Benghazi penalties are bogus

The four officials supposedly out of jobs because of their blunders in the run-up to the deadly Benghazi terror attack remain on the State Department payroll — and will all be back to work soon, The Post has learned.

The highest-ranking official caught up in the scandal, Assistant Secretary of State Eric Boswell, has not “resigned” from government service, as officials said last week. He is just switching desks. And the other three are simply on administrative leave and are expected back.

The four were made out to be sacrificial lambs in the wake of a scathing report issued last week that found that the US compound in Benghazi, Libya, was left vulnerable to attack because of “grossly inadequate” security.

State Department leaders “didn’t come clean about Benghazi and now they’re not coming clean about these staff changes,” a source close to the situation told The Post., adding, the “public would be outraged over this.”

US Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans were killed in the Sept. 11 attack, originally blamed on a spontaneous demonstration against a US-made anti-Islam video that got out of hand.

That version was dismissed by an Accountability Review Board headed by retired Ambassador Thomas Pickering.

In response to questions from The Post, the State Department would only reissue the carefully crafted statement put out last week.

Spokeswoman Victoria Nuland said that Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton “has accepted Eric Boswell’s decision to resign as assistant secretary for diplomatic security, effective immediately.” What Nuland omitted was that Boswell gave up only the presidential appointment as assistant secretary, not his other portfolios.

The other officials — Deputy Assistant Secretaries Charlene Lamb and Raymond Maxwell, and a third who has not been identified — were found to have shown “performance inadequacies” but not “willful misconduct,” Pickering said, so they would not face discipline.

House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairwoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.) told The Post this is “yet another ruse about the tragedy of Benghazi.”

“State Department officials proclaimed . . . that heads would roll . . . Now we see that the discipline is a lie and all that has happened is the shuffling of the deck chairs.”

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/international/benghazi_penalties_are_bogus_ncP7RZx5uTIgDPbTp5WtoN?utm_medium=rss&utm_content=International

Obama’s Cap-and-Trade Scheme for Cars

Ever since the Senate rejected President Obama’s cap-and-trade scheme in 2009, his administration has been hard at work to find other ways to implement a radical, environmentalist agenda.

Obama made these intentions clear at a press conference in 2010 when he explained, “Cap and trade was just one way of skinning the cat. … It was a means, not an end, and I am going to be looking for other means to address this problem.” And this is a promise he’s doing his best to keep.

With the help of the Environmental Protection Agency and other departments, this administration has relied on backdoor, behind-the-scenes tactics to impose stringent mandates in order to regulate what it has been unable to legislate. This tactic empowers unelected bureaucrats in Washington to implement rules that have far-reaching, negative impacts on our nation’s economy and the way we live our lives.

The Obama Administration’s announcement of new fuel-efficiency standards is a good example of its determination to regulate through administrative fiat.

Average cost of new car will increase $3,000

Earlier this year, the Department of Transportation (DOT) and EPA released the finalized, new fuel-efficiency standards for cars and light-duty trucks, which will require 2025 model year vehicles to have an average fuel economy of 54.5 miles per gallon (mpg). The new standard comes close to doubling the current CAFE average of 29 mpg and, combined with the administration’s fuel efficiency standards for 2011–2016, will increase the average cost of a new car by $3,000 by 2025.

Proponents of the rule argue that it will save consumers money on fuel, reduce dependence on foreign oil and reduce global warming. But as Heritage’s Nick Loris and Derrick Morgan explain in their new paper, “Fuel-efficiency mandates restrict consumer choice and completely overstep the boundaries of the role of the federal government.”

The standards are unnecessary, benefit special interests, and have numerous unintended consequences that will adversely affect American families.

Cars priced under $15,000 could vanish

The new CAFE standard requires American families to bear all the costs the regulation imposes, while allowing special interests receive all the benefits. As Loris and Morgan note in their paper, “Under this new mandate, the Energy Information Administration warns that new cars priced under $15,000 may no longer be available.” While the federal government acknowledges the regulations will drive up the sticker price of vehicles, “consumers will likely realize only a fraction of the fuel savings that the government claims.”

