Free tax prep; IRS publication 17 and taxpayer betrayal; The failing MSM

How capitalism deals with free tax preparation: ProPublica writes:

Under the Free File agreement, Americans who make less than $73,000 per year should be able to file their taxes for free with one of the tax preparation companies that partners with the IRS. But this program has been historically underutilized, with just 4% of eligible Americans filing for free in 2021.

In 2002, Intuit, H&R Block and other tax prep companies signed a deal with the IRS to provide free tax filing services to millions of Americans. In return, the IRS agreed it would not create its own tax filing system that could compete with the tax prep companies.

A government-run tax filing system, often known as return-free filing, is already a reality in many countries around the world. With a return-free filing system, the government fills out the tax forms with the information it already has, and taxpayers simply have to review the forms for accuracy.  

Switching to such a system would devastate tax prep company profits. That’s why Intuit and other members of the industry spent millions through the years lobbying to preserve the Free File agreement, particularly the part that restricts the IRS from creating its own free filing system.

That’s not all Intuit did to limit the scope of Free File. Intuit purposefully suppressed its own Free File product. It added website code to block its Free File page from showing up in search engines and used manipulative marketing patterns to trick customers into paying for TurboTax even when they qualified for Free File. It later removed the code.   

Internal documents previously obtained by ProPublica show these strategies were intentional on the part of Intuit and H&R Block.  

Following ProPublica’s reporting in 2019, the IRS reformed the Free File program. It barred companies from using deceptive practices to deter taxpayers from using Free File and removed the prohibition on the IRS creating its own tax filing system.

Once again, the public interest is shafted by (i) brass knuckles capitalism, and (ii) the government the corporations corrupted with their free speech, a/k/a/ “campaign contributions” and lobbying. The IRS or congress should have set up return-free filing decades ago. But it did not do that to protect needless, unjustifiable corporate profits at our expense. An immoral industry built on vaporware and marketing is what one can easily get when corrupt capitalist markets get to run free, wild and butt naked (unregulated).

-----------------------------------------

-----------------------------------------

Taxpayer betrayal: IRS publication 17 mentions the option taxpayers have to direct $3 or $6 into the federal Presidential Election Campaign Fund. The fund has been subverted by congress and/or the IRS. At page 14, Pub. 17 reads as follows:

Presidential Election Campaign Fund 

This fund helps pay for Presidential election campaigns. The fund also helps pay for pediatric medical research. If you want $3 to go to this fund, check the box. If you are filing a joint return, your spouse can also have $3 go to the fund. If you check the box, your tax or refund won't change.

Diverting funds from elections to pediatric medical research betrays taxpayers. The campaign fund is a lie. The same thing has been done dozens of times by the federal and state governments for decades. Taxpayers are told that money promised to go for one thing gets diverted to something else. Legislators usually do the diversion and they do it quietly. That happened to hundreds of millions that cigarette makers paid to settle state lawsuits. That happens to lottery money, which taxpayers are told will go to one thing, often schools, but then a lot of the money is quietly diverted to other things. 

Once again, the public is lied to and there is little or no blowback or accountability. 

-----------------------------------------

-----------------------------------------

Is the MSM, naïve, complicit, both or neither?: In my opinion, America’s mainstream media is in bad shape. Mandatory profit demands have sapped most of it’s professionalism and capacity to  report. It went from mostly news to mostly infotainment, with a heavy emphasis on ’tainment and light emphasis on info. An example that has been around for years is the presence of commercial advertising in news. The Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine writes:

CBS’s 60 Minutes News Segment Was an Unlawful Weight Loss Drug Ad, 

Physicians’ Complaint Alleges

Pro-Drug Doctors Interviewed by CBS Received $100,000+ From Novo Nordisk

After receiving advertising payments from Novo Nordisk, CBS’s 60 Minutes aired a 13-minute promotion of Wegovy, the Novo Nordisk weight loss drug, during its Jan. 1 broadcast, making it appear to be a news story. The segment violates the FDA’s “fair balance” requirement for ads, according to a complaint filed today by the Physicians Committee, a nonprofit public health advocacy organization.

