From the Desk of Bob Barr

Townhall

by Bob Barr

As legislative red flags go, they don’t get much bigger than what the Biden Administration is attempting — $80 billion of additional funding for the Internal Revenue Service so the agency can more than double the number of employees it now has.

At the moment, Biden’s plan to hire 87,000 new IRS employees is stuck in senatorial limbo — part of his “Build Back Better” plan passed late last year by the House. While Senate Republicans are holding firm against passing “BBB,” there is a real danger Democrats could slip the IRS provision (or major pieces of it) into some other “must pass” legislation and “Presto!” the agency doubles in size and power.

Democrats appear perfectly comfortable buying the President’s absurd claim that not only will the massive BBB “cost nothing,” but that increasing the size and power of the IRS will turn a profit and will target only “the rich.”

Their IRS expansion plan is a massive lie, with major consequences not just for the wealthy but for all citizens; and its successful implementation could be aided thanks to the hubbub surrounding the one-year anniversary of the events of last January 6, which provides a perfect cover for Democrats to sneak these changes through under the radar.

As a threshold question, why would the IRS need to double in size and rake in $80 billion in additional funding if its agents are only going after the rich? After all, the agency already does this, as evidenced by the fact that audit rates for the wealthy are significantly higher than for those in lower income brackets. If the IRS was truly short-staffed, and the rich were really the choice target for recovering owed taxes on unreported income, then it could easily allocate resources to pursue these so-called high earners, whose tax returns are easy to identify. Instead, the IRS appears to be setting its sights on small businesses and independent contractors for companies like Uber and Instacart.

Actually, new reporting requirements coming from the IRS make clear its targets are not Elon Musk but rather Joe Six-Pack.

A new change in the tax law for 2022 increases reporting requirements for financial institutions serving customers with more than just $600 in pass-through income. Previously this figure was $20,000. This means that everyone from Uber drivers to kids mowing grass who earn more than $600 in gross income will be on the IRS’ compliance radar, since they have “self-reported income.”

The IRS coming after these income earners is like drawing blood from a stone. Nevertheless, it is what Democrats have been reduced to in trying to pay for their ultra-extravagant social programs. They have finally reached a point at which shaking down the rich is not enough, so they now are going after low-income workers .  .  . but without admitting it.

Democrat claims that all this is solely to ensure everyone pays their “fair share” ring hollow, but it does illustrate just how far the Party has diverged from its roots of protecting vulnerable individuals from abusive government practices.

One of President Donald Trump’s most notable, if rarely heralded accomplishments, was slashing the IRS budget and forcing it to be more discerning about who and what they pursued for audits. Importantly, even with the Trump Administration’s cuts to the IRS budget, the agency has been able to increase tax revenues by an estimated 22 percent since the 2017 tax cuts. It did, however, reduce IRS bullying of citizens – a trend Democrats now want to reverse.

Big Government Democrats like Sen. Elizabeth Warren love to send out Tweets lambasting billionaires. There is no political price to be paid by these “limousine liberals” for engaging in rhetorical class warfare, even as they consciously ignore the fact that high-income earners like Elon Musk are merely taking advantage of tax breaks that Congress itself enacted.

It would take a far greater degree of wisdom and honesty than Biden and his congressional allies possess, to explain why their Build Back Better plan puts working class citizens and small business owners in the crosshairs of the IRS.

Democrats aren’t building America back better. They’re busy building big bureaucracies bigger. And arrogantly lying to the voters as they do so.

Bob Barr represented Georgia’s Seventh District in the U.S. House of Representatives from 1995 to 2003. He served as the United States Attorney in Atlanta from 1986 to 1990 and was an official with the CIA in the 1970s. He now practices law in Atlanta, Georgia and serves as head of Liberty Guard.

Daily Caller

by Bob Barr

As the Biden administration nears the end of its first year, the focus of its Department of Defense appears not to be on meeting our military’s ability to defeat real and potential foes. Instead, Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin continues his high-priority campaign to chase “extremism” within the ranks.

Austin relentlessly pursues this boogeyman notwithstanding that the most recent Defense Department report on “extremism,” published just last month, conceded that over the course of its nearly year-long study, it could find “less than 100” incidents of such behavior among active duty and reserve personnel (which totals some 2,145,900 men and women across all military branches).

