By George Will
Wednesday, March 04, 2015
Rep. Peter Roskam (R-Ill.) is now chairman of the Ways
and Means subcommittee whose jurisdiction includes oversight of the Internal
Revenue Service, and hence of Lois G. Lerner’s legacy. He knows how interesting
her career was before she, as head of the IRS tax-exempt organizations
division, directed the suppression of conservative advocacy groups by delaying
and denying them the exempt status that was swiftly given to comparable liberal
groups.
In 2013, Roskam, in a televised committee hearing, told
the story of Al Salvi, who in 1996 was the Republican Senate candidate against
the then-congressman, now senator, Dick Durbin. Democrats filed charges with
the Federal Election Commission against Salvi’s campaign, charges that
threatened to dominate the campaign’s final weeks. Salvi telephoned the head of
the FEC’s Enforcement Division, who he says told him: “Promise me you will
never run for office again, and we’ll drop this case.” That official was Lois
Lerner. After Salvi lost, FBI agents visited his elderly mother, demanding to
know, concerning her $2,000 contribution to her son’s campaign, where she got
“that kind of money.” When a federal court held that the charges against Salvi
were spurious, the FEC’s losing lawyer was Lois Lerner.
Roskam’s telling of Salvi’s story elicited no denial from
Lerner. Neither did the retelling of it in this column [June 13, 2013]. No
wonder: The story had not been deemed newsworthy by the three broadcast
networks’ evening news programs, by the New York Times or by The Post. With
most of the media uninterested in the use of government institutions to
handicap conservatives, stonewalling would work.
It still is working through dilatory and incomplete
responses to subpoenas, and unresponsive answers to congressional questions.
Lerner’s name now has an indelible Nixonian stain, but there probably will be
no prosecution. If the administration’s stonewalling continues as the statute
of limitations clock ticks, Roskam says, “She will get away with it.”
Now in his fifth House term, Roskam, 53, says, “The
advantage in this town is always with the entity that doesn’t want to do
anything.” Many thousands of Lerner’s e-mails that supposedly were
irretrievably lost have been found, but not released. The Justice Department’s
investigation, which was entrusted to a political appointee who was a generous
contributor to Barack Obama’s campaign, is a stone in the stone wall.
Roskam says the task now is “to see that Lois Lerner 2.0
is impossible.” One place to begin is with the evidence — anecdotal but, in the
context of proven IRS corruption, convincing — of other possibly punitive IRS
behavior toward Republican contributors and other conservative activists. This
justifies examining the IRS’s audit selection process. This would produce
interesting hearings for most of the media to ignore.
Next, there should be hearings into the illegal
disclosure of taxpayer information about conservative individuals and groups to
the media and to liberal officials and groups. Cleta Mitchell, a lawyer for
some groups abused by the IRS (and for this columnist on different matters),
also suggests prohibiting IRS employees from joining a union.
“The National Treasury Employees Union,” she says,
“provides no protection to IRS employees that federal statutes and the civil
service system do not already provide. It already takes an act of God to hold
an IRS employee accountable for his or her actions. But it is worse than merely
redundant for IRS employees to belong to the NTEU. Because it adds nothing to
its members’ protections, it is a purely political organization. In 2014, fully
95 percent of its contributions went to Democrats, including 11 Democratic
members of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. So, the IRS
employees’ union dues finance the election of people who are supposed to
scrutinize IRS behavior.”
On Wednesday, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments
about whether the IRS’s lawlessness has extended to its role in implementing
the Affordable Care Act. The act says that federal subsidies shall be
distributed by the IRS to persons who buy insurance through exchanges
“established by the State.” The act’s logic and legislative history, as well as
a forceful statement by one of its architects, professor Jonathan Gruber of
MIT, demonstrate that this clear language was written to “squeeze” — Gruber’s
word — the states into establishing exchanges. But when 34 states did not
establish them, the IRS began disbursing billions of dollars through federal
exchanges.
The court probably will rule that the IRS acted contrary
to law. If so, the IRS certainly will not have acted contrary to its pattern of
corruption in the service of the current administration.
No comments:
Post a Comment