Barack Obama cracks the foundation of American success: Trust

Loading

One of the beauties of a free society, particularly one built on the rule of law, free markets and individual liberty is that people are often free to pursue things that are simply not possible elsewhere. Entrepreneurship in the United States thrives like it does in no other place. From restaurants that let you choose how you want your food cooked to more cable channels than your cable box can handle to the frivolity of branded apparel and Christmas antlers, the United States is a study in the science of the division of labor.

Over the course of our American history, the division of labor has grown ever more important. While 150 years ago most people would have hunted or grown their own food, built their own houses and made their own clothes, today virtually none of us do any of those things. That’s because of the division of labor. We have come to depend on one another to do what we do best. Whether as individuals or as cogs in the wheel of a corporate machine, the division of labor allows us to live far richer lives than we ever could if we had to do everything for ourselves.

A key element of that reliance on the division of labor is trust. I will only purchase food from a vendor if I am confident they are not going to poison me. I will only fly with an airline if I’m confident they are sufficiently attending to safety that the plane will not crash. I will only allow a doctor to operate on me if I trust him not to come to work drunk and kill me.

So too it is with the government of free nations. The United States is one of, if not the most free country in the world when it comes to speech – except for college campuses of course. Citizens have put their trust in the Constitution and the government it created. It is that trust that allows them to go about that making widgets or doing whatever they do. They trust and expect – perhaps foolishly – that their elected officials will at least run the government with objectivity and honesty if not with competency and efficiency. Because the citizens trust the public servants to enforce laws and do so with detachment, the citizens themselves don’t have to enforce them or scrutinize official’s every move.

A complementary element of that trust in government is the First Amendment’s protection of the Freedom of Speech. A trust that you can speak your mind and the government will not penalize you for it. Nowhere else in the world is freedom of speech protected like it is here. Try standing on a street corner in Saudi Arabia and badmouthing the Koran. Try speaking out against the government in Russia or Venezuela. Insult some protected group in Canada or Europe and you’ll likely find yourself in court or shackles.

Free speech, particularly as it relates to opposition of government officials is as American as apple pie. Despite the vile and contemptible things said about him with great regularity and impunity, George Bush was hardly the first president to feel the sting of slings and arrows – John Adams and Thomas Jefferson also withered viscous storms of opposition – but he may end up being one of the last. And America will be much worse off for it. Why? Because Barack Obama has succeeded in destroying the trust the American people have in their government.

President Obama’s use of the IRS to tilt the election playing field in his direction is repugnant to everything Americans hold dear. Americans don’t mind a spirited fight, and even expect minor examples of local irregularities, after all, you can’t expect an election where over 100 million people vote to come off without a hitch.

Barack Obama however has done something that no American can condone. As he was getting ready to have his rear end handed to him in 2010 Congressional elections, he decided to use the police power of the government to ensure that he would be victorious two years later.

Of course he was not so transparent as to send in New Black Panther party stormtroopers to “encourage” voters into pulling the Obama lever. No, instead he clandestinely used what is possibly the single most intimidating organization in the United States, the IRS. To be clear, the IRS is far from an efficient bureaucracy, but there is a difference between a dysfunctional tax code and a tax enforcement agency that is explicitly political. This is the latter: not only did his IRS delay or refuse tax exempt status for 500 tea party and conservative organizations across the country, the agency also targeted conservatives and Romney donors for intense scrutiny and public backlash.

Barack Obama won election by a total of over 6 million votes – 5 million of which came from California and New York alone. The election would have gone the other way however if just three states had changed from blue to red: Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania. Together they cast 19.7 million votes and Barack Obama won the three by a total of 550,000 votes. Not coincidentally, the epicenter of the IRS scandal was Cincinnati Ohio.

To put the magnitude of this malfeasance in perspective, had each of those 500 organizations swayed a mere 500 citizens each in either Florida, Ohio or Pennsylvania, Barack Obama would have lost the election. But they were not able to do so because the IRS violated the public trust by becoming an extension of the Obama campaign. How many other organizations never formed because conservatives could see the writing on the wall and were not willing to jump through hoops just to be stonewalled? How much money was not donated to these organizations and others because donors feared for their livelihoods?

Whether Obama directed this travesty himself, or he merely pointed out the targets for others to harass, he is responsible for the destruction of the American trust. By turning the IRS into the arm of a police state, where one’s associations, donations, speeches and friends are scrutinized in order to stifle dissent and harm your business, he has undermined the single most important element of American society: Trust.

