Obama criticizes Republican "phony scandals," "short-term thinking"

When questions arise about why four American foreign service personnel died at the hands of Libyan terrorists, or why a Border Patrol agent was murdered by Mexican drug cartel thugs possessing US-provided guns, or why the Internal Revenue Service improperly delayed action on some religious and conservative applicants for non-profit status, or any of the numerous other irregularities under this administration, Democrats and the agenda-driven media say, "That's old news. Move on," as if relevance depends upon the calendar, not the substance of the events.

And that is a pretty convenient modus operandi: They avoid coming clean with the American people on legitimate questions of competence for months on end, virtually never hold guilty parties accountable, and then complain that those asking the questions are living in the past and the answers they seek no longer matter. And they do so knowing that millions of people won't care.

All the while President Barack Obama blames every problem in the country on someone or something else, and calls the government's disgraceful handling of the aforementioned boondoggles a bunch of "phony scandals" manufactured by Republicans. It's a great game of Beat the Clock.

But honest Americans realize that their government failed miserably to do its job as dictated by the US Constitution and want to know who screwed up and what penalty they will pay for their gross incompetence and/or illegal behavior. So far, only lip service has been paid to accountability, and some of the most likely culprits have escaped reaping their just reward, while others have been promoted to higher positions.

Several months after Mr. Obama took office the Department of Justice's (DOJ) gun running operation known as Fast and Furious began. Intended to track gun sales to Mexican drug cartels, it backfired and Border Patrol agent Brian Terry was murdered in 2010 by people possessing two of those guns provided by the DOJ. The Obama administration's response was something like: "Ooops! Gawrsh, we didn't expect any o' them guns to be used against us. Sorry 'bout that. Nothing to see here; keep moving."

On September 11, 2012, after multiple requests to beef up security at the American diplomatic sites in Libya had been denied or ignored, terrorists attacked the facilities in Benghazi, resulting in the deaths of Ambassador Chris Stevens, foreign service officer Sean Smith, and former Navy Seals Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty.

Politics demanded that 2 months before a presidential election no screw-ups be under investigation or terrorist activity be fresh in voters' memories, since President Obama had declared the War on Terror over, so the administration concocted a lame excuse that a video that hardly anyone in the entire world had seen, let alone in Libya, caused a spontaneous demonstration at the US consulate. That idiotic story was repeated for weeks by administration spokespersons, including President Obama himself.

Barack Obama, the “news” media, and millions of liberals showed little interest in the inconveniently-timed deaths of these brave Americans.

Unanswered questions persist, but instead of keeping these important events in front of the American people, the media most recently have focused on the shooting of a black high school student by a "white Hispanic" in Florida and the birth of a future monarch in Great Britain. Perhaps if the five murdered government employees looked like Trayvon, Mr. Obama and the media would give a hoot.

Not everyone is as cavalier about these tragic government failures as the administration, Congressional Democrats and the agenda-driven media. A group called Special Operations Veterans, the mission of which is to uncover the truths about the Benghazi terror attack, took its demands to Capitol Hill last week in the form of a 60-foot-long petition, which was unfurled near the steps of the Capitol. It demanded that the government “End the cover-up” of the attack. The petition was signed by more than 1,000 people and called for a special congressional committee to investigate the incident.

Each of us either believes that the deaths of the five government workers are important, or we don't. Apparently, most people don't, or are too-easily satisfied with the partial information provided that doesn’t explain what went wrong.

The Internal Revenue Service targeted scores of conservative religious and political organizations seeking non-profit status with improper questions, and denied action on their applications for up to two years, then tried to blame it on a couple of rogue agents in Cincinnati, Oh. It turns out there were 12 different IRS offices involved. Now the administration tells us that the targeting was actually non-partisan. That's a low threshold; even one liberal organization makes that technically true. But the reality is that 292 were conservative; six were liberal.

Each of us either believes that our government must operate honorably and follow the rules set forth for it in the US Constitution, or we don't. There is a shockingly large faction of Americans that apparently don't, because they are not demanding answers to these questions, or that people responsible for these events be disciplined, or that such dishonorable and un-American activities be stopped and government restored to functioning constitutionally.

Which side are you on: Honorable government or the status quo?