This is not the only way the new fuel efficiency will affect car buyers. It also limits consumer choice. Consumers have other preferences as well, including weight and engine power, for safety, enjoyment, and practical reasons. Ignoring those preferences and forcing companies to make vehicles that are lighter and thus more fuel efficient has the unintended consequence of making them less safe.

Perhaps worst of all, “Unlike previous rulemaking, manufacturers cannot pay a fine if they cannot meet the standards. Instead, they would need to buy costly credits from other manufacturers.”

Cap-and-trade is unsuitable for auto industry

Prompting a bout of déjà vu, the new CAFE standard creates a whole new form of cap-and-trade. This time around it’s a cap-and-trade for cars. Not only was cap-and-trade proposal a severely flawed solution to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, it is equally unsuitable for the auto industry.
These realities have not stopped the administration from attempting to justify the new standard. In fact, it rationalizes the additional costs and burdens consumers must bear as a result of this rule by arguing that the new standards will decrease greenhouse gas emissions. In reality, the resulting reduction in global emissions will be almost unnoticeable.

There is a way to stop the administration’s flagrant regulatory overreaching, and the solution begins with Congress stepping up to the plate. Loris and Morgan recommend that “Congress should intervene to prevent the EPA and DOT from enforcing the fuel-efficiency standards, either by withholding funds or by passing legislation that prohibits the regulation.”

The bottom line is that consumers value saving money on fuel expenses, but they also consider safety, size, performance, price, and many other factors. Auto manufacturers, not the federal government, are much better equipped to meet the demands of consumers.

http://blog.heritage.org/2012/12/26/morning-bell-obamas-cap-and-trade-scheme-for-cars/

Record 8.8 Million Receive Disability Benefits

The number of individuals collecting disability benefits has hit a record high 8,827,795, according to new figures released from the Social Security Administration. On average, beneficiaries receive a $1,130.34 monthly check.

The explosion of individuals now applying for federal disability means applications are being awarded without proper vetting. A congressional report examining a sample of 300 cases found that over a quarter of them “failed to properly address insufficient, contradictory or incomplete evidence.”

In October, a West Virginia man was sentenced to spend two years in jail for having fraudulently received over $265,000 in disability checks. And this month, the New York Times reported that Appalachian hill country parents are pulling their children out of literacy programs to bag $689 monthly Supplemental Security Income (SSI) checks. The taxpayer-funded payments continue until the child is 18, when two-thirds are transitioned into SSI for disabled adults.

Data also reveal that in the 2012 fiscal year, Social Security ran a $47.8 billion deficit.

As Terence P. Jeffrey explains, 2009 was the last time Social Security ran a surplus: "In that year, Social Security’s revenues exceeded its benefit and overhead payments by $19.358 billion. In fiscal 2010, Social Security ran a $36.8 billion deficit; and, in fiscal 2011, it ran a $47.975 deficit."

A December 2011 White House report conceded that “workers on SSDI [Social Security Disability Insurance] rarely return to the labor force.”

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/12/26/Record-8-8-Million-Now-Receive-Disability-Benefits

Questions the Press Doesn’t Ask

Merry Christmas to the Fourth Estate! Hope you’ve enjoyed your goose or turkey or whatever your family tradition includes (latkes for those who are Jewish). When you return to work, there are a few loose ends on which you might want to follow up.

“Follow up.” It’s a term that has gone out of style in the age of Obama. You members of the press have become remarkably uncurious since he’s been in the White House. A blanket of benevolent uncuriousness smothers news about Obama administration wrongdoing.

The secretary of state, who took “full responsibility” for the Benghazi debacle, has not once been publicly questioned about it. Called to testify before a House committee this week, she pleaded illness — a fall resulting in a concussion. She says she will testify in January. Perhaps members of Congress will ask what the press has not. Who made the decision to deny the requested additional security to our diplomats? Where is a copy of the order President Obama says he issued requiring that “everything possible” be done to save our personnel who were under attack? (Former assistant secretary of defense Bing West notes that such orders are always written down.) Were Navy SEALs stationed in Benghazi told to “stand down” rather than render assistance? Who told Susan Rice to say that the attack grew out of a protest, when there was no protest?

