Today on the FreedomCast, actor, comedian and FoxNews commentator Steven Crowder joins me to discuss the importance of pop culture as it relates to politics. What does he admit to me during this show? You’ll have to listen to find out.

Have a suggestion for an upcoming FreedomCast episode, or a comment? Send it to me on twitter @KristinaRibali.

Subscribe to The FreedomCast on iTunes here.

Follow FreedomWorks on twitter and on Faceboook.

Follow today's guest @scrowder on twitter. 

Our podcast is fabulously produced by @BradWJackson.

[UPDATE 5/18: Blogger Doug Ross has compiled a handy spreadsheet of the IRS scandal timeline. Thanks, Doug!]

+++

Two new timelines have appeared, helping us understand the rapidly unfolding IRS targeting scandal.

The first, from Senate Finance Committee Republicans, covers the period from the initial targeting decision to the 2012 election.

The second, by CBS news, runs through this week. 

(Note: The Cincinnati IRS "office" is not a local office. It is the headquarters of the IRS Tax Exempt Organizations Division.)

+++

Here's the Senate Finance timeline (quoted here in full):

Timeline of Key Events Surrounding IRS Targeting of Conservative Groups 

March 1, 2010:  An IRS manager in Cincinnati, Ohio asks employees to begin searching for 501(c) tax exemption applications using the terms Tea Party, Patriots and 9/12 as their criteria.

April 1, 2010:  Managers in Washington, DC and Cincinnati decide to send a “Sensitive Case Report” about the Tea Party cases up the chain in Washington.

April 19, 2010:  The Sensitive Case Report is shared with two executives in Washington, DC, one of whom is Lois Lerner and the other her immediate subordinate.  

August 12, 2010:  The IRS creates a “BOLO” (Be on the Lookout) listing instructing agents to identify Tea Party case files.

December 13, 2010:  A manager for the Exempt Organizations (EO) group at the IRS in Washington informs the manager in Cincinnati that the processing of Tea Party cases would soon be reviewed with the Senior Technical Advisor to Lois Lerner, the Director of EO.  

June 1, 2011: The Acting Director of Rulings and Agreements in Washington, DC, Lois Lerner’s immediate subordinate, asks the manager in Cincinnati for the criteria used to identify Tea Party groups.

June 29, 2011:  The Director of EO in Washington, DC, Lois Lerner, is briefed that the criteria being used by employees includes “Tea Party,” “Patriots,” “9/12 Project,” “Government Spending,” “Government Debt,” “Taxes,” “make America a better place to live,” and cases with statements that criticize how the country is being run.

July 5, 2011:  The BOLO listing criteria is revised to search for “organizations involved in political, lobbying, or advocacy.”   

January 25, 2012:  The BOLO is updated to change the search criteria to “limiting/expanding Government,” “Constitution and the Bill of Rights,” and “social economic reform/movement.”

March 12, 2012: Senator Chuck Schumer sends a letter to IRS Commissioner Shulman along with six of his Democrat colleagues, calling for the agency to impose a strict cap on the amount of political spending by tax-exempt, nonprofit groups. 

March 14, 2012: 12 Republican Senators urge the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to prevent politics from playing a role in any action taken on non-profit 501(c)(4) organizations.

March 22, 2012: IRS Commissioner Shulman testifies before the House Ways and Means Oversight Subcommittee saying, “I can give you assurances..[t]here is absolutely no targeting [of conservative groups].”

March 23 – 27, 2012:  Steven Miller, Deputy Commissioner for Services and Enforcement, asks his Senior Technical Advisor to look into what was going on in the Cincinnati office regarding Tea Party applications.

April 26, 2012: Steven Miller Deputy Commissioner for Services and Enforcement sends response to March 14th GOP letter.  The letter does not acknowledge that the IRS had inappropriately targeted tea party groups or asked improper questions about their contributors.

May 3, 2012 – Steven Miller Deputy Commissioner for Services and Enforcement is briefed that these conservative groups had been targeted by the IRS.

May 2012 – TIGTA briefs Commissioner Shulman on the targeting by the IRS of tea party applications for 501(c)(4) status.

June 18, 2012:11 Senators call on the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) for additional answers on the agency’s decision to request confidential donor information from organizations applying for tax exempt status. The Senators said such action circumvented current statutory privacy protections and questioned the targeting of groups specifically seeking the approval or renewal of a tax-exempt designation under section 501(c)(4).

August 9, 2012: 10 GOP Senators  write to IRS Commissioner Shulman, again, asking the agency to clarify its intentions for 501(c)(4)organizations. The Senators questioned the IRS’s response to a public rulemaking petition from outside groups pressuring the agency to take action on 501(c)(4)s and said it was essential that politics not play any role in its decision-making process.

September 11, 2012: Steven Miller Deputy Commissioner for Services and Enforcement sends response to June 18th GOP letter.  The letter does not acknowledge that the IRS had inappropriately targeted tea party groups or asked improper questions about their contributors.

November 9, 2012: IRS Commissioner Doug Shulman steps down at the end of his 5-year term and Steven Miller is named Acting Commissioner.

Source: Unless otherwise noted, the timeline dates can be attributed to the U.S. Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA) briefings given to key Committees of jurisdiction this week.

+++

And here's the timeline compiled by CBS News:

The IRS targeting controversy: A timeline

Jan. 21, 2010: The Supreme Court ruled that the government cannot limit corporation or union spending for or against political candidates in this Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission case, which President Obama denounced that day. This 5-4 decision lay the foundation for an uptick in 501(c)4 status applications from 1,591 to 3,398 between 2010 and 2012, according to the IRS.

March 1-17, 2010: IRS agents identify the first 10 "Tea Party cases" applications though not all had "tea party" in their name, according to a draft of The Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA) appendix. IRS' Determinations Unit had asked for a search of "tea party or similar organizations' applications."

October 26, 2010: Determinations Unit personnel emailed concerns about the additional review process for tea party applications to the Technical Unit. This individual follows up in November when response to concern about consistency yields no change.

June 29, 2011: IRS director of exempt organizations Lois Lerner learns at a meeting that the agency flagged group titles with "tea party," "patriot," or "9/12 Project" for supplementary review. She told those involved to alter this practice "immediately," according to a draft of the report from the TIGTA, who audits the IRS.

Aug. 4, 2011: IRS' Rulings and Agreements staff meets with Chief Counsel "so that everyone would have the latest information on the issue," according to the TIGTA report.

Jan. 25, 2012: IRS changes standard for identifying organizations that require additional scrutiny, now flagging for "political action type organizations involved in limiting/expanding Government, educating on the Constitution and Bill of Rights, social economic reform movement," according to the inspector general's report.

March 22, 2012: IRS Commissioner Douglas Shulman testified the agency did not increase difficulty for politically active groups to get tax exempt status at the House Ways and Means Committee. The Ways and Means Oversight subcommittee chairman, Rep. Charles Boustany, R-La., called the hearing after he heard complaints from tea party groups about harassment from the IRS.

May 3, 2012: Then-deputy commissioner Steven Miller was first told about the extra scrutiny for tea party groups; he made no mention of this during a House hearing on July 25.

June 15, 2012: Boustany receives a letter from Miller who writes the agency "took steps to coordinate the handling of the case to ensure consistency."