The current administration’s apparent obsession with ferreting out “extremism” among active duty and reserve personnel, including civilian military contract personnel and the many more millions of veterans, comes even as recent evaluations of America’s military readiness shows serious deficiencies. Despite this, non-governmental groups to which Austin’s Defense Department continues to turn for data and approval – including the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) – lament that even more is not being done to ensure a fully “woke” military.

The term “woke” is not used in either the December 2021 Defense Department report, or in a lengthy investigative analysis of “extremism” in the military published by The Associated Press just last week. “Wokeness,” however, is the clear goal of this crusade to identify and rid the armed forces of those with views disfavored by the like of both the SPLC and the Biden administration.

The new definition of “Extremist Activities” now to govern backgrounds and activities of military personnel as well as those civilians working with the armed forces, includes espousing “unlawful discrimination” based not only on traditionally understood — and already against military law — categories such as “race, color, national origin, religion, [and] sex” but now, “pregnancy.”

Given the administration’s strident support for abortion (a procedure that is, after all, terminating a “pregnancy”), it is not unreasonable to foresee the administration using this as a pretext to punish a service member or recruit who is or in the past has been pro-life, insofar as such advocacy could be considered discriminatory against “pregnancy.” Viewed in this light, the truly insidious nature of the new rules becomes clear.

The Defense Department’s new regulations do not stop there. They now subject a service member to discipline or discharge if he or she displays – “whether on or off a military installation” — any form of “paraphernalia” that might be considered supportive of a group or organization engaged in the aforementioned and wide-ranging “extremist activities.” These verboten displays includes not only “bumper stickers,” but “words, symbols, .  .  .  clothing” and even “tattoos.”

How the military ultimately determines whether one of its own (or a prospective recruit) gave a “symbol” in support of an “extremist” group, or at some point in their life “knowingly displayed” a tattoo with such intent, is murky; but the new regulations allow that lists and databases maintained by the FBI and other government agencies may be accessed for such purpose.

Austin’s directives are designed explicitly to encourage snitches, not only from within the active military, but from veterans as well. Moreover, veterans who engage in prohibited “extremist activities” may see their veterans benefits denied or cut off under the terms of these new draconian policies.

The fact of the matter is, the truly and demonstrably violent extremist behavior by those in the military is already illegal and incidents of such have in the past been successfully prosecuted. From this perspective, and viewed most charitably, these new regulations could be considered designing a new baseball bat to swat a fly.

The results of Austin’s first-year jeremiad – and further studies already in the works — are in fact much more than simply a new way of attacking a problem that already has been addressed.

Austin, reflecting the leftist views of his boss, has designed a blueprint to ensure wokeness will prevail throughout current and coming generations of our military. It appears that to him, this is more important than addressing clear evidence that the readiness of our armed forces — as articulated just this past year by both non-governmental studies and the Government Accountability Office itself – is seriously deficient.

Bob Barr represented Georgia’s Seventh District in the U.S. House of Representatives from 1995 to 2003. He served as the United States Attorney in Atlanta from 1986 to 1990 and was an official with the CIA in the 1970s. He now practices law in Atlanta, Georgia and serves as head of Liberty Guard.

Townhall

by Bob Barr

All things considered, 2021 was a good year for Republicans.  In 2022 will the GOP build on its 2021 successes, or allow itself to be dragged back to 2020?

The answer is right in front of our eyes. This year has been a disaster for the Democrats largely because they refused to move forward, electing instead to remain mired in the past and fighting yesterday’s battles. If Republicans take the same course in 2022, they will likely reap the same disappointing harvest.

The events of last January 6 at the U.S. Capitol will predictably be a focal point for Democrat campaigns heading into 2022. They really have nothing positive from 2021 on which to campaign, so they will use 1/6 as a lure to drag Republicans down, too. The last thing Republicans need is to take that bait and fight on that playing field; doing so would be a sure way to turn off moderate Republicans, as well as independent voters who the GOP must reach in order to regain majorities in the House and Senate.

This, of course, is easier said than done. In addition to Democrats chumming the waters, some on the GOP’s own team refuse to move forward. They see 1/6 as a positive flashpoint and Biden’s heavy-handed response to it as a wedge issue to churn up anger on the Right. This would be a major strategic mistake

As right as these Republicans are about the federal government’s overzealous response to 1/6, it is not the winning message going forward. Voters, especially those not already committed to the GOP, yearn for a vision for the future rather than to be repeatedly enraged by the past.

