Kelly's rhetoric about how the IRS abused its power and seize the bank account of the creamery is ignoring one crucial point. The IRS was carrying out a law enacted in 1986 called the Monetary Laundering Control Act of 1986. The law entailed that money structuring, which consists of making numerous transactions under $10,000, is illegal even if the funds came from legal sources. Structuring is illegal despite the money coming from noncriminal activities because people still must fill out paperwork to avoid tax evasion suspicions. Once a pattern of structuring is detected IRS special agents must write a warrant affidavit and present it to the Assistant U.S. District Attorney, which is then testified to a magistrate judge. In other words, sufficient evidence must be given to a judge who signs off on the warrant before a seizure and forfeiture of funds is committed. However, Kelly presents the case in this manner:
After grilling IRS commissioner John Koskinen about the agency's unfair practices, I heard courageous testimony from farmer Randy Sowers, owner of South Mountain Creamery, who saw the IRS wrongly seize control of his dairy's bank account and force him to forfeit thousands of dollars even though he was cleared of any civil or criminal wrongdoing.Instead of accurately portraying the the lawful process by the IRS Kelly paints a picture that there is no checks and balances on how the IRS conducts its business. In other words, Kelly is on the crusade to smear the IRS and portray them as going rogue and decides on its own if it will seize someone's assets. There was evidence, which Sowers admitted, where several deposits were made during 2011 and the bank teller told his wife to make a deposit less thank $10,000 to avoid filling out the IRS paperwork. This, as was mentioned, is illegal even if she was not aware of this law. This evidence had to be presented to a judge and signed off before seizing and forfeiture occurred. The IRS did not make this decision on its own. Even though Sowers did not do anything wrong evidence was present to warrant an investigation.. Although the IRS will now focus its cases on those where structuring has obviously occurred from illegal sources Kelly is suggesting that the IRS ignore Congressional law.
Thus, creating a distinction between seizing/forfeiture and eminent domain is false since they are both backed by legal authority. Also, Kelly's position to ignore Congressional law is surprising given his objection to Obama's immigration executive order and the delay in the employer mandate. In essence, Kelly is saying, by analogy, that if police officers follow the law and gather evidence of a crime through a warrant signed by a judge, arrest a person (similar to seizure), but the person is found not guilty this would mean that the police department must be investigated. Obviously, this is absurd.
But the main focus here is why Kelly is so focused on Sowers' farm and how they felt "...when the government shows up at your door with armed agents and hands you a subpoena, your whole life is turned upside down." Yet, during the XL Keystone Pipeline there was no mention that nearly 100 farmers and ranchers are protesting the pipeline because "your whole life [could be] turned upside down." Why disregard these farmers and their small businesses, but defend another farmer? One reason is because Kelly has disdain for the IRS. And a reason to not be concerned with these farmers who's livelihood could be ruined by the pipeline could be his ties to the oil industry and preserving their subsidies.
Back on February 4, 2015 Kelly was proud that the Ways and Means Committee passed his bill titled H.R. 641, Conservation Easement Incentive Act of 2015, which he contends will help "farmers preserve natural lands for future generations." Yet, Kelly is not concerned that a foreign company, TransCanada, intimidates farm owners by claiming that they are unpatriotic if they do not give up their land, many of whom are Republican. Many of the protesters labeled themselves as "land right proponents" and, most recently, many fought by the Cliven Bundy Ranch and advocated by Fox News repeatedly share the same conservative values. The farmers were simply protesting to protect their land from damage since, in Jim Tarnick's case, the pipeline would be 50 feet from his house. How can Kelly fight for farmers to preserve their lands for future generations yet ignore the concerns of farmers who fear that their crops and lands could be destroyed if an oil leak occurs?
