How many times have we heard the phrase, “this is too important to be left to politics?” Yes, when we’re discussing foreign policy or redistribution of wealth or basic human rights, we don’t want politics to interfere. However, that stated desire is rarely followed. Just look at how obstinate the Republican-controlled House of Representatives has been in the 113^th Congress. Whether the issue is health care, gun control, or something as simple as raising the federal debt limit, the Republicans tend to think politics first. Their brains seem to freeze most particularly when faced with nuance. The Democrats have a long and checkered history of playing politics as well, but rarely so intensely when basic human and economic rights are involved.

Right now, the Obama Administration is mired in at least three difficult quagmires. They all have political components to them, but two of the three raise serious questions about the conduct of the Administration. The third one, the attack on the American consulate in Benghazi, Libya last September 11, cannot be analyzed with logic because while some facts are clear, far too many are not. Despite the sniping of Republican Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham, the incident is not a scandal. Instead it falls into the “shit-happens bucket.” It is extremely sad that four Americans were killed, not only because they lost their lives but also because they most likely were the only people who really knew what happened on the ground that night. But that’s what happened, and we’ll have to settle for an imperfect understanding the events of that evening.

The two quagmires about which serious concern is  warranted are (a) the I.R.S. singling out for special scrutiny certain right wing organizations that are applying for tax-exempt status under the new 501(c)4 designation, and (b) the Justice Department listening in on the conversations of over two hundred reporters working for the Associated Press who had information on terrorist attacks in the planning stage against the United States.

The IRS issue is one in which no party involved in the dispute is pure in motive and actions. Of the transgressions that have occurred, it’s clear that some were motivated to gain a political advantage and others were in order to ensure better working of our government. The key to proceeding from here is for each side to admit its mistakes, apologize to those whom they have violated, and propose realistic solutions that do not provide a political advantage to either side.

It’s clear that with the current rules for achieving a 501©4 tax-exempt status, the I.R.S. was way out of line in singling out conservative organizations for more intense scrutiny. However, a fair-minded individual who has the best interests of strengthening American democracy at heart may have seen the actions of the I.R.S. as being at least somewhat justified.

First, the conservative organizations that were applying for 501©4 status were driving Mack trucks through the gaping hole that the Supreme Court left with its 2010 ruling on the Citizens United case. That decision essentially allowed unlimited contributions to political campaigns. And if the donations were made through a 501©4 organization, the donors could remain as anonymous, thus side-stepping transparency regulations long ago established by the Federal Elections Commission.

It’s a very difficult line to draw when a 501©4 organization claims that it is advocating policy and lobbying for it, but not supporting or opposing a specific candidate. Because this line is so unclear, and because advocacy groups on both the conservative and liberals wings of the political spectrum have blatantly trashed opponent candidates, the IRS is justified in examining their 501©4 status. It also is justified in giving special scrutiny to new applications from organizations seeking 501©4 status.

The evidence that we have now is that the IRS has focused on right-wing organization with names that include such search terms as “Tea Party,” “Patriot,” or “Constitutional.” Is there any justifiable reason to focus on the right-wing applicants? With trepidation, one could argue that right-wing organizations pose more of a threat to our political system. These are the organizations and people who oppose reasonable gun control legislation, support specious wars, and blatantly support expanding the rights and privileges of the wealthy rather than the disenfranchised. Were they to gain control of the government, they could well impose policies that would be very harmful to the vast preponderance of American citizens, as well as the citizens of other countries.

There may have been a time in the 1960s and 1970s when the left posed more of a threat of civil unrest and violence than the right did. However, since right-wing acts of violence in the 1990s such as Oklahoma City, Waco, and Ruby Ridge and their concurrent stridency about guns, the right has come to pose far more of a threat. For that reason, it could be argued that the IRS had reason to scrutinize them more closely than the left. While this does not excuse the discriminatory action on the part of the IRS, it may in part provide an explanation.