July 25, 2012: Miller testified to the House Ways and Means Committee without mentioning the additional scrutiny. When Rep. Kenny Marchant, R-Texas, asked Miller about harassment complaints from politically active tax-exempt associations, Miller said the IRS "group[ed] those organizations" for "consistency" and "quality." Neither man mentioned the tea party.

November 11, 2012: Shulman steps down as IRS commissioner as his term ends (he was appointed by President George W. Bush in 2008). Miller steps in as acting commissioner.

April 22, 2013: White House counsel's office learns about conservative groups' additional scrutiny from the IRS, White House press secretary Jay Carney said on May 13, 2013.

May 10, 2013: Lerner admits to and apologizes for additional review of conservative groups' 501(c)4 status applications, though she said high level employees didn't know about the issue -- the inspector general's report refuted this information. While the IRS asked some to provide a donor list, which is against most IRS policy, others never received tax exempt status. Overall, IRS agents flagged 296 of the 501(c)4 applications, 160 of which were open for more than 1,138 days.

May 10, 2013: White House press secretary Jay Carney said this IRS scrutiny was "of concern" and "inappropriate" when answering reporter questions last Friday. President Obama first publically spoke about the scandal Monday.

May 12, 2013: Several Republican members of Congress condemned the IRS targeting on Sunday news shows. Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, demanded Mr. Obama speak out against the IRS to demonstrate "that this is totally unacceptable in America" when she appeared on CNN's "State of the Union."

May 13, 2013: Mr. Obama called IRS targeting "outrageous," in a joint press conference with United Kingdom Prime Minister David Cameron. He said the IRS will be held accountable if reports are true -- a sentiment Carney reiterated in a May 14 press conference.

May 13, 2013: Miller writes a statement in USA TODAY where he said "mistakes were made" in the agency's review process, adding the "shortcut taken in our processes" demonstrated "a lack of sensitivity." Miller said the IRS was not motivated by politics in setting their criteria for how to flag for additional scrutiny. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell calls IRS action a "blatant and thuggish abuse of power" the next day.

May 14, 2013: Attorney General Eric Holder ordered an Justice Department and FBI investigation into the IRS that'll analyze if the agency broke laws in targeting conservative groups for additional review, he said at a press conference.

May 14, 2013: House Ways and Means Committee chairman Rep. Dave Camp, R-Mich., and the committee's top Democrat, Rep. Sander Levin, D-Mich., sent Miller a list of 13 questions for him to answer by May 21, including who knew about the targeting and when, as well as who was notified about the additional reviews outside of IRS employees. "Despite repeated for cooperation, the agency failed to be completely truthful in its responses to the Committee during its nearly two-year long investigation of this matter, and in testimony before the Committee," the two wrote.

May 14, 2013: A Treasury inspector general report calls IRS standards "inappropriate criteria" for flagging 501(c)4 groups as the agency had for more than three years. The report blamed relaxed leadership for the targeting controversy and includes recommendations for the IRS implement more consistent policies.

May 17, 2013: House Ways and Means Committee will host a hearing where Miller and Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration J. Russell George are the sole witnesses to testify about the IRS criteria that flagged conservative groups applying for tax exempt status as "social welfare" groups.

RELATED

IRS Scandal: Has your group been targeted too?

The hits just keep coming for President Obama’s beleaguered health care reform law. If you’ve had trouble keeping up with all of the bad news surrounding ObamaCare, I don’t blame you. For the sake of convenience, let’s take a look at some of this news and then consider the “big picture” for the floundering Affordable Care Act.

Health Insurance “Exchanges”

We’ll begin with the health insurance “exchanges,” which are the primary mechanism by which ObamaCare distributes massive government subsidies to private health insurance companies. These “exchanges” feature only government regulated and approved insurance plans, from which consumers are allowed to choose. When writing the law, Congressional Democrats and the White House left the dirty work of setting up these expensive, complicated “exchanges” to the states.

After a majority of states flatly refused to comply with this unfunded mandate, the Obama administration started scrambling to set up dozens of “exchanges” by itself. At the same time, the federal government is also burdened with the cost of conducting a massive public relations outreach campaign for ObamaCare, which remains unpopular with more than half of Americans. Compliant states are also struggling to implement their “exchanges,” with Idaho official Stephen Weeg acknowledging that the state bureaucracy will need to “beg, borrow, and steal” in order to get its “exchange” operational by the October 1st start date for enrollment.

The federal Department of Health and Human Services even broke ObamaCare’s own rules by approving Utah’s unique “dual exchange” system. It is clear that the Obama administration is becoming desperate to salvage its crumbling law by any means necessary. By the way, even if these “exchanges” are actually set up according to design, some of the nation’s largest insurance companies are still expressing reluctance to provide coverage plans for them in the first place. Perhaps private insurers do not find the idea of entering such government dominated “exchanges” an attractive prospect, after all?

Lawsuits

Lawsuits continue to plague ObamaCare, as well. Earlier this month, a group of small business owners sued the federal government on the grounds that the text of the ObamaCare law does not authorize the government to issue subsidies to private insurance companies in those states with federally-run health insurance “exchanges.”

The Pacific Legal Foundation filed a separate lawsuit that uses Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts’ flimsy defense of ObamaCare’s individual mandate as a “tax” against the law. Revenue-raising bills, such as taxes, must originate in the House of Representatives in order to be constitutional, but the final version of ObamaCare began in the Senate. This is just a small sampling of the growing number of lawsuits brought against ObamaCare so far.

Medicaid Expansion

ObamaCare’s Medicaid expansion isn’t exactly going to plan, either. The law offers full funding for the first few years for those states that expand their Medicaid programs, and then promises 90% of the funding for future years. However, there is no guarantee behind that money, and truthfully, the federal government cannot afford to hold up its end of that bargain for very long.

Once that happens, state legislatures across the country will get stuck with the tab for Medicaid expansion, which will crowd out other state budgetary priorities such as education and infrastructure. As a result, many governors are refusing to take such a risky deal. Even Missouri, which has Democratic Governor Jay Nixon, is turning down Medicaid expansion due to resistance from the state legislature.

A recent study published in The New England Journal of Medicine casts doubt on the belief that Medicaid expansion is even a good idea. After Oregon expanded its Medicaid program in 2008, researchers found that, “…Medicaid coverage generated no significant improvements in measured physical health outcomes” in the first two years following the expansion. To be fair, the study did discern some positive secondary effects from the expansion, but the primary purpose of Medicaid is to improve health care outcomes for low-income Americans. If the program is not accomplishing that end, then something is seriously wrong with the program, and further expansion through ObamaCare isn’t the solution.

Implementation

HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius is charged with leading the ObamaCare implementation effort, but it is clear that she is not up to the (potentially impossible) task. As POLITICO’s David Nather put it, “Obamacare fires are flaring up all over.” Unpopular policy and muddled messaging are hampering outreach efforts by the Obama administration, which leads Reuters’ David Morgan to question how many people will even sign up for insurance coverage under the law. After all, the law assumes that many uninsured but healthy Americans will enroll for coverage, and that these citizens will provide the necessary revenue to allow private insurance companies to comply with ObamaCare’s many costly mandates. If that assumption proves false, then the law is in serious danger of systemic failure. 

