Skip to main content

IRS actions compared to Watergate

These days, some want to dismiss charges of government abuse as conservative cynicism, but 40 years ago, Dems and some Republicans made similar charges stick because there was criminal behavior called, Watergate.  Although we don't yet know where the IRS activity in question began and who knew about it before the election, a comparison to Watergate was inevitable.

In the early 1970s, the abuse targeted high level political enemies of President Nixon.  This time, it's hundreds of ordinary citizens who were targeted by the IRS.  Those individuals flagged by the service; just happened to disagree with the direction of our country.

Some Pols are trying to tamp down the significance of what could become a sad chapter in American politics.  Notably, George Will made this observation in the Washington Post (May 13, "In IRS Scandal, Echoes of Watergate"),
"Jay Carney, ... calls the IRS’s behavior “inappropriate.” No, using the salad fork for the entree is inappropriate. Using the Internal Revenue Service for political purposes is a criminal offense."
We also witnessed the former IRS Commissioner, Steven Miller, characterize the agency actions by using the word "mistakes."  Borrowing Mr. Will's style, I'd say, no, a mistake is purchasing too much mulch.  Using the power of the IRS to suppress political dissent is a criminal offense.  People go to prison for less.

Ms. Lois Lerner, IRS director of tax-exempt organizations, took the Fifth before testifying but not before she claimed that she had done nothing wrong.  Even some Democrats like Senator Claire McCaskill (D-Missouri) are upset.  Ms. McCaskill said,
 
"We should not only fire the head of the IRS, which has occurred, but we’ve got to go down the line and find every single person who had anything to do with this and make sure that they are removed from the IRS and the word goes out that this is unacceptable." 
 
We also need to learn who at the highest level of government knew about this effort and when they knew it -- just as Howard Baker demanded to know in 1974 at the Watergate hearings.

Popular posts from this blog

Blessed with friends on the other side

Wikipedia image This post contains excerpts from an April 10 e-mail response to a dear friend of mine (edited for emphasis and anonymity).  “Dear Mortimer, I’ll say hello to the guys for you and I’ll be thinking about you this evening. As for politics, yes, we tend to gravitate toward sources that share our views.  However, I also read the New York Times Op-ed pages and watch MSNBC (as hard as those tasks are for me).  I suppose you watch Fox on occasion and I know you read the WSJ – so good for both of us.  We try.  The state-sponsored education you cite that we both benefited from, came largely from our parents' sweat equity – translated into tax dollars – that funded the University of Wisconsin system. True, my friend.  But, I'm not arguing for zero taxation, or zero government involvement in our lives.  When Progressives argue in favor of entitlement programs, they'll sometimes cite Social Security (under-...

Economics 101 for the rest of us

W arren Buffet and Carl Icahn are famous investors but fewer people may know Ray Dalio.  Mr. Dalio founded an investment firm 40 years ago called Bridgewater Associates.  With $160 billion under management, Bridgewater runs one of the largest hedge funds in the world. Bridgewater founder Ray Dalio, Bridgewater website I recently discovered (among 3 million other people) a thirty minute YouTube video that Mr. Dalio produced to explain fundamentals of what he calls  the economic machine .  This video, which he narrates has been translated into several languages and viewed over 3,200,000 times.  The content begins slowly with basic concepts but progresses to explain the primary levers that policy-makers use to manage and stimulate the economy.  You can find it here .   There are numerous lessons cleverly and clearly explained here.  Example: I hadn't appreciated why economists seem obsessed with Wage Growth until I watched this simp...

Because it's not theirs to change

Freepik image This week  there was  controversy  stemming from a publisher's decision to edit versions of children's stories written by the late  Roald Dahl .  The edits, whether inspired by Netflix (who according to Forbes purchased the rights to Dahl's work) or the publisher  Puffin Books , sparked a public outcry and PR nightmare. The publisher curated an alternative version to the original work from Dahl's  Charlie and the Chocolate Factory,  (a story later adapted to make the film,  Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory ), ostensibly to remove insensitive terms. There are several reasons why this ill-conceived, if well-intentioned attempt at inclusiveness --  a term becoming increasingly elastic -- failed miserably.  I'm not discussing the evils of censorship today.  Altering original art work to appeal to others is ill advised for another reason.....it's not theirs to change (and doing so can backfire).   One ...