A Realistic View Of US Foreign Policy In The Middle East.

Posted on August 6, 2013 by Gary LaMaster

On July 29, 2013, Democratic Perspective hosted Stephen M. Walt, professor of international affairs at Harvard University’s John F. Kennedy School of Government. Professor Walt is an author, a widely respected expert on foreign policy and a leading proponent of the realist approach to international affairs. He is co-author of the controversial book, The Israeli Lobby and US Foreign Policy, a review of the influence of Israel and its US lobbyists on US Middle Eastern policy.

We began the interview by asking how we can move peace forward in the Middle East.
He replied, “As valuable as it would be to have peace arrangements between the Israelis and the Palestinians after many decades and suffering on both sides, it’s a mistake to think that it is a master key that unlocks everything else.”

“If we magically got a peace deal tomorrow…that satisfied both sides reasonably well,” Walt continued, “It would have virtually no impact on what is going on in Syria. It would have relatively little impact on the struggle for power occurring in Egypt. It would not in the short term affect the conflicts between Sunni and Shia in Iraq or between Arabs in the Gulf and their concerns about Iran. It would some very positive effects for Israel and positive effects for the Palestinians. It would certainly go a long way in removing one of the sources of anti-Americanism in that region. But there are lots of other problems in that part of the world that would not be directly affected by even something as wonderful as an Israeli-Palestinian peace deal.”

We then asked what Secretary of State John Kerry should be doing as far as the peace process is concerned.

Walt responded, “The most important thing that Kerry has said, and he’s said this a number of times now, is that the window for some kind of two-state solution is closing, and some people believe that it’s already closed. He’s basically saying we have a year or two that we might be able to do something. For many years that’s been seen as the least bad alternative to finally resolve this lengthy conflict…the creation of a Palestinian state on virtually all of the West Bank and Gaza, and the establishment of secure borders for these two countries. He’s saying that, given all of the trends, if this doesn’t happen soon, it’s not going to happen ever. We’ll have to start thinking of alternatives and most of those alternatives look much worse. What’s missing, as near as we can tell from the outside, is anything that looks like a significantly different American approach to the problem.”
“There’s no sign that the United States is either going to propose a plan of its own or use its leverage with both sides, not just one, to try and force a deal,” said Walt.

When asked how US support is bad for Israel, Walt said, “I think the most obvious example of this is that the US has turned a blind eye to the Israeli settlements since 1967.”

“It has been the official policy of the US government, going all the way back to Lyndon Johnson, to oppose the construction of Israeli settlements on the West Bank territories that were conquered during the Six-Day War…we have said repeatedly these settlements are an obstacle to peace. Some American presidents have said it’s illegal. But the United States has never done anything concrete to actually stop them,” he added.

“In fact, given that we give Israel between $3 and $4 billion a year, we are, in effect, directly subsidizing them. And we’re also providing some diplomatic protection by vetoing UN Security Council resolutions that are critical of this policy. The danger here is that it has allowed Israel to continue to establish the settlements. There are now over a half million people living outside the original 1967 border. And this has created a situation where a two-state solution may now be impossible. And it’s also made it impossible to be simultaneously democratic and a Zionist state because, if you look down the road, eventually there may be more Arabs than Jews living there. This may be the single most serious threat to Israel’s future. And the United States has essentially been the enabler of this policy even though we opposed it,” Walt stated.

You can hear more of Walt’s observations about US foreign policy and the Middle East by listening to the entire interview on the podcast below.

Posted in Foreign Affairs, Foreign Policy, Government, International Relations, Middle East, Middle East Policy, Palestinian/Israeli Conflict | Tagged , , , , , , | Comments Off on A Realistic View Of US Foreign Policy In The Middle East.

The Affordable Health Care Act: What It’s ALREADY Done For You — Podcast August 5, 2013

Posted on August 6, 2013 by William Timberman


Obamacare: What Does the Evidence Tell Us? Democratic Perspective’s Mike Cosentino, Gary LaMaster and Steve Williamson review the Affordable Health Care Act. Not only are the pieces of the ACA already in effect working out better than expected, but the evidence from states which are already in the advanced planning stages prior to its full implementation in 2014 suggests that it will indeed cover more people, be even more affordable than predicted, and save money on both medicare and prescription costs. Republicans who are still trying to repeal it are looking more mean-spirited — and more foolish — every day.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Subscribe: RSS