The tone Republicans should strike is found in one of Ronald Reagan’s most famous speeches, where he defined America as a “shining city on a hill.” This was a clear and timeless reminder of the greatness America can reach if the principles of free markets and individual liberty are allowed to thrive.

For an America tired of fearing COVID, inflation, crime, and losing what little precious freedoms they still enjoy, Reagan’s truly is the message for the moment; but it needs to be delivered by leaders who can express it and who have the backbone to follow it through.

Fortunately, there have been several gubernatorial standouts for the GOP answering this call. When facing a social and economic nightmare created by federal incompetence these governors turned lemons into leadership, with undeniably positive results.

Democrat-led states continue to suffer from the Left’s hapless response to COVID, while Republican-led ones (in particular Georgia, Florida, and Texas) continue to show incredible resilience against a rudderless federal government listing wildly from side to side.

On top of their economic successes, Republican-led states and localities have maintained public safety without locking down citizens like criminals. These governors and mayors were the first to realize America must learn to deal with COVID rather than run from it, if a sense of normalcy is to return. Meanwhile, Democrats continue to pump doom and gloom, even as they admit they have no idea what they are doing.

Governor-elect Glenn Youngkin’s recent, incredible victory in Virginia presents Republicans with a roadmap for victory in 2022. Rather than relying on divisive rhetoric to motivate the GOP base, Youngkin presented a clear and consistent vision for restoring conservative governance that appealed to Republican and independent voters alike. Sure, he was aided in his effort by a Virginia Democrat Party that relied on worn-out messages delivered by tone-deaf messengers, but the win was delivered by Youngkin and those candidates on his ticket.

The GOP entered 2021 battered and bloody, but as the year ends the Party is poised to crush Democrats in 2022.

The question Republicans must ask themselves at this juncture, however, is do they want to be dragged back to November 2020 and January 2021, and risk suffering the same consequences that befell Democrats this year by doing just that? Or should they march forth with a vision for the future, keeping in mind what they actually have accomplished this year by not looking backward? The answer would seem to be a no-brainer.

Bob Barr represented Georgia’s Seventh District in the U.S. House of Representatives from 1995 to 2003. He served as the United States Attorney in Atlanta from 1986 to 1990 and was an official with the CIA in the 1970s. He now practices law in Atlanta, Georgia and serves as head of Liberty Guard.

Daily Caller

by Bob Barr

For as long as I can remember, whenever I went through the checkout line at our local supermarket, the cashier would ask politely, “Did you find everything you were looking for, Sir?” Until recently, I routinely answered, “Yes, thank you,” although I would think to myself, Of course I found everything, this is the United States. No longer.

For the past year, when I am asked that question by the always very polite supermarket cashier, my answer has become, “No, but thank you for asking.” In my mind, I find myself wanting to ask the cashier, have we become a Third World country?

Welcome to the Brave New World of Biden’s America, where empty grocery store shelves and gas station pumps festooned with the little yellow bags indicating empty pumps have become the norm.

Dealing with empty grocery store shelves and gas pumps, however, is not the only or even the most serious evidence that America today is not the America of previous eras, especially the nation that, since the end of WW II, has served as the world’s beacon of political and economic freedom.

Having to circumvent shortages of one product or another in food purchases or searching for a full gas pump are things that can be dealt with, at least in the short term. Working around more serious indications of the decline in our heretofore expected standard of living are problems not so easily dismissed.

Inflation, long a hallmark of economies of developing and Third World countries unable or unwilling to rein in impediments to free market economics, is now in the United States at levels not seen since the disaster that was the 1970s Jimmy Carter presidency.

This year’s inflation, which looks to continue apace in 2022, is primarily the product of forces within our control — conflagrant federal government spending and deliberate shuttering down of domestic energy sources by the Biden Administration.

Other indices of a nation’s rise in status to a fully developed country, and in our case as the world’s only superpower after the 1989 fall of the Soviet Union, include:

• secure borders,
• controlled crime,
• sound education,
• faith in public institutions,
• a cohesive national identity,
• a strong middle class,
• a positive vision for the future,
• the sanctity of contracts, and
• a strong military focused externally.