The need to boost awareness for enrollment efforts is leading President Obama and Secretary Sebelius to take extreme measures. Speaking to Planned Parenthood, President Obama pleaded with the controversial organization to spread the word about enrollment on his behalf. Secretary Sebelius is personally begging health care industry leaders to donate funds for the implementation efforts. Of course, HHS denies that there is anything improper with such solicitation attempts. Fearing the impact that a complete ObamaCare meltdown would have on their industry, some private insurers are reluctantly stepping into the breach to help with the outreach efforts.

The "Big Picture"

So, what’s the “big picture?” Senator Max Baucus (D-MT), one of the law’s chief architects, recently admitted that ObamaCare is starting to resemble a “huge train wreck.” Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) fully agreed and asked for additional funding to implement the unpopular law. Remember, this is the same law that the Government Accountability Office recently stated would add $6.2 trillion to the long-term deficit, assuming that some unpopular cost-containing measures are phased out after 2019. According to Senator Reid, this law apparently needs even more money in order to function even somewhat adequately.

Why would Senators Baucus and Reid feel so pessimistic for ObamaCare? If you ask progressive Washington Post columnist Ezra Klein, he’ll tell you that the problem is (of course) Republicans. In summary, he argues that if only Republicans would keep shoveling money into the admittedly “unwieldy” law, then it wouldn’t have all of these problems! Mr. Klein, why would conservatives who oppose deficit spending and ObamaCare agree to increase the size of both? Was this really the Democratic plan all along? Why would you ever think that that would work?

By the way, Senators Baucus and Reid aren’t the only Democrats worried now that they’re seeing ObamaCare in action. Representative Jackie Speier (D-CA) recently acknowledged during a House subcommittee hearing that the Affordable Care Act “does not address [cost containment].” Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA) criticized the Obama administration for “raiding the Public Health and Prevention Fund” in order to advertise for ObamaCare. For his part, Senator Ben Cardin (D-MD) is worried that the law is causing insurance companies to hike premiums, and Senator Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH) fears that businesses still do not know how to comply with the complex law and that some will cut employees’ hours to reduce compliance costs. Failed South Carolina Democratic candidate, Elizabeth Colbert Busch, summed up all of these complains when she labeled the law “extremely problematic.”

In 2010, then-Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) demanded that Congress pass ObamaCare despite intense opposition. She infamously argued that, “…We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it.” More than three years later, we now know all too well what is in ObamaCare: disaster. Unfortunately, that is the “big picture” for ObamaCare.

In the wake of allegations that the Internal Revenue Service has been extensively used as a weapon by the Obama Administration against political foes, many have reflected on the frightening notion that the IRS will soon be in charge of your health care and what services you are provided under Obamacare. It is worth remembering that it has been proposed to nationalize the tax preparation process under the IRS - you know, because nationalizing health care, the student loan industry and large swaths of the automotive industry has worked out so well already.

Recent articles by the American Enterprise Institute and Americans for Tax Reform point out that this idea has been floated recently inside the beltway. As AEI put it,

Today, the majority of individual tax returns are filed electronically, rather than by mail. Electronic filing saves taxpayers money and reduces the likelihood that they will make mistakes. All taxpayers can access free fillable forms to quickly input their data, and 70 percent of taxpayers can use software and file electronically for free thanks to a voluntary public-private partnership between tax-preparation companies and the IRS.

For some, the next obvious step is to get the private sector out of the way altogether. Under so-called "return-free" proposals, the government would prepare individuals' tax returns, annually sending a pre-filled form for a taxpayer to review and approve. Proponents say a government-run system would be simple, painless and convenient, and would significantly reduce errors in the tax-filing process. If you believe this, I have some opportunities in the solar-panel business I'd like to talk to you about.

The truth is that a return-free system only sounds good until you think about it. When you do, it doesn't take long to understand why we need to keep the government out of the tax-preparation business.

There are so many problems with this idea, one hardly knows where to begin.

Let's start with the obvious money-grab and power-grab by the IRS. Tax preparation is a $9 BILLION industry, with over 300,000 jobs and 100,000 businesses set up to provide this service to consumers. The proposal is for the IRS to take over this entire industry. You know, because what we need in order to foster more efficiency in the system is more bureaucrats. Said no one ever.

Not only will this not eliminate tax returns as we know them, or the errors, or inherent complexity in the system, it is a CLEAR conflict of interest. The IRS has one job (or had one job, originally, before it got into the medical business): COLLECT the taxes. It measures its success or failure by collecting as much in tax income as possible. Third party tax preparers have the consumer's best interest in mind - not that of the IRS. Eliminating private tax prep will remove an important consumer safeguard against what will become an unchecked government agency with the power to confiscate wages. And who do you go to if there's an error on your return? Oh yeah, the IRS again. Because they're already so easy to work with - just ask the Tea Party groups who filed for tax-exempt status since 2010.

And has anyone considered the potential to violate the privacy of millions of American taxpayers? Each year, the IRS mails literally tens of thousands of refund checks and other documents to the wrong address. Imagine that happening with detailed tax returns? What could identity thieves do with all that information?

I don't know about you, but I'm not keen on yet another massive expansion of the IRS that would dwarf the expansion required to implement Obamacare. But that's exactly what would be required. By the most optimistic estimate, it could take several years and hundreds of millions of dollars to implement this idea. More realistic estimates indicate a decade or more, and billions of dollars at taxpayer expense.

All of this is to present yet another in an endless series of solutions looking for problems. Why does the private tax preparer need to be replaced at all? This system was tried in California, and less than one percent of taxpayers participated. It seems citizens like to go to a trusted private tax expert for confidental advice on how to maximize deductions and how to avoid governmental harassment.

Who knew?

 

Jeff is a 2013 BlogCon Panelist. Follow him on Twitter at @ChargerJeff.

Capitol Hill Update, 13 May, 2013

House & Senate/Schedule: Both chambers are in session this week and next week.  Both chambers will recess for Memorial Day, the week of May 27th.
Legislative Highlight of the Week: This week’s highlight is a report issued on Monday by the House Committee on Energy & Commerce.  The Committee surveyed 17 of the nation’s largest health insurers, and found that the coming increases in health insurance premiums will be staggering, particularly for the young, healthy individuals who will be coerced into buying insurance by the individual mandate “tax”. The entire point of the “Affordable Care Act” was to make health insurance more affordable, yet this report shows premiums increasing by almost 100% for individuals, and 50% for small businesses, with some people seeing spikes as high as 400%.  The full report can be found HERE.

House/Health Care:  This Thursday, the House will hold a vote on H.R. 45, sponsored by Rep. Michelle Bachmann, which would fully repeal ObamaCare in its entirety.  This is largely a symbolic vote, being held to give the new GOP freshmen the ability to say they voted to repeal ObamaCare. Nevertheless, expect to see a FreedomWorks Key Vote: YES on this bill coming out shortly.

House/Financial Services: On Friday, the House will vote on H.R. 1062, the SEC Regulatory Accountability Act, sponsored by Rep. Scott Garrett (R-NJ).  This bill would simply require the Securities and Exchange Commission to perform a cost-benefit analysis before enacting any new major regulations.  