Speaking of that nonexistent protest, isn’t anyone even a little uncomfortable at the spectacle of the United States government arresting a guy for making a video (however “crude and offensive”)? On orders of this administration, an FBI team descended upon and locked up Nakoula Basseley Nakoula. He may be a petty criminal and an idiot. But that’s not the point. Aren’t members of the press sensitive about infringements on the First Amendment? Besides, what sort of message does it send to extremists around the globe when the U.S. cracks down on expressions of “blasphemy” toward Mohammed? Won’t they congratulate themselves on intimidating us?

You may want to ask. Just saying.

Oh, and here’s something else you forgot to be inquisitive about. An unpaid intern working in the office of Democratic New Jersey senator Robert Menendez (who was reelected on November 6), was arrested on December 6. It seems the 18-year-old illegal immigrant from Peru (who helped the senator on immigration issues!) was a registered sex offender. ICE knew about him but was repeatedly told by higher-ups at DHS, according to a government source, to delay the arrest until after the election. If true, that’s a remarkable politicization of law enforcement. So far, one “no comment” from a government official has sufficed to quiet your inquiries.

During the campaign (we learned after the election), the Obama administration undertook to devise guidelines for the use of unmanned aerial vehicles or drones. “There was a concern that the levers might no longer be in our hands,” an official told the New York Times. In other words, a Republican president would need guidelines for the use of Hellfire missiles, but with President Obama in the White House, safeguards are unnecessary. His unerring judgment is all that’s required. The president has presided over the deaths of an estimated 2,500 individuals — including some American citizens — through the drone program of targeted assassinations. Isn’t the press interested in what sort of guidelines the administration recommends imposing on its successor? On itself? Oh, wait, with the election safely past, the guidelines are on hold.

Finally, this isn’t a scandal, an abuse of power, or an example of hypocrisy, but it’s such a blatant display of moral confusion that it begs for questioning. The Syrian dictator Bashar Assad (about whom the next secretary of state was so wrong) has killed roughly 25,000 civilians and uprooted 1.2 million more. Human Rights Watch reported that there are 27 known torture centers run by the Syrian military. Yet the president has said that only the use of chemical weapons represents a “red line” that Syria must not cross. “If you make the tragic mistake of using these weapons,” he warned earlier this month, “there will be consequences and you will be held accountable.” Question: Doesn’t that mean that Assad will not be held accountable for the rest? What is the logic of that?

You might ask. If it’s not too much trouble.

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/336430/questions-press-doesn-t-ask-mona-charen#

New York newspaper publishes names and addresses of gun permit holders
I think someone should publish the names and addresses of food stamp recipients.

Brietbart:

Today, the Journal News in upstate New York, owned by Gannett, published the names and addresses of all gun permit holders in the Westchester and Rockland county areas of New York. The Journal News said:

The map indicates the addresses of all pistol permit holders in Westchester and Rockland counties. Each dot represents an individual permit holder licensed to own a handgun - a pistol or revolver. The data does not include owners of long guns - rifles or shotguns - which can be purchased without a permit. Being included in this map does not mean the individual at a specific location owns a weapon, just that they are licensed to do so.

The newspaper didn't even feel it necessary to publish a rationale for that violation of privacy - publishing the names and addresses of gun owners makes them more vulnerable to robbery when they aren't at home, since criminals will know where the guns are.

They did, however, run a piece targeting gun owners as the root of all evil:

In the wake of the mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., and amid renewed nationwide calls for stronger gun control, some Lower Hudson Valley residents would like lawmakers to expand the amount of information the public can find out about gun owners. About 44,000 people in Westchester, Rockland and Putnam - one out of every 23 adults - is licensed to own a handgun.

Note the justification: "...some Lower Hudson Valley residents..." Who besides the reporter and editor of this rag wants politicians to "expand the amount of information" on permit holders?

My guess would be that the number of people in that area who would like more information about food stamp recipients, families on welfare rolls, or other government programs far exceeds the number who want info on gun owners. Why not publish that information?

