Obamacare and IRS a toxic combination

Jeffrey Anderson:

Of all the scandals in his administration that President Obama knows nothing about, the one Americans find most appalling is the decision by the Internal Revenue Service to target the president’s political adversaries. What’s more, as subsequent congressional testimony has made clear, the IRS isn’t particularly repentant about its actions.

One thing Republicans and Democrats should therefore be able to agree on is that this is no time to significantly expand the IRS’s power. Yet that is exactly what will happen under Obamacare if no action is taken. A simple proposal: Remove the IRS from any role in implementing or enforcing Obamacare. It would be hard to argue at this juncture that the IRS is up to the job.

Such legislation has been introduced by Sen. John Cornyn (R.-Texas) and Rep. Tom Price (R.-Ga.). Price, a doctor, sensibly writes, “When it comes to .  .  . health care decisions, no American should be required to answer to the IRS—an agency that just forfeited its claim to a reputation of impartiality.”

Under Obamacare, the IRS is set to acquire expansive new powers. A Treasury Department audit concludes that, of the “over 500 provisions” of Obamacare, nearly a tenth involve the IRS. The Treasury audit reads, “Implementation of [Obamacare] presents a major challenge to the IRS as [it] represents the largest set of tax law changes in more than 20 years and affects millions of taxpayers.” As Treasury inspector general J. Russell George put it, “The IRS must ensure that all the information needed to accurately and effectively administer these provisions is provided by employers, insurers, and taxpayers,” so as “to manage the burden placed on employers, insurers, and taxpayers who must comply with the various [Obamacare] requirements.”

How impartially will the IRS do its job? According to the plain language of the Obamacare legislation, its taxpayer-funded subsidies (approaching $1 trillion over the next decade) can only flow into its state-established exchanges, not its federally established ones. The Congressional Research Service says that “this language seems to be straightforward on its face.”

But instead of simply enforcing the law as written, the IRS has obsequiously deferred to the position expressed in other quarters of the Obama administration: that the textual language isn’t binding. After all, only 17 states opted to run their own exchanges. Accordingly, the IRS has ruled that federally established exchanges will get the money as well. (Legal challenges are proceeding.)

Meanwhile, to exercise its newfound powers under Obamacare, the IRS has requested $440 million and 1,954 additional full-time equivalent employees for fiscal year 2014....
...

There is much more.

The IRS has lost the trust of a significant portion of the population when it comes to fairly administering the laws.  Adding their participation in a law that is hated more than the actual tax code will only make matters worse.  Congress should withhold funding of the additional agents requested.  That is something the House can do without the Democrats in the Senate.