Four “news” segments promoting Novo Nordisk drugs remain on CBS’s site. The Physicians Committee is asking that the stories be removed from the website and that a corrective ad explaining the side effects and risks associated with Wegovy be issued immediately and distributed similarly.

“The 60 Minutes program looked like a news story, but it was effectively a drug ad. And there are FDA regulations on prescription drug advertising related risks and contraindications,” explains Physicians Committee President Neal Barnard, MD, FACC, adjunct professor of medicine at George Washington University School of Medicine. “Wegovy can cause digestive side effects and increased heart rate. Gallstones, pancreatitis, and serious drops in blood sugar have occurred, especially when Wegovy is combined with other diabetes drugs. There is also a risk for women who are pregnant or who may become pregnant.”  

“Also concerning is that Novo Nordisk’s political action committee has paid more than $250,000 in campaign contributions to members of Congress in an effort to pass legislation to make the U.S. government pay for Wegovy, a $1,300-per-month-per-person proposition,” Dr. Barnard says.

That sounds a lot like corrupt crony capitalism to me. The point of touting a commercial product in a “news” program is to disinform the public. That boosts sales and profits. This exemplifies why the professional MSM arguably deserves a grade of F. The partisan media, e.g., Faux News, has been proudly failing to serve the public interest for years. Its grade remains proudly unchanged. 

The likelihood of this complaint doing much is low. The CBS segment has already aired and taking it off the website won’t make much difference now. The sales job has been done.

Thoughts on gun safety laws -- most are going to go extinct

The recent shootings in California raise the well-known issue of gun safety laws. The shooter in Monterey Park used a semi-automatic handgun that has been banned for over 30 years in California. The gun was also equipped with a large ammo clip, also banned. Since the gun and big ammo clips are for sale in some or most other states, California's attempt to impose gun safety is neutered. State gun safety laws are futile. 

In the last year or two Chicago tried to ban some hand guns to reduce the murder rate there, but the law was held to be an unconstitutional violation of the right to own guns. Republican propaganda portrays gun safety laws as mostly worthless, which is true. 

But, bickering about gun safety laws is going to be moot as a nationwide wave of lawsuits against gun safety laws work their way through the courts. A recent radical right Supreme Court decision renders almost all gun safety laws unconstitutional. That even includes laws that require gun owners to have a serial number on guns so that law enforcement can better trace a gun used in a crime. It is reasonable to expect that in the next year or two essentially all the laws will be nullified as unconstitutional. 

The court imposed a new test in the June 2022 New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen decision. The test for constitutionality of all gun laws first asks if the plain text of the Second Amendment protects the activities the laws try to regulate. The second Amendment prohibits no infringement on the right to "keep and bear arms." That would seem to include any law that imposes any non-trivial burden on gun ownership, e.g., taxes on guns, gun licenses, gun safety training requirements, bans on any guns including machine guns, maybe bans on bazookas and stinger surface-to-air missiles (seriously, not joking), etc. 

Since the text of the Second Amendment covers essentially all gun safety laws, then “the government must affirmatively prove that its firearms regulation is part of the historical tradition” that set boundaries on gun use. Back in the 1700s, there were few, if any, boundaries on gun use. I'm not aware of any, but at least one must exist. So, the historical tradition of firearm regulation is almost non-existent.

For example, guns in the 1700s were not stamped with serial numbers. Because of that, a federal law making ownership of guns with serial numbers removed illegal was struck down by a federal court. Criminals and gun sellers rejoiced. They got out their files to file off the serial numbers of guns they wanted to use in crimes or to sell to the public. In view of radical right legal extremism like that, it is not rocket science to see that few gun safety laws are now constitutional. California's ban on that semi-automatic handgun and the ammo clip are unconstitutional. 

Fine home defense weaponry

"Nothing can match the lethality of the Binelli M4!"

(the top choice will blow you away

- starts at 7:04 of the video)

Thinking about “pledges” again today…

I might be wrong but I’m pretty sure pledges are meant to be a serious thing.  If you take one, you are swearing a personal oath to such.

There are many kinds of pledges.  Here is one:

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America,

and to the Republic for which it stands,

one nation under God, indivisible,

with liberty and justice for all.

