Empathy Part II

To paraphrase Ricky Ricardo, the IRS has got some splainin’ to do. It has already admitted flagging groups with “TEA party” and other Conservative indicators in their names and stated objectives for extra scrutiny when processing applications for tax-exempt status under Section 501(c)(4). I think that most people would agree that this was an unacceptable practice. In the words of the President, people need to have confidence that the agency is “applying the laws in a non-partisan way.” However, despite what Michele Bachmann would have us believe, the IRS scandal is not “far worse than Watergate.”

While Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus may speculate that “we have an administration that would take the taxman and intimidate people that didn’t agree with him politically,” there has been no evidence released that suggests that Obama directed these actions or even was aware of them. In comparison, Nixon told White House Chief Bob Haldeman to “get the word out, down to the IRS that I want them to conduct field audits on those who are our opponents.” The articles of impeachment that were drawn up by the House against Nixon included the charge that he had “endeavored to obtain from the Internal Revenue Service, in violation of the constitutional rights of citizens, confidential information contained in income tax returns for purposes not authorized by law, and to cause, in violation of the constitutional rights of citizens, income tax audits or other income tax investigations to be conducted in a discriminatory manner.”

The IRS division involved in the scandal also had nothing to do with audits, which would have made the scandal a lot more serious. The unit in question only dealt with approving organizations for tax exempt status and in the end the IRS did not deny this status to any of the targeted groups. However, the resulting delays did interfere with these groups’ ability to raise funds for their causes, and this alone is cause for condemning the actions of the IRS employees.

It is yet to be seen whether the actions of the IRS were even politically motivated. Instead, it is entirely plausible that they were a misguided attempt to efficiently handle an increased workload.

The tax code allows groups that are primarily involved in policy advocacy to be tax exempt while taxing groups that are political advocates. The Supreme Court’s Citizens United ruling added another benefit to being labeled as a policy related organization as donors to these groups can remain anonymous. The perfect storm was completed by a supercharged political atmosphere leading up to the 2012 Presidential election. As a result, the IRS saw applications for tax exempt status double between 2010 and 2012.

It could be argued that those with political views outside the one in power are more likely to be political, while those looking to maintain the status quo are better able to maintain an advocacy role. Furthermore, groups working outside the mainstream may have more of an interest in maintaining their anonymity. If an agent were to play the odds in an attempt to get the most bang for their buck, it makes sense to target only groups that meet the profile of one outside the current political mainstream. In today’s world that would be the TEA Party and other Conservative groups.

The problem with this use of profiling is that the odds do not always play out. During the entire time that this scandal was taking place, it appears that only one application was actually denied by the IRS. Ironically, the group rejected, Emerge America, is Liberal leaning.

Actually, the problem with all types of profiling is that the odds do not always play out. Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio may have more of a chance of catching the undocumented by targeting hispanics, but more legal immigrants come from Mexico than any other country. Stop and Frisk may have helped New York City bring its crime rate to historic lows, but that does not discount the fact that minorities are perceived to be disproportionately affected, even though white suspects were more likely to have a gun or other contraband. Focusing on Muslims to combat terrorism ignores the realities of Oklahoma City and the Atlanta Olympics.

On how many slow news days have we seen stories about an “inept” TSA focusing on children and grandmothers when they should be looking at the “real” perpetrators of terrorism? A quick Google search finds Internet headlines that scream “TSA Still Harassing Children” and an 85 year old woman who complains about being searched, sarcastically saying “I really look like a terrorist.” For the TSA to cave into this pressure leaves us more vulnerable. Terrorists had no problem crashing planes carrying their fellow passengers, which included babies and the elderly into occupied buildings. How much of a step would it be for them to use these innocents as weapons if they knew they could easily get through security checkpoints?

This type of plot is far from hypothetical. In 1986, El Al stopped Anne-Marie Murphy, who was pregnant, from boarding a plane with plastic explosives and a timing device. She did not know that her Jordanian boyfriend had hidden these devices within her luggage.

Since it is Liberals who usually are concerned with the negative ramifications of profiling, the IRS scandal provides a real opportunity to get Conservatives to empathize with their point of view. However, to do this they must resist the temptation to blindly defend the IRS just because it was Conservatives who were affected. Being profiled for your political views is just as wrong as being profiled for your race, nationality or religion.