GOP lawmakers highly critical of Petraeus’ Benghazi explanation, testimony shows

Newly declassified testimony shows at least five Republican lawmakers on the House Intelligence Committee, including its chairman, suggested former CIA Director David Petraeus provided bad information, or even misled them, after the 2012 Benghazi attack when he blamed an obscure Internet video and downplayed the significance of mortar attacks that night.
The testimony comes from a Nov. 15, 2012, closed, classified session where the committee heard testimony from the nation's most senior intelligence officer, James Clapper; then head of the National Counterterrorism Center, Matt Olsen; Under Secretary of State Patrick Kennedy; and then-acting CIA Director Michael Morell, who stepped in after Petraeus resigned, citing an extramarital affair.
The testimony shows lawmakers recalling how Petraeus stressed protests over an anti-Islam video as the impetus -- an explanation that would later unravel -- while brushing off concerns that mortar attacks indicated a planned terror attack.
During that testimony, Rep. Mac Thornberry, R-Texas, who takes the gavel of the House Armed Services Committee in January, said: "Mr. Morell, my strongest memory (w)as Director Petraeus on the Friday after this event coming in and telling us this was all a spontaneous demonstration caused by a video."
In the same session, Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., went further, saying Petraeus was "definitive" in his assessment the video was to blame, and unlike the intelligence community witnesses present, the general did not talk about "shifts in the line of analysis."
King said, "the 90 percent conclusion that General Petraeus reached was that this was caused by the video, and it was a spontaneous demonstration." King continued,"the one thing he was ruling out was terrorist involvement. I remember when the chairman [Mike Rogers] specifically mentioned to him about the mortar rounds, three mortar rounds landing at the Annex, could that be an indication of terrorist involvement. [Petraeus] said no.He said anybody in Libya could do that."
The House committee report -- while having been criticized by other GOP lawmakers as incomplete -- nevertheless provides new detail and images of the precision mortar strike at the CIA base known as the annex.Three on-target rounds, fired over 69 seconds, killed former Navy SEALs Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty who were defending the annex from its roof.
Kris Paronto, one of the CIA contractors who witnessed the attacks, said: "It's highly, if not 99.99 percent unlikely, that somebody just threw up a mortar tube and drop some mortars in and hit, hit, hit the compound. It's, it's not possible."
John Tiegen, who was also part of the CIA security team, and wrote, "13 Hours: the Inside Account of What Really Happened in Benghazi," with his fellow contractors, said it is beyond belief a four-star general would make such a basic mistake.
"I'd like to see him grab a mortar tube and launch it and get it within a 2,000 square-foot building in five shots," Tiegen added
The House Intelligence Committee report states the mortar team likely used a spotter to calibrate the shots, more evidence of pre-meditation and planning. The mortar strike was the third wave of the attack which began at 9:40 p.m. at the State Department consulate.
And while Morell, along with other unnamed CIA officers in the transcript, defended Petraeus, saying his talking points from the agency included the identification of the Al Qaeda-linked terror group Ansar al-Sharia, Rogers said the general went off-script.
"I want to be clear that our notes do not reflect that he said that.What you were talking about for the record was his talking points," Rogers said. Rogers was the first lawmaker on Capitol HIll to call publicly call Benghazi a coordinated, military commando-style assault, in an interview with Fox News on Sept. 12, 2012.
Democrats on the committee, including the ranking member Dutch Ruppersberger, were less critical of Petraeus. “My recollection was that Petraeus, when I walked way, he basically said that he felt that his opinion at that time it was kind of an attack based on what happened with respect to the video. But he did give caveats…that (it) could change, and it evolved,” Ruppersberger said.
Unlike the November 2012 testimony -- when lawmakers did not know that Morell made key edits to the talking points -- by May 2013, during a second round of classified testimony, email traffic showed Morell had been at the heart of the process, cutting some 50 percent of the text.
Significantly, during the May testimony, Morell distanced the agency from the video explanation. Morell said "the CIA never [said] that what happened in Benghazi was a result of the film."
If the lawmakers’ recollection is accurate, that means Petraeus' brief on Sept. 14, 2012, was instead in line with the White House, and then-Secretary Hillary Clinton's State Department. It was a State Department press release at 10:07 pm ET, before the attack was even over, that first made the link to the obscure anti-Islam video. The newly declassified testimony says $70,000 was spent on advertising in Pakistan, denouncing the anti-Muslim film.
During this testimony, GOP Rep. Jeff Miller questioned Petraeus' original testimony, stating the former CIA Director "even went so far as to say that it had been put into Arabic language and then was put on this TV station, this cleric's TV station. I mean, [Petraeus] drove that in pretty hard when he was in here. "
Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., added "it was said in here a little bit earlier that the CIA never said Benghazi was part of a Cairo protest and of the video. And we were given just the opposite message by the Director of the CIA on the [September] 14th [2012.]"
Rogers noted there was no transcript for the brief, only staff notes, but after the Petraeus incident in September 2012, the practice was changed to always run a transcript on the briefings.The September 14th 2012 brief was a coffee meeting with members.
Fox News was first to report in April that an FBI investigation into the general had been left open, after classified information was reportedly mishandled. This week, after additional reporting by Bloomberg News, Republican Sen. John McCain questioned the decision in a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder, suggesting politics may be at play.
"The fact that you and others within your Department have weighed-in publicly on the case raises questions about whether this investigation is being handled in a fundamentally fair and appropriate manner,” he wrote.
The FBI investigation into Petraeus began as early as late spring 2012, which means he was under investigation when the Benghazi attack unfolded. Facing the implication that knowledge of the investigation might have influenced Petraeus’ or Morell's actions during the Benghazi aftermath, Morell testified he did not know what was going on with the general until the day before he resigned.
Petraeus has not spoken formally to the media about the scandal and was in the news when a new biography of Hillary Clinton was released in February, called "HRC."It quoted the former CIA director regarding her handling of Benghazi.
"She'd make a tremendous president," Petraeus told the authors of "HRC." "Like a lot of great leaders, her most impressive qualities were most visible during tough times. ... In the wake of the Benghazi attacks, for example, she was extraordinarily resolute, determined and controlled."
Jack Keane, a retired four-star Army general and Fox News analyst was a mentor to Petraeus. “David believed he was providing the best available information to the committee from the CIA analysts, which included identifying the terrorist organization, Ansar al-Sharia, and that it was terrorism. The motivation was harder to identify, and initial CIA reporting about the video turned out to be wrong within a matter of days,” he said.
Asked about the open FBI investigation, Keane said McCain’s letter to Holder summed up his feeling best.