Frighteningly, in considering each of these (and other) fundamental indices of a nation’s posture at or near the apex of global modernization, the United States appears clearly to be backsliding.

Our southern border remains not only poorly secured, but not secure at all, resulting in the predictable dilution of our country’s sense of citizenship.

The middle class, bowing under the pressures of major inflation and widespread loss of jobs, is shrinking rather than expanding or even holding its own.

Serious crime in major cities from New York to San Francisco is ravaging communities and reducing hope for millions of working-class families, even as it causes an exodus of those financially able to do so.

The federal government decrees that lawful contracts between landlord and tenant can be arbitrarily voided, and the courts sustain such abuse of power.

In our closed, two-party political system, voters, candidates and political operatives share a deep and open distrust of the most basic index of a democratic society – a fair electoral system.

I could go on and on, but as someone who grew up until graduating from high school living in countries far less developed than ours, perhaps the most disturbing evidence that America has lost its status as the world’s “shining light” of freedom is that our military and our federal law enforcement institutions are being used for improper purposes.

There is clear evidence, for example, that ongoing federal investigations and prosecutions are being driven not by objective and fair enforcement of criminal laws, but by adherence to a set of political beliefs held by supporters of the current administration. At the same time, we see increased military presence on our streets and a push to “cleanse” the armed forces of those perceived to have disfavored political views.

These are the characteristics of a nation not committed to individual freedom and liberty, but signs of a government concerned solely with control and self-survival.

As a child, I lived overseas in such countries. I never dreamt I would be doing so in my own country.

Bob Barr represented Georgia’s Seventh District in the U.S. House of Representatives from 1995 to 2003. He served as the United States Attorney in Atlanta from 1986 to 1990 and was an official with the CIA in the 1970s. He now practices law in Atlanta, Georgia and serves as head of Liberty Guard.

Townhall

by Bob Barr

The confluence of COVID-19 and the election of Joe Biden has created a federal leviathan that considers no problem as too small or off-limits for federal involvement. This makes Republican governors the last line of defense against a full federal takeover of states. Thankfully, in this respect the GOP is stronger than one might think.

Republican governors by and large have not let 2020’s election defeat distract them from proving themselves to voters ahead of the crucial 2022 and 2024 elections. Most notable among this group are Governors Ron DeSantis of Florida, Greg Abbott of Texas, Kristi Noem from South Dakota, and Brian Kemp from my home state of Georgia.

Tested simultaneously by the pandemic, the federal government’s response to COVID, Biden’s disastrous economic policies, and urban crime, these governors have shown repeatedly to voters the value of governing according to consistent, conservative principles.

It is no coincidence that those states that are doing better than others are those governed by Republicans, who understand that the best response to COVID-19 was not to run into the basement and turn off the lights.

Beginning with Georgia, and soon followed by Florida and Texas, states quickest to reopen after the initial COVID “lockdown” consistently have demonstrated far more resiliency to this perfect storm of economic and social challenges, than states opting to rely on the heavy hand of government.

For example, while California’s and New York’s unemployment rates are 7.3 and 6.9 percent respectively, Georgia’s remains at an all-time low of 3.1 percent; Florida and Texas also remain low, at 4.6 and 5.4 percent.

This is no fluke. There is an ongoing, seismic realignment of economic centers in the United States, as major corporations and small business entrepreneurs flee states run by politicians who only see them as piggy banks and punching bags. The ability of “Red” state governors to keep workers working and taxes low, has contributed to a flood of businesses launching in or relocating to these states.

Georgia announced recently what Governor Kemp called its largest single economic development project – electric vehicle manufacturer Rivian’s new $5 billion manufacturing plant – which will add an estimated 7,500 jobs to the more than 80,000 recently created in the state. Texas too, has proven to be an attractive new home for California corporations fed up with progressive browbeating. Elon Musk specifically pointed to this bullying as a reason why he was moving Tesla headquarters from Palo Alto to Austin.

Not surprisingly, Georgia remains the number one place to do business, with Florida and Texas joining the Peach State in the top ten. Neither New York nor California makes the cut.

