Income Inequality

Last year saw the growth of the Occupy Wall Street movement from New York City to other cities across the country from Washington, DC to Oakland, California. The movement resulted in small tent communities being erected in urban parks that housed protesters who used homemade signs that decried the income gap between the the top 1% of Americans and the other 99% supposedly represented by the Occupy campers.

Democrats generally praised these Occupy protesters since the Occupy message attacking income inequality in America seemed to line up with President Obama's oft repeated philosophy that the wealthy do not pay their "fair share" in taxes. The President pursued this philosophy during the end of the year debate with Congress regarding whether to extend the tax rates established during George W. Bush's term that reduced tax rates across all income ranges in 2001. Obama wanted to extend the rates only for those whose annual incomes were below $250,000. The final bill that passed on New Year's Eve just before the Bush tax rates expired, raised taxes on those making more than $450,000 per year.

Here's what President Obama said about the new tax law on New Year's Day after signing the bill: "T]oday’s agreement enshrines, I think, a principle into law that will remain in place as long as I am President: The deficit needs to be reduced in a way that's balanced. Everyone pays their fair share. Everyone does their part..." 

The problem, of course, is that it is questionable whether everyone contributes their fair share to the federal revenue stream. As Mitt Romney had the misfortune to accurately point out, 47% of American workers do not pay any federal income taxes. [They do, however, pay federal payroll taxes that are withheld from their wages if they are fortunate enough to have a job in the jobless recovery that has been ongoing for the past five years.]

The President's continuing emphasis throughout his term in office on raising taxes on high income earners (even though such tax increases do not come close to meaningful deficit reduction) has led many Republicans to suggest that Obama is pursuing a Socialist agenda to eliminate income inequality by redistributing wealth from high income earners to those in lower income categories. But significant wealth redistribution through taxation has already taken place, even before the recent boost in tax rates for those making over $450,000, as shown in the chart below.

With respect to income taxes: "The top 10 percent of taxpayers paid over 70% of the total amount collected in federal income taxes in 2010, the latest year figures are available, according to the Tax Foundation, .... That's up from 55% in 1986.The remaining 90% bore just under 30% of the tax burden." 

Our country has attracted immigrants from around the globe for over 200 years to pursue their fortunes in a nation that offers opportunity and free markets to anyone willing to work toward a better life. Many of those who have come to America, as well as their descendents, and have succeeded in becoming high income earners are now among the targets of the President's tax raising rhetoric.

Americans should be encouraged to pursue their goals of reaching the top 10% or 1% by innovation, education and/or personal drive to create a better society, a better product or a new business. 

Income inequality has existed throughout the ages from the Egyptian and Roman empires to modern day in every country, even Communist countries. Look at the elite wealthy lifestyles of the Chinese leaders. Hugo Chavez, the great hero to the poor of Venezuela, died with an estate worth over $2 billion; the Castro brothers in Cuba are worth billions while their countrymen live in poverty due to Socialist policies that restrict free enterprise. While income inequality in many of those other societies resulted from political corruption, graft and greed, our country allows anyone with enough education, skill and/or ingenuity the opportunity to reach the top 10% or even the top 1% if they seize the opportunities available to them. Throughout history, Americans, such as Thomas Edison, Bill Gates and Steve Jobs, have used their unique talents to revolutionize the world, not just the US, and have succeeded to build personal wealth as a byproduct.

Most successful members of the top 1, 5 or 10% also become philanthropists and give millions and billions to organizations that benefit the general public. Consider, for example, the good works of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the Rockefeller Foundation (including historic Williamsburg) and the Carnegie Libraries all across the US.

People in the lower income groups do not usually stay there throughout their lives; middle class people often move into higher income groups later in life. These groups are not static, at least in the US. We may need to improve educational systems in some areas to assure more opportunity to people to move through the ranks to greater success in life, but generating class envy or anger against the most successful among us, as President Obama seems to do often, is counter-productive with no redeeming value to helping those who are less fortunate. Sphere: Related Content

From the Edge of the Fiscal Cliff

On the first day of the new year when higher income tax rates were technically going into effect for all Americans, Congress passed a bill to limit the increase in tax rates to those who earn more than $400,000 individually or $450,000 per couple. The bill also increases spending by extending unemployment benefits, fixing the Medicare reimbursement rates for doctors and other health care providers, revising the Alternative Minimum Tax that could have increased taxes for middle income families if not revised and extending various tax credits. The spending cuts that were scheduled to automatically go into effect on January 2, 2013 were postponed until the end of February 2013. Consequently, the bill only addressed taxes and "kicked the can down the road" again on spending cuts; setting up another last minute fight between Democrats and Republicans on where to cut federal spending to resolve the deficit problem at the end of next month.

