Obama and Boehner, Both Reckless Spenders

By Nick Gillespie and Veronique de Rugy - Dec 17, 2012

In negotiations over the so-called fiscal cliff, U.S. President Barack Obama is calling for $1.4 trillion in new tax revenue over the next decade.

The Republican opposition, led by House Speaker John Boehner of Ohio, has signaled that the Republicans could stomach generating as much as $800 billion in new revenue over the next decade, or half of Obama’s number.

Such a large difference obscures a more fundamental agreement: Neither side is interested in addressing the central role federal spending plays in creating persistent deficits and, more important, damping economic growth.

The deficit for fiscal 2012, which ended on Sept. 30, came in at about $1.1 trillion, marking the fourth consecutive year that the nation has posted a trillion-dollar-plus spending gap. Contrary to what Dick Cheney said when he was vice president, deficits do matter.

Under the most recent budget plans of House Republicans and Obama, the federal government will spend from $40 trillion to $47 trillion over the next decade. Yet in the current negotiations, Boehner has called for only $800 billion in spending cuts and Obama $400 billion, most of which would be pushed off until 2022 or later -- tantamount to saying they won’t happen at all. Neither side’s long-term spending plans envision a balanced budget in the next 10 years.

Reduced Growth

In a paper released this year, economists Carmen M. Reinhart, Vincent R. Reinhart and Kenneth Rogoff said that periods of debt overhang -- when accumulated gross debt exceeds 90 percent of a country’s total economic activity for five or more consecutive years -- reduce annual economic growth by more than one percentage point for decades.

Over 20 years, the authors write, there can be a “massive cumulative output loss” that reduces gains by 25 percent or more. The U.S. went over the 90 percent threshold after the 2008 financial crisis. At $16.3 trillion, our current gross federal debt represents more than 100 percent of 2012’s total economic activity or gross domestic product.

Obama hasn’t explained precisely how higher tax rates on a small fraction of the population will do much to improve the country’s balance sheet. According to the Congressional Budget Office, increasing taxes on the wealthiest Americans to Clinton- era levels will raise $220 billion over four years -- $55 billion a year on average through 2016, the last year of Obama’s presidency.

Over that same period, the White House Office of Management and Budget estimates federal spending at $15.8 trillion, or almost $4 trillion a year on average, and annual deficits of $700 billion.

A little history: 2000 was about the best year ever for federal revenue since 1950. The government raked in slightly more than $2 trillion in nominal dollars and $2.3 trillion in inflation-adjusted (fiscal year 2005) dollars. When measured as a percentage of GDP, revenue reached 20.6 percent, the highest fraction ever recorded in peacetime. Although it’s true that receipts in 2006 and 2007 topped the $2.3 trillion mark in constant 2005 dollars, those totals represent smaller fractions of GDP, 18.2 percent and 18.5 percent, respectively. So it’s fair to call the $2.3 trillion in constant dollars a high-water mark. All these figures are drawn from the 2013 Historical Tables generated by the OMB; see table 1.3.

The high level of revenue -- both in constant dollars and as a percentage of GDP -- was reached in a roaring economy. And all Americans were taxed at significantly higher levels than they are now.

Income Pyramid

Whatever you think about the decline of rates under President George W. Bush, it made the U.S. tax system more progressive by reducing the burden on middle- and lower-income people. That’s one reason that singling out high-income earners for increases this time will yield such little revenue: All of us paid higher taxes then. It wasn’t just the swells at the top of the income pyramid.

Even if government could attain the revenue levels of seven years ago, it wouldn’t come close to covering spending, which crossed the $3 trillion mark, in inflation-adjusted dollars, in 2009. Neither Republicans nor Democrats are suggesting reducing total year-over-year spending.

The OMB estimates that annual government spending from 2013 to 2016 will average $3.25 trillion in 2005 dollars, or 22.7 percent of GDP. Whether measured in constant dollars or as a percentage of the economy, the government has never once reached that level of revenue, much less sustained it for a number of years.

Given low estimates for economic growth over the coming years, any attempt to reduce the debt-to-GDP ratio before Obama leaves office will thus require significant spending cuts in the near term.

Both the president and members of Congress worry that rapid spending cuts would cause a new recession or slow down the recovery. Such fears are overstated.

In the 1990s, Canada, for instance, reduced debt-to-GDP ratios through an aggressive combination of actual, year-over- year spending cuts and higher taxes. The result wasn’t malaise but a burst in activity.

The same happened in the U.S. right after World War II. In 1944 and 1945, annual government spending (in 2005 dollars) averaged about $1 trillion and represented more than 40 percent of GDP. By 1947, it had plummeted to $345 billion in 2005 dollars and 14 percent of GDP. Even facing the demobilization of millions of soldiers, the economy soared and unemployment fell despite almost universal fears that the opposite would happen.

Such outcomes are not flukes. Research by economists Alberto F. Alesina and Silvia Ardagna underscored that fiscal adjustments achieved through spending cuts rather than tax increases are less likely to cause recessions, and, if they do, the slowdowns are mild and short-lived.

Spending Reductions

What’s more, when spending reductions are accompanied by policies such as the liberalization of trade and labor markets, they are more likely to have a positive impact on growth.

While many economists -- and certainly all politicians -- worry that turning off the spigot of public spending will shrink an economy (and anger constituents receiving the cash), the opposite is likely to be true.

In an October 2012 study published in the National Bureau of Economic Research, Alesina and Ardagna point to Canada (1993- 1997), Sweden(1993-1998) and the U.K. (1994-2000). In these cases, spending cuts had a positive effect on private investment while improving consumer and business confidence by reducing the expectation of higher taxes.

Obama said in September that he would cut $2.50 in spending for every new dollar of tax revenue -- what he has called a “balanced approach.” Yet his proposal for dealing with the fiscal cliff -- $1.4 trillion in new tax revenue and $400 billion in spending cuts -- represents a $3.50 increase in taxes for every $1 of cuts, assuming the reductions take place.

As the history of deficit-reduction frameworks (including those signed by Republican Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush) has shown, when immediate rate increases were “balanced” by spending cuts down the road, the spending cuts are never made.

In any case, recent experience shows that even if Obama’s 2.5-to-1 ratio of spending cuts to revenue increases came to pass by some miracle, it is far too timid. Economist David Henderson estimates that during the 1990s retrenchment in Canada, the government cut spending by $6 to $7 for every new dollar of revenue it raised.

Obama and Boehner have been largely silent on the specifics of their cuts, though both seem bent on slicing off parts of old-age entitlements such as Medicare and Social Security long after they are out of office.