Americans have always looked at the actions of government with a critical and often partisan eye, but for the most part they have bought into the idea that whether it’s the Corps of Engineers, the Department of Education or even the IRS, most of government is run in a largely objective, if often inept, fashion. By using the IRS to intimidate opponents and guarantee himself a second term, Barack Obama has opened a fissure in the American body politic. One wonders how big it will grow and whether the republic can survive. If citizens begin to see the IRS as a thought police, they will begin hiding income and cheating on their taxes, rationalizing that they will be unfairly targeted regardless. And it won’t be limited to the IRS. If citizens begin to believe that the Justice Department is but the enforcement arm of whoever is in power they may begin to react differently when targeted. If citizens believe that the EPA or the Department of Energy have become political vehicles for the reward of friends or the restraint of enemies of the regime in power, they are likely to begin to disregard their rules or edicts.

At the end of the day a free society depends on the willing trust and voluntary participation of the citizens. Barack Obama has broken that trust in a big way. The question is, can the fissure be repaired so that citizens remain willing to openly engage in political debate rather than scheme under the cover of darkness with designs on upending a system they feel is no longer fair? The country survived a relative vaudvillesque version of this scandal forty years ago that ended up in a president’s resignation. Before that FDR, JFK and LBJ were experts at using the agency to pressure opponents, but their misdeeds rarely saw the light of day thanks to a servile press happy to carry their water. Barack Obama isn’t so lucky however and thanks to the Internet and a conservative press his crimes are difficult to deny, even for the blindest of followers. Whether he serves out his term or not, Barack Obama should be seen as the pernicious narcissist he is who sacrificed the public trust for his own self-aggrandizement. For anyone who has been paying attention, none of this is a surprise.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
74 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Speaking of taking advantage of common gripes, you have to know that Obama is steadily being neutered as a lame duck when even progressive radio host, Amy Goodman from Democracy Now!, starts offering up major criticism of the admin in the very liberal The Oregonian Portland newspaper. Goodman is, of course, railing in general about the DOJ’s investigation of reporters. But hang… when you’ve got both sides of the aisle on your side, overtly complaining about nanny, intrusive big government, you’re a fool not to join forces and do something constructive.

MISTER O’REIlLLY
I think I know why SHURMAN from the IRS, was so many times at the WHITE HOUSE,
he was taking the PEOPLE”S money to OBAMA each time so nobody can suspect where the money went,
another thing reveal today, there is many millions missing from the next OLYMPIC
which already cost billions,
some one is picking in there too,.

PEOPLE DON”T EVER GO TO MEXICO< THEY ARE CRIMINAL AND TAKE HOSTAGE AMERICANS TO GET THE MONEY,
they are a bunch of criminals and nobody does anything about it.
boycott MEXICO

@MataHarley: Mata,

Again, I suggest that it’s hypocritical for a group that wants to have fiscal sanity, stop the teat sucking, and reform the tax code, to be incensed they were held up in getting their own suckle. Why does this irony go over the heads of so many?

They are not asking for the government’s milk, but rather want to be able to go out and collect their own milk without their potential cows having to choose between them and some other sanctioned organization where they can write off their contributions.

A 501(c)(4) is designation for an organization that is operated “exclusively for the promotion of social welfare.” While you might be able to fit political activity into social welfare (the status most of these organizations use), current tax code does not allow for donor tax deductions to 501(c)(4) organizations. So that’s a dead argument.

Please correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe companies can indeed write off their donations to 501(c)(4) organizations. The negative side of which can be seen with the Koch brothers

Get serious… this wasn’t “full body cavity searches”. It was asking questions of an organization, counter to Citizens United law, about donors and delaying a status where they could get federal tax credit perks.

Hmm… sounds kind of like a full body cavity search to me… And for some it felt like it was not just the IRS doing the probing…

Don’t forget Joseph Heller’s quote: “Just because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean they aren’t after you”

I’m not blaming Mitt Romney’s loss on Barack Obama. Romney ran a terrible campaign and squandered the opportunity. The election should never have been close… but it was, and it was his fault. Given that close race however, Barack Obama’s actions did indeed keep the other guy from crossing the finish line first.

