Waht Washington Has Forgotten

[Jccarlton]

Americans are not serfs and not vassals begging for mercy:
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2013/06 ... ent-video/
What this lady is saying is a warning. I hope those in Washington start heeding it, before it's too late.

[necoras]

But she wasn't begging for mercy. She was asking not to pay taxes. Nobody tried to stop her (or her group) from gathering or talking. Nobody tried to put them in jail for what they were saying. Nobody threatened any of them in any way. They were investigated to see whether or not their request was a valid one.

I'm not saying that the targeted questions were warranted. Or, more accurately, it's not acceptable that the questions were targeted at only conservative groups. Rather, all political groups seeking tax exempt status should be similarly questioned.

501C4 groups are specifically not supposed to be spending the majority of their resources on political campaigns. Naming yourself after a political movement begs (or should beg) for in depth scrutiny. The IRS acted improperly, but only because their net was too narrow, not too wide.

[kcdodd]

So basically, necoras, you're saying the problem with the IRS is really that government isn't quite big and abusive enough yet. I can see how that is completely logical and well thought out. (not)

[necoras]

No, I'm saying that it's the job of the IRS to apply tax law equitably. The problem with this fiasco is that they didn't do this.

If you don't like the tax law, change the laws. Don't get upset when it's applied in a biased manner and someone calls out for it to be applied in an equal one.

[hanelyp]

Part of the problem is that the tax code is WAY TOO COMPLEX, leaving the enforcers way too much discretion. The entire mess needs to be thrown out in favor of a simple flat rate tax code.

At the same time, the scope of the politically targeted misdeeds in the IRS speaks of institutional corruption, not just a few bad apples. Some of those people need to face jail time for what they did.

The same applies to other parts of the legal code as well. Law complex enough that the common man can't be sure if something is legal is a sure road to tyranny. As it is, the regulators often aren't sure and have to make it up as they go along.

[necoras]

Part of the problem is that the tax code is WAY TOO COMPLEX

Well, I don't think anyone will argue with you there. Personally I'd go with flat a consumption tax (where basic staple goods aren't subject to any tax) over a flat income tax, but that's a different discussion.

As for jail time, ideally there will be a thorough investigation, and anyone found to have acted illegally would face said jail time. Realistically I doubt that will happen. Some people will lose their jobs and everyone will move on with their lives.

As it is, the regulators often aren't sure and have to make it up as they go along.

And that's at the crux of this particular issue. They made up their own rules because there was no other guidance, but they did so in a biased manner.

[kcdodd]

Saying that the law was not applied uniformly is missing the point. The point is that the government was/is being used as a political weapon to intimidate opponents and dig up dirt on them. Why exactly do you think Nixon had to resign in disgrace? Noone seems to even care anymore. Simply saying that everyone should be treated that way is, well, I don't even know. You may as well just stick out your hands for a shackle.

[necoras]

used as a political weapon to intimidate opponents

You're right, but I would argue that it was the unequal application of the law that turned these actions into weapons against an opponent. If the law is applied equally, then they're just doing what Congress has instructed them to do. That's their job.

If you don't like what Congress is instructing, then speak out against that. Vote the bastards out. That's perfectly fair, and it's at the heart of a Democracy. That's where the debate should be. But complaining because the law was only applied to one side of an issue is just as corrupt as doing the intimidation itself. You're basically saying "the law shouldn't apply to me just because of my political affiliation."

Either the law applies to everyone equally, or those doing the enforcement are corrupt. It's even worse when there are laws on the book that aren't applied at all. Then law has no meaning, and we live in a lawless state.

[kcdodd]

Who and what law is someone asking to not apply to them?

[necoras]

The law says that 501(c)(4) groups are to be used to promote social welfare, not political campaigns. Many of the groups which were targeted for in depth questioning about their expenses and intents named themselves "something something TeaParty." They were obviously political in nature. That in and of itself is not enough to preclude tax exempt status, but it does warrant further scrutiny.

To then come back and claim that you were being persecuted for your beliefs because there was further scrutiny is asking that the law, which requires that groups with significant (> 49%) political expenditures pay taxes, is asking that the law not apply to your group. In order for the law to apply any group which is obviously political in nature needs to be investigated. This includes finding out how much money they take in, how much money they spend, on what, when, etc. You can argue that the fact that it took 2 years in some cases for the IRS to come back with an answer is excessive, but you could also argue that it just means they don't have enough people to handle the workload.

As I've stated before, the problem is that most left leaning groups which were obviously political in nature don't seem to have undergone the same in depth scrutiny that the right leaning groups did.

[hanelyp]

From the perspective of the Tea Party, restoring limits on government is a public welfare issue.

[Stubby]

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/05/1 ... ng-Scandal

[TDPerk]

The law says that 501(c)(4) groups are to be used to promote social welfare, not political campaigns.

And the fact is none of them were supporting political campaigns-not anymore than similar unobstructed lefty groups were, and no more than similar groups in past history were.

The disparate treatment, the failure to provide equal protection of the laws--this is the whole of the crime, and it is a crime by the administration. Crime by policy.

"As I've stated before, the problem is that most left leaning groups which were obviously political in nature don't seem to have undergone the same in depth scrutiny that the right leaning groups did."

And none should have. There is no "for tax purposes" exception to the First amendment. It's why this policy was a crime.

[kcdodd]

The law says that 501(c)(4) groups are to be used to promote social welfare, not political campaigns. Many of the groups which were targeted for in depth questioning about their expenses and intents named themselves "something something TeaParty." They were obviously political in nature. That in and of itself is not enough to preclude tax exempt status, but it does warrant further scrutiny.

To then come back and claim that you were being persecuted for your beliefs because there was further scrutiny is asking that the law, which requires that groups with significant (> 49%) political expenditures pay taxes, is asking that the law not apply to your group. In order for the law to apply any group which is obviously political in nature needs to be investigated. This includes finding out how much money they take in, how much money they spend, on what, when, etc. You can argue that the fact that it took 2 years in some cases for the IRS to come back with an answer is excessive, but you could also argue that it just means they don't have enough people to handle the workload.

As I've stated before, the problem is that most left leaning groups which were obviously political in nature don't seem to have undergone the same in depth scrutiny that the right leaning groups did.

I find this rather specious. Knowing whether someone is paying >49% to political campaigns does not have anything to do with any question other than "list expenses on political campaigns". That number would have been on their first application, would it not, since that is one of THE criteria? So, the only reason the IRS would need further inquiry would be if they just thought they were essentially lying, right? So, in reality, if they were profiling "Tea Party" groups, it has to be because they thought "Tea Party" obviously meant they were lying, not that they were obviously political. However, it seems to me that the >49% criterion could not have even been what interested the IRS, except as a cover now after the fact. They seemed to ask every question EXCEPT questions related to that. Why do you need to know donors, if the only pertinent question is about your expenses? This is just grade-A spin-doctoring my friend.

[Jccarlton]

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/05/1 ... ng-Scandal

I would be wary of using Daily Kos simply because the people there have a bad habit of mindlessly regurgitating the latest adminstration talking points.:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fac ... _blog.html
Also I find it amazing that a an abuse against free speech is being used to attempt to create a restriction against free speech. I have to wonder what the administration that promised us that they would be the most transparent adinistration in history is afraid of.