The Obama Economy, In Eleven Charts | Power Line

The Obama Economy, In Eleven Charts | Power Line

Today the Republicans on the Senate Budget Committee put out a chart book that documents the Obama administration’s failures in economic policy. From the introduction:

The great economic tragedy of our time is the erosion of the American middle class. Millions of Americans find themselves locked out of the American Dream. Their wages are either flat or falling, even as the price of energy and goods surges; the labor force is shrinking; and the government stimulus which was claimed to lift the economy to prosperity has instead sunk the nation into a chasm of debt. This chart book highlights what working people know all too well: under President Obama, economic life today is much harder today than it was just a few years ago.

A day or two ago I saw a clip of a rather bewildered Wolf Blitzer asking Debbie Wasserman Schultz why President Obama doesn’t get more credit for the economy. Blitzer makes $3 million a year, so the economy probably looks pretty good to him. But the answer to his question is no mystery: for a large majority of Americans, the Obama economy has been a disaster.

Betsy's Page: Cruising the Web

Betsy's Page: Cruising the Web

Israel as punching bag

James Taranto links to this essay by Israeli journalist Matti Friedman about how the media cover Israel. Friedman points out that the media cover Israel and the Palestinians as if it's the most important story on earth with move coverage than any other conflict on earth.

Staffing is the best measure of the importance of a story to a particular news organization. When I was a correspondent at the AP, the agency had more than 40 staffers covering Israel and the Palestinian territories. That was significantly more news staff than the AP had in China, Russia, or India, or in all of the 50 countries of sub-Saharan Africa combined. It was higher than the total number of news-gathering employees in all the countries where the uprisings of the “Arab Spring” eventually erupted.

To offer a sense of scale: Before the outbreak of the civil war in Syria, the permanent AP presence in that country consisted of a single regime-approved stringer. The AP’s editors believed, that is, that Syria’s importance was less than one-40th that of Israel....

The volume of press coverage that results, even when little is going on, gives this conflict a prominence compared to which its actual human toll is absurdly small. In all of 2013, for example, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict claimed 42 lives—that is, roughly the monthly homicide rate in the city of Chicago. Jerusalem, internationally renowned as a city of conflict, had slightly fewer violent deaths per capita last year than Portland, Ore., one of America’s safer cities. In contrast, in three years the Syrian conflict has claimed an estimated 190,000 lives, or about 70,000 more than the number of people who have ever died in the Arab-Israeli conflict since it began a century ago.

News organizations have nonetheless decided that this conflict is more important than, for example, the more than 1,600 women murdered in Pakistan last year (271 after being raped and 193 of them burned alive), the ongoing erasure of Tibet by the Chinese Communist Party, the carnage in Congo (more than 5 million dead as of 2012) or the Central African Republic, and the drug wars in Mexico (death toll between 2006 and 2012: 60,000), let alone conflicts no one has ever heard of in obscure corners of India or Thailand. They believe Israel to be the most important story on earth, or very close.

I suspect that part of this discrepancy is that it is much easier and pleasanter to be a reporter in Israel than one in Syria or Pakistan or Tibet or Congo. He goes on to point to how the media frame the story by totally ignoring the Palestinians as having any responsibility for their situation. They ignore the corruption in the Palestinian Authority yet drill down on the slightest negative story about Israeli society. The media ignore or downplay the fact that Hamas censors and intimidates them in their coverage of conflict in Gaza. It is like after the fall of Saddam Hussein, CNN's Eason Jordan told the world of how CNN had kept certain stories to themselves because of their fear of what Saddam would do to Iraqis who had worked with CNN if they had made stories of atrocities committed by Saddam and his sons. Yet reporters in Gaza don't seem to care about presenting a true picture of life in Gaza because they're too focused on blaming everything on Israel. Friedman goes on to say many perceptive things about how the media and their western audiences see conflict between Israel and the Palestinians and fail to see those tensions as part of of conflicts throughout the Middle East. And, by portraying the conflict as simply one between Israel and Palestinians they get to portray Israel as the stronger entity instead of framing the conflict as one between Israel and Arabs or between Israelis and Muslims if one were to include the hostile countries of Turkey and Iran. Such a framing would make Israel be a tiny country of 6 million facing 300 million Arabs in surrounding countries. 

And what explains this invidious depiction of Israel? Westerners can project onto Israel everything they despise about their own nation's histories.

When the people responsible for explaining the world to the world, journalists, cover the Jews’ war as more worthy of attention than any other, when they portray the Jews of Israel as the party obviously in the wrong, when they omit all possible justifications for the Jews’ actions and obscure the true face of their enemies, what they are saying to their readers—whether they intend to or not—is that Jews are the worst people on earth. The Jews are a symbol of the evils that civilized people are taught from an early age to abhor. International press coverage has become a morality play starring a familiar villain....

White people in London and Paris whose parents not long ago had themselves fanned by dark people in the sitting rooms of Rangoon or Algiers condemn Jewish “colonialism.” Americans who live in places called “Manhattan” or “Seattle” condemn Jews for displacing the native people of Palestine. Russian reporters condemn Israel’s brutal military tactics. Belgian reporters condemn Israel’s treatment of Africans. When Israel opened a transportation service for Palestinian workers in the occupied West Bank a few years ago, American news consumers could read about Israel “segregating buses.” And there are a lot of people in Europe, and not just in Germany, who enjoy hearing the Jews accused of genocide.

You don’t need to be a history professor, or a psychiatrist, to understand what’s going on. Having rehabilitated themselves against considerable odds in a minute corner of the earth, the descendants of powerless people who were pushed out of Europe and the Islamic Middle East have become what their grandparents were—the pool into which the world spits. The Jews of Israel are the screen onto which it has become socially acceptable to project the things you hate about yourself and your own country. The tool through which this psychological projection is executed is the international press.

Bret Stephens ponders the intriguing way that Obama's aides describe his personal reactions to various conflicts around the world.

Barack Obama "has become 'enraged' at the Israeli government, both for its actions and for its treatment of his chief diplomat, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry. " So reports the Jerusalem Post, based on the testimony of Martin Indyk, until recently a special Middle East envoy for the president. The war in Gaza, Mr. Indyk adds, has had "a very negative impact" on Jerusalem's relations with Washington.