As it turned out, President Obama seemed to be absent from the final negotiations on the bill that passed. He met with Congressional leaders as the deadline approached within the past week and charged Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to put a bill on the floor for a vote. This was basically the course of action I urged in my last blog post on December 22, 2012: "If the Democrats want to raise taxes on the wealthy, as Obama and the majority of the public who voted him in for a second term have indicated, why doesn't the Senate bring the House bill to the floor and amend it with a Bush tax rate extension limited to those who make less than $250,000 (or, as Obama seems to now accept, $400,000)..." Why did it take so long for the Senate to take up the bill that the House passed in May?

Unfortunately, Harry Reid again failed to accomplish anything, and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell had to call on his old Senate colleague, now Vice President, Joe Biden to negotiate a deal that could pass. So the Democratic Leader in the Senate and the Democratic Chief Executive of the country failed to take the necessary action to reach a bi-partisan solution for over six months (at least), and the Republican Leader of the Senate and the Vice President had to take charge to reach a last minute bill.

This was not incompetence by the President. Nevertheless, many TV pundits and opinion writers since late on New Year's Day have been describing the Obama's role in negotiating the final deal as a failure in leadership since it was his Vice President and the Republican Leader in Senate who reached the deal to avert the Fiscal Cliff. Many of those opinions are coming from news sources that endorsed Obama for a second term. I even heard a liberal commentator on CNN last night say that "negotiating deals" is clearly not Obama's strong suit. I haven't even seen what Fox News has said about this result yet.

My view is that this is the result Obama wanted. The bill only raises taxes on the wealthy and does not cut spending, which is critical to cutting the deficit. Even though Obama gives lip service to a "balanced approach" (with tax increases and spending cuts) to solving the debt problem, as I noted in my blog post on November 30, 2012, . "The President's continuous campaign for higher taxes on so-called "millionaires and billionaires", without any serious proposals to cut spending, is consistent with his long term political goal of reducing income inequality in America..."

Every public statement Obama made since the election about the looming fiscal cliff focused almost solely on raising taxes on the rich in order to avoid hitting the middle class with tax hikes. He even held an unusual Press briefing with hand-picked middle class people in the Eisenhower Executive Office Building on New Year's Eve afternoon to once again repeat his goal:

"The agreement being worked on right now would further reduce the deficit by asking the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans to pay higher taxes for the first time in two decades, so that would add additional hundreds of billions of dollars to deficit reduction. So that's progress, but we’re going to need to do more. Keep in mind that just last month Republicans in Congress said they would never agree to raise tax rates on the wealthiest Americans.  Obviously, the agreement that's currently being discussed would raise those rates and raise them permanently."

 The problem is that raising taxes on the top earners is a small fraction of the gap that needs to be closed to cut the deficit, as I showed in my November 30 blog post. Spending cuts are necessary. Now there is another two months to address spending cuts, but Obama will find a way to add taxes to the mix and enrage the conservative "tea party" wing of the Republican Party even more than they are today with the New Year's Day deal.
Sphere: Related Content

