Third Way puts words in my mouth to defend Zell Miller

Third Way leaps to the defense of Zell Miller.

So Third Way took a shot at me today, using Politico as their vehicle, because I guess having no constituency is no barrier to access if you have enough hedge fund managers on your board.

Politico has given me space to respond, so I’ll save my substantive rebuttal for that venue. But I do want to make a couple of quick points. First of all, it’s easy to see why it’s happening.

It happened because Third Way co-founder Jonathan Cowan was once an aide to Andrew Cuomo, who is the second coming of Joe Lieberman. I’ve been beating up on Cuomo lately, so Third Way is leaping to his defense by attacking me. Fair enough.

It happened because Third Way’s efforts to kill Social Security didn’t just run up into a buzzsaw at Daily Kos, but our activism convinced Democrats to run far, far away from what they urged. They even lost a co-chair in the process. Fair enough.

It happened because of this. Fair enough.

But what’s truly funny about their attacks on me is that they have to invent words in my mouth to make a coherent argument. I’ve written over 10 million words the past decade, and yet we get passages like this:

A charge implicit in the Moulitsas post is that moderate Democrats lack political courage—that they would do the right thing if only they were brave enough. This just doesn’t withstand scrutiny.

You rarely see that blatant an example of a strawman argument. It’s actually a thing of beauty. “He didn’t say this thing, but let’s pretend that he did, and OMG that pretend argument that we invented out of thin air fails scrutiny!”

Note that bullshit arguments are part and parcel of Third Way’s repertoire. As they were attacking Social Security, they completely invented a Colorado ballot initiative that wasn’t (claiming it raised taxes on just the rich, when it raised taxes on everyone). So it’s not as if honesty comes naturally to that crowd. But for now, I’ll make one more observation. This appears to be the nut of their argument:

Of the 10 former Democratic senators that Moulitsas identifies, seven were replaced by Republicans, one by Montanan John Walsh, who is in a fight for his political life this year, and another by Democrat Joe Donnelly of Indiana, who is unlikely to make the DailyKos Pantheon of Progressiveness.

Donnelly didn’t replace Evan Bayh. He replaced Dick Lugar. But that simple fact check isn’t the point I want to make. The point is this:

Who cares if seven of the 10 were replaced with Republicans? Ten years ago, Democrats had 49 members in the Senate. Today they have 53 plus Bernie Sanders and Angus King. And even if they lose the Senate this year, which they won’t, it won’t be much more than a rental as 2016 is a stellar map for us (up to 10 potential pickups).

So is it better to have Ben Nelson, Joe Lieberman and Zell Miller in a 49-seat minority, or is it better to replace them with better Democrats in a 55-seat Democratic majority? Only morons would argue for the former, but apparently, that’s what Third Way wants to be.

Daily Kos

Third Way puts words in my mouth to defend Zell Miller

It’s Matt Miller Time!

It’s Matt Miller Time!
http://cdn.thedailybeast.com/content/dailybeast/articles/2014/02/24/it-s-matt-miller-time-longtime-radio-host-runs-for-congress/jcr:content/image.crop.800.500.jpg/1393242577081.cached.jpg

Politics

02.24.14

The race to replace Henry Waxman is on, and the host of ‘Left, Right, Center’ is at the helm, looking to do more than just talk the talk.

Ira Glass for President! Robert Siegel for Vice-President! Nina Totenberg for attorney general, obviously, and then maybe those Car Talk guys can share the job of Secretary of Transportation. Fundraisers will phase away, of course, in favor of pledge drives.

The complete public radio takeover of federal government may still be a long ways off, but the Tote Bag caucus in the House of Representatives could grow by one come November when Matt Miller, the longtime host of the nationally syndicated public affairs show “Left Right and Center” hopes to be sworn into Congress, replacing the retiring Henry Waxman.

Miller, who is also a columnist for The Washington Post (and a former one for The Daily Beast), said that he had looked at getting on the other side of the microphone for a while.

