IRS needs to rule on 'social welfare'

  • Article by: EDITORIAL , Washington Post
  • Updated: December 9, 2012 - 5:57 PM

The IRS has tolerated a rather loose definition. Maybe it's time to change.

  • 15
  • Comments

  • Results per page:
dave9398Dec. 9, 12 7:47 PM

I agree completely both sides are abusing the system.

palsarDec. 9, 12 8:08 PM

It's funny, in 2008 when Obama spent over $700 million to McCain's $200-something million nobody said a word. In 2012 when Romney raised as much as Obama now it is a problem.

kvarnoldDec. 9, 12 9:05 PM

You know, as long as we keep saying "well he did it last year, nya, nya, nya..." we will never solve the problem. Since the supreme court created the problem we need to fix it. Yes, both sides will abuse it if it is "legal", forgetting anything moral or ethical (not the supreme courts job I guess). So find a way to tax them...lots and lots...til they see they can't buy our elections.

melloncollieDec. 10, 12 6:44 AM

The problem is twofold: Too many politicians are lawyers who craft the laws to serve their own interest using confusing language in bills that most of us (or they themselves) cannot interpret. The other part of the equation is that they have an insatiable appetite for power and money - other people money.

birchtreeDec. 10, 12 6:48 AM

Very little good will come out of Washington until campaign finance reform is enacted, which probably won't happen because politicians are addicted to the obscene amounts or money and perks pouring into their campaign accounts. Large donors, PACs and corporations aren't "paying" these politicians to compromise. They are "paying" them to further the donor's interest. State or local campaigns should also have a limit on the amount of money they can accept from outside the state, like 10 percent or none at all. National (and international) donors should not have undue influence on local races.

melloncollieDec. 10, 12 7:04 AM

birchtree - Did you leave out unions in your list of those that pay politicians for favors for some reason or was it just an oversight?

comment229Dec. 10, 12 7:17 AM

This is not America. This has nothing to do with free speech. This is greed on both sides, which escalated because of a supreme court ruling. The media bombardment eventually became meaningless and obnoxious. It would be appreciated if both parties would understand what Americans endured and come to an agreement on campaign reform, but it will take congressional leaders to take the initiative and show some guts to ignore the money, the lobbyists, and their own greed. Good luck with that.

comment229Dec. 10, 12 7:17 AM

PS.. Right after the fiscal cliff problems, this SHOULD BE the first legislative focus, while it is still fresh in the minds of all Americans.

my4centsDec. 10, 12 8:27 AM

Campaign spending is not anywhere near our biggest problem. Rather then limiting how much money can be spent campaigning we need to limit the power of those who are elected to office. Once that power and influence has more definite limits there will be less desire and need for the campaign spending. Limiting the spending or campaigning ignores the real problem. It would also give more influence to the news media, which most everyone agrees is not the objective fact-reporting group they project themselves as.

melloncollieDec. 10, 12 9:02 AM

"Large donors, PACs and corporations aren't "paying" these politicians to compromise. They are "paying" them to further the donor's interest"

Liberal posters always leave out unions from the list.


Comment on this story   |  


  • about opinion

  • The Opinion section is produced by the Editorial Department to foster discussion about key issues. The Editorial Board represents the institutional voice of the Star Tribune and operates independently of the newsroom.

  • Submit a letter or commentary
Connect with twitterConnect with facebookConnect with Google+Connect with PinterestConnect with PinterestConnect with RssfeedConnect with email newsletters




question of the day

Poll: What was your biggest Olympics disappointment?

Weekly Question