Fiscal Cliff Diving

       The decorated gates at the White House are closed and the occupants have flown to Hawaii for Christmas vacation, and there is still no solution to avoiding the impending dive over the fiscal cliff established by Congress and the President last year. The situation I described in my last post at the end of November has not changed at all. The elected officials in Washington have made no progress; reached no agreed deals on a bi-partisan solution; taken no action to solve the crisis.
        Ever since Obama was re-elected, Speaker Boehner has made proposals to extend the current tax rates and cut taxes that the White House and Senate Democrats have rejected. Then the White House makes a counter-proposal that the House Republicans reject. Each of these exchanges is characterized by dueling press conferences attacking the other side's proposal. What is not seen is all key parties sitting down together to work out a compromise that all can live with, even if not fully to each side's liking. Business deals are reached like this around the world every day, but politicians seem more interested in repeating their tired old policies and talking points that demean the other side.
        It's no wonder that business leaders have no confidence in our federal government and the financial markets see the US political system as dysfunctional. Another downgrade of the US credit rating is very likely after the new year starts unless a post-Christmas miracle occurs next week.
         The irony is that the public and the press have already decided that, if the nation fails to avoid the fiscal cliff and taxes rise for everyone after January first, it will be the Republicans' fault. Yet the Washington Post reported today on facts that are little known by the public:
              “The House has already acted to stop all of the looming tax hikes and replace the automatic defense cuts” scheduled to hit in January, Boehner spokesman Brendan Buck said in a written statement, a reference to a measure the House passed last summer to extend the George W. Bush-era tax hikes for taxpayers at all income levels....                
             Like their counterparts in the House, Senate Republicans are eager to avert the fiscal cliff — Washington shorthand for more than $500 billion in automatic tax hikes and spending cuts set to hit in January. Unless Congress acts, taxes will rise for nearly 90 percent of Americans, potentially knocking the nation back into recession.
          Polls show that a majority of Americans would blame Republicans for that outcome. Surveys also show that voters overwhelmingly support Obama’s proposal to deal with record budget deficits in part by raising taxes on the wealthy."
            This report seems to indicate that a bill has already passed the House and is sitting in the Democratic controlled Senate that would avoid the fiscal cliff calamity about to occur. If the Democrats want to raise taxes on the wealthy, as Obama and the majority of the public who voted him in for a second term have indicated, why doesn't the Senate bring the House bill to the floor and amend it with a Bush tax rate extension limited to those who make less than $250,000 (or as Obama seems to now accept $400,000) and then take the bill to Conference, as all bills normally do. There are very likely enough Republican Senators at this stage who would favor such a compromise, thereby assuring there would be no filibuster. Then key members of both parties from each house of Congress could sit down together to discuss the threshold over which tax rates should rise.
               Boehner already agreed to $1 million in income as the tax increase threshold, but the tea party faction of his party refused to vote for that option. However, there were many Republicans who would have voted for this so-called Plan B. By going to Conference on differing bills passed by both houses to reach a compromise on a final bill, key members of both parties will be able to sit down in a room and reach an agreement. This is the way governing under the US Constitution is supposed to work!
                Now is the time for all elected officials in Washington (or Hawaii) to carry out their Constitutional duties as the voters elected them to do.


