I will be on the nationally syndicated radio show “Chuck Morse Speaks” tomorrow morning at 10:00 Eastern Time. I am scheduled to be on for an hour.
We will discuss Ted Cruz as a possible presidential candidate and, to the extent I can do so intelligently, whatever else the host wants to talk about.
The dam protecting the IRS scandal began to crack today when Lois Lerner, the IRS official who announced, and apologized for, the improper singling out of conservative-leaning organizations by IRS employees under her command, announced through her criminal defense lawyer that she will not testify as scheduled tomorrow before the House Oversight Committee. Rather, she will assert her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.
This marks an enormous milestone in the IRS investigation. It can now be taken as more or less established that crimes were committed by Obama administration employees. Lerner’s lawyer tried to minimize the significance of her invoking the privilege against self-incrimination by saying that since law enforcement authorities have announced they are pursuing a criminal investigation, she had no choice. This is silly: people testify before Senate committees and grand juries when there is a criminal investigation going on, all the time. The ones who plead the Fifth are those who cannot answer questions honestly without confessing to serious crimes.
More information has come out about Ms. Lerner, too. It turns out that in her prior position at the Federal Elections Commission, Lerner was obsessed with religious organizations and their religious practices, some of which she apparently wanted to suppress. Mark Hemingway has the scoop:
prior to joining the IRS, Lerner’s tenure as head of the Enforcement Office at the Federal Election Commission (FEC) was marked by what appears to be politically motivated harassment of conservative groups.
This excerpt is from a deposition taken by an FEC lawyer, acting under the direction of Lois Lerner, of Oliver North. This was in an FEC case, and apparently Lerner and her minions were burning to find out whether Pat Robertson had prayed for Oliver North:
Q: (reading from a letter from Oliver North to Pat Robertson) “‘Betsy and I thank you for your kind regards and prayers.’ The next paragraph is, ‘Please give our love to Dede and I hope to see you in the near future.’ Who is Dede?”
A: “That is Mrs. Robertson.”
Q: “What did you mean in paragraph 2, about thanking -you and your wife thanking Pat Robertson for kind regards?”
A: “Last time I checked in America, prayers were still legal. I am sure that Pat had said he was praying for my family and me in some correspondence or phone call.”
Q: “Would that be something that Pat Robertson was doing for you?”
A: “I hope a lot of people were praying for me, Holly.”
Q: “But you knew that Pat Robertson was?”
A: “Well, apparently at that time I was reflecting something that Pat had either, as I said, had told me or conveyed to me in some fashion, and it is my habit to thank people for things like that.”
Q: “During the time that you knew Pat Robertson, was it your impression that he had – he was praying for you?”
O: “I object. There is no allegation that praying creates a violation of the Federal Election Campaign Act and there is no such allegation in the complaint. This is completely irrelevant and intrusive on the religious beliefs of this witness.”
O: “It is a very strange line of questioning. You have got to be kidding, really. What are you thinking of, to ask questions like that? I mean, really. I have been to some strange depositions, but I don’t think I have ever had anybody inquire into somebody’s prayers. I think that is really just outrageous. And if you want to ask some questions regarding political activities, please do and then we can get over this very quickly. But if you want to ask abou somebody’s religious activities, that is outrageous.”
Q: “I am allowed to make-’’
O: “We are allowed not to answer and if you think the Commission is going to permit you to go forward with a question about somebody’s prayers, I just don’t believe that. I just don’t for a moment believe that. I find that the most outrageous line of questioning. I am going to instruct my witness not to answer.”
Q: “On what grounds?”
O: “We are not going to let you inquire about people’s religious beliefs or activities, period. If you want to ask about someone’s prayers-Jeez, I don’t know what we are thinking of. But the answer is, no, people are not going to respond to questions about people’s prayers, no.”
Q: “Will you take that, at the first break, take it up- we will do whatever we have to do.”
O: “You do whatever you think you have to do to get them to answer questions about what people are praying about.”
Q: “I did not ask Mr. North what people were praying about I am allowed to inquire about the relationship between-’’
O: “Absolutely, but you have asked the question repeatedly. If you move on to a question other than about prayer, be my guest.
These inquiries into the contents of “suspects’” prayers foreshadowed the improper inquiries that others, acting under her direction, would later direct to Tea Party groups.
The question now is, how many of Lerner’s colleagues will follow her lead and decline to answer questions? I suspect there may be several. Reliance on the FIfth Amendment tends to be contagious. The IRS investigation will take a new turn before long, but in the meantime, all we can do is sit back and enjoy the proceeding.
