Archive

US Politics

Comment from thebrackpipe.com:  More fallout from Obama’s poor understanding of how businesses and economies work.

Article below by Sherrie Conroy as it appeared in MedTech Insights:

Now that the medical device tax has been implemented and device makers have already made their first payment to the IRS, the focus has turned to getting this thorn in their side repealed.  They have gained some support in that effort, and AdvaMed says that legislation introduced in the US House of Representatives shows the growing bipartisan support for repealing the medical device tax.

“The momentum from the last Congress is carrying over with a broader array of champions working to defeat this terrible tax,” says AdvaMed president and CEO Stephen J. Ubl.  “On both sides of the aisle, members of Congress know the device tax hurts our economy, kills jobs, and slows the march of medical progress needed to fight disease and reduce long-term health costs.  The medical technology industry is united in its commitment to repeal this tax and appreciates the leadership shown in Congress to continue the effort.”

Reps. Erik Paulsen (R-MN) and Ron Kind (D-WI) reintroduced the House repeal bill with more than 175 co-sponsors, including 20 Democrats.  Ubl praised Paulsen and Kind for working together on the repeal effort.  “Patients, the healthcare system, and the American economy are winners when legislators work together like this.  America’s medical technology industry looks forward to assisting in this important repeal effort,” Ubl says.

According to AdvaMed, the tax has already led to layoffs, reductions in planned facility expansions, and other cost-cutting measures, which the association blames for stunting economic growth, impeding innovation, and affecting patient care.  Studies show the tax threatens up to 43,000 jobs nationwide.

The medical technology industry helps employ more than 2 million people in the U.S., and salaries in this sector are 40 percent higher than the national average.

Comment from thebrackpipe.com:  Hmmm, not quite sure what to think about this one.  I’m concerned that the insurance companies were so influential in getting this fee added… for employers or beneficiaries to absorb.  Thoughts?  Please comment.

Article below by Janet Adamy of the Wall Street Journal:

Employers are bracing for a little-noticed fee in the federal health-care law that will charge them $63 for each person they insure next year, one of the clearest cost increases companies face when the law takes full effect.

Companies and other plan providers will together pay $25 billion over three years to create a fund for insurance companies to offset the cost of covering people with high medical bills.

The fees will hit most large U.S. employers, and several have been lobbying to change the program, contending the levy is unfair because it subsidizes individually purchased plans that won’t cover their workers.  Boeing Co. and a union health plan covering retirees of General MotorsFord Motor Co. and Chrysler, among other groups, have asked federal regulators to exclude or shield their insurance recipients from the fee.

Insurance companies, which helped put the fee in the law, say the fee is essential to prevent rates from skyrocketing when insurers get an influx of unhealthy customers next year.  The fee is part of a new insurance landscape created by the health law that will forbid insurers from denying coverage to people with pre-existing conditions.

The $63 fee will apply to plans covering millions of Americans in 2014.  It applies to employers that assume the risk for workers’ medical bills, and many private plans sold by insurers.  The fee will be smaller for 2015 and 2016, though regulators haven’t set those amounts.

Few noticed the fee when the 2010 Affordable Care Act passed.  Employers have spent recent months trying to peel it back, but final regulations published Monday in the Federal Register left it largely intact.

“It’s caught most employers, if not all employers, by surprise,” said Steve Wojcik, vice president of public policy at the National Business Group on Health in Washington, which represents large employers.  “They’re very upset about it.”

The fee comes on top of other costs employers expect to face.  Proponents of the law say it eventually will lower employers’ health costs by expanding insurance coverage to 30 million Americans, meaning employers won’t subsidize their unpaid medical bills.

Administrators for employee health plans have warned federal regulators they could pare insurance benefits to absorb the fee.  Some benefits experts expect employers will at least partially pass on the $63 to workers.

Boeing estimates the fee will apply to about 405,000 workers and dependents it insures, costing the Chicago-based plane maker an estimated $25 million in 2014.  The company spends $2.5 billion annually on health and insurance-related benefits.

Doug Kight, a Boeing vice president of strategy, compensation and benefits, told Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius in a December letter the aircraft maker was “concerned about the significant cost impact” of the fee.  Among other things, he effectively asked her to reduce the levy to account for the fact that Boeing’s workers aren’t part of the insurance system that can tap the reimbursement fund.