Posted in Affordable Care Act, Health Care, Medicaid, Medicare, Podcasts | Tagged , , , , , | Comments Off on The Affordable Health Care Act: What It’s ALREADY Done For You — Podcast August 5, 2013

Stephen M. Walt Interview — Podcast July 29, 2013

Posted on July 30, 2013 by William Timberman


American Foreign Policy in the Middle East: What Are the Prospects for Success? Democratic Perspective’s co-hosts Mike Cosentino and Steve Williamson interview Stephen M. Walt, professor of international affairs at Harvard University’s John F. Kennedy School of Government about U.S. Foreign Policy and the Middle East. Professor Walt is a widely respected expert on foreign policy, whose books The Origins of Alliance and Revolution and War have become standards in the field.

He is also the co-author, with John J. Mearsheimer, professor of political science at the University of Chicago, of The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy, a review of the influence of Israel and its U.S. lobbyists on U.S. Middle Eastern policy, published in 2007, which has since caused a significant controversy world-wide.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Subscribe: RSS

Posted in Foreign Affairs, Foreign Policy, Interviews, Military Policy, Palestinian/Israeli Conflict, Podcasts | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Stephen M. Walt Interview — Podcast July 29, 2013

Immigration Nation.

Posted on July 29, 2013 by Gary LaMaster

On July 22, 2013, Democratic Perspective took on the politically-charged subject of immigration policy and Senate Bill 744, the Immigration Reform Bill that recently passed the US Senate.

It seems almost everybody has an opinion about immigration. But many lack an understanding of its causes. And many conflate illegal drug trafficking with illegal border crossings by people simply looking for work and a chance to improve conditions for themselves and their families…the same motivations that led to previous waves of immigration into the United States.

The original immigrants, including our Founding Fathers, didn’t wait in lines. They didn’t apply for entry. They weren’t welcomed by the original population. But they came anyway. In fact, our nation was built by immigrants who came here for opportunity or were displaced for economic, religious or political reasons. They came from virtually every nation and region on Earth.

It was because of this that America became known as the Great Melting Pot.

The first political opposition to immigration didn’t come until 1843 when the Know Nothing Party (that’s not an opinion, it’s the real name) objected to the arrival of Irish and German Catholics. But the first immigration law was the Page Act of 1875, also known as the Asian Exclusion Act, designed to limit the influx of Asians settling on the west coast during the Gold Rush. In 1917, the Literacy Act further limited immigration, followed by the Immigration Act of 1924, and the Internal Security Act of 1950.

By far the most controversial immigration law came in 1954. Known as Operation Wetback, the new law led to the apprehension and deportation of more than one million Mexican immigrants within the first year. Many of those deported were not allowed to reclaim their possessions. They were often stranded without food or employment. And some were simply left in the desert.

Despite that sad episode, immigrants kept coming across the southern border until, today, it’s estimated that 11 million undocumented people are living here. Most came here through a school or work visa and simply overstayed the allotted time.

Like past immigrants, today’s immigrants come to the US for opportunity. Some have been displaced by political persecution. Some have been displaced for economic reasons. The US-backed wars in El Salvador and Nicaragua led to refugees coming to the US to escape the violence in their homelands. And NAFTA (North America Free Trade Agreement) led to large US agribusinesses dumping corn in Mexico and Central America, making it impossible for small farmers to succeed and driving them into cities looking for work. When they couldn’t find work, they moved to Mexican cities along the border hoping to catch on at one of the factories. Eventually, they came to the US.

In recent years, the US government has poured money – $106 billion since 2007 – into a fence and the Border Patrol in an attempt to block illegal immigration. Homeland Security reported 365,000 apprehensions by the Border Patrol in 2012. As a result, illegal immigration is now estimated at net zero, or likely even negative.

Yet S.744 calls for spending $34 billion more to secure the border.

The bill would double the current size of the Border Patrol along the southern border, making the force larger than the FBI. It would complete the “danged” fence. And it would add a variety of new technologies, including drones, to prevent illegal border crossings.

The result of weeks of floor debate and months of private negotiations by the Gang of Eight — a group of four Democrats and four Republicans including Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) and Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), the bill eventually passed by a vote of 68-32 with fourteen Republicans crossing the aisle.

