Remember Irwin R. Schyster aka “IRS”? He was a wrestler for the WWF back in the early 1990’s. He wore a short sleeved white collar shirt with a red tie and suspenders and he carried a brown brief case. Maybe not, I was just taking a little trip down memory lane.
Anyhow, is it time to abolish the Internal Revenue Service? Or is it more like the Eternal Revenue Service, the ERS because it seems this is one government agency that will be around forever. The IRS got caught with their pants down this week when news came out that appointed officials within the agency were targeting conservative grass roots organizations like the Tea Party. They also singled out groups with the words “Patriot” and “Constitution” in them. Members or these groups were asked what kind of books they read and other irrelevant questions that had nothing to do with anything.
On the other hand as a recent USA Today headline read, liberal groups were given a pass by the IRS. The double standard is obvious in this case but what about the conduct of the IRS during the Bush administration and the Clinton administration? There’s a pattern that crosses the partisan lines and we ought to look more closely at whether or not the IRS is more objective necessary pain in the butt when it comes to taxes or whether it’s a political weapon of choice for any administration Republican or Democrat who seeks to silence their targeted opposition. It’s not okay for the Internal Revenue Service under President Obama to purposely harass conservative groups for political and ideological reasons, and it wasn’t okay for the IRS to unjustifiably investigate the NAACP during the Bush administration.
Making the situation more complex is the fact that the President’s signature piece of legislation, the ACA (Affordable Care Act) will soon be administered by that same bully tactic, politically run IRS. It comes down to impartiality and the sacred trust of the people toward government. Now, government ought not be trusted like you trust your loved one, but some level of concrete trust in terms of competence and integrity should exist between the state and the citizen. But when the arms of government extend into matters of the freedom of assembly and the freedom of speech, then you have to wonder for future purposes how far will those arms extend; perhaps into the private lives of everyday Americans?
Will the IRS start harassing conservative individuals who might have said something perceived as anti-Obama during a call into a conservative radio show?
Will there be more instances where the IRS investigates Evangelical churches and leaders for no substantial reason like they did to Franklin Graham who said the IRS notified him that they were conducting a review of his organizations’ activities for the 2010 tax year?
Liberals have always mocked the idea of abolishing the IRS but this latest scandal only validates those who still support the its abolition.
It goes back to the loyalist mentality of liberals in relation to government. Government has essentially become their Lord and Savior, by way of the men and women who work within the federal body. If government ran itself, then an argument can be made perhaps, but government does not run itself, it is run and controlled by people who are imperfect. If not this group of legislators then maybe the next group will fulfill a goal of absolute tyranny over the individual, and if not that group then the next. We never know with government because we’ve given it an excuse to be less and less predictable because the citizen has allowed government to siphon more and more of their liberties with each election that presents itself.
I support the abolition of the IRS for no other reason than a lack of trust and issues of integrity. If you cannot exercise a level of trust then you shouldn’t be allowed to function inside the government. We can’t live in a country where parts of our federal system can be weaponized against the people. What the IRS did under this administration was basically an attempt to impede law abiding groups from using their constitutionally protected rights as citizens of the United States.
They did so by way of intimidation and unjust investigative measures, to send a message that if you speak out in protest we’re watching you closely.