- Associated Press - Tuesday, June 24, 2014

Recent editorials from Georgia newspapers:


June 22

Morning News, Savannah, Georgia, on IRS scandal:

If anyone outside the Internal Revenue Service - shall we say, close to the White House - was involved in targeting “tea party” or other right-leaning groups for extra scrutiny, Justice Department investigators were sure to look for clues in one place:

Emails sent to and from Lois Lerner.

Lerner once headed the IRS division that handled applications for tax-exempt status. She has refused to testify about her alleged involvement in the scheme. Instead, she has pleaded the Fifth Amendent against self-incrimination.

If she chooses to clam up, that’s her right. But what do her emails reveal.

Um, there aren’t any.

According to the IRS, they’re lost. Officials said they can’t locate tens of thousands of them between the period of 2009 and 2011, when the agency was targeting these groups. Why? Because her computer crashed.

That’s too convenient by half. It destroys what little credibility the IRS has left about this politically charged issue.

This isn’t a new scandal. The IRS has faced requests, then subpoenas, for Lerner’s outside messages for more than a year.

On top of that, it appears the IRS knew in February that it couldn’t locate these communications (about 50,000 of them, which suggests Lerner was prolific if not talkative). Yet John Koskinen, who heads the IRS as its appointed commissioner, testified before Congress in March that his agency could produce her emails if Congress was willing to wait.

Koskinen, who used to head the U.S. Soccer Federation, must know how ridiculous he and his agency look. He has misled Congress.

There are plenty of targets to boot. That the IRS might use its immense powers to go after groups for ideological reasons should concern all Americans, whether they are Republicans or Democrats. Imagine if a Republican president was accused of using the tax man to target left-leaning organizations. Democrats would howl. And rightly so.

This convenient “loss” is suspicious. It should prompt the Obama administration to appoint a special counsel to conduct an investigation that’s genuinely independent - and one that might actually restore some of the faith in government that many Americans have lost.




June 23

The Augusta Chronicle, Georgia, on purely partisan ‘reform’:

How pathetic is it that one of Senate Democrats’ biggest priorities this summer - campaign-finance reform - is merely a ploy to raise campaign cash before November?

Their proposed constitutional amendment to give state and federal governments more power to regulate political fund-raising - a blatant attempt to silence conservative candidates - has zero bipartisan support.

Not even Democrats’ most reliably liberal ally - the American Civil Liberties Union - will get behind it, calling it a danger to civil liberties.

Democrats know there’s no chance of securing the 67 Senate votes needed to advance the joint resolution. So what, then, is the point?

We’ll let The Atlantic spell it out for you: “These amendments are catnip to the Democratic base,” the magazine said. “The Senate debate this August … is certain to raise a ton of campaign cash for Democrats - just in time for the 2014 elections.”

That’s something to keep in mind this summer when Republicans are sure to be denounced for rejecting a plan to restore “sanity” to campaign laws.

The only thing the Democrats are trying to restore is a decades-old system dominated by their Big Labor allies, which is why U.S. Sen. Tom Udall of New Mexico introduced S.J. Res. 19 last year.

Democrats want Congressional oversight of federal political campaign finances, including independent political-action committees.

The ACLU insightfully recognized the danger in allowing the government - regardless of who’s running it - control over how Americans choose to endorse political candidates.

The ACLU said S.J. Res. 19 would “lead directly to government censorship of political speech and result in a host of unintended consequences that would undermine the goals the amendment has been introduced to advance” and that doing so would “fundamentally break the constitution and endanger civil rights and civil liberties for generations.”

Free speech, one. Politburo-style thuggery, zero.




June 22

The Times, Gainesville, Georgia, on the Redskins:

It’s good to know our nation is in such solid standing around the world, economically and socially, that our government’s priorities can be redirected. What evidently matters is not merely unrest in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria or Ukraine, a rising national debt and entitlement tsunami, the flood of refugee children across the U.S. border or the battle over national health care.

No, a pressing issue of the day is what a football team has on its helmet.

Last week, The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office ruled the NFL team’s name to be disparaging to Native Americans and that the team should be stripped of federal trademark protection. This came after members of the U.S. Senate drafted a letter to the league urging the name change.

The decision by the patent office sparked a response from the Americans for Limited Government, saying if the Redskins are forced to change their name, the federal government then should rename the Richard Russell Senate Office Building because the longtime Georgia senator was a segregationist.

It’s unclear whether the group is just trying to make a point or is serious about such a move. The slippery slope there is that if every bridge, building or road named for someone with unsavory ideas must be renamed, it would be both unwieldy and expensive.

But while that may be seen as political correctness run amok, pressure against the NFL and the team will continue to mount. Whatever the result in the judicial courts, the court of public opinion already is weighing against team owner Dan Snyder, and it’s not hard to see where this is headed.

And let’s be honest: Redskins is not a nice name.

Several sports teams have nicknames along a Native American theme, including our own Atlanta Braves. Some argue names like Warriors or Braves seek to honor the nobility of our native countrymen, though often in a cartoonish, stereotypical fashion. Yet it’s hard to make the same case for a name that is little more than a racial slur.

We all know the Redskins will change their name, likely sooner rather than later. When they do, their stadium again will fill with fans, and life will go on.

Until then, everyone can just sit back in a prevent defense and run out the clock.



Copyright © 2018 The Washington Times, LLC.

The Washington Times Comment Policy

The Washington Times welcomes your comments on Spot.im, our third-party provider. Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.


Click to Read More and View Comments

Click to Hide