The View from a Taxpayer: Impeach the Government

This was just a lame joke a few weeks ago: I have been paying income taxes for four decades, and never was audited.

Until 2012, a year I went to work for a conservative think tank, the Civitas Institute in North Carolina. It very possibly was a mere coincidence that late last year the IRS announced it had audited my returns from 2010.

Let's say this up front: Any problems may be entirely due to my mistakes in understanding the law, in finding all the right forms, in adding up the numbers right.

But I will never know if that's the only thing that prompted the audit. It is a sad day when a citizens have good grounds to suspect that government agencies are willing and able to persecute them.

This is profoundly important. John Kass of the Chi Trib sums it up well: it's the Chicago Way. And as he says, "This one is about the Republic and whether we can keep it."

(HT to Real Clear Politics and Instapundit, as so often.)

Actually, "keep it" is too optimistic; this and the related scandals show that we have already lost it to some extent; it's now about whether we can put it back.

There are misleading comparisons between Obama and Nixon, but the main one is that Obama looks better on TV, and we don't have any tapes from his White House. Yet. Though I'm waiting to read the biographies and memoirs that will start pouring off the presses in 2017.

Here is the difference: Nixon and a few of his hacks tried to get back at some of their big-name political opponents, and generally failed. Obama and his minions tried to intimidate the American people, and so far have had remarkable success in doing so.

Intimidation is a very effective weapon. Those employing it need not control everyone, nor even catch every infraction of the rules; they need only frighten the opposition enough to "encourage the others."

Nor does Obama himself need to send out a memo. I've worked in plenty of organizations, and everyone knows what the bigshots want done. It's an insult to the men and women of the Internal Revenue Service to imply that they are too stupid to know what the president wanted.

More important, it is an insult to suggest the IRS staff couldn't comprehend that the Tea Party movement was a threat to their own well-feathered nest. The scandal is less about Obama than the government as an established force.

But it matters little if, say, Obama were impeached. (I happen to think Limbaugh is right, that will never, ever happen to our first black president.)

It wouldn't even matter if all the people at the IRS were fired and replaced with idealistic newcomers.

Look at the income tax: for a country that supposedly believes all men are created equal, on April 15 the main principle is that we are treated unequally.

Of course, the idea is to "level the playing field." But once you say that some people are more equal than others, then it's a mad scramble for favors and deals. And, not surprisingly, the slick, the wealthy, the well-connected, and those unburdened by scruples inevitably score most of the goodies.

If you think the system has goodies for everyone, I'm sorry to say it doesn't. Take the home mortgage deduction. I happened to live in Pittsburgh for a quarter-century, and had a house that cost $25,000. But  itemizing deductions got me less of a break than the standard deduction. That's right, the people who bought mansions on Malibu and apartments overlooking Central Park get tax breaks; homeowners in Pittsburgh don't.

The same goes, on a much higher level, for corporate tax breaks. The progressive income tax is a machine for producing crony capitalism. It motivates rich and powerful people and companies to seek special favors from government. And because they are rich and powerful, they get breaks.

Oh, please, don't tell me that would not happen if Congress was honest. Members of Congress are human beings.

In short, the income tax makes most of us into serfs because we have to bow and tug our forelocks before the czars of the treasury. And it gives the rich and powerful more privileges, as if they didn't have plenty already.

So it is the system that creates the inequities and corruption. Most of all, it creates moral rot. You know what was most offensive about Steven Miller's testimony? Not so much the evasions and the lies. It was the utter contempt that oozed from him. His disdain of the people's representatives, and of the people themselves; his disgust at being asked to be honest and to recognize facts; his sneering at the notion that he and his agency were accountable to anyone.

The answer: Impeach the government.

In my new house in North Carolina, this weekend I had to root out some invasive plants. I had to to not only hack down the plants, I had to dig down and cut through the roots with a mattock.

We have to do that to the corrupt tax system, and the government that spawned it.

Full disclosure: Civitas argues for eliminating the NC state income tax. The above opinion is on slightly different terms, and is my own.

The Moral Disaster of Benghazi, Obamacare, IRS

Even to conservatives it sounds dowdy to talked about the moral issues. But that is what is happening.

There is, finally, attention being paid to Benghazi, to Obamacare, to governmental power as manifested by the IRS. Even the Left has to admit there is something to it.

The Left is trying to say that it's just about incompetence, or it isn't important.

