Too Much Wishful Thinking on Middle-Class Tax Rates

From Greg Mankiw, at the New York Times, "Wishful Thinking and Middle-Class Taxes":

IN the continuing fiscal negotiations between President Obama and House Republicans, both sides have, from the very beginning, agreed on one point: Taxes on the middle class must not rise. But maybe it’s time to reconsider this premise. An unwavering commitment to keep middle-class taxes low could be one reason the political process has become so deeply dysfunctional.

Let’s start with the problem: the budget deficit. Under current policy, the federal government is spending vastly more than it is collecting in tax revenue. And that will be true for the next several decades, thanks largely to the growth in entitlement spending that will occur automatically as the population ages and health care costs increase. As a result, the ratio of government debt to the nation’s gross domestic product is projected to rise, substantially and without an end in sight.

That can happen for a while, or even a long while, but not forever. At some point, investors at home and abroad will start questioning our ability to service our debts without creating steep inflation. It’s hard to say precisely when this shift in investor sentiment will occur, and even whether it will strike in this president’s term or the next, but when it does, it won’t be pretty. The United States will find itself at the brink of an unprecedented financial crisis.

Republicans and Democrats agree on the nature of the problem, but they embrace very different solutions. My fear is that both sides are engaged in an excess of wishful thinking, with a dash of mendacity.

If Republicans had their way, they would focus the entire solution on the spending side. They say that reform of the entitlement programs can reduce their cost. The so-called premium-support plan for Medicare, from Paul D. Ryan, the 2012 Republican vice-presidential candidate, would let older Americans use their health care dollars to buy insurance from competing private plans. (Interestingly, it’s similar to the system envisioned for the nonelderly by President Obama’s Affordable Care Act.) The hope is that competition and choice would keep health care costs down without sacrificing quality.

The premium-support model may well be better than the current Medicare system, but its supporters oversell what it would be likely to accomplish. The primary driver of increasing health care costs over time is new technology, which extends and improves the quality of life, but often at high cost. Unless the pace or nature of medical innovation changes, this trend is likely to continue, regardless of structural reforms we enact for Medicare.

Democrats, meanwhile, want to preserve the social safety net pretty much as is. They balk at any attempt to reduce this spending, including even modest changes like altering the price index used to calculate Social Security benefits. They focus their attention on raising taxes on the most financially successful Americans, contending that the rich are not paying their “fair share.”

Fairness, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. Unfortunately, people’s judgment is often based on anecdotes that distort rather than illuminate. The story of the undertaxed Warren Buffett and his overtaxed secretary looms larger in the public’s mind than it should.

Here are some facts, so you can judge for yourself....

Even if President Obama wins all the tax increases on the rich that he is asking for, the long-term fiscal picture will still look grim. Perhaps we can stabilize the situation for a few years just by taxing the rich, but as greater numbers of baby boomers retire and start collecting Social Security and Medicare, more will need to be done.

Continue reading (via Memeorandum).

RELATED: I'm for shrinking government, so this is the bottom line for me, at The Lonely Conservative, "People Should Pay For the Government They Voted For." Raise taxes. Go over the cliff.  I guarantee you that Obama won't get off cost-free. The real cost of the election will start biting people in the ass.

Senate Leaders to Work on Agreement

At LAT, "Obama 'modestly optimistic' that 'fiscal cliff' can be avoided":

WASHINGTON – President Obama said he was “modestly optimistic” that Senate leaders could reach an agreement to avoid the so-called fiscal cliff, but he said that if the effort fails, he’ll demand a vote on his basic proposal to protect middle-class taxpayers from seeing their taxes rise.

Speaking to reporters in the White House on Friday evening, a stern Obama tried to ramp up the pressure on lawmakers as they cobble together a deal before a potentially growth-crippling combination of tax increases and spending cuts take effect in the new year.

“The hour for immediate action is here. It is now,” Obama said.

Obama spoke shortly after meeting with top congressional leaders at the White House, during which Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) agreed try to come up with a proposal before the Dec. 31 deadline.