I don’t want to see the tax code reformed, I want it eliminated. Short of that, a reform is better than nothing, but that is unlikely to happen until conservatives get their heads out of their butts and figure out that they need to either need to begin making a strong argument for conservatism or they need to stop whining about the other guys. If they can’t do that, we’re doomed to the slow strangulation of the ever growing tax code and eventually it will be too late to do anything at all…

vince
what would you have done if you where MITT ROMNEY,
at least tell us your actions, what where is mistakes?
I suspect you would have contest the RESULT as I did,
ask for a recount, to be fair you should state it,
you know that you cannot swim in the MUD THE OBAMA WAS DOING,
MITT ROMNEY WAS TO CLEAN to do it. and he was not running for the MAFIA BOSS LEADERSHIP,
HE WAS RUNNING FOR THE PRESIDENCY
WHICH IS THE MOST CLASSY POSITION A PERSON MUST DESERVE on all facets, otherwise we have the NOW YOU SEE.

@MataHarley:

However their free speech was not curtailed. They asked for the scrutiny, and when you do that with the IRS – proven time and time again over history – you always risk intimidation. However they did continue to exercise their free speech for the duration of the application’s review. It seems that most are just mad that they didn’t have the extra funds they wouldn’t have been paying the federal governments in taxes.

I disagree. First I don’t believe the scrutiny was applied equally. I will agree that it should be applied in a logical manner. And I realize logical and federal government is an oxymoron. To have one political side receive normal scrutiny while another side has to submit to a cavity search is wrong…….and it is intimidation. Do we know if any groups decided not to form out of fear of individual scrutiny from the IRS? If just one group of people decided against expressing their first amendment rights because of this intimidation, then free speech was trampled on.
The thing is, I’m not saying you shouldn’t fall under scrutiny for filing tax exempt status, (which I don’t consider to be a federal benefit). There should be some investigation, but it should be equal. And if you are being singled out for extra scrutiny because of religious or political beliefs, that is wrong and it is intimidation.
Tax exempt status is not a federal benefit, the money doesn’t belong to the federal government. If it is being raised for non-profit reasons, it should be tax exempt. If a group raises money to bring awareness to the Zombie apocalypse, they have the right to do so. If the idea is to educate instead of profit, that is the whole reasoning behind 501(c)3.
Now if we want to discuss how the laws should be changed, that’s a different story. But right now the law is the law and should be applied equally. The thing I’m most interested in is what is going to change because of this. All Americans should be looking for changes. The federal government has too much power and that power is being abused. That power has been abused for a long time and they just keep getting bolder. No liberal should fear the federal government when a republican controls the White House, and no conservative should fear the federal government when a democrat controls the White House. The federal government should fear We the People. That is the way it is supposed to be.

Aqua
my friend
you should aim for the ELECTORAT,
I like your MINDSET and you are one of the few who express it so well.
best to you.

@Aqua:

Do we know if any groups decided not to form out of fear of individual scrutiny from the IRS? If just one group of people decided against expressing their first amendment rights because of this intimidation, then free speech was trampled on.

It was not only that. It was tying up those groups to the point where what money they did have was being spent on tax lawyers and not events. It was letting those groups know that they were under the microscope, including not just their officers, but their donors, as well, and that is why so many of the chairmen of various TEA Parties had their individual tax returns audited.

“In 2009, the Katy Tea Party applied to the IRS for tax-exempt status. By early 2010, the group supplied basic information requested about its activities that qualified it for tax-exempt status. But the IRS repeatedly demanded more information and records without ever deciding anything.

The Cincinnati, Ohio office of the IRS wrote the Katy Tea Party in September 2010, demanding, under penalty of perjury, voluminous items such as all Facebook, Twitter, and Meetup materials; resumes of all the volunteer Board members; descriptions of any rallies; materials promoting candidate forums; meeting agendas; and copies of any distributed materials presented.

Over a year passed. Darcy said that, in response to the group’s repeated telephone inquiries, the IRS simply said it was “under review.”

The IRS finally replied in January 2012. This time, the El Monte, California office of the IRS sent an expanded three-page list demanding detailed descriptions – still under penalty of perjury – of the Katy Tea Party’s activities since the October 2010 letter; the details of any events the group had conducted – or would conduct – in 2012 or 2013, including names of participants and volunteers, expenses, and any video or audio recordings; copies of all communications, advertisements, and distributed materials; and volunteers “shared” with other groups; how the group obtained information on current legislation; and details about how the Katy Tea Party website operated, including who selects information for the site, online advertisements, and even “the turn‑around time to post” on the website.