Think about this. Enraged. Not "alarmed" or "concerned" or "irritated" or even "angered." Anger is a feeling. Rage is a frenzy. Anger passes. Rage feeds on itself. Anger is specific. Rage is obsessional, neurotic.

And Mr. Obama—No Drama Obama, the president who prides himself on his cool, a man whose emotional detachment is said to explain his intellectual strength—is enraged. With Israel. Which has just been hit by several thousand unguided rockets and 30-odd terror tunnels, a 50-day war, the forced closure of its one major airport, accusations of "genocide" by Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, anti-Semitic protests throughout Europe, general condemnation across the world. This is the country that is the object of the president's rage.

Think about this some more. In the summer in which Mr. Obama became "enraged" with Israel, Islamic State terrorists seized Mosul and massacred Shiite soldiers in open pits, Russian separatists shot down a civilian jetliner, Hamas executed 18 "collaborators" in broad daylight, Bashar Assad's forces in Syria came close to encircling Aleppo with the aim of starving the city into submission, a brave American journalist had his throat slit on YouTube by a British jihadist, Russian troops openly invaded Ukraine, and Chinese jets harassed U.S. surveillance planes over international waters.

Mr. Obama or his administration responded to these events with varying degrees of concern, censure and indignation. But rage?

Nope. Not so much. He saves that for the Israelis.

Betsy's Page: Cruising the Web

Betsy's Page: Cruising the Web

Lengthy post.  Obama vs the Constitution.
What if Bush had done any of this?

David Harsanyi has a very good question that should be posed to every Democrat who has turned a blind eye to everything that Obama has done to extend the power of the executive at the expense of Congress.

Enforce laws at your political leisure. Name recess appointments when there’s no recess. Legislate through regulation. Rewrite environmental laws. Rewrite immigration policy. Rewrite tax legislation. Bomb Libya. Bomb Syria. All by fiat. All good. The only question now is: what can’t Barack Obama do without Congress?

Every day seems to bring forth another story about what Obmaa has done or intends to do to ignore the constitutional limitations on the power of the president. A constitution, by the way, that Barack Obama swore to preserve, protect, and defend. The most recent was the news that he wants to forge a sweeping multi-national agreement on climate change without submitting it to the Senate. And the only excuse given is that the issue is so important and the Senate won't act. As if no president has ever faced a recalcitrant Congress.

“The biggest problems that we’re facing right now have to do with George Bush trying to bring more and more power into the executive branch and not go through Congress at all, and that’s what I intend to reverse when I’m President of the United States of America,” then-candidate Obama declared years ago. You can imagine what might have transpired if George Bush had argued that a lack of seriousness regarding a “broken” Social Security program – and the obstruction of his reform efforts – meant that Democrats had ceded the political field on the issue and should be sidestepped. It might not have gone over that well. Then again, liberal pundits seem to be under the impression that the issues we face today are the most significant in the history of mankind. Every liberal hobbyhorse becomes a moral imperative. And as frustration mounts, the abuses grow and the excuses get uglier.

But, apparently, there is some invisible clause, as Charles C.W. Cooke writes, in the Constitution that allows Democrats to ignore the limitations it puts on the presidency - the "We Can't Wait" clause.

Justifying his infringements, the president typically submits that Congress has in some way abandoned its role, and that he is obliged by expedience to step in. This asseveration rests unsteadily upon the false presumption that Congress’s role is to agree with the executive branch, rather than to make law. It is not. Even if we were to agree wholeheartedly with Barack Obama that Congress’s judgment is poor, it would remain the case that there is no provision in the Constitution that makes the legislature’s absolute role conditional upon its good sense. On the contrary: If the president can’t get Congress to agree to what he legally needs them to agree to, he doesn’t get to do what he wants to do. This is so whether Congress is packed with angels or with clowns. It is so whether Congress adores the president or loathes him, whether it is active and engaged, and whether it is idle and lackadaisical. And — crucially — it is so whether Congress is popular or it is unpopular. Public opinion matters in the American system come election time, mass plebiscites serving as the basis by which our representatives are chosen and our sentiments established into law. But it has no bearing on the day-to-day legal operation of the government, nor upon the integrity of the rules that govern that operation. If one of the elected branches proves recalcitrant, steadfastly ignoring what the voters want, the remedy is electoral, not legal. The integrity of the constitutional order, suffice it to say, is not contingent upon the transient public mood. That way lies chaos.

Knowing that appeals to raw power are jarring to the average ear, those who have taken to defending the president’s imperialism tend instead to sell their wares by introducing complexity where it does not belong. It is the case that some parts of our Constitution are vague and open to interpretation. But not all. Alas, over the last six years, we have been told that there is considerable nuance even in those portions that have been taken for more than two centuries to be utterly straightforward. Does the president have to faithfully execute the laws as they are written? That, apparently, is complicated. Does the ratification of treaties really work in the manner that the Constitution prescribes? Ooh, a tricky one! What about Article I, which makes it clear that all legislative powers belong to the legislature? Sure, but only if Congress behaves itself. Must the executive branch adhere to the established budget and borrowing process, or can it mint trillion-dollar platinum coins if Congress won’t acquiesce with its demands? This too, it seems, is unclear. Can the president deem the Senate to be in recess and make appointments without them? Why not, man? So deeply has this rot set in — and so ready have political opportunists proved themselves to abdicate their responsibilities in favor of political victory — that we have been treated to the sight of a three-term senator and majority whip claiming with a straight face that the president can merely “borrow” congressional power if it is not forthcoming.

He must do no such thing, for an assault on any part of our settlement is an assault on the whole. To the extent that Obama has been accorded political power, he may use it, and use it to the fullest. Beyond that, he is tightly and rightly circumscribed in his authority. As a matter of both propriety and legal rectitude, there can be no place within the American constitutional order for a president to menace Congress with threats. Not now, not tomorrow, not ever. Like Sir Thomas More in A Man for All Seasons, Barack Obama would profit from the recognition that it is for his own good that he is expected to give the Devil the benefit of the law. By demonizing one’s opponents and making legal excuses in result, it is easy to make the men in the cheap seats applaud and holler. But before long, somebody else will be taking the oath, and wondering, as he promise the best of his ability, just what he might put over on the rest.

Seth Lipsky explains why the procedures set up in the Constitution for approving treaties makes so much sense.

