroom when 9/11 occurred. In cases such as this, the President is speaking to a single classroom or a single school; not a mandated national broadcast. I would expect that the reading materials or speech content is germane to the school curriculum and approved in general terms by the local administration…as it should be.

Many were simply asking for the chance to preview the speech and be prepared for what was said and questions that might arise. As “crazy” as this uproar was, the White House released the speech before Monday and changed the text of the offending question. Yet more proof that Americans still do have the power and Washington sometimes listens. I think the left is more uncomfortable with parents and the more conservative general population learning this valuable lesson.

Parade: Honesty about Hollywood Liberalism

Ed F Bias — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 04:05:41 +0000

I seldom read Parade magazine in the Sunday paper but these weeks caught my eye. The lead story was about Shia LaBeouf of Transformer, Indiana Jones IV and Holes fame. But that was not what caught my eye. What caught me was the “In Over His Head?” Interesting…what was up?

I was surprised to read a well written article about young stars and their propensity for getting into trouble. But what was almost unbelievable was the honesty of Shia about his own actions and Hollywood as a whole. ”I don’t handle fame well. Most actors on most days don’t think they’re worthy. I have no idea where this insecurity comes from, but it’s a God sized hole.” This explains a lot but he goes on, “Actors live dependant on being validated by other people’s opinions, ” he continues. “I have no credentials. To my mind talent doesn’t really exist. Talent is like a card player’s luck.” Maybe it is because he is still young but old enough to articulate his position but his words struck me square in the face.

What am I going on about? The clarity with which he explains the Liberal tilt in Hollywood. I believe it was Barbara Streisand that said something about “being a winner of life’s lottery.” The powerful in Hollywood reach a level so high above “normal” and with so little self-confidence and hard work that they believe they are not worthy. That guilt and self loathing makes them grab on to charities and other equally public actions to create worth and positive self-opinion.

Beyond that, they believe that noone else of means is worthy either. Those that are not involved in similar public philanthropy are even less deserving. In a general sense, Liberals believe we are all born with the same abilities and same chance to be successful and they were simply the lucky one(s). They have very little understanding about real business and hard work that creates the majority of wealth in this country. This lack of understanding leads to policies to redirect that wealth to those that “luck” has somehow avoided.

This article drove these points home in his own words, it is worth a read.

This is what “news” has come to?

Ed F Bias — Mon, 27 Apr 2009 14:05:36 +0000

For Obama, hipness is what it is

This would not be so bad if this was Entertainment Tonight or even the Today Show, which are “almost- news agencies” already. But this was Politico. They spend about three written pages showcasing his “accomplishments” in being hip. Sighting authors of hip culture. I thought they we somewhat still a decent news source. My bad.

But there is a silver lining to all of this. In fact two. First is that it shows the absolute need for a change in media and they way in whcih the report. A refocusing on the facts and news and away from all of the emotion driven suck-up-id-ness. The second point is, “this is what they have to tout for 100 days of effort?” So he is hip. Ineffective, destructive and moving us towards Statism. But he is hip! The struggle to find something of value to portray on behalf of this president has gotten this tough.

Politico, in trying to showcase his talents, has also highlighted his weaknesses. Unfortunately, his weakness at this point is being President.

"Torture" edited for bias style

Ed F Bias — Fri, 17 Apr 2009 12:21:00 +0000

Here are the headlines…

Washington Post: Interrogation Details Emerge
CNN: Bush-era interrogation memo: No torture without ‘severe pain’ intent
New York Times: Interrogation Memos Detail Harsh Tactics by the C.I.A.
LA Times: Memos reveal CIA interrogation methods
Wall Street Journal: CIA Memos Released; Immunity for Harsh Tactics
[note headline on home page differs No Prosecution for Waterboarding ]
Fox News: Administration: No Charges Against Waterboarders

Scoring on the bias scale; I would commend the Washington Post and LA Times headliners. New York Times [shock] is the most liberally biased headline. CNN is not bad but adds a bit of detail to the headline. WSJ is interesting… the front page is taking a completely different angle then the headline of the article itself… [different folks with different philosophies?]. Fox loses on the the conservative end of the scale for missing the whole release of the documents and jumping to the end story.

On to the content…[in progress]