After this last request, the IRS told the Katy Tea Party in February 2012 that its application had been assigned to yet another agent, who had “about two pages of additional questions.” The IRS agent then admitted that the IRS had not approved any tea party applications in the prior two years, and they were all on hold while the IRS “figured out what to do” with them.
The Katy Tea Party then abandoned its application and re-filed its tax returns, only to have the IRS assess fines for late-filing its new returns.”

This is just one story. Now anyone who wants to claim that asking for the resumes of volunteers is not intimidation against individuals who participated in a Tea Party, they are flat out wrong. That was the purpose. Make people too afraid to participate, or donate, under the threat of the full force of the IRS (that suppresses their free speech by making them fearful to participate). You can bet that if any liberal groups were scrutinized to that point, they would be shouting it from the roof tops to protect their Chosen One (Obama administration). But as Greg pointed out, only ONE liberal group was denied.

@MataHarley:

You misunderstand me, Mata.

Ultimately, I support real tax reform (not the pseudo-tax reform being talked about that will invariably lead to tens of thousands of more pages of rules and regulations we must follow).

However, if we must follow the current tax code as written, then I adamantly support the equal and fair application of the law to all groups, conservative, liberal/progressive, or otherwise, and to all people, regardless of status or political connections. And that is my point to you.

And as for losing “free speech”, I only point that out precisely because of the money moving around during elections. Consider that while liberal/progressive groups were allowed their tax-exempt status with little to no scrutiny, and most receiving it in 9 months or less, it allowed them to use more of the donations to their organizations for exactly what the conservative groups were being harassed about(and didn’t get the benefit of the extra money available).

One type of group received benefits that allowed them more access to “free speech”, simply because of their political bent or ideology.

But, if you were to look at those conservative groups in a vacuum, by themselves, then I’d agree with you that they did not have their “free speech” infringed upon.

It’s all about equality, Mata. Not the ‘equality of results’ that the liberal/progressives favor, but rather, the ‘equality of opportunity’ that our founders discussed.

retire05
this is awfull to treat people like that and unacceptable for sure
it’s like HITLER have his SS troops hunting for THE JEWS ending up taking them in a train and smoke them
until they are dead,
how else can we take that kind of hunt games,
oh there is one LIBERAL organization refuse, oh my,
of course they needed one to be a scapegoat cover for their criminals actions.
bye

@MataHarley: Yeah, he’s really ”neutered.”
More like he’s doubling down:

*The Obama Justice Department warns against using social media to spread information considered inflammatory against Muslims, threatening that it could constitute a violation of civil rights.
“This is an educational effort with civil rights laws as they play into freedom of religion and exercising freedom of religion,” federal prosecutor, Bill Killian says in the local news story. “This is also to inform the public what federal laws are in effect and what the consequences are.”

*Ernest Moniz, the nation’s new Energy Secretary, said climate change is “not debatable” in one of his first speeches on the job.
Under his leadership, DOE is developing new efficiency standards for appliances.
He said, “[Obama] has already stated his very, very strong commitment to clean energy, a low carbon economy, and addressing the risks of climate change.

*Obama’s ”drone” policy change lasted….what?….less than a week?

*Obama’s DOJ head, Eric Holder went ”off the record,” to allow a few leaks:
One was that, when he wants to look at media members’ emails, he will and he will judge shop until he gets the permission.

*Our federal debt continues to climb. We have gone from being the world’s greatest creditor nation to the world’s greatest debtor. Yet Obama keeps shutting off gas and oil extraction from federal land while our private land is the only thing saving us from skyrocketing energy prices….well, that and the fact that business/commerce is so far down that vehicles are not traveling as they used to.

*Obama never sleeps or rests but he thinks about the middle class and the unemployment problem constantly.
But all he DOES is keep our recovery at such a snail’s pace that it is almost no recovery at all.
Throwing good money after bad in backing flimsy solar and wind energy ”solutions” vs allowing coal and oil to quickly bring our economy back.

*Obama still hasn’t given up on grabbing our guns.
He has let some states take the lead, like CA where 8 new laws take effect soon.
$50 and a permit to buy ammo there.
And only in face-to-face encounters, no other way.