Texas leads coalition of states in lawsuit against Obama immigration actions

Texas Gov.-elect Greg Abbott announced Wednesday that Texas is leading a 17-state coalition suing the Obama administration over the president's executive actions on immigration. 
The lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court in Texas on Wednesday, and names the heads of the top immigration enforcement agencies as defendants. 
Abbott, in a news conference in Austin, said the "broken" immigration system should be fixed by Congress, not by "presidential fiat." 
He said President Obama's recently announced executive actions -- a move designed to spare as many as 5 million people living illegally in the United States from deportation -- "directly violate the fundamental promise to the American people" by running afoul of the Constitution. 
"The ability of the president to dispense with laws was specifically considered and unanimously rejected at the Constitutional Convention," he said. 
Abbott specifically cited Article 2, Section 3 of the Constitution which states the president "shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed." 
He said the lawsuit asks the court to require Obama to go through Congress before enforcing laws, "rather than making them up himself." 
However, a White House official defended the actions as perfectly within the president's authority.
“The Supreme Court and Congress have made clear that federal officials can set priorities in enforcing our immigration laws, and we are confident that the President’s executive actions are well within his legal authorities," the official told Fox News.
The announcement opens a new front in the roiling debate across the country over the immigration actions. 
The legal action comes as a separate legislative battle plays out on Capitol Hill. Some Republicans want to use a must-pass spending bill as leverage to defund the president's immigration initiatives. But House Speaker John Boehner is trying to push off that battle until next year, when his party will control both chambers. 
Under Obama's order, announced Nov. 20, protection from deportation and the right to work will be extended to an estimated 4.1 million parents of U.S. citizens and legal permanent residents who have lived in the U.S. for at least five years and to hundreds of thousands more young people. 
In the lawsuit, Texas is joined by 16 other, mostly southern and Midwestern states, including Alabama, Georgia, Idaho and Indiana. 
Abbott argued Wednesday that Obama's action "tramples" portions of the U.S. Constitution. 
The lawsuit raises three objections: that Obama violated the "Take Care Clause" of the U.S. Constitution that limits the scope of presidential power; that the federal government violated rulemaking procedures; and that the order will "exacerbate the humanitarian crisis along the southern border, which will affect increased state investment in law enforcement, health care and education." 
Wednesday's announcement marks the 31st time the Texas attorney general has brought action against the federal government since Obama took office in 2009. The only other high-profile lawsuit against the immigration action has come on behalf of Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio. 
Potential 2016 presidential candidate and current Texas Gov. Rick Perry, who leaves office in January, also spoke out against the executive order earlier Wednesday, saying it could trigger a new flood of people pouring across the Texas-Mexico border. Perry and Abbott also have said the order will promote a culture of lawlessness. 
Perry said at a news conference that Obama's 2012 executive order delaying the deportation of children brought into the U.S. illegally by their parents triggered an unprecedented wave of unaccompanied minors and families, mostly from Central America, crossing into the U.S. this summer. 
"In effect, his action placed a neon sign on our border, assuring people that they could ignore the law of the United States," said Perry, who has deployed up to 1,000 National Guard troops to the border. 
The federal lawsuit involves the following states: Alabama, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, North Carolina, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, West Virginia and Wisconsin.