They are talking about incompetence, because, incredibly, a majority of the American electorate doesn't care if the president can do the job well. This was proven conclusively when Barack Obama was sworn in to a second term.

The real issue is the moral one: Is the Obama administration moral? That is, does it perceive right and wrong, good and bad? Does it apply the necessary virtues? Is it fair, just, brave, compassionate?

This sounds odd even to me. We are out of the habit of speaking of morality and virtue. That may be why these scandals have been festering so long.

Make no mistake about it, however: Morality is no outdated social habit. It remains the most important thing in the minds of homo sapiens.

That's a theme the American Enterprise Institute's Arthur Brook struck in two talks I heard last year, and his book The Road to Freedom. The key point: our moral judgement trumps everything else. Morality is the No. 1 element in our perceptions.

Again, look at the elections, as I recall it, polls showed most voters thought Romney was more competent, Obama more sympathetic. Look who won. Voters judge presidents on moral qualities -- whether they are brave, sympathetic, just, strong, perhaps most of all fair and honest.

Let's go back to Watergate. You know what really did Nixon in? His questionable tax returns. I remember that my father, a staunch Republican, looked sick when it became apparent Nixon was playing fast and loose with his tax returns.

Hey, he was Tricky Dick. Americans weren't surprised by dirty tricks. Heck, they would have been disappointed if Nixon hadn't done something sleazy.

But cutting corners on his taxes -- even if it was within the letter of the law -- shattered his supporters' moral understanding of him. Everyone knew he was angry and vindictive and ruthless. But he at least seemed to be someone who shared those old-fashioned, mid-American values of fair play and stolid adherence to the law. Once he broke those moral barriers, he was toast.

Different standards may apply to different presidents. I would suggest that each president has a moral contract with the people. LBJ was a rogue and wheeler-dealer, and everyone knew it, but he won because he convinced enough voters he adhered to the virtue of peace. But he failed in that. He was not wise enough or peaceful enough to keep relative peace in Vietnam, and he was not strong or brave enough to keep peace in American cities. At the end he seemed unfeeling, a pompous old man who didn't understand the agony the war and the Sixties turmoil were hurting Americans.

Clinton's moral contract was to keep America prosperous and out of trouble. His sexual life -- which every sentient adult knew or should have known was highly interesting -- was not part of the deal. He turned out to have the right virtues for the U.S. 1992-2000: sympathy for people, prudence regarding about the nation and people could do and wanted to do, palpable concern for people, even as global trade and technological advances made life tough for many.

Ditto Bush. In this case the contract got changed: He had to keep us safe from terrorists. It turned out he had the requisite virtues: strength and courage to keep us fighting terrorism. He too had sympathy for people, though the left sneered: A majority of voters sensed that he wanted to help people and cared about them, even in difficult times.

Voters have felt that about Obama. I work for an organization that commissions polling, and published verbatim accounts from voters polled about Obama. His supporters felt he cared about them and was doing his darndest. Those moral virtues counted more than success.

But now? The president and his closest advisers -- at least as far as we can see as of today -- stood by while Americans died. They so far have displayed no plausible sympathy for the men. Nor have they displayed any convincing outrage. These are moral reactions; Obama and the Obama crew have failed to show that they have responded morally to this disaster.

Nor, apparently, did they show the virtues of courage in responding. Nor have they honored justice in the oldest yet still most convincing way: They have not punished those responsible for the deaths.

These are moral failings: The failure to recognize, condemn and fight evil, the failure to show courage and resolve in the face of evil, the failure to acknowledge and correct errors.

The same holds true for the IRS scandal. A supposedly free people make an extraordinary concession to the government when they file tax returns: In an inversion of the normal American rights, we are forced to testify against ourselves. This is morally acceptable if and only if the government sticks to the highest standards of fairness. When the government breaks that agreement, the people are justifiably outraged.

Yet, speaking of outrage, where is Obama? If he's said anything, I haven't heard it.

Presidents succeed when they maintain the moral contract the people demand of them. Hoover and Roosevelt both bungled the Depression. But Roosevelt made the people feel he cared and that he was outraged: Sympathy and outrage are key moral expressions. Herbert Hoover, bless him, was unable to do either. The people rejected him.

Voters accepted Reagan's failures, such as Iran-Contra, because they felt he was brave and warm-hearted. They rejected Carter's failures because they perceived him as cold and timid.

Obamacare looms as an additional threat. So far voters have accepted it because Obama and the Democrats at least seemed to care about them and were courageous enough to try something.