What is curious about Kelly's position on supporting eminent domain in regards to the XL Keystone Pipeline is that he voted for H.R. 1944 Private Property Rights Protection Act, which reads:
If Kelly is to remain consistent he would be on the side of the farmers during the Keystone XL Pipeline fight since he does not favor eminent domain for economic development. Yet, during my phone conversation, the man that I spoke to said that eminent domain has "a legal principle in play. The power of the state or the national government. To take private property when properly compensated for public use." Also, when asked if Kelly would support the idea that the XL Keystone Pipeline be built here in PA-3 even if eminent domain occurred the response was:Private Property Rights Protection Act of 2014 - (Sec. 2) Prohibits a state or political subdivision from exercising its power of eminent domain, or allowing the exercise of such power by delegation, over property to be used for economic development or over property that is used for economic development within seven years after that exercise, if the state or political subdivision receives federal economic development funds during any fiscal year in which the property is so used or intended to be used.Defines "economic development," generally, as the taking of private property, without the consent of the owner, and conveying or leasing such property from one private person or entity to another for commercial enterprise. Sets forth exclusions from such definition, including: (1) conveying private property for specified public uses; (2) leasing property to a private person or entity that occupies an incidental part of public property or facility; (3) acquiring abandoned property; (4) taking private property for use by a utility providing electric, natural gas, telecommunication, water, wastewater, or other utility services directly to the public or indirectly through provision of such services at the wholesale level for resale to the public; and (5) redevelopment of a brownfield site.
I think if it had the same economic benefits and provided that it wasn't somehow hurting farmers to the extent that the entire industry suffered and that these people were properly compensated. The rationale for deciding would I think, remain the same [with the XL Keystone Pipeline]. Even though the representative obviously has to represent his constituents its not like he wants to privilege them over others in that sense. He recognizes that there still is a sort of is a tradeoff there. We don't have a perfect policy that's good for everyone, but when you can create so many temporary jobs and bring industry to the area, then, I think, hopefully not too many people relocated I think he thinks the net good. That would probably be the same calculus that he would use if it was in the 3rd district. I can't definitively speak for the Congressman, but I would assume [if both circumstances were similar he would support it].In other words, Kelly does not believe if the XL Keystone Pipeline would force those in his own district to move from their residence, then that would be fine with him because he does not want to give them privilege over others who did not vote for him. Thus, those that live across the country can sway Kelly's vote even if it adversely effects his own constituents. This is not how democracy works. Even if the people in a different state had their property taken away, as in Sowers' case, to remain consistent you should be outraged. Furthermore, even if you were not effected during this particular vote if there is another vote down the line what would stop Kelly from making the same decision and this time it is only you that has the government or foreign corporation force you to give up your property?
Two last points one should consider. One, we need to look how long it takes to clean up an oil disaster. For instance, an oil spill in North Dakota in 2006 is still being cleaned up without any end in sight and the economic disaster to crops is devastating. That spill was 1 million gallons. In January 2015 another oil spill occurred, but this time it was 3 million gallons. So it is mind boggling to determine how long it will take to clean up this mess. Unfortunately, the political response is usually until after a spill occurs instead of making sure all precautions are taken to avoid such a spill. One such precaution ought to be being skeptical of TransCanada's reputation of predicting how safe their XL Pipelines are given that, in the first year, the pipeline leaked 21,000 gallons despite assuring people that the pipeline would only leak once every seven years.
The second point is, once again, Kelly is choosing a business (a foreign business in fact) that makes billions of dollars in profits instead of protecting small farmers that have had their family businesses destroyed by oil leaks. Due to the BP Deep Horizon spill fishermen on the Gulf Coast lost $29 million alone. This is ignoring all other economic markets that were effected. Not one of Kelly's speeches considered the adverse effect that these businesses might suffer. Instead, he concerned himself with a project where a one time project instead of infrastructure jobs that will take several years to complete. In fact, the GOP in 2012 (when Kelly was running for reelection), said that Obama's American Jobs Act will only create 288,000 over two years although other analyses estimate that the American Jobs Act would have created 1.6 million jobs. Also, the bill would have been fully paid for due to a surtax on millionaires (which Kelly, once a again, protected) as well as reduce the deficit. In other words, the Keystone XL Pipeline would create 42,000 jobs to build the pipeline and 50 to maintain the pipeline after it is built. Thus, according to Kelly and other conservatives 42,000 is more than 288,000 (or 1.6 million). Also, creating fewer jobs is a justification to take away a small business' land as well as potentially destroying their crops as long as millionaires and billionaires are protected. In a speech on the House Floor, Kelly accuses the once Democratic Senate of turning a deaf ear and a blind eye to the American people. Perhaps he should take time to reflect on how he is turning a deaf ear and a blind eye to those who are losing their land because of his vote and that he would do the same to his own constituents. But this would require consistency since he picks and chooses which farmers he wants to protect by using them to attack governmental agencies that he personally does not like since he feels he is taxed enough even though he is the 21st most wealthiest member of Congress.
No comments:
Post a Comment