In recent years it has grown apparent that our country is in what I like to call a “constitutional moment,” and this example is a humdinger. Presidents are perfectly entitled to sign treaties that haven’t been approved by the Senate. That’s part of the process. They ink all sorts of sketchy stuff, but it can’t become binding as supreme law of the land until it gets through the Senate.

The Senate gives it a chance to simmer. Hearings are held. People with interests get to testify. The Senate is where the states, key parties in the American contract, get their say. Sometimes, treaties don’t get ratified and are laid aside. This happened to the Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty known as SALT II. President Carter signed it, but the Senate didn’t trust the Soviet boss at the time, Leonid Brezhnev, nor anyone else in the Kremlin camarilla. So it refused to ratify the treaty. No one was the worse for wear.

America worked for years on the Law of the Sea Treaty, a vast giveaway of oceanic wealth that we had the best technology to exploit, but the measure didn’t get to first base in the Senate, either. There are still politicians and diplomats and lawyers out there hoping to persuade the Senate to act. Fair enough. I wouldn’t ratify the Law of the Sea Treaty for all the sardines in the ocean. But trying to convince the Senate is fair enough. If it’s one thing to try to persuade the Senate, it’s another thing to take a treaty that the Senate is so clearly unwilling to ratify, as with global warming, and enter into a conspiracy to dodge the Senate and evade the Constitution — a document that every public official in our country is sworn to support.

This is basic Civics 101. My 10th grade students all understand this. You would think that someone who prides himself on having been a professor of Constitutional Law would understand this. And, of course, he does understand it. But he has just decided that if he wants to do something and he can't get the Senate for a treaty or the whole of Congress for a law to go along, then dang it he'll just have to do it himself and blame the Republicans for his being forced to ignore the Constitution. And just how does this differ from the sort of tyranny that the Constitutional checks and balances were designed to protect against?

No, the IRS Did Not Target Progressives Like It Targeted Conservatives | National Review Online

No, the IRS Did Not Target Progressives Like It Targeted Conservatives | National Review Online

Looking at the numbers, the chart answers a question I’ve asked myself ever since the Left claimed that it had been targeted as well: If progressives experienced similar targeting, why didn’t they make any notable contemporaneous complaints? After all, conservatives raised the issue well over a year ago, members of Congress asked the IRS commissioner about it directly, and the New York Times was even moved by the complaints to write its now-clownish March 7, 2012, editorial claiming the IRS was merely “do[ing] its job.”
Perhaps progressives didn’t complain because their targeting experience involved seven groups that were asked an average of just five additional questions (rounded up to be generous) and were approved at a 100 percent rate.

After a Year of Delays – IRS Says They Lost Lois Lerner’s Emails in Computer Crash | The Gateway Pundit

After a Year of Delays – IRS Says They Lost Lois Lerner’s Emails in Computer Crash | The Gateway Pundit

The IRS Conservative Targeting Scandal involved:

• Hundreds of conservative groups were targeted
• At least 5 pro-Israel groups
• Constitutional groups
• Groups that criticized Obama administration
• At least two pro-life groups
• An 83 year-old Nazi concentration camp survivor
• A 180 year-old Baptist paper
• A Texas voting-rights group
• A Hollywood conservative group was targeted and harassed
• Conservative activists and businesses
• At least one conservative Hispanic group
• IRS continued to target groups even after the scandal was exposed
• 10% of Tea Party donors were audited by the IRS
• And… 100% of the 501(c)(4) Groups Audited by IRS Were Conservative

Now this…

After a year of delays the Obama IRS says it lost Lois Lerner’s emails in a computer crash.
From the Ways and Means Committee website, via Human Events:

Today, Ways and Means Committee Chairman Dave Camp (R-MI) issued the following statement regarding the Internal Revenue Service informing the Committee that they have lost Lois Lerner emails from a period of January 2009 – April 2011.Due to a supposed computer crash, the agency only has Lerner emails to and from other IRS employees during this time frame. The IRS claims it cannot produce emails written only to or from Lerner and outside agencies or groups, such as the White House, Treasury, Department of Justice, FEC, or Democrat offices.

“The fact that I am just learning about this, over a year into the investigation, is completely unacceptable and now calls into question the credibility of the IRS’s response to Congressional inquiries. There needs to be an immediate investigation and forensic audit by Department of Justice as well as the Inspector General.

The Complete Chronology of the Benghazi Deception | National Review Online

The Complete Chronology of the Benghazi Deception | National Review Online

March 2011: U.S. secretly approves arms shipments from Qatar to Libyan rebels.

May 2011: Al-Qaeda flags raised over Benghazi.

November 2011: Rebel leader Abdel-Hakim al-Hasidi admits a significant number of Libyan rebels were al-Qaeda fighters who fought American troops in Iraq.

April 19, 2012: State Department rejects ambassador to Libya’s request for more security personnel.

June 20, 2012: Assassination attempt on the British Ambassador to Libya.

July 9, 2012: Ambassador Stevens asks the State Department for more security personnel.

August 8, 2012: The number of security personnel at Benghazi reduced by State Department.

August 16, 2012: U.S. Site Security in Benghazi alerts the State Department that conditions are perilous.

September 4, 2012: Gallup presidential tracking poll: Obama 47 percent; Romney 46 percent.

September 4–6, 2012: Democratic National Convention (“al-Qaeda decimated; bin Laden is dead and GM is alive; al-Qaeda is on the run”).

September 11, 2012: Ambassador Stevens alerts the State Department that conditions in Benghazi are deteriorating.

3:40 p.m. (D.C. time): Stevens calls deputy chief of mission Greg Hicks in Tripoli and alerts him that the consulate in Benghazi is under attack.

4:00 p.m.: The White House is advised that the consulate is under attack. 10th Special Forces Group in Croatia is three hours away; Brigadier General (Ret.) Robert Lovell, Deputy Director of Intelligence for AFRICOM, later testifies that intelligence knew immediately that it was not a protest but a terrorist attack; no request for aid comes from the State Department.

5:00 p.m.: Defense Secretary Leon Panetta discusses attack with President Obama.

6:00 p.m.: U.S. Embassy in Tripoli advises the White House and the State Department that al-Qaeda affiliate Ansar al-Sharia has claimed responsibility for the attack. CIA deputy director Mike Morrell later testifies that “analysts knew from the get-go that al Qaeda was involved with this attack.”

