Targeting the IRS

May 28, 2013, n:nn a.m.

Playing Politics or Just Doing Their Job?

"Tax Exempt"
David Fitzsimmons
Arizona Star, May 23, 2013

If you're having trouble reading what the Section 501(c)(4) applicant is saying, it goes like this:

"I'd like to apply for 501c4 tax exempt status as a "social welfare' group."
"No politics, here, Hawkeye. I'm Mother Theresa with tea bags. Don't tread on my fat cat backers."
"Government is not the solution. (Unless you're a corporation.)"
"Never thought I'd be using the words 'social' or 'welfare' in the same sentence." Giggle, snicker.

[And I should note, if either the Arizona Star or the brilliant and insightful David Fitzsimmons, would prefer that I take down my recommendation that you subscribe to the Star and follow David Fitzsimmons' site -- along with this particular editorial cartoon -- all they have to do is ask.]

If you guessed I'm about to say something about the recent IRS flap, you're right. If you went on to guess I'm about to suggest that IRS employees be prosecuted, or exonerated, you're wrong. ("The more information that comes out about the scandal at the Internal Revenue Service, the harder it is to say employees there erred completely in putting more scrutiny on particular groups seeking tax-exempt status. According to the New York Times, for example, several of the tea party groups targeted by the IRS were engaged in overt political activity. One group — the Wetumpka Tea Party in Alabama — sponsored get-out-the-vote training 'dedicated to "the defeat of President Barack Obama."'” Jamelle Boiule, "Some tea-party groups examined by the IRS indeed crossed the line," Washington Post, May 27, 2013.)

Why am I not yet taking sides? Because I don't think anyone -- and certainly not I -- has a clue as to what was going on in their minds when they began investigating Tea Party organizations that were seeking tax exempt Section 501(c)(4) status. And that is the information, and essentially the only information, that is needed before coming to conclusions about what went on.

If it was the case that a small cabal of partisan, rogue IRS employees decided to strike a political blow for their President during a re-election year, and focused on making life as difficult as possible for anything that smelled of right wing Obama haters, then yes, we have a problem here.

That may yet turn out to have been the case. And I haven't been following every twist and turn of this saga. But as of today I am unaware of any evidence that was the case. If it was, possibly criminal prosecutions are in order, and President Obama deserves his lumps.

But if that is not what happened, the best that can be said of the tsunami of contempt and pre-judgment that has wafted over IRS employees is that it has been grossly unfair -- and fully as much a political act as serious as what they have been falsely accused of. The worst that can be said is that these attacks do serious harm to our democracy.

Whether you think it is the role of government to care for what Jesus called "the least of these," or whether you think the only proper role of government is fighting our continuous wars and paying down our debt, the federal government needs tax revenue. And the way it gets that revenue is by way of what comes very close to being a voluntary system. There are far too few IRS employees to insure that everyone pays his or her fair share. Tearing down Americans' confidence in the integrity of their IRS comes close to being a treasonous act -- regardless of whether it comes about as a result of what IRS employees have done, or as a result of what they have been falsely accused of having done.

For starters, the use of the word "targeting" is as unfortunate as it has been deliberate. Whether we are targeting a dart board, an archery target with a bow and arrow, or a fellow human with a gun, "targeting" suggest at a minimum an intention to use force against something, sometimes out of hostility.

As I have often said, "The problem is not that corporations violate the laws; the problem is that they write the laws." There is a difference between "tax avoidance" (using the tax laws, whether you or others have written them, to legally minimize your taxes -- as Apple argues was all it was doing), and "tax evasion" (lying, or otherwise violating the tax laws).

To paraphrase former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, "You don't collect taxes with the law you wish you had, you collect taxes with the law Congress hands you." If you and your tax lawyer think the Internal Revenue Code is more complex than it either should or needs to be, at least you only deal with it once a year. IRS employees have to deal with it many times every day.

I used to have to deal with the requirements of sections 501(c)(3) and 501(c)(4) when chair of the National Citizens Committee for Broadcasting. Both are made up of pretty fluffy stuff for even the most honorable among us. For those who wouldn't qualify for membership in that tiny group, the Code offers a great many temptations.

If the IRS doesn't have enough employees to thoroughly investigate every tax return, or request for special status, how can they decide where to put their limited resources?

The same way every other institution does. Doctors on the battlefield, or in an overcrowded hospital emergency room, use something called triage, separating the sick and injured into three groups: those who will die no matter what treatment they receive, those who will live regardless of how long their treatment is postponed, and those who will live if treated promptly and die if they are not. They are not "targeting" the last group; they are simply engaged in rational prioritizing. The management guru Peter Drucker would point out to some businesses that they were spending 90 percent of their sales force's efforts generating 10 percent of their gross sales, and 10 percent of their effort on the customers producing 90 percent. He didn't suggest they "target" those producing 90 percent, just give them a little more tender loving care. If a company is concerned that its sales force's travel expenses have been increasing too rapidly, it may chose to first focus on those employees who are the 5 percent top outliers. As we've recently learned, roughly one-quarter of the nation's 607,000 bridges need attention -- 66,749 are structurally deficient, 84,748 are functionally obsolete. We've been putting this off for at least a half-century. Now that we're going to do something about it, and we can't fix or replace all of them in a year or two, wouldn't a similar kind of prioritizing and focus be a good idea?

That's what IRS employees have to do every day. That's what I think, based on what I've read, they did here. If an increasing number of taxpayers are claiming that they are entitled to a business deduction for the portion of their living quarters in which they are "working on their business," that might call for a little more attention being devoted to taxpayers making that claim. Given the way Congress wrote the law, "more attention" might require a lot of questions the taxpayers consider unduly intrusive. The same would be true of businesses claiming expenses as non-taxable "business expenses" when the items look more like monkey business.

Whether an organization wants to offer its donors a tax deduction for contributions (501(c)(3)) or simply not have to pay taxes on its income or disclose the names of donors (501(c)(4)) each is a request to the IRS for special treatment resulting in less tax revenue for the government. And the answers, under the law, may well turn on who is doing what, and how much of it, and what can fairly be called "political" activity. The only way to find out what is necessary to make such judgments is to ask a lot of questions. That's not the IRS employees' fault. They are just doing their job. It's Congress' fault for not making more precisely clear what their standards are. And it seems to me that, like a doctor doing triage, with all the changes in corporations becoming people, the restraints off on anonymous million-dollar donations, and the new grassroots organizations on the left and right, it was a perfectly sensible thing for the IRS to do to give some attention to possible abuses.