It's nobody's business whether you've got a gun permit, or if you accept food stamps. This outrageous violation of privacy by ignorant liberals should be denounced by both sides. And if I were not a gun owner and lived in that area, I would be livid. The paper just put that family at risk because the criminal element now knows who is helpless and who can defend themselves.
It shows just how hysterical the gun grabbers are getting.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/12/new_york_newspaper_publishes_names_and_addresses_of_gun_permit_holders.html

Kwanzaa: Holiday Brought to You By The FBI

By Ann Coulter
Is it just me, or does Kwanzaa seem to come earlier and earlier each year? And let's face it, Kwanzaa's gotten way too commercialized.

A few years ago, I suspended my annual Kwanzaa column because my triumph over this fake holiday seemed complete. The only people still celebrating Kwanzaa were presidential-statement writers and white female public school teachers.

But it seems to be creeping back. A few weeks ago, House Minority Leader Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., complained about having to stick around Washington for fiscal cliff negotiations by accusing Republicans of not caring about "families" coming together to bond during Kwanzaa. The private schools have picked up this PC nonsense from the public schools. (Soon, no one will know anything.)

It is a fact that Kwanzaa was invented in 1966 by a black radical FBI stooge, Ron Karenga -- aka Dr. Maulana Karenga -- founder of United Slaves, a violent nationalist rival to the Black Panthers. He was also a dupe of the FBI.

In what was ultimately a foolish gamble, during the madness of the '60s, the FBI encouraged the most extreme black nationalist organizations in order to discredit and split the left. The more preposterous the group, the better.

By that criterion, Karenga's United Slaves was perfect. In the annals of the American '60s, Karenga was the Father Gapon, stooge of the czarist police.

Despite modern perceptions that blend all the black activists of the '60s, the Black Panthers did not hate whites. They did not seek armed revolution (although some of their most high-profile leaders were drug dealers and murderers). Those were the precepts of Karenga's United Slaves.

United Slaves were proto-fascists, walking around in dashikis, gunning down Black Panthers and adopting invented "African" names. (That was a big help to the black community: How many boys named "Jamal" are currently in prison?)

It's as if David Duke invented a holiday called "Anglika," which he based on the philosophy of "Mein Kampf" -- and clueless public school teachers began celebrating the made-up, racist holiday.
Whether Karenga was a willing dupe, or just a dupe, remains unclear.

Curiously, in a 1995 interview with Ethnic NewsWatch, Karenga matter-of-factly explained that the forces out to get O.J. Simpson for the "framed" murder of two whites included: "the FBI, the CIA, the State Department, Interpol, the Chicago Police Department" and so on. Karenga should know about FBI infiltration. (He further noted that the evidence against O.J. "was not strong enough to prohibit or eliminate unreasonable doubt" -- an interesting standard of proof.)

In the category of the-gentleman-doth-protest-too-much, back in the '70s, Karenga was quick to criticize rumors that black radicals were government-supported. When Nigerian newspapers claimed that some American black radicals were CIA operatives, Karenga publicly denounced the idea, saying, "Africans must stop generalizing about the loyalties and motives of Afro-Americans, including the widespread suspicion of black Americans being CIA agents."

Now we know that the FBI fueled the bloody rivalry between the Panthers and United Slaves. In one barbarous outburst, Karenga's United Slaves shot to death two Black Panthers on the UCLA campus: Al "Bunchy" Carter and John Huggins. Karenga himself served time, a useful stepping-stone for his current position as a black studies professor at California State University at Long Beach.

Karenga's invented holiday is a nutty blend of schmaltzy '60s rhetoric, black racism and Marxism. The seven principles of Kwanzaa are the very same seven principles of the Symbionese Liberation Army, another charming legacy of the Worst Generation.

In 1974, Patricia Hearst, kidnap victim-cum-SLA revolutionary, posed next to the banner of her alleged captors, a seven-headed cobra. Each snake head stood for one of the SLA's revolutionary principles: Umoja, Kujichagulia, Ujima, Ujamaa, Nia, Kuumba and Imani -- the exact same seven "principles" of Kwanzaa.

Kwanzaa praises collectivism in every possible area of life -- economics, work, personality, even litter removal. ("Kuumba: Everyone should strive to improve the community and make it more beautiful.") It takes a village to raise a police snitch.

