Oak, you're on the money here. In his 2 hour press conference, Christie noted that he "wasn't a micromanager," but the cameras didn't show the snickering of any of the aids or legislators or lobbyists in attendance. His reputation is that of a supreme interventionist. That his chubby hands weren't involved in this is virtually inconceivable, but as a former prosecuter, understandable that he didn't document his involvement so he could have "plausible deny-ability."

It should be noted that several top people did lose their jobs at the IRS, but not for "Benghazi" (in brackets here because there were 30 other attacks on embassies and other US installations that same day, so picking out one and not the others gives the administration problems - where's the diligence on those?)

As for Enron, far more people than Skilling were responsible for that mess, but they got away. It was rife with corruption at many levels. Its a shame that it took almost 2 years and $40 million to just get that one guy. Makes you wonder why they go after any white collar guy at all, especially in Texas, where flouting the federal law appears to be a cause for celebration.

I think there are a couple of key differences between the Christie Bridge and the IRS 501c4 scandals.

• The Christie top staff conceived and initiated the bridge program without authority or notice.
• The Congress gave the authority to the IRS to make determinations, and the actions taken were conceived and initiated by an admitted "conservative Republican" the Cincinnati field office.
  -
• The CB initiative was political retribution for not supporting the "bipartisan governor"
• The IRS initiative was a "shortcut" to determine if applicants were trying to gain undeserved tax exempt status as Congress cut the budget for the staff performing this work. Evidence suggests that conservative, liberal and progressive identified political applicants were given extra scrutiny, though anti-tax, Israel, and Occupy applications got more frequent scrutiny.
  -
• The result of the CB initiative created a dangerous public hazard and cost millions in wasted time and money and energy.
• The applicants for the 501c4 status were allowed by law to proceed doing business as if they had achieved their exempt status during the review process. Only one applicant was denied. No firm suffered damages, only few endured increased scrutiny.

I guess I'd have to ask this question:
If forced to chose which violation you'd want, do you want to have the government indiscriminately block your access to hospitals, bridges and commerce because you didn't vote for them or do you want more scrutiny on people who don't want to pay taxes?

As a personal editorial, I would like greater scrutiny on tax exempt companies. The potential for abuse, especially with the 501c4 "donor undisclosed" feature, is the primary reason the IRS got in trouble in the first place. Congress has to fix the tax laws and also appoint somebody other than the IRS to make the determination as to who should or shouldn't be granted tax-exempt status.

As a further note, my organization applied in August of 2012 for 501c3 Tax exempt status to conduct basic immune system research. We have yet to receive our assignment. We are not disadvantaged by this at all.

You were right, I had it backwards. It exempts the 5% of firms over 50 employees from going on the exchanges. But, guess what, still a negligible change, affecting 300,000 people (less than 0.1% of beneficiaries). Firms who currently offer must still do so. It does not prevent those not covered by the exemption to seek coverage on the exchanges. Even Rand said this was a tempest in a dollhouse teapot.

I was confused with another provision on mandated benefits with ERISA and it's corresponding impact by the ACA. I am certainly not going to argue that this law is complex.

You can avoid the tax by being poor. In fact, you'll get a subsidy to get insurance. The intent is that these people will now stop using the emergency room (the highest cost point of contact) and use the primary care system (the lowest cost point of contact). We can only hope that will transpire.

Isn't it a privilege to be an American? I kinda thought it is an exclusive club, where it means something to be a member. That we behave, treat each other respect and exact that last measure of devotion to the ideals. That we enjoy the benefits of equal protection, fairness and obligation to the society in which we live.

I'm certain that you can't argue that for the 100 million Americans and their families who work hard and play by the rules that the American society exists only to extract from them, not provide any benefit to them. No nation has a population entirely of supreme intellects. Information is not perfect. That life is complicated should not be a shock to anyone, and to expect every citizen to know everything about every idea is unrealistic. The reason why representative governments are formed is to organize and prioritize on a large scale for the benefit of the citizens, not for profiting off them. Protecting the weakest or those who cannot defend themselves is implicit. This is why prohibitions on fraud, theft and murder are the cornerstone of any society. The problem is that as society gets more complicated, the crimes do as well. For many who study it, our healthcare system is a crime, a very sophisticated multilevel marketing crime syndicate. Any governor dedicated to equity would try to fix this.

Obviously you've never tried to argue a variance from your municipality if you think the healthcare laws are granular...Or get a drug approved, or operate a nuclear facility.

The exchanges are exactly the definition of competition, and I'm an economist, so I think I can tell competition from uncompetitive situations.

As to the interstate portion, I agree. However, the States have the right to regulate insurance carriers in their states, and the other states do not have to abide by those regulations. The 10th amendment keeps the Federal government from requiring one state to abide by another state's laws. It is the insurer's obligation to abide by the local laws. The exchanges operate like NASDAQ, where any business in any state can list their products. The Feds can only tax and enforce Fed laws, they can't ask the state to do the Fed's work. If you wanted interstate, you'd have to ask for single payer - like Medicare or Medicaid. And I will stipulate that this is a bit oversimplified.

sorry, my bad. I guess I have to refresh my reading for comprehension skills.