The president called the meeting “good and constructive” and suggested there was still time to reach a compromise. But if lawmakers failed to find common ground, Obama said, he has asked Reid to bring up a vote on a scaled-back version of his original proposal.

“If members of House or the Senate want to vote no, they can,” Obama said. “But we should let everybody vote. That’s the way this is supposed to work.”

Lots more at Memeorandum.

Obama's Zero-Sum Universe

From P.J. O'Rourke, at the Wall Street Journal, "Dear Mr. President, Zero-Sum Doesn't Add Up":

Given that hypocrisy is an important part of diplomacy, and diplomacy is necessary to foreign policy, allow me to congratulate you on winning a second term.

I wish I could also congratulate you on your conduct of international affairs. I do thank you for killing Osama bin Laden. It was a creditable action for which you deserve some of the credit you've been given. Of course the intelligence was gathered, and the mission was undertaken, by men and women who, although they answer to your command, answer to duty first. And it is difficult to imagine any president of the United States who, under the circumstances, wouldn't have ordered the strike against bin Laden. Although there is Jimmy Carter. Thank you for not being Jimmy Carter.

But even though it violates the insincere amity that creates a period of calm following national elections, no thank you for the following, and it is only a partial list...

Continue reading.

Fiscal Cliff Talks Down to the Wire

At the clip, Charles Krauthammer praises Obama for his "ruthless" partisanship.

And at the Wall Street Journal, "Both Sides to Meet at White House; Any Deal Likely to Be Limited":

Congress and the White House took small steps toward breaking the budget impasse Thursday, but Democrats and Republicans grew increasingly fearful they won't be able to avert the tax increases and spending cuts known as the fiscal cliff, a prospect that is unnerving consumers and investors.

President Barack Obama invited congressional leaders to the White House on Friday afternoon for a last-ditch effort to broker a deal, as the Senate returned to Washington on Thursday. House GOP leaders said in a Thursday conference call with Republicans, who are growing nervous about their party being blamed for the deadlock, that the House will reconvene Sunday evening.

It is still possible the two sides can reach a deal, especially with the leaders meeting Friday. Any resolution would be a scaled-back version of the package Mr. Obama and congressional leaders had anticipated passing after the November election. The White House is pressing for the Senate to extend current tax rates for income up to $250,000, extend unemployment benefits, keep the alternative minimum tax from hitting millions of additional taxpayers and delay spending cuts set to take effect in January.

The 11th-hour strategy carries enormous risk because it leaves no margin for error in Congress's balky legislative machinery. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.) said the prospects for passage of a bill before the last day of the year are fading rapidly. "I have to be very honest," he said. "I don't know time-wise how it can happen now."

Anxiety about Washington's ability to resolve its budget battles is roiling the economy. Conference Board figures showed that consumer confidence fell in December to its lowest level since August, driven by a pessimistic outlook for economic activity next year.

Stocks have swung on the latest news from Washington. The Dow Jones Industrial Average fell sharply on Mr. Reid's pessimistic comments before recouping most of a 151-point drop on news the House would reconvene this weekend.

At best, leaders are looking at a narrow bill that could be passed at the last minute. At the meeting Friday, Mr. Obama will outline the elements he thinks should be in a deal and could get majority support in both chambers of Congress, according to a person familiar with the matter. He won't put forward a specific bill or legislative language, the person added.

Continue reading.

And at Telegraph UK, "Barack Obama will meet congressional leaders today at the White House for last-minute talks on a "fiscal cliff" deal to avoid automatic tax increases and broad spending cuts that threaten the US economy's recovery."

PREVIOUSLY: "America's Crisis of Big Government Cronyism and Corruption."

Fiscal Cliff Dive Would Impose Steadily Increasing Pain and Hardship

At the New York Times, "Fiscal Cutoff Gradually Morphs Into Horizon":

Negotiations are set to resume in the coming days, following a break for Christmas, although hopes for a so-called grand bargain have faded. Instead, President Obama is pushing for a scaled-back plan that would extend the Bush-era tax cuts on incomes below $250,000, while suspending the automatic spending cuts and extending unemployment benefits.

