IRS scandal highlights trust deficit and hope for reform

The following column is from today's edition of The Morning Sun.

The scandal involving the Internal Revenue Service — do we call it IRS-gate? — fundamentally harms the covenant between free people and their government.

While the full scope of the scandal is not yet known, the constantly unfolding events have legitimized voices and criticisms that were largely marginalized as belonging to kooks and conspiracy theorists.

Of course, this doesn’t mean the black helicopters are coming or your local government has a hotline to the United Nations, but it does give confirmation to a small, but vocal, faction of the citizenry that is militantly anti-government.

Until now, nobody credible actually thought an agency of the federal government was acting in a concerted manner to undermine the political process by subjecting everyday citizens to unlawful scrutiny and harassment.

The IRS scandal also exposes the trust deficit — only 12 percent of Michiganders trust the federal government, according to Bridge Magazine — as one of the most serious problems facing our republic and our very system of governance, which rests upon the principle of equality under the law.

The outrage from President Barack Obama’s partisan opponents isn’t surprising, as most of these voices will cry scandal with anything remotely resembling a controversy. At the same time, the outrage of congressional Democrats is smart politics because what the IRS did is indefensible.

Thus, the Democrats are, at least to a degree, portraying themselves as sensible voices and not partisan hacks looking for yet another opportunity to slam the president and re-hash last year’s election.

There is no evidence Obama or anyone holding a senior position in his administration had prior knowledge or direct involvement in the IRS’s actions.

That isn’t to say further investigation will not reveal a White House connection, but using what happened to settle a partisan score is as bad as what the IRS apparatchiks did to political opponents of the administration.

It may be easy to say the Obama administration abused its authority by unlawfully targeting political opponents, but Republicans must move beyond winning the war of words. The GOP must focus on the facts and nothing but the facts.

If this leads congressional investigations to the president, then so be it.

At the same time, one of the good things surely to come out of this will be a renewed consensus amongst the American people to downsize the big and all-powerful federal government.

If the IRS was a private company it would have certainly collapsed under the weight of such a damning scandal.

Sure, there will be a purge of the agency’s leadership, but that is hardly enough to put an end to the crisis.

The IRS only has the incredible power it does because of the sheer size and scale of federal tax law, which is beyond complicated and convoluted.

With both parties expressing outrage at what happened, this is a major opportunity for the advocates of reform.

This might just be one of those rare times in Washington when both Democrats and Republicans agree on the need for radical reform of government, starting with taxes.

— Dennis Lennox 

ICYMI - Bing not running for re-election

In case you missed it, yours truly was quoted by Deadline Detroit on yesterday's decision by Detroit Mayor Dave Bing to not seek re-election later this year:

It frankly does not matter who holds the mayoralty of Detroit. To return responsible, effective and accountable government to . . .  precincts of Detroit, it is time to either amalgamate the city government with that of Wayne County . . . or abolish the city government, as we know it, and replace it with smaller boroughs.

 — Dennis Lennox 

It's an issue of perception

The following column is from today's edition of The Morning Sun.

The other day I had the pleasure of speaking to Mid-Michigan Patriots, the local tea party group.

For some background, I have always thought of myself as one who was in the tea party before there was a tea party (note the lower case usage).

The problem with today’s tea party is some of its leaders are self-anointed types, who have hijacked what was an organic movement.

As a result, those who claim to speak for the tea party often are speaking for their own self-interest.

Some of these voices are front groups that enrich the pockets of those who claim a national leadership position — often at the expense of the much-maligned establishment or the nearly extinct creature otherwise known as a RINO, the Republican-in-name-only. Then there are those who seek to impose a sort of popish dogma, in which they would be the ultimate decider of who is and isn’t a conservative.

In my remarks, I emphasized the importance of the local tea party members being their own voice. The other big thing tea party activists can do better is accepting and not denying the major messaging problem facing conservatism.

Think about it for a second.

Conservative leaders and politicians seldom articulate an optimistic message. Instead, they are always on the defensive, as they have allowed the left to define the narrative.

Having this discussion isn’t easy when some use what is said to raise money off the purported existence of a RINO in the ranks.

As a result, critical issues are going unaddressed because many prominent conservatives are afraid of those who will accuse them of abandoning core principles.

Take Obamacare, which can never be discussed without some mobster calling for a politician to be tar and feathered for acknowledging what is the law of the land.

This happened recently, when congressional Republican leadership tried to push a bill that forced Democrats to vote against helping Americans with pre-existing medical conditions.

Despite being a brilliant political move, it was never executed because many conservatives considered it a vote in support of Obamacare and thus due cause to propel a challenger and force a campaign for re-nomination at the primary election.

The same message problems extend to issues such as education and the environment.

A conservationist is instinctively conservative, but the environment is an issue, much like health care, that conservatives have abandoned thereby allowing the left to own it.

Education is an area where conservatives have achieved some success, but still struggle against the libertarian-fueled perception that they are against public schools.

Any conservative who is confronted with a question about their view of education should say something such as this: “Public schools serve a vital purpose and parents must be empowered to make choices in determining what is best for their children’s future.”

Are there exceptional public schools? Absolutely. Are there horrendous private or charter schools? Without out a doubt.

However, that’s not the issue.

The issue is the perception — genuine or not — that conservatives are against it and will discreetly use their power, should they find themselves the victors of an election, to do away with it.