8:00 p.m.: Greg Hicks calls Clinton and tells her that consulate is under terrorist attack.

10:00 p.m.: Clinton and Obama talk.

10:30 p.m.: Clinton issues a statement linking the attack to an inflammatory internet video.

11:00–11:30 p.m.: Former Navy SEALs Glen Doherty and Ty Woods killed.

September 12, 2012: Redacted e-mail from a State Department official says the official advised the Libyan government that the attack was carried out by Ansar al-Sharia. No mention of video.

September 12–15, 2012: CIA drafts several iterations of talking points; contains no known references to video as cause of the attack.

September 13, 2012: State Department memo blames the attack on terrorists.

September 13, 2012: Defense Intelligence Agency assigns blame for the attack on Ansar al-Sharia in Libya. No mention of a video.

September 13, 2012: Clinton condemns violence against U.S. consulate in Libya due to a video.

September 13, 2012: Jay Carney condemns attack due to a video.

September 14, 2012: State Department says the attack was a spontaneous demonstration due to a video.

September 14, 2012: Obama and Clinton receive the families of the fallen as their caskets arrive at Andrews Air Force Base; blame the attack on a video. Clinton tells Ty Woods’s father, Charles, that they will “get” the producer of the video.

September 14, 2012: Jay Carney blames the video.

September 14, 2012, 8:00 p.m.: Deputy national-security adviser Ben Rhodes sends an e-mail regarding the preparation of Susan Rice for the Sunday talk shows, advising Rice to underscore the video and that the attack is “not a broader failure of policy.”

September 15, 2012: Obama blames the video.

September 16, 2012: Susan Rice appears on five Sunday talk shows and characterizes the attacks as a spontaneous reaction due to a video.

September 16, 2012: Libyan president disputes Rice’s comments, asserting Benghazi was a planned attack.

September 18, 2012: Obama appears on the David Letterman show, blames the video.

September 19, 2012: The head of the National Counterterrorism Center testifies that the attack was not a protest but a terrorist attack.

September 20, 2012: Obama blames the video.

September 20, 2012: Obama and Clinton run an ad on Pakistani TV apologizing for the video.

September 21, 2012: Clinton says it was a terrorist attack.

September 24, 2012: Obama appears on The View, blames the video.

October 4, 2012: Clinton establishes the Accountability Review Board (“ARB”) to examine the circumstances surrounding the loss of personnel in Benghazi. Clinton not interviewed by ARB.

October 11, 2012: At the vice-presidential debate, Joe Biden claims the administration was not informed about requests for more security at the consulate in Benghazi.

October 16, 2012: Obama, in a response to a question from a reporter about whether he denied requests for aid to Benghazi on September 11 responds, “The minute I found out this was going on, I gave three directives. Number one, make sure we are securing our personnel and doing whatever we need to. Number two, we are going to investigate exactly what happened and make sure it doesn’t happen again. Number three, find out who did this so that we can bring them to justice.”

October 18, 2012: Judicial Watch makes a Freedom of Information Act request to the administration for talking points and communications regarding the events in Benghazi. The administration ignores the request.

October 20, 2012: Obama claims that he was not aware of any requests for additional security in Benghazi.

January 23, 2013: Clinton asks, “What difference, at this point, does it make whether it was a terrorist attack or a spontaneous demonstration?”

June 21, 2013: Judicial Watch sues the administration for unlawfully withholding documents pertaining to Benghazi.

July 25, 2013: Obama slams the “endless parade of distractions, political posturing, and phony scandals.”

August 2013: The House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform requests Benghazi e-mails. The Ben Rhodes e-mail is not among those produced.

April 18, 2014: Federal court orders the administration to turn over documents to Judicial Watch. 41 documents are released, including the Ben Rhodes e-mail.

May 1, 2014: Tommy Vietor tells Fox News the president was not in the Situation Room on September 11, 2012.

May 2, 2014: Speaker John Boehner announces a vote to form a select committee on Benghazi.

May 4, 2014: Representative Adam Schiff (D.., Calif.), member of the House Intelligence Committee, suggests Democrats boycott the House select committee as a “colossal waste of time.”

May 5, 2014: Carney will not say whether White House will cooperate with the select committee.

(Clearly, much remains to be filled in by the select committee. Numerous questions and lines of inquiry are prompted by the above. The chronology is based on congressional testimony and reports from, among others, the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post, the Washington Times, the New York Times, the New York Post and Fox News, and the reporting of Steve Hayes and Jennifer Griffin.)

The Benghazi Scandal In One Email | Power Line

The Benghazi Scandal In One Email | Power Line

One aspect of the scandal, anyway. The administration has released a series of emails in response to FOIA requests by Judicial Watch. You can read them here.....From the earliest hours after the attack, this is how the Obama administration saw Benghazi. The overriding imperative was to deflect attention from the “broader failure of policy” that led to the disaster.....The other striking fact about the emails is the complete absence of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Maybe someone was keeping them informed, but they are never mentioned in the emails (except when someone prepares a statement to be issued under their names). During the crucial hours, they are never referred to. There is no suggestion that they are playing a part; that they are in the loop; that they are making decisions; or that they are, in any way, important players. Maybe there are more emails, not yet disclosed, that would reflect their roles. Or maybe they really were ciphers–seat warmers with no concerns beyond the political, not expected to do anything in an hour of crisis.
UPDATE: And now Jay Carney is lying about the Rhodes email–of which, by the way, he was one of the recipients!

Fools and knaves: New York Times edition | Power Line

Link: http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2013/12/fools-and-knaves-new-york-times-edition.php

In short, the Times story does not pass the smell test. I continue to be amazed by the MSM taking the Times seriously and parroting its reports as if they are gospel.

The New York Times’ revisionist account of Benghazi | Power Line

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2013/12/the-new-york-times-revisionist-account-of-benghazi.php

The Times bases its claim that neither al Qaeda nor any other international terrorist group had a role in the attack on its view that Ansar al-Shariah is a "purely local extremist organization." But Peter King, a member and former chairman of the House's Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, points out that Ansar al-Shariah is widely believed to be an affiliate terror group of Al Qaeda. King accuses the Times of engaging in mere semantics, and he is probably right.