A subcommittee of the House Committee on Oversight & Government Reform held a hearing today on the government’s Obamacare “outreach” program. Obamacare authorizes the government to provide information to the uninsured, and to assist them in obtaining insurance, through the use of “navigators.”
Today’s hearing addressed concerns of Republican committee members about how this process will work in practice. The only witness was Gary Cohen, deputy administrator of the Department of HHS’s Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), and director of the Center for Consumer Information and Insurance Oversight (CCIIO) within CMS.
Prior to Cohen’s testimony, Eleanor Holmes Norton, the District of Columbia’s representative to Congress, provided a moment of comic relief. In her opening statement, Norton denounced Republicans for refusing to get on board with Obamacare — the law of the land. Only in banana republics, she sniffed, are duly enacted laws thwarted by legislators who unsuccessfully tried to prevent their passage.
But Norton has no standing to complain about non-compliance with the law. She failed to file District of Columbia income tax returns between 1982-89, thereby evading roughly $80,000 in taxes owed. Only in a banana republic, I might have thought, would a scofflaw like Norton serve in Congress.
In any event, today’s hearing wasn’t about Republicans thwarting Obamacare; it was about overseeing its implementation. And oversight certainly seems necessary when it comes to Obamacare “outreach.”
The context is this: Obamacare is predicated on inducing young, healthy people, for whom purchasing insurance may not be the best cost-benefit option, to enter the insurance market and subsidize older, not-so-healthy people. Moreover, the Obamacare penalty (I mean, tax) for not purchasing insurance may be insufficient inducement, given that the cost of a policy may well exceed the amount of the “tax.”
In this setting, outreach becomes a tricky proposition. Will those who are conducting it (the “navigators”), for the avowed purpose of maximizing participation, present a fair and balanced picture to the uninsured? Cohen testified that they will answer all questions honestly, but will not volunteer the fact that the Obamacare penalty exceeds the cost of purchasing insurance.
Quite apart from the question of whether buying insurance is in the interest of the individual subject to outreach, it is important that navigators be honest, well-versed in insurance issues, and familiar with the tax implications of Obamacare (a citizen can find himself in big trouble if his relevant status changes in a given year and he fails to report the change to the IRS).
But Cohen admitted that under the regulations his agency is developing, navigators will receive only 20 to 30 hours of training through an online course. Furthermore, CMS apparently (1) will not require that navigators have a high school diploma, (2) will not require background checks of navigators, (3) will not automatically exclude felons, (4) will not automatically exclude individuals with prior involvement in identity theft, and (5) will not require that navigators have insurance to cover giving incorrect information about tax consequences. Nor, as a general matter, will navigators be subject to the standards applicable to census takers.
Yet navigators will have access to sensitive personal information about the citizens they assist. Although they are not charged with collecting information, they will help individuals fill out forms that contain personal information, such as social security numbers. Thus, they can obtain this information and, if they choose, use it or pass it along to others.
Individual navigators will be selected by organizations designated by CMS. Cohen testified that, naturally enough, CMS will look for organizations with experience working in the particular community in question, and for organizations that reflect the demographic characteristics of the community.
To me, that sounds a lot like “community organizers.” Accordingly, congressional Republicans are right to be concerned that some navigators will be use that status for purposes of partisan mischief.
Cohen (notwithstanding his tendency to begin his answers by saying “So” — when did aging bureaucrats decide to try to sound cool and breezy?) wasn’t a bad witness. But I doubt that his answers did much to assuage this concern.
Speaking of mischief, the committee highlighted two rather blatant examples of it. First, Obamacare calls on states to use navigators, but bars the federal government from paying from them. Yet the feds are paying for state navigators and calling them assisters. And, apparently, California tried to assist in this end-run by concealing information about its Obamacare spending.
According to Republican members, including subcommittee chairman James Lankford, HHS officials admitted that there is no statutory authority for their end-run around restrictions on providing money to states. But Cohen testified it was lawful because the state’s are required to provide assistance. “The function,” he said, “is the authority.”
The view that the government is authorized to do whatever it takes to accomplish its function — even in the face of statutory language barring the contemplated method — lies at the heart of the threat to liberty posed by the modern bureaucratic state as conceived by the left. Cohen provided a real service by articulating that position for all to hear.
Republican House members should take this message to heart. Standing alone, it should be sufficient reason to reject the Schumer-Rubio immigration proposal.
Finally, Republican members expressed concern over reports that HHS Secretary Sibelius has solicited money to use for implementing Obamacare from insurance and pharmaceutical companies — the very companies over which her department has regulatory power.