Opportunity knocks: the IRS and the tax code badly in need of repair

Good things sometimes result after bad things happen. The growing revelations of wrongdoing at the Internal Revenue Service dramatically illustrate the agency's devolution into near anarchy, and this ought to lead to an operational revolution. It ought to also lead to something else that needs to be done, and has needed to be done for a long, long time: overhauling the current tax system.

An organization known as CCH has tracked the growth of the tax code from 1913 when it was only 400 pages to 2012 when it was 73,608 pages.

An Associated Press story noted, "At nearly 4 million words, the US tax law is so thick and complicated that businesses and individuals spend more than 6 billion hours a year complying with filing requirements, according to a report Wednesday by an independent government watchdog. That’s the equivalent of 3 million people working full-time, year-round."

“This report confirms that the code is 10 times the size of the Bible with none of the good news,” said Rep. Dave Camp (R-Mich.), chairman of the House and Ways and Means Committee. “Our broken tax code has become a nightmare of loopholes and special interest provisions that create added complexities and costs for hardworking taxpayers and small businesses.”

“If tax compliance were an industry, it would be one of the largest in the United States,” according to Nina E. Olson, the National Taxpayer Advocate. She said that since 2001, Congress has made an average of more than one change a day to tax law, nearly 5,000 in all.

The tax code is a chaotic mess that no one can comprehend. So, replace it with something much simpler that can be easily understood, and doesn't require 100,000 federal bureaucrats, some of whom cannot control the urge to persecute the people they work for.

Without going into great detail, there are two sensible approaches that would vastly improve the tax system. Both have advantages and disadvantages, but both the Flat Tax and the Fair Tax are far superior to the 73,000 page monstrosity we now suffer under. Even substantially lowering tax rates and reducing deductions and loopholes in the current system would improve things.

It has never made any sense to tax people's productivity, particularly when so many are excluded from paying any tax at all. Those who have no skin in the game thus don't mind raising taxes on the people that pay the freight for them.

Taxing what people spend, on the other hand, puts everyone in the game to the extent that they buy stuff subject to taxation, excluding food, medicine, medical care, and perhaps a very few other things from the tax, while protecting charitable contributions, and move ahead with replacing our asinine tax code with something that makes sense, and is immune from malfeasant bureaucrats and politicians. Then, when Congress wants to raise the consumption tax from, say, 10 percent to 12 percent instead of being frugal, nearly everyone will have a reason to care.

The current system enables politicians trying to make political hay to demonize corporations or the wealthy by criticizing the way they pay or don't pay taxes. The most recent example of this manufactured "moral outrage" concerns Apple, Inc., which earns money in the US as well as in foreign countries. Senator Carl Levin (D-Mich.), has leapt to the front of the bandwagon to condemn Apple, which paid nearly $6 billion to the federal treasury in 2012 on money earned in the US, but keeps money earned overseas out of the US due to the high corporate tax rate. But Apple does only what the tax code allows or encourages it to do.

America's corporate tax rate, which at 35 percent is one of the highest in the world, literally drives corporations to keep money overseas that otherwise could be brought here to produce jobs, and be taxed here, if Congress wasn't so greedy. Rather than make an honest effort to fix that problem, Sen. Levin foolishly prefers to label Apple a "tax dodger."

Many Americans agree with him. Those who think corporations are misbehaving by using provisions of the tax code to pay less tax should do a little personal reflection. Anyone who has ever taken a deduction for mortgage interest or other adjustment to earned income is just as guilty of being a tax dodger as Apple.

Managers and employees who lack character and integrity have fatally soiled the IRS. It has violated the most sacred tenet of American government: to honorably serve its citizens. At the very least it must be overhauled and slashed in size and power, but better yet, let's rid ourselves of the need for an agency like the IRS.

A final thought: The Affordable Care Act is a 2,700-page bill hatched in the dark of night by one political party, passed on a partisan vote by elected representatives who had not read the bill, controls 14 percent of the private economy, opens private medical data of every American to government scrutiny, and will be controlled by 16,000 new IRS employees. What could possible go wrong?

The IRS scandal hearing would be hilarious if it wasn't so serious

The House Committee on Oversight and Reform hearings on Internal Revenue Service malfeasance has produced scenes worthy of a Mel Brooks film, or maybe "Hogan's Heroes" (“I know nussing!”) As of Friday morning, the following had transpired.