House/Agriculture: On Wednesday, the House Committee on Agriculture will take up the Farm Bill.  This bill, which was last passed in 2008, contains a variety of handouts to big farm corporations and insurance companies, on top of outrageous carve-outs to certain industries such as corn, sugar, and cotton producers.  And 80% of the farm bill’s spending is actually on the food stamp program (SNAP), the enrollment in which has increased by 75% in just the past five years.  The only major improvement in this bill is that it does eliminate the direct payments to farmers, but the bill as a whole is still a fiscal disaster that spends almost $1 trillion over the next ten years.

Senate/Agriculture: On Tuesday, the Senate Agriculture Committee will consider its own version of the Farm Bill.  Since the Senate already marked up and passed their Farm Bill last year, there is a possibility that this year’s version will not spend much time in Committee, and could come to the floor for a vote as soon as next week.
 
Senate/Infrastructure:  This week, the Senate will resume consideration of the Water Resources Development Act, S. 601, and may vote on passage Thursday or Friday.  Sponsored by Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA), this bill is riddled with problems.  It guarantees billions in federal funds for projects that ought to be handled by individual states, such as harbor dredging and dam construction, essentially serving as a stimulus program.  It also uses the Army Corps of Engineers as a back-door earmark program by authorizing a nearly unlimited number of new contracts, despite the fact that the Corps already has a $60 billion project backlog.  FreedomWorks opposes this bill.

House & Senate/Energy: Last week, companion bills were released in the House and Senate which deal with the EPA’s war on the coal industry. S. 861, sponsored by Senator Mitch McConnell (R-KY), and H.R. 1829, sponsored by Rep. Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV) require that the EPA speed up its permitting process for coal mining projects.  Currently, the EPA is greatly delaying many of these permits, causing untold loss of productivity in the coal industry, which accounts for nearly 30 percent of our domestic energy.

The IRS has been sharing confidential applications and documents from conservative organizations to such news sources as Pro-Publica - funded by George Soros. Hopefully the image below is helpful in sharing and letting people know about the corruption going on over at the IRS.

If you or someone you know has been targeted by the IRS due to your political beliefs - please share your story with us at IRS Target.

Read more for graphic.

Adding to this week's Scandalpalooza is a lesser known, but incredibly disturbing tidbit. According to Legal Insurrection, the federal government mandated speech codes on all college campuses.  Free speech issues on college campuses usually center around student groups' rights to protest, but this latest first amendment assault creates such a subjective vacuum, it renders every college student a potential criminal:

In a letter sent yesterday to the University of Montana that explicitly states that it is intended as “a blueprint for colleges and universities throughout the country,” the Departments of Justice and Education have mandated a breathtakingly broad definition of sexual harassment that makes virtually every student in the United States a harasser while ignoring the First Amendment. The mandate applies to every college receiving federal funding—virtually every American institution of higher education nationwide, public or private.

The letter states that “sexual harassment should be more broadly defined as ‘any unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature’” including “verbal conduct” (that is, speech). It then explicitly states that allegedly harassing expression need not even be offensive to an “objectively reasonable person of the same gender in the same situation”—if the listener takes offense to sexually related speech for any reason, no matter how irrationally or unreasonably, the speaker may be punished.

The 31 page letter was issued by the Department of Education and Department of Justice and can be read in its entirety here.  As FIRE (Foundation for Individual Rights in Education) points out, these new mandates are ridiculously broad:

Among the forms of expression now punishable on America's campuses by order of the federal government are: 

• Any expression related to sexual topics that offends any person. This leaves a wide range of expressive activity—a campus performance of "The Vagina Monologues," a presentation on safe sex practices, a debate about sexual morality, a discussion of gay marriage, or a classroom lecture on Vladimir Nabokov's Lolita—subject to discipline.
• Any sexually themed joke overheard by any person who finds that joke offensive for any reason.
• Any request for dates or any flirtation that is not welcomed by the recipient of such a request or flirtation.

Add this speech mandate to the IRS scandal targeting pro-liberty organizations and the revelation that the Department of Justice secretly obtained business, cell and home phone records of Associated Press reporters and we have an incredibly concerning cocktail of first amendment infringements. Perhaps the bigger concern is that there's no end in sight. 

The IRS has for several years been targeting fiscally conservative and freedom-oriented grassroots organizations with highly detailed and burdensome demands. The effect has been to delay approval of tax exempt status, causing some organizations to abandon the effort, harming their ability to participate in the public debate.

FreedomWorks has obtained the IRS letter listing questions to TheTeaparty.Net.

The letter contains several pages of detailed and invasive questions, going far beyond any reasonable effort to determine whether the targeted groups are focused on public service and education rather than on candidate advocacy or electioneering.

Among the details the IRS asked for are

• List all activities, rallies, advertising to be explained "in detail"
• Lists of industry conventions at which the organization had a presence and any materials distributed to the public there
• copies of current web pages. "If you are a membership organization, please include all the pages that are accessible only to your members"
• Financial detais about internet related activies
• Content of blogs and social media presence 
• Lists of any candidates for public office appearing at forums the group sponsored
• Any materials distributed for any other organization
• Voter education and registration activities, in detail. One question may have required the organization to hire a professional grammarian to parse: "Who on the organization's behalf have conducted or will conduct the voter registration or get out to vote drives?"
• Business dealings with candidates
• Any other tax-exempt organizations with which the group is "associated"
• Fundraising efforts in detail
• Corporate minutes, board member compensation and work
• List of volunteers
• Any board member who has ever run or will ever run for public office
• Income statements in detail
• Expense statements in detail

Jackie Bodnar, FreedomWorks Communications Director, said:

Excessive paperwork and complex protocol is a weapon used by power brokers in DC to make it impossible for individual Americans to exercise their basic civic duty to hold government accountable. Complexity is big government's strategy to avoid accountability. We have to bring more transparency to the system and expose the injustices and violations of civil liberties that we find along the way. 

Even the far left bellweather ACLU said the move showed that "giving the government too much power to limit political speech will inevitably result in selective enforcement," threatening civil liberties. Jenny Beth Martin of Tea Party Patriots said the requests made of conservative and tea party groups were "ridiculous".  

TheTeaparty.Net spokesman Dan Backer responded via email with the list of demands (pdf) that the IRS sent to the organization.

We’ve just gone through our third round of IRS inquiries. The first round was probably not completely unreasonable since the original filing was made by volunteers and not lawyers. The 2nd round of questions was clearly politically driven, asked a great many questions designed to elicit information unrelated to exemption, and is discussed at length (and included in) the White Paper. The third round was pointless, burdensome, and serves no purpose but to harass the organization.

Here is the content of the cover letter:

The IRS' overreach in targeting these groups should bring Congressional investigation and media scrutiny. It shoudl unite the left, right, and center in defense of civil liberties. Instead, it may be used as a wedge to divide Americans even further.

File Attachments 2012-03-09_IRS_probe_redacted.pdf969.74 KB

Paul Krugman is at it again. The Nobel Prize-winning, devoutly Keynesian economist argued in a recent column that the thing needed to cure the sluggish American economy is, wait for it, more inflation. This is the classic Keynesian view that the Federal Reserve can stimulate the economy by inflating the currency. Krugman is doubtless basing his reasoning at least partially on the well known, but now outdated Phillips Curve, which demonstrated a historical inverse correlation between inflation and unemployment.

