Don's Tuesday column

      THE WAY I SEE IT   by Don Polson  Red Bluff Daily News   6/11/2013

Buffoonery from the lap dogs of the left

Describing as buffoonery the left’s hypocritical reaction to IRS targeting, or “profiling” (their favorite buzzword), of political opponents of the current regime’s expansion of the power and reach of the central government, has a point. “Buffoon, a clown” (Webster’s) goes with the phrase “so-and-so beclowned themselves” as when partisans make obviously ridiculous one-sided assertions.

Such is the case with the arguments presented from arrogant, snide Democrats in Congress, to liberal loons on MSNBC, to writers on this and other newspaper opinion pages. One Democrat in a committee hearing actually suggested that a Tea Party applicant for tax-exempt status brought intrusive, improper, illegal and unconstitutional questions on themselves (ranks up/down there with “the way the lady was dressed, she was just asking for it”). Constitutional and tax law genius Nancy Pelosi uttered some nonsense about the Tea Party abusing the tax statutes for crass purposes of political skullduggery.

Perhaps taking a cue from such leaders (including numerous anti-Tea Party remarks from “Dear Leader” Obama), liberal lap dogs have pounced. A writer on May 23 posited just that line of attack: the Tea Party was misusing a provision of the tax code, 501 c (4), to establish “a pass through for hiding political funding,” rather than “a social purposed nonprofit.” I also suspect the writer’s condemnation of churches becoming “more political than religious” meant conservative Christians, rather than liberal, urban churches openly embracing liberal causes with liberal Democrat politicians in pulpits. A promotional Chico Enterprise-Record at my curb on June 2 had a letter of similar sentiment. In “What’s the tea party worried about?” the writer simply ascribed “a lot of shady tactics” and “improper financial usage” to the groups, as apparent justification for the “IRS [to] watch them closely.” Indeed, our local writer simple presumed to know unequivocally that the “intent on the Tea Party’s part had little to do with establishing a legitimate non profit.”

That statement presumes knowing a group’s “intent” as well as near-certainty about the meaning, purpose or intent of the tax provisions governing 501 c (3) and (4) organizations. First, the irrefutable facts are that not one, single conservative, Christian, Tea Party or constitution-themed group has been denied their long-delayed tax status, nor have any had such non-profit status revoked. Read that again!

All the caterwauling from the “lap dogs” on the left is utterly without basis in fact, according to the same IRS that peppered groups with improper, illegal queries. However, when did not having all the facts straight ever stop liberals from besmirching their political opponents? With the left, it’s just accuse, charge, denigrate, insult, name-call and assassinate character first; explain, prevaricate and do-everything-but-apologize later when caught lying.

Without getting into legalese and tax law tall weeds, I’ll frame the subject in plain English. In 2009, when the Tea Party movement began in protest over out-of-control spending, bank bailouts and a trillion-dollar stimulus boondoggle, the Tea Party Patriots formed locally first in Redding, then Red Bluff, Corning and regionally in other communities. Our one guiding principle was that all issues, topics, projects and causes were fair game under the 501 c (4) rules.

What was not allowed was partisan promotion of candidates; all candidates could address the public at our meetings together with their campaign materials. Some members had to be reminded during election times that we did not display candidate promotional material under the rules. Indeed, under the local Tea Party Patriots organizational umbrella, our lawsuit against the IRS proceeds, with Jay Sekulow of the American Center for Law and Justice providing for our legal action over their discriminatory delay.

When the phrase “social welfare” is used for the c (4) non-profit, you, dear liberals, don’t get to decide what qualifies. Indeed, (from Webster’s) “social, 1. of society” and “welfare, 1. health, happiness and comfort” combine to the deference of the non-profit group’s interpretation. We don’t have to come cap-in-hand to our state masters or their liberal sycophants around us to get permission and approval to engage and act to improve the “health, happiness and comfort” “of society” as we see fit politically.

Folks, the difference between a non-profit charitable group under 501 c (3) and the more political and issue oriented c (4) has to do with tax deductibility of contributions: The tax system encourages purely charitable groups [c (3)] to benefit by contributors deducting their gifts on their tax return from their gross income. No one questions the benefit to society. Donors deduct their gifts; their names are on the record.

 The political and social welfare category, c (4), however, has no tax deducibility for contributors. That is not a loophole to avoid taxes; people still pay taxes before making a gift. For anyone in the group paid a salary (hasn’t happened but it could), taxes would be paid on their income. There’s nothing deceptive or dishonest about keeping people’s names out of it; people are allowed to anonymously do things because they believe in a cause, whether it’s building a playground or funding efforts to educate people on the U.S. Constitution.

Come to the Westside Grange tonight at 6; watch “The Path to Restoring America” by Krisanne Hall (krisannehall.com).