The best holiday gift the president and Congress could give the country is to spend the final weeks of 2012 working on an honest plan to cut spending here and now.

(Nick Gillespie is the editor in chief of Reason.com and the co-author of “The Declaration of Independents: How Libertarian Politics Can Fix What’s Wrong with America.” Veronique de Rugy is a senior research fellow at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University. The opinions expressed are their own.)

Obama: The Wrong Man With The Wrong Tax Policy

Tax Policy: Obama Is Still Wrong on Tax Rates

J.D. Foster

2012 November 26

In his first press conference after the election, President Barack Obama said, “What I’m not going to do is extend the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest 2 percent that we cannot afford and according to economists will have the least positive impact on the economy.”[1]

The good news is that President Obama apparently truly believes what he is saying. The bad news is that what he is saying is flat-out false.

Can the U.S. “Afford” Not to Raise Taxes?

As to whether the nation can afford not to raise taxes on the wealthiest 2 percent, consider that according to his budget, Obama’s proposal to raise taxes on individuals with incomes more than $250,000 would generate $835.6 billion over 10 years if one ignores the damage done to the economy in the process.

Accept the revenue estimate for a moment and ignore the economic damage that would ensue—and thus the lesser increase in revenues it would generate. Even after granting all the phony spending cuts and similar gimmicks in Obama’s budget of last February, federal debt held by the public rises by $8.5 trillion over the next 10 years without the tax hike and by $7.7 trillion with the tax hike. Expressed another way, allowing some of the Bush tax cuts to expire as Obama demands represents less than 10 percent of the projected debt increase.

More recently, President Obama has upped the ante significantly, first to $1.4 trillion and then to $1.6 trillion in higher taxes. These numbers do not come out of thin air. The $1.4 trillion figure represents the noted expiration of the Bush tax cuts plus $574 billion in all-new tax hikes. To get to the $1.6 trillion figure, the President would also abandon the recent agreement on the death tax and go back to an earlier, more punitive formulation.

Two observations are immediately apparent. First, Obama is no longer talking about allowing tax cuts to expire. These are all new tax hikes. Second, even after doubling the amount of tax hike, the national debt still goes up by about $7 trillion over the next 10 years.

The only possible conclusion is that the revenues from Obama’s tax-hike demand—either his original demand or the double-up—barely dent today’s deficit or the projected increase in the debt. Obama’s revenue demands express his vision of social justice, not an economic policy or even a budget policy. To address the deficit, Obama should focus on the problem: an excess of spending. What we cannot afford is to continue spending money at the rate Obama demands.

The Economic Impact

Obama says that “according to economists,” keeping taxes from rising “will have the least positive impact on the economy.” Apparently, Obama continues to talk only to his economists and their fellow travelers.

Recall that these are the same economists who said that Obama’s 2009 stimulus would drive down the unemployment rate. It did not work. They are the same economists who told us the payroll tax holiday would create jobs. It did not work. They are close cousins, by the way, to the economists plying their trade in Europe, driving national unemployment rates above 25 percent in country after country while driving the continent toward another deep recession.

Of all the Bush tax cuts, the reductions in the top rates were not the least effective in strengthening the economy as Obama claims. In fact, they were the most effective because they struck at the very heart of the economic dynamic: incentives. Higher tax rates discourage entrepreneurship and risk taking. They discourage saving by those most capable of saving and, as even the Congressional Budget Office now admits, discourage work effort.[2]

Higher tax rates have these effects because those who are subject to the rates can and do adjust their behavior—sometimes immediately, sometimes after a period. They then take fewer business risks, work fewer hours (or even retire), and save less.

Tax-hike advocates will no doubt once again claim that when they raised tax rates in 1993 under President Clinton, not only did warnings of a recession prove to be unfounded, but the economy subsequently boomed. In fact, though Clinton’s tax hikes didn’t trigger recession, they certainly took the wind out of the economy’s sails at a time when it should have come roaring back from recession.[3] The famous Clinton boom did not follow the tax hikes. The subsequent boom came four years later after an anemic recovery, slow wage growth, and slow job growth. The famous Clinton boom followed the cut in the capital gains tax rate in 1997. Supporters of higher rates tend to skip over these inconvenient facts.

With metaphysical certainty, raising tax rates will slow the economy now and leave wages and incomes permanently lower. Whether the tax hike produces a recession or not depends on how weak the economy is as it faces this new headwind. Hopefully, the economy will be strong enough to take the hit if it comes and then pick up steam as best it can under the new burden.

Inconsistency on Incentives

It is perhaps the greatest irony in American economic policy that those advocating higher income tax rates believe that incentives matter only when the advocates are trying to dictate behavior. For example, The Washington Post recently editorialized in favor of higher cigarette taxes to discourage smoking.[4] The sad, growing fascination with a carbon tax is another case in point. Why a carbon tax? Aside from the massive revenues it promises, proponents argue (correctly) that a carbon tax would create incentives for businesses to move away from carbon-producing activities.

But when it comes to the behaviors that are truly relevant for a strong economy, President Obama and friends turn a blind eye to incentives.

The Real Problem

The nation cannot afford the spending surge initiated under President Obama. The nation’s workers cannot afford the sustained additional upward pressure on unemployment that would follow from raising tax rates. The problem is government spending, especially entitlements. President Obama and Congress should focus on the problem and forget these destructive tax-hike obsessions.

—J. D. Foster, PhD, is Norman B. Ture Senior Fellow in the Economics of Fiscal Policy in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation.

Ineptocracy, USA

You Own It! It's Yours!

Congratulations to the Democrats and Young People!  You now own it.  The next terrorist attack, you own it.  Can't get a job after graduation, you own it.  Sky rocketing energy prices due to Obama's EPA shutting down the energy producing states, you own it.  A nuclear Iran , you own it.  Bowing to the Soviet Union , you own it.  Another severe recession, you own it.  A volatile border with Mexico , you own it.  Trouble getting good health care, you own it.  Higher heath insurance costs and health care costs, you own it.  No federal budget, you own it.  Our allies mistrust, you own it.  Several more trillions of debt, you own it. More Benghazi situations, you own it.  No one willing to join the military, you own it.  Trouble getting a loan to buy a home, you own it.  More dependency on food stamps, you own it.

Trouble finding good employment, you own it.  Several part time jobs instead of a good job, you own it.  A World Government, you own it.  The UN governing the United States instead of ourselves doing it, you own it. A Senate that will not bring any legislation to the table rather it is "Dead on Arrival", you own it.  China controlling our world trade and trampling all over us, you own it.

