djones520 wrote: I'll buy that it was initiated by lower level guys, but I won't buy that it wasn't politically motivated.
It seems a little strange to say that right leaning groups were targetted, but there was no political motivation for doing so. Maybe they're hoping to head off an investigation or lawsuit. I'd be interested in hearing what, if any, oversight there was concerning the activity of these "low level guys". I'm sure that at some stage their job entails interacting with more senior staff, passing files for permission, checking etc.
Should we be worried about systemic flaws in the IRS that allow vindictive staff to target those with whom they disagree?
djones520 wrote: I'll buy that it was initiated by lower level guys, but I won't buy that it wasn't politically motivated.
It seems a little strange to say that right leaning groups were targetted, but there was no political motivation for doing so. Maybe they're hoping to head off an investigation or lawsuit. I'd be interested in hearing what, if any, oversight there was concerning the activity of these "low level guys". I'm sure that at some stage their job entails interacting with more senior staff, passing files for permission, checking etc.
Should we be worried about systemic flaws in the IRS that allow vindictive staff to target those with whom they disagree?
I think you misunderstood his post. He wasn't disagreeing with you. He was saying he thinks it was politically motivated, but that he thinks it was lower down on the IRS food chain.
djones520 wrote: I'll buy that it was initiated by lower level guys, but I won't buy that it wasn't politically motivated.
It seems a little strange to say that right leaning groups were targetted, but there was no political motivation for doing so. Maybe they're hoping to head off an investigation or lawsuit. I'd be interested in hearing what, if any, oversight there was concerning the activity of these "low level guys". I'm sure that at some stage their job entails interacting with more senior staff, passing files for permission, checking etc.
Should we be worried about systemic flaws in the IRS that allow vindictive staff to target those with whom they disagree?
I think you misunderstood his post. He wasn't disagreeing with you. He was saying he thinks it was politically motivated, but that he thinks it was lower down on the IRS food chain.
That's how I took it too.
Also... just a question here: Had this happen when Bush was president... what would happen?
Grey Templar wrote: I think you misunderstood his post. He wasn't disagreeing with you. He was saying he thinks it was politically motivated, but that he thinks it was lower down on the IRS food chain.
Apologies if I was unclear. I meant that I do believe it was politically motivated, but that junior staff could carry out such actions without anyone above them knowing may show systemic flaws in the IRS
There have been allegations of this happening for many years now, usually under Democrat administrations. This is the first I've heard of it actually happening. Still, after that "Joe the plumber" incident, I'm surprised there aren't more stories like this.
djones520 wrote: I'll buy that it was initiated by lower level guys, but I won't buy that it wasn't politically motivated.
It seems a little strange to say that right leaning groups were targetted, but there was no political motivation for doing so. Maybe they're hoping to head off an investigation or lawsuit. I'd be interested in hearing what, if any, oversight there was concerning the activity of these "low level guys". I'm sure that at some stage their job entails interacting with more senior staff, passing files for permission, checking etc.
Should we be worried about systemic flaws in the IRS that allow vindictive staff to target those with whom they disagree?
I think you misunderstood his post. He wasn't disagreeing with you. He was saying he thinks it was politically motivated, but that he thinks it was lower down on the IRS food chain.
That's how I took it too.
Also... just a question here: Had this happen when Bush was president... what would happen?
Independet counsel. What did you know and when did you know it Mr. IRS Secretary?
It seems a little strange to say that right leaning groups were targetted, but there was no political motivation for doing so. Maybe they're hoping to head off an investigation or lawsuit. I'd be interested in hearing what, if any, oversight there was concerning the activity of these "low level guys". I'm sure that at some stage their job entails interacting with more senior staff, passing files for permission, checking etc.
Should we be worried about systemic flaws in the IRS that allow vindictive staff to target those with whom they disagree?
I don't doubt the presence of political bias, but there has also been a good deal of talk about cracking down on the use of 501(c)(4)* organizations as de facto 527s.
*Labor Unions, most Tea Party groups, Super PACs
**Political campaigns, PACs
dogma wrote: I don't doubt the presence of political bias, but there has also been a good deal of talk about cracking down on the use of 501(c)(4)* organizations as de facto 527s.
*Labor Unions, most Tea Party groups, Super PACs
**Political campaigns, PACs
If these organisations are operating outside the scope of what is permitted then there should be a crackdown, but one that is done fairly and without prejudice. On face value that is not what these IRS employees have done.
If these organisations are operating outside the scope of what is permitted then there should be a crackdown, but one that is done fairly and without prejudice. On face value that is not what these IRS employees have done.
What is permitted under 501(c)(4) is largely left up to the IRS, hence the centralization of the review process.
As to the fairness of the process by which applications are selected for review: that would depend entirely on the list of suspect terms that was developed, why the 225 applications unrelated to the Tea Party were selected, and the treatment of the 75 Tea Party groups relative to the other 225.
I agree that including words like "Tea Party" and "Patriot" in a list of suspect terms is foolish, but the fact that such a list is needed has as much to do with the weakness of the 501(c)(4) category of non-profits as it does with unfair bias on the part of the relevant IRS employees. In essence, that particular element of the tax code gives IRS employees wide leeway in exercising their judgment, and so invites the the inclusion of irrelevant criteria on the part those engaged in the review process.
whembly wrote: Also... just a question here: Had this happen when Bush was president... what would happen?
Did you miss the element of the article that indicates a Bush appointee was in charge when this happened?
Anyway, it's interesting how the the IRS digging deep for violations of tax exempt status in weird places; especially with no shortage of low-hanging fruit with all the religious organizations that openly endorsed candidates last election initially hoping to challenge it in court. Wait, not interesting, craven.
whembly wrote: Also... just a question here: Had this happen when Bush was president... what would happen?
Did you miss the element of the article that indicates a Bush appointee was in charge when this happened?
Nope... saw that too... still asking the same question though.
Anyway, it's interesting how the the IRS digging deep for violations of tax exempt status in weird places; especially with no shortage of low-hanging fruit with all the religious organizations that openly endorsed candidates last election initially hoping to challenge it in court. Wait, not interesting, craven.
Yep... and also dogma has the right of it previously.... I really think it's a weird situation.
whembly wrote: Also... just a question here: Had this happen when Bush was president... what would happen?
Well, given what happened with the clear out of people at the Attorney General's office when they wouldn't focus their investigations on Democrats only... we know exactly what happens when it gets found out - nothing. Nothing happened, there was some noise on the fringes and that was basically it.
Now don't get me wrong, I'm not making light of this. If you ask me, a whole load of IRS people need to get their asses fired over this. Not just the lower level staff who did it, but the higher ups who presided over a culture where this kind of thing came to be seen as acceptable.
The point is not to let this end up just another Democrat/Republican "your is worse than my side" bs. The US has a massive problem with how government authority is used by both sides to score political victories, and its something the voting public shouldn't tolerate from either side.
Senior Internal Revenue Service officials knew employees were singling out conservative groups for extra scrutiny as early as 2011, according to a watchdog agency’s report set to be released next week, POLITICO has confirmed from a congressional source.
The disclosure that senior officials knew agents were flagging applications containing the words “patriot” or “tea party” contradicts public statements by former IRS Commissioner Doug Shulman. He repeatedly denied that his agency was targeting conservative groups when asked by Congress last year.
“There’s absolutely no targeting. This is the kind of back and forth that happens to people” who apply for tax-exempt status, Shulman told a House Ways and Means subcommittee in March 2012.
The Internal Revenue Service is in the process of confirming when its leadership was informed, according an IRS statement released Saturday.
“IRS senior leadership was not aware of this level of specific details at the time of the March 2012 hearing. The timeline does not contradict the Commissioner’s testimony. While Exempt Organizations officials knew of the situation earlier, the timeline reflects that IRS senior leadership did not have this level of detail,” the statement reads.
The revelation about senior leadership adds fuel to the agency’s admission Friday that at least 75 conservative groups were flagged for extra review because their tax documents contained the words “tea party” or “patriot.”
The disclosures are guaranteed to heighten Republican fears that the agency is targeting the administration’s political enemies and hands the GOP a fresh issue to use in attacking President Barack Obama’s administration.
House Ways and Means Oversight Committee Chairman Charles Boustany (R-La.) has already sent a letter to acting IRS Commissioner Steven Miller demanding that the agency turn over all communications that contain the words “tea party” “patriot” or “conservative.” Boustany also asked Miller for the names and titles of all “individuals involved in this discrimination.”
The congressional source, who was briefed on the report, said the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration found that senior Washington officials were informed in 2011. The agency is not disputing the timeline included in the report.
The findings from the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration report were first reported by Associated Press. The report is set to be released in full next week.
The report will also confirm that the IRS asked unnecessary questions of conservative groups seeking tax-exempt status from the agency, the source said, and that there were delays in processing applications for conservative applicants and other c(4) groups.
Lois Lerner, who is responsible for overseeing tax-exempt groups, told reporters Friday that low-level employees in Cincinnati flagged at least 75 groups but declined to say when the reviews took place. Lerner also said she did not remember when she informed her bosses about the employees’ actions. The report will be the first official confirmation that senior Washington IRS officials knew employees were targeting conservative groups before Shulman denied the charge to Congress.
The Associated Press said the report did not say if Shulman was directly informed about the program.
House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Dave Camp (R-Mich.) will convene a hearing on the matter in the coming weeks. Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) will do the same. House Majority Leader Eric Cantor also said the House would investigate the matter.
Sen. Orrin Hatch, the ranking member of the Finance Committee, promised to fully investigate who was behind the IRS decision to probe conservative tax-exempt groups and compared the practice to Watergate and “the Nixon years.”
“This, to me, is simply unbelievable. While I’m glad that the IRS has apologized for this misconduct, that is simply not enough. We need to know more,” the Utah Republican said at a conference in Washington on Saturday. “We need to know who was behind this unlawful activity, when it began, who found out about it, when they found out, and what they did or did not do to correct it.”
The IRS aiming increased scrutiny at groups that constantly voice loud opinions about the evil of taxes, and even talk about how not paying taxes would actually be "Patriotic"? No. I just can't believe it. That it might be suspect that entities with members that make it really clear they'd like to get around taxes at any cost... might be... abusing tax exemption provisions?! I...I...I... just, that's so unreasonable. My world.. it's.. falling apart.... it makes no sense....
I don't understand how an organization responsible for collecting taxes, would give more attention to groups that loudly and proudly talk about how they try to avoid paying taxes. My mind is blown.
Stupid republicans doing stupid things and then letting stupid republicans believe stupid things about the stupid things so they can be angry at stupid things for stupid and wrong reasons.
Chongara wrote: The IRS aiming increased scrutiny at groups that constantly voice loud opinions about the evil of taxes, and even talk about how not paying taxes would actually be "Patriotic"? No. I just can't believe it. That it might be suspect that entities with members that make it really clear they'd like to get around taxes at any cost... might be... abusing tax exemption provisions?! I...I...I... just, that's so unreasonable. My world.. it's.. falling apart.... it makes no sense....
I don't understand how an organization responsible for collecting taxes, would give more attention to groups that loudly and proudly talk about how they try to avoid paying taxes. My mind is blown.
Yeah I mean its like all those time Immigration and Customs Enforcement attend various pro-immigration amnesty and check the papers of those declaring themselves to be in the country illegally, or deport people who publish in Time magazine that they are in the US illegally. Oh wait.....
I think this story is pretty legitimate news. Abuse of the governments awesome, unchecked taxation power by what should be a non-political branch to satisfy political scores is just plain awful. I think a congressional investigation is wholly warranted, and I'd like to see dozens of people fired for this, perhaps even investigated under corruption statutes.
I think this story is pretty legitimate news. Abuse of the governments awesome, unchecked taxation power by what should be a non-political branch to satisfy political scores is just plain awful. I think a congressional investigation is wholly warranted, and I'd like to see dozens of people fired for this, perhaps even investigated under corruption statutes.
Well that and every link in this thread this has been a source other than Fox
I have a hard time telling what's real news and what's not, since I don't watch news TV and the only channel I happen across when I'm out is fox news, so I normally assume they are barking up the wrong tree.
As it stands, it looks like these groups were targeted by the IRS for attempting to get tax except status. That's it. Maybe politics, but then again our whole f-ing government has it's head up its ass when it comes to that. So no surprise.
Chongara wrote: The IRS aiming increased scrutiny at groups that constantly voice loud opinions about the evil of taxes, and even talk about how not paying taxes would actually be "Patriotic"? No. I just can't believe it. That it might be suspect that entities with members that make it really clear they'd like to get around taxes at any cost... might be... abusing tax exemption provisions?! I...I...I... just, that's so unreasonable. My world.. it's.. falling apart.... it makes no sense....
I don't understand how an organization responsible for collecting taxes, would give more attention to groups that loudly and proudly talk about how they try to avoid paying taxes. My mind is blown.
By all means investigate where there is reasonable suspicion. But when;
"IRS agents singled out dozens of organizations for additional reviews because they included the words "tea party" or "patriot" in their exemption applications"
"In some cases, groups were asked for lists of donors, which violates IRS policy in most cases"
"Lerner acknowledged it was wrong for the agency to target groups based on political affiliation.
"That was absolutely incorrect, it was insensitive and it was inappropriate. That's not how we go about selecting cases for further review," Lerner she heads the [RS division that oversees tax-exempt groups] said at a conference sponsored by the American Bar Association."
"Many conservative groups complained during the campaign that they were being harassed by the IRS. They accused the agency of frustrating their attempts to become tax exempt by sending them lengthy, intrusive questionnaires.
The forms, which the groups have made available, sought information about group members' political activities, including details of their postings on social networking websites and about family members."
"As part of this process, agents in Cincinnati came up with a list of things to look for in an application. As part of the list, they included the words, "tea party" and "patriot," Lerner said.
"It's the line people that did it without talking to managers," Lerner told The AP. "They're IRS workers, they're revenue agents.""
I do not that that you can reasonably claim that the IRS were doing nothing more than exercising due diligence in light of the facts.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: I do not that that you can reasonably claim that the IRS were doing nothing more than exercising due diligence in light of the facts.
Sure you can, as long as those partisan blinders fit correctly.
There probably are plenty of groups that abuse tax-exempt status, there are even churches that willfully cross that line every election season.
I think that every non-profit group should face the same scrutiny as the Tea Party & Patriot groups did, but if you don't have the staff for that then spread the joy instead of focusing on a specific group.
d-usa wrote: There probably are plenty of groups that abuse tax-exempt status, there are even churches that willfully cross that line every election season.
I'd even argue that house of worships don't get tax-exempt status.
I think that every non-profit group should face the same scrutiny as the Tea Party & Patriot groups did, but if you don't have the staff for that then spread the joy instead of focusing on a specific group.
d-usa wrote: I think that every non-profit group should face the same scrutiny as the Tea Party & Patriot groups did, but if you don't have the staff for that then spread the joy instead of focusing on a specific group.
Chongara wrote: The IRS aiming increased scrutiny at groups that constantly voice loud opinions about the evil of taxes, and even talk about how not paying taxes would actually be "Patriotic"? No. I just can't believe it. That it might be suspect that entities with members that make it really clear they'd like to get around taxes at any cost... might be... abusing tax exemption provisions?! I...I...I... just, that's so unreasonable. My world.. it's.. falling apart.... it makes no sense....
I don't understand how an organization responsible for collecting taxes, would give more attention to groups that loudly and proudly talk about how they try to avoid paying taxes. My mind is blown.
No. You don't let the IRS get away with this stuff because they were picking on the other side politics this time.
Chongara wrote: The IRS aiming increased scrutiny at groups that constantly voice loud opinions about the evil of taxes, and even talk about how not paying taxes would actually be "Patriotic"? No. I just can't believe it. That it might be suspect that entities with members that make it really clear they'd like to get around taxes at any cost... might be... abusing tax exemption provisions?! I...I...I... just, that's so unreasonable. My world.. it's.. falling apart.... it makes no sense....
I don't understand how an organization responsible for collecting taxes, would give more attention to groups that loudly and proudly talk about how they try to avoid paying taxes. My mind is blown.
No. You don't let the IRS get away with this stuff because they were picking on the other side politics this time.
Misuse of government power is a really big deal.
I don't think Chongara's statement is meant to be "Good, they picked on the Republicans". While the post reeks of sarcasm, it seems to be more of the fact that "Groups which vocally denounced paying taxes they do not agree with were targeted by the Internal Revenue Service".
I do agree that the misuse of government power is a really big deal; but who is to say that some of the groups which were "unfairly targeted" would not have been targeted by other means?
Kanluwen wrote: I don't think Chongara's statement is meant to be "Good, they picked on the Republicans". While the post reeks of sarcasm, it seems to be more of the fact that "Groups which vocally denounced paying taxes they do not agree with were targeted by the Internal Revenue Service".
I do agree that the misuse of government power is a really big deal; but who is to say that some of the groups which were "unfairly targeted" would not have been targeted by other means?
The problem is that he (and others) seem to have confused "We want lower taxes!" with "We will illegally refuse to pay taxes thereby becoming felons!"
Kanluwen wrote: I don't think Chongara's statement is meant to be "Good, they picked on the Republicans". While the post reeks of sarcasm, it seems to be more of the fact that "Groups which vocally denounced paying taxes they do not agree with were targeted by the Internal Revenue Service".
I do agree that the misuse of government power is a really big deal; but who is to say that some of the groups which were "unfairly targeted" would not have been targeted by other means?
The problem is that he (and others) seem to have confused "We want lower taxes!" with "We will illegally refuse to pay taxes thereby becoming felons!"
Can you prove that none of these groups which went out of their way to associate themselves with "the Tea Party" and used the terminology of "Patriots" encouraged their members to not pay taxes or encouraged their financiers to do the same?
Kanluwen wrote: Can you prove that none of these groups which went out of their way to associate themselves with "the Tea Party" and used the terminology of "Patriots" encouraged their members to not pay taxes or encouraged their financiers to do the same?
I believe the burden of proof rests on the side that's making the accusation of criminal behavior.
Kanluwen wrote: I don't think Chongara's statement is meant to be "Good, they picked on the Republicans". While the post reeks of sarcasm, it seems to be more of the fact that "Groups which vocally denounced paying taxes they do not agree with were targeted by the Internal Revenue Service".
It really, really isn't the place of the IRS or any other body to make logical leaps from 'founding documents mention Tea Party. It's a really, really dirty pool, and one that opens the door to all kinds of potential abuse.
I mean, move away from the Tea Party and just think about the GOP as a whole - most of them have problems with paying tax, so why not go after everyone on Grover Norquist's pledge?
Figure that kind of method is okay and proper routine can just be ignored, and you're on your way to being a Banana Republic.
I do agree that the misuse of government power is a really big deal; but who is to say that some of the groups which were "unfairly targeted" would not have been targeted by other means?
That's ends up being one of the end results of this. Because they were targeted in this manner, then subsequent legitimate investigations that find something will be that much harder to effectively prosecute.
I mean, consider if it is true that Tea Party groups are more likely to abuse their tax free status than other political groups*. Then if future investigations are undertaken evenly and fairly, a higher proportion of those caught will be will Tea Party groups. And then they'll cry foul 'the IRS is still persecuting us, they pretend they aren't any more but look how many of our groups the IRS is pursuing'.
*And to be honest, I kind of doubt that it is true. Ideology doesn't really play that big a part in how individuals behave in their everyday dealings, in my experience.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kanluwen wrote: Can you prove that none of these groups which went out of their way to associate themselves with "the Tea Party" and used the terminology of "Patriots" encouraged their members to not pay taxes or encouraged their financiers to do the same?