Lois Lerner appeared before the committee last Wednesday. She is the IRS director of exempt organizations, which is the office that deliberately targeted organizations with "Tea Party," "Patriot" and other identifiers in their names indicating they were conservative organizations. These organizations not only had their applications for 501(c) tax-exempt status delayed for up to three years, but in many cases were asked for information that is clearly outside the legitimate areas of interest of the IRS, and which crossed the line into unconstitutionality and perhaps illegality.

Ms. Lerner told the Committee in an opening statement that Committee members have already accused her of providing false information to Congress. However, she said, “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.”

Having thus stated the case for her innocence, she then invoked Fifth Amendment protections against incriminating herself, and refused to answer any questions.

Translation: "I did nothing wrong, but I won't answer any questions that might show that I did something wrong."

Committee chairman Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) asked her to reconsider, and when she refused he then dismissed her and her attorney from the hearing room. However, Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) objected, pointing out that since Ms. Lerner actually testified by making an opening statement, she should have to stay and answer the lawmakers' questions.

"You don't get to tell your side of the story and then not be subjected to cross-examination," Rep. Gowdy said. "That's not the way it works. She waived her right to Fifth Amendment privilege by issuing an opening statement. She ought to stand here and answer our questions," he said.

Ms. Lerner was ultimately dismissed, but with the caveat that she may be recalled. Better late than never, on Thursday she was suspended from her job. With pay.

This is not the first time the long-time federal employee has been suspected of questionable behavior. When she headed the Enforcement Office at the Federal Election Commission (FEC) from 1986 until 2001, there appeared to be politically motivated harassment of conservative groups not unlike what the IRS  did. In the late 1990s, the FEC launched an investigation of the Christian Coalition that ultimately cost the organization hundreds of thousands of dollars and countless hours of lost work.

However, in addition to failing to prove that the Coalition did anything wrong is the question of whether the FEC even had authority to assert the charges it leveled against the Coalition, which was absolved of any wrongdoing in 1999. Following this suspicious investigation Ms. Lerner was promoted to acting General Counsel at the FEC in 2001.

Next to testify was Douglas Shulman, who was appointed by George W. Bush and headed the IRS during the first Obama term. In 2012 he testified before the Committee, saying, "As you know, we pride ourselves in being a non-political, non-partisan organization." He continued, "There is absolutely no political targeting." We now know that was clearly untrue.

In last week's appearance Mr. Shulman denied that he had discussed targeting conservative groups with anyone at the White House in any of the more than 100 times he visited the White House complex between 2010 and 2011.  “It would not have been appropriate to have a conversation with anyone at the White House about the subject of discriminating against conservative groups,” he said.

When asked if he could recall the nature of any of those visits, Mr. Shulman responded, "The Easter Egg Roll with my kids." Seriously.

In response to questioning from Rep. Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.), Mr. Shulman replied: "I accept the fact that this happened on my watch and I am very sorry that this happened while I was at the IRS. I feel horrible about this for the agency, for the people there, for the great public servants. I am not sure what else I can say." He could have overtly taken responsibility for his agency's malfeasance while he headed it, and apologized to the victims, but he didn't.

Ms. Duckworth, a military veteran, said that she was "deeply disappointed" by his response, explaining that soldiers serving their country know "you can never delegate responsibility and that you are always responsible for the performance, the training, the actions of the men and women under you."

Former President Harry Truman had a sign on his desk that read: "The Buck Stops Here." This is a concept foreign to many in this administration. But it is the law of leadership, whether at the department level, or at the chief executive level: Whatever happens on your watch is your responsibility.

Maybe actually holding people accountable for their mismanagement through firings and prosecution will wake up sleeping bureaucrats like Ms. Lerner and Mr. Shulman, and restore the idea of "service" to public service.

What scandals? There are no scandals here. Please keep moving.

The broiling controversies of the Benghazi scandal, the IRS wrongdoing, and the questionable seizure of Associated Press telephone records by the Department of Justice have forced those on the left and those that don't pay much attention to what goes on in the political realm to recognize that our government indulges in improper and oppressive behavior. And this tumultuous atmosphere has spawned some wild and crazy things.     