It will be awhile before at least I have any confidence in answering the question of whether these IRS employees were "Playing Politics or Just Doing Their Job." And until we do know the answer it seems to me the less tearing down of Americans' confidence in their IRS, the better.

# # #

First Step to Reducing National Debt

April 4, 2013, 7:55 a.m.

Sunlight is the Best Disinfectant

“For the second time in three days, we unseal criminal charges against a sitting member of our State Legislature. It becomes more and more difficult to avoid the sad conclusion that political corruption in New York is indeed rampant and that a show-me-the-money culture in Albany is alive and well.” -- Manhattan U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara, April 4, 2013

Benjamin Weiser and Marc Santora, "In 2nd Alleged Bribe Scheme, a Legislator Was in On the Case," New York Times, April 5, 2013, p. A1.

Congress’ first step in long journey

Nicholas Johnson

The Gazette, April 4, 2013, p. A5
Democrats and Republicans in Washington are seemingly suffering from ideological immobilization regarding the national debt.

Republicans’ Grover Norquist famously said he’d like a government small enough that he “can drown it in the bathtub.” Republicans fear that if taxes are increased, the liberal tax-and-spend Democrats will just squander the money on bigger government and more wasteful giveaways. Meanwhile, Democrats fear that free-range, feral Republicans will ultimately leave us with no solution for our surfeit of poor children other than Jonathan Swift’s suggestion that we eat them.

I understand their dilemma. Being honorable men and women, they know that when you take hundreds of thousands of dollars from someone you have a moral obligation to reciprocate, to meet your donor’s expectations of reward.

Years ago, I documented their expectations. The average rate of return was 1,000-to-one or more. The official gets a $100,000 “contribution”; the donor’s repaid $100 million for his “investment.” The payback can take the form of, say, subsidies, price supports, tax breaks, government contracts, public land, bailouts or tariffs. [Political cartoon credit: Unknown; multiple sources.]

The total isn’t chump change. The International Monetary Fund says global subsidies for fossil fuels alone are $1.9 trillion a year.

Recently, 10 percent of the Fortune 500 corporations had so many tax breaks they not only owed no taxes, they actually got refund checks!

Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Oklahoma, explains what others fear to whisper: “It’s not about tax policy, it’s about benefiting the political class and the well-connected and the well-heeled in this country.”

Legislators need money to be re-elected. Can you see why it’s easier for them to cut Social Security or food stamps than their donors’ rewards programs? (The poor are notoriously miserly when it comes to large campaign contributions.)

So what’s our nation’s first step on this journey of a thousand miles?

Here’s an idea. Ask the Congressional Budget Office and IRS to, first, identify all the special interest tax breaks that lobbyists have obtained. Some benefit an individual company; others an industry, or all business. Forget the other trillions in giveaways; focus on tax breaks.

Don’t eliminate these tax breaks; just make them visible subsidies, as appropriations. Publish them online. Hold news conferences to brief journalists and bloggers, and let them run with it.

Then see what happens. If the public doesn’t respond, well, that’s democracy for you. If they do, it might provide some backbone implants for our “representatives” in Washington.

And Des Moines.

The Gazette’s Erin Jordan has skillfully brought this approach to Iowa’s sales tax. (March 23) “Report: Iowa lost $3.9 billion in sales tax breaks in 2010; Breaks up 62 percent since 2005.”

I’ve written about applying it to TIFs (tax increment financing) — the local form of handing taxpayers’ money over to for-profit businesses, as in “TIF Towers,” http://fromdc2iowa.blogspot.com/2012/04/tif-towers.html.

When it comes to federal, state and local politicians transferring taxpayers’ money to for-profit companies (often in exchange for campaign contributions), the practices and consequences are similar, whether the special treatment comes from local TIFs, state sales taxes or federal corporate income taxes.

The first step to reform is also similar: public disclosure of what’s going on.

How much money is at stake? Who’s getting it? In exchange for how much in campaign contributions?

Neither the media nor public in our democratic society can begin to redress these abuses so long as they take the form of essentially invisible tax breaks, rather than debated appropriations of giveaways, openly arrived at, and shamelessly set upon the table, under lights.

If only Congress’ journey of a thousand miles could begin with this simple, single step.
_______________
Nicholas Johnson, a former FCC Commissioner, teaches at the University of Iowa College of Law. Comments: www.nicholasjohnson.org and FromDC2Iowa.blogspot.com.
__________
Do you feel sometimes that your elected officials are sidestepping some of these major issues? Did you realize they've all been to dance classes? To "do a little sidestep" requires training, not to mention a good bit of talent:


[The preceding one-minute fair use clip is from the delightful 1982 R-rated full-length musical comedy, "Best Little Whorehouse in Texas," staring Burt Reynolds and Dolly Parton, among a great many other accomplished and well-known actors, and still available for rental and sale. It's based on a true story of a brothel outside LaGrange, Texas, that was ultimately closed down in 1973, following the work of investigative reporter Marvin Zindler of KTRK-TV, Houston. The writing was done by Larry King (whom I remember from Austin in the 1950s), the Governor was played by Charles Durning, and the studio was RKO Pictures. The film is copyright by, presumably, RKO. The use of this miniaturized, very brief clip is for non-commercial, educational and commentary fair use purposes only. Any other use may require the permission of the copyright owner.]

And here, for a little more serious approach to the subject, is Larry Lessig and his "We The People, and the Republic We Must Reclaim":



[Photo credit for opening photo: Unknown.]

# # #

Terrorism, War, 9/11 and Looking Within

September 10, 2011, 11:30

Reflections September 10, 2011, About Terrorism September 11, 2001
On the eve of 9/11's tenth anniversary, and all the reflecting that date triggers, it's useful to put it in context -- as we wait to see the outcome of the threatened truck bomb attack. Eric Schmitt and Scott Shane, "Hearing Rumors of a Plot, Cities Make Their Security Forces Seen," New York Times, September 10, 2011, p. A9

Given that milestone, this semester's Cyber and Electronic Law has led off with a focus on national security and the legal issues surrounding the role of technology as a weapon of war, a defensive shield, and a force eroding our civil liberties and privacy.

