VIDEO PRAGER U what you need to know about Planned Parenthood
www.prageru.com/videos/what-you-need-know-about-planned-parenthood
VIDEO – America First: European CEOs Go One By One To Tell Trump They Are Investing Billions Back In The US
Specifically, the White House should demand that the IRS submit all rules to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs for review. It should make it known that it will delay the implementation of any new rules until the IRS conducts the requisite economic analysis. And the Senate should demand that President Trump’s nominee for IRS commissioner—who has yet to be named—publicly commit to reforming this practice. Anyone who wants to lead the IRS should promise to produce economic analyses for proposed rules and share that information with the public.
No agency has more influence over every taxpayer than the IRS. It’s time for oversight of that agency to match its unparalleled role in Americans’ lives.
Every American knows the Internal Revenue Service collects taxes and audits taxpayers. Fewer realize that the agency also issues far-reaching rules that affect the entire economy. Any agency with such vast rule-making power deserves the highest level of scrutiny and accountability. The IRS is in particular need of oversight following the scandals that have engulfed it in recent years.
Yet a new report from the Cause of Action Institute reveals that the IRS has been evading numerous oversight mechanisms, and it refuses to comply with laws requiring it to measure the economic impact of its rules.
Congress has passed several laws, including the Regulatory Flexibility Act and the Congressional Review Act, that require agencies to report on their rules’ economic impact to lawmakers and the public. The president also conducts oversight of agency rules through the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. These good-government measures are meant to ensure unelected bureaucrats can be checked by the public.
Crucially, they are all triggered by an initial determination by the agency of whether its new rule will have a “significant economic impact.” But as our report shows, the IRS has made up a series of exemptions that allow it to avoid basic scrutiny. The agency takes the position that its rules have no economic effect because any impact is attributable to the underlying law that authorized the rule, not the agency’s decision to issue or alter the rule.
The IRS prominently used this excuse in 2016. It had proposed changes to the way it valued interests in closely held businesses for estate- and gift-tax purposes. This rule would have had a dramatic effect on thousands of small businesses and family farms and their inheritors. The affected communities reacted strongly, but the IRS still asserted the rule was only interpretive. It provided no more than the boilerplate statement that any economic effect “is derived from the operation of the statute, or its intended application, and not from the proposed regulations in this notice of proposed rule-making.”
This is pablum. Were it correct, rules from every federal agency would be exempt from oversight, since all agency rules are based in statute. If other agencies adopted this mind-set, it would gut oversight of the regulatory state by the elected branches.
The IRS did submit the rule to the Small Business Administration’s Office of Advocacy for comment on how it would affect small businesses. That office firmly rejected the IRS claim that the rule was exempt from economic analysis. The IRS brushed aside the SBA’s argument, but the Trump Treasury Department halted this ill-advised rule.
Yet the IRS’s brazen assertion of immunity from oversight remains in place. It first bestowed the economic-impact exemption on itself in 1998, after Congress amended the Regulatory Flexibility Act expressly to cover IRS interpretive rules. The IRS Office of Chief Counsel issued a notice claiming that its interpretive rules do not have an economic impact, an outrageous assertion meant to help the agency avoid the new law. The IRS originally stated that only the “revenue impact”—the amount of money collected and transferred to the Treasury—was exempt from analysis. It has since broadened this claim to evade White House review and the Congressional Review Act. The IRS now asserts the exemption for all “effects” from its rules, including macroeconomic impacts, behavioral changes, compliance costs, and record-keeping and reporting burdens.
Criticism of the IRS position goes beyond the SBA. Members of Congress and the Government Accountability Office have also called for reform of this baseless practice. Congress and President Trump should step in to correct this dubious behavior and ensure the IRS is held accountable for its actions.
