Archive for the ‘elections’ Category

A Review of the IRS Phony Scandal

AReviewOfTheIRSPhonyScandal  <– PDF version

We have all heard the reports about how the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) selectively targeted social welfare organizations by delaying their applications for 501(c)(4) tax-exempt status over the course of two federal election cycles (2010 and 2012).  Singling out certain groups was important to the current administration, since the 21 Jan 2010 Citizens United ruling by the Supreme Court prohibited limitations on political spending by nonprofit groups.  After that ruling, a great many “Tea Party” and other pro-freedom groups applied for tax-exempt status, to enable them to raise funds and use part of those to inform the public about issues of importance in the upcoming elections.

The method of identifying which groups were to be delayed or denied was based on their names (“Tea Party”, 9/12″), or their views on the Bill or Rights or Constitution, or their views on the federal budget and spending in general.  The ever-efficient IRS even created a spreadsheet called “Be On the Look Out for” (BOLO) as a way to establish targeting keywords that would trigger “closer scrutiny”.  None of the 501 applications were denied outright during the period from March 2010 to April of 2012.  Instead, the IRS non-profit review offices delayed approval of applications in several creative ways:

a.  By demanding information that could not exist (“What books are your members reading”);

b.  By asking whether any of their members intended to run for elective office;

c.  By demanding a list of donors, the amounts donated, and how the donations were spent;

d.  By demanding copies of all web pages, blog posts, and brochures ever used by the organization;

e.  By demanding copies of all emails sent or received by organization members.

The IRS Tax Exempt review division also illegally leaked donor lists of some organizations to their opponents, audited those who had donated to the “Tea Party” groups, and in some cases, urged other government entities (FBI, ATF, OSHA) to illegally investigate or harass the applicants.  Finally complaints about the abuse of power at the IRS became so distracting that the Treasury Department Inspector General was forced to look into it.  He released a report [1] detailing the basics of the IRS activities, along with a list of nine recommendations.  In summary, he concluded:

The IRS used inappropriate criteria that identified for review Tea Party and other organizations applying for tax-exempt status based upon their names or policy positions instead of indications of potential political campaign intervention.  Ineffective management: 1) allowed inappropriate criteria to be developed and stay in place for more than 18 months, 2) resulted in substantial delays in processing certain applications, and 3) allowed unnecessary information request to be issued.

President Richard “I am not a crook” Nixon was nearly impeached for merely asking the IRS to attack his opponents.  President Bill “Perjurer in Chief” Clinton successfully used the IRS to harass his opponents. It appears that the current administration has done the same thing, and when caught, has responded to this series of events by denial, obfuscation, and changing the subject, same as usual. Numerous IRS officials delayed informing Congress of what they knew as the internal investigation proceeded.  One of them, Deputy Commissioner for Enforcement and Services Steven T. Miller, falsely stated on 15 May 2012 that the abuses were the work of two rogue agents in Cincinnati; but as it turned out, was being orchestrated from Washington the whole time, probably by Lois G. Lerner, Director of IRS Tax Exempt and Government Entities Division.  We will probably never know who Lois Lerner was taking orders from, whether it was the President, his staff, the Department of Justice, the Treasury Department, or the upper echelon of the Democratic party. In August of 2012, Congress issued a subpoena for all emails to and from Lois G. Lerner for the period 1 Jan 2009 to 2 Aug 2013.  After 18 months, on 13 Jun 2014, the IRS finally admitted that it would not comply with the subpoena because Lerner’s computer hard drive crashed on 13 Jun 2011, and the emails prior to that date are irretrievably lost.  Three days later, the IRS admitted that it also no longer had subpoenaed emails from six other IRS employees in Lerner’s division because their hard drives also crashed.  Meanwhile, Attorney General Eric Holder has refused to open an investigation into the abuse of power.

We the People have a right to evaluate the conduct of our government agencies.  To do so, we need only review the statements made by the principals involved.  On 14 May 2013, President Barack “I lied, period” Obama called the reports of IRS abuse “intolerable and inexcusable”.  Lois G. Lerner testified under oath before Congress on 22 May 2013:

My professional career has been devoted to fulfilling responsibilities of the agencies for which I have worked, and I am very proud of the work I have done in government.  I have not done anything wrong. I have not broken any laws, I have not violated any IRS rules or regulations, and I have not provided false information to this or any other congressional committee.

On 24 Jul 2013, the president said the entire episode was nothing more than a “phony scandal”; on 2 Feb 2014, he told interviewer Bill O’Reilly that there “was not a smidgen of corruption” at the IRS.