Democratic governors may look at the success of their Republican peers and scratch their heads, but there is no secret to the sauce, other than the demonstrable fact that combining capitalism and federalism works.

When the federal government attempted to shut down the economy, these governors pushed back to protect their businesses from ruin. More broadly, when it is the contemporary trend to look to the federal government to solve myriad local problems (from smash-and-grab flash mobs to violence in schools), Republican governors refused to surrender their autonomy to Uncle Sam. Florida’s DeSantis proposed reviving a civilian military force that could not be commandeered by federal authorities, while Georgia’s Kemp cracked down on violent crime in Atlanta after city leaders refused to recognize a reality that conflicted with the Democratic Party’s social justice narrative.

The results speak for themselves. In states with strong Republican leadership, economies are booming, crime is being contained, and citizens are enjoying the right to determine for themselves what is best for their families. In states that have surrendered their autonomy to Leftist puppet masters in D.C., citizens bounce from one arbitrary mandate to the next, while watching businesses all around them shut down.

So long as voters elect principled, conservative leaders who have the brains and the spine to keep the federal government out of state and local issues affairs, they will continue to enjoy the fruits of such leadership. For those in less free states, they are welcome to join us here in Georgia and elsewhere in the south – but they had best leave their liberal politics at the state line.

Daily Caller

by Bob Barr

President Joe Biden is 79. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is 81. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell is 79, and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, at 71 years old, is the baby of the bunch. The average age of America’s top political leadership is a whopping 77.5 years old. This is nearly 40 years older than the median age of the U.S. population, which stands currently at 38.1 years.

This trend may change after Biden’s first term ends in January 2025, but only if both major political parties choose to nominate younger candidates. The problem, as we close in on the end of Biden’s first year in office, is that the two most talked-about 2024 candidates would themselves be approaching octogenarian status in three years — Hillary Clinton at 77 and Donald Trump at 78.

2024 is a long way off, and Republicans might decide to break the Trump hold on the Party and opt for a younger candidate plucked from the GOP’s solid farm team. One top contender, for example, is Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, who will turn a youthful 46 in 2024.

The potential, anyone-but-Hillary 2024 Democrat nominee field remains foggy, but if Vice President Kamala Harris opts to run, she will just have celebrated her 60^th birthday by election day 2024. If former presidential candidate Sen. Elizabeth Warren were to vie for the office again in 2024, at 77 she would be the same age as Hillary. Sen. Bernie Sanders will be a mind-blowing 83 years old in 2024, and he shows no sign of losing his desire for higher office.

There are, of course, other and somewhat younger potential Democrat contenders, but few if any serious candidates who can claim a viable national persona.

The problem seems to be younger voters’ disinterest in actually voting.

Notwithstanding that the age at which individuals are permitted to vote dropped from 21 to 18 following ratification of the 26th Amendment to the Constitution in 1971, the percentage of younger voters (18 to 24) has never surpassed the 49.6% that voted in 1972. Consistently, voters in every older age group voted in a higher percentage than those in the younger age brackets. In 2020, nearly 72% of voters aged 65 and older voted, compared to just 48% of those in the 18 to 24 age group.

Since our country’s first presidential election in 1788, 46 men have served in that office. The average age of those individuals when sworn into office has been 55 years. What accounts for the fact that the most recent occupants of that high office, and the front runners to do so in the next election cycle, are aged far in excess of that median? More important, does it matter?

Historically, most presidents considered by experts to have been the best and brightest, were not even close to their seventies when inaugurated — George Washington was 57,  Thomas Jefferson was 58, Lincoln a youthful 52, and Theodore Roosevelt an energetic 43.

Life expectancy has increased dramatically over the course of our history, and stands now at nearly 80 years. But arguing that today’s septuagenarian political leaders offer higher energy, greater mental acuity, and enhanced ability to wield the tools of power in the internet age, as compared to their younger counterparts, is a tough argument to make.

This is particularly the case when considering that the median age of the U.S. population (38.1) like that of most more highly developed countries, significantly exceeds that of most less developed countries and those with emerging economies. For example, India’s median population age is a full ten years younger than ours, Iran’s is eight years younger, and Brazil’s nearly four.

Competing against countries like India, for example, with a far younger population and one that is highly tech-savvy, even as the men and women at the helm of our national decision making are in their late 70s, simply and inarguably places the United States at a distinct, and potentially dangerous, disadvantage on the world stage as we compete in this 21^st Century.