What the Phillips Curve fails to demonstrate, however, is any causal relation between rising inflation and lower unemployment. No doubt, prices tend to rise during periods of robust economic activity due to increased demand resulting from increased wealth, and prices fall during contractions simply because people have less money to spend. It does not follow, however, that an artificial increase in inflation will create jobs. In fact, it is likely to do just the opposite. For this reason, the Phillips Curve has largely been abandoned by the field of modern economics.

For one thing, rising prices create uncertainty, and business owners are unlikely to invest if they have no idea what their costs are going to be in the future. What company would commit to hiring new employees when the costs of their suppliers could unexpectedly rise at any time?

Nor is more inflation beneficial for workers. Wages are notoriously slow to adjust to price changes, so a rising price level would leave workers with steadily declining real wages, in addition to eating away at their savings and any cash on hand. At no point in history has a general decline in real wealth been the harbinger of great economic prosperity.

There are administrative costs of inflation too, as merchants are forced to update their catalogues and price lists frequently in order to stay abreast of the latest changes, and banks are required to continually update their interest rates.

Krugman’s ideas are based in part on the assumption that inflation is currently very low. This is an understandable thing to think if one merely glances at the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ Consumer Price Index, but is less credible when actually trying to purchase groceries or household items. The Consumer Price Index(CPI) is a notoriously poor gauge of inflation, since it measures a fixed basket of goods that do not change over time to reflect advancing technologies and shifting consumer preferences.

The Federal Reserve has already devalued the currency by pumping unprecedented levels of cash into the economy through its quantitative easing program. The result has not been more jobs, but rather artificially low interest rates that discourage saving and punish those who were responsible with their money before the recession. Saving is important to provide capital for business investments and to provide for workers in their old age. Policy makers are already fretting heavily over the underfunding of America’s Social Security and private pension systems, a problem partially created by the Fed’s easy money practices.

To suggest that these policies should be continued and even increased is to show a blatant disregard for the well being of the economy and all those struggling to make ends meet within it. Inflation is never a desirable policy goal. If we want to see jobs return to the private sector, the only way is to allow prices to stabilize and to promote sound money so that employers regain the confidence to invest and employ.

Washington, DC- Following new discoveries of the IRS's targeting of small-government groups applying for tax-exempt status, FreedomWorks President Matt Kibbe released the following statement:

“This is not a political issue, this is a First Amendment issue. Mom and Pop citizen groups critical of the federal government and/or engaged in educating their fellow citizens on the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were specifically targeted by IRS agents. This ominous stifling of free speech can never happen again in America, and there needs to be a full accounting of who knew what, when did they know it, and who is responsible. The IRS used its power to discourage and intimidate Americans from speaking out against bad policies, stifling the First Amendment right of every citizen to hold government accountable. This is the stuff of Third World Juntas, not the greatest Constitutional Republic in human history. This abuse of power and 'unequal treatment under the law' raises fundamental questions about the sanctity of the civil rights of American citizens.  Is this a government ‘By The People,’ or a government of political elites specially granted the monopoly power of government? Justice demands that we get clear answers from the Obama Administration.”

FreedomWorks is a grassroots service center to a community of over 4 million activists who believe in individual liberty and constitutionally-limited government. For more information on FreedomWorks' position on the IRS discrimination scandal, visit www.FreedomWorks.org or contact Jackie Bodnar at JBodnar@FreedomWorks.org.  

Author, comedian and podcaster extraordinaire Adam Carolla stumbled upon an important business insight: “I don't think I've ever seen pie advertised,” he said. “That's how you know it's good. They advertise ice cream and other desserts. They advertise the bejeezus out of yogurt, but I haven't seen one pie commercial.”

The dirty little secret about advertising is that, in general, the better the product, the less you have to advertise.

The best restaurant in town is packed every night without buying an ad. You chose your auto mechanic because your gearhead uncle swears he runs the only honest shop in town. And do you hear more about Harley Davidson from TV spots or from your co-worker who wears a Harley jacket and drinks from a Harley coffee mug while driving a Harley-edition truck?

Usually, the brands that advertise most are those offering forgettable quality at an unexceptional price with poor service. The need to tell you they’re great because no one else will.

Which is why no one was surprised when the Obama administration announced they’ll spend $150 million to promote the glories of Obamacare to the American people.

This latest PR boondoggle is aimed at community health centers, according to HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius. “Health centers have extensive experience providing eligibility assistance to patients, are providing care in communities across the nation, and are well positioned to support enrollment efforts,” Sebelius said.

If the so-called Affordable Care Act is such a blessing to the uninsured, Americans would be flocking to the nearest federal agency demanding their free slice of government pie. Instead, the plan is as unpopular as ever and dropping.

But the $150 million ad campaign is just the start. Sebelius is now shaking down health industry execs, asking them to kick in millions to market Obamacare. The same executives Sebelius is in charge of regulating.

Nice medical company you’ve got there. I’d hate to see all the new regulations I’m writing drive it out of business.

Even the Obama-adoring Washington Post seems nervous at the implications.

Sebelius must walk a tightrope in asking for money. Federal regulations do not allow department officials to fundraise in their professional capacity. They do, however, allow cabinet members to solicit donations as private citizens “if you do not solicit funds from a subordinate or from someone who has or seeks business with the Department, and you do not use your official title,” according to Justice department regulations.

“It sounds like the people she’s going to are people that are being regulated by her agency, I think that is definitely problematic,” said Meredith McGehee, policy director for the Campaign Legal Center. “That’s not a statement about the value of the law, but it’s a statement about using the power of government to compel giving or insinuate that giving is going to be looked at favorably by the government.”

You can describe "socialism" as the collusion of government and business. You can use the same description for "corruption."

At a time when health care costs are draining the personal budgets of most Americans, selling “free” insurance should be as easy as pie. But citizens across the political spectrum know that Obamacare is a bad product that will only get worse.

Follow Jon on Twitter at @ExJon.

The Obama administration has gone beyond the limits of Obamacare and has further raised taxes without approval from Congress.  This move forces more low income Americans and struggling businesses to pay the mandate taxes. A lawsuit led by the Competitive Enterprise Institute seeks to force the IRS to obey the law as it is written.

CEI is not party to the suit, but is advising the plaintiffs. The action stems from the IRS deliberately misinterpreting the Obamacare law, humorously and ironically named the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, or ACA.

The action by the IRS will force more people to pay the individual mandate tax, and exposes businesses in health care freedom states to the employer mandate to provide insurance to their employees, which will cost jobs and force many out of business entirely. 

According to section 1401 of the law, employers must provide insurance or face a fine of $2000 per employee only if all of the following are true:

• Any employee is not offered qualifying "affordable" insurance
• An employee buys a policy through the exchange, getting a tax credit

• It only applies to policies "which were enrolled in through an Exchange established by the State under 1311" of the ACA. 

This paper by Cato's Michael Cannon and Case Western Reserver Professor Jonathan Adler explains these details, and is a good introduction to the inner workings of the law.

The IRS in its rulemaking, however, in August 2011 said tax credits would be available for those buying insurance from exchanges created either under section 1311 or 1321, the federal exchange.  That triggers a number of important effects, including exposing employers in healthcare freedom states to the steep IRS fines, fines they may have moved to a free state to avoid.

