It's been a cool, cloudy spring. Yes, we need occasional rainy days but does it have to be cloudy even when it's not raining? As I write this, we are finally getting some gorgeous weather.
I find long stretches of cloudy weather to be depressing. While on the University of Minnesota faculty I once had a secretary who liked cloudy weather and found sunshine to be depressing. But she was one of dem der Finns from up der nord of the Twin Cities, you betcha. Maybe she was genetically predisposed to cloudy weather - like we Schweitzers are genetically predisposed to building on high ground.
We Schweitzers will take our chances with snow and wind. But we don't build in flood-prone areas. Take New Orleans - below sea level, surrounded by Lake Pontchartrain, the Mississippi River, and the Atlantic Ocean. That's a lot of nature's water to keep from seeking its own level. You won't find many Schweitzers there.
But maybe there's another explanation. You won't find many Schweitzers in New Orleans for the same reason you won't find many of us anywhere - there aren't very many of us anywhere, except in Switzerland and a few scattered settlements like around here, and a few other places.
Which reminds me - how come the Monroe Police force cites more Schweitzers for speeding than Mongolians? Is it because they are biased against Schweitzers? I doubt it. Seems more reasonable that it's because there are more Schweitzers around here to commit that infraction. Can't cite Mongolians for speeding if there are none around here to speed.
Which reminds me - how come the IRS "targets" more right wing 401 (c) (4) organizations seeking tax-exempt status than liberal organizations seeking same? Could it be that there are far more right wing organizations than liberal organizations seeking tax-exempt status?
If there is a flood of right wing and tea party organizations seeking tax-exempt status, seems reasonable that they would be examined. Left-leaning organizations are examined, and occasionally denied tax-exempt status. But for all the hyperbole, none of the so-called "targeted" tea party and right wing organizations seeking tax-exempt status were denied - only delayed.
Of course, our vaunted media clones never pointed any of this out. They swallowed the story hook, line, and sinker, as intended by the organizations crying foul. As usual, the national media missed the real story - actually stories.
All of these 501 (c) (4) organizations should be rigorously examined and the rules governing them tightened and enforced. The current murky guidelines leave holes big enough to drive a truck through. If the organization is "primarily" involved in "social welfare," as opposed to political activity, it is granted tax-exempt status. If you believe these organizations are primarily involved in "social welfare," I have a bridge in Brooklyn about which we need to visit.
It was the Supreme Court's "Citizens United" decision that paved the way for these organizations for which political donors can remain anonymous. (Even political maverick-turned conservative Sen. John McCain agrees with former Sen. Russ Feingold that this was one of the court's worst-ever decisions.) With conventional political contributions intended to be limited and transparent, there has been a flood of political money going to the 501 (c) (4) organizations, under the guise of "social welfare."
Political donors should not be offered the umbrella under which they are anonymous. But since these organizations exist, the IRS should rigorously examine all of them. If the IRS would have so stated, they could have avoided giving its enemies the fodder that the sheep in the big time media ran with. Unfortunately, this whole flap might encourage the IRS to rubberstamp all requests for tax-exempt status.
Also missed by big time media clones is the importance of an agency like the IRS in a functioning democracy. People love to hate the IRS because they don't like paying income taxes and the agency that collects them. It's unfortunate that the IRS cooperated by shooting itself in the foot with those extravagant conferences that were so outlandish and out of place, especially during an era of low public trust in government.
A functioning democracy needs tax-collecting agencies that are fair and effective. Greece serves as an example where there is no effective mechanism for collecting taxes. And just as important, we need politicians who write tax legislation that clearly spells out the rules and backs up the IRS in enforcement.
It is going down the wrong road to denigrate the IRS for attempting to do its job. It is one thing to minimize one's tax bill through legitimate exemptions. It is quite another for the well connected to use murky rules to see how much they can get away with. But the story goes beyond restoring faith in the IRS - again, completely missed by the media clones.
As Mitt Romney, and more recently the CEO of Apple, stated, they "paid all the taxes that the law required." That, of course, is the problem - the laws were written by politicians unduly influenced by big money.
In other words, the problem is not the IRS so much as that the system is rigged - big money disproportionately influences the politicians who depend on that big money for their campaigns. And with the politically tone-deaf assistance of the IRS itself, the politicians and the big time media are quick to manufacture a scandal rather than to nail the crux of the problem - big money and the politically expedient path of painting government, taxes, and the agencies that collect them, as enemies of the people.
To restore faith in the IRS is an unpopular task, and it will be a long road back - but ever so necessary in a functioning democracy. The larger, more intractable, problem is the role of money in politics, made even more egregious by laws that allow it to be showered on politicians and causes beneath a veil of secrecy.
