Posted on 06/04/2013 11:28:11 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
If you’re going to step in the ring with your government, you should expect to get punched in the face. And by “step in the ring,” I of course mean “avail yourself of the same perfectly legal tax strategies that are routinely permitted to liberal nonprofits.” I confess, while I expected some stupid and predictable Democratic scandal spin this week, I didn’t expect to watch a congressman indirectly defend government discrimination on grounds that the victims could have avoided it by simply not asserting their statutory rights in the first place. And yet here we are.
That’s not the only problem with this, per Joel Pollak:
If the IRS scandal lacked a bully figure, it has one now. McDermott repeated the same attacks on 501(c)4 organizations that other Democrats have recycled in their talking points since the scandal began. But he made the mistake of attacking the witnesses–and misrepresenting the testimony of at least one in particular. All of them, he said, were before Congress because they had been seeking tax subsidies; but as Dr. John Eastman of the National Organization for Marriage–already a tax-exempt organization–had just testified, his specific complaint was about the apparently criminal leak of their donors’ names to a liberal organization…
The basic–and deliberate–fault in McDermott’s attack is the idea that being denied tax-exempt status does not mean being denied freedom of speech and assembly. It certainly does in a context in which applications for tax-exempt status were followed by intrusive questions about speech (and prayer!), and also, in some cases, further investigation of donors and organizers by the IRS and other federal agencies, creating a chilling effect. And, of course, if the government is seen to favor some groups and not others, that effectively discourages certain kinds of speech and assembly. The issue at stake remains constitutional liberty, not tax exemption.
McDermott’s garbage can’t even be salvaged by turnng it into a feeble “hypocrisy” argument. Tea partiers support lower taxes; go figure that they’d find tax exemption attractive for their nonprofit groups. If you’re going to make a point as dumb as this one about certain groups declining to seek the 501(c)(4) status to which they’re otherwise entitled, ask progressive nonprofits who support higher federal revenue in virtually all other instances why they’re not leading by example here.
By the way, if you missed it at Politico, Issa’s investigation of the IRS is creeping higher up the ladder:
Investigators from the House Ways and Means Committee are now eyeing Joseph Grant — a top IRS official who officially retired on Monday — and his role, if any, in efforts to target conservative nonprofits. House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Darrell Issa has claimed that the IRS agents’ actions “were directly being ordered from Washington.”
Grant could prove a key steppingstone in the GOP drive to link the IRS controversy to officials inside the Obama administration. Based in D.C., Grant was the head of the Tax Exempt and Government Entities Division until he announced his decision to leave the IRS last month…
“He is definitely someone we’ve been interested in,” a Ways and Means Committee staffer involved in the IRS probe said of Grant, speaking on condition of anonymity. “Our investigation has been looking at all of the players and Joseph Grant was in charge of the exempt organization division, above [Director of Exempt Organizations Lois] Lerner. Clearly, his knowledge or however he was involved, whether it was telling people to cut it out … that is something we’re looking at … He is definitely involved in the same way Miller and Lerner are involved, but we don’t have a good grasp on the role.”
Grant, you may recall, announced he was “retiring” a few weeks ago. Supposedly he learned about the targeting of conservative groups last April and, like everyone else involved in this fiasco, forgot to mention it publicly until last month. Two clips for you here, one of McDermott and the other via the Washington Free Beacon of Paul Ryan laying into him for his nonsense.
Tsk tsk, tsk...Jim...The government should be above such behavior. You too, Jim, should understand that lashing out because people don’t agree with you is an unacceptable response.
Perhaps you need some more diversity training?
‘You brought this scrutiny ... “
McDermott probably agrees with the Bombay critters (thread above), concerned that scantily clad mannequins incite rape.
Yeah, what goes around ... they’re doing parodies of themselves now.
This is the problem with gubbamint, they've forgotten they are elected SERVANTS of the people, not royalty.
It's time to shake it up baby....shake it up.
Inherent to a leftist’s belief system is the assumption that people who disagree with you shouldn’t be allowed to exist, much less voice their disagreement.
Oh, gee, now blame the victim.
“If you hadn’t been so sexy, you wouldn’t have been raped!”
McDermott’s constituents are mainly Seattleites, my home town. Shows you what that city has become. Oh - and it has more dogs than kids.
You mean the Seattleites?
Sorry, that was Paul Ryan
Maverick of the Republican House.
Someone should ask McDermott if he believes that women who are raped are asking for it simply because they are women.
Because he represents part of King County/Seattle who is even farther to the left than him!
Dumb ass Stephanie miller tried the same tactic saying it was illegal for them that’s why the tea party was investigated. couldn’t be that the left is just a bunch of facists that got caught.
https://www.facebook.com/CongressmanJimMcDermott
I can see an argument that the IRS should investigate groups to see that they deserve the exemption. In that case, one should look at the investigation as the cost of gaining the exemption, or as the possible cost, since not every group is investigated.
However, when the IRS selectively applies the exemption, and does so inefficiently by slow-rolling the application in addition to asking for more information than they could possibly process, they are become a non-judicial jury applying what amounts to a fine at their whim.
I heard that Obama's brother obtained a tax-exempt charitable status from Nairobi. Today, I heard on the radio that the application was processed in a month, signed by Lois Lerner, and even back-dated THREE YEARS by her.
Oh, and another thing. When an agency slow-rolls an application, or gives it an administrative going-over by asking for massive,invasive, and confusing information, the person or group getting this treatment has no recourse until a lot of time has passed and many in a similar position compare notes and publicly complain. By that time, the damage has been done, and there is no compensation available.
We have created in our political body, and especially in our regulatory groups, a nearly untouchable nomenklatura. For all of the above reasons, this sort of behavior should be heavily penalized. SEIU or other union membership should not protect agents who engage in this behavior from being personally prosecuted and fired. Any political appointee who orders or encouraged this type of treatment should be similarly liable for civil and criminal penalties.
McDermott's district is Seattle. He could start wearing a little moustache, nazi uniform and shout zeig-heil; but, they would still vote for him because the letter after his name is a 'D'. I'm not sure if Republicans (are there any?) even put up a candidate any more in Seattle. It would be a waste of time and money.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.