So the students and I naturally tend to keep an eye out for the new developments that seem to pop up on a daily basis, and informally share news stories with each other.

Thus, this morning's [Sept. 10] Associated Press story on the Gazette's front page, "An Intel Q&A: How the U.S. Gets It, Where It Goes," caused me to seek out the original and full story online. Kimberly Dozier and Calvin Woodward, "An intel Q&A: How the US gets it, where it goes," Associated Press/Panama City [Florida] News Herald, September 10, 2011.

It turned out to be a partial and not too detailed overview, mostly material we've already discussed in class, but useful basic information if you haven't been tracking what's going on.

What caught my eye, however, was an accompanying interactive document, "Government Targeted: Nine charged in radical U.S. Christian militia plot."

The only opening text is brief: "People who have attacked the government range from neo-Nazis and other racist and religious radicals to members of armed militias. A look at some of the most notorious attacks or plots the last 15 years."

What follows, as you scroll right, are descriptions of various anti-government attacks, with dates, pictures of the perpetrators, and the scenes of their damage.

Here are some of the first few:

It begins with April 19, 1995, and a picture of the Oklahoma City federal building after the bombing by "militia movement sympathizer Timothy McVeigh and assistant Terry Nichols."

Next is a deliberate derailment of an Amtrak train in Arizona six months later by the "Sons of Gestapo" (never caught).

Two months after that, December 18, 1995, "Tax protester Josephy Martin Baillie" is arrested when a "plastic drum packed with ammonium nitrate and fuel" is found behind the Reno, Nevada, IRS building.

"Seven members of Mountainer Militia are arrested in a plot to blow up the FBI's national fingerprint records center in West Virginia" the following year.

In 1997, "anti-government extremists" in what is "believed to be a protest against taxes" set fire to a Colorado Springs, Colorado, IRS office.

"Armed anti-government activists" near Fort Hood, Texas, chose July 4th of that year to attempt "an alleged planned invasion of an army base."

"Materials to make the deadly poison ricin" were found in the home of James Kenneth Gluck following his "10-page letter to judges in Colorado threatening to 'wage biological warfare' on a county justice center." That was 1999.

The list goes on: a plot to assassinate the governor of Washington, someone trying to buy sarin nerve gas and C-4 explosives who says "it would be a 'good thing' if somebody could detonate a weapon of mass destruction in Washington, D.C.," the discovery of "stockpiles of weapons allegedly intended for attacks on government officials," a "white supremacist, shoots a security guard to death at the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum," an IRS dispute "and a hatred of the government" led to injury and death when a private plane was deliberately flown into an IRS building, someone "fascinated with conspiracy theories, libertarian ideas and the science of warfare" shot Pentagon police.

Obviously, there are many more -- and probably far more than what the AP interactive feature describes -- up to and including last year:

"March 28, 2010

Nine alleged members of a Christian militia group that was girding for battle with the Antichrist were charged with plotting to kill a police officer and slaughter scores more by bombing the funeral - all in hopes of touching off an uprising against the U.S. government. The Hutaree militia members were arrested in raids in Michigan, Indiana and Ohio."

What are we to make of this history?

1. "Crime" often involves a theft of property, or aggression toward another arising out of a personal encounter. That is not what these incidents represent. All of the cases cited by the AP, however criminal, and whatever the mental health of the perpetrators, are in one degree or another politically or ideologically driven -- in this case, often by a hatred of the American government in general or a specific agency (such as the IRS) in particular.

The Southern Poverty Law Center reports a variety of additional ideological and hatred-driven attacks -- primarily representing racial and religious, rather than anti-government, hatred -- in its Hate Map, Intelligence Files, Intelligence Report, and Hate Incidents.

2. None of the anti-American-government terrorists mentioned above were of the Muslim faith, let alone driven, or even influenced, by Muslim beliefs.

Some were overtly "Christian" (as was the recent Norwegian terrorist, Anders Behring Breivik, "described as a right-wing fundamentalist Christian" -- notwithstanding some media's early assertions he must have been Muslim).

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
In the Name of the Fodder
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor & Satire Blog The Daily Show on Facebook

Virtually all of the individuals involved in the AP examples, one suspects, would self-identify as either Christian or non-religious. [The one possible exception, which the AP mentions and I did not include above, is "Nidal Malik Hasan, an Army major, allegedly opens fire at Fort Hood military base in Texas, killing 13 people and wounding many others. The motive behind the shooting is unclear. Hasan was in contact with a radical American-Yemeni cleric before the attack."]

3. We still confront real threats. Most responsible public officials, and American citizens, have made a genuine effort to distinguish between "anti-American radical Islamic fundamentalist jihadists" (or some similar phrase) and the peaceful American citizens who are their own neighbors, colleagues and friends of the Muslim faith.

We do this as naturally as we distinguish between members of the "Christian Hutaree Militia" and the Congregationalists and Catholics of our acquaintance.

Yet make no mistake, the evil motives of all responsible for the thousands of deaths, and subsequent consequences, of the attacks on September 11, 2001, in New York, Washington, and Pennsylvania, are among the worst in the trail of incidents of unspeakable cruelty throughout human history. I join all who continue to grieve over the loss of life on that day -- and the continuous loss of life, and $4 trillion in treasure, that have continued until the present day.

That kind of threat continues, despite our efforts.

The old line is still valid: "You're not paranoid, you've got real enemies."

America has real enemies. Eric Schmitt and Scott Shane, "Hearing Rumors of a Plot, Cities Make Their Security Forces Seen," New York Times, September 10, 2011, p. A9.

But if we are truly concerned about "terrorism," and seek to preserve our "homeland security," we need to look within as well as without. We need to recognize that by all odds the greatest source of terrorism in America -- criminal acts driven by political ideology and hatred -- comes from those who look like us and attend our churches.

As I have written elsewhere on this subject:

President Bush at one time said that those who finance, or “harbor” terrorists and their training camps, are as much our enemy as those who attack us.