Cohen was asked whether Sibelius obtained an opinion about the legality of such solicitation before engaging in it. Cohen didn’t know.
It’s a good question, though. Perhaps she, or some government lawyer, concluded that “the function is the authority.”
John Yoo identifies the common thread in the major Obama administration scandals:
Add up all the recent scandals and the message is clear: the Obama administration is showing that it cannot be trusted with the basic functions of government: law enforcement (surveillance of reporters), taxation (IRS scandals), and national security (Benghazi).
How, then, can we trust the administration when it comes to immigration — an area in which it already has refused to enforce portions of the law that it doesn’t like?
The two most honest and independent reporters in Washington are, I think, Jake Tapper, now of CNN, and CBS’s Sharyl Attkisson. I’m probably forgetting someone, but those are the two that come to mind. Ms. Attkisson reported on Fast and Furious more fearlessly and effectively than any other reporter. Today she disclosed that her personal and work computers have been “compromised.” The circumstances are being investigated:
“I can confirm that an intrusion of my computers has been under some investigation on my end for some months but I’m not prepared to make an allegation against a specific entity today as I’ve been patient and methodical about this matter,” Attkisson told POLITICO on Tuesday. “I need to check with my attorney and CBS to get their recommendations on info we make public.”
In an earlier interview with WPHT Philadelphia, Attkisson said that though she did not know the full details of the intrustion, “there could be some relationship between these things and what’s happened to James [Rosen],” the Fox News reporter who became the subject of a Justice Dept. investigation after reporting on CIA intelligence about North Korea in 2009. …
Attkisson told WPHT that irregular activity on her computer was first identified in Feb. 2011, when she was reporting on the Fast and Furious gun-walking scandal and on the Obama administration’s green energy spending, which she said “the administration was very sensitive about.” Attkisson has also been a persistent investigator of the events surrounding last year’s attack in Benghazi, and its aftermath.
Was the administration angry at Attkisson for failing to keep Fast and Furious secret? Recall this post from October 2011:
Laura Ingraham: So they were literally screaming at you?
Attkisson: Yes. Well the DOJ woman was just yelling at me. The guy from the White House on Friday night literally screamed at me and cussed at me. [Laura: Who was the person? Who was the person at Justice screaming?] Eric Schultz. Oh, the person screaming was [DOJ spokeswoman] Tracy Schmaler, she was yelling not screaming. And the person who screamed at me was Eric Schultz at the White House. …
[The White House and Justice Department] will tell you that I’m the only reporter–as they told me–that is not reasonable. They say the Washington Post is reasonable, the LA Times is reasonable, the New York Times is reasonable, I’m the only one who thinks this is a story, and they think I’m unfair and biased by pursuing it.
There is, of course, a fundamental difference between Ms. Attkisson’s circumstances and those of James Rosen. In Rosen’s case, the administration could argue that it was investigating a leak that was criminal under the Espionage Act because it threatened national security. I don’t see how any similar claim could be made in regard to Fast and Furious, even if Ms. Attkisson’s reporting was based to some degree on leaks, which I do not now recall.
The Senate Subcommittee on Investigations is holding a hearing this morning on Apple’s tax avoidance strategies. Rand Paul set the ringmasters back on their heels with an opening statement that questioned the whole rationale for the hearing. Here is Paul’s opening statement:
For those who lack the patience to watch it (that often describes me when it comes to videos), here is the transcript, supplied by Paul’s office:
I am offended by the tone and tenor of this hearing. I am offended by a $4 trillion government bullying, berating and badgering one of America’s greatest success stories.
Tell me one of these politicians up here that doesn’t minimize their taxes. Tell me a chief financial officer that you would hire if he didn’t try to minimize your taxes legally. Tell me what Apple has done that is illegal.
I am offended by a government that uses the IRS to bully groups such as the Tea Party but I am also offended by a government that convenes a hearing to bully one of American’s success stories.
I am offended by the spectacle of dragging in here executives from an American company that is not doing anything illegal. If anyone should be on trial here, it should be Congress.
I frankly think the Committee should apologize to Apple. I frankly think Congress should be on trial here for creating a bizarre and byzantine tax code that runs into the tens of thousands of pages, for creating a tax code that simply doesn’t compete with the rest of the world.
This committee will admit: Apple has not broken any laws. Yet, they are forced into a show trial at the whims of politicians, when in fact; Congress should be on trial for chasing the profits of great American companies overseas. You haul before this committee one of America’s greatest success stories and you want applause?