Michelle Meyer, senior United States economist at Bank of America Merrill Lynch, said there is a 40 percent chance of what she calls a “bungee-jump over the fiscal cliff,” with Congress failing to act until after Jan. 1 but eventually averting the full package of tax increases and spending cuts by mid-January. If that were to happen, she predicts a steep sell-off on Wall Street, which would quickly force political leaders to compromise.

Over all, Ms. Meyer estimates that the economy will grow by just 1 percent in the first quarter of 2013, well below the 3.1 percent pace recorded in the third quarter of 2012.

What’s worrisome, she added, is that consumer anxiety about the fiscal impasse has begun to mount, catching up with business leaders who have been warning of economic danger since summer. “What’s been missing in this recovery has been confidence,” she said. “We’d see a healthy recovery if it weren’t for this uncertainty and the potential shock from Washington.”

Indeed, the economy has been showing signs of life recently. Unemployment in November sank to 7.7 percent, a four-year low. Consumer spending has been picking up, and the housing market has continued to recover in many parts of the country. Overseas worries like slowing growth in China and recession in Europe have also faded.

Those trends have encouraged some observers, like Steve Blitz, chief economist at ITG Investment Research. He estimates that the economy will grow by nearly 2.5 percent in the first quarter if Washington comes up with even a modest compromise. In the absence of a deal, the pace of growth would be more like 1 percent, he said.

“I don’t think that not having a deal going into the new year is all that critical,” Mr. Blitz said. “It doesn’t mean you will immediately go into a recession.”

RTWT at the link.

And that's Maria Bartiromo at the clip, mercilessly hammering the befuddled Democrat Senator Ben Cardin, via Eliana Johnson at National Review, "Maria Bartiromo Lays the Smackdown on Ben Cardin, Trading Floor Erupts in Cheers."

And see Jonathan Tobin, at Commentary, "Democrats Can’t Avoid Fiscal Cliff Blame."

And the Biggest Lie of 2012 Is ...

The Benghazi clusterf-k, highlighted by Aaron Klein:

JERUSALEM – Information surrounding the Sept. 11 attacks against the U.S. mission in Benghazi has been so distorted by the Obama administration and so misreported by the news media that the issue was selected as WND’s “Biggest Lie of the Year.”

Immediately following the attacks, President Obama and other White House officials notoriously blamed supposed anti-American sentiment leading to the violent events on an obscure anti-Muhammad video on YouTube they claimed was responsible for supposedly popular civilian protests that they said took place outside the U.S. mission in Benghazi – protests, they claimed, that devolved into a jihadist onslaught.

However, vivid accounts provided by the State Department and intelligence officials later made clear no such popular demonstration took place. Instead, video footage from Benghazi reportedly shows an organized group of armed men attacking the compound, the officials said.

‘Consulate’?

Media coverage of the events has been so dismal that even the most basic understanding of what happened is being distorted. The vast majority of all news media coverage worldwide refer to the U.S. facility that was attacked as a “consulate,” even though the government itself has been careful to call it a “mission.”

WND has filed numerous reports quoting Middle East security sources describing the mission in Benghazi as serving as a meeting place to coordinate aid for the rebel-led insurgencies in the Middle East.

Among the tasks performed inside the building was collaborating with Arab countries on the recruitment of fighters – including jihadists – to target Bashar al-Assad’s regime in Syria, the officials said.

Whether the news media report on what was allegedly transpiring at the mission or not, their calling the building a “consulate” is misleading.

A consulate typically refers to the building that officially houses a consul, who is the official representatives of the government of one state in the territory of another. The U.S. consul in Libya, Jenny Cordell, works out of the embassy in Tripoli.

Consulates at times function as junior embassies, providing services related to visas, passports and citizen information.

On Aug. 26, about two weeks before his was killed, U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens attended a ceremony marking the opening of consular services at the Tripoli embassy.

The main role of a consulate is to foster trade with the host and care for its own citizens who are traveling or living in the host nation.