Republicans vow to probe EPA paid leave linked to 'alleged serious misconduct'

EXCLUSIVE: Republican legislators, as they prepare for the incoming 114^th Congress in January, are vowing to keep a wary eye on the Environmental Protection Agency and its practice of granting paid administrative leave to staffers involved in possible “serious misconduct,” lawmakers tell Fox News.
“Bringing transparency to the EPA will continue to be at the top of our agenda with the new conservative majority,” says Sen. David Vitter of Louisiana, ranking member of the Senate’s Environment and Public Works Committee and one of the EPA’s leading critics in the outgoing 113^th Congress.  “EPA has allowed a number of employees to waste millions of taxpayer dollars in the last few years through lax internal controls and substandard management.”
His sentiments are echoed by Rep. Darrell Issa of California, who is finishing up a three-year term as chairman of the powerful House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.
Issa clashed often with EPA over the strange case of John Beale, a top EPA official who was jailed a year ago for taking more than $800,000 worth of time off from his job while falsely claiming to be a CIA agent.

“Bringing transparency to the EPA will continue to be at the top of our agenda with the new conservative majority.”- Sen. David Vitter of Louisiana

The Beale case, in turn, sparked a recent “early warning” report of EPA’s Office of the Inspector General that revealed eight other agency employees had taken a total of ten years of officially-mandated leave from their jobs. EPA subsequently told Fox News that all eight were involved in alleged serious misconduct cases, and that three had since left the agency.
The agency provided little other information, declaring that it could not comment on any of the three staffers who had left EPA, and in the other cases was constrained to address them “in a way that is consistent with the law.”
So far as Issa is concerned, however, the probing needs to continue.
“As this Committee has investigated over the past year and examined in multiple hearings,” he told Fox News, “EPA management appears to persist in its ongoing pattern of failure to properly address employee misconduct at the agency. Questions remain regarding the EPA’s management of these cases of misconduct -- and taxpayer money being wasted by keeping these individuals on the payroll instead of taking common-sense disciplinary actions.”
The big question is whether the Republicans who chair both of those powerful committees will share that sense of priority.
The new chairman of the Republican-controlled EPW committee starting in January is James Inhofe of Oklahoma, one of the leading critics of the Obama administration’s aggressive climate change agenda.
Inhofe is likely to have plenty to do in addressing that agenda, where EPA is taking a leading role in propounding a wave of new clean-air regulations, for example, that its critics declare are excessive and likely to be crippling to U.S. industry, as well as highly expensive for consumers.
Issa’s successor in the House Oversight job is Rep. Jason Chaffetz of Utah, a highly regarded congressman who played an aggressive role in the committee’s probing of the Benghazi scandal, among other things.
Setting the agenda of both committees, however, is a task that the newly reconstituted membership can only take up in January.