Twenty-four House conservatives sent a letter to the IRS Commissioner on November 4, 2011,  demanding that the agency comply with the plain wording of the law.

The IRS Commissioner gave a carefully-worded reply, saying essentially that no one had noticed this before, so it doesn't matter: 

Even as we consider your input, I must respectfullly disagree with the premise that our proposed regulations contradict the statute where they state that premium tax credits are available to those who obtain coverage through a Federally-facilitated exchange. The statute includes language that indicates that individuals are eligible for tax credits whether they are enrolled through a State-based Exchange or a Federally-facilitated Exchange. Additionally, neither the Congressional Budget Office nor the Joint Committee on Taxation technical explanation of the Affordable Care Act discusses excluding those enrolled through a Federally-facilitated exchange.

But there is no such unclear language in the law, and certainly the IRS has not stated what it is. Rather, the IRS final rule says that since the definition of "Exchange" is either a State-based exchange or a Federally-facilitated exchange, both allow for subsidies.

f. Federally-facilitated Exchange

Under the proposed regulations, the term Exchange has the same meaning as in 45 CFR 155.20, which provides that the term Exchangerefers to a State Exchange, regional Exchange, subsidiary Exchange, and Federally-facilitated Exchange.

Commentators disagreed on whether the language in section 36B(b)(2)(A) limits the availability of the premium tax credit only to taxpayers who enroll in qualified health plans on State Exchanges.

The statutory language of section 36B and other provisions of the Affordable Care Act support the interpretation that credits are available to taxpayers who obtain coverage through a State Exchange, regional Exchange, subsidiary Exchange, and the Federally-facilitated Exchange. Moreover, the relevant legislative history does not demonstrate that Congress intended to limit the premium tax credit to State Exchanges. Accordingly, the final regulations maintain the rule in the proposed regulations because it is consistent with the language, purpose, and structure of section 36B and the Affordable Care Act as a whole.

That is awful logic. It's like saying that both apples and oranges are fruit, therefore apples and oranges yield the same kind of juice. 

According to CEI General Counsel Sam Kazman:

"We think it’s very clear. In addition to the language of the statute itself, I think one sort of interesting indicator is that before the IRS issue the regulation which came out in final form a year ago May, it put it out in proposed form inviting public comment. There were several comments indicating that the IRS just did not have authority to do what it was proposing to do, and when it came out with the final version -- agencies generally accompany that with an explanation of why they are doing what they are doing -- on this particular point, it gave an incredibly cursory response. If you think an agency’s jurisdiction is being questioned, it would get into quite a bit of detail, but its response there was really sparse. And to me that’s a tip-off that they just don’t have much in the way of justification."

"That’s a secondary point," said Kazman.  "The language of the statute is clear. But on this particular issue, the agency was incredibly sparse, and it seems to me that was sort of a tip-off that the agency does not have very much in the way of justification for its interpretation."

The legislative history is equally clear. Senate Democrats, led by Max Baucus, knew they could not force states to do federal bidding. They wanted to incentivize states to participate, so they gave the citizens tax credits if the state set up an exchange.  

"It turns out that those tax credits were sort of appetizers for something that wasn’t very appetizing,” Kazman said.

“Any agency is going to have trouble when its interpretation runs counter to a statute that is relatively clear. And in our view, Obamacare is clear on this point. So I just do not think they are entitled to very much deference.”

The effect on businesses is one thing, but the IRS power grab will move many people from being exempt to facing the mandate tax.

“In the case of individuals, it’s not so much that they’re facing a tax," Kazman said, "it’s that the credit is going to knock them out of what’s called the 'unaffordability exemption'. If you’re below a certain income as an individual, you’re not subject to the individual mandate under the unaffordability exemption, but these folks get a subsidy, and that in a sense disqualifies them. Now, you might think they’re getting a subsidy, so they’re not really injured, for these particular individuals, they are injured because the amount they will have to pay for a qualified insurance package is much higher than the subsidy they’re getting, and it’s much more than they want to pay."

This IRS attack on the poor is just one more reason why Obamacare must be fully repealed.

Our K-12 education system is a monopoly, and like any other monopoly, the customer (child) suffers from lack of choice and competition.  Our children are being held captive in a failing system where markets are not allowed to work. As it turns out, parents, especially moms, know that the key to improving our education system is to allow for market forces to drive innovation and create an enviroment that responds to the needs of children, instead of just propping up the status quo.

In a study just released by the Friedman Foundation for Educational Choice, mothers of school-aged children were asked about education nationwide, education in their communities, and the issue of school choice. The study, Schooling in America, provided some great insight into feelings on traditional education in America, and what they would like to see change. 

One key finding is that mothers have more confidence in private schools than in traditional public schools, which is probably why 66% support vouchers and 69% support tax credits for their children to get the best education available. Around the country, about 255,000 students are using vouchers and tax-credits this year. Why are so many mothers seeking other options? Because, as the survey showed, 79% of mothers surveyed gave the federal government’s involvement in education a “fair” or “poor,” while 61% believe that education has “gotten off on the wrong track.” 

It’s not simply a matter of “the grass is always greener” for these moms, either. Those who have their children in private schools find that their children are receiving much better educations. 56% of mothers gave their private schools an A or B grade, compared to only 43% for public schools. This is down from 62% only a year ago. As education reform and school choice becomes more mainstream, parents are beginning to realize that they have options, and as they research an seek those out also find that some are better for their children. 

Perhaps that’s why most respondents agreed that vouchers should be available to all children regardless of income. “When a school doesn’t work for a child, the public believes that child should have choices, including private schools—no matter what his parents’ income,” said Robert Enlow, President and CEO of the Friedman Foundation. Isn’t that what America is about- equal opportunity for all? America’s mothers certainly seem to think so- and we agree!

The American Heritage Medical Dictionary defines 'superiority complex' as an exaggerated feeling of being superior to others.  McGraw-Hill defines it as any number of behaviors, including self-aggrandization.  What better defines feelings of superiority and self-aggrandizement than the claim of former vice-President Al Gore, who once famously proclaimed to have taken the "initiative in creating the internet".

Perhaps the Democratic U.S. Senate hopeful from Massachusetts, Ed Markey, is trying to channel Gore's self-aggrandizing approach, taking some level of credit for every technology-based invention under the sun - from satellite dishes, to Skype, to Facebook, and even Google.  

In a newly released ad, Markey, who is running against Republican Gabriel Gomez to replace John Kerry in the U.S. Senate, takes legislative credit for having brought the world these technological advances.

The ad opens by running through a series of visual presentations of these advances, with Markey himself saying the following:

It's hard to believe, but 20 years ago almost no one had broadband. Smartphones hadn't been invented yet.  Facebook, Skype, Google?  The stuff of science fiction.

And that, according to Communispace CEO, Diane Hessan, is when Ed Markey stepped in, and made all of these things possible.  (Hessan, it should be noted, is a heavy Democratic donor).

This isn't the first time Markey has laid claim to the innovations of others.  

In a February interview with The Republican, Markey argues that his work led to the 'creation of the 18-inch satellite dish', multiple cell phone licenses, a switch from analog to digital technology, and gave cable companies the ability to provide phone and data service.