157 times at the WHITE HOUSE is weird, and they want to know why,
I thought he was bringing a back pack full of the IRS MONEY
everytime so to not alert the other on where the tax money end up,
and I though of another one if the first one doesn’t work,
how about MR SHUMAN had on his previous younger days been a MASSEUR,
and so good at it that he knew OBAMA for having given him a few in CHICAGO,
and OBAMA wanted him at hand close enough to be called anytime he had a craving for it,
so he kept him on the IRS job where he was appointed by BUSH PRESIDENT before,
so he has been there at the WHITE HOUSE giving MASSAGES to OBAMA 157 times
secretly top secretly,
I was trying to figure out why they kept a REPUBLICAN
among all the OBAMIST of the IRS,
this could be the answer.

@Aqua: I disagree. First I don’t believe the scrutiny was applied equally. I will agree that it should be applied in a logical manner.

I agree, and have said so multiple times. Not sure why people want to gloss that over. I’m not defending the IRS. Even the lefist media and most of the Dem elected ones aren’t defending the IRS.

My point is, and has always been, that I don’t agree with giving political organizations tax havens. Nor do I respect those organizations who lobby for tax reform, while simultaneously engaging in what they say they oppose. The Tea Party Patriots even now lobby for tax reform, usng this scandal as an example as to why. Can’t disagree with that argument, but it’s sure funny that they want the reform, but still apply for benefits they oppose.

Aqua: Tax exempt status is not a federal benefit, the money doesn’t belong to the federal government.

…snip…

Now if we want to discuss how the laws should be changed, that’s a different story.

To the last sentence first… that’s exactly what I am, and have been discussing, here Aqua. I might add that that is also what the TPs also have as a large part of their platform and appeal. So it’s kinda ironic that the TPs say, paraphrased, “we need to change the tax code, in the meantime, give me my benefits!”

It might be a prudent business maneuver, but doesn’t say much for conviction of principles. Not much different than Ron Paul, moaning about pork, then happy to take and spend the pork. Sure it’s there, so “why not?”. But it’s really ironic when one of your main platforms is to rail against what you’re seeking to benefit from.

Your first sentence – INRE money not belonging to the feds – goes into the more lofty, and unrelated, argument of the morality of taxes in general, Aqua. Unfortunately, debating whether the government has the right to federal taxation is pretty much settled with the 16th Amendment – but within specific jurisdictions, of course.

However you can not characterize the tax exempt status as anything *but* a federal benefit as it allows an entity not to pay taxes they would normally owe.

@johngalt: However, if we must follow the current tax code as written, then I adamantly support the equal and fair application of the law to all groups, conservative, liberal/progressive, or otherwise, and to all people, regardless of status or political connections. And that is my point to you.

I’ll say the same thing to you that I said to Aqua above… I agree that it should be applied equally, and I’m not supporting the IRS here. I have said so multiple times. You’re preaching to the choir on that subject.

My questions to you were not related to the IRS’s unequal application of regulations. It was for you to reconcile how you can be opposed to such tax loopholes, just like the TPs, but be quite content they are attempting to get benefits they believe shouldn’t be available.

Then there’s the larger argument, that I find more important. I don’t like “buying” of elections… doesn’t matter the political affiliation. I was appalled at Romney’s purchase of the primaries, and that should be the largest lesson about how big money in elections is a lose-lose for voters.

johngalt: And as for losing “free speech”, I only point that out precisely because of the money moving around during elections. Consider that while liberal/progressive groups were allowed their tax-exempt status with little to no scrutiny, and most receiving it in 9 months or less, it allowed them to use more of the donations to their organizations for exactly what the conservative groups were being harassed about(and didn’t get the benefit of the extra money available).

Does anyone know how much money these various TPs paid in federal taxes, after their write offs? Might be interesting to get a hold of a list of some that were targeted, along with their federal tax returns, after applying sundry write offs, to see just how much money we’re talking about. I dare say the amount of money being discussed as detrimental wouldn’t go very far in the media/ad world.

Most definitely any federal taxes paid were not enough to support Vince’s assertions that it would have made a vast difference in 2012. As I’ve pointed out, their lack of non profit status in 2010 made no difference in their influence on midterms. So now Vince says that success was the tide of anger and enthusiasm in 2010 that wasn’t there in 2012. Was that because the TP paid taxes and couldn’t spend as much to fire up the base? Not likely. What is more likely is that Romney used the same “big money” to buy the candidacy, and most of us didn’t like him.

