It's Been a Bad, Bad Month for Obama
Republicans aren't stupid. Well, most of the time, at least. Have you noticed how the noise over Benghazi has quieted down? Sure, there are still Republicans repeating the talking points, but they are by and large beginning to realize what I have been saying for weeks - there is no real scandal there and the American people don't particularly care.
On the IRS scandal, which I believe to be real, the President is looking more and more out-of-control. He has claimed that he found out about the scandal from the press accounts, in spite of evidence that higher-ups in the Obama administration knew of the issue last year. The untenable nature of the President's position on this issue is clear to me - my greatest fear is not that he is lying and knew about the issue - my greatest fear is that he is telling the truth and that he is not in control of his administration. Either way, Democrats trying to defend the scandal as not that big a deal should exercise some caution - poo-pooing the use of the IRS to cause problems for political opponents is tantamount to walking away from being the party of civil liberties.
The most chilling issue of all, in my opinion, is the investigation of reporters over leaks of classified information. While I call this an issue and not a scandal, as it does not appear that there were any laws broken and the investigations were all conducted within the bounds of the law as it is understood, applying legal pressure to reporters for doing nothing other than listening to sources and reporting what they say is chilling. Let me be fair - there are definitely times where national security concerns compel the government to go after those who work in government and leak classified information. That is fair game. But investigating reporters and seizing their records and e-mail for doing nothing more than reporting what is leaked to them is essentially criminalizing journalism. There is good reason that all of the press, liberal, conservative and moderate are united against the Obama administration is simple - regardless of your political persuasion, if you are reporter, you don't like to see Freedom of the Press trampled upon.
The common thread between the IRS and AP/Fox News events is a disrespect for constitutional liberties - Freedom of Speech in the first case and Freedom of the Press in the second. President Obama has a horribly weak record on civil liberties - he has extended the Patriot Act, used drone strikes on US Citizens, kept GITMO open (in spite of his half-hearted protestations that Congress has stopped him from closing it, he hasn't even released prisoners that have been cleared) and now used the heavy hand of the government to attempt to intimidate political opponents and journalists.
The man who promised the most open, transparent administration ever and to change the way that Washington did business is a long way from living up to his promises.
On Immigration and Internet Taxes
Millions of people ignore a clearly written law in the United States. Everyone is in alignment that there needs to be reform of the law, but some protest that those who broke the law in the past shouldn't be given a pass or rewarded for their illegal activities.
Am I talking about immigration reform? No, I'm talking about order stuff from amazon.com.
Sales tax laws are clear in every state that has a sales tax (New Hampshire and Delaware residents, you are off the hook) - if you order from amazon.com, you must submit the sales tax that is owed on the out of state purchase to your local state government. You thought internet sales were tax-free? Wrong. The law only states that in states where it doesn't have a physical presence that Amazon itself does not have to collect the tax on behalf of the state government. You still owe it. So if you are among the millions who have ordered from Amazon and not sent in your tax payment, you are a criminal. You broke the law. Should we come and throw you in jail for your crimes?
I explain all of this to debunk the notion of illegal immigrants as criminals. Yes, in the technical sense, that word is true - entering the US illegally is a crime and a criminal, by definition is someone who commits a crime. But that definition applies equally well to Amazon.com customers. In fact, the reasons for breaking immigration laws are typically a lot more noble than the reasons for breaking our tax laws. In the case of immigration, most illegal immigrants are breaking the law to provide food and shelter for their families. in the case of Amazon, most people are breaking the law because they are too lazy or too cheap to pay an extra 5 or 6% on their purchase.
So let's get over this righteous indignation about illegal immigration and work on solving the problem. And the solution has to involve a legal, dignified path for the 11 million already here without their papers. Let's hope that conservative leaders like Marco Rubio, who has seen the light on this issue can convince enough Republicans to join him to make this effort happen - an effort that has the support of not just liberals and Democrats but Republicans like George W. Bush and John McCain.
It is time to bring people out of the shadows.
