The IRS scandal continues to widen and deepen with each passing. Cato has prepared a video that talks about the abuses of past administrations and the current dangers of having the federal government intervene in national politics. 

Chris Edwards showed that the Internal Revenue Service’s budget has been soaring and the main culprit is refundable tax credits. The magnitude of refundable tax cuts is obfuscated in the IRS’s budget because only the refunded portion of the credit shows up as an outlay —the rest is recorded as a reduction in revenues. 

The Congressional Budget Office released a handy report on refundable tax credits in January. The following table from the report shows the entire magnitude of the tax credit, separating between the refunded portion (outlays) and the reduction in revenues:

As Chris noted, the figure has dropped in recent years with the expiration of temporary “stimulus” tax credits. However, the upward trajectory is projected to resume due to refundable tax credits in the Affordable Care Act (a.k.a, Obamacare). 

We’ve written about the outrageous sugar import quotas here many times. And Chris Edwards wrote in March about the American Sugar Alliance’s ad in the Washington Post titled “Big Candy’s Greed.” But we couldn’t link to the ad because for some reason the American Sugar Alliance has not chosen to put a version of the ad on its website. But the Alliance ran its expensive quarter-page ad in the Post last week, so we’re now able to provide the public service of making it available online.

Note that what candy producers and other sugar users want is to be allowed to buy sugar from the world’s most efficient producers at world market prices—just like every company in a free market. This protectionist nonsense “Big Candy” is fighting has been going on for decades. In 1985, the Wall Street Journal and then the New York Times reported that the Reagan administration had slapped emergency quotas on “edible preparations” such as jams, candies, and glazes—and even imported frozen pizzas from Israel—lest American companies import such products for the purpose of extracting the sugar from them. Apparently it might have been cheaper to import pizzas, squeeze the tiny amount of sugar out of them, and throw away the rest of the pizza than to buy sugar at U.S. producers’ protected prices.

As Chris Edwards noted, a critic of Big Sugar quoted in this article summarized the sad reality of sugar growers: “They are unlike any other industry in Florida in that they aren’t in the agricultural business, they are in the corporate welfare business.” 

Please enjoy “Big Candy’s Greed,” brought to you by the coddled, protected, price-supported, politically active U.S. sugar industry:

The Christian Science Monitor suggests this lesson be drawn from the Obama administration’s recent scandalpalooza:

Congress should use this IRS scandal to beef up civics education for federal workers as well as for public school students. Lesson No. 1: Government cannot restrict or discriminate against political causes that it disagrees with.

I think the scandals teach a different lesson: Government will misbehave because it, like Soylent Green, is made from people. Fallible, foible-ridden people. Therefore, government’s unique powers must be strictly limited to avoid miscarriages of justice.

One of these days, someone should build a nation on that lesson.…

It’s heartening to see widespread outrage—both online and from members of Congress—about the news that Justice Department vacuumed up phone records spanning two months from 20 phone lines belonging to the Associated Press or its employees. This may not be a return to the bad old days of J. Edgar Hoover, who kept files of derogatory information about hostile journalists, but surveillance of the press—even in the course of otherwise legitimate investigations—always threatens to impede the vital check on government the Fourth Estate provides. A subpoena covering so many of a major news organization’s phone lines, including shared switchboard and fax numbers used by scores of reporters, for such an extended period, seems especially troubling in the context of this administration’s unprecedented war on whistleblowers. It’s effectively a warning that nobody who speaks to the press without White House approval—whether they’re leaking classified secrets or just saying things the bosses wouldn’t like—can count on anonymity. I’ll have plenty more to say about this soon, but a few key questions reporters and legislators ought to be asking:

• DOJ regulations are supposed to require a careful balancing of investigative needs against First Amendment values before reporter records are sought, with advance notice to the press whenever possible. The AP is fairly certain its records were seized as part of a leak investigation aimed at uncovering the source of a story about a foiled terrorist plot—a story the AP itself sat on until they were convinced publication posed no national security risk. The administration itself was on the verge of announcing the same facts. Given that anonymous sources discussing classified matters with press are a routine and indispensable part of journalism, what made this investigation so urgent that it was necessary to use methods experts agree were far more broad and intrusive than the norm?
• Read hyper-literally, those same DOJ regulations refer only to “subpoenas” directed at journalists themselves or seeking “telephone toll records.” And the DOJ’s own operational guidelines make quite clear that they do read the rules hyper-literally: They apparently are not held to apply to the myriad tools other than grand jury subpoenas at the government’s disposal, such as National Security Letters or administrative subpoenas. Does DOJ employ a similarly literal reading of “telephone toll records,” such that they’re not required to observe these rules when they obtain other electronic records, such as e‑mail transactional data? The DOJ, recall, says they often don’t need warrants to read e‑mail or Facebook chats, let alone review transactional metadata concerning such communications. So it seems odd that they would pull out all the stops when it comes to phone records, yet ignore the channels by which modern reporters probably conduct the bulk of their correspondence. Even if it would have been infeasible to access logs of AP’s e‑mail transactional data without tipping them off (my understanding is they maintain their own e‑mail servers), nearly every journalist has potentially revealing Facebook friend lists, personal Gmail accounts, Twitter direct message headers, and so on—some of which would be more targeted than records from phone lines shared by dozens of journalists. Was other data that DOJ believes to be outside the scope of their reporting obligations—either because it wasn’t obtained by “subpoena” or because it wasn’t “telephone toll records”—obtained in this case? More broadly, how much press data is obtained without notification because it falls outside these categories?
• Thanks to a 2010 Inspector General report, we know a bit about the FBI’s use of “community of interest” data requests that sweep up call log data not just on a single target, but all the phones their target is in regular contact with—and maybe even the numbers those phones are calling too. After using this technique for years—sometimes literally by accident—FBI sought an Office of Legal Counsel opinion about whether the press notification rules applied when such requests were likely to indirectly pull in press records. In January 2009, OLC concluded they did—but since they ended up not getting the records in that instance, and the agent making the request apparently hadn’t understood quite what he was requesting, the FBI decided it didn’t need to tell anyone at the time. What, then, is the Justice Department’s current policy when it comes to information about press communications obtained indirectly through “community of interest” requests? Is any attempt made to ascertain when such requests have acquired reporters’ phone records, whether or not that was either intended or foreseen when the request was made? Since records in the FBI database are retained indefinitely for potential future data mining, even records the FBI doesn’t currently know belong to reporters could easily end up revealing patterns of press activity as a result of future analysis. Does DOJ think it must inform reporters when this happens, or is it only at the acquisition stage that the notice obligation applies? Has any broad effort been made to determine how many reporter records are in FBI databases, especially as a result of requests made before 2009? 

Of course, whatever the answers to these questions, the Electronic Frontier Foundation is right to point out that the broader problem is that communications metadata isn’t entitled to much protection under either current Fourth Amendment jurisprudence or federal statute. This means the government can typically access metadata with little or no judicial oversight—and if you’re not a reporter there are no special rules requiring the government to ever notify you that your records have been swept up in some investigation. As technological change makes such metadata increasingly revealing—because nearly everything you do online leaves some digital trace, from which ever more detailed inferences can be drawn using sophisticated analytic tools—the problem is not just for press freedom: it’s a privacy problem for all of us.

The Islamic Republic of Iran will soon hold a presidential election. The result is in doubt—the clerical elite itself is split—but the country’s overall direction unfortunately is not. Iran has a deteriorating human rights record. Although Tehran is not the bloodiest or most tyrannical government in the Middle East, repression is increasing and the space available to regime opponents is diminishing.