There is only one conclusion.  Lois Lerner faithfully fulfilled her responsibilities to implement administration policies, and did therefore nothing wrong.  It is a “phony scandal” because the correct intended policy was actually enacted by the IRS; the corruption is intolerable and inexcusable only because Lois Lerner and her accomplices were dumb enough to get caught.  Fortunately, they were able to get the most damaging evidence destroyed in time (remember, this started in March of 2010).

They’re all Lerner’s now.  We do not need a special prosecutor to establish it.  When IRS Commissioner Douglas H. Shulman-Lerner told Congress on 22 May 2012 that “there is absolutely no targeting”, he was correct because the IRS was not singling out certain disapproved non-Democratic groups, it was harassing and delaying applications from all of them.  When current IRS Commissioner John Koskinen-Lerner said on 26 Jun 2014 that a special prosecutor would be “a monumental waste of taxpayer money”; he is correct because it will not be able to find anything.  All the other Lerner’s, their supporters, and the usual Democratic minions in the media will run out the clock until Obama pardons them on his last day in office.

Another successful operation.

[1]        Michael E. McKenney, Acting Deputy Inspector General for Audit, U. S. Treasury Department, “Inappropriate Criteria Were Used to Identify Tax-Exempt Applications for Review”, Reference Number 2013-10-053, 14 May 2013

Tags: , , ,
Posted in elections, government powers | No Comments »

The Central Lie of the 2014 Elections

CentralLieOf2014Elections   <– PDF version

Happy New Year, 2014.  This marks the beginning of the 2014 Congressional election cycle, ready or not.  At stake is control of the House (currently controlled by the Republicans) and the Senate (currently controlled by the Democrats).  Since the Democrats have more vulnerable Senate seats in play, and require only a small number of victories to take control of the House, it is important for the Democrats to capitalize on their successes to expand their power base.  Unfortunately, they do not have any successes.  Therefore, it will be important to turn their most important fiasco, namely, the roll-out and implementation of Obama “I Lied, Period” Care into a net positive.  To do so, the Democratic Party Central Lie must be repeated early and often (the same way dead people vote in Chicago).  The Democratic Party Central Lie this election year may be:

“Because of the interference of the evil Republicans, the Messiah/President has found it necessary in the public interest to make adjustments in the Affordable Care Act, which has resulted in its having been effectively repealed.  Therefore it is necessary to elect Democrats to large majorities in both the House and Senate so that the principle of free health care for all can be re-established without the undermining activity of the evil Republicans.”

It is possible that the talking-point narrative from the Democratic Party hacks, reinforced through constant repetition by the adoring sycophants at ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, PBS, and The New York Times, may be something like “More Democrats must be elected because….

a.  The initial difficulties with the health care exchange website were due to PATRIOT ACT restrictions imposed by the Republicans, which prevented the rollout from going as smoothly as planned.”

b.  The exemptions given to certain Democratic political groups were necessary in order to prevent the Republicans from taxing health care benefits of families whose main breadwinner are Union members.”

c.  The delay in the employer mandate was necessary because the Republican-driven government shutdown and sequestration prevented the economy from growing fast enough to allow employers to expand their businesses and provide free health care.”

d.  Over 350 million Americans have been provided with free health care already under the Affordable Care Act, but more needs to be done for minorities to counter the racist faction of the Republican Party.”

The Republicans are not politically clever enough to formulate a Central Lie of their own (and no one would broadcast it anyway).  It is better that way.  If the Republicans did attempt a Central Lie, they would inadvertently tell the truth about something and shock the entire political system.


Tags: ,
Posted in Congress, elections | No Comments »

The Politics of the “Fiscal Cliff”

ThePoliticsOfTheFiscalCliff  <– PDF version

So the elections are finally over and our illustrious federal officials now turn their attention to the so-called “fiscal cliff”.  At issue here is whether the Bush-era tax cuts will expire, along with the Social Security withholding reduction enacted in 2010 as a temporary stimulus measure.  The “fiscal cliff” came about per an interim agreement reached last year, as a result of the debt-ceiling escalation in Aug 2011 and the subsequent failure of Congress to come to a consensus on a fiscal policy.  The idea behind the interim agreement was simple: impose across-the-board spending cuts of $1 trillion over ten years and let the Bush-era tax cuts expire on 1 Jan 2013 unless a long-term fiscal policy is enacted.  The $1 trillion in spending cuts, spread over ten years, result in $100 billion in cuts every year, split approximately equally between defense and non-defense.  This was regarded by its designers as so abhorrent that it would provide sufficient motivation for Congress and the President to actually make a deal.  But the negotiations since the election have not been going too well; and of course both sides are busy blaming each other.