It isn't up to them to prove they're not guilty. The times when people were seen as 'one of them'* and given an extra burden of proof are supposed to be behind us.
*Whatever one of them was... Irish, homosexuals, Raiders fans.
Usually groups/people that say they don't want to pay taxes aren't the ones that need to be worried about (that much). Generally speaking, the ones not paying taxes, or doing dodgy things with taxes, won't advertise it or bring attention to themselves.
The IRS repeatedly changed the criteria it used for singling out nonprofit applications for further review, at one point looking at all groups hoping to make “America a better place to live,” according to new reports Monday morning.
The Wall Street Journal and Reuters both reported that the IRS moved beyond giving a skeptical eye to “tea party” and “patriot” groups. It was also targeting groups focusing on specific issues including “government spending,” “government debt,” “Education of the public via advocacy/lobbying to ‘make America a better place to live,’” and all groups that “criticize[d] how the country is being run.”
Frazzled wrote: Evidently they also were questioning Jewish groups for their position onthe Middle East.
Lots of people need to be fired. We need resume heads on pikes in front of the IRS, and not the usual heads....
That is disgusting. So on my next tax return will I have to provide a statement with my opinion on the Troubles because I'm a Catholic from Northern Ireland? There's, sadly, a stronger argument for that than there is for asking fr someone's political opinion based on religion.
Anyone taking part in this, any supervisor/manager/etc. who knew and turned a blind eye all need to be held to account for their actions and there needs to be a culture change within the organisation to prevent these abuses from happening again.
Frazzled wrote: Evidently they also were questioning Jewish groups for their position onthe Middle East.
Lots of people need to be fired. We need resume heads on pikes in front of the IRS, and not the usual heads....
That is disgusting. So on my next tax return will I have to provide a statement with my opinion on the Troubles because I'm a Catholic from Northern Ireland? There's, sadly, a stronger argument for that than there is for asking fr someone's political opinion based on religion.
Anyone taking part in this, any supervisor/manager/etc. who knew and turned a blind eye all need to be held to account for their actions and there needs to be a culture change within the organisation to prevent these abuses from happening again.
Mr. Frazzled. It says here you're from Texas. What are your political beliefs in regards to secession. -None may secede. All will be carried forth to greatness with his coming. -His coming - Rick Perry? Are you a RIck Perry supporter? -No the Great Wienie. He is coming. -The Great Wienie? Is he a Repub... -He transcends your mere politics. He is coming to sweep away the unrighteous. -Er -The UnWorthy shall be cast down from the high places. -Er -The Squirrel shall not hide -Er -The cat shall be cornered. -I like cats. -What...did...you...sayyyy? -I like cats (Frazzled opens his bag) -Hey look whats in my bag -A treat (IRS agent peers into bag) -For him....BITEBITEBITEBITE
Kanluwen wrote: I don't think Chongara's statement is meant to be "Good, they picked on the Republicans". While the post reeks of sarcasm, it seems to be more of the fact that "Groups which vocally denounced paying taxes they do not agree with were targeted by the Internal Revenue Service".
I do agree that the misuse of government power is a really big deal; but who is to say that some of the groups which were "unfairly targeted" would not have been targeted by other means?
The problem is that he (and others) seem to have confused "We want lower taxes!" with "We will illegally refuse to pay taxes thereby becoming felons!"
Can you prove that none of these groups which went out of their way to associate themselves with "the Tea Party" and used the terminology of "Patriots" encouraged their members to not pay taxes or encouraged their financiers to do the same?
Jihadin wrote: I laughed a bit when the lower level GS's were operating without Supervision.....I see...quite a few people being removed from positions
Jihadin wrote: I laughed a bit when the lower level GS's were operating without Supervision.....I see...quite a few people being removed from positions
And they probably won't be replaced.
Do more with less!
We've been doing it for 10 years in the AF now, no reason the IRS can't.
In the 5 years since I got to this unit, we've seen our workload effectively double, our manning get opened up for deployments (was considered deployed in place before), and our manning has at best stayed the same, with many times being way low.
Chongara wrote: The IRS aiming increased scrutiny at groups that constantly voice loud opinions about the evil of taxes, and even talk about how not paying taxes would actually be "Patriotic"? No. I just can't believe it. That it might be suspect that entities with members that make it really clear they'd like to get around taxes at any cost... might be... abusing tax exemption provisions?! I...I...I... just, that's so unreasonable. My world.. it's.. falling apart.... it makes no sense....
I don't understand how an organization responsible for collecting taxes, would give more attention to groups that loudly and proudly talk about how they try to avoid paying taxes. My mind is blown.
No. You don't let the IRS get away with this stuff because they were picking on the other side politics this time.
I'll be honest... I really don't think "the higher ups" really knew about it or was "commanded by the powers that be" to do this. Otherwise... man, this is scary.
sebster wrote: I mean, move away from the Tea Party and just think about the GOP as a whole - most of them have problems with paying tax, so why not go after everyone on Grover Norquist's pledge?
Not that this is at all what you said, but I'd also like to point out it's a hell of a lot different to lobby for lower taxes then it is to break existing tax laws. For example when Warren Buffet was saying he'd like to raise taxes on his bracket and end some tax loopholes, people pointed out he himself used some loopholes and so was hence a hypocrite. Not so - there is nothing wrong with following the rules as written while simultaneously pointing out the rules could work better.
I think the Obama administration needs to go totally hardcore on this, like, today. A press conference, an investigation, and apology to those who were targeted - all that. I know they're worried about supplying the opposition with sound bites but, you know, they're not going to be on Team O no matter what you do so clean house as appropriate.
I have no reason to think otherwise then what has since been reported - this was some low level flunkies doing it on their own initiative. It matters not - the buck stops higher than that, if for no other reason than that for some reason the corporate culture at this office somehow made these guys feel empowered to do it.
sebster wrote: I mean, move away from the Tea Party and just think about the GOP as a whole - most of them have problems with paying tax, so why not go after everyone on Grover Norquist's pledge?
Not that this is at all what you said, but I'd also like to point out it's a hell of a lot different to lobby for lower taxes then it is to break existing tax laws. For example when Warren Buffet was saying he'd like to raise taxes on his bracket and end some tax loopholes, people pointed out he himself used some loopholes and so was hence a hypocrite. Not so - there is nothing wrong with following the rules as written while simultaneously pointing out the rules could work better.
I think the Obama administration needs to go totally hardcore on this, like, today. A press conference, an investigation, and apology to those who were targeted - all that. I know they're worried about supplying the opposition with sound bites but, you know, they're not going to be on Team O no matter what you do so clean house as appropriate.
I have no reason to think otherwise then what has since been reported - this was some low level flunkies doing it on their own initiative. It matters not - the buck stops higher than that, if for no other reason than that for some reason the corporate culture at this office somehow made these guys feel empowered to do it.
I agree with this. All of it.
I understand why the IRS would do such a thing: it's like when dealing with police, if you walk up and mouth off, they're gonna taze you and make an example of it because they cannot be seen to be in a position of lesser strength on the street. With the IRS, I suspect the mentality may have been similar- try to make an example of those whom they perceive to be challenging their authority. Now, this does not make it okay in either circumstance; I'm just sayin' that I think I understand the mentality behind it.
Clearly, this wasn’t just a few rogue agents going off on their own... Allegedly, as far back as three years ago (2010?), two different IRS units were coordinating efforts and raising questions for management to answer. Managers made decisions about the effort to pursue Tea Party groups as early as April 2010.
This looks like a very deliberate and systematic effort to target the Obama administration’s critics for IRS abuse.
That's all kinds of messed up.
EDIT:
heh... saw this on twittah:
@edmorrissey In Mar2010, IRS began targeting TEA Partiers, who opposed ObamaCare, which was signed into law Mar2010. #NotACoincidence
— Lance Salyers (@lancesalyers) May 13, 2013
@lancesalyers @edmorrissey How convenient, because the IRS has a role in ENFORCING Obamacare.
Clearly, this wasn’t just a few rogue agents going off on their own... Allegedly, as far back as three years ago (2010?), two different IRS units were coordinating efforts and raising questions for management to answer. Managers made decisions about the effort to pursue Tea Party groups as early as April 2010.
This looks like a very deliberate and systematic effort to target the Obama administration’s critics for IRS abuse.
That's all kinds of messed up.
If that is the case then a few subpoenas should be able to provide firm evidence from minutes of meetings, emails, letters etc. In a lot of cases nothing happens in a government body without a paper trail.
whembly wrote:This looks like a very deliberate and systematic effort to target the Obama administration’s critics for IRS abuse.
I'm not so sure you should be ascribing motivation so freely. For all you know, Tea Partiers were targeted due to their allegiance to the Koch brothers or any other reason, rather than their criticisms of Obama. I think you should get some more facts before assuming you understand the why of it.
SilverMK2 wrote: Any group linked to politics should be looked at in microscopic detail, then probably put into jail anyway on general principles.
I concur, but only if we start jailing politicians with them. If we're going to toss people in the cooler on lock up, might as well start with the big rats.
I have to say the scope of this incident is looking to be quite... impressive. Be interesting to see what all shakes loose from this.
whembly wrote:This looks like a very deliberate and systematic effort to target the Obama administration’s critics for IRS abuse.
I'm not so sure you should be ascribing motivation so freely. For all you know, Tea Partiers were targeted due to their allegiance to the Koch brothers or .
And?
Specifically targetting groups for political reasons is what most First world countries call 'bad."
azazel the cat wrote: I'm not so sure you should be ascribing motivation so freely. For all you know, Tea Partiers were targeted due to their allegiance to the Koch brothers or any other reason, rather than their criticisms of Obama. I think you should get some more facts before assuming you understand the why of it.
Unless there was evidence to raise suspicion of wrong doing in respect of each group then no one should be targeted for their opinions or connections, provided same are lawful.
sebster wrote: I mean, move away from the Tea Party and just think about the GOP as a whole - most of them have problems with paying tax, so why not go after everyone on Grover Norquist's pledge?
Not that this is at all what you said, but I'd also like to point out it's a hell of a lot different to lobby for lower taxes then it is to break existing tax laws. For example when Warren Buffet was saying he'd like to raise taxes on his bracket and end some tax loopholes, people pointed out he himself used some loopholes and so was hence a hypocrite. Not so - there is nothing wrong with following the rules as written while simultaneously pointing out the rules could work better.
I think the Obama administration needs to go totally hardcore on this, like, today. A press conference, an investigation, and apology to those who were targeted - all that. I know they're worried about supplying the opposition with sound bites but, you know, they're not going to be on Team O no matter what you do so clean house as appropriate.
I have no reason to think otherwise then what has since been reported - this was some low level flunkies doing it on their own initiative. It matters not - the buck stops higher than that, if for no other reason than that for some reason the corporate culture at this office somehow made these guys feel empowered to do it.
Washington (CNN) -- President Obama vowed Monday to hold the Internal Revenue Service accountable if reports of political targeting are proved true.
"If in fact IRS personnel engaged in the kind of practices that have been reported on and were intentionally targeting conservative groups, then that's outrageous. And there's no place for it," Obama told reporters.
"And they have to be held fully accountable. Because the IRS as an independent agency requires absolute integrity, and people have to have confidence that they're ... applying the laws in a nonpartisan way."
Obama said he learned of the allegations through news reports on Friday.
azazel the cat wrote: I'm not so sure you should be ascribing motivation so freely. For all you know, Tea Partiers were targeted due to their allegiance to the Koch brothers or any other reason, rather than their criticisms of Obama. I think you should get some more facts before assuming you understand the why of it.
Unless there was evidence to raise suspicion of wrong doing in respect of each group then no one should be targeted for their opinions or connections, provided same are lawful.
Oh, I'm not defending the actions; far from it. I'm merely stating that it's a bad idea to assume the reason for the targeting is because they crtiticized Obama. There are myriad reasons that these groups may have been unfairly targeted, so I do not understand why, outside of silly conspiracy theories, Whembly assumed the default motivation to target the groups was "they don't like Obama". Ascribing motivation prior before seeing the pathway the evidence points is the best way to taint and invalidate an investigation.
azazel the cat wrote: I'm not so sure you should be ascribing motivation so freely. For all you know, Tea Partiers were targeted due to their allegiance to the Koch brothers or any other reason, rather than their criticisms of Obama. I think you should get some more facts before assuming you understand the why of it.
Unless there was evidence to raise suspicion of wrong doing in respect of each group then no one should be targeted for their opinions or connections, provided same are lawful.
Oh, I'm not defending the actions; far from it. I'm merely stating that it's a bad idea to assume the reason for the targeting is because they crtiticized Obama. There are myriad reasons that these groups may have been unfairly targeted, so I do not understand why, outside of silly conspiracy theories, Whembly assumed the default motivation to target the groups was "they don't like Obama". Ascribing motivation prior before seeing the pathway the evidence points is the best way to taint and invalidate an investigation.
Looking through the news, it does make a little bit more sense why there was an increased scrutiny in non-profit applications:
After the "Citizens United" Supreme Court ruling it became a lot easier to shuffle around anonymous money to political campaigns. And after that ruling the number of applications exploded as groups were taking advantage of the new way to shuffle money around for political donations and spending.
So it makes sense that non-profit applications deserved extra scrutiny, but there needs to be a fair way to do it.
Washington (CNN) -- President Obama vowed Monday to hold the Internal Revenue Service accountable if reports of political targeting are proved true.
"If in fact IRS personnel engaged in the kind of practices that have been reported on and were intentionally targeting conservative groups, then that's outrageous. And there's no place for it," Obama told reporters.
"And they have to be held fully accountable. Because the IRS as an independent agency requires absolute integrity, and people have to have confidence that they're ... applying the laws in a nonpartisan way."
Obama said he learned of the allegations through news reports on Friday.
That is disgusting. So on my next tax return will I have to provide a statement with my opinion on the Troubles because I'm a Catholic from Northern Ireland?
Anyone taking part in this, any supervisor/manager/etc. who knew and turned a blind eye all need to be held to account for their actions and there needs to be a culture change within the organisation to prevent these abuses from happening again.
I don't agree. In the US political activity is a major issue regarding whether or not a given organization can be considered a particular type of nonprofit, so its pretty much a forgone conclusion that organizations applying for nonprofit status will be questioned regarding their political beliefs.
The only issue is if certain organizations were targeted for specific political beliefs, but even that is nothing more than a weakness in the tax code itself (I could go on for days about how much I hate the 501 section of the tax code).
d-usa wrote: Looking through the news, it does make a little bit more sense why there was an increased scrutiny in non-profit applications:
After the "Citizens United" Supreme Court ruling it became a lot easier to shuffle around anonymous money to political campaigns. And after that ruling the number of applications exploded as groups were taking advantage of the new way to shuffle money around for political donations and spending.
So it makes sense that non-profit applications deserved extra scrutiny, but there needs to be a fair way to do it.
It would make even more sense if groups on the other side of the aisle had also been targeted. Not quite the way it worked out. Trying to pin the blame on Citizens United does seem to be the play, however.
dogma wrote: I don't agree. In the US political activity is a major issue regarding whether or not a given organization can be considered a particular type of nonprofit, so its pretty much a forgone conclusion that organizations applying for nonprofit status will be questioned regarding their political beliefs.
The only issue is if certain organizations were targeted for specific political beliefs, but even that is nothing more than a weakness in the tax code itself (I could go on for days about how much I hate the 501 section of the tax code).
Be that as it may its clear that the scrutiney that these groups were under went above and beyond what might be considered reasonable questioning. The IRS has confirmed as much itself.
"IRS agents singled out dozens of organizations for additional reviews because they included the words "tea party" or "patriot" in their exemption applications"
"In some cases, groups were asked for lists of donors, which violates IRS policy in most cases"
"Lerner acknowledged it was wrong for the agency to target groups based on political affiliation.
"That was absolutely incorrect, it was insensitive and it was inappropriate. That's not how we go about selecting cases for further review," Lerner she heads the [RS division that oversees tax-exempt groups] said at a conference sponsored by the American Bar Association."
"Many conservative groups complained during the campaign that they were being harassed by the IRS. They accused the agency of frustrating their attempts to become tax exempt by sending them lengthy, intrusive questionnaires.
The forms, which the groups have made available, sought information about group members' political activities, including details of their postings on social networking websites and about family members."
"As part of this process, agents in Cincinnati came up with a list of things to look for in an application. As part of the list, they included the words, "tea party" and "patriot," Lerner said.
"It's the line people that did it without talking to managers," Lerner told The AP. "They're IRS workers, they're revenue agents.""
Now add in the accusation that this was occurring in more than one office and the idea that this was reasonable investigation cannot be sustained.
azazel the cat wrote: Oh, I'm not defending the actions; far from it. I'm merely stating that it's a bad idea to assume the reason for the targeting is because they crtiticized Obama. There are myriad reasons that these groups may have been unfairly targeted, so I do not understand why, outside of silly conspiracy theories, Whembly assumed the default motivation to target the groups was "they don't like Obama". Ascribing motivation prior before seeing the pathway the evidence points is the best way to taint and invalidate an investigation.
Glad to hear, because criticising someone for speculating on motive, then offering your own speculation can come across in a less than constructive manner
azazel the cat wrote: I'm not so sure you should be ascribing motivation so freely. For all you know, Tea Partiers were targeted due to their allegiance to the Koch brothers or any other reason, rather than their criticisms of Obama. I think you should get some more facts before assuming you understand the why of it.
Unless there was evidence to raise suspicion of wrong doing in respect of each group then no one should be targeted for their opinions or connections, provided same are lawful.
Oh, I'm not defending the actions; far from it. I'm merely stating that it's a bad idea to assume the reason for the targeting is because they crtiticized Obama. There are myriad reasons that these groups may have been unfairly targeted, so I do not understand why, outside of silly conspiracy theories, Whembly assumed the default motivation to target the groups was "they don't like Obama". Ascribing motivation prior before seeing the pathway the evidence points is the best way to taint and invalidate an investigation.
it's easy to think that because you're projecting. That doesn't mean you're wrong, mind you. It just means you're jumping to the easy conclusion, which is a dangerous habit.
And actually, I never heard about the Joe the Plummer bit. Whenever that guy's name came up I tuned everything out, as he was the mascot for pandering to the uninformed.
Frazzled wrote:
Washington (CNN) -- President Obama vowed Monday to hold the Internal Revenue Service accountable if reports of political targeting are proved true.
"If in fact IRS personnel engaged in the kind of practices that have been reported on and were intentionally targeting conservative groups, then that's outrageous. And there's no place for it," Obama told reporters.
"And they have to be held fully accountable. Because the IRS as an independent agency requires absolute integrity, and people have to have confidence that they're ... applying the laws in a nonpartisan way."
Obama said he learned of the allegations through news reports on Friday.
talk talk talk talk.
Who's been fired?
Who's been determined to be directly accountable yet, and given a fair hearing?
Dreadclaw69 wrote:
azazel the cat wrote: Oh, I'm not defending the actions; far from it. I'm merely stating that it's a bad idea to assume the reason for the targeting is because they crtiticized Obama. There are myriad reasons that these groups may have been unfairly targeted, so I do not understand why, outside of silly conspiracy theories, Whembly assumed the default motivation to target the groups was "they don't like Obama". Ascribing motivation prior before seeing the pathway the evidence points is the best way to taint and invalidate an investigation.
Glad to hear, because criticising someone for speculating on motive, then offering your own speculation can come across in a less than constructive manner
And actually, I never heard about the Joe the Plummer bit. Whenever that guy's name came up I tuned everything out, as he was the mascot for pandering to the uninformed.
Just google-fu good ol' Joe and you'll see numerous sites analysing that "Share the wealth" statement.