Bob Barr represented Georgia’s Seventh District in the U.S. House of Representatives from 1995 to 2003. He served as the United States Attorney in Atlanta from 1986 to 1990 and was an official with the CIA in the 1970s. He now practices law in Atlanta, Georgia and serves as head of Liberty Guard.

Townhall

by Bob Barr

Neither California nor California-based judges miss an opportunity to display their anti-Second Amendment bias, most recently in a pair of federal court rulings upholding the state’s bans on so-called “assault weapons” and on firearms magazines able to hold more than 10 rounds.

The state’s anti-firearms laws, and their support from the still-liberal Ninth Circuit panel of judges, highlight a problem that continues to bedevil Second Amendment supporters – that is, defending the Bill of Rights’ guarantee of the “right to keep and bear arms” in terms of need rather than principle.

In a report I authored for the Heritage Foundation earlier this year, I argued that defending the Second Amendment by asserting individuals have a need to own a particular type of gun or accessory – which is how many conservatives frame their arguments against gun-control laws – leaves advocates of the Amendment vulnerable to precisely what the federal appellate courts have done in so many recent opinions declaring such “needs-based” restrictions to be constitutional.

For example, in the 7-4 decision upholding the magazine ban, the Ninth Circuit deemed the measure constitutionally acceptable because it “interferes only minimally” with the Second Amendment, and because “there is no evidence that anyone ever has been unable to defend his or her home and family due to the lack of a large-capacity magazine.”

To borrow from the late, great Justice Antonin Scalia, this is “pure applesauce.” These judges cannot possibly know whether such evidence exists, or that the lack of evidence now does not mean it will not be there in the future. The Court’s ruling is based simply on the judges’ opinion on whether there is a “need” for such a firearms accessory, thereby justifying another chip taken from the foundation of the fundamental right to self-defense embodied in the Bill of Rights.

So long as defenders of the Second Amendment compete on this playing field, it will remain extremely difficult – bordering on impossible – to fend off legislative attacks such as those by California.  Each win by the Left provides justification for the next step to limit guns, ammunition, or firearms accessories.

Many gun-control advocates actually understand that it is not a firearm’s accessories or even the type of gun, that determines its lethality in the commission of a crime (though they rarely admit to this understanding). But to them, and for the judges who support their arguments, there is little reason to be concerned with facts that conflict with their anti-gun narrative, since they are not forced to justify their reasoning under any meaningful scrutiny.

If gun-control advocates are allowed to continue making needs-based arguments in support of laws restricting particular firearms, accessories, or ammunition as not being essential to “bearing arms,” Second Amendment advocates will be forced continually into playing defense, even though from a historical and constitutional perspective, that responsibility clearly should rest with the government.

Rather than attempting to show why a particular rifle platform or magazine is “needed,” conservatives instead must come to be sufficiently confident in their constitutional arguments – go on offense and force the government to present evidence, under strict scrutiny, as to why those rights should be curtailed by some arbitrary measure, such as the number of rounds in a gun’s magazine or clip.

This approach certainly would require more evidence than some coincidental relationship of magazine size to mass shooting events. Such a low (actually non-existent) standard of proof, however, is what has been happening for decades, as courts have permitted federal and state governments to chip away, bit by bit, at the foundation of the Second Amendment by claiming that no piece removed represented a significant “need.”

As Samuel Adams, one of our Founders wrote in The Rights of the Colonists, the “natural rights of the Colonists” are life, liberty, and property, along with the overarching right of the Colonists “to support and defend them in the best manner they can.”

This “duty of self-preservation” as Adams called it, is vested not in the government, but in individuals themselves. Now, just as in 1772, there is not and should not be, a requirement that any law-abiding citizen must justify a need for how he or she chooses to exercise that fundamental right, any more than a reader of the Washington Examiner should be forced to justify his or her “need” for that magazine in order to defend against government censorship of it.

Bob Barr represented Georgia’s Seventh District in the U.S. House of Representatives from 1995 to 2003. He served as the United States Attorney in Atlanta from 1986 to 1990 and was an official with the CIA in the 1970s. He now practices law in Atlanta, Georgia and serves as head of Liberty Guard.