The UAW Retiree Medical Benefits Trust, which covers 806,000 retirees of General Motors, Ford, Chrysler and their dependents, asked HHS to exempt all its beneficiaries from the levy.  It argued the trust, which is independent from the auto makers, shouldn’t face the fee because its plans operate under terms set in federal district and bankruptcy courts in 2009.

The top lobbying groups for large employers, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Business Roundtable, also voiced concerns about the fee and asked regulators to delay its collection.

In the regulations published Monday, HHS declined to whittle down the levy for firms such as Boeing, citing the law’s requirements.  It said the fee wouldn’t apply to the plans of retirees whose primary coverage is Medicare, which would exclude many retired autoworkers, but it declined to categorically exempt workers in court-structured benefits plans.

A Boeing spokesman said the final regulations don’t appear to address the major issues it raised with regulators.  A spokeswoman for the UAW trust declined to comment.

Federal regulators say they have heeded employers’ complaints about the fee and tweaked details of the program.  They opted to collect the levy nationally instead of through each state, moved the collection date to the end of next year and calculated the fee on a per capita basis instead of as a percentage of premiums.

“We’ve tried to really work with the employers and issuers in trying to make the application of this program as least burdensome as possible,” said Michael Hash, director of the HHS Office of Health Reform.

In 2014, insurers will be able to tap part of the $25 billion to offset medical costs from high-risk individual-market consumers that total between $60,000 and $250,000 a year.  Employers and other insurance issuers will pay $63 in 2014 for every worker, spouse, child and certain retirees they cover.

Of the fees collected, $20 billion will go toward paying high medical claims.  HHS says the remaining $5 billion will be used to retroactively offset an earlier program that reimbursed employers insuring early retirees through 2011.  Under that program, Boeing received $50 million and the UAW trust received $387 million, according to a federal summary of the payouts.

A Boeing spokesman said the retiree program “was not advertised as a program prefunded by the government to be paid back at a later time,” and that the law’s net financial impact on Boeing is negative.  The UAW trust declined to comment.

HHS says the high-risk program will lower premiums for people who buy plans through the individual insurance market by between 10% and 15%.  For insurance plans overall, the fee is expected to raise premiums next year by about 1%, and less in the subsequent two years of the program.

Insurance companies defend the fees, saying they will indirectly benefit employers. Companies subsidize the cost of caring for the uninsured by paying higher medical and insurance prices for workers.  Moving high-risk consumers into insurance policies will minimize that problem, they say.

These uninsured “had been the individuals going to the emergency room,” said Karen Ignagni, president of America’s Health Insurance Plans, an insurer trade group in Washington.  “The employers definitely were picking that up.”

Other health plans that tried and failed to win a federal exemption from the fee include so-called multiemployer insurance plans, which are jointly run by unions and employers.  About 20 million Americans are covered by such plans.  Federal regulators told these plans they lacked the authority to exclude them from the levy.

Those who sought an exemption include several benefit funds covering New York home-care workers, dietary aides and nursing assistants who belong to the Service Employees International Union.  The funds, which insure 331,000 people, predict the fee will cost them $21 million next year.

Eliminating life insurance and vision benefits would offset only half the fee, the funds said in a December letter to federal regulators.  Trustees would have to eliminate the entire durable-medical-equipment benefit to come close to offsetting the additional cost.

“The funds would be bearing additional costs without gaining any additional protections,” said Mitra Behroozi, executive director of 1199 SEIU Benefit and Pension Funds, in her letter to regulators.  Through a spokeswoman, Ms. Behroozi said the fund won’t follow through on cutting benefits, and that regulators addressed some of their concerns.

The benefit fund for 1199 SEIU received $4 million from the health law’s early retiree program.  Ms. Behroozi said through the spokeswoman that “the funds will still pay millions of our members’ dedicated health-care dollars in fees to the individual health-insurance market that would otherwise be used for their own coverage.”

Comment from thebrackpipe.com:  Joe Biden is a true American idiot.  

Article below by Karen Workman of Digital First Media:

Vice President Joe Biden is leading White House’s task force to reduce gun violence, so it’s not surprising that video of him advising people to “buy a shotgun” is drawing a lot of attention.

Biden, in a live town hall with Parents Magazine on Tuesday, ends one of his answers with the simple advice: “Buy a shotgun. Buy a shotgun.”