I will review the situation, and show how the Republicans, contrary to conventional wisdom, actually hold all the cards here.  First, a few undisputed facts:

1.  The President campaigned successfully on two notions: that tax rates must go up for the wealthy, and must come down for the middle class.  He has said the marginal rates on the wealthy should go back to the 1990’s; in other words, from 35% now to 39.4% as they were in theClintonera.

2.  If the “fiscal cliff” occurs, tax rates will go up for both the wealthy and the middle class.

3.  The long-term fiscal problem of the nation cannot be solved by spending cuts alone, nor by tax increases alone; a combination of the two is necessary (i.e., a comprehensive package).

4.  The history of past “comprehensive” reforms, as enacted under Reagan and Bush, Sr., shows that the Democrats always insist on tax increases immediately, with a promise of spending cuts in the distant future.  Of course, politicians being who they are, those cuts never happen.  It is safe to say that no Democrat in Congress will ever vote for any bill that actually cuts spending in the near term unless he is forced to do so.

5.  No Democratic President will sign a bill that results in immediate spending cuts, unless he is forced to do so (like Bill Clinton).

6.  If anything bad happens to the economy, the propaganda wing of the Democratic Party (i.e., CNN, CBS, ABC, NBC, and PBS; plus the major newspapers led by The New York Times) will blame the Republicans; if anything good happens in the economy, they will give Mr. Obama all the credit.

7.  The Democrats and their propaganda wing have long held that the Republicans are the party of the rich (conveniently ignoring the fact that tax provisions favoring the wealthy were passed mostly by Democratically-controlled Congresses over the last 50 years).

8.  The Democrats and their propaganda empire have claimed that the Republicans are holding the middle class hostage to protect the rich.

9.  Mr. Obama has stated that he will only accept a “fiscal cliff” deal if it raises tax rates on the wealthy.  He has claimed the wealthy are those with incomes over $250,000.

10.  The Republicans have thus far admitted that revenue increases are necessary and are willing to do so by removing some loopholes used by the wealthy and limiting some deductions.  They do not want to raise tax rates on the wealthy due to a “tax pledge” made some years ago.

Here are a few observations and applications.  First, consider the cuts in the “fiscal cliff” legislation.  The cuts are across-the-board, without the necessary and prudent prioritization that rational people would do.  However, let’s be realistic: it actually imposes spending cuts immediately, and for that reason alone is probably the best that our ruling elite can do as things stand presently.

Secondly, the wealthy already pay a large portion of income taxes.  So, if revenues are to be increased via the Republican preference (closing loopholes and limiting deductions), or increased by Mr. Obama’s preference (raising marginal rates), the wealthy are going to pay more either way.  In reality, the best thing for the nation is the Republican way, since it will do more to promote fairness in the tax code, and limits the ability of Congress to punish their enemies and reward their friends through the tax code.

Third, if we go over the “fiscal cliff”, taxes will go up for those of us in the middle class.  So taxes will go up — what else is new; and how will it matter all that much?  State and local taxes of all types have been going up all along.  Recall that the Social Security withholding reduction was intended to be temporary anyway (it was also a bad idea).  The increase in taxation via federal marginal rate increases is small compared to the already-occurring increases in the cost of living due to the Federal Reserve’s currency-printing machine.  If either side truly cared about the middle class, perhaps they would take action to restrain Mr. Bernanke.

Fourth, although most Republicans were dumb enough to sign “no-tax” pledges at the urging of Mr. Grover Norquist, the simple fact is that both the expiration of the Bush-era cuts and the repeal of the Social Security withholding reduction are already accomplished facts if a deal is not made.  They cannot be accused of raising taxes if they allow law per a vote already taken in 2011 to occur.  Only a moron would sign such a pledge anyway; since when did Mr. Norquist assume the authority to supersede the needs of the nation and the powers of Congress contained in the Constitution?  If Mr. Norquist wishes to be emperor, perhaps he should run for the office.

Fifth, the “smart money” has known for months that our ruling elites are incapable of anything better than the impending “fiscal cliff”.  As for the future of the stock market, the “smart money” managers have probably already priced-in the effects.

Sixth, if one is going to be accused of something, one may as well do it.