If passed by the House and signed into law by President Obama, the bill would establish a 13-year pathway to citizenship for millions of undocumented immigrants. Following are the basics of the bill:

1. S.744 requires that a series of enforcement measures go into effect prior to completing the legalization process.

2. Provides a path to Lawful Permanent Residence (“green card”) for the existing undocumented population by creating a new Registered Provisional Immigrant (RPI) program.

3. Before those with RPI status can apply for Lawful Permanent Resident status, certain security goals, or “triggers,” must be met, including increased border security and a fully-implemented E-Verify employment verification.

4. S.744 creates an independent Department of Homeland Security Border Oversight Task Force, with 29 members appointed by the President, including 12 members from the northern border region and 17 from the southern border region.

5. The bill addresses immigration removal, detention, and court processes, including authorizing access to counsel for certain vulnerable populations, giving immigration judges more opportunity to make case-by-case determinations on removal decisions, and streamlining the asylum program.

6. It increases penalties for certain criminal activities, making it more difficult or impossible to become a legal resident due to drunk-driving convictions, gang activity, domestic violence, passport fraud, and identity theft.

Following passage by the Senate, House Speaker John Boehner pronounced the bill dead on arrival in the House. He has ruled out taking up the Senate bill and suggests that the House may address some of the issues on a piecemeal basis. Many House Republicans have announced outright opposition to any immigration bill that offers a path to citizenship for those in our country illegally, while Democrats are opposed to any bill that falls short of citizenship for all 11 million who are in the country illegally. So the likelihood of immigration reform is tenuous at best.

You can read the entire Senate bill at the Immigration Policy Center website.  Be sure to explore the site because it contains many other articles and reports that you may find educational and useful.

Posted in Arizona Politics, Department of Homeland Security, Drug Trafficking, Government, Immigration, Law Enforcement, Legal Issues, National Politics, National Security | Tagged , , , , | Comments Off on Immigration Nation.

Immigration Reform and Senate Bill S744 — Podcast July 22, 2013

Posted on July 25, 2013 by William Timberman


Immigration Therapy: U.S. Senate Bill S744 and the Prospects for Genuine Immigration Reform. Gary LaMaster joins Democratic Perspective co-hosts Mike Cosentino and Steve Williamson to discuss what we mean when we say immigration reform,  why it’s crucial to the future of the U.S. economy and U.S. civil society, and where S744 falls short of what we might have hoped.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Subscribe: RSS

Posted in Arizona Law Enforcement, Arizona Politics, Bigotry, Department of Homeland Security, Drug Trafficking, Immigration, National Politics, Podcasts | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Immigration Reform and Senate Bill S744 — Podcast July 22, 2013

This Explains Everything.

Posted on July 22, 2013 by Gary LaMaster

Ever wonder why conservatives often seem to vote against their self-interest? Why people who are struggling financially vote to protect the wealthy? Why conservatives dislike government programs even though they benefit from them? Why the wealthy and the powerful believe they are oppressed?

In his book, The Reactionary Mind: Conservatism from Edmund Burke to Sarah Palin, Professor Corey Rubin describes the fundamental principles behind conservatism. In doing so, he provides answers for these questions and more.

Contrary to William F. Buckley, who once described a conservative “as someone who stands athwart history yelling ‘stop’ when no one else is inclined to do so,” Rubin has written that, although conservatives define themselves as defenders of tradition and values, they are more reactionary than conservative. They defend the interests of the powerful against the interests of the powerless; aristocrats and land owners against peasants; factory owners against labor unions; husbands against wives.

During a recent interview on Democratic Perspective, we asked him to explain his thoughts.

“If you ask conservatives today, some of them will say they stand for defense of tradition,” Rubin began. “Others will say they stand for defense of freedom. But those two values are often in conflict. Certain kinds of freedoms, such as market freedoms that Republicans like to defend, uproot traditions. They uproot communities. They change things all the time,” said Rubin. “So the question really is that if these two values are in such contradiction, is there something that actually brings these values together?”

“Through a lot of historical research I’ve done going back to the foundations when conservatism first arose in reaction to the French Revolution, what I’ve come up with is that conservatism is always, most consistently a movement of reaction to some kind of movement or democratic action from below. The movement can change. It can be abolition of slavery. It can be labor unions for workers. It doesn’t matter. It can change across time.”

“Conservatism is the movement in reaction against those movements,” Rubin explained.
“What it tries to do is not simply defend power and privilege. It has to defend power and privilege in a way that makes sense to a large group of people,” he continued, “and in doing that, what it does is come up with a new defense of power and privilege…something that seems more modern, more democratic , and more appealing to a broad swath of the population.”