But if it begins to seem that the Obamacare bureaucrats don't really care about them, people will go crazy.

Again, this isn't about policy or even execution. It's about morality, the full range of morality, including fairness and compassion and courage and prudence.

That's why this week is so disastrous for the Left: their moral image, their only real possession, is being shredded.

So what kind of world is coming?

I believe in evolution. Therefore change must be slow. And changes must be self-sufficent: We don't have to mandate them or protect them. If they are improvements, they will flourish.

I flipped through Kevin Williamson's The End is Near and It's Going to Be Awesome. I'm on board with the idea that the intrusive nation-state is in crisis across the globe, and that it will have to retreat and restructure, and that a different kind of world will emerge. After all, the modern nation-state is only a few centuries old, depending on how you define it. One the state goes broke, it will recede in reach and importance.

But I only hope a better way of life emerges. It may not.

Warning for Dems

Sanford wins. Not exactly good news for the Democrat brand.

From USA Today (HT Instapundit) "The fact that the Democrat made this competitive is a testament to the strength of Elizabeth Colbert Busch as a candidate and the Republican habit of nominating flawed candidates," Israel said. "Democrats will be aggressive and drive deep into Republican-held territory this cycle to find districts with flawed candidates where we can compete."

So, where are they going to find Republicans who more flawed than Mark Sanford? Is the GOP going to run Lindsay Lohan for a seat somewhere? Lance Armstrong? Chris Brown? Octomom? Anthony Weiner? Rod Blagojevich?

The Fire Next Time

That was the title of a book about racism, in 1963, but it came to seem prophetic of the riots that swept American cities in the late Sixties.

An astonishing percentage of Americans tell pollsters they think there will be a violent revolution to protect our freedoms.

Now, maybe some of the respondents were just blowing smoke. Just saying something outrageous on the spur of the moment.

But what is happening when that seems to be an obvious thing to say? Also, there is the wisdom of crowds to consider.

So what leads to violent revolutions, or at least revolts?

One is the sense that an oppressor is bent on making oppression total. The American Revolution makes no sense if we think it's about a token tax on teas. The Americans, however, became convinced that the Crown and Parliament were intent on reducing them to slavery.

The perception that a power is intent on tyrannizing a people is as important as tyranny itself.

Sometimes mere change is enough -- look at the Reformation, and the upheavals of the Industrial Revolution. People see things changing and figure -- why not us?

Nor is a majority needed. From the American Revolution to the Russian Revolution, a determined minority can be enough.

Apocalypse Now, Next Year, or Never?

Item:

Twenty-nine percent of registered voters think that an armed revolution might be necessary in the next few years in order to protect liberties, according to a Public Mind poll by Fairleigh Dickinson University.

Item:
If something can't go on forever it won't. This is the bitter lesson the Coalition has learned today, and will again next year at the European elections. Some of us have been predicting this for some time but I think even the most optimistic among us have been surprised by the suddenness of the change. In the space of half a year, Ukip have gone from being the party of the protest vote to the revolutionary force which threatens to transform the British political scene almost beyond recognition.

Item: 

Could the failure of the cradle-to-grave state have the unforeseen consequence of reinvigorating another institution that’s been ailing for some time across the Western world—i.e., what you might call the cradle-to-grave family?

Quick answer: Yes.

***
So what do we make of the above?

I spent the day putting up a couple of timbers to hold in gravel for a parking pad we're planning in the front of the house. Bought a power drill, for the first time in my life. I've always dreaded power tools.  I am by no means a handy guy. But I want to learn. I feel that, though I'm aging, I need to have basic skills, and stay strong, in case those attributes are more needed than they are in a complacent, wealthy, stable, technological society.

Mark Helprin's latest novel is In Sunlight and in Shadow. In the years after World War II, a former paratrooper goes to great lengths to stay physically fit, though he can't say why. Then he finds out. In corrupt New York, mobsters threaten him, his family business, his employees. The police are corrupt and can't help.

I have that sense. Though I'm old now, I can't help feeling that physical strength, agility and stamina will be called for yet. Like Helprin's hero, I can't say why. Perhaps like him, I sense the world is indeed out of joint, and when our structures of family, community, spirit, government and commerce are askew, it's bad, bad news for ordinary people. 

Warning to Republicans: Look at the rise of Ukip. The D.C. in-crowd warns us against looking for a third party. Well, how about a second party?

Don't think it could happen? Look around for your local committee for the Whig Party.

