Dems introduce bills that would use IRS muscle to force the Redskins to ditch their scary name

They complained, and the name didn't change. They took away the team's trademark, and the name didn't change. Now, they're trying a new tactic. Yesterday, Washington D.C.'s non-voting congressional Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.) introduced a new bill designed to force the Washington Redskins to change their name.

Her plan is to strip the NFL of its tax exempt status in an effort to make the scary words go away. As Norton said in her introductory statement, some people are offended by something, so it's time for the IRS to do what it does best.

“American taxpayers have been subsidizing a multi-billion dollar league that promotes what has now been officially found to be a racial slur for profitable gain. Relief from taxes should no longer be given to a league that profits from the continued use of a racial slur, which degrades some Americans.”

---

In a separate statement she added:

“Continued use of the current team name and mascot is not only inconsistent with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office decision, but what’s even worse is that U.S. taxpayers must bear the burden of subsidizing a multibillion-dollar industry and its use of a racial slur for profit.”

First of all, she gets it completely wrong in terms of the Trademark Office's choice to cancel the Redskins trademark. The Redskins' continued use of their name is in no way "inconsistent" with the ruling. They're free to do so as long as they see fit. They'll certainly have trouble suing bootleggers who make knock-off Redskins gear, but there is absolutely nothing which says they can't keep using the name. Second, I'm not sure which government body Ms. Norton thinks is in charge of "officially" finding words to be racist. The trademark office decision is under appeal - a process that the Redskins have won in the past - so their stance is not yet final. The FCC has been petitioned to ban broadcasts which use the word "Redskins" but they've yet to do so (and probably won't) so it can't be them. Maybe Ms. Norton has knowledge of a secret "Federal Bureau of Unpleasant Words" or something. Finally, it's nice to hear a Democrat admit that tax-exemption is a "relief." Usually, they argue that paying taxes is a solemn, patriotic, duty. It's something you should want to do, and - however much you pay - you should feel bad that you're not paying more. The idea that not paying qualifies as "relief" would suggest that it's really some kind of onerous, painful, process in which no one wants to partake. That can't be right, can it? Frankly, I'm in favor of eliminating the NFL's tax-exempt status - but that's because I'm in favor of eliminating the current corporate tax structure altogether. The real problem here is that Democrats (and Norton is just the latest example) are once again trying to leverage the power of the IRS against an organization simply because they find it politically distasteful. Why not apply the same logic to all speech? How about political parties? After all, Dems like Lois Lerner had no problem using the IRS to attack conservative organizations. I find Ms. Norton's left-wing policies offensive. Judging by last Tuesday's election results, I'm not alone. Since she's one component of a larger organization that is profiting from her offensive behavior, we should apply her solution and target that organization. The DNC is a tax exempt 501c4. Let's revoke its "tax relief" and start making the "offensive" Democrat Party "pay its fair share." Obviously, I'm being facetious, but that's essentially the argument Norton is making. The bottom line is that no one - not even a non-voting delegate from Washington D.C. - is entitled to a life that is free of all offense. Norton's bill is just the latest example of Democrats trying to use the tax code as a weapon against their ideological enemies. Fortunately, the GOP's midterm gains guarantee that her legislation is doomed. I guess that means President Obama will have to change the team's name via executive order.