It's not that hard to add 2+2=4 with things like this.
The point is, it's awfully suspicious man.
I mean... this is really the issue summed up here:
"A bedrock principle of U.S. democracy is that the coercive powers of government are never used for partisan purpose. The law is blind to political viewpoint, and so are its enforcers, most especially the FBI and the Internal Revenue Service. Any violation of this principle threatens the trust and the voluntary cooperation of citizens upon which this democracy depends. So it was appalling to learn Friday that the IRS had improperly targeted conservative groups for scrutiny. It was almost as disturbing that President Obama and Treasury Secretary Jack Lew have not personally apologized to the American people and promised a full investigation."
dogma wrote: Personally, I'm waiting to see what happens when the 501(c)(3) classification gets challenged by a Church claiming it has the right to free speech.
I think you're going to be waiting a while for that. The IRS has shown no interest whatsoever in sacking up for that fight, for fear they lose.
[i]"IRS agents singled out dozens of organizations for additional reviews because they included the words "tea party" or "patriot" in their exemption applications"
I see no problem there. Those are blatantly political terms and 501(c)(4)s are not permitted to engage, primarily, in political activity.
From a political standpoint I think they should have used a bit of obfuscation, but I understand the choice of terminology; particularly given the proliferation of conservative 501(c)(4)s in the last 3 years.
"In some cases, groups were asked for lists of donors, which violates IRS policy in most cases"
No, no it doesn't. 501(c)(4)s are unique in that they do not have to disclose their donors, but every other nonprofit classification has to submit a list of donors.
azazel the cat wrote: And actually, I never heard about the Joe the Plummer bit. Whenever that guy's name came up I tuned everything out, as he was the mascot for pandering to the uninformed.
Yeah, he was a guy who wasn't actually named Joe, who wasn't actually a plumber, who was upset that his taxes might go up (they actually would not have) if he might buy a business he wasn't actually going to buy.
d-usa wrote: Looking through the news, it does make a little bit more sense why there was an increased scrutiny in non-profit applications:
After the "Citizens United" Supreme Court ruling it became a lot easier to shuffle around anonymous money to political campaigns. And after that ruling the number of applications exploded as groups were taking advantage of the new way to shuffle money around for political donations and spending.
So it makes sense that non-profit applications deserved extra scrutiny, but there needs to be a fair way to do it.
It would make even more sense if groups on the other side of the aisle had also been targeted. Not quite the way it worked out. Trying to pin the blame on Citizens United does seem to be the play, however.
[i]"IRS agents singled out dozens of organizations for additional reviews because they included the words "tea party" or "patriot" in their exemption applications"
I see no problem there. Those are blatantly political terms and 501(c)(4)s are not permitted to engage, primarily, in political activity.
From a political standpoint I think they should have used a bit of obfuscation, but I understand the choice of terminology; particularly given the proliferation of conservative 501(c)(4)s in the last 3 years.
"In some cases, groups were asked for lists of donors, which violates IRS policy in most cases"
No, no it doesn't. 501(c)(4)s are unique in that they do not have to disclose their donors, but every other nonprofit classification has to submit a list of donors.
"Lerner acknowledged it was wrong for the agency to target groups based on political affiliation.
And yet the tax code essentially requires that they do so.
Are you saying that the IRS was mistaken and that these groups were not unfairly targetted? That the head of the section responsible was incorrect in what she said?
azazel the cat wrote: For all you know, Tea Partiers were targeted due to their allegiance to the Koch brothers or any other reason.
Yeah, you really need to stop trying so hard to catch me contradicting myself. You've been unable to yet, and your desire to do so appears to be greatly interfering with your ability to read things in context. You've kinda gone all Ahab now.
When someone says: "you should not speculate the motive; for all you know the motive could be many other things, such as..." that person is not putting forward that the answer is on of those examples; he is merely demonstrating that there is the potential for many answers, none of which are any more valid than others as yet.
This was obvious to every other person here. (<--- now that is a speculation, but it's probably true)
azazel the cat wrote: Yeah, you really need to stop trying so hard to catch me contradicting myself. You've been unable to yet, and your desire to do so appears to be greatly interfering with your ability to read things in context. You've kinda gone all Ahab now.
When someone says: "you should not speculate the motive; for all you know the motive could be many other things, such as..." that person is not putting forward that the answer is on of those examples; he is merely demonstrating that there is the potential for many answers, none of which are any more valid than others as yet.
This was obvious to every other person here. (<--- now that is a speculation, but it's probably true)
That is not my intention, but please do not let that prohibit you from inferring otherwise as you are wont to do.
BTW everyone here is speculating to a greater or lesser extent. Not everyone is chiding others for doing so though Speculate - Form a theory or conjecture about a subject without firm evidence
I hav eread a few articles claiming that because of this and Benghazi the administration won't be able to gain any Republican support for its objectives on the Budget front, as these incidents have the base riled up.
The Repubs would not be able to explain to their consitutents that the Obamam Administrations wasn't trying to screw them in any "grand bargain" on the budget.
My thought was; where have these people been the last five years? These incidents change nothing regarding Republicans assisting the Administration in its "grand bargain" agenda.
@Dreadclaw69: I suppose I just have begun to find it tiresome to constantly explain everything a second time for you specifically, which has been the case of late.
azazel the cat wrote: @Dreadclaw69: I suppose I just have begun to find it tiresome to constantly explain everything a second time for you specifically, which has been the case of late.
I would dispute that given the events in other threads, but that would be taking us away from the topic at hand.
azazel the cat wrote: @Dreadclaw69: I suppose I just have begun to find it tiresome to constantly explain everything a second time for you specifically, which has been the case of late.
I would dispute that given the events in other threads, but that would be taking us away from the topic at hand.
A fair point.
Back on track here, I think it was Dogma that suggested the conservative groups were not unfairly targeted- this is perhaps a good point, depending on what the claims submitted from the groups entailed. That is, any tax-exempt group that included terms like "tea party" and "patriot" likely would have hit some radar, as those terms are politically charged and thus would immediately alert suspicions as to the tax-exempt status of the group.
The real question that puts forward, then, should be whether it was just tax-exempt groups who were targeted (which is good) or if it was any group with those keywords, regardless of their application for tax exemption or not (this would be not so good)
azazel the cat wrote: @Dreadclaw69: I suppose I just have begun to find it tiresome to constantly explain everything a second time for you specifically, which has been the case of late.
I would dispute that given the events in other threads, but that would be taking us away from the topic at hand.
A fair point.
Back on track here, I think it was Dogma that suggested the conservative groups were not unfairly targeted- this is perhaps a good point, depending on what the claims submitted from the groups entailed. That is, any tax-exempt group that included terms like "tea party" and "patriot" likely would have hit some radar, as those terms are politically charged and thus would immediately alert suspicions as to the tax-exempt status of the group.
The real question that puts forward, then, should be whether it was just tax-exempt groups who were targeted (which is good) or if it was any group with those keywords, regardless of their application for tax exemption or not (this would be not so good)
Then why did the IRS apologize in the first place?
Are you saying that the IRS was mistaken and that these groups were not unfairly targetted? That the head of the section responsible was incorrect in what she said?
No, I'm saying that the IRS's apology was probably not genuine as it is a supplicant organization.
Back on track here, I think it was Dogma that suggested the conservative groups were not unfairly targeted- this is perhaps a good point, depending on what the claims submitted from the groups entailed. That is, any tax-exempt group that included terms like "tea party" and "patriot" likely would have hit some radar, as those terms are politically charged and thus would immediately alert suspicions as to the tax-exempt status of the group.
The real question that puts forward, then, should be whether it was just tax-exempt groups who were targeted (which is good) or if it was any group with those keywords, regardless of their application for tax exemption or not (this would be not so good)
I know I've quoted this before but I think that it bears repeating, especially as the IRS have confirmed that these actions were wrong;
"IRS agents singled out dozens of organizations for additional reviews because they included the words "tea party" or "patriot" in their exemption applications"
"In some cases, groups were asked for lists of donors, which violates IRS policy in most cases"
"Lerner acknowledged it was wrong for the agency to target groups based on political affiliation.
"That was absolutely incorrect, it was insensitive and it was inappropriate. That's not how we go about selecting cases for further review," Lerner she heads the [RS division that oversees tax-exempt groups] said at a conference sponsored by the American Bar Association."
"Many conservative groups complained during the campaign that they were being harassed by the IRS. They accused the agency of frustrating their attempts to become tax exempt by sending them lengthy, intrusive questionnaires.
The forms, which the groups have made available, sought information about group members' political activities, including details of their postings on social networking websites and about family members."
"As part of this process, agents in Cincinnati came up with a list of things to look for in an application. As part of the list, they included the words, "tea party" and "patriot," Lerner said.
"It's the line people that did it without talking to managers," Lerner told The AP. "They're IRS workers, they're revenue agents.""
The IRS said on Friday that it inappropriately subjected groups applying for nonprofit status to extra scrutiny if their applications included terms such as “tea party” or “patriot.”
As early as March 2010, the agency’s so-called determinations unit began targeting conservative groups. Lois Lerner, the IRS official in charge of nonprofits, told reporters Friday that the decision to include “tea party” and “patriot” as search terms was made by low-level field reporters in Cincinnati.
But a few months after the targeting program began, a Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration report found that the “determinations unit management requested its specialists to be on the lookout for tea party applications.”
No one is saying that tax-exempt groups should not be investigated where there is just cause. What people are objecting to is what appears to be the de facto targeting of certain groups because of their legitimate political beliefs based on keywords. Why were these phrases used, given that they are so specific and most likely to occur on one side of the political spectrum?
If you are going to investigate tax-exempt groups then do so, but do it fairly, without passion and without prejudice.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dogma wrote: No, I'm saying that the IRS's apology was probably not genuine as it is a supplicant organization.
In my personal experience I have yet to hear an apology from a public body that was sincere
What is a "supplicant organization"? Its not a phrase I'm familiar with
"IRS agents singled out dozens of organizations for additional reviews because they included the words "tea party" or "patriot" in their exemption applications"
See, this is what I'm having some trouble with. If tax-exempt groups are not allowed to be partisan, and a group applies for tax-exemption status with a term like "tea party" in their application, then why would an examination of those records be considered unfair? What am I missing?
dogma wrote: It isn't a phrase, its me using the adjective "supplicant" to describe the noun "organization".
Basically an organization that, when questioned, bows its head and gets on with its work in fear of further questioning.
Thank you for the clarification. When I worked in the public sector there were a lot of different bodies, all with different relationships and I wondered if it was a term that I'd simply never heard of before.
While their apology may not be sincere, I believe that the concerns raised by these allegations may very well be.
azazel the cat wrote: "IRS agents singled out dozens of organizations for additional reviews because they included the words "tea party" or "patriot" in their exemption applications"
See, this is what I'm having some trouble with. If tax-exempt groups are not allowed to be partisan, and a group applies for tax-exemption status with a term like "tea party" in their application, then why would an examination of those records be considered unfair? What am I missing?
- The IRS singled them out solely on their supposed political views from a few key words.
- The IRS did not appear to extend similar critical examinations to other bodies based on their political views. This is important as according to AP "There has been a surge of politically active groups claiming tax-exempt status in recent elections — conservative and liberal". Why the discrpancy in treatment?
- There is no mention that there was reasonable suspicion of wrong doing i.e. was the body applying no longer engaged in social welfare as their prime function
- They deliberately mis-apply their own rules (including asking for details of their postings on social networking websites and about family members) when dealing with these bodies
It should be apparent then that the treatment was unfair.
azazel the cat wrote: "IRS agents singled out dozens of organizations for additional reviews because they included the words "tea party" or "patriot" in their exemption applications"
See, this is what I'm having some trouble with. If tax-exempt groups are not allowed to be partisan, and a group applies for tax-exemption status with a term like "tea party" in their application, then why would an examination of those records be considered unfair? What am I missing?
If that's true, where's the information that they performed the exact same scrutiny/standards on organizations like:
The Tide Foundation
Secretary of State Project (SOSP)
Media Matters
azazel the cat wrote: "IRS agents singled out dozens of organizations for additional reviews because they included the words "tea party" or "patriot" in their exemption applications"
See, this is what I'm having some trouble with. If tax-exempt groups are not allowed to be partisan, and a group applies for tax-exemption status with a term like "tea party" in their application, then why would an examination of those records be considered unfair? What am I missing?
- The IRS did not appear to extend similar critical examinations to other bodies based on their political views. This is important as according to AP "There has been a surge of politically active groups claiming tax-exempt status in recent elections — conservative and liberal". Why the discrpancy in treatment?
This is the only one fo those that matters in answer to my question; but it's a good point that I'd agree with.
azazel the cat wrote: "IRS agents singled out dozens of organizations for additional reviews because they included the words "tea party" or "patriot" in their exemption applications"
See, this is what I'm having some trouble with. If tax-exempt groups are not allowed to be partisan, and a group applies for tax-exemption status with a term like "tea party" in their application, then why would an examination of those records be considered unfair? What am I missing?
- The IRS did not appear to extend similar critical examinations to other bodies based on their political views. This is important as according to AP "There has been a surge of politically active groups claiming tax-exempt status in recent elections — conservative and liberal". Why the discrpancy in treatment?
This is the only one fo those that matters in answer to my question; but it's a good point that I'd agree with.
It's a huge issue that's going nuclear in the news today. My question is, will there actually be blood? Or will everything be tossed in a closet until forgotten about like so many other scandals?
I remain impressed with people's eagerness to explain away blatantly unethical or illegal behavior on the part of the government so long as it only appears to affect people they disagree with.
Ouze wrote: Not that this is at all what you said, but I'd also like to point out it's a hell of a lot different to lobby for lower taxes then it is to break existing tax laws. For example when Warren Buffet was saying he'd like to raise taxes on his bracket and end some tax loopholes, people pointed out he himself used some loopholes and so was hence a hypocrite. Not so - there is nothing wrong with following the rules as written while simultaneously pointing out the rules could work better.
Oh absolutely, and I think its something us gamers should understand better than most. You talk about the rules, and how they might work better, but when you play you play by the rules as they're written.
I mean right now in Australia we've got paid parenting leave, and the opposition (who is very likely to win the next election) are talking about expanding it massively, so that you don't just get a welfare allowance, but actually get paid at your current wage. So that if you earn $120,000 a year, if you have a child and take six months off to raise it you get paid $60,000 by the government. It's the single most ridiculous piece of poor little middle class welfare I've ever seen... but if they win and the legislation passes, you better believe my wife and I are taking every penny of that we can get out hands on
Automatically Appended Next Post:
azazel the cat wrote: I'm not so sure you should be ascribing motivation so freely. For all you know, Tea Partiers were targeted due to their allegiance to the Koch brothers or any other reason, rather than their criticisms of Obama. I think you should get some more facts before assuming you understand the why of it.
Or far more likely, because they were newcomes to the political scene, and the establishiment does not react kindly to that.
And while I'm speculating a lot here, I wonder if the Tea Party hadn't just folded in to being a particularly noisy wing of the Republican Party if this stuff might still be going on.
The same IRS office that deliberately targeted conservative groups applying for tax-exempt status in the run-up to the 2012 election released nine pending confidential applications of conservative groups to ProPublica late last year.
The IRS did not respond to requests Monday following up about that release, and whether it had determined how the applications were sent to ProPublica.
...
...
...
In response to a request for the applications for 67 different nonprofits last November, the Cincinnati office of the IRS sent ProPublica applications or documentation for 31 groups. Nine of those applications had not yet been approved—meaning they were not supposed to be made public. (We made six of those public, after redacting their financial information, deeming that they were newsworthy.)
It’s amazing that ProPublica is willing to come out and admit this...
This shows that the aggressive actions from this office were obviously political (how could it not be?). All nine of the confidential files involved conservative groups, not just a cross-section of 501(c)4s applying for exemptions (looking at you dogma ).
This was a coordinated effort to attack conservative groups, which ProPublica ran this article after the election.... imagine that huh.
Looks like they're trying to distance themself as far as they can.
whembly wrote: How so? Because I think public perception is that the IRS is the big, scary boogy man.
Which is why I think it's resonating now.
Yeah, that's the common perception of tax collection agencies by people who's dealings with the tax code are basically to hand their documents over to an accountant once a year.
To folk who contact the ATO regularly, the perception is very different. I wouldn't go so far as to say 'supplicant', but that's probably because I didn't know what that word meant. But I would say that they are remarkably permissive to all manner of tax based shenanigans, and even if you are found pushing the envelope too far, as long as you come on board and don't keep fighting they won't look to cripple you over it.
The then-director of the IRS and the current acting director were informed in May 2012 of the practice, two months after the then-director testified that no such targeting was taking place. Letters from the IRS to Congress on the issue after May 2012 made no mention of the targeting.
Employees in D.C. and California appear to have been involved as well, making the "only low-level employees in Ohio" claim seem a little less-than-truthful.
The same IRS office that deliberately targeted conservative groups applying for tax-exempt status in the run-up to the 2012 election released nine pending confidential applications of conservative groups to ProPublica late last year.
The IRS did not respond to requests Monday following up about that release, and whether it had determined how the applications were sent to ProPublica. ... ... ... In response to a request for the applications for 67 different nonprofits last November, the Cincinnati office of the IRS sent ProPublica applications or documentation for 31 groups. Nine of those applications had not yet been approved—meaning they were not supposed to be made public. (We made six of those public, after redacting their financial information, deeming that they were newsworthy.)
It’s amazing that ProPublica is willing to come out and admit this...
This shows that the aggressive actions from this office were obviously political (how could it not be?). All nine of the confidential files involved conservative groups, not just a cross-section of 501(c)4s applying for exemptions (looking at you dogma ).
This was a coordinated effort to attack conservative groups, which ProPublica ran this article after the election.... imagine that huh.
Looks like they're trying to distance themself as far as they can.
That has been suspected for a long time, with critics just calling them crazy rabid right wing conspiracists. Remember boys and girls, just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean they aren't out to get you.
whembly wrote: How so? Because I think public perception is that the IRS is the big, scary boogy man.
Which is why I think it's resonating now.
Yeah, that's the common perception of tax collection agencies by people who's dealings with the tax code are basically to hand their documents over to an accountant once a year.
To folk who contact the ATO regularly, the perception is very different. I wouldn't go so far as to say 'supplicant', but that's probably because I didn't know what that word meant. But I would say that they are remarkably permissive to all manner of tax based shenanigans, and even if you are found pushing the envelope too far, as long as you come on board and don't keep fighting they won't look to cripple you over it.
Thats not correct. I don't know about the country YOU live in, but here, the IRS is the boogie man up and down the chain.
The Internal Revenue Service is under fire for targeting the tea party and other conservative charity groups for extra scrutiny.
The IRS watchdog is set to release documents this week that will reveal fresh details on why the IRS picked on conservative groups that were seeking tax-exempt status. The tax agency has apologized and given a rudimentary explanation.
Tere are some questions and answers that throw light on what happened.
What does the IRS have to do with charities anyway?
The IRS has to make sure that charitable, education and religious groups -- that don't have to pay taxes on their operations -- are not scamming the federal government. The IRS gets 60,000 requests each year from such groups seeking tax-exempt status, according to Lois Lerner, director of the IRS's exempt organizations office.
Most charities are tax exempt under the 501(c)(3) category. The classification prevents groups from getting directly involved in politics, because donors can deduct contributions from their income taxes.
Groups that want to dabble in politics can also apply for tax-exempt status under a different category called a 501(c)(4). This status allows the groups to campaign and participate in elections, as long as it's not their main purpose.
It doesn't allow donors tax breaks. And as with most charities, donors are intended to be kept secret by the IRS.