However, on the State level, GOP governors and local offices did very well in 2012. So apparently the TP influence wasn’t all that diminished.

As for the vague parallel universe arguments about how many people supposedly *didn’t* donate because they couldn’t write it off as a tax deduction… don’t even know how to go there. Speculative arguments and lip service with no possibility of factual confirmation. I don’t like parallel universe arguments. Usually they are coming from liberals. Odd to hear them from conservatives.

Which brings me to Vince:

@vince: Please correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe companies can indeed write off their donations to 501(c)(4) organizations. The negative side of which can be seen with the Koch brothers

Yes, Vince. Had you followed my link to the IRS site I gave you in comment #48 about 503c4s not being deductible, you would have seen the business exceptions. The key words are:

They may be deductible as trade or business expenses, if ordinary and necessary in the conduct of the taxpayer’s business.

The IRS has further clarification on what is further limited for business or trade deductions via another link there.

Nondeductible Lobbying and Political Expenditures

Nondeductible lobbying and political expenditures are described in Code section 162(e), and include expenditures paid or incurred in connection with:

Influencing legislation;

Participating or intervening in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office;

Attempting to influence the general public with respect to elections, legislative matters, or referendums; and

Any direct communication with a covered executive branch official in an attempt to influence the person’s official actions or positions.

I think if anyone wants to be honest, all political organizations – both sides and *including* the TPs – are doing most if not all of the above… which would result in all donations being non deductible. But it depends upon how the 501c4 wants to define their activity, and what they can prove they do… or do not do… to the IRS. It’s just a hide-the-pea-shell-game businesses play.

I think we can safely assume that the majority of TP donors – in sheer numbers if not donation dollar value – aren’t in a trade or business that finds political donations are an “ordinary and necessary” part of their operations. That’s why you bring up the Koch Brothers. And for every conservative Koch Brothers, there is a liberal version of them, doing the same. They just funnel the money thru a middle man organization that fits the “ordinary” course of business definition in order to “launder” the donations, so to speak.

This all brings me right back to my original points. And apparently I have to restate since some of you are mixing it all together.

Point one: When you apply for a federal tax benefit, you invite IRS scrutiny. The IRS is despicable for not applying equal scrutiny and treatment for all (but that shouldn’t come as any surprise…). That is something both the left and right agree upon. Never had any love for the IRS. Never will. Comprehensive tax reform is the only thing that will reign in that giant. That should be the foremost discussion here.

Point two: I find the entire practice of frivolous loopholes in the tax laws, giving benefits to businesses that shouldn’t get them – especially since it’s used to buy elections with big money – beyond offensive. On that level, I’m really having a hard time sympathizing with the TPs and other groups who were denied their opportunity to feed at the federal tax benefit trough along with their liberal counterparts. However the liberal counterparts love these tax loopholes while the TPs are supposedly against them. So at least the liberal non profits aren’t violating their base principles.

@vince: They are not asking for the government’s milk, but rather want to be able to go out and collect their own milk without their potential cows having to choose between them and some other sanctioned organization where they can write off their contributions.

Vince, the TPs and these political organizations are just another business.. and are in the business of politics, influence and political reform.

They “collect their own milk” from donors. They enjoy low employee overhead since most are volunteers. And like any business, they are subject to taxation laws. If they want to avoid that taxation, like other businesses, they have to go thru the application for non profit status. This means their activities must come under IRS scrutiny.

Where the IRS went wrong is using political ideology for scrutiny, and running afoul of laws that protect certain disclosures of information. No one… not Dems, not the right, not me… gives them a pass on that.

We’ve already been thru the “write off tax deductions” bit. There isn’t much chance that the Tea Party activities could be perceived as a 503(c)(3)/charity. In fact, the IRS has a list of the 175 advocacy groups that were approved for non profit status thru May 2013. Thirty-four of them are Tea Party local organizations. All are a c4 classification.

Therefore the majority of individual grassroots donors are not likely to fit the deductible category. The bigger money types – like the Koch Bros – just use the same non profit system to filter the money thru another organization and get the tax deductions. Surely you aren’t suggesting that the Koch Brothers didn’t find a way to funnel money to the TPs, and still get their tax deductions, are you?