Specifically, the White House should demand that the IRS submit all rules to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs for review. It should make it known that it will delay the implementation of any new rules until the IRS conducts the requisite economic analysis. And the Senate should demand that President Trump’s nominee for IRS commissioner—who has yet to be named—publicly commit to reforming this practice. Anyone who wants to lead the IRS should promise to produce economic analyses for proposed rules and share that information with the public.
No agency has more influence over every taxpayer than the IRS. It’s time for oversight of that agency to match its unparalleled role in Americans’ lives.
CBS asked an accountant how tax cuts will affect families.
Nov. 20, 2017 7:09 p.m. ET
This information from Representative Ken Buck confirms what many of us felt was going on in Washington and why the system is broken. Nancy
VIDEO – SHARYL ATTKISSON INTERVIEWS REPRESENTATIVE KEN BUCK , REPUBLICAN, ABOUT THE NATURE OF WASHINGTON POLITICS
www.youtube.com/watch?v=mIiozu2g12I
FULL ARTICLE – CLICK ON LINK FOR FULL ARTICLE
fullmeasure.news/news/cover-story/bucking-the-system
www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/08/27/exclusive-brent-bozell-the-slow-death-of-the-republican-party/
Brent Bozell III27 Aug 2017
Kris Connor / Getty Images
All this talk about Trump this, and Trump that, masks a far bigger political controversy. The Republican Party leadership in Washington, D.C., has fundamentally betrayed its constituents and they are about to learn that they’ve been double-crossed — for years.
Every Republican candidate’s stock speech sounds the same, the thunderous roar about a government out of control, federal spending out of control (insert charts and graphs and why, if you stack hundred dollar bills, they will reach the edge of the universe), federal taxes out of control (insert comparisons to socialist countries), the federal bureaucracy out of control (insert metaphors about chains, yokes, and the like), the family shattered with federal funding of abortion a crime against humanity (watch for it — there! The heart-wrenching sob), and our military is emasculated.
Two more items were added to the menu, courtesy of Obama. Obamacare Will Be Repealed! and Illegal Immigration Will Not Stand!
In 2009, the Democrats controlled everything, partly due to the Republicans’ cowardice on Capitol Hill, and in part because of some of the most inept candidates and campaigns America has seen in years. The Obama folks could have played it safe but went for socialist gold, using the power of the legislative and the executive branches (and later the judiciary, thank you Justice Roberts) to advance their agenda.
That included federal spending on a level unmatched in human history resulting ultimately in a $19 trillion in debt we simply cannot pay, and with so many tens of trillions of dollars in unfunded liabilities that “infinity” is not far behind. One seventh of the economy was confiscated by the federal government with the passage of Obamacare. Our national borders were declared open and discussions over our national sovereignty closed. And to top it off, the Democrats all but declared themselves above the law.
The GOP harrumphed that this would not stand, by God! If only… if only America would vote them into the majority.
In 2009, the Tea Party was born. The Grand Old Party was rejuvenated. Happy days were here again.
His moves to slim down the armed forces, move away from traditional military might and overhaul social policies prohibiting the service of minority groups have proven divisive in the ranks. His critics have accused him of trading a strong security posture for political points, and for allowing the rise of terrorists like the Islamic State group whom the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were supposed to silence.
But Obama’s supporters define him as the Nobel Peace Prize winner who ordered the elimination of Osama bin Laden and refocused military strategy while wrestling with an uncooperative Congress and unprecedented budget restrictions. They insist the military is more nimble now, and more prepared to deal with unconventional warfare against non-traditional threats across the globe.
More than half of troops surveyed in the latest Military Times/Institute for Veterans and Military Families poll said they have an unfavorable opinion of Obama and his two-terms leading the military. About 36 percent said they approve of his job as commander in chief.
Their complaints include the president’s decision to decrease military personnel (71 percent think it should be higher), his moves to withdraw combat troops from Iraq (59 percent say it made America less safe) and his lack of focus on the biggest dangers facing America (64 percent say China represents a significant threat to the U.S.)