Loss of our freedoms as we have known it in the past, you own it.  A dictatorship instead of a democracy that follows the Constitution, you own it.  Less take home pay and higher living costs, you own it.  Driving a car that looks like a toy, you own it.

More government corruption and lies, you own it. More toleration of extreme and fanatical Islamists, you own it.  Terrorist attacks called work place incidents, you own it.  Your revenge instead of love of country, you own it.

President George Bush is out of it now, and there is not another good man for you to villify and lie about. In a way I am relieved that another good man will not be blamed when it becomes impossible to clean up this mess you voted for.

By a dissatisfied Florida voter.

2012 November 6

2012 Election Update

This was translated into English from an article in the Prague newspaper Prager Zeitungon on April 28, 2010. 

The danger to America is not Barack Obama, but a citizenry capable of entrusting a man like him with the Presidency. It will be far easier to limit and undo the follies of an Obama presidency than to restore the necessary common sense and good judgment to a depraved electorate willing to have such a man for their president. The problem is much deeper and far more serious than Mr. Obama, who is a mere symptom of what ails America. Blaming the prince of the fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of fools that made him their prince. The Republic can survive a Barack Obama who is, after all, merely a fool. It is less likely to survive a multitude of fools, such as those who made him their president.

America died November 6, 2012, RIP. There will be no undoing of a second Obama term.

2012 Election Summarized

Benghazi Covered Up

Mysteries of Benghazi

Stephen F. Hayes
The Weekly Standard
November 12, 2012, Vol. 18, No. 09

November 6 is not only Election Day, it's also the eight-week anniversary of the terrorist attacks on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya.

Regardless of which candidate wins, the American people deserve answers to the many unanswered questions about the attack—and the events that preceded and followed it.

The Benghazi debacle is a drama in three parts: the lack of security before the attacks, the flaccid response during the attacks, and the misleading narrative after the attacks. There are unanswered questions about each part. Here are some of the most important.

Part One

Before the attack, a wide array of U.S. officials provided stark warnings about inadequate security in Benghazi. They include Eric Nordstrom, former regional security officer for the State Department in Libya; Lt. Col. Andrew Wood, a site security commander in Libya from February to August 2012; the unknown author of letters dated the day of the attack and found on the consulate floor; and, of course, the late Ambassador Christopher Stevens himself. Why didn’t they receive the assistance they requested?

During the vice presidential debate, Joe Biden claimed: “We weren’t told they wanted more security there.” National Security Council spokesman Tommy Vietor later clarified that Biden was speaking “for himself and the president.”

In fact, an August 16 State Department cable summarizing an emergency meeting at the U.S. mission in Benghazi was circulated to White House and NSC officials just three weeks before the attack. It reported that the regional security officer “expressed concerns with the ability to defend Post in the event of a coordinated attack due to limited manpower, security measures, weapons capabilities, host nation support and the overall size of the compound.”

Does the administration maintain that no one at the White House or NSC was aware of these urgent requests?
Several officials with responsibility for security in -Benghazi spoke of a “normalization” directive that included a conscious effort to reduce the security posture at the consulate. Who proposed “normalization” and who issued the directive to reduce security?

Part Two

Citing sources on the ground in Benghazi, Fox News reported that Tyrone Woods was “painting” mortar sites with a laser from his rooftop position shortly before he was killed. A subsequent CIA timeline provided to Washington Post columnist David Ignatius contradicts this, saying that “the rooftop defenders never ‘laser the mortars,’ as has been reported.” Can the CIA make this claim with certainty? If Woods was painting the mortar sites as eyewitnesses claim, presumably at considerable personal risk, why was he doing so? Did he have reason to believe that reinforcements were coming?

President Obama says that he gave “three very clear directives.” They were: “Number one, make sure that we are securing our personnel and doing whatever we need to. Number two, we’re going to investigate exactly what happened so that it doesn’t happen again. Number three, find out who did this so we can bring them to justice.”

To whom was the first of those directives transmitted and when?

A CIA statement claims that no one in the CIA chain of command denied requests for help. A statement from NSC spokesman Tommy Vietor claims no one at the White House denied requests for assistance. Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta said that the military did not have “real-time information” to act on. 

Did military officials not communicate with top State Department officials such as Charlene Lamb, who testified under oath that she and others were following the attack in real time from their post at the State -Department? Was President Obama aware of requests for assistance from the men under attack in Benghazi? Panetta also said: “You don’t deploy forces into harm’s way without knowing what’s going on.”

Does this statement imply that there were requests for help from the field that senior defense officials judged it imprudent to act on? In any case, isn’t going into harm’s way without complete information precisely the job of our most highly trained military personnel? Does the president agree with Panetta? Doesn’t announcing that the U.S. military needs perfect intelligence before engaging an enemy encourage similar attacks in the future?

Part Three

State Department officials in Washington followed the attacks as they happened and knew instantly, in the words of Undersecretary of State Patrick Kennedy, that the assault in Benghazi was “an unprecedented attack by dozens of heavily armed men.” A CIA timeline provided to reporters late last week notes that at 1:15 a.m. on the night of the attack, less than five hours after it began, CIA -officials attempting to rescue Ambassador Stevens reported that terrorists from Ansar al Sharia had surrounded the hospital in Benghazi.

On September 12, the day after the attack, the CIA station chief in Libya cabled Washington to report that the assault had been a terrorist attack. By September 13, the FBI was interviewing CIA officials who were on the ground in -Benghazi, several of whom described a sophisticated terrorist attack on the compound. 

Yet when CIA director David Petraeus briefed members of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence on September 14, he suggested that the attack was triggered by a YouTube video. Two days later, U.S. ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice made the same claim about the video on political talk shows. Two days after that, President Obama blamed the video in an interview with David Letterman. And a week after that, the president cited the video six times in his speech at the U.N. General Assembly. Why all the misleading information from senior administration officials?

While President Obama and other administration officials misleadingly tied the attack in Benghazi to an anti-Islam film, they have been reluctant to discuss al Qaeda’s very real ties to the assault. We know that Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM), a terrorist organization that has sworn loyalty to al Qaeda’s senior leadership, was involved. So was Ansar al Sharia, which has al Qaeda ties. CNN has reported that members of Al Qaeda in Iraq, another terrorist organization that has sworn loyalty to Ayman al Zawahiri, are suspected of taking part in the attack.

