4 ms·

Why is the title like that? The article makes it obvious the brunt of his criticism is on Obama.

Shivetya 13y ago
because the NY Times cannot call him out completely having bent over backwards to support him. Simply put, its no different than Obama claiming he was no Dick Cheney. What is going on now is far far worse than Nixon. I am referring to NSA and IRS activities brought to light over the last few months. I am not sure which is worse, nah strike that, what the IRS is accused of is worse.
- _delirium 13y ago
  I'm not sure what kind of inside-the-beltway myopia it would take to think that controversy over who gets 501(c)(4) status is worse than dragnet surveillance.
  - forgottenpass 13y ago
    Protection of citizens matters much more strongly to politicians when a politically-connected citizen is targeted. When people are targeted en mass it is less of an existential threat to the two-party dog and pony show. Would Watergate have been much of a scandal at all if it weren't for the fact the offices Nixon broke into belonged to the Democratic Party?
  - hga 13y ago
    Let's just quote half-reformed Obamacon Peggy Nonan (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324412604578515673945731506.html http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142412788732441260457851...): "What does it mean when half the country—literally half the country—understands that the revenue-gathering arm of its federal government is politically corrupt, sees them as targets, and will shoot at them if they try to raise their heads? That is the kind of thing that can kill a country, letting half its citizens believe that they no longer have full political rights." Note, it doesn't matter a wit that you don't believe this. Because we do, and it's at least a debatable point, YOU HAVE A PROBLEM. A potentially country killing one. I suggest you work to fix it, either by convincing us we're wrong, or by fixing it---at this point, one necessary ingredient is clear, completely revising our tax system to eliminate the IRS's discretion.
    - _delirium 13y ago
      It's usually the case that half the country thinks the federal government's revenue-allocation is biased against them. If indeed 501(c)(4) status is allocated in a biased way, that's functionally equivalent to government subsidies being allocated in a biased way (because a targeted tax exemption is equivalent to a targeted subsidy). This is quite different from police intimidation, surveillance and similar things: it is solely an argument over whether subsidies are being allocated in a viewpoint-neutral manner. Controversies over whether federal subsidies are being given out in a biased way are important, I think, but not a novel or apocalyptic matter. Sometimes the right alleges bias (as with funding going to e.g. NPR, and climate-science funding), other times the left alleges bias (as with the bill explicitly excluding Planned Parenthood from funding, or the tax exemption given to political organizations organized as church branches). It's worth investigating, but nobody is being shot for raising their heads. Compare, say, COINTELPRO, which was not a dispute over whether federal tax exemptions or funds were being allocated fairly, but direct state intimidation of political organizations. That is what I think we need to be most wary of. Now, there is some contingent of raving loons who already have it in their heads that IRS=UN=jackboots=Waco=helicopters, and certain opportunists (e.g. Glenn Beck) and politicians (some Tea Party groups) like to egg them on. I am not as sure what to do about them, but I don't think they are responding to any particular set of events based on any attempt at rational analysis of the actual events. And percentage-wise, they're closer to 10-15%. If you ask people to agree with particularly strong interpretations of the IRS scandal, which involve paranoid fantasies of violence by jackbooted government thugs, you don't get anywhere near 50% agreeing. As for your proposed solution: I do think it's prudent to reform the tax-exemption laws to remove subjective categories. Some subjectivity is difficult to avoid, e.g. in the definition of a 501(c)(3) charity, but clearly 501(c)(4) is one of the more problematic categories. I would support just eliminating that status entirely, rather than attempting to have the IRS determine who legitimately belongs in it vs. who doesn't; an organization aimed at "the promotion of social welfare" but not necessarily a "charity" is just too subjective a catch-all.
      - hga 13y ago
        Geeze, you simply have not been paying attention, this goes way beyond 501(c)(4) denials (while Obama's Organizing for America -> Organizing for Action was waived through), to the minor detail of 501(c)(3) denials, to leaking of application data to 3rd parties (as admitted by Pro Publica, one recipient), to the campaign calling out major Romney donor as evil people, to all of the above getting audits ... and that's just counting the IRS harassment. And characterizing these as "subsidizes" is flatly wrong. Money donated for political action is not tax deductible; rather, it is the question, why are political efforts organized as non-profits? It's not like any of these organizations are trying to make monetary profits, their objective is of an entirely different kind. Without a level playing field and with particular, focused harassment of donors ... well, many asked in 2012 what happened to the "TEA Party" that was so powerful in 2010 ... well, now after all these revelations, our side believes we know. You may consider half the country to be "raving loons" ... even if it's only "10-15%", YOU still have a very big problem, history suggests only 3% are necessary to successfully prosecute a hot civil war (we're already in a cold one), and at least on my side we believe we're sliding towards one, since peaceful means of engaging in politics have and are being foreclosed by these actions (none of this has stopped), and no reform seems to be on the horizon.

because the NY Times cannot call him out completely having bent over backwards to support him. Simply put, its no different than Obama claiming he was no Dick Cheney. What is going on now is far far worse than Nixon. I am referring to NSA and IRS activities brought to light over the last few months. I am not sure which is worse, nah strike that, what the IRS is accused of is worse.