Biden was responding to a question from a reader named Kate about whether law abiding citizens would be a greater target for criminals if certain weapons and high capacity magazines are banned.

“Kate, if you want to protect yourself, get a double barrel shotgun, have the shells, a 12- gauge shotgun,” Biden responds.

He also talks about how he’s advised his wife to “fire two blasts” with the shotgun on their home’s balcony if she ever suspects trouble.

“You don’t need an AR-15,” Biden says. “It’s harder to aim. It’s harder to use. And, in fact, you don’t need 30 rounds to protect yourself.”

Biden was being interviewed by Michael Kress, the executive editor of Parents.com

.
The town hall was hosted on the magazine’s Facebook page and the full replay is available from the White House.

Comment from thebrackpipe.com:  So, Mr. Blankfein wrote in a November op-ed piece in The Wall Street Journal that tax increases are a necessary part of U.S. fiscal reform.  He wrote, “I believe that tax increases, especially for the wealthiest, are appropriate, but only if they are joined by serious cuts in discretionary spending and entitlements.”  I think what he meant to write was, “Tax increases are necessary but there is no way that I’m giving up MY cash.”

Article below by Liz Moyer, Steven Russolillo and Patrick McGee of the Wall Street Journal:

Goldman Sachs Group Inc. handed insiders including Chief Executive Lloyd Blankfein and his top lieutenants a total of $65 million in restricted stock just hours before this year’s higher tax rates took effect.

The New York securities firm gave 10 of its directors and executives early vesting on 508,104 shares previously awarded as part of prior years’ compensation, according to a series of filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission late Monday.

Almost half the shares were withheld to satisfy the insiders’ tax obligations, according to the filings.

Such vesting of previously granted restricted shares typically takes place in January, when Goldman also pays out bonuses for the prior year.

The early awards weren’t limited to the top officers, a Goldman spokesman said. He declined to say how many people at Goldman received the early vesting or to elaborate on the timing of the move.

Goldman’s decision is the latest illustration of the lengths large U.S. companies have gone to shield their stakeholders from the higher taxes that loomed throughout the so-called fiscal cliff standoff at the end of 2012. Congress on early Tuesday morning passed legislation that includes the largest tax increases in the past two decades.

Goldman’s move could shield its executives from increased tax rates, which will rise as high as 39.6% in 2013 from 35% last year.

Mr. Blankfein wrote in a November op-ed piece in The Wall Street Journal that tax increases are a necessary part of U.S. fiscal reform.

“I believe that tax increases, especially for the wealthiest, are appropriate, but only if they are joined by serious cuts in discretionary spending and entitlements,” he wrote.

Goldman isn’t the only U.S. company taking action in response to the higher taxes. Corporations announced more special dividends last month than in any other December since at least 1955.

Borrowing by blue-chip U.S. companies more than tripled from a year earlier in the final two months of 2012 to finance these payouts.

Warehouse retailer Costco Wholesale Corp., casino operator Las Vegas Sands Corp. LVS +0.06% and department store chain Dillard’s Inc. are among the large U.S. companies announcing accelerated or special dividends in late 2012.

The tax on dividends, about 15% in 2012 thanks to cuts that took place under President George W. Bush, will rise to as high as 20% in 2013.

At Goldman, Mr. Blankfein, President and Chief Operating Officer Gary Cohn and Chief Financial Officer David Viniar each received total vesting of 66,065 shares worth $8.4 million.

Mr. Blankfein received 2011 compensation valued at $16.2 million and Messrs. Cohn and Viniar each received $15.8 million, according to regulatory filings.

John Weinberg and Michael Evans, vice chairmen, each also received a total of 66,065 shares, according to Goldman’s disclosures this week.

Others whose restricted shares were vested on Monday included John Rogers, an executive vice president and chief of staff; Edith Cooper, executive vice president and global head of human capital management; Alan Cohen, executive vice president and global head of compliance; Gregory Palm, executive vice president and general counsel; and Sarah Smith, principal accounting officer.

Two other members of Goldman’s executive committee, Michael Sherwood and Mark Schwartz, didn’t have any shares vest on Dec. 31. Mr. Sherwo

The vesting comes at the end of a year in which Goldman shares rallied more than 40% amid reduced investor fear over the European debt crisis and a general improvement in the company’s business.

Some 483 companies announced special dividends in December, compared with 142 in the same month a year ago, according to Howard Silverblatt, senior index analyst at S&P Dow Jones Indices.