When Karenga was asked to distinguish Kawaida, the philosophy underlying Kwanzaa, from "classical Marxism," he essentially said that, under Kawaida, we also hate whites. (Kawaida, Kwanzaa and Kuumba are also the only three Kardashian sisters not to have their own shows on the E! network.)

While taking the "best of early Chinese and Cuban socialism" -- excluding, one hopes, the forced abortions, imprisonment of homosexuals and forced labor -- Karenga said Kawaida practitioners believe one's racial identity "determines life conditions, life chances and self-understanding." There's an inclusive philosophy for you.

Kwanzaa was the result of a '60s psychosis grafted onto the black community. Liberals have become so mesmerized by multicultural nonsense that they have forgotten the real history of Kwanzaa and Karenga's United Slaves -- the violence, the Marxism, the insanity.

Most absurdly, for leftists anyway, they have forgotten the FBI's tacit encouragement of this murderous black nationalist cult founded by the father of Kwanzaa.

Kwanzaa emerged not from Africa, but from the FBI's COINTELPRO. It is a holiday celebrated exclusively by idiot white liberals. Black people celebrate Christmas. (Merry Christmas, fellow Christians!)

http://townhall.com/columnists/anncoulter/2012/12/26/kwanzaa-holiday-brought-to-you-by-the-fbi-n1474387/page/full/

There’s a ‘Chilling’ Economic Report Making the Rounds Among Top Execs — And Wait Until You See What It Says About Gov’t Programs

“This Chilling Economic Report Is Getting Passed Around By CEOs.”

That’s the headline greeting readers on the site Business Insider Christmas morning. The report from the Boston Consulting Group (BCG) is titled, “Ending the Era of Ponzi Finance: Ten Steps Developed Economies Must Take.”

“The biggest [Ponzi scheme] … is still ongoing: the Ponzi scheme of the developed economies,” the report says near the beginning. “It is not simply that the developed world has borrowed significantly from future wealth to fund today’s consumption, leading to huge burdens for the next generation. It has also reduced the potential for future economic growth, making it more difficult for the next generation to deal with this legacy.”

That’s heavy. And it only gets more heavy from there. So we’ve decided to distill it down to the best takeaways from the report and the write-up on Business Insider since the BCG requires you to sign up to read it (it’s free, but still we thought some of you might not want to). Think of it as a little dose of salt to go with your Christmas dinner (sometimes salt is good, sometimes it’s bad — and from our reading of the suggestions the report offers, there’s both cases):

1. “The West was not going to find its way to the right economic path with a little tweaking at the edges, the CEO said. What is needed is a wholesale overhaul of the economic system to tackle record levels of public and private debt.” — from Business Insider

2. A summary of the report’s findings:

Mr Stelter and his colleagues do offer some solutions. First, there has to be an acknowledgement that some debts will never be repaid and should be restructured. Holders of the debt, be they countries or companies, should be allowed to default, whatever the short-term pain of such a process.

In social policy, retirement ages will have to increase. People will have to work harder, for longer and should be encouraged to do so by changes in benefit levels that do little – at their present level – to reward work at the margin.

The size of the state should be radically reduced and immigration encouraged. Competition in labour markets through supply-side reforms should be pursued.

Where governments can proactively act – by backing modern infrastructure – they should. High-growth economies are built on modern railways, airports, roads and energy supplies. Allowing potholes to develop in your local roads is a symptom of a wider malaise and cash-rich corporates should be pushed, through tax incentives, to invest their money in developed as well as emerging economies. Energy efficiency – to save money, not the planet – should be promoted.

– from Business Insider

3. And now some specifics, such as what the report says will need to be done with taxes on the wealthy (emphasis added):

The critical starting point is to accept the fact that many of today’s debts will never be repaid and to embrace debt restructuring and defaults. Current policies, designed to avoid that outcome, only postpone the ultimate resolution of the crisis and will result in even bigger losses down the road. Better to move quickly and act now, despite the likelihood of considerable near-term pain.