Most attention has been focused on the unpleasant potential of an Iranian nuclear weapon. There is good reason to maintain an active campaign to forestall such a prospect. However, war almost certainly is a worse option. Bombastic rhetoric is common in Tehran, but the diverse political and religious figures now bitterly battling over power and wealth seem pragmatic, not suicidal. There is no reason to believe that the United States (as well as Israel) cannot deter Iran even if the latter developed an atomic bomb.

Iran’s worsening religious persecution is far less publicized. As I note in my latest Forbes online column, Tehran has generated a not-so-enviable record in brutalizing religious minorities—Baha’is, Christians, Jews, Zoroastrians, and Sunni Muslims. Such behavior belies a lack of confidence in the dominant theology which underlies the regime.

Sadly, there isn’t a lot the U.S. government can do. But people of goodwill around the world might achieve more. As I argue in Forbes online:

The West’s leverage over Iran is minimal. Some activists have criticized the Obama administration for not doing more, but it is not clear what more could be done, given the sanctions already imposed regarding the nuclear issue.

There may be a better hope of using international popular pressure. Explained [Indiana University Professor Jamsheed] Choksy, “Despite their heavy-handed actions, the Islamic Republic’s hard-liners seek to present their rule as benevolent and humane,” and therefore the regime has been “exhibiting rising concern about negative public perceptions of its rule.”

Individuals, groups, and activists, especially those which have not been at the forefront of the campaign to sanction and even bomb Iran, should press the Iranian government and other entities, from media to business, and protest the manifold violations of human rights. Visiting officials should be embarrassed by protestors. The regime should understand that its fight against sanctions for its nuclear activities continues to be undermined by its brutality at home.

Ahmed Shaheed, the UN Special Rappoteur, confirmed that public pressure works. In March he noted that “At least a dozen lives were saved because of the intervention of international opinion.” More such action is needed.

In 1979 the Iranian people overthrew the Shah, a corrupt thug long supported by Washington. Alas, the Iranian revolution delivered even more tyranny. The Iranian people desperately await a revolution which actually liberates.

Burmese President Thein Sein will be visiting Washington next week. It’s the first trip by a Burmese head of state in nearly five decades and reflects the reform winds blowing through Naypyitaw.

Burma, or Myanmar, languished under brutal military rule for a half century before the armed forces moved into the background and created a nominal civilian government. Thein Sein is a former general and the retired junta leaders undoubtedly remain influential, though their exact role remains hidden.

Nevertheless, Burma has come far in the last couple of years. Many political prisoners have been released. Many restrictions over the media have been lifted. Nobel Laureate Aung San Suu Kyi has been freed from house arrest and elected to parliament. Fighting has ceased against many separatist ethnic groups. Naypyitaw has distanced itself from its former patron, China.

There’s still more to be done. Conflict with the ethnic Kachin continues to ravage parts of Burma, while Buddhist mobs have been conducting a different form of war against Muslim Burmese. Nor is it certain that the military is prepared to fully yield power in 2015, when the next election is scheduled. Indeed, Tomas Ojea Quintana, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on human rights in Burma, recently issued a report citing the need for additional reforms, which I discussed in a recent article in National Interest online.

Nevertheless, after spending years vying with North Korea for distinction as the world’s worst government, Burma now offers its people hope of liberating change. Ultimately enduring reform will come from inside Burma. But the West can help.

The best reward for Naypyitaw for continuing reform is steadily eliminating remaining economic sanctions. Foreign investment and trade will help moderate poverty, expand the middle class, and provide resources for democratic activism. Expanding the economic pie also would give government and security personnel a stake in a freer society in which their power is more limited.

But Washington and other democratic states should not bury Naypyitaw in foreign aid. Alas, history demonstrates that foreign “assistance” more often deserves to be called foreign hindrance, actually slowing reform and entrenching corrupt elites. Burma desperately needs a broader civil society as the foundation for a freer and more prosperous future.

There is a lot of bad news in the world today. Burma offers some welcome good news. Washington should use Thein Sein’s visit to encourage continuing political and economic reform.