Joe Scarborough, host of MSNBC's "Morning Joe" program and vociferous gun control advocate, had an epiphany brought on by the federal government's improper behavior. During a roundtable discussion on the show he said, “My argument [for gun control] is less persuasive today because of these scandals.” He went on to explain that “People say, ‘Hey, if they do this with the IRS, asking people what books you read, then how can I trust them with information about my Second Amendment rights?’” There was general agreement among the show’s other participants.

Another unusual thing was former White House senior advisor David Axelrod’s defense of President Barack Obama. He said that the president can't be held responsible for what underlings do. The reason is that our government is so large that no one person can control what all of the two million Executive Branch employees do.

He's right: government is way too big and far too powerful. David Axelrod is a limited government guy. Who knew?

But the fact that government is too big doesn't relieve the President of the United States, whomever that might be at any given time, of the duty to manage the Executive Branch and keep it within its constitutional limits, and to always respect the citizens it serves. Plainly, Mr. Obama has not done that.

In our highly charged political environment, not everything that the president's loyal opposition calls a scandal is truly a scandal. But conversely, everything that Mr. Obama's sycophantic fans wish was not a scandal isn't a scandal, and their efforts to explain them away often border on silliness. Columnist Reg Henry ably demonstrated that with inadequate attempts to downplay a few of them and make them go away.

Of the Fast and Furious debacle Mr. Henry said it "was a crackpot scheme to trace guns to Mexican drug cartels, but it was a hard sell because, as you know, guns don't kill people."

He is obviously correct about it being a crackpot scheme, although that characterization does not do justice to this colossal idiocy. And his sarcastic comment about guns not killing people unintentionally conveyed the truth.

But he's totally wrong about whether Fast and Furious is a scandal. Not only did the the Justice Department fail to achieve the fundamental goal of this misadventure — to trace the guns they provided to the Mexican cartels — but an American Border Patrol officer was murdered with one of them. That indeed is a scandal.

Next, in trying to wish away the Green Energy fiasco, he states, "The Solyndra scandal involved a big waste of public money, but the real offense seemed to be that the administration was promoting solar power. Oh, the horror."

So-called "public money" is money taxed away from taxpayers ostensibly to be used responsibly and for beneficial purposes, not so that billions can be wasted on the personal whim of the president to prop up a preferred industry, one that is so unstable that it cannot succeed even after being propped up. Mr. Henry is apparently unaware that it is neither within the president's nor the federal government's authority to decide which industries succeed and which do not.

In reference to what he called "Benghazi-gate," he cautions us that "it's far from clear what the president knew and when he knew it." But again he misses the point. What makes Benghazi a scandal is not what Mr. Obama and then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton knew and when they knew it, although that certainly deserves an explanation, it's the fact that his administration and/or her department disgracefully failed to provide requested and needed security upgrades before the attack began. Had they acted properly it just might have prevented all four of the murders that resulted from the attack on the Benghazi consulate. And then, there’s the video smoke screen to explain.

Some believe the Obama administration overtly engineered the effort by the IRS to target conservatives, Tea Party groups and other conservative organizations. But others blame this oppressive behavior on a "culture of suspicion" of conservative organizations created by President Obama's near-continuous public criticism of those individuals and organizations. After all, if the president repeatedly makes public statements saying these people are up to no good, shouldn't good bureaucrats try to please the boss and go after the bad guys?                                  

President Obama told graduates of The Ohio State University earlier this month that “you've grown up hearing voices that incessantly warn of government as nothing more than some separate, sinister entity that's at the root of all our problems. ... They'll warn that tyranny is always lurking just around the corner. You should reject these voices.” But the swirling controversies that demonstrate actual government tyranny render that advice dangerous and unworthy.

Nifong Gets His Comeuppance

In what likely is the most egregious example of prosecutorial malfeasance in recent history, Mike Nifong, the Durham County, NC district attorney who falsely accused and persecuted three Duke University lacrosse players, is finally beginning to get what he deserves. Few cases of bad conduct are worse than a judicial officer deliberately pursuing innocent people, charging them with crimes, and trying them on those charges for no better reason than political ambition. That is what Nifong did.