This explains the alliance of the right wing populists like the Tea Party with large corporate interests like the Koch brothers. It also explains the juxtaposition of Burke and Palin in the book title, according to Rubin.

“A lot of people look askance at that, but these two figures have something very much in common despite all their differences, and that is that they’re outsiders. Burke was a major outsider in the British establishment. He was from a Catholic family. He was Irish. And he was not an aristocrat. Likewise, Sarah Palin is a woman. She’s from a state that many people don’t even think is part of the United States. She’s very much an outsider. And that outsider quality is really important to conservatism because it’s a way of saying to the majority, to the broad population, “look, our chief spokesperson is this person from the outside. And that outsider brings a certain kind of scrapiness and a populist appeal that can help reinvent conservatism for it to become a mass ideology,” said Rubin.

Rubin argues that the government programs supported by the left actually make people more free. Programs such as government-supported healthcare and unemployment insurance give employees more freedom to leave a bad job, because they are not dependent on the employer for health care and they can take the time necessary to find a better job. But conservatives see these things as oppressive to employers.

“I think that’s the fundamental battle between the left and right,” said Rubin. “How many people and what kind of people get to have freedom. It’s not about a battle between one side that stands for freedom and the other side stands for government. I think that’s completely the wrong way to look at it. It’s really who in the society gets to be free and who doesn’t.”

“When freedoms are exclusive to one group of people – my freedom to not allow you into my restaurant or something like that – we have another word for that. It’s a privilege,” Rubin continued. “And I think what conservatism has always stood for going back to the very beginning, is the understanding of freedoms and rights as the privilege of a few. That’s always been the battle. When the Confederacy seceded from the Union, it was in the name of freedom, and very sincerely so. It was the freedom of the slave holder and it was understood as a kind of freedom, which it was.”

According to Rubin, these battles are never won permanently. “Things can always go backwards,” he said. “I think in this country we have a myth of progress that everything moves forward. But we forget. When slaves were emancipated, there was about a 12-year period in which there was a great deal of progress that was made. It was called Reconstruction. And then it was pushed back and defeated and then we got 75 years to 100 years of Jim Crow after that. My point is that you move forward on things…voting rights is a good example. We thought we had won on voting rights, then it got pushed back.”

Posted in Capitalism, Class Conflict, Conservative Paranoia, Democratic Governance, Economic Theory, Entitlements, Government, Interviews, National Politics | Tagged , , , , , , | Comments Off on This Explains Everything.

Corey Robin Interview — Podcast July 15, 2013

Posted on July 16, 2013 by William Timberman


What Conservatives Want, and Why They Want it: Corey Robin, Associate Professor of Political Science at Brooklyn College and the CUNY Graduate Center, talks to Democratic Perspective’s Steve Williamson and Bill Timberman about the thinking that led to his 2011 book, The Reactionary Mind: Conservatism from Edmund Burke to Sarah Palin. Conservatives claim to be the defenders of tradition and traditional values, but from its earliest manifestations in upper class reaction to the French Revolution, Professor Robin argues, modern conservatism might more accurately be described as a radical, and often successful, defense of elite power and privilege.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Subscribe: RSS

Posted in Class Conflict, Conservatives and Reactionaries, Democratic Governance, Government, Interviews, Movement Conservatism, Podcasts, Political Theory | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Corey Robin Interview — Podcast July 15, 2013

Genetically Modified Organisms: Benefit or Threat? — Podcast July 8, 2013

Posted on July 10, 2013 by William Timberman


What Do We Really Know About Genetically Modified Organisms? Democratic Perspective’s Mike Cosentino and Gary LaMaster discuss the latest scientific, economic, and political implications of the increasing use of genetically modified plants, animals and microorganisms, as well as what we know so far about their impact on human health and well-being.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Subscribe: RSS

Posted in Genetically Modified Organisms, GMOs, Government, National Politics, Podcasts, Regulatory Agencies, Supreme Court | Tagged , , , , , | Comments Off on Genetically Modified Organisms: Benefit or Threat? — Podcast July 8, 2013

Our Genetically Modified Planet.

Posted on July 9, 2013 by Gary LaMaster

GMO (Genetically Modified Organism) crops and foods are becoming one of the most important controversies of our time. Are we creating a better and more stable food supply to better feed the world? Or are we poisoning ourselves and eliminating biodiversity at the same time?