And then there is a terrorist named Mohammed Jamal, an Egyptian with longstanding ties to Zawahiri, whose fighters, according to multiple reports, assaulted the compound. Instead of a “spontaneous” attack that grew out of a protest, the assault on the U.S. consulate was carried out by a consortium of al Qaeda allies. To date, the administration has not identified the terrorists responsible for killing four Americans.

When will the administration present the American people with an accurate description of the terrorists responsible, including their al Qaeda ties?

Whether Barack Obama remains president or not, he owes the American people a full accounting of the Benghazi fiasco.

How Obama Won in 2012

Five ways the mainstream media tipped the scales in favor of Obama

By Rich Noyes

Published November 07, 2012

FoxNews.com

• 
  
• Fox News and other media outlets have projected that President Obama has been reelected to a second term. If, in celebrating his victory Obama wanted to give credit where credit is due, he might want to think about calling some of America's top journalists, since their favorable approach almost certainly made the difference between victory and defeat.

  
  

  Reviewing the 2012 presidential campaign, here are five ways the media elite tipped the public relations scales in favor of the liberal Obama and against the conservative challenger Mitt Romney:

  
  

  1. The Media’s Biased Gaffe Patrol Hammered Romney: The media unfairly jumped on  inconsequential mistakes — or even invented controversies — from Romney and hyped them in to multi-day media “earthquakes.” Case in point: the GOP candidate’s trip to Europe and Israel in late July.

  
  

  A Media Research Center analysis of all 21 ABC, CBS and NBC evening news stories about Romney’s trip found that virtually all of them (18, or 86%) emphasized “diplomatic blunders,” “gaffes” or “missteps.”

  
  

  Conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer blasted the news coverage in an August 2 column, calling the trip “a major substantive success” that was wrapped “in a media narrative of surpassing triviality.”

  
  

  Similarly, when the left-wing Mother Jones magazine in September put out a secretly-recorded video of Romney talking to donors about the 47% of Americans who don’t pay income taxes, the networks hyped it like a sensational sex scandal. Over three days, the broadcast network morning and evening shows churned out 42 stories on the tape, nearly 90 minutes of coverage. The tone was hyperbolic; ABC’s "Good Morning America" called it a “bombshell rocking the Mitt Romney campaign,” while ABC "World News" anchor Diane Sawyer declared it a “political earthquake.”

  
  

  None of Obama’s gaffes garnered that level of coverage. After the president in a June 8 press conference declared that “the private sector is doing fine,” the ABC, CBS and NBC evening newscasts gave it just one night’s coverage, then basically dropped the story — nothing further on ABC’s "World News" or the "CBS Evening News" in the weeks that followed, and just two passing references on the "NBC Nightly News."

  
  

  And, when Obama infamously declared, “You didn’t build that,” ABC, CBS, NBC didn’t report the politically damaging remark for four days — and then only after Romney made it the centerpiece of a campaign speech.

  
  

  2. Pounding Romney With Partisan Fact Checking: There’s nothing wrong with holding politicians accountable for the honesty of their TV ads and stump speeches, but this year the self-appointed media fact-checkers attacked Republicans as liars for statements that were accurate.

  For example, a Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reporter writing for PolitiFact branded VP candidate Paul Ryan’s convention speech anecdote about the closing of the General Motors plant in his hometown as “false,” even though Ryan was correct in all of his details. The slanted review became TV reporters’ talking points; the next day on NBC, correspondent Chuck Todd grumped that while what Ryan said “was technically factual, by what he left out, [he] actually distorted the actual truth.” Matt Lauer greeted Ryan the following week in an interview on Today: “There are some people who are claiming that you played a little fast and loose with the truth....”

  
  

  The same thing happened when Mitt Romney talked about Obama’s “apology tour” during the final presidential debate. While in 2009 Obama had, in fact, criticized the United States as “arrogant,” “derisive” and having “too often... set [our] principles aside,” the networks said to call it an “apology tour” was “false” because, as CNN’s John Berman tenuously insisted, “even if he was critical of past U.S. foreign policy, he issued no apologies.”

  
  

  Writing in the New York Times August 31, correspondent Jackie Calmes scolded that “the number of falsehoods and misleading statements from the Romney campaign coming in for independent criticism has reached a level not typically seen.” That’s not true, either; Romney’s team was, at worst, guilty of highlighting those facts that best illustrated their points (something done by all politicians), and the Obama campaign certainly put out their share of tawdry TV ads and dubious campaign claims.

  
  

  But with “truth cops” who mainly policed just the GOP side of the street, the media used “fact-checking” as another club to tilt the playing field in favor of the Democrats.

  
  

  3. Those Biased Debate Moderators: Upset liberals scorned PBS’s Jim Lehrer for taking a hands-off approach in the first debate on October 3, with MSNBC analyst Howard Fineman slamming him as “practically useless” for not jumping into the debate on behalf of President Obama.

  
  Such criticism may have encouraged the activist approach taken by ABC’s Martha Raddatz in the vice presidential debate October 11, and by CNN’s Candy Crowley in the October 16 town hall debate, as both of those journalists repeatedly interrupted the Republican candidate and larded the discussion with a predominantly liberal agenda.

  
  

  Crowley earns extra demerits for taking the media’s penchant for faulty fact-checking to new heights when she jumped into the October 16 town hall-style debate to validate President Obama’s claim that he called the attack in Benghazi, Libya, “an act of terror” the very next morning. Crowley endorsed Obama’s story, telling Romney: “He did, in fact, sir, call it an act of terror.”

  
  

  Not according to the transcript, which had Obama only speaking generically about how “no acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this nation,” not assigning that label to the violence in Benghazi.

  
  

  Wrong though she was, Crowley became a heroine to many in the liberal media; ABC's Matt Dowd, for example, cheered: “What Candy Crowley did, I actually thought, was laudable....I hope we get to do more of that in this discourse.”

  
  Moderators are supposed to ensure both sides get a fair hearing, not pick sides. By leaping into the fray, Candy Crowley epitomized the media’s itch to tilt the scales this year — again, in Obama’s favor.

  
  

  4. The Benghazi Blackout: Right after the September 11 attack in Libya, the networks proclaimed that the events would bolster President Obama — “reminding voters of his power as commander-in-chief,” as NBC’s Peter Alexander stated on the September 14 edition of "Today." But as a cascade of leaked information erased the portrait of Obama as a heroic commander, the broadcast networks shunted the Benghazi story to the sidelines.

  
  

  News broke online in late September, for example, that Team Obama knew within 24 hours that the attack was likely the result of terrorism. That starkly contradicted claims from White House press secretary Jay Carney, U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice, and President Obama himself that the attack was a “spontaneous” reaction to an anti-Muslim video posted on YouTube. Yet, ABC took nearly two days to bring this story to viewers, while CBS and NBC held off for three days.