“I spent a good chunk of my life writing books and columns and trying to figure out what the answers are to the biggest challenges the country faces,” said the one-time Clinton admin official in a phone interview from his home in Los Angeles, where “Left, Right Center” is based out of local public radio station KCRW. “I always thought that when Henry Waxman stepped aside I would look at this.”

Miller certainly has fluency both around a microphone and around the big ideas that campaigns are supposed to be about.

Waxman, a liberal icon who counts the Clean Air Act and Obamacare among his many achievements in a nearly four decade career, suddenly announced his retirement last month—“no one thought it would happen so soon,” Miller said. “We had to do some quick soul-searching as a family”—and the race to replace him is quickly turning into one of the most entertaining political battles of the year.

Besides Miller, there is Wendy Greuel, a former city controller who by most accounts would be the mayor of Los Angeles by now had she not run an inept race against Eric Garcetti. There is Ted Lieu, a state lawmaker who has become the quick favorite of local progressives.

California is still getting used to its “Top Two” primary system, which means that the top two vote getters—regardless of party—face-off in the general election, even if one them wins the primary in a landslide. This has provided an opening to Marianne Williamson, a New Age guru and the author of works like The Gift of Change: Spiritual Guidance for Living Your Best Life and A Course In Weight Loss: 21 Spiritual Lessons for Surrendering Your Weight  Forever, who is running as an Independent. Once thought to be something of joke candidate, Angelenos say she is now gaining traction, threatening to pour some of her own career fortune as a popular guru into the race, and hiring both former Howard Dean political advisor Joe Trippi and a former longtime Wendy Greuel advisor to run her campaign.

“I am completely inspired by her,” said Howie Klein, founder and treasurer of Blue America PAC and a prominent progressive blogger. He said that the Williamson campaign has been in touch with liberal lions of the House like Alan Grayson and Keith Ellison.

“Politics for me is of a spiritual nature. A lot of us on the left have forgotten that,” he added. “Why do people call her ‘flaky’? Because she has a spiritual approach? Marianne Williamson has saved people’s lives.”

Miller then, who represents the “center” on “Left, Right and Center,” has to position himself as someone more grounded than a guru, but an outsider who doesn’t have the baggage that his other opponents, with their long careers in office, have.

“I think he will run as an alternative that is not that alternative,” said Raphael J. Sonenshein, the executive director of the Pat Brown Institute for Public Affairs. “In California politics, having the establishment behind you is really great right up until the moment it becomes a huge liability.”

Miller comes with his own advantages, including a fundraising base that stems from being a sort of local celebrity and a national voice on the need to radically modernize much of how government works. Plus, although Miller now sounds more like a candidate than a radio host who likes to provocate both left and right, he is not naïve about the challenges in winning over the Democratic base. 

 “It is very hard for someone who is not a career politician entering the arena to get all of the endorsements that the career politicians who have been working on them for two decades. I respect and honor all of those groups. I think [endorsements] will be a challenge, but as a practical matter I think I need to run a different kind of campaign, one that offers solutions to voters in ways that will break through the same old same old,” he said.

Miller certainly has fluency both around a microphone and around the big ideas that campaigns are supposed to be about. In the course of a brief interview, he moved easily between keeping health costs down, making the teaching profession more attractive, and the need to invest in the nation’s crumbling infrastructure, pausing only to let his dog pawing at his door in. (“My research assistant,” he said.)

To anyone who has listened to his show, it is a familiar spiel, with Miller chastising the GOP for being “retrograde and nihilist” and Democrats for being “timid and inadequate.”

“Do you know Marty Feldstein?” he said, queuing up a rant he has delivered probably hundreds of times on air. “He was a chief economic advisor to Ronald Reagan. He says we need a 200 billion dollar infrastructure plan. That is an order of magnitude bigger than the mainstream debate that Washington is talking about. Barack Obama doesn’t have a $ 200 billion infrastructure plan. The progressive caucus does. What is going on in our debate when you have the progressive caucus and Reagan’s economic advisor saying this is the magnitude of what we do to our infrastructure. But the mainstream debate isn’t there.”