OK, but surely we don't want to argue that it is only "terrorism" when others do it to us. And yet, if not, how do we justify "harboring" -- to use President Bush's word – the American Catholics who were financing terrorist acts of the IRA against Protestants in Ireland?

What about the "harboring" of our former "School of the Americas" (“SOA”) training camp in Georgia? It's trained those we've called "freedom fighters," and others might call “terrorists,” in Central and South America.

School of the Americas Watch charges that, "Graduates of the SOA are responsible for some of the worst human rights abuses in Latin America.” Does that make the former School of the Americas a terrorist training camp?

Apparently our government thinks not. At least there was no known plan to bomb the State of Georgia -- to be distinguished from our military forces sent to the Republic of Georgia.

Should we have bombed the State of Idaho [Timothy McVeigh's home] after the Oklahoma City bombing?

Nicholas Johnson, "General Semantics, Terrorism and War," Fordham University (speech text), New York City, September 8, 2006 (with endnotes of sources).

4. Rhetoric is relevant. Do I think right-wing, hate-spewing, haranguing talk shows are the sole motivating force responsible for the incidents itemized by the AP, or Jared Lee Loughner's shooting Arizona Rep. Gabrielle Giffords on January 8th of this year? No; of course not. Nicholas Johnson, "Glenn Beck: 'Shoot Them in the Head;' Beck Says 'Progressives' Are Radical, Revolutionary Communists Who May Shoot You," January 24, 2011.

On the other hand, there is a distressing similarity between what was said or espoused by some of those involved in the AP's cases, and some of the rhetoric coming from politicians, talk show hosts, and TV's chattering classes as they repeat their talking points.

With "freedom of speech" should go a certain "responsibility of speech," especially from those enjoying the awesome power and reach of our mass media.

Just some thoughts as we show our respect for our military, those who have survived as well as those who did not, patriotically following orders fashioned by others than themselves, and those civilians who also lost their lives ten years ago tomorrow.*
_____
* Chris Matthews just used [September 10, 5:00 p.m.] the following numbers: 6000 U.S. military killed (two times U.S. civilians on 9/11), 250,000 civilians killed in Iraq and Afghanistan, 100,000 U.S. military injured and requiring care (some, for life), and a cost of $4 trillion.

# # #

Austin's IRS Ablaze, Joe Stack & Americans' Anger

February 19, 2010, 12:15 p.m.

"It's a hard rain's a-gonna fall"
"I heard ten thousand whisperin' and nobody listenin'"
--From Bob Dylan's "A Hard Rain's Gonna Fall"
(brought to you by FromDC2Iowa.blogspot.com*)
What are we to make of Joe Stack's deliberately flying his plane at high speed into the Austin, Texas, offices of the IRS? (Photo credit: Alberto Martinez/Associated Press).

I think it was a predictable and inevitable act, and that there are more to come.

Because that sentence, and all that follow, will be emotionally laden for many, I want to make very clear at the outset what I am not saying.

(1) I am not advocating violence; I keep a picture of Dr. Martin Luther King on my office wall to remind me of his, and my, conviction that the non-violent path to social and political reform is not only more moral, it is also more effective.

(2) It is not my belief that Joe Stack was in any way "justified" in reacting as he did.

(3) I am not trivializing "terrorism." I recognize that (a) there is a difference between violent acts by Americans against Americans and (b) violent acts against Americans, here or abroad, by those of other countries. I believe what we tend to label as "terrorism" when it involves those from elsewhere is a real and serious threat that should be neither minimized nor trivialized.

So, with at least a few of the necessary qualifiers out of the way, here are some of my reactions to yesterday's events.

Predictable, inevitable, and replicable

The reason I think what Stack did was predictable is because I predicted it.

I have been writing about "terrorism" and "war" for sometime now. A couple years ago I took a somewhat different tack in the eight-part blog entry series, Nicholas Johnson, "Golden Rules and Revolutions: A Series," April 12-19, 2008 (with links from Part VIII to the prior seven). It later became a chapter in Nicholas Johnson, "Are We There Yet? Reflections on Politics in America," Part IX: Gold, pp. 178-208, especially "Income Disparity and Revolution" (2008).

The reference to the "Golden Rule" was, of course, to the line that "she who has the gold makes the rules," leading into a discussion of the growing income disparity and its potential consequences.

I am not a conspiratorial theorist, nor am I charging that anyone truly desires to turn the United States into a third world country, in which the top 1% of super rich rule over a 90% in abject poverty. All I would observe is that what is happening -- as a result of what will be spelled out in this series -- is not that different from what would be happening if that were the goal of government officials and the ruling elite. . . .

I recall reading many years ago -- where it was I would have no way of recalling now -- that there is a rough mathematical formula for predicting the point at which a growing income disparity will ultimately produce a revolution.

No, I don't think we're yet there in the United States.

But I am one of those who thinks Senator Obama was right when he said, " . . . there are a whole bunch of folks in small towns in [America] who are bitter. . . . They are angry. They feel like they have been left behind. They feel like nobody is paying attention to what they're going through." Perry Bacon Jr. and Shailagh Murray,"'Bitter' Is a Hard Pill For Obama to Swallow; He Stands by Sentiment as Clinton Pounces," Washington Post, April 13, 2008, p. A6.

Some say that to think and speak this way is to foment "class warfare." Indeed, even Warren Buffett, of all people, has been questioned and criticized for pointing out that his secretary pays a larger percentage of her income to the IRS than Buffett does. But as I went on in that piece to quote Warren Buffett,

“There’s class warfare, all right,” Mr. [Warren] Buffett said, “but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning.” Ben Stein, "In Class Warfare, Guess Which Class Is Winning," New York Times, November 26, 2006.

Those who refuse to acknowledge what's happening in America can charge those who do with being "elitist," or fomenting "class warfare." But that does little to assuage the anger of those on the losing side of this warfare.

And when that anger is permitted to seethe long enough the news from elsewhere can serve as a reminder of the limits that ultimately come to constrain the greed of oppressive governments and the super rich elite.

Nicholas Johnson, "Golden Rules & Revolutions: A Series - I," April 12, 2008 -- which was followed in the blog entry with three current examples of revolutions in other countries prompted in large part by such income disparities.