All told, 1,056 special dividends were announced in 2012, Mr. Silverblatt said. That is up from 460 a year earlier and the most since 1973, according to Mr. Silverblatt. In the last two months of 2012, blue-chip U.S. nonfinancial companies sold $178 billion of bonds. That compares with $60.6 billion a year earlier, according to data tracker Dealogic.

Mr. Blankfein and other corporate chiefs had pushed Washington lawmakers to find a solution that would prevent a consumer spending slowdown that threatened to send the economy back into recession.

In a series of postings Wednesday on Twitter, Mr. Blankfein praised Congress’s action. “This agreement is a step forward to injecting growth and investor confidence into the U.S. economy.”

Article by Victor David Hansen, senior fellow at the Hoover Institute

“Limousine liberal” is an old American term used against those who inherited lots of money and then became “traitors to their class” by embracing populist politics.

The Roosevelts and Kennedys enjoyed the high life quite apart from the multitude that they championed. And they were exempt, by virtue of their inherited riches and armies of accountants and attorneys, from the higher taxes they advocated for others. Few worried about how their original fortunes were made long ago, or that as lifelong government officials they had their needs met by the state. Most were relieved instead that as very rich people they wanted less rich people to pay their fair share to help the poor.

But the new liberal aristocracy is far less discreet than the old. Most are self-made multimillionaires who acquired their money through government service, finance, law, investment, or marriage. If the old-money liberals lived it up tastefully within their walled family compounds, the new liberal aristocrats are unashamed about living openly in a manner quite at odds with their professed populist ideology.

Take former vice president Al Gore. He has made a fortune of nearly a billion dollars warning against global warming — supposedly shrinking glaciers, declining polar-bear populations, and the like — while simultaneously offering timely remedies from his own green corporations, all reminiscent of the methodology of Roman millionaire Marcus Licinius Crassus, who profited from fires and putting them out. Now Nobel laureate Gore has sold his interest in a failing cable-television station for about $100 million — and to the anti-American Al-Jazeera, which is owned by the fossil-fuel-rich royal family of Qatar. Gore rushed to close the deal before the first of the year to avoid the very capital-gains tax hikes that he has advocated for others less well off. That’s a liberal trifecta: enhancing a fossil-fuel consortium, attempting to beat tax hikes, and empowering an anti-American and anti-Semitic media conglomerate run by an authoritarian despot — all from a former vice president of the United States who crusades for ending our reliance on fossil fuels and for raising taxes on the wealthy.

Class warrior Barack Obama spent his winter break in a ritzy rental on a Hawaiian beach. It cost the taxpayers $7 (or is it $20?) million to jet him and his entourage 6,000 miles for their tropical vacation. But whether the first family escapes to Hawaii or Martha’s Vineyard or Costa del Sol, the image of a 1 percent lifestyle seems a bit at odds with the president’s professed disdain for “millionaires and billionaires,” “fat cats,” and “corporate-jet owners” who supposedly can afford such tony retreats only because they have done something suspect. The media used to ridicule grandees like Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush for wearing cowboy hats and wasting precious presidential time chopping wood or chain-sawing dry underbrush on their respective overgrown ranches. But for liberal class warriors, golfing and body surfing in the tropical Pacific while staying at a zillionaire’s estate become needed downtime to prepare for the looming battle against 1 percenters. One wonders about the conversation between the Obamas and their landlord. “We will stay here, but only on the condition that you remember that you didn’t build it”?

Multibillionaire Warren Buffett is a tireless advocate of hiking inheritance taxes on small businesses and farms. But he has pledged much of his wealth to the Gates Foundation, a ploy that will cost the federal Treasury billions of dollars in lost revenue. Meanwhile, if inheritance taxes go up, millions of terrified Americans will double up on their life-insurance policies — an industry central to the multibillion-dollar Buffett empire. It never seems to occur to the liberal-minded Buffett that there is something tawdry about advocating a policy that he not only seeks mostly to avoid, but will even profit from.

So tax avoidance is another characteristic of the new aristocracy — ask Jeffrey Immelt, the General Electric CEO and Obama point man on jobs and growth, who endorses the Obama agenda even as he managed to skip taxes altogether on his company’s 2010 profits. What should Immelt say? “Taxes are for the little people whom we try to help”?

