Posted on May 19, 2013 by Scott Johnson in History, IRS, Media, Obama Administration Scandals

On first looking into Chapman’s Nixon

Our friends at RealClearPolitics have posted Steve Chapman’s Chicago Tribune column “The false Nixon equivalence.” It addresses the subject I took up in “Nixon’s IRS” and, more broadly, in “A Watergate footnote.”

Chapman makes the case that comparisons of Obama with Nixon in the matter of the current IRS scandal are misguided. I think the comparison is useful. The outrages committed by the IRS under Obama in the past few years have just begun to come to light. It is way too early to absolve Obama of responsibility, and his lawyerly denial of knowledge last week of the Inspector General’s report (as opposed to the abuses themselves) ought to raise your eyebrows if you’re paying attention. At the least, I think the comparisons of Obama with Nixon in the case of the IRS lead to a better understanding of the outrages that have come to light.

In my post on Nixon’s purported abuse of the IRS I pointed out the futility of Nixon’s efforts. Nixon’s desire to harass his political enemies through the IRS went unrequited. You have to read Chapman’s column closely to see that he confirms this point in every jot and tittle, though I’m not sure he understands it.

Chapman simply quotes Nixon’s colorful private statements seeking to harass his opponents via the IRS. Nixon’s efforts, however, went approximately nowhere, and Nixon vowed to make headway in his second term. In his second term, IRS Commissioner Donald Alexander refused to execute Nixon’s wishes. Nixon’s failures with the IRS are almost funny. Here is Chapman:

On multiple occasions, at the behest of the president or his top aides, the IRS was told to audit individuals whose activities created dissatisfaction in the Oval Office.

The chairman of the Democratic National Committee, Lawrence O’Brien, got special attention. One of Nixon’s top aides called the commissioner of the IRS and demanded action, hoping to “send him to jail before the elections.” Nixon ordered investigations of Democrats who might run against him.

So how did it go? Chapman doesn’t say.

Chapman contrasts Nixon speaking in private expressing his desire to misuse the IRS with Obama’s public condemnation of the IRS abuses that have just come to light. This is fatuous. Does Chapman suppose that Nixon would have spoken the same in public as he did in private? He would have proclaimed the IRS an “independent agency” just as Obama (falsely) did last week. We have no idea what Obama has said in private regarding the IRS abuses that served him so well. Yet Chapman gives every indication of thinking this is serous analysis. Is this some kind of a joke?

Nixon and his henchmen fruitlessly desired the IRS to “screw” their political opponents. Their efforts were a pathetic failure. It was a case of unrequited hatred. Chapman omits the explanation of Nixon henchman Jack Caulfield, who astutely complained that the IRS was a “monstrous bureaucracy…dominated and controlled by Democrats.” Caulfield was on to something.

By contrast with Nixon’s failures to misuse the IRS, the IRS has very effectively “screwed” Obama’s political opponents, and we have yet to learn what the president knew and when he knew it. Chapman finds those of us who make the comparison (or contrast) of Nixon with Obama as guilty of thought crime, but the comparison is illuminating for anyone with eyes to see.

Posted on by Steven Hayward in Campaign finance regulation, IRS, Obama Administration Scandals

How the IRS Scandal Could Backfire

CBS News reported yesterday that senior officials in the Treasury Department knew of the IRS targeting of conservative groups during the 2012 campaign.  While this doesn’t yet place the matter inside the West Wing, it assures another leg to the scandal at least.  To paraphrase an old Watergate-era slogan, “Follow the money-grubbers.”

(CBS News) WASHINGTON – There were new questions Saturday night concerning if anyone in the White House was aware of the IRS’ targeting of conservative groups.  Inspector General Russell George said he informed a deputy at the Treasury Department in June of 2012 about the probe into the IRS.

In a separate story, however, CBS News notes that the IRS didn’t seem to scrutinize larger politically-oriented groups like Karl Rove’s American Crossroads or Obama’s Priorities USA.  Only a mainstream news organization would be surprised by this; larger, more establishment connected groups, like large established crony-capitalist corporations, are always able to deploy more resources and more expensive K Street lawyers to speed their way through the government thicket.  Like all other forms of government regulation, it is the little guy—like local Tea Party groups—that the regulators will target.

I’ve always said that the way to get rid of corruption in high places is to get rid of high places, and surely that’s the right answer here: let’s get rid of the byzantine campaign finance rules that stifle political expression or limit it to the insiders like Rove and Axelrod.  But the opposite is likely to happen.  The so-called “reform community” (Fred Wertheimer, chief nanny), which is very well organized and has media sympathy, is going to argue that the IRS scandal shows that we need more regulation of political speech, or at the very least, disclosure of donors, so that more people can receive the Koch brothers treatment by the left.  (Of course, the so-called “reformers” always want to change the subject when you bring up the exemption from campaign contribution disclosure that the Socialist Workers Party still enjoys; most reporters don’t even know it exists.)  At the very least, the IRS will argue that it needs a bigger staff to handle the workload from the confusing and admittedly vague regulations in this area.  The New York Times, furiously working on the counter-narrative, says the IRS Ohio office was “unprepared and unclear about the rules.”  Isn’t that always the way of government failure?  If a government agency screws something up, obviously they need a bigger budget.  For example:

Some congressional Democrats, fearful of being tied to the scandal, are backing the push for more aggressive enforcement of these groups. . .  Wertheimer, of Democracy 21, said the “laundering of secret money into elections” will become a greater scandal than IRS misconduct unless something is done.

