Many claim to prefer bipartisanship out of leaders in Washington, D.C., and right now we're witnessing…
CFIF on Twitter CFIF on YouTube
Bipartisan Senators' Letter to NLRB Opposes Destructive Proposed "Joint Employer Rule"

Many claim to prefer bipartisanship out of leaders in Washington, D.C., and right now we're witnessing an encouraging example of it.

Specifically, Senators Mike Braun (R - Indiana), Joe Manchin (D - West Virginia), Angus King (I - Maine), James Lankford (R - Oklahoma), Kyrsten Sinema (D - Arizona), and Susan Collins (R - Maine) have written National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) Chairman Lauren McFerran seeking reconsideration of the NLRB's proposed "Joint Employer Rule" that they correctly warn "would have negative effects on workers and businesses during a time that many are already struggling following the COVID-19 pandemic."

For years we at CFIF have sounded the alarm on the Joint Employer Rule that the Senators target, because it would dangerously reverse decades of established labor…[more]

December 08, 2022 • 11:03 AM

Liberty Update

CFIFs latest news, commentary and alerts delivered to your inbox.
Jester's Courtroom Legal tales stranger than stranger than fiction: Ridiculous and sometimes funny lawsuits plaguing our courts
IRS Hiring Spree Is the Biggest Expansion of the Police State in American History Print
By David Harsanyi
Friday, August 12 2022
[M]ost law-abiding citizens know they have something to fear from a state agency that doesn't concern itself with your due process, has no regard for your privacy and is empowered to target anyone it wants without any genuine oversight.

The Democrats' new reconciliation bill isn't just going to be the largest-ever expansion of a government agency. It's going to be the largest expansion of the domestic police state in American history. Only a statist could believe that a federal government, which already collects $4.1 trillion every year  or $12,300 for every citizen  supposedly needs 80 battalions of new IRS cops.

The average American has less reason to be concerned about cops with guns  though the IRS is looking for special agents who can "carry a firearm and be willing to use deadly force, if necessary"  than they do bureaucrats armed with pens who are authorized to sift through their lives. If you pay your taxes you have nothing to worry about, Democrats claim. But most law-abiding citizens know they have something to fear from a state agency that doesn't concern itself with your due process, has no regard for your privacy and is empowered to target anyone it wants without any genuine oversight.

And, please, spare us this nonsense about the IRS expansion focusing exclusively on "high earners." White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre promised that the IRS wouldn't engage in new audits of anyone making under $400,000  a claim she has no authority to make and could not possibly predict even if she did. Connecticut Sen. Chris Murphy also said that the bill was passed to stop an "epidemic of tax cheating amongst the millionaires and billionaires" and promised that "audit rates won't increase for anyone making under $400K."

This is a lie. Nothing in the bill that Democrats passed through the Senate limits audits. Murphy, along with every other Democrat in the Senate, voted against a Republican amendment that would have prevented new agents from auditing individuals and small businesses with less than $400,000 of taxable income. Not long ago, Democrats passed the American Rescue Plan Act  which had as much to do with rescuing as the Inflation Reduction Act has to do with reducing inflation  and changed tax code so that mobile payment apps like Venmo and Cash App were now required to report transactions totaling $600 or more per year to the IRS. Does that sound like a party aiming fire exclusively at high-earning Americans?

Indeed, poor and middle-class Americans are far more likely to do their own taxes, and thus more prone to making mistakes. In 2021, those making $25,000 or less (often the young and elderly) were audited at a rate five times higher than everyone else. The wealthier you are the more likely it is that you can hire lawyers and accountants to work within the system. There aren't enough millionaires and billionaires in the world to keep a potential new 87,000 IRS employees busy.

There are other overlooked aspects of the Democrats' IRS expansion. The bill, for instance, strengthens the federal public-sector union monopoly that funds Democrats' political aspirations. IRS and Treasury Department employees spent 353,820 hours engaged in union activism  their PAC gives every cent to the Democrats  in 2019. One can imagine what another 87,000 employees would do for that effort. In the real world, laundering taxpayer funds through unions and using them on political campaigns is called racketeering.

None of this is to say that everyone who works for IRS is corrupt or power-hungry or an ideologue. The unassailable rules of giant bureaucracies, however, are that they always experience mission creep, they always do enough to justify their funding, and sooner or later, their leaders become political operatives.

With that said, it's worth remembering that the IRS doesn't simply collect taxes. It enforces speech codes. This is what empowered former IRS official Lois Lerner to target conservative groups  "crazies and "a--holes"  who used words like "Tea Party" or "patriots" in their names. But, even at the time, leftists at The New York Times editorial board praised the IRS for going after conservative groups because they did not "primarily" engage in "social welfare," and so did not deserve an exemption under Section 501(c)(4) of the tax code. Has anything in the evolution of the Democratic Party given you confidence that such power would not be abused or that an engorged IRS would be immune from political pressure?

Wrestling with an insanely complex tax code  nearly 8 million words  costs Americans billions every year. Rather than flattening and simplifying this astonishingly convoluted code, which not only would have saved citizens but the government money, Democrats decided we needed up to another 87,000 people to enforce it.


David Harsanyi is a senior editor at The Federalist. Harsanyi is a nationally syndicated columnist and author of five books - the most recent, "Eurotrash: Why America Must Reject the Failed Ideas of a Dying Continent." 

COPYRIGHT 2022 CREATORS.COM

Quiz Question   
Which of the following Presidents replaced the traditional candles with electric lights on the White House Christmas tree?
More Questions
Notable Quote   
 
"This has been a year of watershed moments in real estate, and not the good kind. The Housing Market Index, a closely watched industry metric that gauges the outlook for home sales, declined to 33 in November on a hundred-point scale, its lowest level in a decade, save for the first dystopian month of the pandemic. Anything under 50 spells trouble. A month earlier, interest rates on a standard…[more]
 
 
—Daniel de Visé, The Hill
— Daniel de Visé, The Hill
 
Liberty Poll   

Congress is debating adding $45 billion more than requested to defense spending for 2023. Considering a fragile economy and geopolitical threats, do you support or oppose that increase?