Now I'll ask you, who wrote this:

Why is it that a handful of thugs and plunderers can commit unthinkable atrocities (and in the case of the GM executives, for scores of years) and when it’s time for their gravy train to crash under the weight of their gluttony and overwhelming stupidity, the force of the full federal government has no difficulty coming to their aid within days if not hours? Yet at the same time, the joke we call the American medical system, including the drug and insurance companies, are murdering tens of thousands of people a year and stealing from the corpses and victims they cripple, and this country’s leaders don’t see this as important as bailing out a few of their vile, rich cronies. Yet, the political “representatives” (thieves, liars, and self-serving scumbags is far more accurate) have endless time to sit around for year after year and debate the state of the “terrible health care problem”. It’s clear they see no crisis as long as the dead people don’t get in the way of their corporate profits rolling in.

A quote from an earlier blog entry of mine? No. Give up? It's a quote from Joe Stack's letter/article of explanation for his acts that he headed, "American Zombies Wake Up and Revolt." Neil Katz, "Joe Stack Suicide Note Full Text: 'American Zombies Wake Up and Revolt,'" CBS News, Crimesider Blog, February 18, 2010.

You will recall that 234 years ago this year another American, indeed 56 signers, expressed if not identical, at least analogous anger:

[W]hen a long train of abuses and usurpations . . . evinces a design to reduce [the colonists] under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

[Over two dozen examples are set forth.]

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776.

And for a commentary about today's "oppressions" of democracy, aired tonight on PBS, see "Justice for Sale," Bill Moyers' Journal, PBS, February 19, 2010.

"Throughout his [Stack's] letter he repeated his disdain for "rich, incompetent cronies the government continued to bail out with 'HIS MONEY.' In a seven-page suicide letter left on his Web site, The Smoking Gun, Stack raged against the IRS, stating “I have had all I can stand.” . . . Near the end of his letter, he wrote, “Well, Mr. Big Brother IRS man, let’s try something different; take my pound of flesh and sleep well.” Shea Yarborough, "Pilot: 'I Have Had All I Can Stand,'" [University of] North Texas Daily, February 19, 2010, p. 1.

“I knew Joe had a hang-up with the I.R.S. on account of them breaking him, taking his savings away,” said Jack Cook, the stepfather of Mr. Stack’s wife . . .. “This is a shock to me that he would do something like this,” Mr. Cook said. “But you get your anger up, you do it.” Michael Brick, "Man Crashes Plane Into Texas IRS Office," New York Times, February 19, 2010, p. A14.

When is domestic, criminal, violence and property destruction "terrorism"?

Words make a difference -- including the choice between "criminal acts" and "terrorism."

Both were used following Stack's attack on the Austin IRS offices. Lisa Garza, "Authorities: Austin plane crash identified as criminal act, not terrorism," North Texas [University] Daily, February 18, 2010 (no longer available online, so far as I know); Joshua Rhett Miller, "Austin Plane Crash: Criminal Act or Domestic Terrorism?" Fox News, February 19, 2010; Official: Austin Plane Crash Into IRS Building ‘A Criminal Act’; Pilot's Suicide Note, Austin American-Statesman, February 18, 2010 ("A Federal Aviation Administration spokesman said the crash was 'apparently a criminal act,' . . .."); Ian O'Neill, "IRS Plane Crash: Was it Terrorism?" Discovery News, February 19, 2010.

DHS officials explicitly warned against the potential emergence of terrorist groups or "lone wolf extremists" in a report issued in April. The report, "Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment," found that while no specific threat existed, there was the potential for violence from extremists concerned about illegal immigration, abortion, increased federal power and restrictions on firearms.

Joshua Rhett Miller, "Austin Plane Crash: Criminal Act or Domestic Terrorism?" Fox News, February 19, 2010.

I have formerly written about the difficulty in defining "terrorism," and distinguishing between violence and property destruction by (1) Americans on Americans, (2) citizens of other countries on Americans, and (3) Americans on citizens of other countries. Nicholas Johnson, "'War' on 'Terrorism'" in "General Semantics, Terrorism and War" (2006), Nicholas Johnson, "Rethinking Terrorism" (2002); Nicholas Johnson, "What Do You Mean and How Do You Know?" Chapter 6, "You As Citizen II: Terrorism and War," p. 61 (2009).

Joe Stack is not the only American to engage in violence which, had it been done by a member of al Qaeda, would have been characterized as "terrorism."

Timothy McVeigh

The Oklahoma City bombing occurred on April 19, 1995 when American militia movement sympathizer Timothy McVeigh, with the assistance of Terry Nichols, destroyed the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in downtown Oklahoma City. It was the most significant act of terrorism on American soil until the September 11 attacks in 2001, claiming the lives of 168 victims and injuring more than 680. The blast destroyed or damaged 324 buildings within a sixteen–block radius, destroyed or burned 86 cars, and shattered glass in 258 nearby buildings. The bomb was estimated to have caused at least $652 million worth of damage.Motivated by the federal government's handling of the Waco Siege (1993) and the Ruby Ridge incident (1992), McVeigh's attack was timed to coincide with the second anniversary of the Waco Siege.

"Oklahoma City Bombing," Wikipedia.

Theodore Kaczynski

In 1971, he [Kaczynski] moved to a remote cabin without electricity or running water, in Lincoln, Montana, where he began to learn survival skills in an attempt to become self-sufficient. He decided to start a bombing campaign after watching the wilderness around his home being destroyed by development. From 1978 to 1995, Kaczynski sent 16 bombs to targets including universities and airlines, killing three people and injuring 23. Kaczynski sent a letter to The New York Times on April 24, 1995 and promised "to desist from terrorism" if the Times or The Washington Post published his manifesto. In his Industrial Society and Its Future (also called the "Unabomber Manifesto"), he argued that his bombings were extreme but necessary to attract attention to the erosion of human freedom necessitated by modern technologies requiring large-scale organization.

"Theodore Kaczynski," Wikipedia.