Miller has often written and spoken about how some favored liberal programs like social security and Medicare need to be reformed in order for there to be money for progressive causes that address inequality. It may be a trickier dance in a primary in which the most partisan Democrats are often the only ones who show up at the polls. He mostly avoids calling himself a “centrist” now.

“I like to say that the center in Los Angeles is practically Marxist in the rest of the country. So what I try to do is move common sense solutions To. The. Center,” he said, pausing after each word to make sure his meaning was clear. “As Democrats we need to speak much more boldly about how we address inequality and not just pay lip service to these ideas.”

Likewise, Miller often had warm things to say about groups like No Labels and Americans Elect, which tried to get people into office outside of the traditional party system—a system that Miller is now trying to work to his own benefit.

“I sometimes wrote in favor of what Americans Elect was doing. I know [group founders] Nancy Jacobson and Jon Huntsman—I tried to recruit Jon Huntsman to our show and he said he agrees with me too much to be on our show! I said, ‘John  I watched you in the Republican primary, I don’t think so!’—But I admire what those folks are doing and anyone who tries to bring a problem-solving lens to politics. What I was trying to do with all of my work is challenge the terms of the debate.”

There are, to be sure, other former radio pros who have been elected to Congress, including Trey Radel, the former Florida member who was recently busted for cocaine, former Arizona Rep. J.D. Hayworth, and Blake Farenthold, a Tea Party member from Texas. But polling stations are littered with the dreams of those who hoped to hop over from talking about the news to making it themselves.

Miller, though, disputed the notion that behind every political commentator is a would-be-politician waiting for their moment.

“I actually think when you are a communicator and observer you can try to influence the debate and hope people adopt your ideas. I feel very fortunate. I have written books that presidents read—you know, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama and Paul Krugman and Bill Bradley and Bob Kerry all have been very generous in the praise of some of what I have written. But my wife says, you have been writing these books for 15 years and nothing has changed. Don’t you think it is time you get in there yourself?”

Upworthy

What You Can Do To Help The Planet Just One Day A WeekThe Science Behind Why Humans Get Bored Is Inexplicably V…Unmistakable Proof That Something’s Wrong With Our Justic…

Vulture

Tim Meadows Cast As Casey Wilson’s DadFox Is Making a Dennis Rodman North Korea MovieAnchorman 2 to Get Re-Released With New Jokes

CNBC

Ukraine’s ousted president wanted for mass murderUS should protect privacy of all: Mozilla chairWorld’s biggest companies pay out $ 1 trillion in dividends

The Daily Beast – Latest Articles

Read more about It’s Matt Miller Time! and other interesting subjects concerning Commentary at TheDailyNewsReport.com

Obama speech: Miller Lite commercial: less filling, tastes great

Obama speech: Miller Lite commercial: less filling, tastes great

by Jon Rappoport

January 17, 2014

www.nomorefakenews.com

Obama just made a Miller Lite speech, to calm fears that NSA spying is a bother and a problem. Not so. All is well.

He’ll cut down the NSA practice of spying on people connected to people connected to people of interest. The three layers will become only two.

This is great, except that NSA is already spying on everybody. Three, two, 16? What difference does it make?

For the “tastes great” part, the President reminded us that NSA snoops are just regular folks. They’re our “friends and neighbors,” he said.

I know. That’s the point. There are cold-eyed androids among us.

For the “less filling,” Obama proposed that the all-encompassing metadata of NSA-captured phone calls shouldn’t be held by the government. That’s bad. Instead, the phone companies themselves should hold it, and then let the government look at it.

Whew. What a relief.

We all know NSA will do whatever it wants to, in order to keep spying on us. Trim their capability a little over here, they’ll go over there and do the same thing from another vector.

That’s what the Surveillance State is all about.

Obama also jammed in a sideswipe at Snowden, just to keep the traitor narrative alive. And to let us know stealing State secrets is a heinous crime.

You see, the State can steal our information, but we can’t steal its information. That’s the basic principle.

But to quote our leader from an earlier speech(es), “We’re all in this together.”

I guess it depends on what the meaning of “together” is.

NSA won’t bother parsing that. They’ll just keep on watching and compiling and collating. Being Peeping Tom Central is in their blood. “To keep us safe.”