Seems pretty clear cut.  Let’s check it out, definition-wise, on a more granular level:

I: Me, myself, my person

Pledge: Promise, an undertaking, a vow

Allegiance: Loyalty, faithfulness, fidelity

Flag of the United States: 🏳, a national symbol, stands for the shared history, pride, principles, and commitment of its people

Republic: power held by the people and their elected reps

One nation: e pluribus unum, out of many…one

Under God: The supreme being, the Almighty (note: Wiki shows that “one nation” and “under God” are not separated by a comma.  IOW, they come as a package)

Indivisible: Inextricable, entangled, one and the same

Liberty: Independence, freedom, autonomy

Justice: Fairness, even handedness, righteousness

All: Everyone

Yes, a lot there.  But the weeds always tend to be messy. 🤷‍♀️ That’s why many people much prefer to stay out of them.  Life is a lot simpler then.

Question 1: What do you think about the U.S. Pledge of Allegiance?  If you are not an American, and if you have such a thing, what do you think about your country’s pledge of allegiance?

…

Marriage vows are another kind of pledge.  They can vary in wordage but in the end, the bottom line, it is to pledge a commitment to another.

Question 2: Are wedding vows/pledges on par with/equals to other kinds of pledges of allegiances, commitment-wise (i.e., taken as seriously)?  Or, is one kind of pledge more “important,” more “sacred,” than the other?

…

Yet another kind of pledge can be taken by politicians upon entering office, up to and including a president of the United States.  It’s called the “Oath of Office” pledge and it swears allegiance to the Constitution of the United States:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God."

Question 3: How solemnly or faithfully do you believe politicians take this Oath?  Is it just a nicety, a formality, something “for show?”

…

Granted, things can get complicated but give us your general opinion on these things we call “pledges.”  Please get into the weeds as much as you dare!! 😉

GOP poison flows in the House; Reality derangement syndrome; Boofer redux

House Republican ill-will and bad faith fatally poison the institution: I was wondering if they were going to do it. They said they were going to do it. By golly, they actually did it. The NYT reports:

McCarthy Ejects Schiff and Swalwell From Intelligence Committee

In an act of official retribution for how Democrats treated Republicans when they were in the majority, the speaker barred the Californians from the panel, arguing that they were not fit to serve

The move was a much-anticipated tit-for-tat after Democrats, then in the majority, voted in 2021 to eject two Republicans, Representatives Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia and Paul Gosar of Arizona, from congressional committees for internet posts that advocated violence against their political enemies. It was also payback for the decision by Nancy Pelosi, then the House speaker, to bar Republicans who had helped former President Donald J. Trump spread the election lies that fueled the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol from sitting on the special committee investigating the riot.

This is moves the federal government closer to a corrupt, radical right tyranny-Christian theocracy. There is nothing democratic or rational about this. Greene and Goasar publicly advocated for violence. Schiff and Swalwell tried to find and report truth. Pelosi rejected Jordan and another(s) who would have sabotaged the 1/6 committee. Republicans seek retribution in anti-democratic authoritarian bad faith and ill will. Democrats sought truth and civility. 

The House is now a broken partisan, authoritarian institution. Maybe it will recover, but maybe it never will. The 2024 elections will probably shed significant light on which route Americans want to take, knowingly or not. 

This is just more evidence of how terrifyingly radicalized and anti-democratic the GOP has become.

--------------------------------------

--------------------------------------

Reality derangement syndrome: RDS is something that the Republican Party now routinely and heavily relies on. For Republican elites, RDS usually seriously poisons and sometimes completely kills reality, reasoning, rhetoric, policy, behavior, morality and/or democracy. Newsweek reports on an example that is about as clear as it can get:

Microsoft's Changes to Xbox Console Leave Republicans Outraged

Microsoft has announced changes to its Xbox console settings that is to allow users to save more energy and reduce the carbon impact of their gaming. But this has been read (or misread) by Republican representatives and organizations as the "woke brigade" wanting to "take your Xbox."

The company included a feature that allows the console to pick a time of the night for maintenance and updates to use the most renewable energy from the electrical grid, and a "shutdown" setting that can replace the sleep mode, which it says saves 20 times the energy.

His explanation of the new shutdown setting stipulates that it "will not affect performance, gameplay, or your console's ability to receive overnight updates" and can be adjusted "at any time" so users can choose "what works best for you." Hauglie said two consoles that switched to the shutdown setting for a year would save the same amount of carbon as a tree planted and grown for a decade.