  
  

  This was, shamefully, the broadcast networks’ pattern in October: New developments exposing the administration’s failure to provide adequate security, or contradictions in their public statements, were either given stingy coverage or buried completely. The puzzle pieces revealed a disturbing failure of Obama’s national security apparatus, but the networks flitted in and out of the story, never giving it any traction.

  
  

  Instead of an “October Surprise,” the networks engineered an “October Suppression” — keeping a lid on the boiling Benghazi story until Election Day. Who knows how voters might have reacted if the media had covered this story as tenaciously as they did Romney’s “47% gaffe”?

  
  

  5. Burying the Bad Economy: Pundits agreed that Obama’s weakness was the failure of the US economy to revive after his expensive stimulus and four years of $1 trillion deficits. But the major networks failed to offer the sustained, aggressive coverage of the economy that incumbent Republican President George H.W. Bush faced in 1992, or even that George W. Bush faced in 2004 — both years when the national economy was in better shape than it is now.

  
  

  According to a study conducted that year by the Center for Media and Public Affairs, from January through September of 1992, the networks ran a whopping 1,289 stories on the economy, 88% of which painted it in a dismal, negative light. 

  
  

  That fall, the unemployment rate was 7.6%, lower than today’s 7.9%, and economic growth in the third quarter was 2.7%, better than today’s 2.0%. Yet the media coverage hammered the idea of a terrible economy, and Bush lost re-election.

  
  

  In 2004, the economy under George W. Bush was far better than it is today — higher growth, lower unemployment, smaller deficits and cheaper gasoline — yet network coverage that year was twice as hostile to Bush than it was towards Obama this year, according to a study by the Media Research Center’s Business and Media Institute.

  
  

  When Republican presidents have faced reelection, network reporters made sure to spotlight economic “victims” — the homeless man, the woman without health insurance, the unemployed worker, the senior citizen who had to choose between medicine and food. But this year, with an economy as bad as any since the Great Depression, those sympathetic anecdotes have vanished from the airwaves — a huge favor to Obama and the Democrats.

  
  

  Given Obama’s record, the Romney campaign could have overcome much of this media favoritism and still prevailed — indeed, they almost did. But taken together, these five trends took the media’s historical bias to new levels this year, and saved Obama’s presidency in the process.

  
  

  Rich Noyes, is research director for the Media Research Center.
  
  It's a sad day in mudville.

The Obama Administration Record

During the first 45 months, the Obama administration has:

Created 194,000 new jobs (4,310 per month)

Added 1,300,000 individuals to the Social Security disability rolls (28,890 per month)

Added 32,000,000 individuals to the food-stamp rolls (211,110 per month)

What else do you need to know?

2012 November 2

Obama, Romney, and the U.S. Military

Presidential Endorsements from Retired Flag Officers (Army/Navy/Air Force/Marines)


OBAMA
General Colin Powell
General Wesley Clark
Admiral John Nathan, co-chair of Obama campaign
Major General Paul Eaton
Rear Admiral Don Gutter