As the pollsters go to the phones and gauge public reaction to Obama’s speech, I have a suggestion. Ask, “Do you believe the President was being forthright and honest?” And then ask, “Okay now, do you REALLY believe he was being forthright and honest?”

And if NSA wants to repair its public image, I have more suggestions. Since you boys are spying on everybody all the time, release the following information to the press:

Conversations involving politicians, at all levels, on the subject of hookers and underage sex targets;

Elite pedophile rings;

Communications (military, intelligence, DOJ, State Dept., White House) re what really happened in Benghazi, what really happened in the Fast&Furious Op;

Brokerage house/banker/billionaire manipulation of the stock market;

Behind the scenes lies among the high-echelon execs at Monsanto.

Just for starters.

Obviously, you have all this info. Release it now. Prove you’re on our side.

What? All those people aren’t your targets?

We are?

Oh.

Gotta go. My refrigerator just told me the toaster said I put hemp butter on my toast this morning. It’s an indicator I could have two tons of pot in my garage.

Jon Rappoport

The author of two explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED and EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29^th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free emails at www.nomorefakenews.com

Like this:

Like Loading…

.

Jon Rappoport’s Blog

Obama speech: Miller Lite commercial: less filling, tastes great

Barney Frank: Not Surprised Rep. Miller Quit After "40 Years Of Stress"

Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) noted that Rep. George Miller’s (D-CA) retirement announcement on Monday might be because the job is just too grueling.

In an interview with TPM on Monday Frank said he understood why Miller would want to retire from Congress: 40 years in politics can really take a toll on someone.

“I’ve been there and I understand why he would do it and I bet you that George will continue to play a very major role in advocacy but the question is not why he’s retiring now,” Frank told TPM on Monday afternoon, just a few hours after Miller announced that he would retire from Congress at the end of 2014. “I am not at all surprised that after 40 years of stress he just doesn’t want to do it anymore.”

Miller and Frank are both regarded as some of the most liberal members of Congress in the past few decades (although Frank is considered the more fiery of the two). Frank announced his retirement plans back in 2011.

“I’m a few years older than George but I also called it quits after 40 years and it wasn’t because I thought we’d take the House back. Frankly, at that point, if someone had told me at the beginning of 2011 that we’d take the House back I would’ve quit earlier,” Frank continued.

Recently Miller has been one of the earliest backers of Democrats’ current push to raise the minimum wage. Miller, along with a number of other liberal lawmakers, was able to push the White House to embrace a $ 10.10 minimum wage hike. So why retire now?

“You’re judging, politically, a very human decision. And I haven’t talked to George but this,” Frank said. “A month after I had retired I realized that I was no longer flinching when the phone rang and I no longer worried about what god damned problem that some asshole caused that I gotta deal with now.”

The former Massachusetts congressman described Miller as a “passionate” liberal and a consistent defending of peoples’ right to join unions.

“He’s a passionate advocate for all the causes you believe in and the more deeply you believe in things, the harder the job is emotionally,” Frank said. “You take the losses personally — the frustrations of not being able to get things done. And human nature being what it is you tend to — you win something okay but it’s the losses, the inability to do things that keep you up at night.”

All TPM News

Barney Frank: Not Surprised Rep. Miller Quit After "40 Years Of Stress"

Dennis Miller On North Korea, Boehner & Joe Biden Groping A Woman

Dennis Miller joins Bill O’Reilly to weigh in on winning the lottery, Dennis Rodman in North Korea, John Boehner’s tan, and Joe Biden groping women at Christmas parties.

RealClearPolitics Video Log

Dennis Miller On North Korea, Boehner & Joe Biden Groping A Woman

Piers Morgan vs. Gun Rights Author Emily Miller

MORGAN: So my argument is, where there are more guns, there’s actually more likelihood of a gun being used, and call me old fashion in that theory, but, there is this heartbreaking case. A couple of days ago, an 18-year-old, who for a prank, in a family home with a family friend who’ve been staying there, hid in the closet and jumped out to surprise him. He happened to be carrying a gun, and because he was startled, he killed her with the gun. Well, that simply wouldn’t happen in countries where you’re not just overrun with everybody assuming (ph) there’s to carry in a gun.

