Think Freely Media presents Common Sense with Paul Jacob

You can’t get much more explicit about the desire to wield power against political opponents solely because they’re political opponents than Senator Chuck Schumer’s recent public demand, reported in The Hill (“Vulnerable Dems want IRS to step up”):

The Tea Party elites gained extraordinary influence by being able to funnel millions of dollars into campaigns with ads that distort the truth and attack government. There are many things that can be done administratively by the IRS and other government agencies — we must redouble those efforts immediately.


Set aside how Schumer lumps disregard for truth with “attacking government”; set aside the insinuation that efforts of Tea Party groups seeking redress of grievances are somehow nefarious, or that only right-leaning groups “funnel millions” into political discussion. Schumer wants government power to be exercised on behalf of politicians who are politically vulnerable precisely because of their own irresponsible policies and the consequences of those policies. He wants to squelch political debate, and not with an even-handed tyranny. (Not that he should try for an even-handed tyranny either.)

Politicians have long abused their power in order to get re-elected — one of many reasons I support term limits. But they are not always so overt about it.

Congressman Dave Camp is seeking to prohibit IRS from imposing Draconian new rules to restrict the political activity of non-profits until after the 2014 midterm elections. Good idea, except for the time frame.

The prohibition should be permanent.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

By: Redactor

7 Comments

  1. JATR says:

    Teabagger organizations are purely political and should not be tax exempt just like any other political organization. They only want tax-exempt status so they don’t have to reveal the donors.

    Tough! Get ’em IRS.

  2. JFB says:

    “Tea party elites”???? Interesting, are they defined as those demented persons who prefer self-reliance, individual responsibility, liberty and respect for the ownership and use of private property as opposed to passively following the Washington elites?
    Let’s get rid of income tax deductions by making that method of taxation again unconstitutional, and replacing it (and all other taxation) with an in your face consumption tax only. That will get rid of any abuses by the IRS by getting rid of the entire operation.
    To JATR – be cautious, making public policy advocacy non-deductible is one thing, making the donor list public is another. Realize the IRS has it anyway if the contribution was deducted, just not in an (allegedly) publicly available and conveniently summarized format. Your proposal has issues, are you willing to give up YOUR right to a secret ballot? Same principle!

  3. Drik says:

    To JFB – be cautious, all of those Tea Party policy precepts (self-reliance, individual responsibility, liberty and respect for the ownership and use of private property), are racist.

  4. Jay says:

    Drik, I think (hope) that you mean racist as APPLIED TO THE HUMAN RACE, SPECIFICALLY (IN THIS CASE) THOSE HUMANS RESIDING IN THE US.

    Note, the Tea Party has more minority members and supporters (proportionate to the population) then Congress and most if not all state legislatures.

  5. JATR says:

    JFB – Public policy advocacy is NOT deductible unless you lie about it. That is what the teabaggers are doing. They don’t want their names known. Chicken turds. And it shouldn’t be deductible. The IRS is right to challenge the deductibility. What has deductibility got to do with a secret ballot?

  6. MoreFreedom says:

    To JATR, why should taxes be paid by a political organization receiving donations from individual who’ve already paid taxes on their donations?

    There’s a difference between taxing an association for money it gets from donors, vs. taxing non-profits that are actually engaged in business (like lots of hospitals).

    The real scam, is how our government distinguishes between political associations, and public welfare associations. The later are often as political or more so than many political associations, and often get much of their money from government. Consider Acorn (now under new names) and Planned Parenthood. Are these public welfare, or political organizations? Should they pay taxes on their income? Should donations to them be deductible? Should government be giving them money?

    Should charitible donations be deductable?

    A simple way to end the problem is to remove deductability of donations to all charities. Another way is to make political contributions deductible. Or you can allow govenrment to decide which organization merit deductibility, thus allowing government to make deductions to organizaitons promoting more governemnt deductible, and those promoting less government not. Pick your posion.

    My preference is that donations of any kind not be deductible, and government not be involved in welfare/forced charity. This eliminates a lot of graft and corruption. It will also dry up a lot of charitible donations, and put a lot of non-profits out of business, or make them smaller.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

© 2017 Common Sense with Paul Jacob, All Rights Reserved. Back to top