A superpower and a gigantic
capitalist democracy can’t work unless certain necessary and unpopular
functions of government are performed objectively by professionals.
The policy machinery of the
State Department can change its hue before and after elections. It can, for
instance, become intensely interested in the oil sands of northern Canada and
soon forget that Alberta is a Canadian province.
The professionals who manage
America’s nuclear deterrent and money supply, however, must be above suspicion.
Otherwise, it would be less easy to sleep at night. The IRS is also one of
those institutions that must be widely trusted. Americans are free to dislike
the IRS, especially at tax time. But they must believe that it’s not organized
to favor the ins and harass the outs.
Trust in, if not affection
for, the IRS is central to the “honor” system that efficiently and peacefully
collects most of the tax revenues Washington needs to function.
Consequently, the recent allegations
that IRS officials have consciously “targeted” Tea Partiers and rich
Republicans deserve immediate attention. Indeed, it was appropriate and not
suspicious overkill for Obama to use the word “outrageous” every time the
allegations are raised.
Politicians on both sides of
the aisle needn’t restrain themselves in their efforts to find out what
happened and take whatever action is required to restore the credibility of an
essential agency of modern government.
However, since neither
American democracy nor American lives were lost, we should be able to have a
little fun with the victims in this story. Jeffrey Toobin in the New
Yorker offered up the possibilities rather quietly.
“It’s
important to review why the Tea Party groups were petitioning the I.R.S.
anyway. They were seeking approval to operate under section 501(c)(4) of the
Internal Revenue Code. This would require them to be 'social welfare,' not
political, operations.”
It’s just possible that the political
illiterates at the IRS—like first year students facing an exam question on a
lecture they skipped—tripped over what these strange, angry groups were actually
proposing.
The aggrieved, so-called conservative
applicants for 501(c)(4) status loathed George Bush’s “compassionate
conservatism,” were determined to stop Obamacare, and, at least in their dreams,
also repeal Social Security and Food Stamps. As well, they thought that in his
heart Obama was still a “social worker.” Nevertheless, they wanted the benefits
that go with being designated a “social welfare” organization by the IRS. They
weren’t run-of-the-mill Republicans and they didn’t want to be seen as merely
ad-hoc groups of Americans mobilizing primarily to take America back from an
African socialist.
Since these organizations existed to do things and, in this case, spend a lot
of other people’s money, IRS anthropologists probably did ask a lot of
questions—certainly far more questions than busy libertarians like to answer.
Congressional investigators will determine, however, whether or not their
conduct was partisan and inappropriate: whether or not this new force for
social progress faced systematic harassment, or widespread, or only localized
curiosity.
The wider allegation that the IRS systematically
audited and intimidated outspoken Republicans needs further fleshing out.
However, in that exercise, we should recall that the Obama presidency has left
the rich far richer than they were the day he was sworn into office. It will
also be remembered as an era of extraordinarily outspoken, extreme, and bitter
partisan rivalry.
No comments:
Post a Comment