Showing posts with label Benghazi. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Benghazi. Show all posts
Saturday, June 1, 2013
Sunday, May 12, 2013
Why the IRS Scandal is Real and Benghazi Isn't
It has been a good week for the GOP. Once-disgraced South Carolina ex-Governor Mark Sanford completed an unlikely political comeback, winning a special congressional race against Elizabeth Colbert-Busch (sister of liberal-who-plays-a-conservative-on-tv comedian Stephen Colbert), they got their Benghazi hearings and the IRS admitted to making a mistake in flagging groups that contained the name "Tea Party" for further review of tax status.
Let's deal with these issues one at a time:
(1) The Sanford Win
Democrats certainly thought they had a shot in this race, particularly after Sanford was reported to have violated a restraining order by his ex-wife, and poured money into the campaign. The National Republican Campaign Committee had pulled funding for Sanford, perhaps because they thought he was a losing cause and perhaps because they simply didn't want to be affiliated with him given the potential for future scandal.
That Sanford won isn't totally unexpected, this is a heavily Republican district after all, that elected Tim Scott, now the Tea Party-affiliated Senator from the state (appointed by conservative Governor Nikki Haley to fulfill the term of Jim Demint, who had moved on to The Hertiage Foundation, a conservative think tank. That he won by 9 points is a repudiation of the notion that Democrats can compete in conservative districts.
Sanford was about the worst possible GOP candidate, laden with scandals past and present. He ran a horrible campaign, debating cardboard cutouts of Nancy Pelosi, rather than presenting a real message for why he was being elected.
But in the end, it didn't matter - the district basically broke the way it was designed to and elected Sanford.
Whether Sanford himself will be an asset or a liability to the GOP remains to be seen. That his election shows the difficulty that Democrats will have picking up House seats in 2014 is unquestionable.
(2) Benghazi
My Republican friends are really upset about Benghazi. They just aren't really clear about why. House hearings this week called into question the extent to which talking points given to the press in the aftermath of the attack on our embassy in Libya had been edited by administration officials. I'm just not sure what the scandal is.
Let's assume that the worst of the (as yet unproven) GOP allegations are true. As near as I can tell, they are essentially that:
a. The embassy in Libya had asked for additional security prior to the attack
b. The Obama Administration had failed to provide the additional security requested
c. The Administration knew that the attack had been a terrorist plot, but knowingly put forward a story that the attack may have been about an internet video
Point a is fairly established fact. The embassy in Libya HAD asked for additional security, as had virtually every other embassy in the Middle East, Africa and even Europe. The Obama administration had requested an increase in the operating budget for embassy security operations, which was summarily denied by the Republican House. So points A and B seem squarely on the GOP's shoulders.
Point C may have some merit. While the national security apparatus certainly didn't provide decisive answers about the source of the attack in the initial aftermath, it certainly seems the administration downplayed the potential role of Al Qaeda in the attack, relative to what was provided by the security community.
My question is - so what? That Presidents frame security in terms favorable to them is hardly new ground in Washington - does anyone remember the run-up to the Iraq War? That the President's advisors framed the issue the way they did did not impact any matter of policy or contain a request of Congress to authorize a particular option.
So at the very worst, we are talking about playing politics around national security issues, a distasteful practice, undoubtedly, but hardly an impeachment-worthy scandal.
(3) The IRS Scandal
Of all the news this week, this is by far the most chilling. After pressure from conservative groups, the IRS admits to flagging tax-exempt applications from groups containing the name "Tea Party" for further review.
First, a bit of context. In order to have tax-exempt status, an organization's primary purpose must be the promotion of social welfare. A limited amount of political advocacy is allowed, but political advocacy cannot be the organization's primary purpose. For example, the Nature Conservancy, a group that primarily uses donor funds to purchase unspoiled wilderness for the purposes of preservation (a promotion of social welfare) but also advocates for better control of global warming (political advocacy) is tax exempt but the Sierra Club, a group that primarily advocates for stronger environmental legislation (political advocacy) does not qualify.
That some of the "Tea Party" groups engage in political advocacy is unquestionable. That some even PRIMARILY engage in advocacy and therefore would be ineligible for tax exempt status is likely. That the reason for their flagging was the use of the words "Tea Party" in their name is chilling.
While the IRS states that this was used as a "shortcut" and not because of "political bias", this is a pretty thin explanation. If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, in this case a duck being a political witch hunt, it is probably a duck.
Not since the Nixon administration has the IRS been weaponized against political opponents. The Obama Administration needs to condemn this action unambiguously and fire the administrators involved. If this is tied back to the higher levels of the Obama Administration, that WOULD be a real scandal, unlike Benghazi.
