But, just as details are emerging regarding who knew what, and when they knew it, we are slowly hearing about the impropriety of political discrimination. According to one of Illinois’ few Republicans, Representative Aaron Schock (yes, Illinois has a hand full of Republicans), a pro life group was asked by the IRS about the content of their prayers.
Imagine that. A government tax collection agency asking a bunch of citizens about their conversations with God. I guess we can chalk this up to the IRS’s complete disregard for Constitutional limitations. Does it strike anyone else as mildly anti-American to question religious (or political) beliefs in a review for tax-exempt status?
As we learn more about the IRS scandal, it becomes more and more clear that there is a larger problem at play. While the IRS’s unusual interest in private conversations between non-profit coalitions and God is troubling, it is merely a symptom of something larger. It might be that David Axelrod was right when he insinuated Obama could not be held accountable for any of the hat-trick scandals that are circulating through DC.
Sure, the Department of Justice seized the phone records of AP reporters and launched a criminal investigation against a FOX news reporter in a fashion that would make Richard Nixon blush. Sure the UN ambassador was sent out on a number of political talk shows to repeat what we now know to be a blatant lie about the death of a US ambassador in Benghazi. And, sure. . . The IRS intentionally used their very un-American style of intimidation, thuggery, and authoritarianism to scrutinize political non-profits that are unfriendly to Obama. But that doesn’t mean he should be held accountable, does it?
The bottom line is that this is what happens in big government. This is not purely a consequence of President Obama’s Chicago style politics. Nor is this a consequence, purely, of our current government’s leftist persuasion. This is the consequence of liberalism. This is what happens when a government is so large it involves itself in every aspect of a citizen’s life.
Could this have happened with a flat tax? Maybe just a fair tax? If our tax code was slightly less than 74,000 pages, would such intentional discrimination have been remotely possible? Had government been relegated to only a few minor tasks, and limited by even more mild funds, how difficult would it really have been to identify abuse?
When Government is so vast that the simple questions of “who knew what?” and“when did they know it?” are impossible to pin down, it might be time to start trimming the size of our bureaucracies. The concept of our democratic-republic is that of accountability. With no accountability, what good does our justice department, congressional investigations, or political elections do for we the people?
Many Conservative pundits have been quick to point out the danger such a massive government could pose to Liberals. “What if a Republican had been in charge?” Such an argument, however, will not win over many hearts. What is more at issue, is the very core of liberalism.
Liberalism thrives off of this sort of government over reach. Liberalism seeks to define “acceptable health insurance.” Liberalism deems punitive taxation on certain individuals to be “fair.” Liberalism is well entrenched in the fortress of government intimidation and manipulation. Only one year ago Democratic Senators Chuck Schummer from New York, Michael Bennet from New-New York (Colorado), and at least three others signed a letter asking the IRS to “probe” and investigate conservative non-profits. (Here's the Letter) It would seem that they got their wish. . .
The IRS might have caused a scandal, but this is nothing more than big-government bureaucrats doing exactly what big government liberals wanted them to do.
No comments:
Post a Comment