Diplomatic missions, on the other hand, maintain a more generalized role. A diplomatic mission is simply a group of people from one state or an international inter-governmental organization present in another state to represent matters of the sending state or organization in the receiving state.

However, according to a State Department report released last week, the U.S. facility in Benghazi did not fit the profile of a diplomatic mission, either.

According to the 39-page report released this week by independent investigators probing the attacks at the diplomatic facility, the U.S. mission in Benghazi was set up without the knowledge of the new Libyan government, as WND reported.

“Another key driver behind the weak security platform in Benghazi was the decision to treat Benghazi as a temporary, residential facility, not officially notified to the host government, even though it was also a full-time office facility,” the report states. “This resulted in the Special Mission compound being excepted from office facility standards and accountability under the Secure Embassy Construction and Counterterrorism Act of 1999 (SECCA) and the Overseas Security Policy Board (OSPB).”

The report, based on a probe led by former U.S. diplomat Thomas Pickering, calls the facility a “Special U.S. Mission.”

The report further refers to the attacked facility as a “U.S. Special Mission,” adding yet another qualifier to the title of the building.

Violated international law?

WND also exclusively reported the facility may have violated the terms of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, which governs the establishment of overseas missions.

Like most nations, the U.S. is a signatory to the 1961 United Nations convention.

Article 2 of the convention makes clear the host government must be informed about the establishment of any permanent foreign mission on its soil: “The establishment of diplomatic relations between States, and of permanent diplomatic missions, takes place by mutual consent.”

According to the State report, there was a decision “to treat Benghazi as a temporary, residential facility,” likely disqualifying the building from permanent mission status if the mission was indeed temporary.

However, the same sentence in the report notes the host government was not notified about the Benghazi mission “even though it was also a full-time office facility.”

Article 12 of the Vienna Convention dictates, “The sending State may not, without the prior express consent of the receiving State, establish offices forming part of the mission in localities other than those in which the mission itself is established.”

If the Benghazi mission was a “full-time office facility,” it may violate Article 12 in that the mission most likely was considered an arm of the U.S. Embassy in Tripoli, which served as the main U.S. mission to Libya...

Continue reading.

Image Credit: Posted exactly two months ago, via A.F. Branco, "Blockbuster Report Contradicts Panetta's Claim of 'No Real-Time Intel' During Libya Attack."

Low- and Moderate-Income Taxpayers to Face Biggest Burden if U.S. Goes Over Fiscal Cliff

Here's an excellent Fox & Friends segment from over the weekend, especially the second half, "If Bush Tax Cuts Expire - What Would It Mean For Your Taxes?"

And at the Wall Street Journal, "Cliff Would Strike Low Incomes Hard":

If the U.S. goes over the "fiscal cliff," some Americans may fall harder than others.

The biggest impact in sheer dollars would land on relatively affluent households, particularly when it comes to the tax increases that make up the bulk of the cliff. But in terms of percentage of tax increases, low- and moderate-income taxpayers will face the biggest burden—an often overlooked part of the budget debate that's now getting attention as the year-end deadline nears.

Households earning $10,000 to $20,000 would see a large increase in their overall federal tax burdens, from an average of $68 to $605. The blow would be especially harsh for married couples and households with children. The fiscal cliff "clobbers low-income households with children," said Roberton Williams, a senior fellow at the Tax Policy Center, a joint venture of the Brookings Institution and the Urban Institute. "It is striking how large some of the increases are."

A household that makes between $10,000 and $20,000 in income and has a child would get a $2,761 payment from the Internal Revenue Service under current rules, thanks to various tax breaks and credits. After the cliff, that would be cut by $1,324, or about half.

Married couples earning $20,000 to $30,000 today would get an average $15 payment from the IRS under current rules. In January, they would owe an average $1,408 to the IRS, because several of those breaks would be narrowed or eliminated.

Budget talks were mostly quiet Sunday, officials on both sides said, after a week when efforts between President Barack Obama and House Speaker John Boehner (R., Ohio) to cut a deal collapsed, and the House failed to pass a backup plan.

