{"id":559,"date":"2013-06-05T22:58:48","date_gmt":"2013-06-06T02:58:48","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/cuttothechase.live-website.com\/?p=559"},"modified":"2014-10-24T14:10:41","modified_gmt":"2014-10-24T18:10:41","slug":"irs-defense-associated-irrelevance","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/cuttothe-chase.com\/?p=559","title":{"rendered":"IRS Defense- Associated Irrelevance"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"IRS<\/a>A few years ago, I wrote, \u201cThe Doctrine of Associated Irrelevance\u201d as a guide to helping conservatives understand liberal arguments and talking points. The doctrine states:<\/p>\n

\u201cThe relevance of a fact, statement or action to a particular subject is irrelevant if that fact, statement or action is relevant to an associated irrelevant subject. As such, use of associated irrelevant facts, statements, or actions to substantiate an opinion or position is relevant to any debate or discussion even if that opinion or position isn’t relevant to the discussion or debate.\u201d<\/p>\n

The somewhat convoluted construction of this doctrine may make it difficult to follow, hence the example below, which should bring clarity and understanding. Following is a news report concerning statements made by Democratic Congressman Jim McDermott of Washington, shortly after news of the IRS targeting scandal became fodder for public comment. (Among other places, it was posed in a liberal-dominated forum on Facebook, where it began a rambling discussion.)\u00a0 <\/i><\/p>\n

\u201cBut as I listen to this discussion, I\u2019d like to remind everyone what we are talking about here,\u201d he continued. \u201cNone of your organizations were kept from organizing or silenced. We are talking about whether or not the American taxpayers would subsidize your work. We are talking about a tax break.\u201d The tea party groups in question were applying to become tax exempt 501(c)4 groups, also known as social welfare organizations. McDermott noted the purpose of such groups was to advance the common good and general welfare a community. Political organizations, o<\/i>n the other hand, are categorized under section 527 of the federal tax code.<\/i><\/p>\n

\u201cEach of your groups is highly political,\u201d the congressman said. \u201cFrom opposing the President\u2019s healthcare reform, to abortion restrictions, to gay marriage, you\u2019re all entrenched in some of the most controversial political issues in this country \u2013 and with your applications you are asking the American public to pay for that work. Many of you host and endorse candidates. The line between permitted political activity and non-permitted political activity can be very fine, and it\u2019s important that tax payers know which side you fall on.\u201d<\/i><\/p>\n

The congressman made some valid points, but they are irrelevant to the core issue of IRS wrongdoing, and appear designed to shift focus away from that core issue. To see associate irrelevance in action, consider the following hypothetical question and answer session based on McDermott\u2019s statements:<\/p>\n

Q- A New York Times report stated, \u201cNone of this ought to take away from the major part of the I.R.S. scandal \u2014 the targeting of conservative groups that applied for 501(c)(4) status, which the I.R.S. has admitted to and for which the statistical evidence is very clear.\u201d In light of that, how do you respond to the charge that the IRS targeted conservative groups?<\/p>\n

McDermott- \u201cNone of your organizations were kept from organizing or silenced.<\/p>\n

Q- We are not talking about whether organizations were kept from organizing or silenced. We are talking about unacceptable actions taken by the IRS.<\/p>\n

McDermott- We are talking about whether or not the American taxpayers would subsidize your work. We are talking about a tax break.<\/p>\n

Q- I don\u2019t think you\u2019re following congressman. We\u2019re discussing a scandal involving the way the IRS does business. If the groups seeking 501(C)4 status weren\u2019t qualified to receive it, shouldn\u2019t they have been turned down simply because they didn\u2019t qualify, regardless of their political orientation?<\/p>\n

McDermott- Each of your groups is highly political, from opposing the President\u2019s healthcare reform, to abortion restrictions, to gay marriage, you\u2019re all entrenched in some of the most controversial political issues in this country \u2013 and with your applications you are asking the American public to pay for that work.<\/p>\n

Q- Again congressman, the core issue speaks to the IRS\u2019s targeting of specific groups and the methods it employed. You have not addressed those issues.<\/p>\n

McDermott- The line between permitted political activity and non-permitted political activity can be very fine, and it\u2019s important that tax payers know which side you fall on.<\/p>\n

All of McDermott\u2019s comments, which were taken directly from his original statement, pertain to issues associated<\/i> with the IRS, but are irrelevant<\/i> to the question of wrongdoing. Use of associated irrelevance is a very effective tactic for diverting attention from core issues, as demonstrated by the responses in the thread that began with the congressman\u2019s statement. That thread contained 58 comments, most of which focused on debate about the political nature and activities of targeted groups. And of course, other associated irrelevancies.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Related articles<\/h6>\n