Senator John Kerry, who will soon become secretary of state, is a tireless advocate of higher taxes while enjoying his multimillionaire wife’s multiple estates. In 2010, Massachusetts resident Kerry docked his new $7 million yacht in nearby Rhode Island in order to avoid paying about $500,000 in taxes to his home state. Should not Kerry have welcomed the chance to chip in half a million to an insolvent treasury, given his advocacy for higher taxes? Could Kerry not have purchased a smaller yacht for $4 million in order to budget for the necessary taxes? Gore, Obama, and Kerry, after all, tirelessly boast that the taxes they advocate would fall mostly on people like themselves — omitting the fact that, as we see from Kerry’s boat deal, Gore’s TV deal, and Obama’s adjacent-lot deal with Tony Rezko, politicians not only mostly live on the public dole without the expenses that the rest of us incur, but also have miraculous ways of avoiding the sort of taxes they harangue others about.

During the 2008 financial meltdown, Goldman Sachs was a recipient of federal cash bailouts. Recently its CEO, Lloyd Blankfein, wrote an op-ed in which he said, “I believe that tax increases, especially for the wealthiest, are appropriate.” Why, then, would Goldman Sachs rush to pay out $65 million in restricted stock bonuses to its own corporate elite in time to beat the new higher tax rates that began on January 1, 2013? Isn’t that inappropriate? What would have happened had Blankfein timed his op-ed for publication in early 2013 rather than November 2012, and also added “– and that’s why I am not rushing Goldman Sachs stock payouts just to lessen the tax burden on our wealthiest at a time of national insolvency.”

Secretary of the Treasury Timothy Geithner, who nominally oversees the IRS, did not just not pay his own taxes while advocating higher taxes on others, but found incredible ways not to pay what was due — avoiding payroll taxes, improperly deducting his children’s camp costs, and taking improper charitable deductions, improper retirement-plan withdrawals, improper small-business deductions, and so on. The question in Geithner’s case was not whether he had avoided taxes, but whether there was any category of taxes that he had not avoided. Perhaps the creativity by which Geithner avoided his own taxes was seen as an asset in finding new ways to catch other tax-avoiders.

What explains the hypocrisy of the new liberal aristocracy?

The medieval concept of offsetting your sins through public penance is back in play: The more loudly you talk about helping the proverbial people, the more you are allowed to live quite apart from them without guilt. Do not expect a garbage collector, in the fashion of the anti–Mitt Romney ad, to make a video complaining that the Obamas never ventured outside their coastal compound to compliment him on his work or just to chitchat. Al Gore’s lamentations for the polar bear allows him to try to finagle a $9 million tax savings. The money for Media Matters apparently offsets the fact that the speculations of a conniving George Soros once almost bankrupted the British small depositor and earned him an insider-trading conviction in France. Each speech blasting the uncaring Bush tax cuts translates into a hundred thousand less in taxes to be paid on your yacht.

To be cool is now not just to be rich, but to appear caring. Hollywood still seeks hundreds of millions in tax breaks unavailable to small businesses without shame because it is so manifestly compassionate. Occupy Wall Street does not camp out in Beverly Hills or Malibu, although the likes of Johnny Depp and Leonardo DiCaprio make more per year than do most Wall Street fat cats. The public wonders why Hollywood is so liberal — is it the Bohemian culture surrounding the arts? The natural creative temperament of actors? The Lotus-land surf and sun of the southern-California beach milieu? Perhaps. But penance plays a role as well. For the overpaid and pampered Hollywood movie star, calling for raising taxes, banning guns, ending global warming, and legalizing gay marriage means never having to feel too bad about living on the beach and making, under our capitalist system, more money in a month than do many Americans in a lifetime.

The growing size and clout of government, and its intrusion into globalized finance, also play a role. Former Obama OMB director and liberal Peter Orszag went on to a multimillion-dollar gig at Citigroup. He now writes warnings about the uncontrollable debt that he helped accumulate; would that he would sermonize about the incestuous revolving door that Obama pledged to end. Did he learn anything from Franklin Raines, James Johnson, and Jamie Gorelick, who occupied top spots at Fannie Mae in the Carter and Clinton administrations and who all walked away with millions while the federal mortgage-insurance corporation went insolvent? The problem is not just that none of the three did anything to ensure Fannie Mae’s viability, or at least to justify the millions that they took out, but also that none of them had a reputable record of banking expertise to justify their being hired in the first place. In short, there is just too much big money — and temptation — for even the most liberal class warrior not to cash in on his ample government contacts and influence.