If you like this site, tell your friends.
Let's deal with these issues one at a time:
(1) The Sanford Win
Democrats certainly thought they had a shot in this race, particularly after Sanford was reported to have violated a restraining order by his ex-wife, and poured money into the campaign. The National Republican Campaign Committee had pulled funding for Sanford, perhaps because they thought he was a losing cause and perhaps because they simply didn't want to be affiliated with him given the potential for future scandal.
That Sanford won isn't totally unexpected, this is a heavily Republican district after all, that elected Tim Scott, now the Tea Party-affiliated Senator from the state (appointed by conservative Governor Nikki Haley to fulfill the term of Jim Demint, who had moved on to The Hertiage Foundation, a conservative think tank. That he won by 9 points is a repudiation of the notion that Democrats can compete in conservative districts.
Sanford was about the worst possible GOP candidate, laden with scandals past and present. He ran a horrible campaign, debating cardboard cutouts of Nancy Pelosi, rather than presenting a real message for why he was being elected.
But in the end, it didn't matter - the district basically broke the way it was designed to and elected Sanford.
Whether Sanford himself will be an asset or a liability to the GOP remains to be seen. That his election shows the difficulty that Democrats will have picking up House seats in 2014 is unquestionable.
(2) Benghazi
My Republican friends are really upset about Benghazi. They just aren't really clear about why. House hearings this week called into question the extent to which talking points given to the press in the aftermath of the attack on our embassy in Libya had been edited by administration officials. I'm just not sure what the scandal is.
Let's assume that the worst of the (as yet unproven) GOP allegations are true. As near as I can tell, they are essentially that:
a. The embassy in Libya had asked for additional security prior to the attack
b. The Obama Administration had failed to provide the additional security requested
c. The Administration knew that the attack had been a terrorist plot, but knowingly put forward a story that the attack may have been about an internet video
Point a is fairly established fact. The embassy in Libya HAD asked for additional security, as had virtually every other embassy in the Middle East, Africa and even Europe. The Obama administration had requested an increase in the operating budget for embassy security operations, which was summarily denied by the Republican House. So points A and B seem squarely on the GOP's shoulders.
Point C may have some merit. While the national security apparatus certainly didn't provide decisive answers about the source of the attack in the initial aftermath, it certainly seems the administration downplayed the potential role of Al Qaeda in the attack, relative to what was provided by the security community.
My question is - so what? That Presidents frame security in terms favorable to them is hardly new ground in Washington - does anyone remember the run-up to the Iraq War? That the President's advisors framed the issue the way they did did not impact any matter of policy or contain a request of Congress to authorize a particular option.
So at the very worst, we are talking about playing politics around national security issues, a distasteful practice, undoubtedly, but hardly an impeachment-worthy scandal.
(3) The IRS Scandal
Of all the news this week, this is by far the most chilling. After pressure from conservative groups, the IRS admits to flagging tax-exempt applications from groups containing the name "Tea Party" for further review.
First, a bit of context. In order to have tax-exempt status, an organization's primary purpose must be the promotion of social welfare. A limited amount of political advocacy is allowed, but political advocacy cannot be the organization's primary purpose. For example, the Nature Conservancy, a group that primarily uses donor funds to purchase unspoiled wilderness for the purposes of preservation (a promotion of social welfare) but also advocates for better control of global warming (political advocacy) is tax exempt but the Sierra Club, a group that primarily advocates for stronger environmental legislation (political advocacy) does not qualify.
That some of the "Tea Party" groups engage in political advocacy is unquestionable. That some even PRIMARILY engage in advocacy and therefore would be ineligible for tax exempt status is likely. That the reason for their flagging was the use of the words "Tea Party" in their name is chilling.
While the IRS states that this was used as a "shortcut" and not because of "political bias", this is a pretty thin explanation. If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, in this case a duck being a political witch hunt, it is probably a duck.
Not since the Nixon administration has the IRS been weaponized against political opponents. The Obama Administration needs to condemn this action unambiguously and fire the administrators involved. If this is tied back to the higher levels of the Obama Administration, that WOULD be a real scandal, unlike Benghazi.
If you like this site, tell your friends.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
