Tag Archives: government

More Party-of-No Yeses

Posted on by
Reply

The House passed three more bills in this short period before the mid-term election campaign recess.

One bill makes it illegal for IRS workers to use personal email accounts to conduct official business.

It’s already illegal to do this in many circumstances, as all official business communications must be recorded and saved. It’s also already contrary to IRS policy; although the IRS has ignored this policy whenever that became convenient.

This is, at bottom, an obvious move, too: private enterprise has, for years, held the flip side—the use of company equipment to conduct personal business—to be a fire-able offense; although they allow some limited personal use.

Another bill guarantees groups that are denied tax-exempt status the right to appeal the decision to a separate IRS office.

Also an obvious move. No government decision should be appeal-proof at the outset.

The third bill addresses complaints from groups that have had their confidential taxpayer information improperly disclosed by IRS employees. The bill allows the IRS to tell victims about the status of investigations into the disclosures. Current law forbids the IRS from releasing such information.

Here, I disagree slightly: the bill should require the IRS to disclose status information, not merely permit it. Still, it’s a step in the right direction.

Watch these three obvious moves die in the Democratic Party-controlled Senate.

How Does This Work?

Posted on by
Reply

A Senate investigation released Wednesday [17 Sep] found that hackers linked to the Chinese government broke into US military transportation companies’ computer networks 20 times in a year.

But the Senate Armed Services Committee says officials of the US Transportation Command, responsible for moving troops across the globe in times of crisis, were told about just two of those incidents. If a system was compromised, they may not have known, the panel said.

[Emphasis added.] How is it possible that military transporters were not told that systems on which their functions depended had been compromised? Who made the decision to withhold these critical data? Why is that person/those people not being called to account? Why are those contractors who sat on these data still under contract?

Federal Strings

Posted on by
Reply

…and Federal arrogance.

No police department should get federal funds unless they put cameras on officers, Senator Claire McCaskill (D, MO) said today.

“It seems to me that before we give federal funds to police departments, we ought to mandate that they have body cams,” McCaskill said.

Body cameras on cops may, in fact, be a good idea. However, that’s a thing to be determined by the locals for themselves. This is another example of how the Federal government seeks to control State and local governments in the place of the State’s citizens and the local community members.

Police departments and the communities that employ them would be well served to reject these Federal funds and all other Federal funds that come with strings attached. They would be well served to do so even if they already meet, of their own accord, the criteria mandated by any Federal string—accepting such funds would be nothing less than the camel’s nose in their tent.

Press Mindset

Posted on by
Reply

This is from an AP article, but I suggest it’s typical of the press generally. The AP is reporting on a case involving the drunk driver-involved deaths of two children and the immediately subsequent shooting death of the drunk driver. The father of the two children is accused of

killing a drunk driver in a fit of rage after his two sons were fatally struck in 2012 on a rural road in Southeast Texas.

His defense attorney says [the father] is a good man, a grieving father, and not a murderer. At the same time, his defense hasn’t publicly suggested who else might be responsible for [the drunk driver]’s shooting death.

Notice that last. According to the press, the father must, if not outright prove his innocence, at least offer plausible alternatives.

No. The press’…misunderstanding…notwithstanding, no such defense obligation exists. It’s on the prosecution—the government—to prove any defendant’s guilt; no police work, no investigative work at all, is required of the defense. Full stop.

The Democrats Don’t Like Speech?

Posted on by
Reply

At least when it’s not been approved by them. This Constitutional Amendment passed out of the Senate Judiciary Committee last Thursday on a straight party line vote:

                       JOINT RESOLUTION

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United

States relating to contributions and expenditures intended

                       to affect elections.

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two

3 thirds of each House concurring therein), That the fol

4 lowing article is proposed as an amendment to the Con

5 stitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all

6 intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when

7 ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several

8 States:

1                          “ARTICLE—

2 “SECTION 1. To advance the fundamental principle

3 of political equality for all, and to protect the integrity

4 of the legislative and electoral processes, Congress shall

5 have power to regulate the raising and spending of money

6 and in-kind equivalents with respect to Federal elections,

7 including through setting limits on—

8          “(1) the amount of contributions to candidates

9 for nomination for election to, or for election to,

10 Federal office; and

11         “(2) the amount of funds that may be spent by,

12 in support of, or in opposition to such candidates.

13 “SECTION 2. To advance the fundamental principle

14 of political equality for all, and to protect the integrity

15 of the legislative and electoral processes, each State shall

16 have power to regulate the raising and spending of money

17 and in-kind equivalents with respect to State elections, in

18 cluding through setting limits on—

19         “(1) the amount of contributions to candidates

20 for nomination for election to, or for election to,

21 State office; and

22         “(2) the amount of funds that may be spent by,

23 in support of, or in opposition to such candidates.

1 “SECTION 3. Nothing in this article shall be con

2 strued to grant Congress the power to abridge the freedom

3 of the press.

4 “SECTION 4. Congress and the States shall have

5 power to implement and enforce this article by appropriate

6 legislation.”.

Sections 1 and 2 are identical other than Sect 1 addresses Congress’ power, and Sect 2 addresses States’ power. The key phrase is this: shall have power to regulate the raising and spending of money and in-kind equivalents with respect to Federal elections, including through setting limits on together with its applicability to limiting contributions. It’s open-ended. A party in the majority would be fully empowered by this Amendment, were it to pass, to set the limit at zero regarding candidates of the opposing party. Even were the limits found required to be applied equally to all candidates, the incumbents would have the critical advantage of already having, for instance, name recognition and the bully pulpits of their elected offices to spread their messages—advantages denied the other candidates by their inability to purchase air and newspaper time, or to stump.

This is a guaranteed incumbency amendment, and nothing else.