MILLER: But what about the machete. The guy in England who killed a guy with a machete. I mean, people are vulnerable. You know, accidental death is a different issue. Don’t get that too much in my book, it’s about 700 people a year. It’s not that frequent of a crime, and obviously catches people attention because you think a guy who will — I will never do that. But their picture is this, gun — there has never been proven whether it’s the government CDC study, Harvard study, that any gun — all these gun control laws that I hear you advocate all the time. They don’t prevent violence, they decline violence. And that’s what we all want to do is decrease violence, make our children safe or make ourselves safe, or make our cities safer.

MORGAN: But what they do do is they dramatically reduce gun crime.

MILLER: No, they do not.

MORGAN: Yes, they do.

MILLER: Gun crime hasn’t gone down 40 percent in the past 20 years while gone ownership had skyrocketed. There’s over 300 million guns. As gun ownership is going like this, gun crime has gone like this. Whereas in England, gun crime after the ban went like this and then started going down. There is no parallel between gun — there is no parallel during gun ownership and gun crime.

MORGAN: Well actually, gun crime in Britain. As he write this out after the Dublin (ph) massacre when they board a new gun control laws, it went out the next five years since as they all came into effect. And then made them twice as hard and so they’re going to start jailing people for five years for possession of a handgun. And every single year since then, since 2003, it has gone down significantly.

MILLER: As it has in the United States, while gun ownership is through the roof here.

MORGAN: What about Iowa? Iowa was to give permit, gun permits to legally blind people. And indeed has been doing that including a number of people who are not allowed to drive because they’re also blind.

MILLER: With the state issues. So there’s no federal ban on that. And I know a lot of these disability groups want to say, “You can’t take away their secondary (ph) rights because they’re blind.” So it’s a complicated issue. It’s really — I mean there’s no …

MORGAN: Emily they’re blind.

MILLER: I don’t want a …

MORGAN: These people are blind. I interviewed Stevie Wonder. He said to me, “Can you imagine, I’m allowed to go and buy guns. Can you imagine me with a gun?” I think it’s actually ridiculous, Emily.

MILLER: But, here’s the thing …

MORGAN: There is he with your lovely gun you want to get your gun. A farmer (ph) doesn’t want to take your gun away. You want to stop people killing each other, right?

MILLER: He doesn’t care about the blind people.

MOGRAN: Now, we’ve got people in Iowa who are blind applying for weapons, and they’re allowed to have them because it’s their right. Not it’s not.

MILLER: Can I talk?

MORGAN: Yes.

MILLER: Once we start having cases of blind people going around shooting people, we can come back and have that debate.

MORGAN: It’s something that’s going to happen?

MILLER: It hasn’t happened yet.

MORGAN: Do you think blind people are going to accidentally shoot people?

MILLER: It’s been fully legal in most states right now and they’re not doing it because gun owners are responsible, which they train responsibly, which they store responsibly.

MORGAN: So let me guess — the view is right. You actually think that we can have responsible blind gun owners?

MILLER: I’m going to tell you what.

MORGAN: Yes, Emily.

MILLER: I won’t — yes.

MORGAN: Unbelievable, Emily.

MILLER: Let me tell you why. You can rack a shotgun, never shoot it, scare the hell out of the criminal. Am I allowed to say hell? I don’t know.

MORGAN: It’s good. You just said hell (inaudible).

MILLER: Well, I may — they teach me back and so (ph). But anyway, I went with two blind people down to the DC police to see if what happens if they did because you have to be legally blind, you’ve take a vision test in DC because it took me four months to get a legal gun. You would love DC, 17 steps and four guns …

MORGAN: I do find — I actually do love DC I love America. My hat is off (ph) with America or Americans, or in fact, any of your magnificent states, my problem is with the gun law that you’re saying is perfectly OK for legally blind people to be marching around with guns. It is ridiculous?