_delirium 13y ago
I'm not sure what kind of inside-the-beltway myopia it would take to think that controversy over who gets 501(c)(4) status is worse than dragnet surveillance.
- forgottenpass 13y ago
  Protection of citizens matters much more strongly to politicians when a politically-connected citizen is targeted. When people are targeted en mass it is less of an existential threat to the two-party dog and pony show. Would Watergate have been much of a scandal at all if it weren't for the fact the offices Nixon broke into belonged to the Democratic Party?
- hga 13y ago
  Let's just quote half-reformed Obamacon Peggy Nonan (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324412604578515673945731506.html http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142412788732441260457851...): "What does it mean when half the country—literally half the country—understands that the revenue-gathering arm of its federal government is politically corrupt, sees them as targets, and will shoot at them if they try to raise their heads? That is the kind of thing that can kill a country, letting half its citizens believe that they no longer have full political rights." Note, it doesn't matter a wit that you don't believe this. Because we do, and it's at least a debatable point, YOU HAVE A PROBLEM. A potentially country killing one. I suggest you work to fix it, either by convincing us we're wrong, or by fixing it---at this point, one necessary ingredient is clear, completely revising our tax system to eliminate the IRS's discretion.
  - _delirium 13y ago
    It's usually the case that half the country thinks the federal government's revenue-allocation is biased against them. If indeed 501(c)(4) status is allocated in a biased way, that's functionally equivalent to government subsidies being allocated in a biased way (because a targeted tax exemption is equivalent to a targeted subsidy). This is quite different from police intimidation, surveillance and similar things: it is solely an argument over whether subsidies are being allocated in a viewpoint-neutral manner. Controversies over whether federal subsidies are being given out in a biased way are important, I think, but not a novel or apocalyptic matter. Sometimes the right alleges bias (as with funding going to e.g. NPR, and climate-science funding), other times the left alleges bias (as with the bill explicitly excluding Planned Parenthood from funding, or the tax exemption given to political organizations organized as church branches). It's worth investigating, but nobody is being shot for raising their heads. Compare, say, COINTELPRO, which was not a dispute over whether federal tax exemptions or funds were being allocated fairly, but direct state intimidation of political organizations. That is what I think we need to be most wary of. Now, there is some contingent of raving loons who already have it in their heads that IRS=UN=jackboots=Waco=helicopters, and certain opportunists (e.g. Glenn Beck) and politicians (some Tea Party groups) like to egg them on. I am not as sure what to do about them, but I don't think they are responding to any particular set of events based on any attempt at rational analysis of the actual events. And percentage-wise, they're closer to 10-15%. If you ask people to agree with particularly strong interpretations of the IRS scandal, which involve paranoid fantasies of violence by jackbooted government thugs, you don't get anywhere near 50% agreeing. As for your proposed solution: I do think it's prudent to reform the tax-exemption laws to remove subjective categories. Some subjectivity is difficult to avoid, e.g. in the definition of a 501(c)(3) charity, but clearly 501(c)(4) is one of the more problematic categories. I would support just eliminating that status entirely, rather than attempting to have the IRS determine who legitimately belongs in it vs. who doesn't; an organization aimed at "the promotion of social welfare" but not necessarily a "charity" is just too subjective a catch-all.
    - hga 13y ago
      Geeze, you simply have not been paying attention, this goes way beyond 501(c)(4) denials (while Obama's Organizing for America -> Organizing for Action was waived through), to the minor detail of 501(c)(3) denials, to leaking of application data to 3rd parties (as admitted by Pro Publica, one recipient), to the campaign calling out major Romney donor as evil people, to all of the above getting audits ... and that's just counting the IRS harassment. And characterizing these as "subsidizes" is flatly wrong. Money donated for political action is not tax deductible; rather, it is the question, why are political efforts organized as non-profits? It's not like any of these organizations are trying to make monetary profits, their objective is of an entirely different kind. Without a level playing field and with particular, focused harassment of donors ... well, many asked in 2012 what happened to the "TEA Party" that was so powerful in 2010 ... well, now after all these revelations, our side believes we know. You may consider half the country to be "raving loons" ... even if it's only "10-15%", YOU still have a very big problem, history suggests only 3% are necessary to successfully prosecute a hot civil war (we're already in a cold one), and at least on my side we believe we're sliding towards one, since peaceful means of engaging in politics have and are being foreclosed by these actions (none of this has stopped), and no reform seems to be on the horizon.