ROMNEY
Admiral James B. Busey, USN, (Ret.)
General James T. Conway, USMC, (Ret.)
General Terrence R. Dake, USMC, (Ret)
Admiral James O. Ellis, USN, (Ret.)
Admiral Mark Fitzgerald, USN, (Ret.)
General Ronald R. Fogleman, USAF, (Ret)
General Tommy Franks, USA , (Ret)
General Alfred Hansen, USAF, (Ret)
Admiral Ronald Jackson Hays, USN, (Ret)
Admiral Thomas Bibb Hayward , USN, (Ret)
General Chuck Albert Horner, USAF, (Ret)
Admiral Jerome LaMarr Johnson, USN, (Ret)
Admiral Timothy J. Keating, USN, (Ret)
General Paul X. Kelley, USMC, (Ret)
General William Kernan, USA , (Ret)
Admiral George E.R. Kinnear II, USN, (Ret)
General William L. Kirk, USAF, (Ret)
General James J. Lindsay, USA , (Ret)
General William R. Looney III, USAF, (Ret)
Admiral Hank Mauz, USN, (Ret)
General Robert Magnus, USMC, (Ret)
Admiral Paul David Miller, USN, (Ret)
General Henry Hugh Shelton, USA , (Ret)
General Lance Smith, USAF, (Ret)
Admiral Leighton Smith, Jr., USN, (Ret)
General Ronald W. Yates, USAF, (Ret)
Admiral Ronald J. Zlatoper, USN, (Ret)
Lieutenant General James Abrahamson, USAF, (Ret.)
Lieutenant General Edgar Anderson, Jr., USAF, (Ret.)
Lieutenant General Marcus A. Anderson, USAF, (Ret.)
Lieutenant General Buck Bedard, USMC, (Ret.)
Vice Admiral A. Bruce Beran, USCG, (Ret.)
Vice Admiral Lyle Bien, USN, (Ret.)
Lieutenant General Harold Blot, USMC, (Ret.)
Lieutenant General H. Steven Blum, USA , (Ret.)
Vice Admiral Mike Bowman III, USN, (Ret.)
Vice Admiral Mike Bucchi, USN, (Ret.)
Lieutenant General Walter E. Buchanan III, USAF, (Ret.)
Lieutenant General Richard A. Burpee, USAF, (Ret.)
Lieutenant General William Campbell, USAF, (Ret.)
Lieutenant General James E. Chambers, USAF, (Ret.)
Vice Admiral Edward W. Clexton, Jr., USN, (Ret.)
Lieutenant General John B. Conaway, USAF, (Ret.)
Lieutenant General Marvin Covault, USA , (Ret.)
Vice Admiral Terry M. Cross, USCG, (Ret.)
Vice Admiral William Adam Dougherty, USN, (Ret.)
Lieutenant General Brett Dula, USAF, (Ret.)
Lieutenant General Gordon E. Fornell, USAF, (Ret.)
Vice Admiral David Frost, USN, (Ret.)
Vice Admiral Henry C. Giffin III, USN, (Ret.)
Vice Admiral Peter M. Hekman, USN, (Ret.)
Vice Admiral Richard D. Herr, USCG, (Ret.)
Lieutenant General Thomas J Hickey, USAF, (Ret.)
Lieutenant General Walter S. Hogle, Jr., USAF, (Ret.)
Lieutenant General Ronald W. Iverson, USAF, (Ret.)
Lieutenant General Donald W. Jones, USA , (Ret.)
Vice Admiral Douglas J. Katz, USN, (Ret.)
Lieutenant General Jay W. Kelley, USAF, (Ret.)
Vice Admiral Tom Kilcline, USN, (Ret.)
Lieutenant General Timothy A. Kinnan, USAF, (Ret.)
Vice Admiral Harold Koenig, M.D., USN, (Ret.)
Vice Admiral Albert H. Konetzni, USN, (Ret.)
Lieutenant General Buford Derald Lary, USAF, (Ret.)
Lieutenant General Frank Libutti, USMC, (Ret.)
Vice Admiral Stephen Loftus, USN, (Ret.)
Vice Admiral Michael Malone, USN, (Ret.)
Vice Admiral Edward H. Martin, USN, (Ret.)
Vice Admiral John J. Mazach, USN, (Ret.)
Vice Admiral Justin D. McCarthy, USN, (Ret.)
Vice Admiral William McCauley, USN, (Ret.)
Lieutenant General Fred McCorkle, USMC, (Ret.)
Lieutenant General Thomas G. McInerney, USAF, (Ret.)
Vice Admiral Joseph S. Mobley, USN, (Ret.)
Lieutenant General Carol Mutter, USMC, (Ret.)
Lieutenant General Dave R. Palmer, USA , (Ret.)
Vice Admiral John Theodore “Ted” Parker, USN, (Ret.)
Lieutenant General Garry L. Parks, USMC, (Ret.)
Lieutenant General Charles Henry “Chuck” Pitman, USMC, (Ret.)
Lieutenant General Steven R. Polk, USAF, (Ret.)
Vice Admiral William E. Ramsey, USN, (Ret.)
Lieutenant General Joseph J. Redden, USAF, (Ret.)
Lieutenant General Clifford H. “Ted” Rees, Jr., USAF, (Ret.)
Lieutenant General Edward Rowny, USA (Ret.)
Vice Admiral Dutch Schultz, USN, (Ret.)
Lieutenant General Charles J. Searock, Jr., USAF, (Ret.)
Lieutenant General E. G. “Buck” Shuler, USAF, (Ret.)
Lieutenant General Alexander M. “Rusty” Sloan, USAF, (Ret.)
Vice Admiral Edward M. Straw, USN, (Ret.)
Lieutenant General David J. Teal, USAF, (Ret.)
Lieutenant General Bill y M. Thomas, USA , (Ret.)
Vice Admiral Donald C. “Deese” Thompson, USCG, (Ret.)
Vice Admiral Alan S. Thompson, USN, (Ret.)
Lieutenant General Herman O. “Tommy” Thomson, USAF, (Ret.)
Vice Admiral Howard B. Thorsen, USCG, (Ret.)
Lieutenant General William Thurman, USAF, (Ret.)
Lieutenant General Robert Allen “R.A.” Tiebout, USMC, (Ret.)
Vice Admiral John B. Totushek, USNR, (Ret.)
Lieutenant General George J. Trautman, USMC, (Ret.)
Lieutenant General Garry R. Trexler, USAF, (Ret.)
Vice Admiral Jerry O. Tuttle, USN, (Ret.)
Lieutenant General Claudius “Bud” Watts, USAF, (Ret.)
Lieutenant General William “ Bill ” Welser, USAF, (Ret.)
Lieutenant General Thad A. Wolfe, USAF, (Ret.)
Lieutenant General C. Norman Wood, USAF, (Ret.)
Lieutenant General Michael W. Wooley, USAF, (Ret.)
Lieutenant General Richard “Rick” Zilmer, USMC, (Ret.)
Major General Chris Adams, USAF, (Ret.)
Rear Admiral Henry Amos, USN (Ret.)
Major General Nora Alice Astefan, USAF, (Ret.)
Major General Almon Bowen Ballard, USAF, (Ret.)
Major General James F. Barnette, USAF, (Ret.)
Major General Robert W. Barrow, USAF, (Ret.)
Rear Admiral John R. Batlzer, USN, (Ret.)
Rear Admiral Jon W. Bayless, USN, (Ret.)
Major General John E. Bianchi, USA , (Ret.)
Major General David F. Bice, USMC, (Ret.)
Rear Admiral Linda J. Bird, USN, (Ret.)
Rear Admiral James H. Black, USN, (Ret.)
Rear Admiral Peter A. Bondi, USN, (Ret.)
Major General John L. Borling, USMC, (Ret.)