However, this was interpreted in an article by Blaze Media, a conservative outlet, as suggesting Microsoft would "force gamers to power down to fight climate change."

"First gas stoves, then your coffee, now they're gunning for your Xbox," Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) tweeted on Monday, citing a previous furor over remarks made by an official from the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission about the health harms of gas stoves. The CPSC chair stated emphatically at the time that it was not looking to ban gas stoves.

"A default setting does not mean they are 'forcing' anyone to do anything," one user responded. "As an Xbox owner, this has been a choice for a while now. I appreciate that they offer it."

"They want to take your guns. They want to take your gas stoves. And now they want to take your Xbox," Troy Nehls, a congressman for Texas, wrote in a similar vein to Cruz's remarks. "What's next?"

This is more evidence of the extreme radicalization of the GOP and the key role that RDS plays in it. This also points out, once again, the intense elite Republican opposition to any serious effort to acknowledge or deal with climate change. By now, the accumulated evidence strongly evinces the GOP's pro-pollution, pro-climate change stance and policy. That cannot be much clearer.

--------------------------------------

--------------------------------------

A trip down memory lane: Regarding the Kavanaugh non-investigation: Remember the fun exploits of Brett the beer boofer, and his side-kick Squee? Over the last couple of days, multiple sources have been reporting about a documentary that was made in secrecy and released without advance publicity. It was all about the FBI's valiant non-investigation of Brett during his Senate confirmation hearings. The Guardian writes: 

Justice, a last-minute addition to the schedule, aims to shine a light not only on the women who have accused Kavanaugh, a Donald Trump nominee, but also the failed FBI investigation into the allegations. “I do hope this triggers outrage,” said producer Amy Herdy in a Q&A after the premiere in Park City, Utah. “I do hope that this triggers action, I do hope that this triggers additional investigation with real subpoena powers.”

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse questioned FBI director Christopher Wray on this subject back in August:

Whitehouse: As you know, we are now entering the fourth year of a frustrating saga that began with an August 2019 letter from me and Senator Coons, regarding the Kavanaugh supplemental background investigation, and I’d like to try to get that matter wrapped up. First, is it true that after Kavanaugh-related tips were separated from regular tip-line traffic, they were forwarded to White House counsel without investigation?

Wray: I apologize in advance that it has been frustrating for you. We have tried to be clear about our process. So when it comes to the tip line, we wanted to make sure that the White House had all the information we have, so when the hundreds of calls started coming in, we gathered those up, reviewed them, and provided them to the White House—

Whitehouse: Without investigation?

Wray [long pause]: We reviewed them and then provided them to—

Whitehouse: You reviewed them for purposes of separating them from tip-line traffic, but did not further investigate the ones that related to Kavanaugh, correct?

Wray: Correct.

Whitehouse: Is it also true that, in that supplemental B.I. [background investigation], the FBI took direction from the White House as to whom the FBI would question and even what questions the FBI could ask.

Wray: So, it is true that, consistent with the longstanding process that we have had—going all the way back to at least the Bush administration, the Obama administration, the Trump administration, and continue to follow currently under the Biden administration—that in a limited supplemental B.I., we take direction from the requesting entity, which in this case was the White House...

Yuk. That was a nauseating trip down memory lane. Despite the producer's intent to provoke outrage and an investigation with teeth, nothing will probably come of this documentary. It's merely an inconvenient nasty in the punch bowl that can politely be ignored. 

Honestly, just look at Wray's comments in that last paragraph. The FBI takes its orders from the White House. It cannot be independent or competent when it comes to political matters like this. The rule of law just does not apply. But, we can give the people who made the documentary a round of applause for outstanding effort. 👏👏👏 

As we all know, Republican elites vehemently oppose any investigations of the criminality, treason, provocations of violence and sleaze among their own, and that's that. But there will be plenty of investigations of Joe Biden, Hunter, the infamous laptop, the pics of Hunter's junk, and a slew of of other Democrats, and woke people and companies. Bring on the RDS-fueled witch hunts! 

Surprise!! Boofer's on the Supreme Court!