The Times' claim that the Benghazi attack "was fueled in large part by anger" at the video about Islam also seems unpersuasive. Greg Hicks, the deputy to Ambassador Christopher Stevens who was killed in the attack testified to Congress that the video was "a non-event in Libya." Moreover, an independent review of more than 4,000 social media postings from Benghazi found no reference to the video until the day after the attack.
The New York Times seems to have uncovered social media references to the video that precede the Sept. 11 attack. Even so, the relative absence of such references undermines its claim that the video played a significant role in the attack.
I don't mean to deny that some of those who attacked the U.S. compound were influenced by the video. But the Times' own reporting shows that a "grave" threat to American interests in Benghazi predates the controversy over the video. The failure of the Obama administration, and especially Hillary Clinton, to prepare to meet that threat remains indisputable.
The Times stops short of claiming that the Sept. 11 attack in Benghazi was "spontaneous." It says, instead, that the attack was not "meticulously planned."
That may or may not be true. But the quality of the planning — good enough, as it turned out — seems irrelevant. Again, what matters is that the State Department should have been prepared for the attack and taken action accordingly. This the New York Times does not dispute.

Fwd: FW: Breaking News: Alexander Rebuts Obama's Zimmerman/Martin Statement

Alexander Rebuts Obama's Zimmerman/Martin Statement By Mark Alexander · July 19, 2013       "It is of great importance to set a resolution, not to be shaken, never to tell an untruth. There is no vice so mean, so pitiful, so contemptible; and he who permits himself to tell a lie once, finds it much easier to do it a second and a third time, till at length it becomes habitual; he tells lies without attending to it, and truths without the world's believing him." --Thomas Jefferson (1785) Barack Hussein Obama walked into a White House press briefing Friday afternoon, unannounced. He used the briefing to deliver his political assessment of the Zimmerman/Martin case. I have published two comprehensive critiques of this case, "Race Hustlers and Double Standards" last week, and "What Democrats Won't Say About Race" this week. Those columns challenge the Left's promotion and intentional distortion of the case as race bait, to maintain the unyielding sycophantic support of 95 percent of black voters. Without that low-information voter constituency, Democrats would win few congressional elections, and Obama would not be president. Below, I rebut the key points of Obama's latest effort to politicize the Zimmerman/Martin case. O: I gave a preliminary statement right after the ruling on Sunday, but watching the debate over the course of the last week I thought it might be useful for me to expand on my thoughts a little bit. A: In other words, there is more political capital to be squeezed out of Martin's death. O: I want to make sure that, once again, I send my thoughts and prayers, as well as Michelle's, to the family of Trayvon Martin. A: How about Obama offering thoughts and prayers to George Zimmerman and his family, whose lives Obama, et al., turned upside down by politicizing this case 16 months ago. Otherwise, there never would have been a trial as there was no basis for the charges -- and the jury and virtually every legal expert agree. O: There are very few African-American men in this country who haven't had the experience of being followed when they were shopping in a department store. ... There are very few African-American men who haven't had the experience of walking across the street and hearing the locks click on the doors of cars. ... There are very few African-Americans who haven't had the experience of getting on an elevator and a woman clutching her purse nervously and holding her breath until she had a chance to get off. A: Obama is referencing an unfortunate stereotype, unfortunate because that stereotype is well earned. Black males between the ages of 16 and 35 commit a grossly disproportionate share of crime across our nation. Until that changes, the stereotype profile will not change, nor should it. Most people of all races have decent instincts about threats to their person or property, and they respond accordingly. The problem is not that a particular demographic of our society is subject to increased scrutiny, the problem is that demographic has earned that scrutiny. O: The African-American community is also knowledgeable that there is a history of racial disparities in the application of our criminal laws, everything from the death penalty to enforcement of our drug laws. And that ends up having an impact in terms of how people interpret the case. A: The racial disparity in arrests and convictions of blacks is commensurate with the racial disparity of crimes committed by blacks. To suggest otherwise is flatly disingenuous. O: Now, this isn't to say that the African-American community is naive about the fact that African-American young men are disproportionately involved in the criminal justice system, that they are disproportionately both victims and perpetrators of violence. It's not to make excuses for that fact, although black folks do interpret the reasons for that in a historical context. A: They are not "disproportionately involved in the criminal justice system," they are disproportionately involved in crime. And then in the same sentence Obama suggests "it's not to make excuses," he asserts "historical context" as the excuse. Post Your Opinion O: We understand that some of the violence that takes place in poor black neighborhoods around the country is born out of a very violent past in this country, and that the poverty and dysfunction that we see in those communities can be traced to a very difficult history. A: Actually NOT. The "violence, poverty and dysfunction" can be traced to decades of liberal social policy, which created the urban poverty plantations upon which generations of poor blacks have been enslaved, and which have become breeding grounds for an unprecedented culture of violence besetting our whole nation. O: Now, the question for me at least, and I think, for a lot of folks is, where do we take this? A: Apparently, to the political bank. O: I think it's important for people to have some clear expectations here. Traditionally, these are issues of state and local government -- the criminal code. And law enforcement has traditionally done it at the state and local levels, not at the federal levels. A: Then why did Obama federalize the case in the first place? Obviously he thought they would win this case. Now, he is attempting to punt the blame back to "the state and local levels." O: Number one, precisely because law enforcement is often determined at the state and local level, I think it'd be productive for the Justice Department, governors [and] mayors to work with law enforcement about training at the state and local levels in order to reduce the kind of mistrust in the system that sometimes currently exists. A: But Obama and his NeoCom cadres fomented the distrust in this case, as they do with every political opening -- and to suggest now that he will step in with training to correct the situation is arrogant and ludicrous. We already know that Obama thinks police "act stupidly." O: I think it would be useful for us to examine some state and local laws to see if they are designed in such a way that they may encourage the kinds of altercations and confrontations and tragedies that we saw in the Florida case, rather than diffuse potential altercations. A: Florida's "stand your ground" law, as well as those of 22 other states, do not encourage tragedies, they prevent them. O: I just ask people to consider if Trayvon Martin was of age and armed, could he have stood his ground on that sidewalk? A: No. Zimmerman did not attack Martin. Martin attacked Zimmerman, case closed. And for the record, more blacks, as a percentage of the population in Florida, have invoked the "stand your ground" defense than whites or Hispanics -- or even "white Hispanics." Post Your Opinion O: We need to spend some time in thinking about how do we bolster and reinforce our African-American boys? There are a lot of kids out there who need help who are getting a lot of negative reinforcement. And is there more that we can do to give them the sense that their country cares about them and values them and is willing to invest in them? A: The best place to start would be to reverse the liberal social policies that created the problem. O: Finally, I think it's going to be important for all of us to do some soul-searching. A: Start with your own soul, Obama, if you haven't completely sold it out. O: You know, there has been talk about should we convene a conversation on race. I haven't seen that be particularly productive when politicians try to organize conversations. They end up being stilted and politicized, and folks are locked into the positions they already have. A: Obama launched the Zimmerman/Martin "conversation on race" so on this point, he is correct. O: Finally, ask yourself ... am I wringing as much bias out of myself as I can; am I judging people, as much as I can, based on not the color of their skin but the content of their character? That would, I think, be an appropriate exercise in the wake of this tragedy. A: This from the titular head of the Democrat Party, which has turned Martin Luther King's challenge about color and character upside down. Indeed, for Obama and the Left, color trumps character. Pro Deo et Constitutione — Libertas aut Mors Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis Mark Alexander Publisher, The Patriot Post