Army Major Nidal Malik Hasan

An Army psychiatrist facing deployment to one of America’s war zones [Iraq or Afghanistan according to Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas)] killed 13 people and wounded 30 others on Thursday in a shooting rampage with two handguns at the sprawling Fort Hood Army post in central Texas, military officials said. . . . Fox News quoted a retired Army colonel, Terry Lee, as saying that Major Hasan, with whom he worked, had voiced hope that President Obama would pull American troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan, had argued with military colleagues who supported the wars and had tried to prevent his own deployment.

Robert D. McFadden, "Army Doctor Held in Ft. Hood Rampage," New York Times, November 6, 2009, p. A1.

Now, not every angry American is going to fly a private plane into a government building. For starters, very few Americans have private planes. But as the President has observed, above, and as the Tea Party movement confirms, there are a lot of angry Americans -- Republicans, Democrats, third party members, and independents -- who are looking to do something, even if it's just to vote the incumbents out of office. See, "Tea Party Nation," and "National Tea Party Convention." It is inevitable that at least for an increasing number of them, that "something" will take the form of what Timothy McVeigh, Theodore Kaczinski and Nidal Malick Hasan did earlier, and Joe Stack did yesterday, February 18, 2010.

In one sense, it makes little difference how we define words like "criminal" and "terrorist." We can define words however we please, although effective communication will require some basic level of agreement regarding those definitions.

But in another sense we have much to learn from the definitions and their implications.

(1) Whatever we call it, we clearly have a significant risk of damage being done by Americans to Americans and their property. To the extent we wish to minimize such risks we cannot limit our concern to tracking those who come from abroad.

(2) The more Americans who feel oppressed, ignored, and abused by their government, the greater is the likelihood of such damage. This includes the transfer of taxpayers' money to some of the wealthiest Americans, the growing gap in wealth between the richest and the rest of us, and the increasing obscenity of the response of elected officials to campaign contributions, while ignoring constituents.

(3) What Kaczinski, McVeigh, Hasan and Stack have in common is that each felt it worthwhile to craft an explanation for their actions, and that each of their explanations involved complaints about the United States or other American governments and societal conditions. Those they killed were, almost exclusively, persons they did not personally know and with whom they had not interacted in any way. Their targets were symbols of the core of their complaints.

(4) Such attacks are, in this sense, distinguishable from those who kill a former lover or spouse, the member of another gang or competing drug ring, someone who gets in the way during a robbery, or one's fellow high school students or McDonald's employees. The actions of Kaczinski, McVeigh, Hasan and Stack were not actions that can be entirely explained by saying "they just snapped." There may have been some "final straw" that moved them to action, but there was clearly an anti-government anger driving them as well.

(5) What are we to make of those whose initial reaction to Joe Stack's attack was to reassure us that it was "criminal" and not "terrorism"? By contrast, questions have been raised about Hasan's attack on fellow members of the military as possibly "terrorism." Had Stack been Muslim, and had this Texan recently returned from Pakistan, would Homeland Security have been so quick to reassure us his actions were not "terrorism"? Blowing up buildings (McVeigh) or flying planes into them (Stack) have certainly qualified as "terrorism" on other occasions. Why not now? Do we have more sympathy for, do we more easily identify with, fellow Americans who engage in such violence than with those who come from abroad and do the same things?

(6) Whether football or foreign wars, the more you can understand about the thinking of your opponent the better. If it is easier for us to relate to those Americans whose anti-American government anger has prompted them to violent action, perhaps that can help us to understand how the anti-American government anger of al Qaeda and militant Taliban members abroad has motivated them to action. (As I've already said, I'm not justifying "terrorism" by either Americans or others, only that understanding what produces it may help us to fight it on both fronts.)

(7) There has recently been discussion regarding the propriety of prosecuting terrorists from abroad as "criminals" in federal courts, or "enemy combatants" in military tribunals. The identification of what Stark did as "criminal," notwithstanding the similarity of strategy to what was done on 9/11, may be relevant in this context as well.

(8) Finally, in thinking about our "war on terrorism," some have suggested that it might be more effective to conceptualize our challenge as less in the nature of traditional "war" (e.g., against a "nation," with uniformed military, and front lines) and as something more likely to be defeated if characterized as "criminal" in nature. The latter would suggest a police, diplomatic and intelligence approach -- along with development, removing the poverty and other causes, and "winning hearts and minds" -- as, indeed, many of our best generals have suggested.

Full Text of Joe Stack "Explanation"

If you’re reading this, you’re no doubt asking yourself, “Why did this have to happen?” The simple truth is that it is complicated and has been coming for a long time. The writing process, started many months ago, was intended to be therapy in the face of the looming realization that there isn’t enough therapy in the world that can fix what is really broken. Needless to say, this rant could fill volumes with example after example if I would let it. I find the process of writing it frustrating, tedious, and probably pointless… especially given my gross inability to gracefully articulate my thoughts in light of the storm raging in my head. Exactly what is therapeutic about that I’m not sure, but desperate times call for desperate measures.

We are all taught as children that without laws there would be no society, only anarchy. Sadly, starting at early ages we in this country have been brainwashed to believe that, in return for our dedication and service, our government stands for justice for all. We are further brainwashed to believe that there is freedom in this place, and that we should be ready to lay our lives down for the noble principals represented by its founding fathers. Remember? One of these was “no taxation without representation”. I have spent the total years of my adulthood unlearning that crap from only a few years of my childhood. These days anyone who really stands up for that principal is promptly labeled a “crackpot”, traitor and worse.

While very few working people would say they haven’t had their fair share of taxes (as can I), in my lifetime I can say with a great degree of certainty that there has never been a politician cast a vote on any matter with the likes of me or my interests in mind. Nor, for that matter, are they the least bit interested in me or anything I have to say.

Why is it that a handful of thugs and plunderers can commit unthinkable atrocities (and in the case of the GM executives, for scores of years) and when it’s time for their gravy train to crash under the weight of their gluttony and overwhelming stupidity, the force of the full federal government has no difficulty coming to their aid within days if not hours? Yet at the same time, the joke we call the American medical system, including the drug and insurance companies, are murdering tens of thousands of people a year and stealing from the corpses and victims they cripple, and this country’s leaders don’t see this as important as bailing out a few of their vile, rich cronies. Yet, the political “representatives” (thieves, liars, and self-serving scumbags is far more accurate) have endless time to sit around for year after year and debate the state of the “terrible health care problem”. It’s clear they see no crisis as long as the dead people don’t get in the way of their corporate profits rolling in.