So why was the IRS digging into these groups?
The number of 501(c)(4) applications more than doubled to over 3,400 in 2012, compared to 1,500 in 2010. The abnormally large number of applications was a red flag to the IRS.
Why so many?
It goes back to 2010, when a "Citizens United" Supreme Court ruling allowed unlimited spending by corporations and labor unions on political campaigns. It also said that political donors should be disclosed. That case prompted a slew of politically-affiliated groups, including Karl Rove's Crossroads GPS, to become charitable organizations under 501(c)4, which allows donors to be kept secret.
How many groups were targeted?
The IRS says that 300 groups were set aside for extra review. About 75 of them had the words "tea party" or "patriot."
Why did the IRS target conservative groups?
We'll find out more when the audit becomes public this week. The IRS targeted conservative organizations, applying extra scrutiny to applicants seeking tax exempt status whose applications contained the words "tea party" or "patriot." However, so far it appears IRS officials didn't do the same thing for left-leaning charitable groups.
What's the fallout?
The IRS has some more explaining to do. A House committee has called a hearing this Friday to investigate the agency's actions. Republicans and Democrats, who lately can't seem to agree on anything, are joining hands in decrying the IRS.
The same IRS office that deliberately targeted conservative groups applying for tax-exempt status in the run-up to the 2012 election released nine pending confidential applications of conservative groups to ProPublica late last year.
The IRS did not respond to requests Monday following up about that release, and whether it had determined how the applications were sent to ProPublica.
...
...
...
In response to a request for the applications for 67 different nonprofits last November, the Cincinnati office of the IRS sent ProPublica applications or documentation for 31 groups. Nine of those applications had not yet been approved—meaning they were not supposed to be made public. (We made six of those public, after redacting their financial information, deeming that they were newsworthy.)
It’s amazing that ProPublica is willing to come out and admit this...
This shows that the aggressive actions from this office were obviously political (how could it not be?). All nine of the confidential files involved conservative groups, not just a cross-section of 501(c)4s applying for exemptions (looking at you dogma ).
This was a coordinated effort to attack conservative groups, which ProPublica ran this article after the election.... imagine that huh.
Looks like they're trying to distance themself as far as they can.
The more information like this that becomes public, the less the IRS can say it was not politically motivated.
The then-director of the IRS and the current acting director were informed in May 2012 of the practice, two months after the then-director testified that no such targeting was taking place. Letters from the IRS to Congress on the issue after May 2012 made no mention of the targeting.
Employees in D.C. and California appear to have been involved as well, making the "only low-level employees in Ohio" claim seem a little less-than-truthful.
So that means that so far we have offices in Ohio, Cincinnati, DC and California all targeting right leaning groups at the same time. And all supposedly done by low level employees? If no managers, of any level, knew about this then it raises very serious questions about the culture of the IRS and its lack of oversight into staff activities
The number of 501(c)(4) applications more than doubled to over 3,400 in 2012, compared to 1,500 in 2010. The abnormally large number of applications was a red flag to the IRS.
Why so many?
It goes back to 2010, when a "Citizens United" Supreme Court ruling allowed unlimited spending by corporations and labor unions on political campaigns. It also said that political donors should be disclosed. That case prompted a slew of politically-affiliated groups, including Karl Rove's Crossroads GPS, to become charitable organizations under 501(c)4, which allows donors to be kept secret.
How many groups were targeted?
The IRS says that 300 groups were set aside for extra review. About 75 of them had the words "tea party" or "patriot."
Why did the IRS target conservative groups?
We'll find out more when the audit becomes public this week. The IRS targeted conservative organizations, applying extra scrutiny to applicants seeking tax exempt status whose applications contained the words "tea party" or "patriot." However, so far it appears IRS officials didn't do the same thing for left-leaning charitable groups.
The results of this audit could make for very interesting reading
Well, everyone at real high levels of Dems and Repubs seem to be on the same page; they are all saying this is bad.
Now, we will see if there is any accountability. If the President handles this right, it might not impact him at all. he can look really non-partisan here by "Cleaning House" at the IRS and taking care of business. Of course, if it is linked the the Presidnet (which would be hard to do conclusively, I doubt he sent an Email saying go after the 501(c)(3) status of Tea Party groups) then things could get really rough for him.
No matter what he does, it won't be enough for partisan Republicans, but what would the general public need to see in order to think that the President is taking this seriously? How will this scandal impact the Presindet's efforts to get a "Grand Bargain" on the Budget out of House Republicans?
Or, are you one of those "Blame the System" crowd?
So you think you can get away with a false dichotomy?
I believe that the IRS should use all of the legal tools at its disposal, that some of those legal tools are poorly designed, and that many critics of the organization know nothing about its legal powers or structure. I further believe that there exists an unfair bias against the IRS because of its role in collecting federal taxes from individuals.
Or, are you one of those "Blame the System" crowd?
So you think you can get away with a false dichotomy?
Sure...
I believe that the IRS should use all of the legal tools at its disposal, that some of those legal tools are poorly designed, and that many critics of the organization know nothing about its legal powers or structure.
That I can understand.
I further believe that there exists an unfair bias against the IRS because of its role in collecting federal taxes from individuals.
Oh... absolutely.
But, here's what is at stake here... even if the assumption is wrong, but any perception of wrong doing in the IRS must be aggressively defended. That's all shot now that the head of the IRS openly admitted to the wrong doing. Now, the IRS has a PR disaster on it's hand that may necessitate a major organizational overhaul. Now THAT'S a scary prospect since we wouldn't know what the end result of this would be.
dogma wrote: And its for the best. This is a change, a good change. A case of the IRS actually using the legal tools at its disposal.
I'm actually a bit sad that so many people have been assuming the IRS is at fault here.
It used the legal tools at its disposal, but only to target certain groups with what appears to be no other basis than their political views, and then not following their own policies. That is hardly acting in good faith.
As far as blaming the IRS my opinion is this. Based on the disclosures to date the argument can be made that they either;
1. Gave permission to employees to carry out this unwarranted interference based on how widespread the abuse has been (Ohio, Cincinnati, DC and California)
2. Provided a culture in which this harassment was seen as acceptable in multiple offices around the country, and did not have the necessary mechanisms in place to prevent such abuses of power.
Whatever way you want to cut it these are serious accusations.
Frazzled wrote: It also is now being reported that it gave some of these files to interested Democratic parties.
If that went to the President, thats impeachable.
If its proved that they did pass on files then it is very clearly politically motivated.
As far as impeachment is concerned I think it should only be seriously talked about in the event there is evidence to support it. I fear the genuine issue getting sidetracked by loose talk that this is another attempt to desperately find something to impeach the President.
Frazzled wrote: It also is now being reported that it gave some of these files to interested Democratic parties.
If that went to the President, thats impeachable.
If its proved that they did pass on files then it is very clearly politically motivated.
As far as impeachment is concerned I think it should only be seriously talked about in the event there is evidence to support it. I fear the genuine issue getting sidetracked by loose talk that this is another attempt to desperately find something to impeach the President.
Thank you, as long as you don't think that I'm being a d*ck I think everyone should be able to agree that this situation is pretty serious, and I'm sure that some quarters would love nothing more than a distracting issue to take some of the wind out of the sails of this accusation and make it partisan. I think that the American public deserve better than that at this stage.
Reading that link I could almost hear another proverbial nail going into the coffin.
Thank you, as long as you don't think that I'm being a d*ck I think everyone should be able to agree that this situation is pretty serious, and I'm sure that some quarters would love nothing more than a distracting issue to take some of the wind out of the sails of this accusation and make it partisan. I think that the American public deserve better than that at this stage.
Reading that link I could almost hear another proverbial nail going into the coffin.
Yeah... but I seriously doubt that any directive came from Obama or other cabinet level.
St. Louis Reporter Larry Conners revealed via Facebook yesterday that he has been “hammered” by the IRS since his much-discussed interview with President Obama. Conners, a veteran reporter, asked tough, but fair question during the interview which was slammed by progressives in media. Conners says:
Shortly after I did my April 2012 interview with President Obama, my wife, friends and some viewers suggested that I might need to watch out for the IRS.
I don’t accept “conspiracy theories”, but I do know that almost immediately after the interview, the IRS started hammering me.
At the time, I dismissed the “co-incidence”, but now, I have concerns … after revelations about the IRS targeting various groups and their members.
Originally, the IRS apologized for red-flagging conservative groups and their members if they had “Tea Party” or “patriot” in their name.
Today, there are allegations that the IRS focused on various groups and/or individuals questioning or criticizing government spending, taxes, debt or how the government is run … any involved in limiting/expanding government, educating on the constitution and bill of rights, or social economic reform/movement.
In that April 2012 interview, I questioned President Obama on several topics: the Buffet Rule, his public remarks about the Supreme Court before the ruling on the Affordable Care Act. I also asked why he wasn’t doing more to help Sen. Claire McCaskill who at that time was expected to lose. The Obama interview caught fire and got wide-spread attention because I questioned his spending.
I said some viewers expressed concern, saying they think he’s “out of touch” because of his personal and family trips in the midst of our economic crisis.
The President’s face clearly showed his anger; afterwards, his staff which had been so polite … suddenly went cold.
That’s to be expected, and I can deal with that just as I did with President George H. Bush’s staff when he didn’t like my questions.
Journalistic integrity is of the utmost importance to me. My job is to ask the hard questions, because I believe viewers have a right to be well-informed. I cannot and will not promote anyone’s agenda – political or otherwise – at the expense of the reporting the truth.
What I don’t like to even consider … is that because of the Obama interview … the IRS put a target on me.
Can I prove it? At this time, no.
But it is a fact that since that April 2012 interview … the IRS has been pressuring me.
Conners had asked questions such as:
“The economy is a big concern for folks, I mean the unemployment, trying to make ends meet, gas prices, food prices going up. Some of our viewers are complaining that they get frustrated and angered when they see the first family jetting around different vacations and so forth …”
Now that the IRS has admitted to persecuting tea party groups, now that the DOJ has seized phone records of AP reporters, has the admin targeted individual journalists as well?
For those who don't know... Larry Conners has always been a fair (albeit liberal leaning) reporter who's been around here forever.
dogma wrote: And its for the best. This is a change, a good change. A case of the IRS actually using the legal tools at its disposal.
I'm actually a bit sad that so many people have been assuming the IRS is at fault here.
Well. There's carrying the water, and then there's outright saying it's a good thing the IRS specifically went after perceived enemies of the current administration for nothing more than political reasons.
Easy E wrote: So, what would it take for you guys to think the Administration HAS dealt with the problem? I'm genuinely curious.
Will this impact Obama's "Grand Bargain" on the Budget withthe GOP? Would you trust fair dealing from the President on the Budget?
The scalp of every IRS agent in those offices, their boss and his/her boss.
If there's even a hint it goes higher fire everyone remotely connected.
Jail time for the agents who released tax information to the Democrats.
Easy E wrote: So, what would it take for you guys to think the Administration HAS dealt with the problem? I'm genuinely curious.
Well, that's in the future, since you used past tense. However, to believe they are dealing with the problem, I posted earlier I'd like to see (among other things) a criminal investigation opened. It looks like that is happening.
Easy E wrote: So, what would it take for you guys to think the Administration HAS dealt with the problem? I'm genuinely curious.
Well, that's in the future, since you used past tense. However, to believe they are dealing with the problem, I posted earlier I'd like to see (among other things) a criminal investigation opened. It looks like that is happening.
The DoJ and the House committee will be investigating.
That any government body should abuse its powers so is beyond contempt.
Easy E wrote: So, what would it take for you guys to think the Administration HAS dealt with the problem? I'm genuinely curious.
Just off the top of my head;
- A full and impartial investigation, with a sufficient remit to fully investigate the accusations made and all available evidence, including the power to call and compel witnesses
- For staff who knowingly took part in this, concealed this, gave material support to this etc., at whatever level, to be held accountable for their actions, up to and including losing their jobs and/or jail depending on the crime(s) committed
- The firing of those people who should have been accountable for the sections of the IRS that conducted this harassing behaviour. If they are in a position of authority and employed to be responsible then they should take responsibility for the failings that occurred on their watch
- An overhaul of the IRS culture, procedure and practices that allowed these abuses to occur unchecked and on a wide scale (4 offices to date)
- A formal apology to all groups that were affected by this untoward conduct from the IRS
- An investigation into the bodies who received this information from the IRS, and whether it was distributed further by these same bodies.
Well. There's carrying the water, and then there's outright saying it's a good thing the IRS specifically went after perceived enemies of the current administration for nothing more than political reasons.
Is that what I said? Because that doesn't seem like what I said.
I guess that might be how you interpreted my statement, but I certainly never explicitly claimed that it was a good thing that the IRS targeted conservative groups.
It used the legal tools at its disposal, but only to target certain groups with what appears to be no other basis than their political views, and then not following their own policies.
I've not heard anything about the IRS not following its own policies*, and I've already explained why reviewing groups due to their political views is acceptable.
*Note: the tax code is federal law, not IRS policy.
dogma wrote: Is that what I said? Because that doesn't seem like what I said.
I guess that might be how you interpreted my statement, but I certainly never explicitly claimed that it was a good thing that the IRS targeted conservative groups.
Well, you said it was good that the IRS is using all the tools at their disposal, and then lamented the fact that so many people think the IRS is at fault here. When the IRS itself has admitted it's at fault, I'm not really sure what point you're trying to make if it's not, "Hey, this situation's cool."
dogma wrote: I've not heard anything about the IRS not following its own policies*, and I've already explained why reviewing groups due to their political views is acceptable.
*Note: the tax code is federal law, not IRS policy.
From the opening post - http://bigstory.ap.org/article/irs-apologizes-targeting-conservative-groups "IRS agents singled out dozens of organizations for additional reviews because they included the words "tea party" or "patriot" in their exemption applications"
"In some cases, groups were asked for lists of donors, which violates IRS policy in most cases"
And has been explained in detail by many posters and as detailed in various links it would appear that what the IRS did went well beyond what is acceptable. Even the IRS acknowledge that themselves. Unless you think you are in a better position than the IRS (including senior staff) to determine whether what they did was wrong.
If these groups were targeted on the basis of political opinion alone, with no evidence of any wrong doing then they are abusing their powers and are not acting in good faith. You can attempt to rationalise this as much want but the evidence that has been emerging in the past few days, never mind the revelations to come, do not support your assertions. No matter how much you may wish otherwise.
- What is your opinion on the allegations that the documents of these groups that were given, according to you, "acceptable" reviews being passed to private bodies outside the IRS?
- Are the Department of Justice and House Committee wrong in deciding to investigate this manner?
Valion wrote: Well, you said it was good that the IRS is using all the tools at their disposal, and then lamented the fact that so many people think the IRS is at fault here. When the IRS itself has admitted it's at fault, I'm not really sure what point you're trying to make if it's not, "Hey, this situation's cool."
Well, you said it was good that the IRS is using all the tools at their disposal, and then lamented the fact that so many people think the IRS is at fault here. When the IRS itself has admitted it's at fault, I'm not really sure what point you're trying to make if it's not, "Hey, this situation's cool."
I explained my position throughout the thread but, to summarize:
The IRS is a supplicant organization. It admitted to wrong-doing because it was expected of it. This annoys me because the federal tax code regarding nonprofits is horribly designed, and effectively requires the IRS to note the political behavior* of any group applying for certain sorts of nonprofit status. It is a good thing that the IRS is using the legal tools at its disposal, because it has failed to do so for many years. It is a bad thing that the onus of popular ire is focused on the IRS itself, as it should be focused on the nonprofit component of the tax code.
It is also a bad thing if the IRS did engage in unfairly discriminatory practices, but I consider that way less important than the nonprofit section of the federal tax code.
'In some cases, groups were asked for lists of donors, which violates IRS policy in most cases"
Most, not all. They're different words.
Additionally there are several kinds of 501(c) groups that must disclose their donors, and the article you're quoting wasn't clear regarding the application status of the organizations which were, and were not solicited regarding such. Indeed, it would violate federal law if the IRS did not ask in some cases.
- What is your opinion on the allegations that the documents of these groups that were given, according to you, "acceptable" reviews being passed to private bodies outside the IRS?
The review is probably justifiable according to internal criteria (because that's all that matters with 501(c)s), but any surrender of confidential documents to third parties is not.
Frazzled wrote: Thats not correct. I don't know about the country YOU live in, but here, the IRS is the boogie man up and down the chain.
I'm gonna back my experience with our tax authority and the American tax agents I've spoken to over, you know, the guy who posts a lot of stuff on the internet that's just completely wrong.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dogma wrote: I believe that the IRS should use all of the legal tools at its disposal, that some of those legal tools are poorly designed, and that many critics of the organization know nothing about its legal powers or structure. I further believe that there exists an unfair bias against the IRS because of its role in collecting federal taxes from individuals.
I think that's all very true, and in general it makes good sense. But we're talking about a specific instance here, in which the IRS didn't just crack down on not for profits, but on not for profits with a specific ideological bent.
And so, whether the IRS in general suffers a general bias from the general population, and whether it could use its powers more forcefully... the issue here is the use of government sanctioned power for partisan political ends. And that is straight undemocratic.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote: It also is now being reported that it gave some of these files to interested Democratic parties.
If that went to the President, thats impeachable.
And if the president is selling Republican children to North Korea that's also impeachable.
But when you guys have a serious impeachment boner going on, I guess any kind of wild speculation is cool.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: Yeah... but I seriously doubt that any directive came from Obama or other cabinet level.
Yeah, this is nuts and bolts political machine establishment hack work.
Simply put, the President has a lot bigger priorities than to control or oversee some nasty but very minor political shenanigans around some tea party start up groups, and anyone who doesn't understand that should be laughed out of the conversation.
Unless, of course, the Republicans have another impeachment boner going, in which case all kinds of crazy speculation is welcomed.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
djones520 wrote: And we listened to the gak for 8 years with Bush. You've not been putting up with it for 5 years yet, so grow some thicker skin.
No, feth that.
bs calls for impeachment are no less disruptive and no less bs just because some idiots claimed the same thing about your guy 6 years ago.
That's the whole fething point of this. You need to value what good government is, and what good government practice is. The alternative is just more and more partisan bs, and that will only lead to more abuse of government power, whether its IRS misusing it's power for partisan ends, or ridiculous calls for impeachment.
dogma wrote: Most, not all. They're different words.
You make an excellent point... if only I had said "all". In any event it does not take away from the fact that IRS policy was breached.
dogma wrote: Additionally there are several kinds of 501(c) groups that must disclose their donors, and the article you're quoting wasn't clear regarding the application status of the organizations which were, and were not solicited regarding such. Indeed, it would violate federal law if the IRS did not ask in some cases.
I think a clear inference can be drawn that these groups in question were not of the kind you describe, or else it would not have been against IRS policy. Even if you were to reject such an inference the head of the IRS division that oversees tax-exempt groups said that it was a breach of policy. Furthermore you are ignoring that aside from the donor list issue IRS staff also asked for details of posts on social media sites and details of family members.
You cannot ignore that, or claim that they were acting within their powers and in good faith, especially when the IRS has openly admitted to wrong doing.
dogma wrote: The review is probably justifiable according to internal criteria (because that's all that matters with 501(c)s), but any surrender of confidential documents to third parties is not.
Is the review is more than justifiable given that the head of the IRS division that oversees tax-exempt groups said that it was a breach of policy, and for many other reasons besides. At least we agree on the 3rd Party issue.
dogma wrote: No, because suspect cases require investigation.