This is not the time for us to retract the powers of the IRS to thoroughly investigate the conduct of 501©4 organizations and others seeking to receive 501©4 status. They are doing more to corrupt politics with excessive and untraceable money than any other organizations or individuals. They must be tightly regulated.

The Republicans in the 113^th Congress have clearly exhibited that they have no interest in operating in a fact-based and fair manner. They have also shown no interest in governing; they oppose virtually everything that Democrats propose, including funding for entitlements, for social welfare, even for defense. They also stymie efforts to appoint judges and cabinet officials. Essentially, they have no interest in governing. For that reason, they have forfeited the right to be involved in investigating how our government works and what reforms are needed. If they want in on the process, they have to take interest in and action regarding the real governance of the country, not just the politics. We cannot let them have the leadership role in investigating the IRS. Yes, there are some Democrats who are no more logical than Republicans. But within the ranks of the Democrats, there is a clear majority who provide the necessary reason to clean up this mess. As progressives, our role is not to further demonize the Republicans; rather it is to act as honest servants of the people and reform what has gone wrong. Republicans are always welcome to join the cause when they accept a few basic fundamentals of governance as they have until recent history. Regrettably, the Republicans currently control the House and have filibuster powers in the Senate. It’s up to the American people of reason to seek reason in the solution to these current problems.

The post So-called scandals are too nuanced to be investigated by Republicans appeared first on Occasional Planet.

I don’t know why we are surprised at dysfunctional behavior at the Internal Revenue Service: Any agency that has been denied a permanent director since November 2012–and for some agencies, it’s been longer than that– cannot be expected to operate optimally. And that’s really the point: Republicans have blocked President Obama’s appointments on almost every level since day one, because that strategy fits into their overall game plan to deliberately make government dysfunctional–so that Republicans can say, “See? Told ya so. Government is dysfunctional. It doesn’t work.”

The “starve the beast” strategy we’ve become most familiar with is the one where you cut appropriations for regulatory agencies. No money, no enforcement. We’ve seen that at work with the Environmental Protection Agency, the Consumer Financial Protection Agency and so many others. That tactic has been in play since the Ronald Reagan years. [Later recanted by one of its primary proponents–Regan’s budget director, David Stockman.]

The newer game–which has escalated with the arrival of President Obama–is to obstruct agency appointments by hyper-investigating [see: Susan Rice], putting politically motivated holds on appointments, holding appointments for political ransom [see: Missouri Sen. Roy Blunt’s hold on Obama’s appointment of Gina McCarthy to head EPA], delaying hearings, not showing up for hearings, and issuing pre-emptive strikes against anybody nominated by the President [such as Elizabeth Warren and the Consumer Financial Protection Agency]. According to Pro Publica, The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services haven’t had a Senate-confirmed administrator since 2006. The Federal Labor Relations Authority has had only a single member since January 2013 and can’t issue decisions. And the Election Assistance Commission hasn’t had any commissioners at all since 2011.

In the meantime, the director’s office in key government agencies is occupied by a deputy or interim director, or by nobody at all. And that’s a big problem.

The job of the head of a government agency–or the head of any organization, for that matter–is to make sure that the mission of the agency is being properly pursued. It’s his or her responsibility to make the gears turn so that the job gets done. The agency director sets the tone, establishes and reinforces the culture of the organization, and is the ultimate enforcer.

So, when an agency is led by someone who everyone knows is a temporary placeholder–which has been the case with the IRS–the mission can get lost, the culture can be in flux, and enforcement can go all squishy. An interim or deputy director doesn’t have the clout–and may not have the nerve– to take tough stands and institute innovations. And lower-level employees may not bother to report issues up the line to a temporary director. So, what you can get is a wishy-washy organization where front-line workers don’t feel part of an overall mission and may feel that what they do doesn’t really matter.  And that’s where mistakes and misguided  decisions come in and can run amok.

But that’s just fine with the current crop of Congressional Republicans. Having created the situation themselves–by stonewalling just about every appointment the Obama Administration has sent up to the Hill–they gleefully pounce on every misstep of the agencies they are intent on destroying. Then, they disguise their cynical, self-fulfilling strategy with outrage expressed on the floor of Congress and in a press that’s oh-so-willing to jump on anything that looks remotely like a “scandal.”