I say, instead of Apple executives, you should have brought in a giant mirror, so we could look at the reflection of Congress because this problem is solely and completely created by the awful tax code.
If you want to assign blame, the Committee needs to look in the mirror and see who created this mess, see who created the tax code that drives American companies overseas.
Our corporate tax is more than double Canada’s. I never thought I would be complimenting Canada’s tax code – our tax code is double Canada’s. Our corporate tax is over ten points higher than Europe. Instead of saying theirs is too low, why don’t we set about to work that ours is too high.
Apple has 600,000 jobs they’ve created, American jobs and we want to drag them before this committee to chastise them. I find it abominable. Just in my state, we have $700 million in sales from Dow Corning. They make Gorilla Glass.
They were virtually out of business. In the 1990s, Apple struggled – if I had to guess, unfortunately, I didn’t guess enough to invest in Apple, but the thing is that in the ‘90s, people were worried they might go out of business. You know they had one computer that wasn’t doing well and then all of a sudden the innovation that came about. And we want to bring them forward and chastise them for their success.
A couple years, we did repatriation of foreign capital. If we want the capital to come home, don’t double tax it. We tax it 35 percent. Let’s tax it at 5 percent.
I have a bill that would repatriate profits from foreign companies at 5 percent and put it into infrastructure. Our country is woefully short of money for infrastructure. But you’re not going to get it at 35 percent— you are getting zero. Let’s make it 5 percent and create and infrastructure fund.
There are probably 70 votes for that in Congress but nobody will bring it up. Why? They say, “Oh, it’s the sweetener for overall tax reform, which is illusive and a hill too tall to climb that it never seems to get here.”
Why not tomorrow pass it? Why do you think people are frustrated with Congress? Because we don’t do the right thing. Everybody admits, even those that want to drag Apple before this committee, they admit that the tax code is our problem.
But if we had repatriation at 5 percent, then they would bring money home. Why don’t we just pass it? Instead it has to be revenue neutral, scored by the CBO – just pass it if it’s the right thing to do.
I would say what we really need to do is to apologize to Apple, compliment them for the job creation they are doing, and get about doing our job.
Look in the mirror and let’s make the tax code better, fairer, and more competitive world-wide. Money goes where it is welcome and currently our tax code makes money not welcome in our country.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Later on, when it came to his turn, Sen. Paul delivered an oration that I thought was even better; I will put it up later, if possible. The leaders of the lynch party, Carl Levin and John McCain, felt obliged to say that they are not vilifying Apple but are merely trying to shed light on the workings of the tax code. McCain delivered a rather sickening paean to Levin, and Claire McCaskill thanked him effusively for his bipartisanship.
I was never much of a fan of Ron Paul, to put it mildly, and I initially viewed his son with some skepticism. But it won’t take many performances like today’s to make me one of Rand Paul’s biggest fans.
Tim Cook is testifying now. He points out that Apple is the largest corporate taxpayer in the U.S., having paid $6 billion in income taxes last year. He concludes his opening statement with a rather impassioned plea for tax reform.
UPDATE: Ron Johnson and Kelly Ayotte are also doing an excellent job. Basically the hearing is turning into a teaching opportunity for Apple’s executives–now what Carl Levin had in mind.
Here is Senator Paul questioning a tax professor; this is what I referred to earlier:
UPDATE: Carl Levin tried to salvage the situation by going on an endless, repetitive soliloquy in which he misstated the facts relating to Apple’s overseas operations and didn’t give the Apple executives an opportunity to correct him. He then declared the panel at an end. That is the advantage, I guess, of being the committee chairman.
At the moment I am listening to the ostentatiously liberal Judge Mark Bennett of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa summarize the Supreme Court’s employment law decisions of the past year. Judge Bennett wants us to know that he has got his mind right (i.e., left), and how. I understood that from his disparagement of the conservative Supreme Court justices as “the usual suspects.” That was enough for me, but then he added facetious praise of Chief Justice Roberts for the “craftspersonship” of his opinions, a purported word I am grateful never to have heard before this morning.
Continuing legal education is a multifaceted thing. I’m wondering if I can claim elimination-of-bias credit (I need two hours to satisfy the requirement imposed by the Minnesota Supreme Court) for meditating on Judge Bennett’s mind-numbingly gender-neutral vocabulary.
“Arise and take our stand for freedom as in the olden time.” Winston Churchill
“Proclaim Liberty throughout All the land unto All the Inhabitants Thereof.” Inscription on the Liberty Bell