With these facts and observations in mind, it seems to me that the Republicans hold all the cards here, and it is possible to get true reform that actually helps the nation.  Mr. Obama needs to score political points by raising taxes on the wealthy (it won’t solve the fiscal problem, but he needs to score points).  He won re-election, so let him have his political points.  The increases on the wealthy are his most famous political need, but not his most important one.  Many of his supporters are middle-class.  He needs a tax cut for them much more than he needs a tax increase on the wealthy.  The Republicans in the House should immediately pass legislation that raises marginal rates on the wealthy to 50%, with no corresponding demands for spending cuts and no other conditions subject to objection.  This is far above the rates that prevailed in the Clinton era.  In fact, they should pass a series of bills that raise rates on the wealthy to 60, 70, 80, or 90%, and let the Senate Democrats and the President choose the one they want.  This turns the argument around while costing the Republicans nothing: taxes are going up on the wealthy either way.  If the Democrats think those marginal rates are too high, it will be incumbent on the Democrats to negotiate lower rates for the wealthy to protect their friends in the tall buildings in Manhattan.  If the Democrats do not really want higher rates on the wealthy, by all means they shall have their “fiscal cliff”.  If they settle on the new rates for the wealthy, Mr. Obama will have his political points, but leaves the Republicans in control of what he needs more (the middle class tax cut).  Then the Republicans can actually do what they’ve been accused of: hold the middle class tax cuts hostage — not to protect the rich, but to get spending under control and thus stabilize and secure the nation’s long-term financial health.  They should demand immediate spending cuts in return for an immediate reduction in tax rates for the middle class, thus forcing the Democrats to do what is necessary but have never done before.

Tags: , ,
Posted in Congress, Economics, elections, federal budget, national debt | No Comments »

How Obama Got Re-Elected in 2012

HowObamaGotReElectedIn2012   <– PDF version

So it turns out that I was right all along, having predicted back in April of 2011, even before Osama bin Laden was killed, that President Obama would be re-elected.  How could a hayseed nobody like me have gotten this correct 18 months in advance, along with most of the other predictions related to the election?   It’s actually pretty easy.  This essay will review my previous ones on the topic, and along the way I’ll explain my rationale for the assertions previously made.

If you recall, my first essay, from 15 Apr 2011 [1], I simply pointed out the overwhelming Electoral College advantage possessed by the Democratic Party, which is to say, that the Democrats are virtually guaranteed 227 Electoral College votes without having to campaign at all.  These confirmed Democratic votes include all the New England states, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Illinois,Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, California, New Mexico ,Oregon, Washington State, Hawaii, and Washington DC.  If the Democrats run Adolph Hitler, they start off with 227.  If the Democrats run Joseph Stalin, they start off with 227.  If the Democrats nominate Pol Pot or Mao Tse-Tung or Fidel Castro, they get 227 without trying.  Since only 270 are required to win, the Democrats have the luxury of being able to focus their campaign on a few states, whereas the Republicans have to campaign in about 30 states.  I believe there are two simple reasons for this.  The first reason is that these states are populated by people who have come to believe certain things in the face of contrary facts.  First, about 15% believe that government and unions are the source of all freedom and prosperity; about 10% believe the government owes them something; about 15% are susceptible to the idealistic wishful thinking so common among Democratic operatives, and about 10% vote Democratic because they believe the Republicans are inherently racist.  The second reason is that the mainstream media is able, even in its weakened state, to deliver about 5 or 10% for the Democrats, since those organizations are devoted to the ideological cause.  Add those numbers up, and the Democratic Party wins somewhere between 55-45 and 60-40 in each of these states.  Then the race is on to get 43 more Electoral votes; the message can be tailored as required, and the mainstream media, just as powerful in every state, can tip the balance enough in a few of the more diverse states to permit the Democratic candidate to win.  I concluded then that the mainstream media would never allow any adverse circumstances (or facts) deter them from helping to elect the Democrat.  Hence no word on Fast and Furious, Benghazi, unemployment, decline of the middle class, the true inflation rate, or the inability of FEMA to locate Staten Island after the hurricane.  It would have been much different if a Republican had been in office.

