Under-funding the IRS, then complaining about its failures

Thanks to Ralph Nader for an article on his blog highlighting this problem for the IRS.   At the same time that Darrell Issa is making life hell for IRS Commissioner John Koskinen -- insulting him  in hearings and allowing committee member Paul Ryan to accuse him of lying, without submitting evidence to back it up --the Republicans in the House are refusing to give the IRS a budget that allows them to properly do their job.

The annual budget for the whole IRS operation has been cut to $11.3 billion.   For such a large agency with such an important job, that is a paltry sum.   They have to process every tax return, both individual and corporate, which is somewhere over 100,000,000 returns.  They also have to conduct time-consuming audits of some of them;  and some of those wind up being taken to court for very expensive trials.  

In addition to those routine costs, you can probably subtract that .3 billion -- at least -- as the amount Issa has cost the IRS in time lost by IRS employees in order to produce all the documents (hundreds of thousands) his committee has demanded.

Not only that, but Commissioner Koskinen has tried to present evidence that, for every $1 its budget is increased, the IRS can recover $6 in taxes that are being evaded, many through questionable loopholes used by corporations and wealthy people with smart tax lawyers.  In other words, increasing the IRS budget would pay for itself 6 times over in unpaid taxes they are able to recover.

Koskinen says:  "I say that and everybody shrugs and goes on about their business.  I have not figured out either philosophically or psychologically why nobody seems to care whether we collect the revenue or not."

Of course, if the IRS does anything that can be twisted into a political football, Issa and his ilk milk it for all it's worth.   Like "Obamacare" and "amnesty for illegal immigrants" and "death panels," Republicans have succeeded in turning "IRS" into a viciously hated term.   The fact is, with its reduced budget, you are less likely to be audited by the IRS than at any time in recent history.

But why do I persist in trying to find the logic where there is none?

Ralph

And now Kentucky . . .

23 t0 0 !!!

That's right.   The string of court decisions favorable to gay rights and marriage equality is now 23 in just over a year -- and NO decisions against.

Kentucky's ban on gay marriage has just been struck down by a federal judge.

This comes just days after the first Appeals Court decision upheld the lower court ruling on the Utah ban, and one day more since a federal judge overturned the Indiana ban.  

I think the momentum has now passed the point where SCOTUS could reasonably say it's not yet time for it to intervene and make a sweeping decision in the appeals that will be coming to it.   Expect a SCOTUS decision by the end of the term June 2015.

Ralph

Some headline reactions to yesterday's SCOTUS decisions

As analysis of yesterday's Supreme Court decision proceeds, we're getting both a sense of alarm and an awareness of how broad these decisions may actually be.   It depends on what further court decisions use these narrow decisions as precedent -- either to extend the sweep or to keep it narrow.

But, for now, the left is expressing itself in some dramatic -- and possible quite true -- headlines:

1.  From a law professor at UCLA:   "Corporations are people, and they have more rights than you."

2.  Ryan Grimm, Huffington Post political writer:  "8 other laws that could be ignored now that Christians get to pick and choose."

3.  MSNBC's Rachel Maddow:  "Maddow Issues Dark Warning About Supreme Court."

4.  U.S. News:  "After Hobby Lobby, These 82 Corporations Could Drop Birth Control Coverage."

5.  Cecile Richards, CEO of Planned Parenthood:   "Corporations have more rights than women."

6.  Huffington Post:  "Chamber of Commerce Emerges as Big Supreme Court Winner."

Let's hope that there is more than a little hype in these reactions.   But we cannot afford to rely on that.   There is at least a 50/50 chance Republicans will take control of the Senate.   Then any nominees President Obama makes to the court will have a hard time getting confirmation.

It is vital not only to elect a Democratic president in 2016 but to keep control of the Senate in 2014.

Ralph

One slightly right decision in the Georgia gun laws

Some Georgia school districts are turning down the option granted under a new Georgia law that allows schools to train and arm teachers and school administrators.    Their argument is that it will not make the schools safer but rather would create more problems.

Steve Smith, superintendent of the Bibb County School District (Macon) said:  "We could give (teachers) all the training in the world as to how to a shoot a gun, but knowing when to shoot poses a major problem."

The fact that the Georgia lawmakers left the decision up to each school district is the one slightly positive thing in an otherwise terrible law, which has been referred to as the "carry everywhere" law.

Ralph

SCOTUS last two decisions: How bad are they?

As some were predicting, the Supreme Court saved their two "worst" decisions for the last day of the court's year.    Today, they announced that they (1) found in favor of the Hobby Lobby in granting an exception to the Affordable Care Act's requirement that "closely held," for-profit corporations can opt out of coverage for contraceptives for their employees if it goes against the owners' religious beliefs;  and (2) said that part-time, public service employees cannot be required to pay dues to the union.

Both of these decisions were 5 to 4, with the usual split and Kennedy siding with the conservatives on this one.   Both opinions were written by Justice Alito, who seems to be becoming the go-to guy for corporate interests on the court, along with Chief Justice Roberts.

Justice Ginsburg wrote a strongly worded dissent, joined by the other liberal justices, in the Hobby Lobby case.