It isn't about hanging on to a congressional seat in East Festering Scab. It's about saving the country.

That's one thing that happens when old political lines fracture. 

But let's go back: Twenty-nine percent of registered voters think that an armed revolution might be necessary in the next few years in order to protect liberties, a poll found.

I work with polls. They are an art, not a science. Still ....

I think people sense the chaos around us. The nation is broke, broke, broke, though we are still in a state of denial. Islamic fanatics are stalking us, while some of their crowd is very close to having nuclear weapons.

People sense bad times lie ahead. Moreover, this will not be merely fiscal. As the item about the Ukip party suggests, once the establishment can no longer bribe us, we may be far less receptive to its lies and frauds. All heck could break out then.

Forecast for America: Colder and Crueler

I have been talking about the reconfiguration the nation is going through: As the central state goes broke, as the national morality disintegrates, the nation enters what seems to be a libertarian phase. In some ways, as I have implied, this may be merely a return to the original vision of the nation, with a week central apparatus, and much more power to the individuals, the states, and the various communities. That will also mean more responsibility for those people and entities.

But it will also mean a colder and crueler country. We see it already, not only as the national debt mounts, but as the national sense of identity evaporates.

First, there will be no more money for nation building. Nor for the expensive and arduous task of fighting a war without causing too much death and destruction.

For instance, Sen. John McCain has charged that the White House is looking for excuses not to intervene in Syria. And, there may be good reasons people tell us "Don't intervene in Syria."

But on the assumption that Barack Obama and Company sense what the American people want, why would he be reluctant to intervene, when the elite classes are pressing him to do so?

I think he senses that the whole nation-state thing has run out of steam. We are fiscally bankrupt; but I'd say we are as a nation are bankrupt in the moral and morale senses too. Once, from, say,  Wilson to JFK, to George W. Bush, we were willing to go on crusades. It can't be said the overall record is encouraging. I'd like to suggest, however, that this reflects a diminishment of our sense of ourselves as American -- as identifying with the nation as a nation state.

When a country is attacked, it is natural for its people to defend it. But, before the United States, was there any country that went to war to make another land better? We spent lives of our best young men, and now women, to end war and bring democracy to Europe and then Asia. Honestly, what other nation has ever done that? Other people have fought in self defense or for plunder, we fought for the Fourteen Points and the Four Freedoms, we vowed we would  "pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty."

This requires an idealized vision of the nation as an abstract entity. But what if that vision is no longer so idealized? A democracy requires skepticism among its citizens to keep its leaders in check. Then, as we have mentioned, traditions have been overthrown, even vehemently opposed. We are used to having empirical evidence for things, but morality cannot provide such evidence in the short run. With tradition dissolved, we are on our own, with our limited view and experience. Thus a nation cannot proclaim and sustain a world view. Our time now believes that "At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life…

But then the nation itself cannot be or provide an ideal. We have decided that individuals alone can decide what meaning is; so it is no wonder that flag-burning is illegal. This is aside from free speech questions: We no longer believe that the nation itself embodies or conveys an ideal; so why not burn the flag, or the Capitol or the Washington Monument?

So why then should we go, or send our children, to die to advance that ideal in a foreign land that may not be a candidate for our way of life anyway? Some neocons taunt social conservatives for supposedly taking our ball and going home. But why should social conservatives, or anyone for that matter, try to export our standards and ideals to war-torn countries? The nation state not only is broke, it no longer excites our vision, or even sparks loyalty. It simply is. We may find it pleasant, or at least convenient, but it no longer motivates us to die for other countries, and maybe not for our own.

Without such a strong national identity, there's less empathy for people outside our own communities. That may seem paradoxical, but a national identity trains us in transcending our own interests and groups; that national identity, being worn out, no longer pushes us to go outside of our own cliques. Thus we have less interest in those outside our circle. 

But how can we stand it? People are quite able to stand being safe while strangers slaughter each other. The Taiping Rebellion in China killed perhaps 20 million people. There has been genocide in places from Armenia to Rwanda, and we have been able to bear staying out of them. Poison gas? The Italian fascists used it in Ethiopia. Atrocities? The Japanese committed the rape of Nanking and America was able to stay on the sidelines.

There is of course the other alternative, as David Stockman points out in The Great Deformation: under Eisenhower, the nuclear threat was the great deterrent. That is hardly a kindly idea.

In short, we may be headed for colder, crueler times. We won't have the money to be so charitable; nor will we have the national identity that is so helpful in supplanting self-centered action.