Today, many of the foods you find in a grocery store contain GMO ingredients. Indeed it has been estimated that as many as 80 percent of processed foods contain GMO ingredients.

Most of these foods contain genetically modified corn which has been modified to be “Roundup Ready.” (Roundup is, of course, the branded herbicide created by Monsanto.) Roundup Ready crops have been biologically engineered to be immune to the herbicide. The claim is that such crops need less tilling and are therefore less expensive to raise.

When I grew up on a Midwestern family farm in the 50s and 60s, there were dozens and dozens of corn hybrids bred (not engineered) by dozens of seed corn companies. Good yields for these crops were 100 bushels per acre. Today, most seed corn comes from conglomerates, and most of the varieties have been genetically engineered. A good yield today exceeds 200 bushels per acre.

Of course, such yields require large investments in herbicides and fertilizers which, during rainfalls, enter our streams and rivers. The runoff has created a massive “dead zone” at the mouth of the Mississippi River which extends far into the Gulf of Mexico. It’s called a dead zone because no fish or ocean-dwelling mammals can live in the waters. Of course, this had been compounded by the BP Oil catastrophe (an incident far too extreme to be called a mere spill).

But the dead zone is only a side effect of GMOs.

The more important issues involve the future of family farms which are being squeezed out by corporations; the future of our food supply which many believe is gradually poisoning us; the many medical conditions which dramatically increased following the use of GMOs; the effect of GMOs on nearby organic farms; the lack of biodiversity of food crops which may eventually result in a catastrophic crop failure and famine; the effect on domestic animals used for meat and dairy; and the impact on wildlife.

Today, the world’s six largest chemical companies (Monsanto, DuPont, Syngenta, Bayer, Dow, and BASF) collectively own or partially-own hundreds of formerly-independent seed companies which have retained their names to give the illusion of independence.

Of course, these companies own trademarks on the brands and patents of GMO seed hybrids. In fact, the extent of their ownership was recently affirmed by a Supreme Court decision favoring Monsanto…Bowman v. Monsanto. The question in this case was whether a farmer who buys patented seeds may reproduce them through planting and harvesting without the patent holder’s permission,’ the justices concluded. ‘We hold that he may not.’ They ruled that Bowman must pay Monsanto more than $84,000 in damages and court costs for patent infringement.

Bowman purchased Roundup Ready soybeans from a company affiliated with Monsanto. Each year, he planted seed he had saved from the year before (a common practice by family farmers for generations prior to Monsanto’s GMO). The Court ruled that ‘Bowman planted Monsanto’s patented soybeans solely to make and market replicas of them, thus depriving the company of the reward patent law provides for the sale of each article.” Of course that ruling assigns absolutely no value to the farmer’s land and effort.

What should be noted is that Justice Clarence Thomas was formerly employed by Monsanto and should have recused himself from the case. He didn’t.

Perhaps the most alarming aspect of modern agriculture is a widely-used class of neuro-active pesticides called neonicotinoids. While they are used with a large variety of crops, more than 90 percent of corn seeds are coated with the pesticide. Neonicotinoids are designed to be absorbed vascularly to kill those insects feeding off of the crops. At least one scientific study has linked the pesticide to the rapid decline of honey bee colonies which are needed to pollinate most of our food crops.

As a result, the European Union has banned use of the chemical.

As for the impact of GMO foods on human health, a study by the Division of Environmental Health Sciences at the University of Minnesota lists potential health issues that could result from GMO foods. These issues include food allergies, increased toxicity produced by the plant, decreased nutritional value, and resistance to antibiotics.

In addition, there are other studies linking GMO foods to increases in asthma, autism, cancer, cardiovascular problesms, digestive problems, inflammations, liver problems, and more. As always, there are conflicting studies, so it’s difficult to determine which ones to believe. But if you’re concerned, the easiest way to avoid GMO foods is to eat foods raised and prepared by people, not corporations.

Following is a collection of websites on the subject:

GMO-Free Verde Valley

Institute for Responsible Technology

Non-GMO Project

GMO Myths and Truths

Non GMO Shopping Guide

University of Minnesota Study of GMOs

Bill Gates and GMOs

Neonicotinoids and Honeybee Colony Collapse

The other side of GMOs

The Revolving Door Between Monsanto and Government

Posted in Environment, Genetically Modified Organisms, GMOs, Government, National Politics, Regulatory Agencies, Supreme Court | Tagged , , , , | Comments Off on Our Genetically Modified Planet.