GOP lawmakers, Benghazi survivors fume over House report

A recent report by a GOP-led committee that was seen as going easy on the Obama administration's Benghazi response is drawing stinging complaints from a number of Republicans on the panel, as well as survivors of the attack. 
Some GOP members on the House Intelligence Committee grumble that the final product "might as well have been written by the minority," while other House Republicans say they are frustrated with the committee's decision to release a report with so many "holes." 
Several lawmakers point their fingers at the committee's chairman, Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Mich. Some members who disagreed with the findings said they stopped going to meetings because of concerns with his handling of the report, and didn't even take part in the final version. 
The report, released last month, found no intelligence lapses in connection with the fatal terror attack. Republican heavyweights like Sen. Lindsey Graham have blasted the findings as "garbage." 
But the findings also drew complaints from survivors, who testified behind closed doors, and caused deep divisions on the committee itself ahead of the report's release. Critical lawmakers wished to remain anonymous due to fear of blowback from Republican leadership. 
While House committee members have remained mostly silent, due to the secretive nature of the committee, some have complained to House Speaker John Boehner about the proceedings for months. Among the concerns was that Rogers was focusing strictly on the debate over the changed so-called "talking points" -- the administration's flawed narrative of the attack that initially blamed a protest over an anti-Islam film. Other Republicans on the committee, though, wanted the focus to be broader. 
Frustrations with Rogers have been boiling for more than a year, but nobody wanted to openly question the chairman with a midterm election looming, fearing it would give the media the chance to focus on Republican infighting rather than the issues. 
Even one Democrat on the committee said, "Rogers was more dismissive at times than Democrat members." 
No members would officially give consent to use their names, but all continue to question controversial maneuvers by Rogers and some members of his staff. 
"Rogers' staffers know more about some highly sensitive issues than some members. There is major stonewalling with information to other Republican members of the committee from Mike and some of his staffers," one House member who asked to go unnamed due to fear of backlash from GOP leadership told Fox News. "There is a lot of fighting and pressures behind the scenes and even some members oddly defending the Obama administration." 
Committee spokeswoman Susan Phalen said late Wednesday, "All members of HPSCI were given numerous opportunities to voice their views, comment on the report, or speak publicly or privately about the process. If any member disagreed with the process or outcome, every opportunity was made available for that member to voice his or her concerns."
She added no member wrote to express any frustration.
So why the internal battles? Why the struggle with members of the same party over a scandal that still has so many questions unanswered and an administration that still is vulnerable and unwilling to fully cooperate with the investigation? 
Now, at least five survivors contacted by Fox News say they too are frustrated and concerned their testimony is not fully represented. Kris Paronto and John Tiegan, both members of the CIA Annex Security Team who responded to the attack in Benghazi, say the report has major flaws. 
Paronto said: "Mike Rogers asked me ... 'Do you think that the delay cost lives?' ... and I looked him squarely in the eyes saying 'yes ... definitely.' We were told to wait and delayed three times which caused the deaths of Ambassador Stevens and Sean Smith. Why would the report say otherwise or our words be disregarded?" 
Paronto's concern is echoed by others on the ground that night in Benghazi. While official timelines have differed and stories from the State Department and administration changed, the story from the men and women on the ground has remained steadfast. 
"As I stated for the FBI, CIA and House intel committee, we were delayed, held back, told to stand down, however you want to put it," Paronto said. "We finally left without authorization. I only wish we had disobeyed orders sooner, because not only would we have rescued the five State Department security guys, we would have stopped the terrorists before they killed the ambassador and Sean Smith." Yet this account doesn't jibe with the report released by Rogers' committee last month.   
Tiegan adds, "We provided the same unchanging and accurate information of what took place in Benghazi on September 11, 2012 through September 12, 2012 to our immediate chain of command in the CIA's office of security, during several FBI interviews, and to Congressman Rogers and his committee. So it comes as a very big disappointment to us as those on the front lines that this report is full of inaccuracies and bias." 
Phelan, while calling the loss of American lives in Benghazi a "tragedy," added "ultimately the opinion of one witness about what could have or might have happened is not credible evidence."
Their frustrations and concerns are echoed by members of the committee and others who have watched the hearings closely. Paronto, who along with Tiegen and others testified in front of the committee behind closed doors, said, "I think some people in Washington knew what was going on that evening in real time, and could not, or worse, would not make the tactically correct decisions ... and when Ambassador Stevens died, they wanted to cover their butts." 
The State Department and CIA weren't the only entities involved. Some operators in Benghazi on the night of the attack, who are still working for U.S. agencies, insist there were at least eight elected members of Congress read in on controversial operations that were ongoing in the country, including some Republicans. Operators also tell Fox News that many of these operatives and operations were completely unknown to the Libyan government and that would have caused an international incident if they were revealed. They wonder whether that is the reason some Republicans have allegedly been treading lightly. 
The frustrations with House intelligence and leadership also has extended to the new Benghazi Select Committee chaired by Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C. Sources have said they were told to wait until after the midterm to truly go after information and even as they do, information leaks about witnesses, proceedings and details has hindered the process. 
As the investigation has picked up since the election, sources also say that the Gowdy-led commission has concerns about major pieces of information that the Rogers committee didn't take into consideration and important witnesses that were never called by the chairman. One survivor who has to remain anonymous because he still works on highly sensitive U.S. operations told Fox News, "I kept waiting for a phone call ... and nobody ever came."