MILLER: Well, the gun lobby (ph) is not — the gun always now doing that is the disability groups who actually the ones advocating for this. And you know, because they say, why should they not be allowed to have guns. That’s not mine, right?

RealClearPolitics Video Log

Piers Morgan vs. Gun Rights Author Emily Miller

Steven Miller: Did the IRS"s Head Mislead, Or Did He Just Lead Poorly?

Steven Miller Did the IRSs Head Mislead Or Did He Just Lead Poorly

Nothing quite like flipping through channels and landing on C-SPAN. Not only is it a great place to hear your favorite Jay-Z quotes recited by Marco Rubio, you also get to learn about the bizarro world that is our government agencies. Generally you would expect, indeed demand, leaders to have deep knowledge of their respective organizations including acceptable tasks, procedures, and a general philosophy and mission statement regarding how business is conducted. Not exactly the leadership the IRS had under Steven Miller. How can it be acceptable or even possible for the head of an agency to be so clueless with regards to his own agency? Yes, corporations are far from omniscient (i.e. JP Morgan’s Jamie Dimon vs. the London Whale) with regards to their business, but surely they don’t pride themselves on ignorance. Yet not only is this commonplace in the public sector, it seems to be preferred. Perhaps the political risk is greater for a perceived “scandal” than it is for general incompetence. Alas, our collective moral finger-wagging attracts more fear than our admiration for efficacy. This hubbub with the IRS is quite revealing indeed. The leaders of the IRS not only shared their incompetence, they lauded it in a characteristically political manner. However, I feel the biggest failure in leadership was not that of any of the IRS heads, but rather of our favorite non-leaders of the day, Congress. Yes, our legislative branch and its inability to pass a comprehensive and intelligible tax code.

The IRS has a long tradition of targeting political groups. While it is true that the IRS were targeting conservative groups with extra scrutiny, from someone with the IRS’s point of view … it made sense.  501c4 groups have long been viewed with suspicion as recipients of unfair tax exemptions (including by Mitch McConnell). It follows, by that same logic, that the IRS would indeed target those groups. When, over the last four years, a number of groups sprung up claiming tax-exempt status, it probably did make sense to target them, perhaps to catch a few that could be viewed as purely political organizations and not deserving of the tax-exempt status.

This doesn’t absolve the IRS, of course, which had no right to take it upon itself to decide who received such exemptions. However it was in the absence of good leadership that the agency moved down this path. The true disappointment here is a tax system that allows for such a gray area. Not only does it clearly fail in efficiency and encouraging investment, it also fails to promote the behavior (i.e. charitable giving) that it intends to.   

During these troubling times in our political process, we may be a little skeptical of government as a whole. But let me suggest placing our demand for efficacy and prudent management on equal footing with our disdain for scandal. Perhaps we could encourage future IRS chiefs to loudly proclaim that they know what’s going on in their agency when they’re summoned before Congress. And perhaps a streamlined tax system would allow us to cut the IRS staff by half, and that way maybe the next commissioner will know what’s actually going on.

PolicyMic

Steven Miller: Did the IRS"s Head Mislead, Or Did He Just Lead Poorly?

Steven Miller: Did the IRS"s Head Mislead, Or Did He Just Lead Poorly?

Steven Miller Did the IRSs Head Mislead Or Did He Just Lead Poorly

Nothing quite like flipping through channels and landing on C-SPAN. Not only is it a great place to hear your favorite Jay-Z quotes recited by Marco Rubio, you also get to learn about the bizarro world that is our government agencies. Generally you would expect, indeed demand, leaders to have deep knowledge of their respective organizations including acceptable tasks, procedures, and a general philosophy and mission statement regarding how business is conducted. Not exactly the leadership the IRS had under Steven Miller. How can it be acceptable or even possible for the head of an agency to be so clueless with regards to his own agency? Yes, corporations are far from omniscient (i.e. JP Morgan’s Jamie Dimon vs. the London Whale) with regards to their business, but surely they don’t pride themselves on ignorance. Yet not only is this commonplace in the public sector, it seems to be preferred. Perhaps the political risk is greater for a perceived “scandal” than it is for general incompetence. Alas, our collective moral finger-wagging attracts more fear than our admiration for efficacy. This hubbub with the IRS is quite revealing indeed. The leaders of the IRS not only shared their incompetence, they lauded it in a characteristically political manner. However, I feel the biggest failure in leadership was not that of any of the IRS heads, but rather of our favorite non-leaders of the day, Congress. Yes, our legislative branch and its inability to pass a comprehensive and intelligible tax code.