The IRS And The Tea Party: Another “Scandal” Manufactured By Conservatives.

Posted on July 6, 2013 by Gary LaMaster

On July 1, 2013, Democratic Perspective examined the so-called “scandal” involving the IRS (Internal Revenue Service) and conservative groups seeking non-profit status. Although, there have been many claims by Republicans – most notably, Darrell Issa – that the Obama administration orchestrated IRS scrutiny in order to win re-election in 2012, there is absolutely no evidence of that. Indeed, there is little evidence that the actions extended beyond a couple of IRS agents in the Cincinnati office.

That said, here’s what we now know about the “scandal.”

In order to reduce salaries, the IRS transferred some of the responsibility for approving applications from non-profits to Cincinnati. More than a dozen or so accountants and agents were charged with processing thousands of applications a year, mostly from charities. According to testimony, these people rarely discussed politics. Not only was the office understaffed, it had experienced a succession of managers who had either resigned or sought promotion to other offices.

In January of 2010, the Supreme Court released the Citizens United decision which overturned many restrictions on political campaign spending. A few months later, the Tea Party movement began.

Further complicating matters was a subtle change in the definition of 501c(4)s. Originally, they were defined as being devoted “exclusively” to the public good. But over the years, the definition had been broadened to include organizations operating “primarily” for the public good. As a result, many of the groups seeking tax-exempt status were blatantly political. Some promised in their applications, under penalty of perjury, that they wouldn’t get involved in elections. Then they did just that.

For example, an application by The Ohio Liberty Coalition was delayed more than two years. That’s because the group sent emails to their members regarding Mitt Romney presidential campaign events and handed out Romney “door hangers” while canvassing neighborhoods. A pro-life group, The Coalition for Life of Iowa, was asked to explain how activities such as prayer meetings outside of Planned Parenthood clinics could be construed as educational as defined under 501c(3).

One can imagine how much difficulty this caused the Cincinnati office in dealing with a growing number of applications from such groups.

In order to more efficiently check applications which might not qualify for tax-exempt status, an IRS agent who, under oath, described himself as a conservative Republican, created a list of Internet search terms. The list included political sounding words and phrases such as, Tea Party, patriots, we the people and 9/12 Project. It also included progressive, blue, liberal, Israel and more.

Between April 2010 and April 2012, the IRS essentially placed such applications on hold. While it appears that no applications from conservative groups were denied during this period, only 4 were approved. However, applications from two liberal organizations were denied. And political groups weren’t the only ones facing extra scrutiny. Ryan Chittum of the Columbia Journalism Review reported that applications from a number of non-profit news organizations were also delayed and flagged for additional review.

So we know that there is absolutely no involvement by the White House, or even the leadership of the IRS, in these decisions. We know that the Commissioner of the IRS during the time period was Douglas Shulman, a Bush appointee. We know that Inspector General J. Russell George, who completed an investigation of the IRS following the complaints, was also a Bush appointee.

Despite these facts, and weeks of testimony before Issa’s House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, the Republican leadership and conservative media have not retracted their initial unfounded allegations.

Congressman Darrell Issa called Jay Carney “the president’s paid liar” when Carney tried to explain that the White House had no prior knowledge of the delays. Many Republicans have called the scandal “the smoking gun which would prove the corruption of the Obama administration.” Speaker of the House John Boehner claimed it is “inconceivable that Obama wasn’t informed about the investigation into the IRS.” He said, “Now, my question isn’t about who’s going to resign. My question is who’s going to jail over this scandal?” And
Tea Party leaders have called it “the jackboot of tyranny.”

Fox News screamed that “Analysis of White House visitor logs showed former IRS Commissioner Douglas Shulman visited the White House at least 157 times under the Obama administration.” But after further examination, it was determined that most of the visits were in fact invitations to various social events, many of which, Shulman did not attend. It also included meetings to discuss implementation of the Affordable Care Act, budget issues and other administrative matters.

It should come as no surprise to even the most casual observers that, once again, conservatives are long on accusations. And short on facts.

Posted in Government, National Politics, Political Action Committees, Political Lies, Tax Law | Tagged , , , , , | Comments Off on The IRS And The Tea Party: Another “Scandal” Manufactured By Conservatives.