Some leaders, including Mr. Obama and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.), attended a memorial service for the late Sen. Daniel Inouye in Honolulu. Mr. Obama said he would cut his holiday vacation short and return to Washington this week to work on an agreement.

The so-called fiscal cliff comprises about $500 billion in tax-break expirations and government spending cuts that are set to take effect in early January, unless Congress acts. With little more than a week to find a solution, Democrats and Republicans are focusing on the real-world impacts of the fiscal cliff and seeking to shift blame for it.

"We're taking…this incredible mallet and [are] about to smash America," Newark's Democratic Mayor Cory Booker said Sunday on ABC's "This Week." "People are going to be cut out of programs that support the poorest Americans….This is really what bothers me right now."

Don Stewart, a spokesman for Senate GOP Leader Mitch McConnell (R., Ky.), said on Sunday: "Given the impact on all segments of the economy, it's disappointing that Democrats are so cavalier about letting the country go off the cliff."

The Obama administration contends Republicans would let much of the fiscal cliff's impact happen for moderate-income families, by allowing Obama-era breaks to expire.

If Congress misses its year-end deadline but quickly restores the expired tax breaks, the tax impact on lower-income households could be modest.

One problem, however, might be unavoidable: a delay in sending tax-refund payments that normally arrive between late January and March. The IRS already has warned lawmakers it might have to postpone the tax-filing season by several weeks, possibly for everyone.

Much of the tax debate has focused on upper-income Americans, who will likely see taxes rise in some form next year. If no budget deal is reached, households making more than $100,000 would absorb more than 50% of the total tax increase, according to an analysis by the Tax Policy Center. And those earning more than $1 million would see their taxes rise by an average 24%, from about $1.1 million to about $1.3 million.

At the other end of the income scale, the risk comes from the expiration of less-heralded parts of the Bush-era tax code, as well as Obama changes that expanded several breaks for lower- and middle-income households.

About two million people also face the prospect of losing unemployment checks starting in January, with the expiration of extended federal unemployment benefits. "For the long-term unemployed, their entire income may disappear," said Robert Greenstein, executive director of the liberal Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

See also, "How 'Cliff' Talks Hit the Wall: Behind Scenes, Boehner Failed to Sell Republicans on Taxes, While Obama's Spending Plans Rankled."

Obama's ball-busting budgeting. And I'll tell you, the Republicans aren't coming out too pretty here either. That video at top says the average tax hit for incomes over $108,000 would be more than $14,000. The liability would be enormous especially for people making over $1 million (around $100,000), but still. The bill comes due in April, as we're talking about the 2012 tax filings that will be affected, unless the IRS is able to reset the deadline. I doubt there'd be a better impetus to a new American tax revolt than going over the cliff, but perhaps an agreement will come at the 11th hour. We'll see.

Opening Christmas Presents Early

Opening gifts before Christmas Day isn't a big tradition in my house, but my mother's in town, heading out later this morning to visit other family members, so we exchanged presents early. I scored some gift cards and immediately headed over to Barnes and Noble, picking up Paul Kengor's, The Communist. I'll be getting into it over the next few days, and if I like it that means I'll probably read it all in a few sittings. We'll see, but I'll report back with some thoughts, in any case.

Dianne Feinstein's Concealed Carry Permit

Senator Feinstein's leading the left's gun control chorus on Capital Hill, but she's no stranger to the right to bear arms, and has availed herself of that right many times. See MRC, "Feinstein in 1995 on her concealed carry permit: 'I know the urge to arm yourself because that's what I did'."

And at Instapundit, "REMINDER: Sen. Dianne Feinstein Has Concealed Carry Permit."

Well, sure, because her life is important. Not like yours.

Also, "DID WE EVER GET AN ANSWER TO THIS QUESTION? Does Piers Morgan’s Bodyguard Carry a Gun?" I love the illustration at the post:

ADDED: This is something else, at Legal Insurrection, "Did David Gregory just violate D.C. gun law by possessing a high-capacity gun clip?"