And in a Senate primary debate in March, Markey mentioned that his legislative efforts in the '90s led to the 'unleashing' of Google, eBay, Amazon, Hulu, YouTube, Facebook and Twitter.  

The crux of Markey's argument lies with the 1996 Telecommunications Act, a well overdue overhaul of the Communications Act of 1934.  To harken back to this Act is a bit of a reach in and of itself, but opens the door to criticism in that 17 years later, a new overhaul is sorely needed.

In an op-ed for CNET in 2006, FreedomWorks President Matt Kibbe discusses the legislation's obsolescence.

The Telecom Act suffered from the fatal hubris that afflicts most government regulations: It falsely assumed it could anticipate and react to the evolution of technology.

Kibbe also points out that one of Markey's arguments regarding the ability of cable companies to provide phone and data services, actually hurts competition because of the Telecommunications Act.

Anyone who has shopped for this service knows the two main options are DSL from a phone company or cable from a cable company. They offer the same service, but they're treated differently by the law. The Telecom Act pigeonholes cable, telephone and other communication services into their own "silos."  Each silo is regulated and taxed by different rules and bureaucracies. 

He adds that, "when competitors in the same market receive differential treatment from the government, consumers suffer."

Similar criticism came from Markey's Democrat opponent in the primaries, Stephen F. Lynch.

Boston.com reports:

His work on the bill triggered criticism during Markey’s Democratic primary with US Representative Stephen F. Lynch, who pointed out that broadband is still limited in parts of Massachusetts and mocked Markey’s claims of targeting monopolies. Lynch said that the market for services had instead forced scant options on consumers.

According to Markey however, consumers certainly aren't suffering with the technological advances he has pioneered for them.  

Remember this next time you update your status on Facebook.  Or during your next Google search.  Or even the next time you inadvertently run an ad in which you crop an opponents face right next to that of Osama bin Laden on YouTube.

Remember - you owe it all to Ed Markey.

Follow Rusty on Ed Markey's Twitter @rustyweiss74

Dear FreedomWorks Member,

On behalf of our more than 4 million members nationwide, I urge you to contact your Senators and Representatives in Congress and tell them to support the Coal Jobs Protection Act: S. 861 in the Senate and H.R. 1829 in the House of Representatives.

In accordance with the Clean Water Act, coal mining companies are currently required to apply for 402 and/or 404 permits through the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) which regulate the potential discharge of pollutants, dredge and fill material from mining operations. However, the EPA has recently been delaying the review and approval process for these permits, hampering the American coal industry.

As a result, thousands of coal jobs have been lost across the country and untold capital investment has been either misallocated or paralyzed. Coal is here, abundant and produces nearly 30 percent of all domestic energy. Global economies and energy demand have begun to catch up with the United States forcing Americans to pay unprecedented prices for energy. At a time like this, the coal industry should be free to meet American demand for affordable energy without having to worry about bureaucratic hurdles.

This is why I implore you to tell your elected officials in Congress to support the Coal Jobs Protection Act. This legislation sets a 270 day and 90 day time limit for EPA review on 402 and 404 permits respectively. If the government misses their deadlines, then, under this act, the permits will automatically be approved. This legislation gives government an incentive to fulfill its obligations expeditiously and gives energy businesses the kind of certainty required to save jobs, properly allocate capital, and ultimately lower prices.

Thus I urge you to contact your elected officials in Congress in support of the Coal Jobs Protection Act, tell your two Senators to support S. 861, and your Congressman to support H.R. 1829.

In Liberty,

Matt Kibbe
President and CEO
FreedomWorks

File Attachments LoS_2013-05-09_-_Support_-_Coal_Jobs_Protection_Act.pdf126.75 KB

Boxing Superstar Manny Pacquiao plans on taking his next fight on November 24th to China because of the would-be near 40% federal income tax if the fight took place in the United States.   Americans for Tax Reform reported that Manny will save $5.5 million by using a venue in Macau, China and $3.9 million in Singapore, Indonesia.  This may appear to be greed, by leftists but it shows that in general people will migrate and invest in places that offer a higher incentive to conduct business.    If the United States is to be viable option for future international sporting events, they’ll need to seriously consider lowering the federal income tax level to a rate that draws athletes in – not out.

Mike Tyson was at the peak of his career in the 90’s but in 2003 he filed for bankruptcy and is reportedly millions of dollars in debt to the IRS.  Tyson claimed he’ll never be wealthy again and all his money goes straight to the federal government.  It may appear that Pacquiao understands the financial woes from the former athlete or just simply doesn’t like paying taxes. (That’s far cry from what Mike Tyson thinks) Either way the reason why Manny Pacquiao has decided not to hold his boxing event in the United States is because of incentives to pocket more money.

Athletes are typically slammed with dozens of tax jurisdictions to file so even the smallest incentives can mean a lot. The quarterback for the New York Giants football team, Eli Manning, lives in New Jersey to avoid living in New York and paying a higher rate of taxes.   Looking at incentives, It might be easy to see why Lebron James decided to play in Florida over New York because of Florida’s no state income tax policy and by picking Florida, James has reportedly saved $25 million. These athletes are given multi-million dollar contracts so it should be noted that the states with no income tax will naturally attract more athletes than those that have a high rate, same thing applies to why Pacquiao isn’t fighting in the US – taxes.

Even Phil Mickleson, PGA golfer, has suggested moving out of California because of the high taxes.   This is simply people operating off incentives and choosing options that lead to less of a tax burden.  At least in the case of the PGA golfer, the money stays in the United States.  The United States will always hold host to the Super Bowl and World Series, but if boxers begin to realize they’ll make more money overseas, what impact will that have on the future of international sporting events in the United States? 

Boxing Superstar Manny Pacquiao plans on taking his next fight on November 24th to China because of the would-be near 40% federal income tax if the fight took place in the United States.   Americans for Tax Reform reported that Manny will save $5.5 million by using a venue in Macau, China and $3.9 million in Singapore, Indonesia.  This may appear to be greed, by leftists but it shows that in general people will migrate and invest in places that offer a higher incentive to conduct business.    If the United States is to be viable option for future international sporting events, they’ll need to seriously consider lowering the federal income tax level to a rate that draws athletes in – not out.

Mike Tyson was at the peak of his career in the 90’s but in 2003 he filed for bankruptcy and is reportedly millions of dollars in debt to the IRS.  Tyson claimed he’ll never be wealthy again and all his money goes straight to the federal government.  It may appear that Pacquiao understands the financial woes from the former athlete or just simply doesn’t like paying taxes. (That’s far cry from what Mike Tyson thinks) Either way the reason why Manny Pacquaio has decided not to hold his boxing event in the United States is because of incentives to pocket more money.

Athletes are typically slammed with dozens of tax jurisdictions to file so even the smallest incentives can mean a lot. The quarterback for the New York Giants football team, Eli Manning, lives in New Jersey to avoid living in New York and paying a higher rate of taxes.   Looking at incentives, It might be easy to see why Lebron James decided to play in Florida over New York because of Florida’s no state income tax policy and by picking Florida, James has reportedly saved $25 million. These athletes are given multi-million dollar contracts so it should be noted that the states with no income tax will naturally attract more athletes than those that have a high rate, same thing applies to why Pacquaio isn’t fighting in the US – taxes.