The IRS has a long tradition of targeting political groups. While it is true that the IRS were targeting conservative groups with extra scrutiny, from someone with the IRS’s point of view … it made sense.  501c4 groups have long been viewed with suspicion as recipients of unfair tax exemptions (including by Mitch McConnell). It follows, by that same logic, that the IRS would indeed target those groups. When, over the last four years, a number of groups sprung up claiming tax-exempt status, it probably did make sense to target them, perhaps to catch a few that could be viewed as purely political organizations and not deserving of the tax-exempt status.

This doesn’t absolve the IRS, of course, which had no right to take it upon itself to decide who received such exemptions. However it was in the absence of good leadership that the agency moved down this path. The true disappointment here is a tax system that allows for such a gray area. Not only does it clearly fail in efficiency and encouraging investment, it also fails to promote the behavior (i.e. charitable giving) that it intends to.   

During these troubling times in our political process, we may be a little skeptical of government as a whole. But let me suggest placing our demand for efficacy and prudent management on equal footing with our disdain for scandal. Perhaps we could encourage future IRS chiefs to loudly proclaim that they know what’s going on in their agency when they’re summoned before Congress. And perhaps a streamlined tax system would allow us to cut the IRS staff by half, and that way maybe the next commissioner will know what’s actually going on.

PolicyMic

Steven Miller: Did the IRS"s Head Mislead, Or Did He Just Lead Poorly?

Steven Miller: Did the IRS"s Head Mislead, Or Did He Just Lead Poorly?

Steven Miller Did the IRSs Head Mislead Or Did He Just Lead Poorly

Nothing quite like flipping through channels and landing on C-SPAN. Not only is it a great place to hear your favorite Jay-Z quotes recited by Marco Rubio, you also get to learn about the bizarro world that is our government agencies. Generally you would expect, indeed demand, leaders to have deep knowledge of their respective organizations including acceptable tasks, procedures, and a general philosophy and mission statement regarding how business is conducted. Not exactly the leadership the IRS had under Steven Miller. How can it be acceptable or even possible for the head of an agency to be so clueless with regards to his own agency? Yes, corporations are far from omniscient (i.e. JP Morgan’s Jamie Dimon vs. the London Whale) with regards to their business, but surely they don’t pride themselves on ignorance. Yet not only is this commonplace in the public sector, it seems to be preferred. Perhaps the political risk is greater for a perceived “scandal” than it is for general incompetence. Alas, our collective moral finger-wagging attracts more fear than our admiration for efficacy. This hubbub with the IRS is quite revealing indeed. The leaders of the IRS not only shared their incompetence, they lauded it in a characteristically political manner. However, I feel the biggest failure in leadership was not that of any of the IRS heads, but rather of our favorite non-leaders of the day, Congress. Yes, our legislative branch and its inability to pass a comprehensive and intelligible tax code.

The IRS has a long tradition of targeting political groups. While it is true that the IRS were targeting conservative groups with extra scrutiny, from someone with the IRS’s point of view … it made sense.  501c4 groups have long been viewed with suspicion as recipients of unfair tax exemptions (including by Mitch McConnell). It follows, by that same logic, that the IRS would indeed target those groups. When, over the last four years, a number of groups sprung up claiming tax-exempt status, it probably did make sense to target them, perhaps to catch a few that could be viewed as purely political organizations and not deserving of the tax-exempt status.

This doesn’t absolve the IRS, of course, which had no right to take it upon itself to decide who received such exemptions. However it was in the absence of good leadership that the agency moved down this path. The true disappointment here is a tax system that allows for such a gray area. Not only does it clearly fail in efficiency and encouraging investment, it also fails to promote the behavior (i.e. charitable giving) that it intends to.   