Adam Lanza's Downward Spiral

Still not quite there as far as explaining why this guy went off, but a great piece nevertheless, at WSJ, "School Gunman's Downward Spiral."

Also at Advice Goddess, "Where Was Dad In All Of This? The Question Not Being Asked In Newtown Mass Murder."

Is Obama Really Socialist?

Yes, he is.

From Peter Ferrara, at Forbers, "Is President Obama Really A Socialist? Let's Analyze Obamanomics":

President Obama says that income taxes must be raised on the rich because they don’t pay their fair share. The indisputable facts from official government sources say otherwise.

The CBO reports based on official IRS data that in 2009 the top 1% of income earners paid 39% of all federal income taxes, three times their share of income at 13%. Yet, the middle 20% of income earners, the true middle class, paid just 2.7% of total federal income taxes on net that year, while earning 15% of income. That means the top 1% paid almost 15 times as much in federal income taxes as the entire middle 20%, even though the middle 20% earned more income.

Moreover, the official data, as reported by CBO and the IRS, show that the bottom 40% of income earners, instead of paying some income taxes to support the federal government, were paid cash by the IRS equal to 10% of federal income taxes as a group on net.

Any normal person would say that such an income tax system is more than fair, or maybe that “the rich” pay more than their fair share. So why does President Obama keep saying that the rich do not pay their fair share? Is he ignorant? Wouldn’t somebody in his Administration whisper to him that he is peddling nonsense?

The answer is that to President Obama this is still not fair because he is a Marxist. To a Marxist, the fact that the top 1% earn more income than the bottom 99% is not fair, no matter how they earn it, fairly or not. So it is not fair unless more is taken from the top 1% until they are left only with what they “need,” as in any true communist system. Paying anything less is not their “fair” share. That is the only logical explanation of President Obama’s rhetoric, and it is 100% consistent with his own published background.

Notice that Obama keeps saying that “the rich,” a crass term implying low class social envy, don’t “need” the Bush tax cuts. That is reminiscent of the fundamental Marxist principle, “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.”

Good tax policy is not guided by “need.” It is guided by what is needed to establish the incentives to maximize economic growth. The middle class, working people and the poor are benefited far more by economic growth than by redistribution. That is shown by the entire 20th century, where the standard of living of American workers increased by more than 7 times, through sustained, rapid economic growth.

But President Obama’s tax policy of increasing all tax rates on savings and investment will work exactly contrary to such economic growth. It is savings and investment which creates jobs and increases productivity and wages. Under capitalism, capital and labor are complementary, not adversarial, exactly contrary to the misunderstanding of Marxists. More capital investment increases the demand for labor, bidding up wages to the level of worker productivity, which is enhanced by the capital investment.

Continue reading.

FLASHBACK: See Jonah Goldberg, at Commentary in 2010, "What Kind of Socialist Is Barack Obama?" There are a lot of different terms at stake here. Ferrara explicitly places Obama's consistent redistributionism within the Marxian class-struggle paradigm. Goldberg sees Obama more in terms of the stagnant European variety of democratic socialism. Personally my sense is that the only thing holding Obama back from a truly Marxist public-ownership-of-the means-of-production model are the enormous liberty restraints in the American constitutional system and political order. Obama knows this, of course. He knows that the left must chip away at these liberty restraints piecemeal to bring about the socialist utopia. You bore through the institutions over the long haul, and it's working. The monstrous ObamaCare health collectivization is the tip of the iceberg. The November reelection provides the chance for Democrats to consolidate their gains and push FORWARD toward the communist future! More than ever before, it's all about class warfare and raising taxes, and the president barely hides his disdain for the free market anymore. It's really a lot.

PREVIOUSLY: "Ushangi Davitashvili Kisses Bust of Soviet Dictator Josef Stalin."

Gun Nut! NRA's Wayne LaPierre Misses Opportunity After Newtown Massacre

High drama at the New York Post, "NRA aims at foes, but shoots itself in the foot with LaPierre's statements."

LaPierre's been with the NRA as long as I've been a political junkie. I don't know. Facts are truly on the side of gun rights activists, but this guy's rant was lacking all the appropriate optics. My earlier comments, with video are here, "NRA Calls for Armed Officers in Schools."