Congressional Republicans are also undoubtedly happy to keep the Obama Administration busy scrambling to find second- or third-choice nominees, fending off hypberbolic attacks on nominees, and defending the actions of lower-level employees in the leaderless agencies Republicans have cynically created. For obvious reasons,  the anti-taxers have got to be  delighted that their outrage du jour comes from the IRS.

The obstructionism and cynicism is escalating in President Obama’s second term.  And, unfortunately for our country, it’s working. The unceasing effort to block anything from happening distracts the administration from accomplishing important goals, makes President Obama look inept [except when Republicans call him a dictator, of course], and keeps the public and the press entertained with ersatz scandals, rather than engaged in real issues.

And there is no end in sight.

The post How Republicans “starve the beast” by blocking agency appointments appeared first on Occasional Planet.

Inequality.com took a microscopic look at Mitt Romney’s 2011 federal tax return –one of the only two he’s released—and found some surprising tidbits. It turns out that Mitt and Ann Romney, while reporting $13,696,951 in adjusted gross income, [not a cent of it earned through work ,i.e., “wages, salaries, tips, etc.”], they managed to reduce that prodigious sum by claiming several picayune deductions.

For example, the Romneys went to the trouble of filling out a Form 4684 (Casualties and Thefts) to report losses of $39 in two family trusts. Interestingly, one trust lost $29 and the other $10. One can only wonder what was broken or stolen.

According to the IRS instructions for Form 4684, you can use Form 4684 to “deduct losses of property from fire, storm, shipwreck, or other casualty, or theft (for example, larceny, embezzlement, and robbery).”

Salvatore Babones, who wrote the article and clearly has killer magnifying-glass skills, added this bit of snark:

I like to think that the $39 were lost in the world’s smallest shipwreck. I guess it’s just the romantic in me,

Other small claims include a $114 work opportunity credit, $28 for a bonus depreciation on a research tax credit, $27 for a “flow through empowerment zone employment credit,” and — no kidding — $2 for “increasing research activities” in a small business.

[What did he do…give a 7-year-old a two-dollar bill to run over to the next block to see what the 6-year-old over there was charging for lemonade?]

Petty, petty, petty. But even a multi-millionaire is entitled to itsy bitsy, teeny weeny deductions. It’s legal, and it shows how thorough the Romneys accountants are.  Sure, it’s penny ante, but I’m told that this is how wealthy people stay rich–by watching every coin. But there’s certain ick factor there, don’t you think?

You can download Romney’s returns and check for yourself at Politico. Fair winds and following seas. And no texting while yachting, please!

All of this, while somewhat entertaining and confirming of the rich man’s world in which Romney lives,  makes me even more curious about the hidden–much bigger– secrets in the many years of tax returns that the Romneys have, so far, refused to release.

The post Nickel-and-diming it: Surprising tidbits in Romney’s 2011 tax return appeared first on Occasional Planet.

If you’re wondering when your federal tax refund will arrive—and who isn’t?—you can now  check your status on the go. In addition to its already up-and-running “Where’s My Refund?” website, the IRS now offers a downloadable, mobile version, called IRS2GO.

It works like the website. A user provides her social security number, filing status and exact refund amount to check the status. Just make sure you’ve waited the necessary 72 hours after e-filing or four weeks after submitting through the mail to start checking. The app also allows iPhone or Android users to request previous tax records, visit the IRS YouTube channel and contact the IRS with any questions or issues.

It won’t get you your refund any faster, but when you’re filling your tank with $3.99 gas, and you’re wondering how you’re going to pay your bills next month, it could be reassuring.  Just make sure the nosy-looking woman line behind you isn’t watching when you enter your Social Security number.

Transparency and customer-service points for the IRS.

The post IRS offers mobile, refund-tracking app appeared first on Occasional Planet.