These facts mean that the Republicans can win only if either they have a very strong candidate, or the Democrats have a very weak one.  Mr. Obama, the Black Liberation Marxist Messiah, was certainly not a weak candidate, despite the fact that he has broken every promise and promoted a failed economic policy.  Conversely, in my second essay [2], I recounted the weakness of the Republican field, as was evident a year ago.  Of all the Republicans in the field at that time (Mr. Herman Cain, Governor Mitt Romney, Representative Michele Bachmann, Governor Rick Perry, Speaker Newt Gingrich, Senator Rick Santorum, Governor Gary Johnson, Governor Jon Huntsman, and Representative Ron Paul), I would have rated Mr. Romney in the lower third as far as electability.  I stated my basic reason then: that Mr. Romney has changed positions too many times, and although he may embrace some of the traditional values that made America great, he does not articulate them well.  The two that would have made the best presidents, Mr. Johnson and Mr. Paul, were guaranteed to be shut out by the Republican establishment.  Mr. Perry seemed generally confused, Mr. Cain did not understand his own policy, and Mr. Gingrich cannot be trusted because of his embrace of the United Nations.  All would have made better Presidents than Mr. Obama, but that is not saying much.  The two most electable, Mr. Huntsman and Mr. Santorum, could not overcome the money and organization of Mr. Romney.  The Republican field was weak; it left a lot to be desired for traditional conservatives; the eventual nominee did not inspire sufficient confidence to get the non-Marxist voters to the polls.

My third essay came out in late April 2012 [3], in which I laid out my thoughts on how the mainstream media would play their part, given that Mr. Romney had nearly secured the Republican nomination.  I listed what I believed would be the 10 basic thrusts of the Obama campaign and their media associates (eight of which turned out to be correct).  But that list did not come from any secret inside information.  I made the list by referring back to the Chapter 2 of Marx and Engels’ The Communist Manifesto, and simply updated it for modern times and modern issues.  Here is the original text of that chapter — see if it sounds familiar from the campaign just ended:

“Nevertheless, in the most advanced countries the following will be pretty generally applicable:

1.  Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.

2.  A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

3.  Abolition of all right of inheritance.

4.  Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.

5.  Centralization of credit in the hands of the state by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.

6.  Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state.

7.  Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands; and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.

8.  Obligation of all to work.  Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.

9.  Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country by a more equitable distribution of the population over the country.

10.  Free education for all children in public schools.  Abolition of child factory labor in its present form.  Combination of education with industrial production, etc.”

If we translate these to modern times: we have the following general principles followed by the Obama campaign and the media, which I expanded to 10 items in that essay:

a. (Numbers 1 and 2): Higher taxes, especially on businesses and the wealthy; greater regulation for the common good.

b. (Number 4): Demonization of those who have offshore bank accounts, like Mr. Romney

c. (Number 5): Free-enterprise capitalism such as practiced by Mr. Romney is bad.

d. (Number 6):  Only media that supports Mr. Obama are worthy of your attention.

e. (Number 7): Only unions help the working man, and Mr. Romney hates unions.  Secondly, the government must protect the environment from extremists like Republicans in general and Mr. Romney in particular.

f. (Number 10): Private schools are evil.

So it is easy to see the formula.  The members of the mainstream media, whether they see it or not, and will never admit it if they did, generally embrace the Socialist free-lunch theory: if some people give their liberties to the Democratic Party, all the people will receive peace and prosperity.  Republicans are rich, evil, and racist, and their nominee is out of touch with reality.  And so it was for the eight months prior to the election.

My fourth essay [4] was an example of the hypocrisy practiced by the media concerning the budget, Medicare, and Obamacare.  No fact has ever inconvenienced the Democrats or the mainstream media.

In the fifth essay [5] from Sep 2012, I predicted there would be a disparity between the types of questions posed to the candidates in the upcoming debates. I think I was generally correct about that.  Ms. Crowley famously saw fit to aid Mr. Obama outright in one instance regarding the incident inBenghazi, even though she and Mr. Obama were both wrong.

To summarize, there were no real surprises in the 2012 Presidential election.  The Republicans failed to put up quality candidates, and the mainstream media, owned and operated by the Democratic Party, took care of the rest.  It was only necessary, given the inherent Electoral College advantage, to ideologically bludgeon Mr. Romney in five or six critical “swing” states; they were successful in all but one (North Carolina).

[1]  Edward D. Duvall, “How Obama Gets Re-Elected in 2012”, 15 Apr 2011

[2]  Edward D. Duvall, “How Obama Gets Re-Elected in 2012, Part 2”, 4 Nov 2011

[3]  Edward D. Duvall, “How Obama Gets Re-Elected in 2012, Part 3”, 23 Apr 2012

[4]  Edward D. Duvall, “How Obama Gets Re-Elected in 2012, Part 4”, 12 Aug 2012

[5]  Edward D. Duvall, “How Obama Gets Re-Elected in 2012, Part 5”, 29 Sep 2011

Posted in elections | No Comments »