Justice Department to investigate Eric Garner case

The Justice Department is planning to conduct a federal investigation into the chokehold death of an unarmed black male after a New York City grand jury declined to indict the white police officer who performed the move, Attorney General Eric Holder said Wednesday.
The probe will look for a potential civil rights investigations in the death of Eric Garner. Garner, 43, was confronted by police officers on July 17 on suspicion of selling loose cigarettes. A video shot by an onlooker shows a police officer choking Garner and Garner repeatedly saying he could not breathe.
Holder said this is one of "several recent incidents that have tested the sense of trust that must exist between law enforcement and the communities they are charged to serve and protect." Both cases have put law-enforcement officers under a microscope on how they use excessive force to arrests minorities.
"This is not a New York issue or a Ferguson issue alone," Holder told reporters late Wednesday. "Those who have protested peacefully across our great nation following the grand jury's decision in Ferguson have made that clear."
Separately, New York Mayor Bill de Blasio said he had spoken with Holder and Loretta Lynch, the U.S. attorney for the eastern district of New York who has been nominated as Holder's successor, and was told that the federal investigation into the death will now move forward.
The investigation was announced Wednesday night, hours after the Staten Island grand jury’s decision not to indict Officer Daniel Pantaleo. The grand jury could have considered charges ranging from murder to reckless endangerment.
The Justice Department had been monitoring the outcome of the local investigation before announcing its own probe. That investigation will be similar to a separate federal one already underway into the Aug. 9 shooting death in Ferguson of Michael Brown, an unarmed black 18-year-old. A county grand jury in that case decided last week to not indict the white officer, Darren Wilson.
To mount a federal prosecution in police misconduct cases, officials have to satisfy an extremely difficult legal standard — that the officer willfully violated a victim's civil rights and used more force than the law allowed. Though the legal standard will be the same in both the Ferguson and New York cases, there are important differences between the two investigations, said William Yeomans, a former Justice Department civil rights official.
"One big difference, and one thing I think makes this an easier investigation, is the existence of videotape," Yeomans said. "We didn't have that in Ferguson, and we would know much more about what happened in Ferguson if we had."
The chokehold maneuver is banned under New York Police Department guidelines. Police union officials and Pantaleo’s lawyer both argued that he used a legal takedown move because Garner was resisting arrest.
The medical examiner ruled Garner's death a homicide and found that a chokehold contributed to it.