Reaction so far is ranging from the rejoicing in conservative circles to despair in liberal circles.   We can take some solace in the fact the both decisions were not sweeping but rather narrow.   On the other hand both decisions seem likely to be the "foot in the door" that likely will lead to more sweeping changes later.

For example, once you've allowed for-profit corporations -- not just religious organizations -- to opt out of requirements because of religious beliefs of the owners, where do you stop in allowing religious objections?    And is the exemption from required union dues for part-time employees just the first step in dismantling unions altogether?

We'll hear a lot of discussion about all this in the coming days.   For now what seems certain:   this is the most business-friendly and corporation-friendly court in the last century.

Despair may be too strong a word;   but I am deeply concerned about the direction this court is taking us.   Now, not only do corporations have the right to "free speech" (Citizens United) but corporations also have now been given the right to have religious beliefs that put limits on what is required of that corporation.

This is not good.   This is perhaps the one single most important reason that we must elect a democrat as the next president.

Ralph

PS:   As has been noted more than once:  SCOTUS has ruled that Hobby Lobby does not have to provide insurance coverage for contraceptives because it is against the owners' religion.   However, the same Hobby Lobby boss and his male employees can still get insurance coverage for their Viagra and their vasectomies.

Supreme irony

There is a supreme irony in the Supreme Court's decision that says no buffer zone is needed to protect the entrances and access to clinics where abortions are done.   The case being heard was presented as a group of very concerned anti-abortion people who simply want to have a quiet conversation to let those entering know there are alternatives and encourage them to consider them.

And, if some protesters get a bit rowdy, the clinic should just ask the police to get the people to calm down.    Well, we've all seen the evidence on tv that "quiet conversations" is not the problem.   It's the actual physical obstruction of the entrance, the huge signs thrust in the faces showing fetuses and horrible mangling, the viciously angry crowds screaming insult and threats, the violence and, yes, the murders.   That is the reality on the ground.

If it were simply a matter of different interpretations of the constitution, that would not be so hard to take.   What I see as a pattern is that they seem oblivious to the real world consequences -- just as in this case.   Quiet conversations is so far what what is actually the problem, it seems as though they are not really listening.  It leaves us feeling that we have not been heard.

But I have argued previously about the justices lack of considering the real consequences of their decisions.   This is about the irony of them denying a buffer zone, while at the same time their prior decisions have:

1.  Allowed buffer zones to be established at funerals of returning soldiers killed in our wars.

2.  Allowed buffer zones and restricted protest areas around political conventions.

3.  Approved laws that protect schools and churches from having bars within a certain distance.

4.  And the greatest irony of all:

The Supreme Court justices issued this ruling from behind their own buffer zone.   There are very strict regulations concerning the plaza in front of the entrance to the court building itself.  These regulations are justified to allow “unimpeded ingress and egress of visitors to the court” and to preserve “the appearance of the court as a body not swayed by external influence.”

If the court gave the same privilege to abortion clinics that it gives itself, that would be quite sufficient to take care of the situation.

But it did not do that.

Ralph

A tale of small town decency in the South

This is a tale of the decency of small southern towns -- a warmth and concern for people they know;  it transcends homophobia.   

The place:   Latta, South Carolina, population 1,410.
The characters:    Police Chief Crystal Moore, Mayor Earl Bullard;
     the City Council, and the people of Latta.

Crystal Moore had been with the Latta police force for 23 years.   She neither tried to hide, nor flaunted, the fact the she is lesbian.   She kept her personal life private, and she had a respected place in the community and was considered an effective police chief.

Last December Earl Bullard won an uncontested race for mayor.  He was known to have negative feelings about gays and lesbians, and that was proven when an audio recording surfaced of him going on a homophobic tirade.   As a precautionary measure before he took office, the City Council passed a vote of confidence in their police chief.

Less than four months in office, Bullard fired Moore after giving her seven trumped up  reprimands.   Hundreds of residents came to her defense, holding protests and prayer vigils, demanding that her job be restored.   They even raised money to help with her living expenses and legal fees.  A friend of Moore's told Huffington Post, "I never thought I'd have been at four protests for gay rights in Latta, SC."

Last week, the town held a referendum in which an overwhelming majority voted to change the government of Latta from "mayor-strong" to "council-strong."   In effect, it stripped Bullard of his power and gave the council the power to rehire Moore.

Bullard hadn't been idle, while this was going on.   Before Moore could be reinstalled, he surprised everyone by announcing that he had already hired a replacement.    The Council wasn't done though.  On Friday, they met and determined that Bullard had acted illegally by hiring a police chief without their consent.    They then invalidated the offer and reinstated Moore.

Crystal Moore has been sworn back in as police chief of Latta, S.C.

That is the heart-warming tale of decency.   But . . .  

Actually, Crystal Moore did not have a legal defense because in South Carolina and 28 other states, it is perfectly legal to fire someone just for being gay or lesbian.   It's wonderful to have people like those good folks in Latta.   But we also need to change those laws.    This is another thing Congress is dithering on -- passing ENDA (Employment Non-Discrimination Act).

Ralph