Sphere: Related Content

Fairness, not the Economic Growth, Drives Obama Agenda

           The chart above (published by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) after President Obama was re-elected earlier this month) demonstrates what the Romney campaign tried to explain to the voters. No matter how bad the economy was when Obama took office, the recovery since the recession ended has proceeded at a pace below that usually experienced after prior recessions. Obama was re-elected even though the unemployment rate is still close to 8% and even worse for minorities who voted in large majorities for Obama: the unemployment rate for Blacks has increased from 12.7% to 14.1% (almost twice the unemployment rate of whites) since Obama was inaugurated in 2009 and, although the unemployment rate for Hispanics has decreased slightly since 2009, at a rate of 9.7%, it still exceeds the national rate of 7.9%.
           During a recession in 1992, Bill Clinton ran a successful campaign to defeat an incumbent President by focusing on the poor economy. Never has a President been re-elected with an unemployment rate as high as it is currently nor with such a slow economic recovery.
           Pundits are analyzing the election results based on standard  measures of the past, but it appears that Obama may have changed the usual way to influence a majority of voters. His tenure in office and his campaign have been more focused on "fairness" rather than economic growth that can lead to a better life for hard working Americans and improved conditions for governments at all levels to balance their budgets.  And apparently a majority of voters have accepted that concept as an appropriate driving force to guide national policy decisions.
           This new guiding principle of decision-making is clearly seen in the on-going attempts to solve the fiscal cliff of reduced spending and tax increases that will automatically take effect on January 1, 2013 if Congress and the President cannot agree on another solution to the US budget deficit.
            The President wants to allow the scheduled tax increases for those families making over $250,000 a year to go into effect while extending the current rates for those in lower income brackets. This does not fix the budget problem.
               "President Obama’s proposed tax hike would raise roughly $65 billion in 2013. At the same time, the president proposes to increase spending next year by $202 billion. The tax hike would pay for only 32 percent of the proposed new spending. ... That means that not a penny of Obama’s proposed tax increase would, in fact, go toward reducing the budget deficit, let alone paying down the debt. Rather, every cent of the tax hike would go toward paying for increased federal spending." http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/308439/obama-tax-rich-michael-tanner#
               Since the annual budget deficit has been at least $1 trillion each year Obama has been in office, a reduction of $65 billion would amount to about 6.5% of the total deficit. Some analysts say that Obama's proposal actually includes additional provisions affecting high income taxpayers that would bring the total revenue enhanced by the White House proposal to $86 billion. That would still only reduce the deficit by about 8.5%.
                It is, therefore, clear that allowing tax rates on the highest income earners to rise back up to the Clinton era rates will not solve the deficit problem. In his first remarks in the White House after election day, Obama said:  "If we’re serious about reducing the deficit, we have to combine spending cuts with revenue -- and that means asking the wealthiest Americans to pay a little more in taxes."
               The President's remarks recognize that spending cuts are needed for an effective solution to the US government's deficit spending problem and that the problem will not be resolved by his proposed tax increases alone. That means that to eliminate the rest of the annual $1 trillion deficit more than 90% of the deficit gap will have to be closed with spending cuts. Yet the rhetoric among Democratic members of Congress and the White House since the election has been solely fixed on raising tax rates on the wealthiest Americans.
                The continuing focus on taxing the rich rather than addressing the whole problem by sitting down to negotiate a comprehensive solution that both sides can agree to is consistent with Obama's governing philosophy that has contributed to the gridlock in Washington and the slow economic recovery demonstrated in the graph above. He would rather continue campaigning against high income earners than exercise some leadership in crafting comprehensive solutions to the nation's most serious fiscal problems.
                  Even the Washington Post (one of many mainstream media outlets to endorse Obama's re-election) has noticed the failure of the victorious Democratic Party and its leader in the White House to engage in sincere negotiations to find common ground:
                   "Elections do have consequences, and Mr. Obama ran on a clear platform of increasing taxes on the wealthy. But he was clear on something else, too: Deficit reduction must be “balanced,” including spending cuts as well as tax increases. Since 60 percent of the federal budget goes to entitlement programs such as Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, there’s no way to achieve balance without slowing the rate of increase of those programs....
               Mr. Obama has understood this since at least 2009, when he told The Post’s editorial board that he would tackle entitlement reform.
             'What we have done is kicked this can down the road. We are now at the end of the road and are not in a position to kick it any further,” he said then. “We have to signal seriousness in this by making sure some of the hard decisions are made under my watch, not someone else’s.'
                 Four years later, has the moment arrived? Since his reelection, Mr. Obama has fueled a campaign-style effort to pressure Republicans to give ground on taxes. That’s fine, but it won’t be enough."               
                 The President's continuous campaign for higher taxes on so-called "millionaires and billionaires", without any serious proposals to cut spending, is consistent with his long term political goal of reducing income inequality in America, as described in a Washington Post op-ed last Sunday:
                  "[B]eneath his tactical maneuvering lies a consistent and unifying principle: to use the powers of his office to shrink the growing gap between the wealthiest Americans and everyone else.... Viewed through this lens, the imminent debate over the “fiscal cliff” is not simply a war over taxes, spending and how to tame the nation’s mushrooming debt. As Obama did in legislative fights during his first term, he also will be striving to reduce a three-decades-long wave of rising income inequality that has meant that fewer Americans have prospered while more struggle to get by."
                  Since the President is more concerned with reducing the wealth of the high earners of the US than with balancing the budget, there is a real danger of either going over the fiscal cliff or reaching a short term solution that just kicks the can down the road again. Either result would likely worsen our sluggish economic recovery. A report released last month by the National Association of Manufacturers predicted that the damage to the economy would deepen considerably if Washington fails to avoid the cliff, "destroying nearly 6 million jobs through 2014 and sending the unemployment rate soaring to near 12 percent."
                  Moody's Analytics, Tax Policy Center has also warned that going over the fiscal cliff could lead to another recession, driving GDP down 3.53% in 2013. The chart below illustrates Moody's analysis.
                  Obama needs to address the nation's fiscal health in a comprehensive way to find common ground rather than playing politics - that divides members of Congress along party lines impeding those who are trying to find bi-partisan solutions. Obama's constant attacks on the financially successful class of Americans also creates uncertainty among business leaders who could help increase employment, improve economic activity and enhance the prospects for prosperity among more Americans who have suffered through the worse economic recovery in 70 years. 
                  If Obama fails to exercise leadership in pursuit of the nation's public interest (rather than his narrow interest of punishing the country's top earners to close the income inequality gap), the prospects demonstrated in the Moody's chart below could become reality.
 