Major General Tom Braaten, USA , (Ret.)
Major General Robert J. Brandt, USA , (Ret.)
Rear Admiral Jerry C. Breast, USN, (Ret.)
Rear Admiral Bruce B. Bremner, USN, (Ret.)
Rear Admiral Thomas F. Brown III, USN, (Ret.)
Major General David P. Burford, USA , (Ret.)
Rear Admiral John F. Calvert, USN, (Ret.)
Rear Admiral Jay A. Campbell, USN, (Ret.)
Major General Henry Canterbury, USAF, (Ret.)
Rear Admiral James J. Carey, USN, (Ret.)
Rear Admiral Nevin Carr, USN, (Ret.)
Rear Admiral Stephen K. Chadwick, USN, (Ret.)
Rear Admiral W. Lewis Chatham, USN, (Ret.)
Major General Jeffrey G. Cliver, USAF, (Ret.)
Rear Admiral Casey Coane, USN, (Ret.)
Rear Admiral Isaiah C. Cole, USN, (Ret.)
Major General Stephen Condon, USAF, (Ret.)
Major General Richard C. Cosgrave, USANG, (Ret.)
Rear Admiral Robert Cowley, USN, (Ret.)
Major General J.T. Coyne, USMC, (Ret.)
Rear Admiral Robert C. Crates, USN, (Ret.)
Major General Tommy F. Crawford, USAF, (Ret.)
Rear Admiral James P. David son, USN, (Ret.)
Rear Admiral Kevin F. Delaney, USN, (Ret.)
Major General James D. Delk, USA , (Ret.)
Major General Robert E. Dempsey, USAF, (Ret.)
Rear Admiral Jay Ronald Denney, USNR, (Ret.)
Major General Robert S. Dickman, USAF, (Ret.)
Rear Admiral James C. Doebler, USN, (Ret.)
Major General Douglas O. Dollar, USA , (Ret.)
Major General Hunt Downer, USA , (Ret.)
Major General Thomas A. Dyches, USAF, (Ret.)
Major General Jay T. Edwards, USAF, (Ret.)
Major General John R. Farrington, USAF, (Ret.)
Rear Admiral Francis L. Filipiak, USN, (Ret.)
Rear Admiral James H. Flatley III, USN, (Ret.)
Major General Charles Fletcher, USA , (Ret.)
Major General Bobby O. Floyd, USAF, (Ret.)
Rear Admiral Veronica Froman, USN, (Ret.)
Rear Admiral Vance H. Fry, USN, (Ret.)
Rear Admiral R. Byron Fuller, USN, (Ret.)
Rear Admiral George M. Furlong, USN, (Ret.)
Rear Admiral Frank Gallo, USN, (Ret.)
Rear Admiral Ben F. Gaumer, USN, (Ret.)
Rear Admiral Harry E. Gerhard Jr., USN, (Ret.)
Major General Daniel J. Gibson, USAF, (Ret.)
Rear Admiral Andrew A. Giordano, USN, (Ret.)
Major General Richard N. Goddard, USAF, (Ret.)
Rear Admiral Fred Golove, USCGR, (Ret.)
Rear Admiral Harold Eric Grant, USN, (Ret.)
Major General Jeff Grime, USAF, (Ret.)
Major General Robert Kent Guest, USA , (Ret.)
Major General Tim Haake, USAR, (Ret.)
Major General Otto K. Habedank, USAF, (Ret.)
Rear Admiral Thomas F. Hall, USN, (Ret.)
Rear Admiral Donald P. Harvey, USN, (Ret.)
Major General Leonard W. Hegland, USAF, (Ret.)
Rear Admiral John Hekman, USN, (Ret.)
Major General John A. Hemphill, USA , (Ret.)
Rear Admiral Larry Hereth, USCG, (Ret.)
Major General Wilfred Hessert, USAF, (Ret.)
Rear Admiral Don Hickman, USN, (Ret.)
Major General Geoffrey Higginbotham, USMC, (Ret.)
Major General Jerry D. Holmes, USAF, (Ret.)
Major General Weldon F. Honeycutt, USA , (Ret.)
Rear Admiral Steve Israel, USN, (Ret.)
Major General James T. Jackson, USA , (Ret.)
Rear Admiral John S. Jenkins, USN, (Ret.)
Rear Admiral Tim Jenkins, USN, (Ret.)
Rear Admiral Ron Jesberg, USN, (Ret.)
Rear Admiral Pierce J. Johnson, USN, (Ret.)
Rear Admiral Steven B. Kantrowitz, USN, (Ret.)
Rear Admiral John T. Kavanaugh, USN, (Ret.)
Major General Dennis M. Kenneally, USA , (Ret.)
Major General Michael Kerby, USAF, (Ret.)
Rear Admiral David Kunkel, USCG, (Ret.)
Major General Geoffrey C. Lambert, USA , (Ret.)
Rear Admiral Arthur Langston, USN, (Ret.)
Rear Admiral Thomas G. Lilly, USN, (Ret.)
Major General James E. Livingston, USAF, (Ret.)
Major General Al Logan, USAF, (Ret.)
Major General John D. Logeman Jr., USAF, (Ret.)
Rear Admiral Noah H. Long Jr, USNR, (Ret.)
Rear Admiral Don Loren, USN, (Ret.)
Major General Andy Love, USAF, (Ret.)
Rear Admiral Thomas C. Lynch, USN, (Ret.)
Rear Admiral Steven Wells Maas , USN, (Ret.)
Major General Robert M. Marquette, USAF, (Ret.)
Rear Admiral Larry Marsh, USN, (Ret.)
Major General Clark W. Martin, USAF, (Ret.)
Major General William M. Matz, USN, (Ret.)
Rear Admiral Gerard Mauer, USN, (Ret.)
Rear Admiral William J. McDaniel, MD, USN, (Ret.)
Rear Admiral E.S. McGinley II, USN, (Ret.)
Rear Admiral Henry C. McKinney, USN, (Ret.)
Major General Robert Messerli, USAF, (Ret.)
Major General Douglas S. Metcalf, USAF, (Ret.)
Rear Admiral John W. Miller, USN, (Ret.)
Rear Admiral Patrick David Moneymaker, USN, (Ret.)
Major General Mario Montero, USA , (Ret.)
Rear Admiral Douglas M. Moore, USN, (Ret.)
Major General Walter Bruce Moore, USA , (Ret.)
Major General William Moore, USA , (Ret.)
Major General Burton R. Moore, USAF, (Ret.)
Rear Admiral James A. Morgart, USN, (Ret.)
Major General Stanton R. Musser, USAF, (Ret.)
Rear Admiral John T. Natter, USN, (Ret.)
Major General Robert George Nester, USAF, (Ret.)
Major General George W. Norwood, USAF, (Ret.)
Rear Admiral Robert C. Olson, USN, (Ret.)
Major General Raymund E. O’Mara, USAF, (Ret.)
Rear Admiral Robert S. Owens, USN, (Ret.)
Rear Admiral John F. Paddock, USN, (Ret.)
Major General Robert W. Paret, USAF, (Ret.)
Rear Admiral Robert O. Passmore, USN, (Ret.)
Major General Earl G. Peck, USAF, (Ret.)
Major General Richard E. Perraut Jr., USAF, (Ret.)
Major General Gerald F. Perryman, USAF, (Ret.)
Rear Admiral W.W. Pickavance, USN, (Ret.)
Rear Admiral John J. Prendergast, USN, (Ret.)
Rear Admiral Fenton F. Priest, USN, (Ret.)
Major General David C. Ralston, USA , (Ret.)
Major General Bentley B. Rayburn, USAF, (Ret.)
Rear Admiral Harold Rich, USN , (Ret.)
Rear Admiral Roland Rieve, USN, (Ret.)