NRA Calls for Armed Officers in Schools

It's the news of the day, and folks on Twitter couldn't resist hammering away at how bizarre this press conference was. I tuned in late, but watching the video, I thought somebody hacked this clip when that first Code Pink protester put up his banner. And then you get the obligatory Medea Benjamin scream-fest. It's unreal. LaPierre just stands there dumbstruck. It was a metaphor for the NRA's response to the outrage. I'm personally disgusted by the left's despicable demonization and rank opportunism, but I doubt the press conference changed many minds. Jonathan Tobin has more on that: "The NRA Should Have Stayed Silent."

And here's this, from the Wall Street Journal:

WASHINGTON—The nation's most powerful gun-rights lobby called Friday for armed security guards in schools, saying that children had been left vulnerable in their classrooms.

Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of the National Rifle Association, said that "the monsters and the predators of the world" have exploited the fact that schools are gun-free zones. Other important institutions—from banks to airports to sports stadiums—are protected with armed security, he said, but this country has left students defenseless.

"The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun," Mr. LaPierre said at a news conference Friday morning.

The comments were the most extensive statements the NRA has made since the Dec. 14 killings at an elementary school in Newtown, Conn., that left 20 children and six adults dead. The gunman also killed his mother and himself. The organization issued a statement earlier this week expressing shock and sadness over the shootings.

In the aftermath of the attack at Sandy Hook Elementary School, much of the national conversation has focused on gun-control measures. But on Friday, Mr. LaPierre said that time should not be wasted on legislation that won't work.

Mr. LaPierre said that the media rewards monsters who would shoot school children by giving them the attention that they crave, and he suggested that some other deranged individual already is planning the next attack.

"The truth is that our society is populated by an unknown number of genuine monsters, people that are so deranged, so evil, so possessed by voices and driven by demons that no sane person can ever possibly comprehend them," Mr. LaPierre said.

The shootings have led to calls for a variety of new gun laws, including the reinstatement of an assault-weapons ban similar to one that was in effect from 1994 to 2004. The White House also has urged Congress to pass a ban on high-capacity magazines and to require background checks for all gun purchases.

Continue reading.

My immediate impression was doubtful that a nationalized armed schoolhouse security regime would be effective. On Twitter Melissa Clouthier made a number of stinging critiques, but she was especially acute on the need for local school districts, with parents, deciding what's best for their own children and their own circumstances:

BTW, the @nra asking for Department of Education version of the TSA is absurd. JUST NO. Let districts decide, i.e. parents.
— Melissa Clouthier (@MelissaTweets) December 21, 2012

And from Joshua Treviño:

Still, what LaPierre proposes is a TSA-style solution. Far better to let school districts simply adopt their own policies as they see fit.
— Joshua Treviño (@jstrevino) December 21, 2012

I'll have more later, as always...

Ushangi Davitashvili Kisses Bust of Soviet Dictator Josef Stalin

In Tbilisi, Georgia, at the Wall Street Journal, "Photos of the Day: Dec. 21."

This Mr. Davitashvili might as well be a progressive Democrat in Atlanta, Georgia. Today's Democrat Party, the party of Barack Obama, sure loves them some communism. It's not speculation any more. The left under Obama is a neo-communist consortium of all the hardline factions. See: "Communist Party USA Pulls Out the Stops for Democrat Class Warfare."

FLASHBACK: "No Enemies on the Left? Progressives for Barack Obama."

Obama's Remarks at Daniel Inouye Memorial Service

As soon as the NRA's press conference ended, CNN switched over the the memorial service for the late Senator Daniel Inouye. I just kept watching, and I'm thinking, "Jeez, Obama's sure adding a lot of personal history to his commemorative thoughts. He's just going on and on..."

I guess I wasn't the only one.

