We're getting the same old IRS spin
By The Tribune-Review
Published: Saturday, May 18, 2013, 9:00 p.m.
Daniel J. Mitchell, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute, is a former economist for former Sen. Bob Packwood, R-Oregon, and the Senate Finance Committee. Mitchell, an expert on tax reform and tax policy, spoke to the Trib via email regarding the controversy surrounding the Internal Revenue Service targeting tea party groups and various nonprofit organizations that have been critical of the federal government.
Q: How concerned should people be that the IRS seemingly has a politically biased bureaucracy?
A: The IRS has such enormous power that we should be extremely worried about it being corrupted by political bias. When taxpayers get accused by the IRS, the Constitution's presumption of innocence goes out the window and they are guilty until they prove themselves innocent. Which is all the more reason why we should be scared.
Q: Didn't similar activities occur during the Clinton administration?
A: The fact that this happened during the Clinton years suggests that the IRS may have a long-standing culture of political corruption. The IRS wanted us to believe the scandal in the 1990s was random and involved low-level employees. Now we're getting the same spin again. This excuse was implausible the first time the IRS got caught. Now the excuse is preposterously unbelievable.
Q: IRS officials have said the targeting wasn't partisan in nature. How plausible is that assertion?
A: If you roll dice 20 times in a row and always get the same results, you'll be understandably suspicious that something is rigged. Likewise, it's very sketchy that the IRS goes after conservatives when Democrats control the White House.
Q: Was the most egregious element of this fiasco the fact that the IRS violated its own policies in asking tea party and conservative groups for their donor lists?
A: The political bias is outrageous. The fact that the IRS violated its own rules makes clear that the bureaucrats were pursuing an ideological agenda.
Q: Should the IRS be forced to reimburse groups that have been unfairly scrutinized?
A: Reimbursement would be nice, but it won't deter future misbehavior. The real key is whether various bureaucrats and their supervisors get fired.
Q: What are your thoughts on the administration's initial reaction to the scandal?
A: The president has publicly commented about auditing his political opponents. The White House says he was just joking, but one must wonder if this was a who-will-rid-me-of-this-troublesome-priest moment.
Q: Should the IRS be subject to greater congressional oversight as a result of these activities?
A: Yes, though I have little faith that oversight will make much difference. In the short run, firing bureaucrats is the most effective measure. In the long run, we need to rip up the tax code and implement a simple and fair flat tax since that would dramatically reduce the IRS's discretionary power.
Q: What safeguards can be put in place to prevent yet another recurrence of these inappropriate behaviors?
A: At the risk of being repetitive, firing bureaucrats and reforming the tax code are the only practical solutions.
Eric Heyl is a staff writer for Trib Total Media (412-320-7857 or email@example.com).
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Allegheny County Democrats endorse several incumbents in primary
- Wrestling programs look ahead to NCAA tourney
- Analysis: Kesler still on Pens’ radar as Shero aims to bring back ‘Big 3’
- Starkey: Steelers know when to say goodbye
- Consumer borrowing increased by $13.7 billion in January
- Pirates’ big risk with pitch-heavy draft focus might soon pay off
- Latrobe hospital source of fuel spill
- Spring training breakdown: Red Sox 4, Pirates 1; Orioles 9, Pirates 2
- ‘Un-American’? That’s Harry Reid, the Senate’s lowly smear artist
- Outdoors notices: March 9
- Consensus on how to notify data breach victims lacks