And justice? You’ve got to be kidding!

How can any rational individual explain that white elephant conundrum in the middle of our tax system and, indeed, our entire legal system? Here we have a system that is, by far, too complicated for the brightest of the master scholars to understand. Yet, it mercilessly “holds accountable” its victims, claiming that they’re responsible for fully complying with laws not even the experts understand. The law “requires” a signature on the bottom of a tax filing; yet no one can say truthfully that they understand what they are signing; if that’s not “duress” than what is. If this is not the measure of a totalitarian regime, nothing is.

How did I get here?

My introduction to the real American nightmare starts back in the early ‘80s. Unfortunately after more than 16 years of school, somewhere along the line I picked up the absurd, pompous notion that I could read and understand plain English. Some friends introduced me to a group of people who were having ‘tax code’ readings and discussions. In particular, zeroed in on a section relating to the wonderful “exemptions” that make institutions like the vulgar, corrupt Catholic Church so incredibly wealthy. We carefully studied the law (with the help of some of the “best”, high-paid, experienced tax lawyers in the business), and then began to do exactly what the “big boys” were doing (except that we weren’t steeling from our congregation or lying to the government about our massive profits in the name of God). We took a great deal of care to make it all visible, following all of the rules, exactly the way the law said it was to be done.
The intent of this exercise and our efforts was to bring about a much-needed re-evaluation of the laws that allow the monsters of organized religion to make such a mockery of people who earn an honest living. However, this is where I learned that there are two “interpretations” for every law; one for the very rich, and one for the rest of us… Oh, and the monsters are the very ones making and enforcing the laws; the inquisition is still alive and well today in this country.

That little lesson in patriotism cost me $40,000+, 10 years of my life, and set my retirement plans back to 0. It made me realize for the first time that I live in a country with an ideology that is based on a total and complete lie. It also made me realize, not only how naive I had been, but also the incredible stupidity of the American public; that they buy, hook, line, and sinker, the crap about their “freedom”… and that they continue to do so with eyes closed in the face of overwhelming evidence and all that keeps happening in front of them.

Before even having to make a shaky recovery from the sting of the first lesson on what justice really means in this country (around 1984 after making my way through engineering school and still another five years of “paying my dues”), I felt I finally had to take a chance of launching my dream of becoming an independent engineer.

On the subjects of engineers and dreams of independence, I should digress somewhat to say that I’m sure that I inherited the fascination for creative problem solving from my father. I realized this at a very young age.
The significance of independence, however, came much later during my early years of college; at the age of 18 or 19 when I was living on my own as student in an apartment in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. My neighbor was an elderly retired woman (80+ seemed ancient to me at that age) who was the widowed wife of a retired steel worker. Her husband had worked all his life in the steel mills of central Pennsylvania with promises from big business and the union that, for his 30 years of service, he would have a pension and medical care to look forward to in his retirement. Instead he was one of the thousands who got nothing because the incompetent mill management and corrupt union (not to mention the government) raided their pension funds and stole their retirement. All she had was social security to live on.
In retrospect, the situation was laughable because here I was living on peanut butter and bread (or Ritz crackers when I could afford to splurge) for months at a time. When I got to know this poor figure and heard her story I felt worse for her plight than for my own (I, after all, I thought I had everything to in front of me). I was genuinely appalled at one point, as we exchanged stories and commiserated with each other over our situations, when she in her grandmotherly fashion tried to convince me that I would be “healthier” eating cat food (like her) rather than trying to get all my substance from peanut butter and bread. I couldn’t quite go there, but the impression was made. I decided that I didn’t trust big business to take care of me, and that I would take responsibility for my own future and myself.

Return to the early ‘80s, and here I was off to a terrifying start as a ‘wet-behind-the-ears’ contract software engineer... and two years later, thanks to the fine backroom, midnight effort by the sleazy executives of Arthur Andersen (the very same folks who later brought us Enron and other such calamities) and an equally sleazy New York Senator (Patrick Moynihan), we saw the passage of 1986 tax reform act with its section 1706.
For you who are unfamiliar, here is the core text of the IRS Section 1706, defining the treatment of workers (such as contract engineers) for tax purposes. Visit this link for a conference committee report (http://www.synergistech.com/1706.shtml#ConferenceCommitteeReport) regarding the intended interpretation of Section 1706 and the relevant parts of Section 530, as amended. For information on how these laws affect technical services workers and their clients, read our discussion here (http://www.synergistech.com/ic-taxlaw.shtml).

SEC. 1706. TREATMENT OF CERTAIN TECHNICAL PERSONNEL.
(a) IN GENERAL - Section 530 of the Revenue Act of 1978 is amended by adding at the end thereof the following new subsection:
(d) EXCEPTION. - This section shall not apply in the case of an individual who pursuant to an arrangement between the taxpayer and another person, provides services for such other person as an engineer, designer, drafter, computer programmer, systems analyst, or other similarly skilled worker engaged in a similar line of work.
(b) EFFECTIVE DATE. - The amendment made by this section shall apply to remuneration paid and services rendered after December 31, 1986.
Note:
• "another person" is the client in the traditional job-shop relationship.
• "taxpayer" is the recruiter, broker, agency, or job shop.
• "individual", "employee", or "worker" is you.
Admittedly, you need to read the treatment to understand what it is saying but it’s not very complicated. The bottom line is that they may as well have put my name right in the text of section (d). Moreover, they could only have been more blunt if they would have came out and directly declared me a criminal and non-citizen slave. Twenty years later, I still can’t believe my eyes.

During 1987, I spent close to $5000 of my ‘pocket change’, and at least 1000 hours of my time writing, printing, and mailing to any senator, congressman, governor, or slug that might listen; none did, and they universally treated me as if I was wasting their time. I spent countless hours on the L.A. freeways driving to meetings and any and all of the disorganized professional groups who were attempting to mount a campaign against this atrocity. This, only to discover that our efforts were being easily derailed by a few moles from the brokers who were just beginning to enjoy the windfall from the new declaration of their “freedom”. Oh, and don’t forget, for all of the time I was spending on this, I was loosing income that I couldn’t bill clients.