Back in 2001, Mark Levin’s Landmark Legal Foundation – which *is* a 501(c)(3) non profit (so donate away, and write it off…) – started what they call the 501C Project. This was to keep an eye on non profits – mostly liberal of course – that are evading taxes they should be paying because of their lobbying and political election activities. This 503c non profit stuff can be quite lucrative financially for those at the top tier. And that status is often abused with sidling.

@MataHarley: Good points. I stand by the suggestion that the IRS tilted the playing field in such a way that in its absence Romney very may have very well stumbled into the White House. Regardless, my guess is we agree on the single most important element of all of this: The tax code and the IRS have to go. I’d suggest the FairTax but I’d take a flat tax or Herman Cain’s 9-9-9 in place of the dysfunctional, coercive, corrupt system we have today…

@vince, yes we do agree on stripping the IRS of it’s power. We might, as most do, disagree on how to accomplish that, but that’s a worthy debate for the nation and Congress to take up as a serious endeavor. The status quo is unacceptable. But I wager a guess that neither of the two major parties genuinely wants to abandon the status quo.

INRE the “tilting of the playing field”. I know that you desperately want to tie Romney’s loss to this IRS scandal, but that’s simply not going to fly. Not only was there more money in both campaigns than they could possibly spend, but Romney actually outspent Obama overall.

There is is the primary spending to consider, but this graph from the NYTs finance section drills down the spending to months for more detail. Also, as Luke Rosiak pointed out in the Washington Times, because of this huge influx of money – making this the most expensive Presidential (as well as other offices) campaigns in history – they ran into different problems…. no air time left to buy in the battleground states. Voters were already being deluged with negative ads… and in fact that can backfire as people start tuning out and forming late decisions based on which candidate has annoyed them the most with ads in the run up to the election. Rosiak’s article was also cited on Townhall. As of October 26, 2012, Romney’s ad spending far outpaced Obama’s.

I think, with this being the negative fallout of McCain’s grand experiment for campaign reform, we can safely assume that no future politician from the two major parties will be accepting matching taxpayer funds ever again. They can do so much better with this money/shell game of private big dollar funds.

All of this basically shoots down your theory that any additional TP cash would have swung the election into Romney’s favor. His election failure is not because of lack of money… no matter what the source. Fundraising or having ample money at his disposal was never one of Romney’s flaws. All the money and ads in the world won’t help sell what too many perceive is a defective product.

Another point, the Dems have harnessed the power of cheap grassroots advertising, social media and volunteers… something the GOP has yet to effectively learn and implement. The Dems could spend less on advertising, utilize this grassroots/social media structure, and get more bang for the buck.

What we should take away is how the Superpacs and political organizations are seizing influence and power via sheer dollars, making the highest office in the nation – as well as Congressional seats – a job for sale to which group has the smartest spending of their influential dollars. And as I said above, that translates to a lose-lose for the citizens. And I sure don’t want to give them the added benefit of tax breaks.

Funny MOST of us knew Obama and his picks were lying and crooked trash right off.. how many never made it past simply being NAMED, before improper “TAX Filings” and other issues bumped them from consideration?? Yet…it took Libs about 5 YEARS.. for SOME of them to wake up?? Talk about SLOW in the brain!!

Hankster58
that’s why I always said the CONSERVATIVES ARE SO FAR AHEAD OF THE DEMOCRATS
in INTELLIGENCE and IN PERCEPTION OF THE CONSEQUENCES COMING AS SOON AS OBAMA DOES SOMETHING, he doesn’t think of after, he could not care of after,
that is a trait of those who have years of drug consumption,
it seems that they think for what pop in their mind and apply
and it’s dangerous if they have that POWER,
as we saw, so many times,
BENGHASI, no help coming he had given his total trust in the LIBYAN LEADER WHO DID NOT WANT TO SEE AMERICAN SECURITY, hell he said he would give the security,
they where a bunch of cowards running in front of the ALQAEDA,
this is just one of it,
look at ASSAN terrorist alkabord decide to get into action and kill 13 military and wounded more,
the terrorist was trying to teach the religion to the military sick of PTSD who we learn of one of them coming here and complain of his strange talk,
he said I know I have PTSD but HE talk so strange I can’t understand him, a psychiatrist and army guy,
ASSAD was a PSYCHIATRIST in the HOSPITAL, can you believe the MEDICATION he was giving them?
plus indoctrinate the TROOPS sick and powerless because of his profession ‘s clout.
very impressive for a sick soldier to think his psychiatrist is there to help him,
and one come here and excuse him on the fact of his own PTSD, it broke my heart, he was my first comment
telling him to alert the head of HOSPITAL.
HEY BOSS THAT PSYCHIATRIST IS TRYING
TO INDOCTRINATE US,
the BOSS WOULD SAY: okay take your pills , it will do you good,
that’s what got in my mind at the time.
who always win? the patient or the HEAD DOCTOR?
I”LL never forget that terrorist ,
and he get money ,his pay on payday,
and the young military ask for THE PURPLE MEDAL,
what about giving them that medal they deserve one hundred per cent,
BY THE WAY PENTAGONE move it on the MEDALS, don’t be lazy,
yes he think of one thing and apply it for revenge. what ever the consequences,