Suspect case? I thought you said that the IRS was merely using "the legal tools at its disposal", and that "reviewing groups due to their political views is acceptable"
Maybe you should read some of the coverage concerning this;
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/irs-apologizes-targeting-conservative-groups "IRS agents singled out dozens of organizations for additional reviews because they included the words "tea party" or "patriot" in their exemption applications"
"In some cases, groups were asked for lists of donors, which violates IRS policy in most cases"
"Lerner acknowledged it was wrong for the agency to target groups based on political affiliation.
"That was absolutely incorrect, it was insensitive and it was inappropriate. That's not how we go about selecting cases for further review," Lerner she heads the [RS division that oversees tax-exempt groups] said at a conference sponsored by the American Bar Association."
"Many conservative groups complained during the campaign that they were being harassed by the IRS. They accused the agency of frustrating their attempts to become tax exempt by sending them lengthy, intrusive questionnaires.
The forms, which the groups have made available, sought information about group members' political activities, including details of their postings on social networking websites and about family members."
"As part of this process, agents in Cincinnati came up with a list of things to look for in an application. As part of the list, they included the words, "tea party" and "patriot," Lerner said.
"It's the line people that did it without talking to managers," Lerner told The AP. "They're IRS workers, they're revenue agents.""
The IRS said on Friday that it inappropriately subjected groups applying for nonprofit status to extra scrutiny if their applications included terms such as “tea party” or “patriot.”
As early as March 2010, the agency’s so-called determinations unit began targeting conservative groups. Lois Lerner, the IRS official in charge of nonprofits, told reporters Friday that the decision to include “tea party” and “patriot” as search terms was made by low-level field reporters in Cincinnati.
But a few months after the targeting program began, a Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration report found that the “determinations unit management requested its specialists to be on the lookout for tea party applications.”
You have continued to ignore the basic facts of this case and the weight of evidence that has come to light so far, you downplay the IRS admitting their wrong doing in this manner and you obfuscate that the real problem is the tax code and no the targeting of groups because of their political opinions. Your stance ignores the fact that at best IRS staff operated without oversight under a permissive culture, which was ripe for abuse, to conspire in no less than four offices around the country to break policy to harass and target groups that had a particular political view when there was no evidence of wrong doing by the targeted groups, who then passed on information that was private to third parties.
No one is saying that tax-exempt groups should not be investigated where there is just cause. Had there been just cause the IRS could have demonstrated that and put this issue to bed very quickly. They haven't, and that speaks volumes. What people are objecting to is what appears to be the de facto targeting of certain groups because of their legitimate political beliefs based on keywords. Why were these phrases used, given that they are so specific and most likely to occur on one side of the political spectrum? If you are going to investigate tax-exempt groups then do so, but do it fairly, without passion and without prejudice.
If they were targeting specific groups and abusing their positions then it could be argued they were out of the scope of their position, not sure if that'd be a viable suit... but it's possible.
Indeed, selectively applying your mandate isn't cool.
Its no different than cops selectively pulling over traffic violators of a certain ethnicity. Yes the guy ran the red light, but you letting the white guys slide running the red light isn't cool bro. You pull over everyone.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: If they were targeting specific groups and abusing their positions then it could be argued they were out of the scope of their position, not sure if that'd be a viable suit... but it's possible.
In the UK you could have a claim for tortuous misfeasance of a public office, or you could sue the person rather than the organisation if they were operating so far outside their remit that vicarious liability would not cover them (i.e. that their employer could not be liable)
They admitted that they violated internal rules, but that's a little ways from breaking laws I would think.
We will see if the investigations and statements are just lip service or if there will be some significant follow through here and if any actual laws were broken. If so I would hope to see some actions from that.
US President Barack Obama has said the federal tax agency's targeting of conservative groups for extra scrutiny was "intolerable and inexcusable".
He said those responsible for the Internal Revenue Service's (IRS) actions would be held responsible.
Mr Obama spoke after a treasury department report placed the blame on "ineffective management" at the agency.
The US attorney general earlier ordered an FBI inquiry into the IRS conduct before the 2012 presidential election.
Eric Holder told a news conference that agents would determine if any laws had been broken.
The actions of tax officers, if not criminal, were "certainly outrageous and unacceptable", Mr Holder added.
'Inappropriate criteria'
The IRS had used key words such as "Tea Party" and "Patriot" to subject applications by groups seeking tax-exempt status for extra scrutiny.
On Tuesday evening, Mr Obama said in a statement on the treasury department's investigation: "The report's findings are intolerable and inexcusable.
"The IRS must apply the law in a fair and impartial way, and its employees must act with utmost integrity. This report shows that some of its employees failed that test."
He spoke as a Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA) report found that senior IRS officials had told inspectors the decision to focus on Tea Party and other groups based upon their names or policy positions was not influenced by any individual or organisation outside the agency.
But it found managers had allowed "inappropriate criteria" to be developed and stay in place for more than 18 months, resulting in "substantial delays" in processing applications for tax-exempt status, and requests for "unnecessary information", such as lists of past and future donors.
Of the 296 total applications reviewed by TIGTA, 108 were approved, 28 were withdrawn by the applicants, and 160 were still open, the report said.
In response, the acting IRS Commissioner of the Tax Exempt and Government Entities, Joseph Grant, said: "We believe the front line career employees that made the decisions acted out of a desire for efficiency and not out of any political or partisan view point."
'Targeting political enemies'
Mr Obama's press secretary, Jay Carney, said earlier that no-one at the White House had known about the matter until lawyers were told several weeks ago TIGTA would publish a report.
At least three Congressional committees are planning hearings into the matter.
The House Ways and Means committee will hold a hearing on Friday. The Senate finance and investigations committees have also said they will hold hearings.
"This was a targeting of the president's political enemies, effectively, and lies about it during the election year so that it wasn't discovered until afterwards," senior Republican Congressman Darrell Issa told CBS on Tuesday.
Two high-profile Republican governors called on President Obama to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate whether any laws were broken.
"This is big brother come to life and a witch hunt to prevent Americans from exercising their first amendment [free speech] rights," Governors Bobby Jindal of Louisiana and Scott Walker of Wisconsin wrote.
Ahead of the 2012 presidential election, conservative groups complained to the IRS and to members of Congress that their applications for tax-exempt status were being held up.
Some groups have said they were asked to provide lists of donors and volunteers, statements of their activities, and lists of legislators they had contacted.
From the same link;
Analysis
Mark Mardell - North America editor
From what we know so far this appears to be an A-grade scandal - a shocking abuse of power with apparently political motives. President Obama says he's outraged - and has moved quickly to make it clear he knew nothing about it.
It is true that plenty of groups claim to be non-political when most sensible people would say that politics is their main purpose. But on the evidence so far, it seems only right-wing groups were targeted - and more bizarrely still only small local ones, not the huge lobby groups.
This affair, along with the justice department's raid on the Associated Press, is likely to have a political impact. Conservative groups have long claimed an overbearing administration is targeting their freedoms and that abuses of power are ignored by a complacent media. The events of this week will strengthen their belief that someone is out to get them.
Suspect case? I thought you said that the IRS was merely using "the legal tools at its disposal", and that "reviewing groups due to their political views is acceptable"
Yes, I said both of those things. The IRS is legally entitled to review several categories of 501(c)s at its discretion, with 501(c)(4)s being the most obvious potential violators.
But we're talking about a specific instance here, in which the IRS didn't just crack down on not for profits, but on not for profits with a specific ideological bent.
It isn't clear what we're talking about, because all the articles on the subject matter have either been deliberately unclear or deliberately provocative.
Its no different than cops selectively pulling over traffic violators of a certain ethnicity. Yes the guy ran the red light, but you letting the white guys slide running the red light isn't cool bro. You pull over everyone.
Or, for that matter, assigning police officers to tail, harass or investigate people with undesirable political opinions (which is something that happened in your country in Hoover's FBI, for instance).
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jihadin wrote: I've a good feeling that a good chunk of the CoC knew about it. They're going to get canned.
A good feeling? Does the FBI know you have a good feeling about this? I think you better get in contact with them right away, they could take their investigation in totally the wrong direction, if they're left unaware of your good feeling.
Seriously, the speculation is ridiculous. This case is moving plenty fast as it is.
dogma wrote: Alright, lets take a few steps back. What do you think IRS policy is, and how do you think it was breached?
Because there is a critical difference between IRS policy, and the tax code.
I'm starting to get the distinct impression that you are quite simply not reading what I'm posting, especially as this is the fourth time that I have posted this from - http://bigstory.ap.org/article/irs-apologizes-targeting-conservative-groups IRS agents singled out dozens of organizations for additional reviews because they included the words "tea party" or "patriot" in their exemption applications, said[u][b] Lois Lerner, who heads the IRS division that oversees tax-exempt groups. In some cases, groups were asked for lists of donors, which violates IRS policy in most cases, she said.
I trust you'll forgive me if I take the word of the person who is the head of an IRS division over your word when it comes to whether or not policy was breached.
dogma wrote: Yes, I said both of those things. The IRS is legally entitled to review several categories of 501(c)s at its discretion, with 501(c)(4)s being the most obvious potential violators.
I've already addressed this multiple times before so let me just repeat myself.
No one is saying that tax-exempt groups should not be investigated where there is just cause. Had there been just cause the IRS could have demonstrated that and put this issue to bed very quickly. They haven't, and that speaks volumes. What people are objecting to is what appears to be the de facto targeting of certain groups because of their legitimate political beliefs based on keywords. Why were these phrases used, given that they are so specific and most likely to occur on one side of the political spectrum? If you are going to investigate tax-exempt groups then do so, but do it fairly, without passion and without prejudice.
It seems that only are you not content with ignoring the facts, but your discussion centers around attrition by repeating your own arguments and ignoring legitimate points that contrary to your own beliefs.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: Well any of you vets want to work for the IRS? Should be plenty of nice management positions opening up.
dogma seems think that he knows more than the head of the IRS division that oversees tax-exempt groups, so many he should get his resume ready to roll.
dogma wrote: It isn't clear what we're talking about, because all the articles on the subject matter have either been deliberately unclear or deliberately provocative.
You think so? I think at this point the debate to be had is on the scope of the issue, not the nature.
Work in the IRS....pfffttt Hell no. I rather be little on the crazy side and not go full bore crazy for working in the IRS. Sebster I'm 110% sure the FBI is having the same chain of thought. You need to brush up on ths since your working off old news. Since this is going back to 20110 now....more then one location...that superiors in IRS knew about it. So ease off there buddy
Jihadin wrote: Work in the IRS....pfffttt Hell no. I rather be little on the crazy side and not go full bore crazy for working in the IRS. Sebster I'm 110% sure the FBI is having the same chain of thought. You need to brush up on ths since your working off old news. Since this is going back to 20110 now....more then one location...that superiors in IRS knew about it. So ease off there buddy
I was just making fun more than anything
But even so, you are moving around your already vague statements. First up it was a good chunk of the chain of command, and now its 'superiors' which could just be a couple of branch managers. Point is, it could be bigger or smaller than any of that - at this point we just don't know, so guessing seems kind of pointless.
I'm starting to get the distinct impression that you are quite simply not reading what I'm posting, especially as this is the fourth time that I have posted this from - http://bigstory.ap.org/article/irs-apologizes-targeting-conservative-groups IRS agents singled out dozens of organizations for additional reviews because they included the words "tea party" or "patriot" in their exemption applications, said[u][b] Lois Lerner, who heads the IRS division that oversees tax-exempt groups. In some cases, groups were asked for lists of donors, which violates IRS policy in most cases, she said.
I trust you'll forgive me if I take the word of the person who is the head of an IRS division over your word when it comes to whether or not policy was breached.
But you aren't taking the word of Lois Lerner, you're taking the word of a person who is interpreting the words of Lois Lerner.
Note: none of what you placed in bold, and underlined, was a direct quote from Lois Lerner.
Why were these phrases used, given that they are so specific and most likely to occur on one side of the political spectrum?
Because the phrase "Tea Party" and the word "Patriot" have been especially prominent political terms since 2009, and Citizen's United v. FEC was in 2010.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: If they were targeting specific groups and abusing their positions then it could be argued they were out of the scope of their position, not sure if that'd be a viable suit... but it's possible.
In the UK you could have a claim for tortuous misfeasance of a public office, or you could sue the person rather than the organisation if they were operating so far outside their remit that vicarious liability would not cover them (i.e. that their employer could not be liable)
It should be noted, in the US, you cannot sue the sovereign, unless the sovereign permits it. Suits against the IRS can occur only if already permitted by law. You could sue to enforce your constitutional rights, but thats not "suing the IRS."
Automatically Appended Next Post:
KalashnikovMarine wrote: Well any of you vets want to work for the IRS? Should be plenty of nice management positions opening up.
I doubt anyone will get fired. There may be a token resignation, but thats it.
bs calls for impeachment are no less disruptive and no less bs just because some idiots claimed the same thing about your guy 6 years ago.
That's the whole fething point of this. You need to value what good government is, and what good government practice is. The alternative is just more and more partisan bs, and that will only lead to more abuse of government power, whether its IRS misusing it's power for partisan ends, or ridiculous calls for impeachment.
Do we take your word that you were saying the same thing and condemning the Bush impeachment calls even when you were stroking out on a daily basis over things he did?
One group has announced they are suing the IRS, claiming the IRS gave leaked documents to an Obama campaign co-chair.
Mmmm reminds me of that epic phrase: "I am not a crook!"
dogma wrote: But you aren't taking the word of Lois Lerner, you're taking the word of a person who is interpreting the words of Lois Lerner.
Note: none of what you placed in bold, and underlined, was a direct quote from Lois Lerner.
So in the absence of anything to counter the argument you are now nit picking in the extreme and being deliberately obtuse. Are you saying that the information that I provided was inaccurate, that the reporter was incorrect? Unless you're going to actually counter this argument then it stands
dogma wrote: No, we're just arguing about what constitutes "just cause".
Then perhaps you would be so kind as to tell us what you believe constitutes "just cause"
dogma wrote: Because the phrase "Tea Party" and the word "Patriot" have been especially prominent political terms since 2009, and Citizen's United v. FEC was in 2010.
You answered the first part, but not the second part of my question. Are admitting that they used politically loaded search criteria that only focused on one side of the political spectrum, and not the other?
Not to put too blunt dogma but so long as you keep nit picking at other's arguments or merely restating your own points and not acknowledging the arguments that do not suit you, while ignoring the emerging facts, ignoring the evidence stacking up, ignoring the IRS admitting wrong doing, all because it does not suit your ideological stand, then you are being dishonest and making it abundantly clear that you are arguing from nothing more than an ideological point of view.
Frazzled wrote: In the UK you could have a claim for tortuous misfeasance of a public office, or you could sue the person rather than the organisation if they were operating so far outside their remit that vicarious liability would not cover them (i.e. that their employer could not be liable)
It should be noted, in the US, you cannot sue the sovereign, unless the sovereign permits it. Suits against the IRS can occur only if already permitted by law. You could sue to enforce your constitutional rights, but thats not "suing the IRS."
Frazzled wrote: One group has announced they are suing the IRS, claiming the IRS gave leaked documents to an Obama campaign co-chair.
Mmmm reminds me of that epic phrase: "I am not a crook!"
Something tells me that this story still has a long, long way to run. The more news like this emerges the less credibility anyone has who is claiming that the IRS were acting in good faith and that this was not political.
So in the absence of anything to counter the argument you are now nit picking in the extreme and being deliberately obtuse. Are you saying that the information that I provided was inaccurate, that the reporter was incorrect?
No. I've just been interpreting the information you provided.
Then perhaps you would be so kind as to tell us what you believe constitutes "just cause"
Whatever is legally permitted, as this action appears to have been.
Also, bear in mind we're not talking about the IRS authorizing the execution of conservatives, we're talking about extra scrutiny being accorded to an application for nonprofit status. That might be annoying, but it isn't the end of the world.
You answered the first part, but not the second part of my question. Are admitting that they used politically loaded search criteria that only focused on one side of the political spectrum, and not the other?
I'm admitting that they used politically loaded search criteria, I don't know if it only focused on 1 side of the spectrum as I don't have a list of all search criteria. I'm further (re)stating that this is to be expected, is even acceptable, because whether or not an organization is accorded nonprofit status is statutorily grounded in the extent to which it engages in political activity.
Frazzled wrote: One group has announced they are suing the IRS, claiming the IRS gave leaked documents to an Obama campaign co-chair.
Mmmm reminds me of that epic phrase: "I am not a crook!"
dogma wrote: No. I've just been interpreting the information you provided.
No doubt you have been interpreting it. Just not in a way that could be considered objective, or in line with the facts.
dogma wrote: Whatever is legally permitted, as this action appears to have been.
Are you saying that your position is that on its face it is legal to single out right leaning groups applying for tax exempt status where there is no evidence of wrong doing? Bearing in mind that there was also a significant increase in liberal leaning groups also claiming exempt status yet it appears that similar action was not taken against them
This may interest you - http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/just+cause A reasonable and lawful ground for action.
Appearing in statutes, contracts, and court decisions, the term just cause refers to a standard of reasonableness used to evaluate a person's actions in a given set of circumstances. If a person acts with just cause, her or his actions are based on reasonable grounds and committed in Good Faith. Singling out groups, with no evidence of any actual wrong doing, based on nothing more than their political affiliation cannot by any objective standard be said to be either reasonable or an act of good faith.
dogma wrote: Also, bear in mind we're not talking about the IRS authorizing the execution of conservatives, we're talking about extra scrutiny being accorded to an application for nonprofit status. That might be annoying, but it isn't the end of the world.
So singling out groups for discriminatory treatment, breaching policy to harass them, asking them for details of social media activity and family members, passing their files onto outside parties is acceptable because no one was executed.
I think you've just outright showed your hand and can't even claim to be looking at the facts in anything approaching an objective manner.
dogma wrote: I'm admitting that they used politically loaded search criteria, I don't know if it only focused on 1 side of the spectrum as I don't have a list of all search criteria. I'm further (re)stating that this is to be expected, is even acceptable, because whether or not an organization is accorded nonprofit status is statutorily grounded in the extent to which it engages in political activity.
So if they used "politically loaded search criteria" and have admitted to targeting right leaning groups where there was no evidence that they had done anything wrong, requested information that breached IRS policy, admitted that they were wrong and then passed files to outside bodies during an election are you still going to say with a straight face that what occurred was justifiable and not politically motivated?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
SickSix wrote: My only point is turn the tables and think about how this would have gone down under Bush's administration, with lefty grouos being targeted.
The media would be calling for impeachment, and those of you defending the IRS would be screaming bloody murder.
McCarthyism is the practice of making accusations of disloyalty, subversion, or treason without proper regard for evidence. It also means "the practice of making unfair allegations or using unfair investigative techniques, especially in order to restrict dissent or political criticism."
KalashnikovMarine wrote: If they were targeting specific groups and abusing their positions then it could be argued they were out of the scope of their position, not sure if that'd be a viable suit... but it's possible.
In the UK you could have a claim for tortuous misfeasance of a public office, or you could sue the person rather than the organisation if they were operating so far outside their remit that vicarious liability would not cover them (i.e. that their employer could not be liable)
Why do UK legal terms sound like punishments doled out in Middle Earth?
The Internal Revenue Service is now facing a class action lawsuit over allegations that it improperly accessed and stole the health records of some 10 million Americans, including medical records of all California state judges.
According to a report by Courthousenews.com, an unnamed HIPAA-covered entity in California is suing the IRS, alleging that some 60 million medical records from 10 million patients were stolen by 15 IRS agents. The personal health information seized on March 11, 2011, included psychological counseling, gynecological counseling, sexual/drug treatment and other medical treatment data.