Sphere: Related Content

Elections Have Consequences

It has been less than a week since Barack Obama was re-elected President of the United States and the consequences of that decision by the voters are already sending shock-waves through our still sluggish economy.

1. STOCK MARKET HAS PLUNGED: Since election day, the Dow Jones Industrial Average has dropped over 400 points. It dropped over 300 points just on the day after election day. The major reason seems to be that financial markets realize that the so-called "fiscal cliff" (which includes automatic tax increases and budget cuts) will occur at the end of the year unless addressed by Congress and the President soon, and that, after months of expensive campaigning, the voters basically left the government in Washington just as it was before the campaigns began. We still have a Democratic controlled Senate, a Republican controlled House and the same President - none of which could resolve the fiscal cliff before the election.

2. PARTISAN ATTACKS CONTINUE: Although House Speaker John Boehner offered right after the election to discuss revenue enhancements (in the form of eliminating certain deductions for high income taxpayers) as part of a legislative deal to avoid the fiscal cliff, two days later President Obama (in his first public announcement since the election) said:

"But as I’ve said before, we can’t just cut our way to prosperity.  If we’re serious about reducing the deficit, we have to combine spending cuts with revenue -- and that means asking the wealthiest Americans to pay a little more in taxes..... I’m open to compromise.  I’m open to new ideas.  I’m committed to solving our fiscal challenges.  But I refuse to accept any approach that isn’t balanced." 

Since the Republican Speaker already expressed his willingness to discuss increased revenue why does the President have to keep attacking an approach limited to budget cuts? Such partisan attacks do not encourage cooperative working relations with Congressional leaders of the other party that could lead to compromise.

President Obama would benefit in his attempts to reach consensus by following the example set by Abraham Lincoln, a President who won re-election in 1864 while the country was still fighting a bloody Civil War. As bad as our current fiscal and economic problems are today, they pale in comparison to the violent clashes that grew out of political differences in the mid-nineteenth century. After winning re-election in 1864, Lincoln said:

"Now that the election is over, may not all, having a common interest, reunite in a common effort, to save our common country?" - November 10, 1864

Does not Barack Obama think that Republicans, as well as Democrats, have a "common interest" in resolving our country's problems?


3.  COMPANIES ARE ANNOUNCING LAYOFFS DUE TO OBAMACARE TAXES AND COSTS SOON TO GO INTO EFFECT: The health care law commonly called Obamacare imposes new taxes and penalties effective in 2013 on certain employers and companies. Among the most troublesome taxes are new taxes on medical devices. In January, medical device manufacturers in the U.S. will be asked to pay a 2.3 percent tax on medical devices. Consequently, now that Obamacare will remain the law of the land, many medical device manufacturers have announced (some since election day) lay-offs and plans to move certain facilities out of the US:


Welch Allyn, a company that manufactures medical diagnostic equipment in central New York, announced in September that they would be laying off 275 employees (about 10% of their workforce) over the next three years.  One of the major reasons discussed for the layoffs was the Medical Device Tax mandated by the new healthcare law.

Stryker, one of the biggest medical device manufacturers in the world, will close their facility in Orchard Park, New York, eliminating 96 jobs in December. In addition, they plan to slash 5% of their global workforce - an estimated 1,170 positions.

 Boston Scientific announced last year that the company would be cutting anywhere between 1,200 and 1,400 jobs, while simultaneously shifting investments and workers overseas - to China.