All stakeholders will have to contribute to the necessary cleanup. Creditors and holders of financial assets will have to accept losses. Taxpayers will have to accept higher taxes—with a special burden on the wealthy, because unless politicians begin to address the unequal distribution of income and wealth, they will not have the credibility to implement other painful measures needed to get the developed world back on track. As difficult as that will be, especially for those who have been prudent and saved for retirement, the sooner the developed economies bite the bullet, the sooner everyone will be able to repair their personal balance sheets before they retire. Otherwise, we risk experiencing a lost decade—or more—in which the fundamental underlying problems are not resolved and the value of current savings continually erodes.

– from the BCG report

4. However, it also suggest raising the retirement age (backlash against which has been severe in Europe) while also suggesting more “managed” healthcare (emphasis added):

• Raise the retirement age. As unpopular as this measure will be, it is the most important lever to reduce future costs. In an era of shrinking workforces, the math simply doesn’t work. The sooner the public knows what to expect, the sooner it will be able to plan for this scenario. Seen in this light, recent political initiatives toward earlier retirement, as we are currently witnessing in France, are extremely counterproductive.

• Reduce social-insurance payments. Even with a higher retirement age, it will be necessary, at least in some developed countries, to also reduce future payouts. Again, the sooner the public has a clear picture of what the changes will be and when, the sooner it can begin to prepare for them.

• Manage health care systems for greater efficiency. In many countries, especially the U.S., health care is the primary driver of increased government spending. But higher spending on health care is not necessarily a sign of better health outcomes. Although the U.S. spends 17.6 percent of GDP on health care, U.S. life expectancy is between 1.7 and 3 years less than it is in the U.K. (which spends only 9.6 percent of GDP on health care) and in France and Germany (which spend 11.6 percent). The health care systems of the developed countries—and not just the U.S.—offer huge potential for more efficiency with no loss in effectiveness. (See “Health Reform Should Focus on Outcomes, Not Costs,” BCG article, October 2012.)

– from the BCG report

5. But wait, there’s another set of conservative-style suggestions (emphasis added):

• Increase the efficiency of the social-welfare system. The administrative costs of welfare systems is an area ripe for rationalization. One change to consider is replacing traditional means testing, which can very quickly become highly bureaucratic and resource intensive, with a guaranteed minimum income. An idea supported in the past by liberals such as Martin Luther King Jr. and John Kenneth Galbraith, but also by conservatives such as Friedrich Hayek, Richard Nixon, and Milton Friedman, a guaranteed minimum income has the advantage of eliminating most procedures for means testing and freeing up resources traditionally used in the allocation and distribution of money.

• Free up the public-sector workforce. It is also important to reduce the number of public employees as a percentage of the overall population. In a period when labor will become increasingly scarce, it is critical that as many people as possible actually generate GDP (rather than merely consuming and redistributing it). This is not to say that public-service employees do not contribute to the overall welfare of society. But in a world of scarcity, the tradeoffs become more visible. And government inefficiencies are significant, especially in European countries.

• Implement structural reforms. Besides reforming social-welfare and retirement systems, it is important to maximize the economic potential of the economy. Therefore efforts to increase competition, by abolishing rules that block new entrants, and to increase the flexibility of labor markets need to be implemented fast. According to a study by the IMF, the growth potential of economies in Western Europe could be increased by 4.5 percent over five years through the adoption of such measures.

– from the BCG report

6. Here are the rest of the suggestions:

• Develop smart immigration policy
• Invest in education
• Reinvest in the asset base
• Increase raw-material efficiency
• Cooperate on a global basis
• Launch the next Kondratiev wave

– from the BCG report

7. “There needs to be a radical rethink of the way the West organises itself. Many of the ideas of Mr Stelter and his team are the right ones, although the tax burden being what it is in the UK, many would find it hard to stomach the thought of more tax rises that the BCG report recommends. At some point the relationship between taxed income and willingness to innovate turns negative.

“I would suggest the UK is very near that point.”
– from Business Insider

So there you have it. Having read that, you are now up to speed on the “chilling” report circulating among financial top brass. But if you want to dive more into it, we suggest reading the full report. There are other nuggets in there, and it will also help the numbering (I thought there were only supposed to be 10 suggestions?) make sense.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/theres-a-chilling-economic-report-making-the-rounds-among-top-execs-do-you-want-to-know-what-it-says-and-suggests/