- John Waelti's column appears every Friday in the Times. He can be reached at jjwaelti1@tds.net.
I find long stretches of cloudy weather to be depressing. While on the University of Minnesota faculty I once had a secretary who liked cloudy weather and found sunshine to be depressing. But she was one of dem der Finns from up der nord of the Twin Cities, you betcha. Maybe she was genetically predisposed to cloudy weather - like we Schweitzers are genetically predisposed to building on high ground.
We Schweitzers will take our chances with snow and wind. But we don't build in flood-prone areas. Take New Orleans - below sea level, surrounded by Lake Pontchartrain, the Mississippi River, and the Atlantic Ocean. That's a lot of nature's water to keep from seeking its own level. You won't find many Schweitzers there.
But maybe there's another explanation. You won't find many Schweitzers in New Orleans for the same reason you won't find many of us anywhere - there aren't very many of us anywhere, except in Switzerland and a few scattered settlements like around here, and a few other places.
Which reminds me - how come the Monroe Police force cites more Schweitzers for speeding than Mongolians? Is it because they are biased against Schweitzers? I doubt it. Seems more reasonable that it's because there are more Schweitzers around here to commit that infraction. Can't cite Mongolians for speeding if there are none around here to speed.
Which reminds me - how come the IRS "targets" more right wing 401 (c) (4) organizations seeking tax-exempt status than liberal organizations seeking same? Could it be that there are far more right wing organizations than liberal organizations seeking tax-exempt status?
If there is a flood of right wing and tea party organizations seeking tax-exempt status, seems reasonable that they would be examined. Left-leaning organizations are examined, and occasionally denied tax-exempt status. But for all the hyperbole, none of the so-called "targeted" tea party and right wing organizations seeking tax-exempt status were denied - only delayed.
Of course, our vaunted media clones never pointed any of this out. They swallowed the story hook, line, and sinker, as intended by the organizations crying foul. As usual, the national media missed the real story - actually stories.
All of these 501 (c) (4) organizations should be rigorously examined and the rules governing them tightened and enforced. The current murky guidelines leave holes big enough to drive a truck through. If the organization is "primarily" involved in "social welfare," as opposed to political activity, it is granted tax-exempt status. If you believe these organizations are primarily involved in "social welfare," I have a bridge in Brooklyn about which we need to visit.
It was the Supreme Court's "Citizens United" decision that paved the way for these organizations for which political donors can remain anonymous. (Even political maverick-turned conservative Sen. John McCain agrees with former Sen. Russ Feingold that this was one of the court's worst-ever decisions.) With conventional political contributions intended to be limited and transparent, there has been a flood of political money going to the 501 (c) (4) organizations, under the guise of "social welfare."
Political donors should not be offered the umbrella under which they are anonymous. But since these organizations exist, the IRS should rigorously examine all of them. If the IRS would have so stated, they could have avoided giving its enemies the fodder that the sheep in the big time media ran with. Unfortunately, this whole flap might encourage the IRS to rubberstamp all requests for tax-exempt status.
Also missed by big time media clones is the importance of an agency like the IRS in a functioning democracy. People love to hate the IRS because they don't like paying income taxes and the agency that collects them. It's unfortunate that the IRS cooperated by shooting itself in the foot with those extravagant conferences that were so outlandish and out of place, especially during an era of low public trust in government.
A functioning democracy needs tax-collecting agencies that are fair and effective. Greece serves as an example where there is no effective mechanism for collecting taxes. And just as important, we need politicians who write tax legislation that clearly spells out the rules and backs up the IRS in enforcement.
It is going down the wrong road to denigrate the IRS for attempting to do its job. It is one thing to minimize one's tax bill through legitimate exemptions. It is quite another for the well connected to use murky rules to see how much they can get away with. But the story goes beyond restoring faith in the IRS - again, completely missed by the media clones.
As Mitt Romney, and more recently the CEO of Apple, stated, they "paid all the taxes that the law required." That, of course, is the problem - the laws were written by politicians unduly influenced by big money.
In other words, the problem is not the IRS so much as that the system is rigged - big money disproportionately influences the politicians who depend on that big money for their campaigns. And with the politically tone-deaf assistance of the IRS itself, the politicians and the big time media are quick to manufacture a scandal rather than to nail the crux of the problem - big money and the politically expedient path of painting government, taxes, and the agencies that collect them, as enemies of the people.
To restore faith in the IRS is an unpopular task, and it will be a long road back - but ever so necessary in a functioning democracy. The larger, more intractable, problem is the role of money in politics, made even more egregious by laws that allow it to be showered on politicians and causes beneath a veil of secrecy.
- John Waelti's column appears every Friday in the Times. He can be reached at jjwaelti1@tds.net.