 Medtronic, another medical device maker, warned that Obamacare taxes could result in a reduction of  1,000 jobs. That plan became reality when the company cut 500 positions over the summer, with another 500 set for the end of 2013.
 [Information above taken from FreedomWorks website at  http://www.freedomworks.org/blog/grusbf5/good-morning-america-heres-those-layoffs-you-voted]

"Other medical manufacturers will follow: Smith & Nephew, with 770 layoffs; Abbott Labs, 700; Covidien, 595; Kinetic Concepts, 427; St. Jude Medical, 300;.. and Hill Rom, 200.

[Read more: http://www.vcstar.com/news/2012/oct/27/shirley-medical-device-tax-will-impact-jobs-and/#ixzz2BxZOFF9H - vcstar.com]

But medical device manufacturers are not only companies laying off employees due to the costs of Obamacare. Dana Holding Corp., an auto parts manufacturer, warned their employees of potential layoffs, citing "$24 million over the next six years in additional U.S. health care expenses".

4. COMPANIES ARE REDUCING HOURS OF PART_TIME WORKERS TO AVOID OBAMACARE COSTS: Under the Affordable Care Act (AKA Obamacare) "any business must provide health insurance if it employs 50 or more full-time employees - but only to full-time employees. Businesses are exempt from providing health insurance to part-time employees." Employers that fail to provide health insurance to part-time workers will have to pay a $2,000 penalty per employee after the first 30.

Since Obamacare defines part-time employees as those who work at least 30 hours a week, many companies are considering reducing hours for part-time workers (who were defined under existing labor laws as those who work at least 35 hours a week) to less than 30 hours per week.

"Papa John's founder and CEO John Schnatter said the president's signature health-care reform law would increase his business costs and possibly result in employees' hours being cut." At the company's shareholders meeting in August, Schnatter said that Obamacare "would result in a 10- to 14-cent increase for customers buying a pizza." 

 "Darden Restaurants -- owners of about 2,000 outlets including the Red Lobster and Olive Garden chains -- is studying ways to shift more employees under the 30-hour ceiling. About three-quarters of its 185,000 workers are already under, says spokesman Rich Jeffers. The question is "can we go higher and still deliver a great [eating] experience." The financial stakes are sizable. Suppose Darden moves 1,000 servers under 30 hours and avoids paying $5,000 insurance for each. The annual savings: $5 million....Many companies, especially in the fast-food, retailing and hotel industries, will explore similar changes." 

5. CIA DIRECTOR PETRAEUS RESIGNED.  On Friday following Obama's re-election, it was announced that CIA Director David Petraeus resigned due to an extra-marital affair discovered by the FBI during an inquiry into e-mails sent by Petraeus biographer Paula Broadwell. While the resignation is solely due to the former Director's personal conduct, the loss of Petraeus as the head of the CIA just before new Congressional hearings are scheduled into the attack on the US Consulate in Benghazi, Libya is unfortunate. Petraeus personally briefed Congressional leaders on the attack within days of the event on September 11, 2012, and it was at that briefing that first CIA reference to the attack being the result of a protest over an anti-Muslim video was presented. Prior to that briefing, CIA officials on the ground reported no protest and described the attack as a coordinated terrorist assault on the US facility and personnel.

Following Petraeus' first briefing to Congressional leaders, the Obama Administration repeated the storyline that the attack followed a protest for a couple of weeks at daily White House press briefings. Most significantly, the US Ambassador to the UN, Susan Rice, repeated this description on every Sunday morning talk show on the Sunday following the attack.

While the CIA Director was scheduled to testify at Congressional hearings next week, Petraeus will now be replaced by the new Acting Director. Petraeus may eventually testify personally even as a civilian, but it does not appear that he will do so next week.

This development adds more questions to the list of those that already exist regarding the lack of security at the Benghazi consulate, the lack of adequate military reinforcements to help protect US personnel under attack, the failure to secure the site after the attack, why it took the FBI sent to investigate the incident several weeks to get to the consulate and, of course, why the Administration insisted on giving an inaccurate description of the events in Benghazi to the American public for so long.