All these paradoxes pose existential questions: Are the elite architects of high taxes and big government the self-interested and conniving who found the path to the good life through cynically embracing such ideas (ask Franklin Raines or Al Gore), or were they so rich to begin with as to be unaffected by the ramifications of their ideology — or both?

Comment from thebrackpipe.com:  Is this the kind of foreign policy we are willing to accept.  Remember, soon after Obama took office in 2009, he promptly flew down to Venezuela to give a bro hug to Hugo Chavez and gladly accept a signed copy of Chavez’s book?  UNREAL!  Now, concerning the events in Benghazi, it is clear that the C.I.A. knew all along that it was a terrorist attack and not a flash-mob.  Then we must explain the words of the president, his U.N. ambassador and his secretary of state — all endlessly repeated with supporting theatrics.  Basically, the Obama administration knew it could count on a friendly media that is loath to expose anything that might undermine its preferred foreign policy narrative.  After Benghazi, the administration is confident of ‘running out the clock’ until the election, stonewalling legislative inquiries and sequestering those few media outlets actually trying to probe the Libya story.

Full-Article below from the DailyCaller.com:

Bottom line first: Ever since the Benghazi attack, President Obama and his advisers have lied through their teeth to avoid awakening the slumbering American electorate. They have been assisted throughout by a media establishment intent on supporting the president’s re-election while maintaining its usual charade of objectivity — the great oxymoron of our time.

My career encompassed that oxymoron as well as an even earlier one, military intelligence. So I watched in amazement as only the Fox News Channel seemed intent on unraveling an extraordinarily thin cover story. A flash-mob that got out of hand over a provocative YouTube video? But with mortars and automatic weapons, a coordinated assault that killed an American ambassador and three bodyguards? I felt like Carrie Mathison, the Claire Danes character in the Showtime series “Homeland,” constantly asking “Are you serious?” Yet President Obama, from the Rose Garden to the United Nations rostrum, kept repeating the flash-mob story until the second cover story was trotted out: Our intelligence community was working diligently to uncover the truth and go after attackers — a thrilling re-run of “Osama and the Seals,” coming soon to a theater near you!

But this week I received subtle warnings from old friends still in that beleaguered intelligence community. They expressed great irritation with Fox News, undoubtedly because of political motivations. But they were most offended by the idea that the spooks had done nothing. They suggested that the attack on Benghazi was like Mogadishu, the epic Somali battle that left a hundred American Rangers killed or wounded. They warned darkly of some “push-back” against the version of events gradually emerging from determined Fox reporters like Catherine Herridge.

Well, today that push-back surfaced as The New York Times and other papers reported background briefings from un-named C.I.A. officials. As Eric Schmitt wrote, “Thursday’s briefing for reporters was intended to refute reports, including one by Fox News last Friday, that the C.I.A.’s chain of command had blocked the officers on the ground from responding to the mission’s calls for help.” The New York Times account was not a headline — appearing on page 4. Neither its reporter not those anonymous C.I.A. officials used the word “inoperative,” as the Nixon White House used to do when Watergate cover stories were unraveling.

Yet in Benghazi-gate as well as Watergate, earlier lies were shed as smoothly as snakeskins. So the C.I.A. knew all along that it was a terrorist attack and not a flash-mob? Okay, then how do you explain the words of the president, his U.N. ambassador and his secretary of state — all endlessly repeated with supporting theatrics? If high officials from the Pentagon, the State Department and the West Wing knew the truth — that this was actually 9/11.2 — then how do you explain either of the administration’s mutually inconsistent cover stories? And why was the U.S. four-star general responsible for North Africa suddenly and mysteriously relieved of command after Benghazi?

Actually, you cannot explain any of these things unless you also account for the hear-see-report-no-evil approach of the media establishment. The Obama administration knew it could count on a friendly media that is loath to expose anything that might undermine its preferred foreign policy narrative. After Benghazi, the administration was understandably confident of running out the clock until the election, stonewalling legislative inquiries and sequestering those few media outlets actually trying to probe the Libya story.
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/11/02/benghazi-cover-up-par-for-the-course-for-team-obama/#ixzz2BGtYff5l