Obama: There Was No IRS Scandal – It Was Just Made Up By the Media (Video)

Obama: There Was No IRS Scandal – It Was Just Made Up By the Media (Video)

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2013/12/obama-there-was-no-irs-scandal-it-was-just-made-up-by-the-media-video/

The IRS Scandal involves:

• At least 292 conservative groups targeted
• At least 5 pro-Israel groups targeted
• Constitutional groups targeted
• Groups that criticized Obama administration were targeted
• At least two pro-life groups targeted
• A Texas voting-rights group was targeted
• Conservative activists and businesses were targeted.
• At least 88 IRS agents were involved in the targeting scandal
• At least one conservative Hispanic group was targeted
• IRS continued to target groups even after the scandal was exposed

Last night during his interview with Chris Matthews, Barack Obama denied there was a so-called IRS scandal and said it was just something sensationalized by the media.

Obama is ducking a leader's duty - latimes.com

Link: http://www.latimes.com/opinion/commentary/la-oe-brooks-obama-leadership-20131004-16,0,6646621.story

Indeed, studies show that taking responsibility is one of the key traits people expect from a leader. In one 2006 study, two researchers at the University of Kent in England conducted a laboratory experiment in which human subjects in a group were given money and a choice: They could either keep it all or contribute some portion to a "group fund" that would be doubled and divided equally between all participants. Some people cooperated for the good of all, while others did not.
In a second phase of the experiment, the participants were asked who would be the best leader for the group. Eighty percent of the time, they chose the person who had contributed the most to the fund in the first phase. When people can choose the people who will lead them, they prefer people who proactively take responsibility for group welfare.
This brings us to the current debate over the shutdown of the federal government. The conventional narrative is that conservative policymakers are holding the nation hostage and hamstringing the helpless president.
Americans will likely see through this. A majority dislikes the current Republican strategy, but they know that ultimate culpability lies with leadership at the top. This sorry episode will reinforce the growing perception of the president as a leader who is more comfortable denouncing subordinates for disagreement than in taking responsibility.
Obama's image as a strong leader has dropped like a stone since 2009. A month after his first inauguration, a CBS News/New York Times poll found 85% of Americans said the president had "strong qualities of leadership."
By January 2010, just 66% in a Quinnipiac poll said the president had "strong leadership qualities." In the very same poll Tuesday, only 53% gave this response. A few weeks earlier, a Fox News poll about foreign policy found that only 42% of Americans say Obama is "a strong and decisive leader."
Some of this no doubt reflects the bitter partisanship of our times. But some of it is also logically due to a growing sense that the president is unwilling or unable to take responsibility in difficult circumstances and blames others instead. Indeed, half of Americans currently say he "spend[s] too much time blaming others," according to the Fox News poll cited above.
Is this assessment fair? Sample his public pronouncements and judge for yourself. Just this week, he washed his hands of the government shutdown by asserting that Republicans alone are "shutting down the government over an ideological crusade."

Obama’s Misleading Obamacare Claims

Link: http://www.aim.org/aim-column/obamas-misleading-obamacare-claims/?utm_source=AIM - Daily Email&utm_campaign=5495ae5eb9-email072513&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_c4ddfc8d9d-5495ae5eb9-221577449 (via shareaholic.com)

The New York Times, in its oft-cited article, said that "State insurance regulators say they have approved rates for 2014 that are at least 50 percent lower on average than those currently available in New York."
"Beginning in October, individuals in New York City who now pay $1,000 a month or more for coverage will be able to shop for health insurance for as little as $308 monthly."
At least the Los Angeles Times had the conscience to write that these types of "savings" are an aberration. "New York, for example, announced this week that the average premium will be 50% lower for individuals who buy health coverage on their own, in large part because the state has some of the highest rates now," they report (emphasis added). "New York may have been more ripe for savings than other states," notes Bloomberg.
And even The Washington Post, a champion of Obamacare, points out, "But it shouldn't be shocking: New York has, for two decades now, had the highest individual market premiums in the country." USA Today led with the title "Most states won't see N.Y.'s drop in insurance rates." This The New York Times cleverly left out of its reporting.

Bookworm Room � At CPAC, Dr. Ben Carson comes out swinging against President Obama

Link: http://www.bookwormroom.com/2013/03/17/at-cpac-dr-ben-carson-comes-out-swinging-against-president-obama/

It turns out that, when Dr. Ben Carson gently chided President Obama’s policies during the National Prayer Breakfast, he was holding back. When he gave a speech CPAC, where he could freely speak his mind, Dr. Carson was more direct: If a hypothetical “somebody” in the White House “wanted to destroy this nation,” he would “coincidentally” do exactly what Obama has already done.
....
In the lead-up to his stunning accusation against Obama, Dr. Carson repeated a point he made during the National Prayer breakfast, which is that the national debt, standing alone, is well on its way to destroy America:

We’re reacting to what we see as our fiscal woes without planning for the future, without really caring about what is happening to the next generation. You don’t have to be a brain surgeon or a rocket scientist to understand that if we continue to spend ourselves into oblivion, we are going to destroy our nation.