More breaching of trust by this administration, that should make all active duty and veteran’s blood boil:

Walter Reed hospital workers receive furlough notices

ABC7 has confirmed the region’s two military hospitals are furloughing more than 3,500 civilian employees who care for the nation’s wounded warriors, nearly their entire civilian staffs.
The impacted employees are from departments across the board at both hospitals, including members of the trauma team, physical therapists and nurses. They will be forced to take 11 unpaid furlough days starting in July.

Hospital officials say the furloughs affect 2,392 caregivers at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center in Bethesda. That’s 94% of the civilian staff there.

Officials say 1,163 caregivers at Fort Belvoir’s hospital in Virginia are being furloughed, affecting 85% of its civilian staff.

Officials promise patient care will not be compromised….

…Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel has said furloughs will save the department $1.8 billion.

Really? Really?! How about this:

The drawdown diet: Marines steamed by loss of hot meal at Afghanistan base

Marines at Camp Leatherneck in Afghanistan will lose a key daily meal starting Saturday, causing some to forgo a hot breakfast and others to work six-plus hours without refueling on cooked food, according to Marines at the base and Marine Corps officials.

The midnight ration service — known there as “midrats” — supplies breakfast to Marines on midnight-to-noon shifts and dinner to Marines who are ending noon-to-midnight work periods. It’s described as one of the few times the Marines at Leatherneck can be together in one place.

Was the cost of these hot meals so much compared to the elaborate dinners Obama serves to his elitist pals and celebrities?

this is abusive to the MAX on both sides,
those who spend their time at A WAR still killing them
and some shot in the back other being torn to pieces being deny the hot meal
how cheap OBAMA is and he has the nerve to give millions to the MUSLIMS
who allow those enemies to kill AMERICANS here and on the WAR STAGE,
and those needing help to recovery after giving their most in the war and come to a USA depleted of soul
at the top job,who has the nerve to cut their services , and even not giving their money due to them
for years, did he spend that money too for his friend MUSLIMS in EGYPT by hundreds of millions,
DID HE TAKE IT FROM THE MILITARY? it should be investigated, so many SWINGDELING OF MONEY HE USE for the friends.
no PRESIDENT WOULD DO SUCH A THING, but there are no PRESIDENT IN AMERICA,
the seat has been hijack by a bunch of BULLYS out to destroy the best in AMERICA,

@MataHarley:

To the last sentence first… that’s exactly what I am, and have been discussing, here Aqua. I might add that that is also what the TPs also have as a large part of their platform and appeal. So it’s kinda ironic that the TPs say, paraphrased, “we need to change the tax code, in the meantime, give me my benefits!”

I’m looking forward to that posting. In the meantime, we have to live under the laws that exist. I don’t think there should be a mortgage deduction. I think my taxes should be low enough and flat enough that there are no deductions. In the meantime, I’m taking that deduction and every other deduction legally allowed by the law. I am not going to pay one dime more than I have to. The TPs should and do have the same attitude. Why should they not be tax exempt when liberal groups are. Are the liberal groups going to look at a TP example and rethink their morality? No! They are going to laugh themselves to every election victory they can.

MATA said : “So it’s kinda ironic that the TPs say, paraphrased, “we need to change the tax code, in the meantime, give me my benefits!”

So you consider us two faced, for wanting the SAME POLITICAL ADVANTAGES.. the DEMOCRATS have used against us for so long?? My my….

one more thing about ERIC HOLDER, resignation,
if so, he is not as important as FOX NEWS,
he won’t be miss by nobody except OBAMA,
but WE surely cannot do without FOX, they expose the gimmicks
for all to see.