With so many new developments and revelations already occurring within days of Obama's re-election, it appears that the rocky performance we have experienced in the past due to Obama's broken promises of transparency and post-partisanship will continue FORWARD just as before.

Sphere: Related Content

President Obama Emphasizes Trust at an Unfortunate Time

At a campaign rally in Florida yesterday, President Obama made the following statement:

"There is no more serious issue in a presidential campaign than trust."

Unfortunately for Obama, today's news highlighted  a couple of stories that raise questions about whether Obama can be trusted. After his Administration spent about two weeks suggesting that the September 11, 2012 attack on the US Consulate in Benghazi, Libya that killed four Americans arose out of a protest over a video that insulted Islam, Reuters reported today that it obtained e-mails sent from the US Embassy in Tripoli while the attack in Benghazi was underway stating "that the diplomatic mission in Benghazi was 'under attack. Embassy in Tripoli reports approximately 20 armed people fired shots; explosions have been heard as well." One terrorist group even claimed responsibility within a couple of hours of the attack, but withdrew that claim later. Among the recipients of the e-mails during the attack were the State Department and the White House. 

Typical of the explanations for the protests in the Muslim world, including the attack in Benghazi, that started on September 11, 2012 (the eleventh anniversary of the worst terrorist attacks in history on US soil) was this statement at a press briefing by White House Press Secretary Jay Carney on September 14: 

             "We also need to understand that this is a fairly volatile situation and it is in response not to United States policy, not to obviously the administration, not to the American people.  It is in response to a video, a film that we have judged to be reprehensible and disgusting.  That in no way justifies any violent reaction to it, but this is not a case of protests directed at the United States writ large or at U.S. policy.  This is in response to a video that is offensive to Muslims." (emphasis added)

Even UN Ambassador Susan Rice appeared on all Sunday morning talk shows on September 16 stating that the best information the Administration had suggested that the Benghazi attacks followed protests over the anti-Islam video. Only after a counter-terrorism official testified at a Congressional hearing about two weeks later stating that the Benghazi attack was an act of terrorism against the US mission did Jay Carney and other Administration officials admit that the attack on the Benghazi Consulate was an act of terrorism that was not preceded by an anti-video protest.

Also today it was revealed that the President gave an off-the-record interview to the Des Moines Register, the largest circulation newspaper in Iowa, that outlined Obama's plans for a second term. The content of what the President said about his plans does not seem to be very different from what has previously been generally known, but the newspaper's editor complained about the White House request to keep the interview from the public. After Governor Romney has been criticizing President Obama for not disclosing his plans for a second term, why would the President ask to keep such an interview off the record? That is the type of information that should be discussed in a Presidential campaign.

So on the day after Obama tells a campaign rally that "trust" is important in a Presidential campaign, the news media reports two examples of how the Obama Administration tries to hide information from the public.         
                  Is this a President we can trust? 

Update:  Since writing this post, the following new information has been published which emphasizes further the points made and the consequences of the President's questionable actions described above:

        FactCheck.org article entitled "Benghazi Timeline" (Oct. 26, 2012):  This article sets forth a detailed timeline of statements made by Obama Administration officials from the time of the Benghazi attack until October 24, 2012. Analysis of this timeline led the FactCheck organization to come to this conclusion:

           "We cannot say whether the administration was intentionally misleading the public. We cannot prove intent.... But, at this point, we do know that Obama and others in the administration were quick to cite the anti-Muslim video as the underlying cause for the attack in Benghazi that killed four U.S. diplomats, including U.S. Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens. And they were slow to acknowledge it was a premeditated terrorist attack, and they downplayed reports that it might have been."

        Des Moines Register endorsed Mitt Romney for President (Oct. 27, 2012): For the first time since 1972, the Des Moines Register endorsed a Republican candidate for President after Obama insisted on giving an off-the-record interview to the editorial staff. But it was the newspaper's analysis of the two candidates' past performance and their future plans that led to the endorsement of Romney:

           "The nation has struggled to recover from recession for the past 40 months. Still, the economy is growing at an unacceptably anemic rate of around 2 percent a year and could slip back into recession depending on what happens in the European Union and China.
           The workforce is still 4.5 million jobs short of the nearly 9 million that were lost in the recession. Longer term, looming deficits driven by Social Security and Medicare pose the single greatest threats to the nation’s economic security.
           The president’s best efforts to resuscitate the stumbling economy have fallen short. Nothing indicates it would change with a second term in the White House.....
           Barack Obama rocketed to the presidency from relative obscurity with a theme of hope and change. A different reality has marked his presidency. His record on the economy the past four years does not suggest he would lead in the direction the nation must go in the next four years. 
           Voters should give Mitt Romney a chance to correct the nation’s fiscal course and to implode the partisan gridlock that has shackled Washington and the rest of America..." Sphere: Related Content

Apology in Egypt and followed by Killings in Libya

 

Mitt Romney is being criticized by the Obama Administration and its enablers in the "mainstream press" for expressing his view that the US Embassy in Cairo should not have issued a statement condemning “the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims" shortly before the Embassy was stormed, as shown above, by protesters angry about a video depicting the prophet Mohammad unfavorably. Eight hours after the protesters attacked the Embassy, climbing the walls around it, tearing down American flags, trying to burn them and raising a black flag commonly used by Muslim extremists, the Embassy issued another statement saying "This morning's condemnation [of those who made a film "hurting the feelings" of Muslims] (issued before the protest began) still stands. As does our condemnation of the unjustified breach of our Embassy."

Romney's statement criticizing the official statements by the US Embassy in Cairo was issued four hours after the Embassy restated its original condemnation of those exercising their rights of free expression in the US and three hours after the first unconfirmed reports of a death of a US diplomat in Libya. Within minutes after Romney's statement regarding the Cairo Embassy's first inclination about the Mohammad video being to condemn those who made a film that could hurt the feelings of Muslims, the Obama Administration issued this statement from Washington, DC: "The statement by Embassy Cairo was not cleared by Washington and does not reflect the views of the United States government.”

 

Twenty minutes after the Obama Administration officially rejected the Cairo Embassy's twice repeated apologies for hurting Muslim feelings - just as Mitt Romney had done earlier - Secretary of State Hillary Clinton confirmed that US diplomats had been killed in Benghazi, Libya. The attackers set the consulate on fire, as shown above. Today it was reported that the American ambassador to Libya was killed as a result of smoke inhalation during the fire. In Secretary Clinton's statement to the press condemning the attack on the US consulate in Benghazi, she also added that “the U.S. deplores any intentional effort to denigrate the religious beliefs of others.”

So while US diplomats are being attacked and killed in North Africa, the Obama Administration tempered every response expressing outrage at the senseless violence by indicating sympathy for the thugs carrying out the violence because their religious "feelings" were hurt!

So why is Mitt Romney being criticized? Was it because he said that the US should not apologize for its values - that include freedom of expression and tolerance for differing religious beliefs - when our foreign service representatives are being literally attacked in other countries by those who use violence and bloodshed rather than peaceful protests to demonstrate their anger at the acts of private American citizens in our free society? Or was it because Romney made his statement before anyone in the Obama Administration in Washington clarified that the statements made hours before by the US Embassy in Cairo were not "cleared by Washington" and do not express the views of the US government.

Why did it take the Obama Administration about twelve hours to officially reject the Cairo Embassy's "apology" - which was later reconfirmed by the Embassy after the protests were underway? Did Romney wake up the Obama officials in Washington to what its Cairo foreign service officers said before and after the angry protests started?

It is clear that the Obama Administration came to the same views as Romney did about the misguided statements issued by its own Embassy in Cairo after Romney's statement of condemnation of the ill-advised attempt at appeasement, which was answered with the violent attacks in Cairo and Benghazi. We may find out in the days ahead whether the more violent attacks in Benghazi were inspired by the weak US response in Cairo earlier in the day or whether Muslim extremists possibly used the Cairo protests against the Mohammad film as a pretext to launch a pre-planned attack on the consulate, which was not as adequately protected as more fortified US Embassies generally are.

These events on September 11, 2012 also raise questions about why our foreign service personnel were not better protected in Muslim countries in that volatile part of the world on the eleventh anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, particularly after violent protests began to rage in Egypt.


The timeline for these events in North Africa on September 11, 2012 can be found at: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0912/81114.html?hp=t7_7.

Sphere: Related Content