The lives of these three young men and their families were turned upside down for more than a year, they spent tens of thousands of dollars each trying to fend off the forces of the American judicial system, which was manipulated against them by a miscreant prosecutor seeking reelection. Duke University, which has its own shameful behavior to account for in this incident, also suffered from Nifong’s selfish crusade.

F. Lane Williamson, the chairman of the three-member disciplinary committee considering ethics charges against Nifong, commented, "This matter has been a fiasco. There's no doubt about it," just before it stripped the Nifong of his state law license. Williamson’s comment is classic understatement; it is impossible for me to find words to suitably describe what Nifong did.

Disbarment is an essential penalty for Nifong, but it should be only the first one. He should be made to repay all expenses incurred for defense of the three players and to repay North Carolina for the cost of their trials, even if that means that his every possession is seized and sold off. And if Nifong doesn’t have enough to cover the attorney fees, the State of North Carolina should pay the rest, and force Nifong to work for the State for free until he pays the rest. But not until he sits in a jail cell for a few years to pay his debt to society and to consider his disgusting behavior.

We Americans put our trust in the mechanisms of our government, and the people who perform duties for us through their government service. Breaching that trust, as Nifong did, is an intolerable injustice, an unforgivable failure of government to serve its citizens, and must be resolved with the most strenuous sanctions and penalties. Mike Nifong must become a symbol of what happens to government servants and elected officials when they break their trust with the American people they serve.

Technorati Tags: Justice, Politics, Crime

Democrats Embrace Hypocrisy and Childishness on Foley Issue

Columnist Jonah Goldberg had this to say about the continuing saga of Mark Foley:

It's hard to believe that the Foley/instant message/congressional-page/GOP meltdown story has run for a week. Other than the slaughter in Amish country, is anyone aware of anything else of note in the world that happened the past seven days? Dive deep enough beneath the Foley flotsam and you discover reports that North Korea may be preparing to conduct an underground nuclear test. China and South Korea are at this hour trying to forestall the Hermit Kingdom's nuke test and no doubt could use an expression of support and outrage from the American political establishment. Sorry, they're busy reading Congressman Foley's 1995 email traffic.

Goldberg correctly notes that Democrats focus on the tawdry and irrelevant instead of really important issues. This is representative of three truths about Democrats: First, they have no substantive issues to discuss, so they are pretty much forced to scream and whine about irrelevancies. Second, they act like children on the playground, tattling on their classmates. And third, they are hypocrites. It was the Democrats, after all, who set the standard for how to deal with tawdry sexual misbehavior by Congressmen back in 1983.

Mark Foley had inappropriate communications with underage pages through email, and made unseemly sexually explicit advances to them through instant messages. That’s bad behavior, but tame by comparison to the activities of Congressmen Dan Crane (R-Ill.) and Gerry Studds (D-Mass.), both of whom had actual sexual relations with pages, Crane with a 17-year-old female, and Studds with a 17-year-old male. The way the leadership reacted to these scurrilous activities is illustrative: The two pleaded guilty to House charges and were—are you ready—reprimanded. Reprimanded. Not expelled. Not asked to resign.

Crane apologized for his behavior, but Studds stubbornly refused to apologize, calling it a mere “error in judgment,” and in fact turned his back and ignored the censure being read from the well of the House Chamber. Studds was repeatedly reelected and made chairman of an important House committee, rewarded by the Democrat leadership of the House. By contrast, Foley resigned immediately upon his behavior being made public, reportedly at the urging of the House Republican leadership.

Funny that as serious as we are told by Democrats that Foley’s behavior was, the behavior of Crane and Studds—which no sane person would argue wasn’t far worse than Foley’s—did not produce calls for the resignation of the Speaker of the House at the time, Tip O’Neill. O’Neill was, of course, a Democrat.

So the Democrats can take credit for establishing the way the House deals with Congressmen who are guilty of sexually related misbehavior.

It’s also funny how the Democrats conveniently do not remember their own indiscretions and shortcomings when an opportunity arises to behave like children on a playground, and to distract the attention of the American people from truly important issues toward foolish dalliances.

Technorati Tags: Mark Foley, Politics, Congressional Misbehavior, Liberals, Conservatives, Democrats

Worth A Thousand Words

Thanks to TexasFred.

Technorati Tags: Bill Clinton, Politics, Republicans, Liberals, Conservatives, Democrats