"This is an action involving the corruption and abuse of power by several Internal Revenue Service agents," the complaint reads. "No search warrant authorized the seizure of these records; no subpoena authorized the seizure of these records; none of the 10,000,000 Americans were under any kind of known criminal or civil investigation and their medical records had no relevance whatsoever to the IRS search. IT personnel at the scene, a HIPPA facility warning on the building and the IT portion of the searched premises, and the company executives each warned the IRS agents of these privileged records," it continued.
I wasn't sure if people would get fired before now. Now I'm a little more sure that heads will roll.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
kronk wrote: Why the hell would the IRS take health records?
Edit: For proving/dis-proving claimed medical expenses on people's taxes, maybe?
Maybe, although it seems that unless you are auditing the person in question you wouldn't do that. And I find it hard to believe that 10 million people were getting audited, audits involving extensive medical records. And all CA judges? WTF?
The Internal Revenue Service is now facing a class action lawsuit over allegations that it improperly accessed and stole the health records of some 10 million Americans, including medical records of all California state judges.
According to a report by Courthousenews.com, an unnamed HIPAA-covered entity in California is suing the IRS, alleging that some 60 million medical records from 10 million patients were stolen by 15 IRS agents. The personal health information seized on March 11, 2011, included psychological counseling, gynecological counseling, sexual/drug treatment and other medical treatment data.
"This is an action involving the corruption and abuse of power by several Internal Revenue Service agents," the complaint reads. "No search warrant authorized the seizure of these records; no subpoena authorized the seizure of these records; none of the 10,000,000 Americans were under any kind of known criminal or civil investigation and their medical records had no relevance whatsoever to the IRS search.IT personnel at the scene, a HIPPA facility warning on the building and the IT portion of the searched premises, and the company executives each warned the IRS agents of these privileged records," it continued.
I'm face palming so hard here...
I'm actually lost for words reading this. It's starting to sound like Hoover re-incarnated is running the place. I'm starting to wonder if there'll be anything left standing of the IRS after everything is said and done
Automatically Appended Next Post:
kronk wrote: Why the hell would the IRS take health records?
Edit: For proving/dis-proving claimed medical expenses on people's taxes, maybe?
That's a very good question, it's going to need a very good answer in light of this;
"This is an action involving the corruption and abuse of power by several Internal Revenue Service agents," the complaint reads. "No search warrant authorized the seizure of these records; no subpoena authorized the seizure of these records; none of the 10,000,000 Americans were under any kind of known criminal or civil investigation and their medical records had no relevance whatsoever to the IRS search.
The Internal Revenue Service is now facing a class action lawsuit over allegations that it improperly accessed and stole the health records of some 10 million Americans, including medical records of all California state judges.
According to a report by Courthousenews.com, an unnamed HIPAA-covered entity in California is suing the IRS, alleging that some 60 million medical records from 10 million patients were stolen by 15 IRS agents. The personal health information seized on March 11, 2011, included psychological counseling, gynecological counseling, sexual/drug treatment and other medical treatment data.
"This is an action involving the corruption and abuse of power by several Internal Revenue Service agents," the complaint reads. "No search warrant authorized the seizure of these records; no subpoena authorized the seizure of these records; none of the 10,000,000 Americans were under any kind of known criminal or civil investigation and their medical records had no relevance whatsoever to the IRS search. IT personnel at the scene, a HIPPA facility warning on the building and the IT portion of the searched premises, and the company executives each warned the IRS agents of these privileged records," it continued.
I'm face palming so hard here...
holy crap.
1) wow
2) why?
3) wow again
Automatically Appended Next Post:
kronk wrote: Why the hell would the IRS take health records?
Edit: For proving/dis-proving claimed medical expenses on people's taxes, maybe?
Grey Templar wrote: This could be the worst government scandal ever, and certainly the one with the biggest real effect.
Well so far we have;
- accusations of targeting groups based on political opinion rather than suspicion of wrong doing. Including the breaching of IRS policy, and asking for unwarranted personal information
- a culture that enabled this across four different offices (Ohio, Cincinnati, DC and California) without there being any effective oversight that may have prevented this
- accusations that a reporter was targeted after an interview with Obama
- accusations that details of some of the groups targeted were passed to their political opponents and may have been used as ammunition during a Presidential Election
- accusations that they stole 60 million patient records that they had no legal right to view
- the possibility that those in senior positions within the IRS may have mislead Members of Congress who had previously asked about this issue
The director of the Internal Revenue Service division under fire for singling out conservative groups sent a 2012 letter under her name to one such group, POLITICO has learned. The March 2012 letter was sent to the Ohio-based American Patriots Against Government Excess (American PAGE) under the name of Lois Lerner, the director of the Exempt Organizations Division...at the time of the letter, the group was in the midst of the application process for tax-exempt nonprofit status — a process that would stretch for nearly three years and involve queries for detailed information on its social media activity, its organizational set-up, bylaws, membership and interactions with political officials. The letter threatened to close American PAGE’s case file unless additional information was received within 60 days.
.snip.
In February 2010, the Champaign Tea Party in Illinois received approval of its tax-exempt status from the IRS in 90 days, no questions asked. That was the month before the Internal Revenue Service started singling out Tea Party groups for special treatment. There wouldn't be another Tea Party application approved for 27 months. In that time, the IRS approved perhaps dozens of applications from similar liberal and progressive groups, a USA TODAY review of IRS data shows. As applications from conservative groups sat in limbo, groups with liberal-sounding names had their applications approved in as little as nine months. With names including words like "Progress" or "Progressive," the liberal groups applied for the same tax status and were engaged in the same kinds of activities as the conservative groups.
Don't worry. Two employees have been found. I'm sure they did all this-across multiple offices- with no oversight. And I'm sure its not a problem that there was no oversight.
Frazzled wrote: Don't worry. Two employees have been found. I'm sure they did all this-across multiple offices- with no oversight. And I'm sure its not a problem that there was no oversight.
Ahem... Obama's brother's charity got the exemption in record time.
Spoiler:
Lois Lerner, the senior IRS official at the center of the decision to target tea party groups for burdensome tax scrutiny, signed paperwork granting tax-exempt status to the Barack H. Obama Foundation, a shady charity headed by the president’s half-brother that operated illegally for years.
According to the organization’s filings, Lerner approved the foundation’s tax status within a month of filing, an unprecedented timeline that stands in stark contrast to conservative organizations that have been waiting for more than three years, in some cases, for approval.
Lerner also appears to have broken with the norms of tax-exemption approval by granting retroactive tax-exempt status to Malik Obama’s organization.
The National Legal and Policy Center filed an official complaint with the IRS in May 2011 asking why the foundation was being allowed to solicit tax-deductible contributions when it had not even applied for an IRS determination. In a New York Post article dated May 8, 2011, an officer of the foundation admitted, “We haven’t been able to find someone with the expertise” to apply for tax-exempt status.
Nevertheless, a month later, the Barack H. Obama Foundation had flown through the grueling application process. Lerner granted the organization a 501(c) determination and even gave it a retroactive tax exemption dating back to December 2008.
The group’s available paperwork suggests an extremely hurried application and approval process. For example, the group’s 990 filings for 2008 and 2009 were submitted to the IRS on May 30, 2011, and its 2010 filing was submitted on May 23, 2011.
Lerner signed the group’s approval [pdf] on June 26, 2011.
It is illegal to operate for longer than 27 months without an IRS determination and solicit tax-deductible contributions.
The ostensibly Arlington, Va.-based charity was not even registered in Virginia despite the foundation’s website including a donation button that claimed tax-exempt status.
Its president and founder, Abon’go “Roy’ Malik Obama, is Barack Obama’s half-brother and was the best man at his wedding, but he has a checkered past. In addition to running his charity, Malik Obama ran unsuccessfully to be the governor of Siaya County in Kenya. He was accused of being a wife beater and seducing the newest of his twelve wives while she was a 17-year-old school girl.
Sensing something wrong when he and a group of Missouri State students visited Kenya in 2009, Ken Rutherford, winner of the 1997 Nobel Peace Prize for his work on banning landmines, determined that Malik Obama was an “operator” and elected to give a donation of 400 pounds of medical supplies to a local clinic instead.
“We didn’t know what he was going to do with them,” Rutherford told the New York Post in 2011.
It is also not clear what the Barack H. Obama Foundation actually does. Its website claims the organization has built a madrassa and was building a imam’s house but there is no other evidence that the nonprofit was actually helping poor Kenyan children.
“The Obama Foundation raised money on its web page by falsely claiming to be a tax deductible. This bogus charity run by Malik had not even applied and yet subsequently got retroactive tax-deductible status,” Ken Boehm, chairman of the National Legal and Policy Center, told The Daily Caller. Boehm described Malik Obama’s attempt to raise money as constituting “common law fraud and potentially even federal mail fraud.”
Boehm doubted that the charity is doing what it says it’s doing and wondered why the charity was given tax-exempt status so quickly after the evidence of wrongdoing came to light.
“How do you get retroactive tax-exempt status when you haven’t even applied to get it in the first place?” Boehm said.
Lerner continues to draw fire for her handling of the IRS targeting of conservative and citizen groups, but her colleagues have started to defend her, alleging that she behaves “apolitically.”
Larry Noble, who served as general counsel at the FEC from 1987 to 2000, hired and promoted Lerner. “I worked with Lois for a number of years and she is really one of the more apolitical people I’ve met,” Noble told The Daily Beast. “That doesn’t mean she doesn’t have political views, but she really focuses on the job and what the rules are. She doesn’t have an agenda.”
Lerner could not be reached for comment. Calls to the Barack H. Obama Foundation went directly to the organization’s voicemail and were not returned.
The director of the Internal Revenue Service division under fire for singling out conservative groups sent a 2012 letter under her name to one such group, POLITICO has learned. The March 2012 letter was sent to the Ohio-based American Patriots Against Government Excess (American PAGE) under the name of Lois Lerner, the director of the Exempt Organizations Division...at the time of the letter, the group was in the midst of the application process for tax-exempt nonprofit status — a process that would stretch for nearly three years and involve queries for detailed information on its social media activity, its organizational set-up, bylaws, membership and interactions with political officials. The letter threatened to close American PAGE’s case file unless additional information was received within 60 days.
.snip.
In February 2010, the Champaign Tea Party in Illinois received approval of its tax-exempt status from the IRS in 90 days, no questions asked. That was the month before the Internal Revenue Service started singling out Tea Party groups for special treatment. There wouldn't be another Tea Party application approved for 27 months. In that time, the IRS approved perhaps dozens of applications from similar liberal and progressive groups, a USA TODAY review of IRS data shows. As applications from conservative groups sat in limbo, groups with liberal-sounding names had their applications approved in as little as nine months. With names including words like "Progress" or "Progressive," the liberal groups applied for the same tax status and were engaged in the same kinds of activities as the conservative groups.
Are we just seeing the tip of the iceberg, or are we finally starting to see what is below the water?
"These burdensome requests were apparently designed to bury the victimized groups in paperwork. Carol reported last night that some 58 percent of these applicants were asked for unnecessary information and data, according to the Inspector General's review. Some inquiries asked for screenshots of organizations' Facebook posts and even lists of what books (!) its members were reading."
Lerner also reportedly fast-tracked an approval for a foundation operated by President Obama's half brother, taking the extraordinary step of granting it retroactive tax-free status If this is true then she absolutely needs to go, after she has given a full account of her actions. The claim that low level employees in four separate offices acted independent of oversight is now looking very threadbare.
Seems to put paid to any honest claim that the groups affected by this were not singled out on the basis of their political affiliation -
It is also not clear what the Barack H. Obama Foundation actually does. Its website claims the organization has built a madrassa and was building a imam’s house but there is no other evidence that the nonprofit was actually helping poor Kenyan children.
“The Obama Foundation raised money on its web page by falsely claiming to be a tax deductible. This bogus charity run by Malik had not even applied and yet subsequently got retroactive tax-deductible status,” Ken Boehm, chairman of the National Legal and Policy Center, told The Daily Caller. Boehm described Malik Obama’s attempt to raise money as constituting “common law fraud and potentially even federal mail fraud.”
Boehm doubted that the charity is doing what it says it’s doing and wondered why the charity was given tax-exempt status so quickly after the evidence of wrongdoing came to light.
EDIT: That's not to downplay the gravity of this debacle, should it prove to be true. I just think the hyperbole should be kept to a minimum during the speculation stage so as to not cloud the facts with emotion.
Conservative groups seeking information from the Environmental Protection Agency have been routinely hindered by fees normally waived for media and watchdog groups, while fees for more than 90 percent of requests from green groups were waived, according to requests reviewed by the Competitive Enterprise Institute.
CEI reviewed Freedom of Information Act requests sent between January 2012 and this spring from several environmental groups friendly to the EPA’s mission, and several conservative groups, to see how equally the agency applies its fee waiver policy for media and watchdog groups. Government agencies are supposed to waive fees for groups disseminating information for public benefit.
“This is as clear an example of disparate treatment as the IRS’ hurdles selectively imposed upon groups with names ominously reflecting an interest in, say, a less intrusive or biased federal government,” said CEI fellow Chris Horner.
For 92 percent of requests from green groups, the EPA cooperated by waiving fees for the information. Those requests came from the Natural Resources Defense Council, EarthJustice, Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, The Waterkeeper Alliance, Greenpeace, Southern Environmental Law Center and the Center for Biological Diversity.
Of the requests that were denied, the EPA said the group either didn’t respond to requests for justification of a waiver, or didn’t express intent to disseminate the information to the general public, according to documents obtained by The Washington Examiner. CEI, on the other hand, had its requests denied 93 percent of the time. One request was denied because CEI failed to express its intent to disseminate the information to the general public. The rest were denied because the agency said CEI “failed to demonstrate that the release of the information requested significantly increases the public understanding of government operations or activities.” Similarly, requests from conservative groups Judicial Watch and National Center for Public Policy Research were approved half the time, and all requests from Franklin Center and the Institute for Energy Research were denied. “Their practice is to take care of their friends and impose ridiculous obstacles to deny problematic parties’ requests for information,” said Horner. Freedom of Information Act requests from CEI forced the EPA to release emails under the the “Richard Windsor” alias former EPA administrator Lisa Jackson used to conduct government business. CEI has also filed FOIA requests for emails, text messages and instant messages from Jackson and EPA nominee Gina McCarthy. Horner said he believes the EPA has denied CEI’s requests because his think tank is the most active group seeking to hold the agency accountable. “This is a clear pattern of favoritism for allied groups and a concerted campaign to make life more difficult for those deemed unfriendly,” he said. “The left hand of big government reaches out to give a boost to its far-left hand at every turn. Argue against more of the same, however, and prepare to be treated as if you have fewer rights.” Update: An earlier version incorrectly called the Natural Resources Defense Council the “National Resources Defense Council.”
WASHINGTON. D.C. – Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA), the Chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, today released a report: "A New Era of Openness? How and Why Political staff at DHS Interfered with the FOIA Process." The report details the committee's findings about inappropriate interference by Obama Administration political appointees in the Department of Homeland Security FOIA process as well as efforts by the Department of Homeland Security to obstruct the committee's investigation.
"There is a significant divide between what President Obama has directed agencies to do on FOIA and what political appointees at the Department of Homeland Security are actually doing," said Chairman Issa. "Political appointees do not have a right to stop or delay releases of information through FOIA because they find them embarrassing, inconvenient, or politically sensitive. There is no place for this kind of interference in a process designed to create transparency and accountability in government.
The report's findings include:
Senior Political Appointees reviewed and approved responses.
By the end of September 2009, copies of all significant FOIA requests were required to be forwarded to the Secretary's political staff for review. The career staff in the FOIA Office was not permitted to release responses to these requests without approval from political staff.
Political appointees do not acknowledge the approval process.
Political appointees refused to acknowledge that approval from the Secretary's political staff was required to release a response to a significant FOIA request as of September 29, 2009. Their position during transcribed interviews was that the policy was implemented for awareness purposes only. Documents show this position is indefensible.
Political appointees conduct their own searches.
Documents and witness testimony show political appointees run weak and incomplete searches for their own documents. They were allowed to choose their own search terms despite lacking basic understanding of the statute.
The Department abused the (b)(5) exception.
Original versions of documents that were heavily redacted before being released to the Associated Press show the Office of General Counsel relied on exception (b)(5) – normally meant to protect pre-decisional records– to prevent the release of embarrassing records.
The Secretary's political staff stopped using e-mail.
Political appointees stopped using e-mail to clear response packages in the second quarter of 2010. Instead, they contacted the career staff in the FOIA Office by telephone.
The Secretary's political staff marginalized and mismanaged the career FOIA staff.
The intrusion of the political staff into the FOIA process wasted the time and resources of the Privacy Office. The deterioration of the relationship between the Front Office and the FOIA Office was accelerated by constant changes to the significant FOIA response process. The constantly-evolving process and burdensome questions from the Secretary's political staff delayed responses.
The report also explains how lawyers of the Department's Office of the General Counsel worked to obstruct the committee's investigation. For example:
- On January 14, 2011, Chairman Issa requested documents from DHS no later than January 29. While the Department pledged to cooperate with the investigation and did not indicate it would not meet the January 29 deadline, the committee subsequently obtained an e-mail dated January 20, 2011, from the Department's General Counsel's office instructing staff not to search for responsive documents.
- Department lawyers did not negotiate the terms of witness interviews in good faith. Over three weeks of negotiation, the Department did not communicate to witnesses that the choice to appear was theirs to make, despite representing to the Committee that they would do so. Additionally, DHS Office of General Counsel representatives pressured one witness to allow them to participate in the planning of, and be present during, her interview.
- After a witness interview on March 4, 2011, a Department lawyer attempted to remove Committee documents from the interview room. DHS Attorney Reid Cox attempted to leave the room with the Committee's exhibits in his bag. Committee staff asked Cox if he had the exhibits in his bag, and he confirmed that he did. Cox was admonished by Republican and Democratic staff that he was not permitted to leave with the exhibits. Democratic staff advised Cox that the exhibits are Committee documents and as such, they are the property of the Committee and cannot be removed without permission. Cox explained that the Department disagreed with that position and he moved toward the door. Republican staff advised Cox to leave the exhibits and contact the Committee to discuss the matter. Cox had a counter-proposal: "How about I take the exhibits, and you call me?" While Cox ultimately left the documents, any attempt to steal Committee documents is a serious matter. If the motive for stealing Committee documents is to use them to conduct a forensic investigation to identify a Committee source, it creates an extremely sensitive situation.
Chairman Issa made the following statement about the Department of Homeland Security's efforts to obstruct the investigation:
"For over two months, this committee has seen Administration representatives at DHS give lip service to cooperating with Congressional oversight while simultaneously using deceitful and underhanded tactics to undermine it. The Department of Homeland Security's bad faith in this matter will affect how the committee approaches future oversight efforts of an Administration that sorely needs it."
azazel the cat wrote: Nothing about the EPA's actions as expressed in that article seem improper in any way. However, my default stance on DHS is not in their favour.
No more improper then when I pissed of an airline ticket counter clerk by making her have to do some work, and she decided to not un-flag me for the random full body inspection by the TSA, which is the standard procedure for active duty military.
She didn't technically do anything wrong, but it was still a dick move.
azazel the cat wrote: Nothing about the EPA's actions as expressed in that article seem improper in any way. However, my default stance on DHS is not in their favour.
Really? Waving fees for one political bent but not another? I'm betting you're a hippy tree hugger.
azazel the cat wrote: Nothing about the EPA's actions as expressed in that article seem improper in any way. However, my default stance on DHS is not in their favour.
Really? Waving fees for one political bent but not another? I'm betting you're a hippy tree hugger.
