Indited for taking money out of the bank improperly

Do you think that government isn't too big these days?

Do you have money in your bank account that you might want to take out and spend some day?

Did you know that if you take out or deposit more than $10,000 your bank has to report that to the IRS, even though it is your money and perfectly legal?

Did you know that you can be charged with a crime if the government thinks that you are taking your money out in smaller chunks in order to avoid the reporting requirement?

What the hell business is it of the government how you save or spend your money?  It is your money.  If they think you are doing something illegal they should get a warrant and investigate you but this type of fishing expedition is an outrage.  The original idea behind the law was to crack down on drug dealers and money launderers.  Yet another casualty of the War on Drugs.

Why is this in the news now?  Well Denny Hastert, former Speaker of the House, has apparently been paying someone to keep their mouth shut about something he may have done in the past.  It isn't illegal to pay someone to keep their mouth shut, although it may be illegal to take money to not report a crime and it is definitely illegal to extort someone in exchange for not reporting a crime.  Not sure that I agree with either of those laws either, but that's a topic for another post.  The reality here is that we don't know what he may or may not have done (although there seems to be no shortage of people willing to engage in speculation) but we do know that he took the money out in increments smaller than $10,000 to avoid the reporting requirement.

Who cares?

Only the federal government which has charged him with "structuring of withdrawals to evade reporting requirements".

Oh, and apparently when they asked him about it, he lied to the federal agents.  F... them.  Why is it that the police can walk up to you on the street and lie to you in an effort to get you to incriminate yourself but if you lie to them they can charge you with a crime?  But wait, that's yet another topic for another post.

Focus, must focus.  In the words of the Ace of Spades, Hastert has been indited for "withdrawing money from his bank".

I don't give a fig about Dennis Hastert or his legal troubles, but it's hard to argue that the federal government isn't too big and doesn't have too much power.

Sadly believeable

Recently an email went around claiming that the FBI had created a list of "potential motorcycle gang members".  Who was on that list?  Anyone who had ever owned a motorcycle or obtained a motorcycle license endorsement in the past thirty years or so.

The email is false.

The sad thing is that this story is totally believable, to the extent that even I, Mr Skeptical when it comes to email rumors, fell for it.

There are plenty of stories that are verifiable along the same vein, and anecdotes abound.

The DEA has planned to monitor gun show attendees using license plate readers according to the ACLU.

State police have been observed video recording license plates at pro-gun rallies in Olympia, Washington.

The police in Auburn, Washington were taking pictures of all the motorcycle riders arriving for the Veteran's Day Parade a few years ago.

Neither of these last two observed events were ever adequately explained.

So when a news article appears claiming that the government is targeting Americans based on the prejudices of the ruling class, it is sadly believable.

All the news (the government thinks) is fit to print?

Well, this one seems to be causing an uproar.  The FCC has unveiled a plan to study how media decides what information to impart to their viewers/listeners/readers.  You can read the proposal here:

http://transition.fcc.gov/bureaus/ocbo/FCC_Final_Research_Design_6_markets.pdf

The money quote would appear to be this one:

The purpose of these interviews is to ascertain the process by which stories are selected, station priorities (for content, production quality, and populations served), perceived station bias, perceived percent of news dedicated to each of the eight CINs, and perceived responsiveness to underserved populations.

Really?  The government is going to look into whether your local news has bias, whether they are devoting enough time to "Critical Information Needs" (CIN), and whether they are responsive to under-served populations?  Who decides what a CIN is?  Who decides who is under-served?  Will the government decide that global warming is a CIN and the IRS scandals and Benghazi aren't?  Right now they claim that is not the intent, but does anyone reading this seriously trust the government enough to assume that they won't use the information once they have it?

Enjoy the Decline my friends.  The Roman empire did not fall in a day, but it did fall.