Rear Admiral Tommy F. Rinard, USN , (Ret.)
Major General Richard H. Roellig, USAF, (Ret.)
Rear Admiral Michael S. Roesner, USN, (Ret.)
Rear Admiral William J. Ryan, USN, (Ret.)
Major General Loran C. Schnaidt, USAF, (Ret.)
Major General Carl Schneider, USAF , (Ret.)
Major General John P. Schoeppner, Jr., USAF, (Ret.)
Major General Edison E. Scholes, USAF, (Ret.)
Rear Admiral Robert H. Schumaker, USN, (Ret.)
Rear Admiral William S. Schwob, USCG, (Ret.)
Major General David J. Scott, USAF, (Ret.)
Rear Admiral Hugh P. Scott, USN, (Ret.)
Major General Richard Secord, USAF, (Ret.)
Rear Admiral William H. Shawcross, USN, (Ret.)
Major General Joseph K. Simeone, USAF and ANG , (Ret.)
Major General Darwin Simpson, ANG , (Ret.)
Rear Admiral Greg Slavonic, USN , (Ret.)
Rear Admiral David Oliver “D.O.” Smart, USNR, (Ret.)
Major General Richard D. Smith, USAF, (Ret.)
Major General Donald Bruce Smith, USAF, (Ret.)
Rear Admiral Paul O. Soderberg, USN, (Ret.)
Rear Admiral Robert H. “Bob” Spiro, USN, (Ret.)
Major General Henry B. Stelling, Jr., USAF, (Ret.)
Rear Admiral Daniel H. Stone, USN, (Ret.)
Major General William A. Studer, USAF, (Ret.)
Rear Admiral Hamlin Tallent, USN, (Ret.)
Major General Hugh Banks Tant III , USA , (Ret.)
Major General Larry S. Taylor, USMC, (Ret.)
Major General J.B. Taylor, USA , (Ret.)
Major General Thomas R. Tempel, USA , (Ret.)
Major General Richard L. Testa, USAF, (Ret.)
Rear Admiral Jere Thompson, USN (Ret.)
Rear Admiral Byron E. Tobin, USN, (Ret.)
Major General Larry Twitchell, USAF, (Ret.)
Major General Russell L. Violett, USAF, (Ret.)
Major General David E.B. “DEB” Ward, USAF, (Ret.)
Major General Charles J. Wax, USAF, (Ret.)
Rear Admiral Donald Weatherson, USN, (Ret.)
Major General John Welde, USAF, (Ret.)
Major General Gary Whipple, USA , (Ret.)
Rear Admiral James B. Whittaker, USN, (Ret.)
Rear Admiral Charles Williams, USN, (Ret.)
Rear Admiral H. Denny Wisely, USN, (Ret.)
Rear Admiral Theodore J. Wojnar, USCG, (Ret.)
Rear Admiral George K. Worthington, USN, (Ret.)
Brigadier General Arthur Abercrombie, USA , (Ret.)
Brigadier General John R. Allen, USAF, (Ret.)
Brigadier General Loring R. Astorino, USAF, (Ret.)
Brigadier General Richard Averitt, USA , (Ret.)
Brigadier General Garry S. Bahling , USANG, (Ret.)
Brigadier General Donald E. Barnhart, USAF, (Ret.)
Brigadier General Charles L. Bishop, USAF, (Ret.)
Brigadier General Clayton Bridges, USAF, (Ret.)
Brigadier General Jeremiah J. Brophy, USA , (Ret.)
Brigadier General R. Thomas Browning, USAF, (Ret.)
Brigadier General David A. Brubaker, USAF, (Ret.)
Brigadier General Chalmers R. Carr, USAF, (Ret.)
Brigadier General Fred F. Caste, USAFR, (Ret.)
Brigadier General Robert V. Clements, USAF, (Ret.)
Brigadier General Christopher T Cline, USA , (Ret.)
Brigadier General George Peyton Cole, Jr., USAF, (Ret.)
Brigadier General Richard A. Coleman, USAF, (Ret.)
Brigadier General Mike Cushman, USAF, (Ret.)
Brigadier General Peter Dawkins, USA , (Ret.)
Brigadier General Sam. G. DeGeneres, USAF, (Ret.)
Brigadier General George Demers, USAF, (Ret.)
Brigadier General Howard G. DeWolf, USAF, (Ret.)
Brigadier General Arthur F. Diehl, USAF, (Ret.)
Brigadier General David Bob Edmonds, USAF, (Ret.)
Brigadier General Anthony Farrington, USAF, (Ret.)
Brigadier General Norm Gaddis, USAF, (Ret.)
Brigadier General Robert H. Harkins, USAF, (Ret.)
Brigadier General Thomas W. Honeywill, USAF, (Ret.)
Brigadier General Stanley V. Hood, USAF, (Ret.)
Brigadier General James J. Hourin, USAF, (Ret.)
Brigadier General Jack C. Ihle, USAF, (Ret.)
Brigadier General Thomas G. Jeter, USAF, (Ret.)
Brigadier General William Herbert Johnson, USAF, (Ret.)
Brigadier General Kenneth F. Keller, USAF, (Ret.)
Brigadier General Wayne W. Lambert, USAF, (Ret.)
Brigadier General Jerry L. Laws, USA , (Ret.)
Brigadier General Thomas J. Lennon, USAF, (Ret.)
Brigadier General John M. Lotz, USAF, (Ret.)
Brigadier General Robert S. Mangum, USA , (Ret.)
Brigadier General Frank Martin, USAF, (Ret.)
Brigadier General Joe Mensching, USAF, (Ret.)
Brigadier General Richard L. Meyer, USAF, (Ret.)
Brigadier General Lawrence A. Mitchell, USAF, (Ret.)
Brigadier General Michael P. Mulqueen, USMC, (Ret.)
Brigadier General Ben Nelson, Jr., USAF, (Ret.)
Brigadier General Jack W. Nicholson, USA , (Ret.)
Brigadier General Maria C. Owens, USAF, (Ret.)
Brigadier General Dave Papak, USMC, (Ret.)
Brigadier General Gary A. Pappas, USANG, (Ret.)
Brigadier General Robert V. Paschon, USAF, (Ret.)
Brigadier General Allen K. Rachel, USAF, (Ret.)
Brigadier General Jon Reynolds, USAF, (Ret.)
Brigadier General Edward F. Rodriguez, Jr., USAFR, (Ret.)
Brigadier General Roger Scearce, USA , (Ret.)
Brigadier General Dennis Schulstad, USAFR, (Ret.)
Brigadier General John Serur, USAF, (Ret.)
Brigadier General Joseph L. Shaeffer, USAF, (Ret.)
Brigadier General Graham Shirley, USAF, (Ret.)
Brigadier General Raymond Shulstad, USAF, (Ret.)
Brigadier General Stan Smith, USAF, (Ret.)
Brigadier General Ralph S. Smith, USAF, (Ret.)
Brigadier General Donald Smith, USA , (Ret.)
Brigadier General David M. Snyder, USAF, (Ret.)
Brigadier General Michael Joseph Tashjian, USAF, (Ret.)
Brigadier General Richard Louis Ursone, USA , (Ret.)
Brigadier General Ear’ Van Inwegen, USAF, (Ret.)
Brigadier General Terrence P. Woods, USAF, (Ret.)
Brigadier General Mitchell Zais, USA , (Ret.)
Brigadier General Allan Ralph Zenowitz, USA , (Ret.)