National Journal just published a blog post by its editorial director, Ron Fournier. The gist of the piece focused on the sales job Democrats and Republicans have been conducting with regard to the targeting of conservative political groups by the Internal Revenue Service. Both sides, he charges, have been claiming administration guilt or innocence based on information that is woefully incomplete. Neither side wants to get ultimate answers. Each wants, instead, just enough information to win the public relations battle. If criminal acts were committed, Fournier contends, let a criminal lawyer sort it out. This forms the foundation for his call for a special prosecutor.
"If forced to guess, I would say that the IRS and its White House masters are guilty of gross incompetence, but not corruption. I based that only on my personal knowledge of – and respect for – Obama and his team. But I shouldn't have to guess. More importantly, most Americans don't have a professional relationship with Obama and his team. Many don't respect or trust government. They deserve what Obama promised nearly six weeks ago – accountability. They need a thorough investigation conducted by somebody other than demagogic Republicans and White House allies."
Fournier, often sympathetic to President Obama, appears to have fashioned an even-handed indictment of Washington politicians. Get to the meat of the matter, he says. Get an impartial legal eagle, find the guilty people, fire them and prosecute. Politics need not be involved. If it were only that simple.
The earliest tax exemption rules, dating back to the 19th century, adopted three criteria for imposition: first, an organization can receive tax-exempt status if it is founded for the purposes of charity. Second, no one employed by the organization can profit from the contributions. Third, contributions can be tax-deductible. More recently, section 501 ©(3) of the federal tax code makes an attempt at greater specificity:
"The exempt purposes set forth in section 501(c)(3) are charitable, religious, educational, scientific, literary, testing for public safety, fostering national or international amateur sports competition, and preventing cruelty to children or animals. The term charitable is used in its generally accepted legal sense and includes relief of the poor, the distressed, or the underprivileged; advancement of religion; advancement of education or science; erecting or maintaining public buildings, monuments, or works; lessening the burdens of government; lessening neighborhood tensions; eliminating prejudice and discrimination; defending human and civil rights secured by law; and combating community deterioration and juvenile delinquency."
The fact is that any of us can take our favorite cause and try to pigeonhole it into one of these categories. Our language and vocabulary is simply that malleable. Because of this, government agencies—in this case the IRS—decide what can fit into these finite compartments and what can not. Per the Constitution, the administration operates the agency and the Congress exercises oversight. Sorry, Mr. Fournier, but that makes this issue political. QED.
That, of course, does not remove the legal ramifications of ratcheting up the exemption initiation test for groups representing a certain ideology. In fact, a special prosecutor may be the only recourse, since inertia seems to govern the political branches at this time. Yet, at the very bottom of the abuse, whether alleged or real, is the issue of exemptions. These are created and granted to foster good deeds and good behavior, e.g. hiring veterans, buying air conditioners for poor people, funding scholarships and teaching people to read. Government encourages this by saying, "Y'know that $3 you owe me; I'll settle for a buck sixty-five."
As exemptions become more numerous and available, so too grows the bureaucracy that monitors them. Here is a question to my fellow libertarians and tea-party personnel: are we really helping the cause by seeking exemptions? While lowering the tax burden is almost always a good thing, I wonder if flat- and fair-taxers should be soiling our hands in this muck. Here is another, maybe more explosive, question to my fellow Christians: is our zeal in preserving tax exemption for religious activities perhaps clouding the prophetic witness we are charged with bringing to the world? Are we afraid our God will let us go broke?
Sometimes, the best way to fight injustice is to bear its full weight, at least for a season. Taxes are, indeed, too high; government, too high-handed; and corruption, too pervasive. Still, the time is drawing near when the lovers of liberty must stop raising a fist with one hand while leaving the other open and extended. If we want a simpler, fairer tax system that is devoid of complex exemptions, let it begin with us. Stop applying for exemptions. Who knows? Maybe the IRS will be forced to cut personnel.
"If forced to guess, I would say that the IRS and its White House masters are guilty of gross incompetence, but not corruption. I based that only on my personal knowledge of – and respect for – Obama and his team. But I shouldn't have to guess. More importantly, most Americans don't have a professional relationship with Obama and his team. Many don't respect or trust government. They deserve what Obama promised nearly six weeks ago – accountability. They need a thorough investigation conducted by somebody other than demagogic Republicans and White House allies."
Fournier, often sympathetic to President Obama, appears to have fashioned an even-handed indictment of Washington politicians. Get to the meat of the matter, he says. Get an impartial legal eagle, find the guilty people, fire them and prosecute. Politics need not be involved. If it were only that simple.
The earliest tax exemption rules, dating back to the 19th century, adopted three criteria for imposition: first, an organization can receive tax-exempt status if it is founded for the purposes of charity. Second, no one employed by the organization can profit from the contributions. Third, contributions can be tax-deductible. More recently, section 501 ©(3) of the federal tax code makes an attempt at greater specificity:
"The exempt purposes set forth in section 501(c)(3) are charitable, religious, educational, scientific, literary, testing for public safety, fostering national or international amateur sports competition, and preventing cruelty to children or animals. The term charitable is used in its generally accepted legal sense and includes relief of the poor, the distressed, or the underprivileged; advancement of religion; advancement of education or science; erecting or maintaining public buildings, monuments, or works; lessening the burdens of government; lessening neighborhood tensions; eliminating prejudice and discrimination; defending human and civil rights secured by law; and combating community deterioration and juvenile delinquency."
The fact is that any of us can take our favorite cause and try to pigeonhole it into one of these categories. Our language and vocabulary is simply that malleable. Because of this, government agencies—in this case the IRS—decide what can fit into these finite compartments and what can not. Per the Constitution, the administration operates the agency and the Congress exercises oversight. Sorry, Mr. Fournier, but that makes this issue political. QED.
That, of course, does not remove the legal ramifications of ratcheting up the exemption initiation test for groups representing a certain ideology. In fact, a special prosecutor may be the only recourse, since inertia seems to govern the political branches at this time. Yet, at the very bottom of the abuse, whether alleged or real, is the issue of exemptions. These are created and granted to foster good deeds and good behavior, e.g. hiring veterans, buying air conditioners for poor people, funding scholarships and teaching people to read. Government encourages this by saying, "Y'know that $3 you owe me; I'll settle for a buck sixty-five."
As exemptions become more numerous and available, so too grows the bureaucracy that monitors them. Here is a question to my fellow libertarians and tea-party personnel: are we really helping the cause by seeking exemptions? While lowering the tax burden is almost always a good thing, I wonder if flat- and fair-taxers should be soiling our hands in this muck. Here is another, maybe more explosive, question to my fellow Christians: is our zeal in preserving tax exemption for religious activities perhaps clouding the prophetic witness we are charged with bringing to the world? Are we afraid our God will let us go broke?
Sometimes, the best way to fight injustice is to bear its full weight, at least for a season. Taxes are, indeed, too high; government, too high-handed; and corruption, too pervasive. Still, the time is drawing near when the lovers of liberty must stop raising a fist with one hand while leaving the other open and extended. If we want a simpler, fairer tax system that is devoid of complex exemptions, let it begin with us. Stop applying for exemptions. Who knows? Maybe the IRS will be forced to cut personnel.
SHARE