St. Louis’ Bosnian community sees hammer murder as hate crime

Insistence by St. Louis officials that the beating death of a Bosnian man was not a hate crime is being met with skepticism and anger, according to leaders of the city's 70,000-strong Bosnian community, and the victim's brother is calling on authorities to "investigate every possible motive."
Zemir Begic, a 32-year-old man who emigrated from war-torn Bosnia almost two decades ago in search of a better life, was bludgeoned to death Sunday, allegedly by a group of hammer-wielding teenagers, one of whom has been charged as an adult. Begic was driving with his fiancee, Arijana Mujkanovic, and a male passenger at about 1:15 a.m. Sunday in St. Louis when five teenagers began pounding his vehicle with a hammer, according to police. When Begic confronted them, he was struck in the mouth, face, head and body with hammers and died at a nearby hospital. 
"Zemir was a good person who would have given you the clothes off his back," his 20-year-old brother, Rasim Begic, told FoxNews.com Tuesday. "He never had any problems with anyone."
"He was my role model and a hero," the younger Begic said of his brother, noting that he pushed his fiancee out of harm's way during the attack.

"Bosnians right now have an impression that this was a hate crime."- Sadik Kukic, president of St. Louis' Bosnian chamber of commerce

The murder early Sunday of Begic has sparked protests, some consciously patterned after those taking place just 20 miles away in Ferguson, where the police shooting of a black man and a subsequent grand jury decision not to indict a police officer prompted racial anger and a federal civil rights probe. But the St. Louis Police Department and Mayor Francis Slay are insisting Begic’s death, allegedly at the hands of black and Latino teenagers, was not based on racial or ethnic hate.
"Investigators do not believe the attack on Mr. Begic had any connection to him being of Bosnian descent," St. Louis Police spokeswoman Schron Jackson said in a statement. In subsequent emails, Jackson made clear: "Investigators don't believe the incident is in any way related to Ferguson" and "The incident is not being investigated as a hate crime."
The St. Louis Police Department is now working in conjunction with the city prosecutor to determine a motive. Authorities told FoxNews.com there is no evidence at this time suggesting the murder was racially motivated.
But a string of previous crimes involving poor minorities and Bosnians in a tough area on the southwest side of the city has many in the Bosnian community questioning whether Begic's death was racially motivated.
"Bosnians right now have an impression that this was a hate crime," said Bosnian Chamber of Commerce president Sadik Kukic, who met Monday with the city's mayor and police chief to discuss the murder.
"We don't know if it's a hate crime," Kukic cautioned, though he claims there have been several racially-charged crimes against his community, including last year’s murder of a Bosnian convenience store clerk.

Related Image

One of the suspects, 17-year-old Robert Mitchell, has been charged with first-degree murder.

According to a criminal complaint released Tuesday, Begic and his fiancee were walking to their car when they heard a group, including at least of the defendants, yelling. As Begic drove away, one of the teenagers, "jumped on the back of his car and began hitting it," the complaint said. Unsure of what was happening, Begic stepped out of his vehicle and was approached by the individuals, one of whom "taunted" him and "challenged him to a fight," according to the document. Begic was then allegedly assaulted by four men and struck with a hammer and fell to the ground. Three others continue to beat him before the group fled on foot, police said. 
Robert Joseph Mitchell, 17, has been charged as an adult with first-degree murder and armed criminal action in early morning attack. Two others, ages 15 and 16, are in custody, and a fourth suspect remains at large, according to police.
Kukic said hundreds of protesters rallied the past two nights in the Little Bosnia neighborhood in response to Begic's killing, with many chanting "Bosnian lives matter" -- an echo of the "Black lives matter" chant heard in Ferguson after 18-year-old Michael Brown was shot and killed by a police officer.
Zemir Begic was a teenager when he and his family fled Bosnia in the aftermath of a bloody civil war. In America, he found work, friends and love before meeting a cruel fate, his family said. 
"We were all born in Bosnia and we came here in 1996," Rasim Begic said of Zemir and two other siblings. "We came to America thinking it was going to be a better life. Our family and friends were being killed over there."
"He loved every race," Rasim Begic said of his older brother, a karate instructor who will be buried in Waterloo, Iowa, where some of his family lives. "He had friends all over the world."
"He loved kids. He loved music," Begic said. "Our family will never be the same."