Even Phil Mickleson, PGA golfer, has suggested moving out of California because of the high taxes.   This is simply people operating off incentives and choosing options that lead to less of a tax burden.  At least in the case of the PGA golfer, the money stays in the United States.  The United States will always hold host to the Super Bowl and World Series, but if boxers begin to realize they’ll make more money overseas, what impact will that have on the future of international sporting events in the United States? 

 

This year’s Banned Books List included a few surprises.

The American Library Association's annual report highlights those books saddled with censorious complaints from parents, educators and assorted bureaucrats. Mom and Dad understandably would be horrified to find Fifty Shades of Grey in the elementary school stacks, but some administrators objected to Dav Pilkey's popular Captain Underpants kid-lit series.

It appears some paper-shufflers found the silly superhero too disrespectful of their efforts. "I don't see these books as encouraging disrespect for authority. Perhaps they demonstrate the value of questioning authority," Pilkey said. "Some of the authority figures in the Captain Underpants books are villains. They are bullies and they do vicious things."

We learned over the weekend that school office bullies aren’t restricted to the K-12 world. Two California university professors seem to be creating their own list of books to ban, including any titles that dare question their disintegrating theory of apocalyptic climate change.

San Jose State University posted a photo of their Climate Science profs about to burn Steve Goreham’s book, The Mad, Mad, Mad World of Climatism. Department chair Alison Bridger, Ph.D., is shown holding a match while associate professor Craig Clements , Ph.D., dangles the book above the flame. 

Once the photo started going viral, university officials removed it from their website and insisted it was just a joke. Hilarious, no? Joke or not, while academia constantly warns of metaphorical right-wing book burners, academic arson is literally happening on the left.

Needless to say, the book-burning professors are paid by California taxpayers. I suppose hard-working Golden Staters should be thankful it was a printed title and not an ebook. (Despite the name, Amazon Kindles are tricky to burn.)

San Jose State received the anti-alarmist book from the Heartland Institute, one of 100,000 copies distributed by the conservative organization. After receiving initial hate-filled responses from academia, Heartland’s Jim Lakely jokingly wondered if professors would “burn the book to keep warm in this record cold spring, which might be a sign of the coming global cooling.”

Lakely quickly discovered that it’s tough to lampoon people who exceed even the craziest exaggerations:

The enviro-left in academia has “progressed” from ignoring all this non-alarmist evidence, to trying to dismiss it, to failing at that, to refusing to debate, to fudging data and blackballing contrarian evidence, to committing crimes against The Heartland Institute, to now showing the world that putting a match to evidence from the “other side” is a reasonable reaction. Pathetic. We are witnessing the death throes of a cult in real time, and it ain’t pretty.

The American Library Association doesn’t list The Mad, Mad, Mad World of Climatism on this year’s Banned Books List, but maybe San Jose State will catch their attention. If I may paraphrase the creator of Captain Underpants, I don't see Goreham's book as encouraging disrespect for authority. Perhaps it demonstrates the value of questioning authority. Some of the authority figures in The Mad, Mad, Mad World of Climatism are villains. They are bullies and they do vicious things.

Follow Jon on Twitter at @ExJon.

Washington, DC- FreedomWorks congratulates Mark Sanford on his Congressional special election victory in South Carolina’s 1st District. FreedomWorks PAC endorsed Mark Sanford one week prior to the special election, when Sanford stood 9 points behind his opponent in the polls.

FreedomWorks President Matt Kibbe commented, “Mark Sanford’s victory tonight is further evidence that the political power balance in Washington has shifted. A strong fiscally conservative candidate, backed by a tenacious community of issue-driven grassroots activists, can prevail without the traditional power brokers of the Beltway.”

FreedomWorks activists across the District acted quickly, organizing a last-chance “Get out the Vote” effort in the final week before the special election to educate voters on Sanford’s consistent record of fiscally responsible economic policy.

On the windy and rainy Saturday leading into Election Week, grassroots activists knocked on over 1,000 doors including the Mt. Pleasant area, one of the highest concentrations of likely Republican voters in the District. FreedomWorks produced and distributed 20,000 door hangers and 1,000 yard signs total in support of Mark Sanford in the weeks leading up to the special election.

Mark Sanford’s strong stance in favor of full ObamaCare repeal also helped him close the gap in the polls. In a debate, his opponent supported the President’s controversial health-care law, while also calling it “extremely problematic” and in need of an “enormous fix.”

FreedomWorks is a grassroots service center to over 4 million activists nationwide who believe in individual liberty and constitutionally-limited government.  For more information about FreedomWorks, please visit www.FreedomWorks.org or contact Jackie Bodnar at Jbodnar@FreedomWorks.org.

School choice received a blow in Louisiana today when the Supreme Court deemed funding for vouchers unconstitutional. Last April, Governor Bobby Jindal expanded school choice, including scholarships offered for up to 5,600 students for the current school year. More than 10,000 students applied for 5,600 spots in private and religious schools this year, and were selected by a lottery. The program was set to be expanded next year with nearly 8,000 students approved for vouchers with more scholarships expected to be approved in June. These are all students from low to moderate-income families who would otherwise attend poorly performing public schools. 

The plaintiffs in the case included the Louisiana Association of Educators and the Louisiana School Boards Association, and the vote was 6-1. Justice John Weimer, one of the majority votes, wrote "The state funds approved through the unique MFP process cannot be diverted to nonpublic schools or other nonpublic course providers according to the clear, specific and unambiguous language of the constitution." This ruling, which cannot be appealed to the US Supreme Court,  does not shut down the school voucher program, just the funding mechanism for the program. This means that the children currently attending alternative schools will not be forced out, but a workaround needs to be found for funding. 

Just last month, Jindal spoke out in support of school vouchers in Louisiana, saying that vouchers provide help for "low-income kids that are trapped in failing schools,” ensuring "better academic results." Now, the thousands of students relying on scholarships find their education in peril.  Jindal is expected to keep fighting for funding, as he is passionate about reforming the system and is determined that underprivileged and minority children have the opportunity to succeed. Other options for funding and expanded school choice are in the early stages, but Jindal is not likely to give up, according to former Jindal campaign manager Phillip Stutts.

 

I'm in Baton Rouge, feeling among leg and Jindal Admin is that they will do whatever needed to save the 5,000 kids in voucher program.

— phillipstutts (@phillipstutts) May 7, 2013

What do educators have to say about this blow to better education? According to, Stutts, who was on-site today, teachers’ union members were seen giving high-fives around the Louisiana state capitol building.

LA unions high-5ing around the LA Capitol. Guess it's a good thing 8,000 low income kids trapped in failing schools lost their scholarship.

— phillipstutts (@phillipstutts) May 7, 2013

With the education of our children in the hands of “educators” like these, isn’t it time parents got to make some decisions? Louisiana State Superintendent of Education John White agrees. In a statement issued today, he stated that “on the most important aspect of the law, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of families. The Scholarship Program will continue, and thousands of Louisiana families will continue to have the final say in where to send their children to school. Nearly 93 percent of scholarship families report that they love their school, and we will work with the Legislature to find another funding source to keep parents and kids in these schools.” So, while school choice suffered a setback in Louisiana today, committed reformers will continue to work so that families and students will win in the end.