Want to hear some really bad news?  John McCain is on the case.  Which means we’re doomed:

A Senate investigative panel led by Democrat Carl Levin of Michigan and Republican John McCain of Arizona has been reviewing the use of social welfare groups for political causes for the past year and now is examining the agency’s handling of the tax-exempt reviews.

Keep you eye on this.  Months from now, or maybe next year, after the scandal has died down, look for an attempt in the Senate to ratchet up regulation of campaign speech in the cause of “reform.”  They’ll say it will be to prevent the IRS from targeting conservative groups, but what it will mean in practice is that the hurdles to even applying for tax-exempt status will become that much higher.  Can’t target anything if there’s nothing to target in the first place.  It’s another case study in the irrepressible nature of the administrative state.  Can’t wait to see how the IRS handles enforcement of Obamacare.

Posted on May 18, 2013 by John Hinderaker

North America’s Strangest Mayor

Rob Ford, the Mayor of Toronto, has been in the news lately because someone allegedly has a video of him smoking crack. I have no idea whether the video is genuine or not, but Ford is a distinctly odd character. He makes Rahm Emanuel look like a normal human being; in some respects, anyway. New York Magazine compiled a list of 20 things you should know about Rob Ford. Not all are suitable for a family web site.

This sort of thing is typical:

On St. Patrick’s Day, Ford was escorted out of the bar Bier Markt after “storming the dance floor” and exhibiting generally drunken and “incoherent” behavior.

On the other hand, some of the items listed by NY Magazine sound like bad raps, perhaps motivated by the fact that Ford is a member of Canada’s Conservative Party. Some are merely outbursts of political incorrectness. Politics aside, though, some of Ford’s misadventures are pretty funny. Like this collision with a television camera, which prompted a loud and profane exclamation:

Then there was Mayor Ford’s brief stint as a quarterback. If you think he doesn’t look like an athlete, you are correct. This is reminiscent of the famous butt-fumble. Only, to his credit, Ford hung on to the ball:

The question I can’t answer is, how does a guy like that get elected to public office? Is it some kind of a joke, like when we Minnesotans elected Jesse Ventura governor? Does he have some other virtues that we aren’t hearing about? I really don’t get it. On the other hand, there are a lot of political careers that I don’t understand. Harry Reid? Maxine Waters? Joe Biden? The list goes on and on; but, whatever your political persuasion, Rob Ford belongs on it.

Posted on by Paul Mirengoff in gun control

Five dollars worth of “adorable”

Organizing for America, the Democratic Party’s successor organization to Barack Obama’s 2012 presidential campaign, is asking folks to “forward” Joe Biden’s response to a letter from a seven year-old boy on the theory that it is “adorable,” and to “chip in” a $5 dollar contribution, as well. I’m not sure whom Organizing for America finds adorable — Biden or the boy. Both, I guess, since it says the exchange is “adorable in every way.”

Anyway, consider the following forwarded:

[Name] –

This is just adorable in every way.

Myles, a 7-year-old from Milwaukee, wrote Vice President Biden a letter to suggest that if guns shot chocolate bullets, no one would get hurt.

The Vice President wrote back. Take a look at his response, then share it with your friends:

Dear Myles –

I am sorry it took me so very long to respond to your letter.

I really like your idea. If we had guns that shot chocolate, not only would our country be safer, it would be happier. People love chocolate.

You are a good boy.

– Joe Biden

Thanks,

Organizing for Action

—————-
A movement of millions elected President Obama. Let’s keep fighting for change. Chip in $5 or more to support Organizing for Action today.

Posted on by John Hinderaker in Energy Policy

Three Cheers for Tesla [Updated]

I have always been skeptical of electric vehicles, mostly because of my perception that electric car makers are more interested in subsisting on government subsidies than in competing on a level playing field for my business. So I was intrigued when I got an email this morning from Jeff Evanson, Tesla Motors’ Vice-President of investor relations. Evanson, a long-time Power Line reader, pointed out that the company raised over $1 billion last week, and will use a portion of those proceeds to pay off its loan with the Department of Energy ahead of schedule. This will make Tesla the only US-based auto maker with no government debt.

How about Ford, I asked? I thought they skipped the government bailout a few years ago. True enough, but Ford owes DOE under the Advanced Technology Vehicle Manufacturer (“ATVM”) Incentive Program, the same program that gave rise to the debt Tesla is about to pay off. So Tesla will be unique in not owing anything to the taxpayers.