At Twitchy, "Narcissist in chief: Obama maintains laser-like focus on himself at Inouye memorial." And Weasel Zippers has video, "Narcissist-In-Chief Uses Sen. Inouye’s Funeral To Talk About Himself For 10 Minutes…"

Bill O'Reilly Slams Bob Beckel on Marine Jailed in Mexico

This is interesting:

And at Fox News, "Reps call for national travel boycott of Mexico over jailed Marine."

Do You Believe the NRA's 'Grip on Congress' is Threatened?

I got a pretty good laugh out of this front-page story at yesterday's Los Angeles Times, "Gun lobby's grip on Congress threatened":

WASHINGTON — The gun-control debate sharpened Tuesday as President Obama backed an effort to revive the assault weapons ban spearheaded by California Sen. Dianne Feinstein, who is poised to have a powerful new role as the head of the Senate committee overseeing gun laws.

Calls for federal gun restrictions were mounting following last week's shooting at an elementary school in Newtown, Conn. — even from lawmakers who had rejected them in the past. The National Rifle Assn. and its allies have successfully kept such efforts at bay for years, but the slayings of 20 children have roiled the politics of gun control and now challenge the gun lobby's hold on Capitol Hill.

I doubt it. The president's task-force on firearms is supposedly designed to freeze the politics of gun control. But even if it doesn't I don't think there's much support for gun control beyond a couple of token measures to make the left's extremists happy. We'll see. A good indicator going forward will be the direction the NRA takes in its press conference on Friday. The group exists to protect the rights of gun owners. It's not going to take all these pathetic attacks lying down. Word has it that the group's going to hammer mental health failures and the pop culture's glorification of violence. This oughta be good.

Obama Invokes Newtown Massacre to Attack GOP on Fiscal Cliff Negotiations

From Bryan Preston, at PJ Media, "Disgraceful: Obama Invokes Newtown Massacre to Pressure Republicans to Go Along with His Tax Hikes":

This has to be one of the lowest moments of a very low presidency. Why should the Newtown killings bring any sort of “perspective” to a spending crisis that Barack Obama has created?

More at that top link, and watch Krauthammer rip into the disgusting one, at the Right Scoop, "Krauthammer: Obama invoking the massacre of children to say GOP needs to accept his terms is a SACRILEGE!"

Chuck Hagel Under Fire as Possible Defense Sec. Nominee

It's no surprise that he's O's favorite for Defense. They're like brothers in their Israel bashing.

The New York Times reports, "Comments on Israel by Top Contender for Defense Secretary Are Scrutinized."

And see Bret Stephens, at the Wall Street Journal, "Chuck Hagel's Jewish Problem."

Also at Pamela's, "Jew-Hater for Defense?"

Libya Inquiry Sharply Critical of State Department

At The Hill, "Benghazi probe faults 'systemic failures' at State Department":

An independent review of the deadly attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi made public Tuesday night faults “systemic failures and leadership and management deficiencies at senior levels” of the State Department.

The report by the Accountability Review Board says the local mission's reliance on Libyan guards and militia members was “misplaced” and that the Libyan government's response was “profoundly lacking.” However it “did not find reasonable cause to determine that any individual U.S. government employee breached his or her duty.”

The report also confirms that there was no peaceful protest ahead of the attack that killed Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans, as the Obama administration initially said in the days after the attack.

“The Board concluded that there was no protest prior to the attacks, which were unanticipated in their scale and intensity,” the report says.

In a letter to Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman John Kerry (D-Mass.), Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said she accepted the report's 29 recommendations, all but five of which are unclassified. She said her department has already taken additional steps to beef up security at U.S. diplomatic posts around the world, including instituting periodic reviews of the 15 to 20 high-threat posts.

Of course she accepts the findings.

If she didn't accept them I doubt she would have taken to fainting so conveniently. She would have been up on Capitol Hill denouncing the politicization of the administration's foreign policy. But now she's just quietly accepting the recommendations, laying low while she eases out of office, keeping the road open to her 2016 presidential bid. How corrupt.

More at Legal Insurrection, "Benghazi Report — No protest, deteriorating security conditions ignored."

PREVIOUSLY: "Benghazi Reveals Obama Is a Coward and Disgrace."