After months of struggling it had clearly gotten to be a futile exercise. The best we could get for all of our trouble is a pronouncement from an IRS mouthpiece that they weren’t going to enforce that provision (read harass engineers and scientists). This immediately proved to be a lie, and the mere existence of the regulation began to have its impact on my bottom line; this, of course, was the intended effect.

Again, rewind my retirement plans back to 0 and shift them into idle. If I had any sense, I clearly should have left abandoned engineering and never looked back.

Instead I got busy working 100-hour workweeks. Then came the L.A. depression of the early 1990s. Our leaders decided that they didn’t need the all of those extra Air Force bases they had in Southern California, so they were closed; just like that. The result was economic devastation in the region that rivaled the widely publicized Texas S&L fiasco. However, because the government caused it, no one gave a s*** about all of the young families who lost their homes or street after street of boarded up houses abandoned to the wealthy loan companies who received government funds to “shore up” their windfall. Again, I lost my retirement.

Years later, after weathering a divorce and the constant struggle trying to build some momentum with my business, I find myself once again beginning to finally pick up some speed. Then came the .COM bust and the 911 nightmare. Our leaders decided that all aircraft were grounded for what seemed like an eternity; and long after that, ‘special’ facilities like San Francisco were on security alert for months. This made access to my customers prohibitively expensive. Ironically, after what they had done the Government came to the aid of the airlines with billions of our tax dollars … as usual they left me to rot and die while they bailed out their rich, incompetent cronies WITH MY MONEY! After these events, there went my business but not quite yet all of my retirement and savings.
By this time, I’m thinking that it might be good for a change. Bye to California, I’ll try Austin for a while. So I moved, only to find out that this is a place with a highly inflated sense of self-importance and where damn little real engineering work is done. I’ve never experienced such a hard time finding work. The rates are 1/3 of what I was earning before the crash, because pay rates here are fixed by the three or four large companies in the area who are in collusion to drive down prices and wages… and this happens because the justice department is all on the take and doesn’t give a f*** about serving anyone or anything but themselves and their rich buddies.
To survive, I was forced to cannibalize my savings and retirement, the last of which was a small IRA. This came in a year with mammoth expenses and not a single dollar of income. I filed no return that year thinking that because I didn’t have any income there was no need. The sleazy government decided that they disagreed. But they didn’t notify me in time for me to launch a legal objection so when I attempted to get a protest filed with the court I was told I was no longer entitled to due process because the time to file ran out. Bend over for another $10,000 helping of justice.

So now we come to the present. After my experience with the CPA world, following the business crash I swore that I’d never enter another accountant’s office again. But here I am with a new marriage and a boatload of undocumented income, not to mention an expensive new business asset, a piano, which I had no idea how to handle. After considerable thought I decided that it would be irresponsible NOT to get professional help; a very big mistake.

When we received the forms back I was very optimistic that they were in order. I had taken all of the years information to Bill Ross, and he came back with results very similar to what I was expecting. Except that he had neglected to include the contents of Sheryl’s unreported income; $12,700 worth of it. To make matters worse, Ross knew all along this was missing and I didn’t have a clue until he pointed it out in the middle of the audit. By that time it had become brutally evident that he was representing himself and not me.

This left me stuck in the middle of this disaster trying to defend transactions that have no relationship to anything tax-related (at least the tax-related transactions were poorly documented). Things I never knew anything about and things my wife had no clue would ever matter to anyone. The end result is… well, just look around.

I remember reading about the stock market crash before the “great” depression and how there were wealthy bankers and businessmen jumping out of windows when they realized they screwed up and lost everything. Isn’t it ironic how far we’ve come in 60 years in this country that they now know how to fix that little economic problem; they just steal from the middle class (who doesn’t have any say in it, elections are a joke) to cover their asses and it’s “business-as-usual”. Now when the wealthy f*** up, the poor get to die for the mistakes… isn’t that a clever, tidy solution.

As government agencies go, the FAA is often justifiably referred to as a tombstone agency, though they are hardly alone. The recent presidential puppet GW Bush and his cronies in their eight years certainly reinforced for all of us that this criticism rings equally true for all of the government. Nothing changes unless there is a body count (unless it is in the interest of the wealthy sows at the government trough). In a government full of hypocrites from top to bottom, life is as cheap as their lies and their self-serving laws.

I know I’m hardly the first one to decide I have had all I can stand. It has always been a myth that people have stopped dying for their freedom in this country, and it isn’t limited to the blacks, and poor immigrants. I know there have been countless before me and there are sure to be as many after. But I also know that by not adding my body to the count, I insure nothing will change. I choose to not keep looking over my shoulder at “big brother” while he strips my carcass, I choose not to ignore what is going on all around me, I choose not to pretend that business as usual won’t continue; I have just had enough.

I can only hope that the numbers quickly get too big to be white washed and ignored that the American zombies wake up and revolt; it will take nothing less. I would only hope that by striking a nerve that stimulates the inevitable double standard, knee-jerk government reaction that results in more stupid draconian restrictions people wake up and begin to see the pompous political thugs and their mindless minions for what they are. Sadly, though I spent my entire life trying to believe it wasn’t so, but violence not only is the answer, it is the only answer. The cruel joke is that the really big chunks of s*** at the top have known this all along and have been laughing, at and using this awareness against, fools like me all along.

I saw it written once that the definition of insanity is repeating the same process over and over and expecting the outcome to suddenly be different. I am finally ready to stop this insanity. Well, Mr. Big Brother IRS man, let’s try something different; take my pound of flesh and sleep well.
The communist creed: From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.

The capitalist creed: From each according to his gullibility, to each according to his greed.
Joe Stack (1956-2010)
02/18/2010

Neil Katz, "Joe Stack Suicide Note Full Text: 'American Zombies Wake Up and Revolt,'" CBS News, Crimesider Blog, February 18, 2010.

_______________

* Why do I put this blog ID at the top of the entry, when you know full well what blog you're reading? Because there are a number of Internet sites that, for whatever reason, simply take the blog entries of others and reproduce them as their own without crediting the source. I don't mind the flattering attention, but would appreciate acknowledgment as the source -- even if I have to embed it myself.
-- Nicholas Johnson
# # #