I had heard of Tesla, but frankly knew little about it apart from the fact that it is considered a hot, trendy company. The company’s web site turns out to be impressive. This is Tesla’s Model S:

The company calculates the cost of ownership, in view of the fact that electrical charges are significantly cheaper than gasoline, here. They do take into account the availability of federal and state subsidies, which I would like to see repealed, but you can’t blame them for that. The company’s goal is to compete for business straight up, on a level playing field. Its vehicles should make that possible. Motor Trend named the Model S Car of the Year for 2013, and gushed over its performance and value:

The 2013 Motor Trend Car of the Year is one of the quickest American four-doors ever built. It drives like a sports car, eager and agile and instantly responsive. But it’s also as smoothly effortless as a Rolls-Royce, can carry almost as much stuff as a Chevy Equinox, and is more efficient than a Toyota Prius. … By any measure, the Tesla Model S is a truly remarkable automobile, perhaps the most accomplished all-new luxury car since the original Lexus LS 400.

The Model S starts at $58,570 and costs a mere 6 cents per mile to run–and that’s at California electricity prices.

All of this may be old hat to you, but it was news to me. Tesla’s success, financial as well as technical, suggests that the long-awaited era of electric vehicles may be closer at hand than we thought.

UPDATE: The New York Times apparently couldn’t fathom the possibility that an automobile company–an electric car company, at that–could induce people to invest in it voluntarily. What a foreign concept! From today’s NYT Corrections section:

An article on Thursday about Tesla Motors’ plans to tap the markets for more cash misstated, at one point, the way in which the company plans to raise the money. As the article correctly noted elsewhere, the company will sell new shares and debtlike securities; it will not raise new money from another Energy Department loan.

Posted on by Steven Hayward

The Week in Pictures, Umbrellagate Update

If the old weekly Life magazine had managed to hang on until the Internet arrived, it might have survived as an online summary, but fortunately they left the space open to Power Line.  And things are happening so fast we almost need to go daily with this feature.

I’m guessing that the fury of Marines on seeing Obama’s appalling breach of Marine protocol will be lost on the media, but I suspect Obama is on a lot of dartboards at Marine base watering holes right now.

So what’s it all mean?  Maybe this:

 

Posted on by Paul Mirengoff in Benghazigate, Obama Administration Scandals

Obama adminstration talking points scrubbed jihadists from Cairo as well as Benghazi

In the days after the Benhazi attack, the State Department scurried to cover up its failure to heed warnings of such attacks while the White House scurried to cover up the fact that that attacks were the work of al Qaeda-linked terrorists of the sort President Obama supposedly had largely vanquished. The final Benghazi “talking points” and Susan Rice’s talk show appearances represent the product of this scurrying.

To help advance the narrative that the Benghazi attacks were spontaneous, and thus (a) not to have been anticipated and (b) not linked to al Qaeda, the talking points tied Benghazi to the events of the same day in Cairo. There, unlike in Benghazi, a protest had occurred.

Here is what the final version of the talking points said on this subject:

The currently available information suggests that the demonstrations in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against the U.S. diplomatic post and subsequently its annex. There are indications that extremists participated in the violent demonstrations.

Through these two sentences, the administration succeeded in misleading Congress about events in both Benghazi and Cairo. The statement about Benghazi is simply false. There was no spontaneously inspired protest; rather, there was a pre-planned attack.

In Cairo, as noted, there were protests. But, as Tom Joscelyn argues, the protests were pre-planned, with jihadists playing a prominent role.

Multiple early versions of the CIA-drafted talking points make this clear. For example, the CIA stated:

On 10 September, the Agency notified Embassy Cairo of social media reports calling for a demonstration and encouraging jihadists to break into the Embassy.

The “social media reports” in question included a September 10 tweet from Mohammed al Zawahiri, the younger brother of al Qaeda emir Ayman al Zawahiri. He called on “the sons of the Jihadi Movement to participate tomorrow in the demonstration in front of the American Embassy.” And he included a banner displaying an al Qaeda-style black flag in his tweet.

That banner featured prominently during the 9/11 demonstration in Cairo. Says Joscelyn, protesters waved dozens of them as they chanted “Obama, Obama, we are all Osama.” The message was clear: jihad in general, and al Qaeda in particular, live on without Osama bin Laden.

This was precisely the message the Obama administration wished to suppress. And, for its part, the State Department wanted to suppress the fact that, not only were there warnings about danger to facilities in Libya, but also warnings about planned jihadist activity at the embassy in Cairo on 9/11/12.

Accordingly, the talking points were edited to remove any reference to “jihadists” threatening the U.S. Embassy in Cairo.

As Joscelyn concludes:

The early versions of the Benghazi talking points were right to highlight the threat posed by “jihadists” in Cairo. The thread connecting Cairo to Benghazi is plain to see: Al Qaeda-linked jihadists helped orchestrate both.

The Obama administration’s edits removed them from the story.