Quite the opposite; I think the EPA has made some atrocious decisions in the past (the birth of "shut up and keep digging" is entirely their own fault, for example). However, these fees have been explained as not waived due to a lack of justification towards the criteria required for the waiver.
If I were a tree hugger (I live in a province whose backbone is the forestry industry, so I'm clearly acting here) and covered in hemp clothing, dreadlocks and stinking of patchouli, but I presented a case that I wanted the fees waived so that I could set up a public education resource, then it would be justified. Whereas if you want the fees waived so that your private think-tank can edit and process the information before selectively releasing a spin-doctored and perverted version, claiming it is educational the way infowars is "educational", then it will be far harder to justify why your fees would be waived, as per the criteria.
Mind you, if you never even respond to the request for justification, then you don't even have a case to make, do ya?
This one doesn't read to me as being about political lines; rather it seems that political lines just happens to be a correlated by-product based on the nature of the groups (seriously, do not event try to suggest that right-wing America honestly and legitimately tries to truthfully educate the public on environmental issues).
It is the process that must be fair; not the result. I suspect many people are going to make the mistake of forgetting that.
azazel the cat wrote: Nothing about the EPA's actions as expressed in that article seem improper in any way. However, my default stance on DHS is not in their favour.
I'm sorry but to me that fact that there is such a gross disparity in how groups with different political views are treated merits a sufficient explanation. If it turns out that the EPA were applying their rules fairly and without prejudice because of the groups concerned did not fill in the paperwork correctly then that should negate accusations of bad faith. Although it may call into question just how user friendly the paperwork is.
azazel the cat wrote: Nothing about the EPA's actions as expressed in that article seem improper in any way. However, my default stance on DHS is not in their favour.
I'm sorry but to me that fact that there is such a gross disparity in how groups with different political views are treated merits a sufficient explanation. If it turns out that the EPA were applying their rules fairly and without prejudice because of the groups concerned did not fill in the paperwork correctly then that should negate accusations of bad faith. Although it may call into question just how user friendly the paperwork is.
This seems straightforward to me:
Of the requests that were denied, the EPA said the group either didn’t respond to requests for justification of a waiver, or didn’t express intent to disseminate the information to the general public, according to documents obtained by The Washington Examiner. CEI, on the other hand, had its requests denied 93 percent of the time. One request was denied because CEI failed to express its intent to disseminate the information to the general public. The rest were denied because the agency said CEI “failed to demonstrate that the release of the information requested significantly increases the public understanding of government operations or activities
djones520 wrote: No more improper then when I pissed of an airline ticket counter clerk by making her have to do some work, and she decided to not un-flag me for the random full body inspection by the TSA, which is the standard procedure for active duty military.
She didn't technically do anything wrong, but it was still a dick move.
If you challenge the authoritah of a stewardess, you're gonna have a bad time.
azazel the cat wrote: Nothing about the EPA's actions as expressed in that article seem improper in any way. However, my default stance on DHS is not in their favour.
I'm sorry but to me that fact that there is such a gross disparity in how groups with different political views are treated merits a sufficient explanation. If it turns out that the EPA were applying their rules fairly and without prejudice because of the groups concerned did not fill in the paperwork correctly then that should negate accusations of bad faith. Although it may call into question just how user friendly the paperwork is.
This seems straightforward to me:
Of the requests that were denied, the EPA said the group either didn’t respond to requests for justification of a waiver, or didn’t express intent to disseminate the information to the general public, according to documents obtained by The Washington Examiner. CEI, on the other hand, had its requests denied 93 percent of the time. One request was denied because CEI failed to express its intent to disseminate the information to the general public. The rest were denied because the agency said CEI “failed to demonstrate that the release of the information requested significantly increases the public understanding of government operations or activities
So do green groups find paperwork 92% easier? Granted there are some justifications given, but it seems a relatively small number. I'd like to see an independant review comparing some of the rejected applications to some of the approved ones to see what the differences were, and whether the criteria was applied too narrowly.
In any event I think we can both agree that the IRS is the bigger story here
No doubt you have been interpreting it. Just not in a way that could be considered objective, or in line with the facts.
Well, I consider it objective and in line with the facts, so its certainly possible.
In fact I would argue that, at the beginning of this thread, you jumped to a conclusion in the Smykowski sense; proceeding to make up your mind on the basis of very little information.
Are you saying that your position is that on its face it is legal to single out right leaning groups applying for tax exempt status where there is no evidence of wrong doing?
For review? Yes.
It would also be legal to single out left-leaning groups, because the 501(c) section of the tax code is poorly written.
Bearing in mind that there was also a significant increase in liberal leaning groups also claiming exempt status yet it appears that similar action was not taken against them.
It only appears as such? Do you have concrete evidence that liberal groups were reviewed at a lower rate?
Singling out groups, with no evidence of any actual wrong doing, based on nothing more than their political affiliation cannot by any objective standard be said to be either reasonable or an act of good faith.
The IRS had just cause to do so because the 501(c) section of the tax code requires it to consider the political behavior of any given applicant.
So that's "reasonable" and "lawful" accounted for.
The only possible good faith violation is the extension of reviews regarding a certain group of applications as compared to, which I've noted previously.
So singling out groups for discriminatory treatment, breaching policy to harass them, asking them for details of social media activity and family members, passing their files onto outside parties is acceptable because no one was executed.
I think you've just outright showed your hand and can't even claim to be looking at the facts in anything approaching an objective manner.
I explicitly stated that passing confidential information to third parties is unacceptable per the law, but that the rest is probably fine. And we don't even know if policy was actually breached.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: ... are you still going to say with a straight face that what occurred was justifiable and not politically motivated?
When did I say it wasn't politically motivated?
Its definitely justifiable, though. Especially if we're only talking about the information available in the OP.
Well... The first head rolls: At Obama's press conference, he announces that Steve Miller, acting commissioner of the IRS and a man who’s known for more than a year about the agency’s targeting of conservatives, is out.
Worth noting, though: Miller wasn’t commissioner when most of the targeting occurred. That was Doug Shulman, who left in November.
whembly wrote: Well... The first head rolls: At Obama's press conference, he announces that Steve Miller, acting commissioner of the IRS and a man who’s known for more than a year about the agency’s targeting of conservatives, is out.
Worth noting, though: Miller wasn’t commissioner when most of the targeting occurred. That was Doug Shulman, who left in November.
Miller was a scapegoat, as the IRS is collectively going to be.
dogma wrote: Well, I consider it objective and in line with the facts, so its certainly possible.
In fact I would argue that, at the beginning of this thread, you jumped to a conclusion in the Smykowski sense; proceeding to make up your mind on the basis of very little information.
You can argue as much as you want. There are facts to substantiate my position, whereas yours is sustained by ideology
You really seem to be struggling with this concept of just cause so let me put it another way - police right to target specific groups of people based on race/religion/etc. for investigations without any evidence of a crime being committed?
dogma wrote: It would also be legal to single out left-leaning groups, because the 501(c) section of the tax code is poorly written.
The problem here is that the IRS very obviously haven't given the same level of scrutiny to left leaning groups as they have to those leaning right.
dogma wrote: It only appears as such? Do you have concrete evidence that liberal groups were reviewed at a lower rate?
The number of 501(c)(4) applications more than doubled to over 3,400 in 2012, compared to 1,500 in 2010. The abnormally large number of applications was a red flag to the IRS.
Why so many?
It goes back to 2010, when a "Citizens United" Supreme Court ruling allowed unlimited spending by corporations and labor unions on political campaigns. It also said that political donors should be disclosed. That case prompted a slew of politically-affiliated groups, including Karl Rove's Crossroads GPS, to become charitable organizations under 501(c)4, which allows donors to be kept secret.
How many groups were targeted?
The IRS says that 300 groups were set aside for extra review. About 75 of them had the words "tea party" or "patriot."
Why did the IRS target conservative groups?
We'll find out more when the audit becomes public this week. The IRS targeted conservative organizations, applying extra scrutiny to applicants seeking tax exempt status whose applications contained the words "tea party" or "patriot." However, so far it appears IRS officials didn't do the same thing for left-leaning charitable groups.
Or maybe you'd like to read the many links provided and see that no right leaning group received information about their political rivals from the IRS?
dogma wrote: The IRS had just cause to do so because the 501(c) section of the tax code requires it to consider the political behavior of any given applicant**.
So that's "reasonable" and "lawful" accounted for. The only possible good faith violation is the extension of reviews regarding a certain group of applications vis a vis others.
Singling out grounds for further review based on the words "Tea Party" and "patriot" are reasonable and lawful when there is no evidence that they have done anything wrong, when the same standard is not applied to left leaning groups? That is a strange definition of "reasonable" and I do not think that punishing people for their political views is "lawful" in this instance. If there was any evidence that the groups targeted for further review had applications that raised genuine questions then the IRS could have made this scandal disappear very quickly. That they are unable to do so speaks volumes.
dogma wrote: I explicitly stated that passing confidential information to third parties is unacceptable per the law, but that the rest is probably fine. And we don't even know if policy was actually breached.
You mean other than the head of the tax-exempt division publicly admitting that policy was breached, right? But you have no problem with right leaning groups being singled out for unwarranted review because no one was "executed".
dogma wrote: When did I say it wasn't politically motivated?
Its definitely justifiable, though.
If it is politically motivated how can you then claim that the IRS is being reasonable, much less impartial? Targeting someone solely because of their political opinion is text book bad faith, not to mention encroaching significantly on their right to political opinon.
Again I would say that if the action by the IRS was justifiable then not only would they not have issued a public apology (thus admitting their liability) but they would have shown that their actions were warranted, and that would have stopped this being any more than a storm in a tea cup.
I said back on Page 1 "There's none so blind as those who will not see.". I think that this could not be more apt. I have stated my case with examples, quotes, reason and logic. In return I've waded through ideologically driven responses that ignore the facts that have been widely reported and ignore arguments rather than make any attempt to counter them, while repeating the same tired old arguments.
I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on many points simply because you refuse to look objectively at the facts as they emerge, thus frustrating the possibility for anything approaching a reasonable, honest or mature discussion.
When a Tennessee lawyer asked the IRS for tax-exempt status for a mentoring group that trained high school and college students about conservative political philosophy, the agency responded with a list of 95 questions in 31 parts, including an ultimatum for a list of everyone the group had trained, or planned to train.
'Provide details regarding all training you have provided or will provide,' the IRS demanded. 'Indicate who has received or will receive the training and submit copies of the training material.'
That question was part of the tax collection agency's February 14, 2012 letter to Kevin Kookogey. founder of the group Linchpins of Liberty. He had submitted his application 13 months earlier.
'Can you imagine my responsibility to parents if I disclosed the names of their children to the IRS?' he asked MailOnline.
It's 'an impossible question to answer fully and truthfully,' he said, 'without disclosing the names of anyone I ever taught, or would ever teach, including students.'
Like the leaders of many tea party-affiliated groups whose tax-exemption applications have become the subject of angry complaints, Kookogey called the IRS's inquisition an overreach, 'especially considering that my organization mentors high school and college students.'
It 'should send chills through your spine,' he told MailOnline, 'that the government would ask me to identify those I teach, and to provide details of what I teach them.'
The 13-month delay, while burdensome, was far shorter than those some other groups endured. According to a report released late Tuesday by the IRS's Office of Inspector General, the average delay at one point was 574 days.
But Kookogey said a $30,000 grant was canceled as a result of the IRS's months-long radio silence, when he couldn't tell his donor that Linchpins had earned its 501(c)(3) tax-exempt status.
That money would have made a significant difference to the group, judging from its public filings in Tennessee. In 2011, Linchpins of Liberty reported collecting just $3,460 in contributions, and spending $7,328 on its programs.
The group's online materials refer to it as 'an American leadership development enterprise.' Its stated purpose is to mentor high school and college students, placing an emphasis on Western civilization and an old-style core curriculum - what previous generations called the 'great books.'
'Our ideas are opposed to the Obama administration, but we’re not tea party,' Kookogey told The Tennessean.
It's that lack of a tea party connection, he said, that makes his predicament so maddening.
He told MailOnline that nothing about his group - 'not our name or our description or our website, or anything' - should have placed it among the organizations the IRS chose to scrutinize closely by using key words like 'tea party,' '9/12,' and 'patriots' as qualifiers.
'I'm not a Tea Party group. I'm not a Patriot group by name' he told NewsChannel 5 in Nashville.
'We mentor high school and college students in conservative political philosophy. It's a one on one relationship.'
Kookogey summed it up in an interview with MailOnline as 'unethical, unconstitutional, and unfair,' later asserting in an email that '[w]e were targeted by the IRS based on our political beliefs and the content of our speech.'
The American Center for Law and Justice, which represents 27 conservative groups including Linchpins of Liberty, is planning to file suit against the IRS.
Jay Sekulow, that organization's chief counsel, wrote on Tuesday that 'the IRS abuse is ongoing.'
'Even though the IRS admitted wrongdoing,' Sekulow wrote in an essay for FoxNews.com, even though the Inspector General’s report indicates that wrongdoing was widespread, the IRS still hasn’t withdrawn its overbroad and unconstitutional questions, and it still hasn’t granted the exemptions it should grant, despite the fact that some applications have been pending for more than two years.'
The Inspector General's report includes a list of 'the seven questions' the IRS asked right-wing groups that were later 'identified as being unnecessary.'
Its request for the list of students trained by Linchpins of Liberty was not among them.
The report also largely exonerates political appointees in the Treasury Department and at the top of the IRS, instead blaming mid-level bureaucrats for providing 'ineffective management' and using 'inappropriate criteria' to red-flag conservative groups.
It makes no mention of anyone in the White House directing the IRS to play political favorites. But The Washington Post has reported that 'senior IRS officials' in Washington, D.C. were notified of the practice in 2011.
In December of that year, Kookogey says, he called the IRS's nonprofit evaluation arm in Cincinnati, Ohio, to find out why his group's application had taken so long.
The agent on the other end of the line, he said, told him, 'We are waiting on guidance from our superiors as to your organization and similar organizations.'
Attorney General Eric Holder has said that he ordered the FBI to initiate a criminal probe on Friday, when he learned about the IRS's practices.
The IRS's actions, he said, were, 'certainly outrageous and unacceptable, but we are examining the facts to see if there were criminal violations.'
Holder is expected to testify in a House Judiciary Committee hearing on Wednesday in Washington. On Friday the House Ways and Means Committee will hear testimony from acting IRS Commissioner Steven Miller and Treasury Inspector General J. Russell George.
Florida Republican Senator Marco Rubio has called for Miller to lose his job
'At a bare minimum, those involved with this deeply offensive use of government power have committed a violation of the public trust that has already had a profoundly chilling effect on free speech,' Rubio wrote Monday in a letter to Treasury Secretary Jack Lew. 'Such behavior cannot be excused with a simple apology.'
'It is clear the IRS cannot operate with even a shred of the American people’s confidence under the current leadership,' Rubio continued. 'Therefore, I strongly urge that you and President Obama demand the IRS Commissioner’s resignation, effective immediately.'
On Friday, Sekulow demanded that the IRS immediately approve the tax-exempt status applications of his organization's 10 legal clients, including Linchpins of Liberty, that are still waiting. He issued the agency an ultimatum: Grant the requests by noon on May 17, or prepare to fight in court.
'We are demanding that the IRS grant our remaining clients tax-exempt status immediately,' Sekulow said in a statement. 'If that does not occur by Friday, we will advise our clients of their right to sue the IRS for the redress of their grievances.'
The Internal Revenue Service wrote to the Richmond Tea Party last year demanding to know the names of all its financial donors and volunteers, as part of a 55-question inquisition into its application for tax-exempt status, MailOnline has learned. (http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/05_02/Richmond%20tea%20party%20IRS%20letter.pdf)
The agency wanted to know 'the names of the donors, contributors, and grantors' for every year 'from inception to the present.'
It also demanded 'the amounts of each of the donations, contributions, and grants and the dates you received them.'
'How did you use these donations, contributions, and grants?' the IRS asked. 'Provide the details.'
And in addition to the names of board members, officers and employees, the nation's taxing authorities insisted on knowing the names of everyone who helped the Richmond Tea Party without compensation.
'Please identify your volunteers,' the January 9, 2012 letter from the IRS read.
The agency also required the Virginia conservative group to provide copies of sections of its website that only its members can access.
The IRS came under fire on Friday when its Office of Inspector General released a draft of an investigative timeline showing that the agency had played political favorites with nonprofit groups seeking tax-exempt status.
In 2010, according to that investigation, the Cincinnati-based IRS office responsible for vetting tax-exempt applications began targeting groups with 'Tea Party or similar' words in their names – including words like 'patriots' and '9/12' – for tighter scrutiny
The IRS ultimately identified approximately 300 such organizations, many of which were independently organized in 2009 and 2010 under the larger 'tea party' banner. Those groups had a decisive impact in the 2010 midterm congressional elections, and became a thorn in the side of the Democratic party, costing it race after race, especially in the House of Representatives, which shifted to Republican control.
In the nearly three years since the IRS began looking more closely at conservative nonprofit groups than others, 125 of the 300 target organizations have been approved for tax-exempt status. Another 25 withdrew their applications. The remainder are still waiting.
The Office of Inspector General's timeline shows that in Washington, senior officials with the IRS were made aware of the practice by at least August 4, 2011. On that date, the chief counsel of the IRS met with the agency's Rulings and Agreements unit 'so that everyone would have the latest information on the issue.'
But during a press gaggle about Air Force One on Monday, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney insisted the White House was unaware of the investigation or its political implications until last month.
'My understanding,' Carney told reporters while en route to New York City for the president's appearance at political fundraising events, 'is that the White House Counsel’s Office was alerted in the week of April 22nd of this year, only about the fact that the IG was finishing a review about matters involving the office in Cincinnati. But that’s all they were informed as a normal sort of heads-up.'
'And we have never – we don’t have access to, nor should we, the IG’s report or any draft versions of it.'
Asked whether heads would roll at the IRS if the IG's report concludes that there was substantial wrongdoing, Carney was cautious.
'I think you’re getting ahead of it,' he told a reporter, according to a transcript released by the White House. 'I think you heard from the President on this today and how he feels about it. But the "if" is very important, so we’re not going to start predicting outcomes if we don’t know what the conclusions of the IG report are.'
The Washington Post reported on Friday that the IRS has apologized for its practices, which sought to scrutinize conservative nonprofit groups 'that criticized the government and sought to educate Americans about the U.S. Constitution.'
In early 2012 a group of tea party organizations refused the IRS's requests for what they considered overreaching information about their operations, instead asking the House Oversight and Government Affairs Committee to investigate.
That committee wrote in June 2012 to the IRS inspector general, asking for 'periodic updates' on its investigation.
California Republican Rep. Darrel Issa, who chairs the committee, has promised it will 'aggressively follow up' on the IG's findings. House Majority Leader Eric Cantor said in a statement Friday that the IRS 'cannot target or intimidate any individual or organization based on their political beliefs.'
'The House will investigate this matter,' Cantor promised.
Add appearing on the Fox News Channel on Sunday, Michigan Republican Rep. Mike Rogers said the IRS had 'agents who were engaged in intimidation of political groups.'
'I don't care if you're a conservative, a liberal, a Democrat or a Republican,' he said. 'This should send a chill up your spine. It needs to have a full investigation.'
President Obama echoed that sentiment during a press conference on Monday, sayign any IRS personnel who played political favorites 'have to be held fully accountable. ... And you should feel that way regardless of party. I don't care whether you're a Democrat, independent or a Republican.'
'At some point, there are going to be Republican administrations. At some point, there are going to be Democratic ones. Either way,' the president said, 'you don't want the IRS ever being perceived to be biased and anything less than neutral in terms of how they operate.'