 — Dennis Lennox

GOP candidate for Senate wanted

The following column is from today's edition of The Morning Sun.

If you had asked me a few months back who would run for the Senate seat opening up next year with the retirement of longtime Democratic incumbent Carl Levin, I would have rattled off the names of a half-dozen Republicans.

Though Governor Rick Snyder, Attorney General Bill Schuette and Candice Miller, the popular member of Congress from Macomb County and twice-elected secretary of state, could always change their mind and run under pressure from GOP grandees, the reality of the matter is the Michigan Republican Party needs a senatorial candidate.

With Democrats settling on Gary Peters, who presently represents parts of Oakland and Wayne counties in the House of Representatives, Republicans cannot let Peters define the narrative of the senatorial campaign.

Republican Party chairman Bobby Schostak may have locked his proverbial sights on Peters, but the party is no substitute for a candidate. After all, it’s a little difficult to be against someone when you don’t have an alternative.

Simply put, Peters cannot and must not be underestimated.

By portraying himself as a middle-of-the-road, pro-main street Democrat, he has consistently won elections — first to the state Legislature and then to Congress — that should have been out of play for a politician whose record is much more liberal than meets the eye.

Considering the fact that open Senate seats are extremely rare, there should be a long list of Republican hopefuls.

Unfortunately, that isn’t the case.

In fact, the lack of action is concerning many of the party’s foot soldiers, who want a candidate for what should be a slightly GOP-leaning race given that Snyder will be on the ballot for re-election to the governor’s mansion.

The list of those who remain interested in running include two congressmen: Mike Rogers, of Livingston County, and Justin Amash, of Kent County. From there, former state GOP chairman Saul Anuzis and Terri Lynn Land, who was Miller’s successor as secretary of state, have mused about running, though it’s doubtful either would challenge Rogers.

Amash and Rogers bring a lot to the race, but both have considerations that could keep them out.

Rogers has a plum position as chairman of the all-powerful House Intelligence Committee that gives him a lot of national prestige.

Amash, on the other hand, is a leading Ron Paul disciple who would have to give up his role as the House helpmate to Kentucky Senator Rand Paul, heir apparent to his father’s libertarian dynasty, in order to run against Peters.

Another factor that cannot be ignored is Peters’ financial advantage. With no opponent, he can spend all of his time raising the millions of dollars it will take to win.

Besides not having a candidate, Republicans are worried about a contested primary dividing the party and forcing precious cash to be spent on what amounts to a political scrimmage.

If Republicans are serious about winning then the time is now for Schostak to exercise his prerogatives as chairman by drafting the most viable candidate and, if necessary, changing the rules to prevent a repeat of the three-ring circus that was the 2012 senatorial campaign.

Anything short of this could result in a senator named Gary Peters.

 — Dennis Lennox

Michigan will be a battleground state once again

The following column is from Monday's edition of The Morning Sun.

Michigan is once again shaping up to be a major player in each party’s nominating contest for the 2016 presidential campaign.

While Democratic candidates have won the Wolverine State’s Electoral College votes in the last six general elections, the demographics and sheer size of the state make it a battleground during the primaries.

That’s why Vice President Joe Biden, unsuccessful 2012 Republican hopeful Rick Santorum and South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley all visited southeastern Michigan over the past week or so. Add to that list Hillary Clinton, who visits Grand Rapids in June.

Though Biden would conceivably bow out in favor of Clinton, her nomination isn’t a given and she would likely face a vigorous challenge from a youngish Democratic politician — perhaps someone such as Martin O’Malley, the governor of Maryland.

On the Republican side, there will easily be a half-dozen or more candidates competing in the three-ring circus that has become the GOP primaries of the past two presidential election campaigns.

Santorum, whose appearance at a high school in Grosse Pointe made headlines after the school’s principal initially canceled the event over objections to the former Pennsylvania senator’s social conservatism, is hoping the GOP’s long-standing tradition of nominating the runner-up or also-rans from the last time around holds true in 2016.

Haley is an interesting name not because South Carolina brings with it much influence in the general election, but rather because she’s an Indian-American. She’s also a woman and as such would neutralize any tactical advantage the Democrats might have with Clinton atop the party’s ticket.

Other names sure to make a run include two senators: Marco Rubio of Florida and Kentucky’s Rand Paul, son of the perennial candidate Ron Paul.

It’s difficult to imagine a scenario where Rubio doesn’t run.

The A-list politician, who would have to seek re-election to the Senate if he chose not to run for president, is doing everything — and then some — that an all-but-declared candidate does in the lead up to making it official.

Though he holds much of the same positions as his father, Paul the Younger is a much better politician, who can appeal to those outside the small, but vocal, libertarian wing of the Republican Party. In short: The son is careful to avoid the lunacy that often plagued Paul the Elder.

Of course, there are many other names — New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal and Indiana Gov. Mike Pence — who could run, though it’s tough to see a path for them at this time.

The field of presidential hopefuls will become clearer in September when the Michigan Republican Party hosts the Mackinac Republican Leadership Conference at the Grand Hotel on Mackinac Island.

The biennial confab usually attracts the big names, which use it as an opportunity to test the waters and build support, in some cases from scratch, with the GOP grandees and foot soldiers.

The conference is critical because only Paul and Santorum have any sort of national base, which means all of the others will have to grow or buy their support.

 — Dennis Lennox