During these troubling times in our political process, we may be a little skeptical of government as a whole. But let me suggest placing our demand for efficacy and prudent management on equal footing with our disdain for scandal. Perhaps we could encourage future IRS chiefs to loudly proclaim that they know what’s going on in their agency when they’re summoned before Congress. And perhaps a streamlined tax system would allow us to cut the IRS staff by half, and that way maybe the next commissioner will know what’s actually going on.

PolicyMic

Steven Miller: Did the IRS"s Head Mislead, Or Did He Just Lead Poorly?

Steven Miller: Did the IRS"s Head Mislead, Or Did He Just Lead Poorly?

Steven Miller Did the IRSs Head Mislead Or Did He Just Lead Poorly

Nothing quite like flipping through channels and landing on C-SPAN. Not only is it a great place to hear your favorite Jay-Z quotes recited by Marco Rubio, you also get to learn about the bizarro world that is our government agencies. Generally you would expect, indeed demand, leaders to have deep knowledge of their respective organizations including acceptable tasks, procedures, and a general philosophy and mission statement regarding how business is conducted. Not exactly the leadership the IRS had under Steven Miller. How can it be acceptable or even possible for the head of an agency to be so clueless with regards to his own agency? Yes, corporations are far from omniscient (i.e. JP Morgan’s Jamie Dimon vs. the London Whale) with regards to their business, but surely they don’t pride themselves on ignorance. Yet not only is this commonplace in the public sector, it seems to be preferred. Perhaps the political risk is greater for a perceived “scandal” than it is for general incompetence. Alas, our collective moral finger-wagging attracts more fear than our admiration for efficacy. This hubbub with the IRS is quite revealing indeed. The leaders of the IRS not only shared their incompetence, they lauded it in a characteristically political manner. However, I feel the biggest failure in leadership was not that of any of the IRS heads, but rather of our favorite non-leaders of the day, Congress. Yes, our legislative branch and its inability to pass a comprehensive and intelligible tax code.

The IRS has a long tradition of targeting political groups. While it is true that the IRS were targeting conservative groups with extra scrutiny, from someone with the IRS’s point of view … it made sense.  501c4 groups have long been viewed with suspicion as recipients of unfair tax exemptions (including by Mitch McConnell). It follows, by that same logic, that the IRS would indeed target those groups. When, over the last four years, a number of groups sprung up claiming tax-exempt status, it probably did make sense to target them, perhaps to catch a few that could be viewed as purely political organizations and not deserving of the tax-exempt status.

This doesn’t absolve the IRS, of course, which had no right to take it upon itself to decide who received such exemptions. However it was in the absence of good leadership that the agency moved down this path. The true disappointment here is a tax system that allows for such a gray area. Not only does it clearly fail in efficiency and encouraging investment, it also fails to promote the behavior (i.e. charitable giving) that it intends to.   

During these troubling times in our political process, we may be a little skeptical of government as a whole. But let me suggest placing our demand for efficacy and prudent management on equal footing with our disdain for scandal. Perhaps we could encourage future IRS chiefs to loudly proclaim that they know what’s going on in their agency when they’re summoned before Congress. And perhaps a streamlined tax system would allow us to cut the IRS staff by half, and that way maybe the next commissioner will know what’s actually going on.

PolicyMic

Steven Miller: Did the IRS"s Head Mislead, Or Did He Just Lead Poorly?

Steven Miller: Acting IRS Commissioner Resigns Amid Scandal

During President Obama’s extremely brief press conference from the East Room of the White House today he informed the American people that Tresurary Secretary Jacob Lew asked for and received the resignation of acting IRS commissioner Steven Miller. Obama also called for increased safeguards and clearer laws in order to prevent these abuses of power from happening again. Obama will take questions at another press conference scheduled for tomorow. Miller’s resignation comes amid a week of scandals that have rocked the White House. 

The Inspector General released its findings today, here are the highlights. 

PolicyMic

Steven Miller: Acting IRS Commissioner Resigns Amid Scandal