....
Rather than discuss what a good presidency would look like, Dr. Carson asked the audience to think about a bad, destructive presidency and how it would play out:

But let’s say somebody was there and they wanted to destroy this nation. What would you do? Let me tell you what I would do. First of all, I would create division among the people. I would have everybody pitted against each other because a wise man by the name of Jesus once said “a house divided against itself cannot stand.” And then I would encourage a culture of ridicule for basic morality and the principles that made and sustained the country. And then I would undermine the financial stability of the country, and drive us so far into debt that there was absolutely no chance that it could recover. And I would weaken the military and destroy the morale of the military. That’s what I would do and I guarantee you it would work. Now, the question is, it appears coincidentally that those are the very things that are happening right now. And the question is, How do we stop it. Can we stop it?

In that simple hypothetical, Dr. Carson managed to sum up every domestic policy that the Obama administration, working with a Democrat legislature, has enacted: a White House that colludes with the media to harass, demean, insult, and misrepresent every conservative person or conservative idea; a massive stimulus that benefited only preferred political players, followed by constantly rising government expenditures; and fundamental changes to the military by allowing homosexuals to serve openly and women to serve in combat units.

The Totalitarian Impulse Rears Its Head

The Totalitarian Impulse Rears Its Head

via Power Line by John on 9/8/10

John
Gateway Pundit, via Glenn Reynolds, presents another story of suppression of free speech by liberals:

School officials at Palm Beach State College kicked members of the Young America's Foundation off campus after they saw anti-Obama literature at their table.

There is much more to the story, as reported by the Orlando Political Press:

On Tuesday September 7, 2010 at around 11:00am one Palm Beach State College (PBSC) student and two Young Americans for Freedom (YAF) members, state chairman Daniel P. Diaz and state vice chairman Eddie Shaffer, were shut down and had campus police called on them after tabling and recruiting during club rush at the College. The PBSC student, Christina Beattie, had received prior permission from college administrator Olivia Ford-Morris to promote her organization on campus via telephone and email communication.
On the day of club rush, officials approached the group and after seeing information about the organization and its ideals criticizing Barack Obama's economic policy. Ms. Ford-Morris was visibly disturbed by the material presented, published by the Heritage Foundation, criticizing President Obama's administration. College officials then called the campus police to assure the group left campus. Ms. Ford-Morris denied having ever talked to Ms. Beattie about giving permission to the organization to be a part of PBSC club rush.

This reminds me of an episode years ago, when Scott and I were just becoming politically active. There was a freshman orientation at the University of Minnesota, and campus organizations were invited to set up booths and pass out literature to solicit incoming freshmen to join. The Young Republicans had a booth and passed out anti-Clinton literature--it seems like only yesterday! Students who were running the event disapproved of the presence of conservatives, ordered the Republicans out and confiscated their literature. Their obviously illegal action was backed up by the then-Dean of Students, who wrote a rather astonishing letter to the effect that because the University of Minnesota is devoted to diversity, there is no room there for Republicans. Seriously. (BTW, it is a reasonable guess that most of the tax money that supports the University of Minnesota is paid by Republicans.)
Our friend Peter Swanson, at that time the President of the Republican group at the U of M, came to Scott and me, and we represented the college Republicans in pursuing claims arising out of the obvious infringement of their First Amendment rights. We won hands down, and one of the remedies we negotiated was that the head of the Minneapolis campus of the University of Minnesota was required to attend First Amendment sensitivity training at the hands of a law school professor.
We have fond memories of that occasion, but the underlying reality is chilling. I really don't think most liberals have any respect for free speech as such, and if they had the opportunity, they would shut us all up or throw us in jail.

Truths that distress media, Democrats

Truths that distress media, Democrats

via PrairiePundit by Merv on 8/31/12

David Hirsanyi:

Or as DG Myers tweeted, "at least, a contestable proposition they are too lazy to contest."

Democrats are energetically attempting to create the perception that Republicans — specifically, Paul Ryan — are running around Tampa making stuff up about Barack Obama (as if that's necessary). And when I say Democrats, as regrettably cliché as it may sound, I also mean the mainstream media.

The following assertions, for instance, are true:

• Obama did cut over $700 billion from Medicare to fund Obamacare.
• The stimulus was a case of political patronage, corporate welfare and cronyism.
• The Janesville, General Motors plant was closed down under Obama (though Ryan made a more nuanced assertion that we'll cover below)
• Obama did blow off the bipartisan debt commission.
• Obama's waivers do allow for the relaxing of work requirements in welfare reform.

Do some Republican speakers use politically hyperbolic rhetoric on occasion to attack the president on these points? No doubt. Are some of the accusers hypocrites. Sure. Is any of this out of line with traditional political campaign rhetoric? Hardly.

You expect advocates of the president to flail away after Ryan's highly effective speech. The New Republic asks: "The Most Dishonest Convention Speech … Ever?" "At least five times," Jonathan Cohn writes, "Ryan misrepresented the facts." He then goes on to list five irrefutable facts that he finds ideologically distressing. Joan Walsh of MSNBC and Salon also writes of "Paul Ryan's brazen lies," as is her fact-challenged way, failing to offer one. Michael Tomasky claims Ryan's speech was a "Web of Lies" but isn't kind enough to find one for his column.

But take this Associated Press piece that is, no doubt, being run across the country: "FACT CHECK: Ryan Takes Factual Shortcuts in Speech."

You know what's funny about this piece? Not a single item highlighted is a factual shortcut or an untruth. They are simply items that put the president in a bad light. Now, some conclusions Ryan comes to might be contestable or they may make Ryan look like a hypocrite, but none of them are inaccurate.

The "post-truth" age, which James Fallows of the Atlantic refers to, is thriving among Democrats who've forsaken debate and have gone into the business by asserting that inconvenient truths are "lies" and using that assertion as a baseline for any debate that follows. Just read Fallows' piece for evidence.

... 

There is more.

I have talked about Democrats substituting insults for logic for some time, but this is a new stage in their descent into avoiding debate at all cost by trying to shut down debate and criticism  of the candidate they support.  It is the equivalent of putting their hands over their ears and sticking their tongue out rather than engaging on the issues raised.

'You didn't build that' resonates because it was insulting and dismissive

'You didn't build that' resonates because it was insulting and dismissive

via PrairiePundit by Merv on 7/31/12

Josh Barro:

Jonathan Chait says the president's "you didn't build that" speech revived racial resentmentsabout redistributive fiscal policy, partly because the president was speaking in a "black dialect."