National debt exceeds $18T, sparking renewed criticism of spending under Obama

The national debt has passed the $18 trillion mark, sparking renewed criticism Tuesday from Republicans and other fiscal conservatives over the soaring trajectory of government spending under President Obama.
“This is a sad milestone for America,” Reince Priebus, chairman of the Republican National Committee, said Tuesday.
The debt was at $10.6 trillion when Obama took office in 2009 but has increased by 70 percent during his roughly six years in office.
“The national debt has skyrocketed by over $7.3 trillion,” Priebus said. “President Obama once said it was ‘unpatriotic’ and ‘irresponsible’ to add $4 trillion to the debt. By his own reasoning then, (he) has reached a new level of irresponsibility.”
The federal debt, which topped $18 trillion last week, is the sum of two numbers.
The first is $12.92 trillion in public debt, which consists of all the outstanding Treasury bills, notes and bonds held by individuals, corporations, foreign governments and others.
The second is the $5.08 trillion in so-called “intra-governmental” holdings, special securities held by U.S. government trust funds and special funds – or basically IOUs from the federal government for money that it “borrowed” from Social Security and Medicare.
The new figure, reached late Friday, likely drew little attention because the federal deficit -- how much the U.S. government spends annually in excess of revenue -- has dropped under Obama, from roughly $1.4 trillion to $483 billion. 
But fiscal conservatives argue the climbing national debt is still a big problem. Kevin Broughton, spokesman for the Tea Party Patriots, calculates the debt when divided equally among the U.S. population means “every man, woman and child” in the country owes $56, 250. 
He and Priebus used the new number to renew calls for cuts in government spending to protect future generations and to garner support for a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution.
“Our children and grandchildren deserve better,” Priebus said.
Said Broughton: “American families live within their means. It's time for the American government to follow suit."

House moves to extend tax breaks to end of year

Millions of businesses and individuals could be in luck as the House moves to extend a $45 billion package of expired tax breaks through the end of the year.
Businesses and individuals would be able to claim them on their tax returns this year, but there is no certainty they would have the same luck beyond Dec. 31.
Time is short because the House plans to adjourn for the year next week, and the Senate could as well.
"Let's see what they send us," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., "and we'll make a decision then."
The $45 billion would be added to the budget deficit.
The tax breaks would benefit big corporations and small businesses. Commuters, teachers and people who live in a state without state income tax would benefit from the breaks as well. One in six taxpayers would be affected by the extension.
Congress routinely extends the package of tax breaks every year or two. But they were allowed to expire in January.
Technically, the bill is a one-year, retroactive extension of the tax breaks, even though it only lasts through the end of the month.
Advocates and lawmakers from both political parties said the short-term measure is the product of a divided Congress that has trouble passing routine legislation.
"It's just unworthy of the world's greatest economy to have a tax code for two weeks," said former Michigan Gov. John Engler, who is now president of the Business Roundtable, an association of corporate CEOs.
Talks between House Republicans and Senate Democrats to make the tax breaks permanent fell through last week after the White House threatened to veto the emerging package saying it too heavily favored big business.
Among the biggest breaks for businesses are a tax credit for research and development, an exemption that allows financial companies such as banks and investment firms to shield foreign profits from being taxed by the U.S. and several provisions that allow businesses to write off capital investments more quickly.
There is also a generous tax credit for using wind farms and other renewable energy sources to produce electricity.
The biggest tax break for individuals allows people who live in states without an income tax to deduct state and local sales taxes on their federal returns. Another protects struggling homeowners who get their mortgages reduced from paying income taxes on the amount of debt that was forgiven.
NASCAR racetrack owners, film and theater producers, electric motorcycle manufacturers, commuters who use mass transit and teachers who pay out of pocket for classroom supplies will also benefit from the tax breaks.
The package leaves out a tax credit that helps some laid-off workers pay for health insurance and a tax credit for buying an electric motorcycle, which makes some Democrats unhappy.
"The House proposal on a number of important particulars really clobbers working-class families," said Sen. Ron Wyden D-Ore., chairman of the Senate Finance Committee. "For example, the health care tax credit is particularly important to people who may have been laid off.
The credit for electric motorcycles was left out because of "an oversight," said Rep. Dave Camp, R-Mich., chairman of the tax-writing House Ways and Means Committee.