Maybe this was a problem with the speech, but the key problem was much simpler: The president was needlessly insulting. He wasn't just calling on successful people to pay more in tax but was being dismissive of their accomplishments.

I agree with David Frum that the most toxic part of the speech is Barack Obama talking about the sources of success:

I'm always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something -- there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there.

Really? The president is always struck by people who take credit for their own successes? Obviously, every successful outcome in life -- and every failed one -- arises from a combination of internal and external factors. But the president's tone when he said this, amused by the very idea of people taking credit for their achievements, was off-putting.

Frum mostly talks about why this statement irks rich people, but I believe it resonates badly with people at all income levels. Lots of people -- most, I hope -- are proud of something they've achieved in their lives and feel like that achievement owes much to their own hard work and talents. You don't have to make over $250,000 a year to be annoyed when the president mocks people for taking credit for their achievements.

And it's an especially jarring statement because of what it's used to justify -- higher taxes, with the implication being that they are called for because people do not deserve their own pre-tax wealth. People are rightly unnerved by an argument that amounts to "we can tax you because you didn't deserve this anyway." Faced with such an argument, defending your own contribution to your success isn't just a point of pride -- it's an argument you must make to defend the principle that you are entitled to your own private property.

... 

Barro goes on to chastise Chait for his goofy suggestion that the reaction was based on race.   He points out that Scott Brown made similar attacks on Elizabeth Warren for making similar remarks.  He purported Indian heritage was not a factor in the ad.  I think the "You didn't build that" attacks will continue to resonate with business owners.

I suspect that Obama cops this attitude because so much of his own success was undeserved.

CNN's Carol Costello: 'You Didn't Build That' Taken Out of Context

CNN's Carol Costello: 'You Didn't Build That' Taken Out of Context

via Breitbart Feed on 7/30/12

Reason 16,988 as to why The Most Trusted Name In News is just the opposite:

-

-

What CNN's Costello does in that clip is a media trick I call "Matter-Of-Facting."

First off, Costello should not be presenting her misguided opinion as fact. Whether or not the Romney campaign is taking Obama's "you didn't build that" comment out-of-context is, at best, debatable.

Not for a second do I think Obama's being taken out of context. I've been over all of this before, but let me briefly hit it again.

In context, in FULL context, Obama's "you didn't build that" was the least offensive thing he said that day in Roanoke: [emphasis added]

There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me — because they want to give something back. They know they didn't — look, if you've been successful, you didn't get there on your own. You didn't get there on your own. I'm always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something — there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there.

That's the text of the paragraph just before "you didn't build that" -- in which we find the President openly mocking those egomaniacal successes who dare think they worked hard and are so gosh-darned smart.

A little later the president says: [emphasis added]

If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you've got a business — you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen.

What is the "that" Obama refers to when he says "you didn't build that"?

Taken in FULL context, I have no question he's referring to "business."

After all, "that" is singular. Roads and bridges are plural.

Had Obama said "all that" or "those," he would've clearly meant roads and bridges. But "that" is most certainly the singular "business" Obama refers to just four little words earlier.

So, like I said, it's debatable.

But Carol Costello and The Most Trusted Name In News are obviously done debating and have moved into full-on rescue mode for Obama.  And this is where the "Matter-Of-Facting" I referred to earlier comes into play.  

You see, Obama's in trouble over this comment, and the media questioning whether or not the comment is being taken out of context didn't work to save him. So now the media moves into the next phase of the bailing out of Their Precious One by stating declaratively, as though the matter is settled and not at all controversial, that Romney is taking Obama out of context.

Using a matter-of-fact approach to most anything helps to sell it. When you hear something presented in this way,  the matter-of-factness says the matter is no longer controversial and just the way it is. It's a psychological ploy to not only fool those who aren't news junkies, but also to shut down debate.

If you don't believe me about "Matter-Of-Facting," here are some examples:

CNN sucks.

Carol Costello shills for Obama.

CNN has no integrity.

Carol Costello is smug and sanctimonious.

CNN lies.

I'm telling you, it works.

The No. 33, and the surprisingly bipartisan art of repeal � Hot Air

Link: http://hotair.com/archives/2012/07/11/the-no-33-and-the-surprisingly-bipartisan-art-of-repeal/

The fact is this is only the second vote on total repeal, the first one coming in January of 2011 after Americans elected a wave of 63 new Republicans to, you know, repeal ObamaCare. Both votes for full repeal, in 2011 and 2012, were more bipartisan than the vote to pass ObamaCare, with three and five Democrats crossing over to the Republican side, respectively. And, I know we all love when we can work together, across the aisle, to get things undone. Beyond that, many of the votes on the Washington Post's list feature far more Democratic defectors to the anti-ObamaCare side than the other way around.
The figure 33, of course, includes all sorts of bills that were only tangentially about ObamaCare repeal, or tweaked small parts of the bill, often with Democratic endorsement and votes. It includes several bills passed with hard-fought compromise later signed by Obama, like the debt-ceiling deal, and other bills that accomplished Obama's legislative goals, such as the payroll tax cut extension bill.
So, are the House's machinations futile and extreme?

Laffer and Moore: Obama's Real Spending Record - WSJ.com

Link: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303753904577450910257188398.html?mod=djemITP_h (via shareaholic.com)

President Obama shocked us the other day when he said, "Since I've been president, federal spending has risen at the lowest pace in nearly 60 years." Having heard him champion the "multiplier effects" of deficit-financed stimulus spending, we saw him as an enthusiastic supporter of throwing other people's money at just about any problem.

After taking office in 2009, with spending and debt already at record high levels and the deficit headed to $1 trillion, President Obama proceeded to pass his own $830 billion stimulus, auto bailouts, mortgage relief plans, the Dodd-Frank financial reforms and the $1.7 trillion ObamaCareentitlement (which isn't even accounted for in the chart). While spending did come down in 2010, it wasn't the result of spending cuts but rather because TARP loans began to be repaid, and that cash was counted against spending.
In 2011 and 2012, the pace of spending was slowed when a new emboldened breed of Republicans took back the House promising to end the binge. The House Budget Committee, headed by Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan, has identified about $150 billion of new spending Mr. Obama wanted in 2011 and 2012 that Republicans would not approve. As the chart shows, government spending as a share of GDP fell, and taxes were not raised. But to attribute this drop in government spending to the president or congressional Democrats would be dishonest.