Richmond Tea Party Executive Director Larry Nordvig did not immediately respond to a request for comment. But in 2012 his organization lashed out at the IRS for making 'unreasonable documentation requests.'
'This illustrates everything the American people find unacceptable from their government,' the group said in a press release. 'A simple request for tax-exempt status should not take years to complete, involve hundreds of pages of documentation, require hundreds of volunteer hours, and request private information we should never have to disclose.'
'This grants the Federal Government the dangerous power to selectively stymie those voices with which they disagree, bogging them down in endless paperwork and compliance costs so that they are unable to spend time serving the principles they founded their organization to advance.'
The Virginia organization said it applied for 501(c)(4) tax-exempt status on December 28, 2009 and waited nearly 10 months for a response, which consisted of 17 questions and a two-week deadline. That demand was made on the opening day of the Virginia Tea Party Convention, which the Richmond Tea Party organized in large part.
'We fully complied,' the group wrote, 'providing over 500 pages of documentation. We received no response for over a year. Eventually the IRS sent a letter dated January 9, 2012, thanking us for our "complete and thorough responses" from the first request,' but then asking 55 more questions in 12 parts – 'including the totally inappropriate request for a full list of our donors and volunteers. We were given the same two-week timeframe for completion.'
Alan P. Dye, a nonprofit attorney with the Washington, D.C. firm of Webster, Chamberlain & Bean, told MailOnline that he represents six tea party groups that have been waiting for periods of up to 30 months for the IRS to issue rulings.
'They're very pissed off,' he said, 'and they have every right to be pissed off.'
He advises his clients to refuse to answer invasive questions about their donors and volunteers, he said, since information they provide would be made available to the public.
'Everything these groups tell the IRS is open to public inspection once their exempt status is granted,' Dye explained.
Florida Sen. Marco Rubio demanded the ouster of acting IRS commissioner Steven T. Miller on Monday. President Obama called the IRS's alleged conduct 'outrageous,' and said the bureaucrats responsible would be 'held accountable.'
The scandal-plagued Internal Revenue Service demanded Tea Party groups tell them everything from what they were posting on Facebook to what they read to even what they were thinking, a startling report has claimed.
The Justice Department has opened a criminal probe of the agency as a separate investigation found that lax management enabled agents to improperly target Tea Party groups for extra scrutiny when they applied for tax exempt status.
A new evaluation of IRS documents has found that there was little that the tax-collecting agency did not ask of Tea Party groups
The Politico review found that IRS demands included copies of their websites, donor information, minutes from all meetings, political goals of its members and print-outs of posts and comments on social media sites - each with a 'penalty of perjury' warning that left people spooked.
Toby Marie Walker, the president of the Waco Tea Party, told the site: 'They were asking for a U-Haul truck’s worth of information.'
Politico reported that one group, the Ohio-based American Patriots Against Government Excess was asked to provide summaries or copies of all material passed out at meetings.
Group president Marion Bower said that they were reading the U.S. Constitution and a copy of The 5000 Year Leap, a book by Cleon Skousen, so she sent a copy of each.
She told Politico: 'I don’t have time to write a book report for them.'
In the face of the hassle, some groups just dropped their tax exempt status request altogether.
Also today, House Speaker John Boehner asked the question: 'Who's going to jail over this scandal?'
He told reporters at the Capitol: 'There are laws in place to prevent this type of abuse. Someone made a conscious decision to harass and to hold up these requests for tax exempt status.
'I think we need to know who they are and whether they violated the law. Clearly someone violated the law.'
Earlier this week, MailOnline learned that the IRS wrote to the Richmond Tea Party last year demanding to know the names of all its financial donors and volunteers, as part of a 55-question inquisition into its application for tax-exempt status.
The agency wanted to know 'the names of the donors, contributors, and grantors' for every year 'from inception to the present.'
It also demanded 'the amounts of each of the donations, contributions, and grants and the dates you received them.'
'How did you use these donations, contributions, and grants?' the IRS asked. 'Provide the details.'
And in addition to the names of board members, officers and employees, the nation's taxing authorities insisted on knowing the names of everyone who helped the Richmond Tea Party without compensation.
'Please identify your volunteers,' the January 9, 2012 letter from the IRS read.
The agency also required the Virginia conservative group to provide copies of sections of its website that only its members can access.
Yesterday, a Tennessee Tea Party leader told MailOnline that he was given a 95-question document when he asked the IRS for tax-exempt status for a mentoring group that trained high school and college students about conservative political philosophy.
The questionnaire included an ultimatum for a list of everyone he had trained and was planning to train.
'Provide details regarding all training you have provided or will provide,' the IRS demanded. 'Indicate who has received or will receive the training and submit copies of the training material.'
That question was part of the tax collection agency's February 14, 2012 letter to Kevin Kookogey, founder of the group Linchpins of Liberty.
He had submitted his application 13 months earlier.
'Can you imagine my responsibility to parents if I disclosed the names of their children to the IRS?' he asked MailOnline.
It's 'an impossible question to answer fully and truthfully,' he said, 'without disclosing the names of anyone I ever taught, or would ever teach, including students.'
Like the leaders of many tea party-affiliated groups whose tax-exemption applications have become the subject of angry complaints, Kookogey called the IRS's inquisition an overreach, 'especially considering that my organization mentors high school and college students.'
It 'should send chills through your spine,' he told MailOnline, 'that the government would ask me to identify those I teach, and to provide details of what I teach them.'
The 13-month delay, while burdensome, was far shorter than those some other groups endured.
According to a report released late Tuesday by the IRS's Office of Inspector General, the average delay at one point was 574 days.
But Kookogey said a $30,000 grant was canceled as a result of the IRS's months-long radio silence, when he couldn't tell his donor that Linchpins had earned its 501(c)(3) tax-exempt status.
That money would have made a significant difference to the group, judging from its public filings in Tennessee.
In 2011, Linchpins of Liberty reported collecting just $3,460 in contributions, and spending $7,328 on its programs.
The group's online materials refer to it as 'an American leadership development enterprise.' Its stated purpose is to mentor high school and college students, placing an emphasis on Western civilization and an old-style core curriculum - what previous generations called the 'great books.'
'Our ideas are opposed to the Obama administration, but we’re not tea party,' Kookogey told The Tennessean.
It's that lack of a tea party connection, he said, that makes his predicament so maddening.
He told MailOnline that nothing about his group - 'not our name or our description or our website, or anything' - should have placed it among the organizations the IRS chose to scrutinize closely by using key words like 'tea party,' '9/12,' and 'patriots' as qualifiers.
'I'm not a Tea Party group. I'm not a Patriot group by name' he told NewsChannel 5 in Nashville.
'We mentor high school and college students in conservative political philosophy. It's a one on one relationship.'
Kookogey summed it up in an interview with MailOnline as 'unethical, unconstitutional, and unfair,' later asserting in an email that '[w]e were targeted by the IRS based on our political beliefs and the content of our speech.'
The American Center for Law and Justice, which represents 27 conservative groups including Linchpins of Liberty, is planning to file suit against the IRS.
Jay Sekulow, that organization's chief counsel, wrote on Tuesday that 'the IRS abuse is ongoing.'
'Even though the IRS admitted wrongdoing,' Sekulow wrote in an essay for FoxNews.com, even though the Inspector General’s report indicates that wrongdoing was widespread, the IRS still hasn’t withdrawn its overbroad and unconstitutional questions, and it still hasn’t granted the exemptions it should grant, despite the fact that some applications have been pending for more than two years.'
The Inspector General's report includes a list of 'the seven questions' the IRS asked right-wing groups that were later 'identified as being unnecessary.'
Its request for the list of students trained by Linchpins of Liberty was not among them.
The report also largely exonerates political appointees in the Treasury Department and at the top of the IRS, instead blaming mid-level bureaucrats for providing 'ineffective management' and using 'inappropriate criteria' to red-flag conservative groups.
It makes no mention of anyone in the White House directing the IRS to play political favorites. But The Washington Post has reported that 'senior IRS officials' in Washington, D.C. were notified of the practice in 2011.
In December of that year, Kookogey says, he called the IRS's nonprofit evaluation arm in Cincinnati, Ohio, to find out why his group's application had taken so long.
The agent on the other end of the line, he said, told him, 'We are waiting on guidance from our superiors as to your organization and similar organizations.'
Attorney General Eric Holder has demanded a joint Justice Department and FBI criminal probe against the IRS.
He said that he first learned about the IRS's practices on Friday.
The IRS's actions, he said, were, 'certainly outrageous and unacceptable, but we are examining the facts to see if there were criminal violations.'
Florida Sen Marco Rubio has ordered Treasury Secretary Jack Lew to fire acting IRS director Steven Miller over the scandal.
'At a bare minimum, those involved with this deeply offensive use of government power have committed a violation of the public trust that has already had a profoundly chilling effect on free speech,' Rubio wrote Monday in a letter to Lew.
'Such behavior cannot be excused with a simple apology.'
'It is clear the IRS cannot operate with even a shred of the American people’s confidence under the current leadership,' Rubio continued. 'Therefore, I strongly urge that you and President Obama demand the IRS Commissioner’s resignation, effective immediately.'
On Friday, Sekulow demanded that the IRS immediately approve the tax-exempt status applications of his organization's 10 legal clients, including Linchpins of Liberty, that are still waiting. He issued the agency an ultimatum: Grant the requests by noon on May 17, or prepare to fight in court.
'We are demanding that the IRS grant our remaining clients tax-exempt status immediately,' Sekulow said in a statement. 'If that does not occur by Friday, we will advise our clients of their right to sue the IRS for the redress of their grievances.'
But in an email to IRS employees, Miller claimed he would only be leaving next month because his assignment would be over.
The feth?
True, I received this email today, what is being sent to IRS employees, such as myself, and what is being portrayed in the media are 2 separate things. Miller is on an acting assignment that ends in June, the timing is just convenient to make him a scapegoat. And he was not Acting Commish when all this went down, that was the previous actual Commish...
I would post the emails that I have received from NTEU, the Acting Commish and others if I knew it was ok to do so, I will check in the AM and see so that all here on Dakka can make their own guesses.
But in an email to IRS employees, Miller claimed he would only be leaving next month because his assignment would be over.
The feth?
True, I received this email today, what is being sent to IRS employees, such as myself, and what is being portrayed in the media are 2 separate things. Miller is on an acting assignment that ends in June, the timing is just convenient to make him a scapegoat. And he was not Acting Commish when all this went down, that was the previous actual Commish...
I would post the emails that I have received from NTEU, the Acting Commish and others if I knew it was ok to do so, I will check in the AM and see so that all here on Dakka can make their own guesses.
I, for one would love to see it... but, if you have any doubt if you should do it, don't. I work in the healthcare industry, and that would be grounds for termination.
So.. the whole accountability thing so far doesn't mean gak so far.
whembly wrote: I, for one would love to see it... but, if you have any doubt if you should do it, don't. I work in the healthcare industry, and that would be grounds for termination.
So.. the whole accountability thing so far doesn't mean gak so far.
I'll add my weight to this. Any internal communication from an organisation should not be shared, unless it is disclosing some wrong doing. Even then it should only be disclosed to the relevant body. So please do not risk your job.
But in an email to IRS employees, Miller claimed he would only be leaving next month because his assignment would be over.
The feth?
True, I received this email today, what is being sent to IRS employees, such as myself, and what is being portrayed in the media are 2 separate things. Miller is on an acting assignment that ends in June, the timing is just convenient to make him a scapegoat. And he was not Acting Commish when all this went down, that was the previous actual Commish...
I would post the emails that I have received from NTEU, the Acting Commish and others if I knew it was ok to do so, I will check in the AM and see so that all here on Dakka can make their own guesses.
I, for one would love to see it... but, if you have any doubt if you should do it, don't. I work in the healthcare industry, and that would be grounds for termination.
So.. the whole accountability thing so far doesn't mean gak so far.
The stuff from my terrible union I know I can post, the stuff that was approved releases to the press I know I can post, the rest I have to check. Here is what my union (NTEU) sent out today:
NTEU IRS Members:
There has been a tremendous amount of speculation in the media about the IRS and the organizations applying for tax-exempt 501(c)(3) and 501(c)(4) status. And, while some excerpts of the TIGTA report were shared with the media, the complete report was not released until last night.
IRS employees are dedicated and committed public servants who perform vital work on behalf of the American people. And in my experience, you do so without partisan considerations. The findings of the report confirm that.
The report showed no indication of improper political motives or intentional wrongdoing on the part of employees. The report also noted that IRS officials stated that the criteria were not influenced by any individual or organization outside the IRS.
The report states that TIGTA conducted the audit based on concerns expressed by members of Congress. The overall objective was to determine: "whether allegations were founded that the IRS: 1) targeted specific groups applying for "tax-exempt status, 2) delayed processing of targeted groups’ applications, and 3) requested unnecessary information from targeted groups."
TIGTA reported that it determined that "the IRS used inappropriate criteria that identified for review Tea Party and other organizations applying for tax-exempt status based upon their names or policy positions instead of indications of potential political campaign intervention. Ineffective management: 1) allowed inappropriate criteria to be developed and stay in place for more than 18 months, 2) resulted in substantial delays in processing certain applications, and 3) allowed unnecessary information requests to be issued."
The report also found that contributing to the problem were a lack of training, a lack of criteria and procedures, a lack of guidance for specialists on how to process requests for tax-exempt status involving potentially significant campaign intervention, a lack of sufficient oversight and a lack of direction from Treasury on how to measure the primary activity of 501(c)(4) social welfare organizations.
In response to TIGTA, the IRS stated, "We believe the front line career employees that made the decisions acted out of a desire for efficiency and not out of any political or partisan viewpoint."
The IRS has stated that no one intentionally did anything wrong and I believe that to be the case.
The release of the TIGTA report follows an announcement by Attorney General Eric Holder that he has ordered an investigation into whether criminal activity took place at the IRS.
In addition, several Congressional committees are scheduling hearings. On Friday, the House Ways and Means Committee will be holding a hearing on the report.
Front line IRS employees do important work for our country every day. These are challenging times for all federal employees, particularly IRS employees, and I know you will continue to focus on serving the American people. For its part, NTEU will work to ensure that front line employees are not treated unfairly. We will continue to support you and will keep you informed as the situation develops.
That is from Colleen Kelley
Take from it what you will, a bit different and less ERRRHHMEERRGEERRD than whats in the media I suppose..
There has been a tremendous amount of speculation in the media about the IRS and the organizations applying for tax-exempt 501(c)(3) and 501(c)(4) status. And, while some excerpts of the TIGTA report were shared with the media, the complete report was not released until last night.
IRS employees are dedicated and committed public servants who perform vital work on behalf of the American people. And in my experience, you do so without partisan considerations. The findings of the report confirm that.
The report showed no indication of improper political motives or intentional wrongdoing on the part of employees. The report also noted that IRS officials stated that the criteria were not influenced by any individual or organization outside the IRS.
The report states that TIGTA conducted the audit based on concerns expressed by members of Congress. The overall objective was to determine: "whether allegations were founded that the IRS: 1) targeted specific groups applying for "tax-exempt status, 2) delayed processing of targeted groups’ applications, and 3) requested unnecessary information from targeted groups."
TIGTA reported that it determined that "the IRS used inappropriate criteria that identified for review Tea Party and other organizations applying for tax-exempt status based upon their names or policy positions instead of indications of potential political campaign intervention. Ineffective management: 1) allowed inappropriate criteria to be developed and stay in place for more than 18 months, 2) resulted in substantial delays in processing certain applications, and 3) allowed unnecessary information requests to be issued."
The report also found that contributing to the problem were a lack of training, a lack of criteria and procedures, a lack of guidance for specialists on how to process requests for tax-exempt status involving potentially significant campaign intervention, a lack of sufficient oversight and a lack of direction from Treasury on how to measure the primary activity of 501(c)(4) social welfare organizations.
In response to TIGTA, the IRS stated, "We believe the front line career employees that made the decisions acted out of a desire for efficiency and not out of any political or partisan viewpoint."
The IRS has stated that no one intentionally did anything wrong and I believe that to be the case.
The release of the TIGTA report follows an announcement by Attorney General Eric Holder that he has ordered an investigation into whether criminal activity took place at the IRS.
In addition, several Congressional committees are scheduling hearings. On Friday, the House Ways and Means Committee will be holding a hearing on the report.
Front line IRS employees do important work for our country every day. These are challenging times for all federal employees, particularly IRS employees, and I know you will continue to focus on serving the American people. For its part, NTEU will work to ensure that front line employees are not treated unfairly. We will continue to support you and will keep you informed as the situation develops.
That is from Colleen Kelley
Take from it what you will, a bit different and less ERRRHHMEERRGEERRD than whats in the media I suppose..
Then why didn't the IRS & Obama administration stick to their guns and stand on the TIGTA report?
There has been a tremendous amount of speculation in the media about the IRS and the organizations applying for tax-exempt 501(c)(3) and 501(c)(4) status. And, while some excerpts of the TIGTA report were shared with the media, the complete report was not released until last night.
IRS employees are dedicated and committed public servants who perform vital work on behalf of the American people. And in my experience, you do so without partisan considerations. The findings of the report confirm that.
The report showed no indication of improper political motives or intentional wrongdoing on the part of employees. The report also noted that IRS officials stated that the criteria were not influenced by any individual or organization outside the IRS.
The report states that TIGTA conducted the audit based on concerns expressed by members of Congress. The overall objective was to determine: "whether allegations were founded that the IRS: 1) targeted specific groups applying for "tax-exempt status, 2) delayed processing of targeted groups’ applications, and 3) requested unnecessary information from targeted groups."
TIGTA reported that it determined that "the IRS used inappropriate criteria that identified for review Tea Party and other organizations applying for tax-exempt status based upon their names or policy positions instead of indications of potential political campaign intervention. Ineffective management: 1) allowed inappropriate criteria to be developed and stay in place for more than 18 months, 2) resulted in substantial delays in processing certain applications, and 3) allowed unnecessary information requests to be issued."
The report also found that contributing to the problem were a lack of training, a lack of criteria and procedures, a lack of guidance for specialists on how to process requests for tax-exempt status involving potentially significant campaign intervention, a lack of sufficient oversight and a lack of direction from Treasury on how to measure the primary activity of 501(c)(4) social welfare organizations.
In response to TIGTA, the IRS stated, "We believe the front line career employees that made the decisions acted out of a desire for efficiency and not out of any political or partisan viewpoint."
The IRS has stated that no one intentionally did anything wrong and I believe that to be the case.
The release of the TIGTA report follows an announcement by Attorney General Eric Holder that he has ordered an investigation into whether criminal activity took place at the IRS.
In addition, several Congressional committees are scheduling hearings. On Friday, the House Ways and Means Committee will be holding a hearing on the report.
Front line IRS employees do important work for our country every day. These are challenging times for all federal employees, particularly IRS employees, and I know you will continue to focus on serving the American people. For its part, NTEU will work to ensure that front line employees are not treated unfairly. We will continue to support you and will keep you informed as the situation develops.
That is from Colleen Kelley
Take from it what you will, a bit different and less ERRRHHMEERRGEERRD than whats in the media I suppose..
Then why didn't the IRS & Obama administration stick to their guns and stand on the TIGTA report?
Smells like damage control there...
I don't know, this is probably more confusing for me then you guys, what I have read from emails to all IRS employees and what has been reported in the media do not match. The report on CNN that 2 "ROGUE" IRS employees are at fault isn't mentioned anywhere in the emails I have received, which does make sense as they would not talk about an open investigation, but everything is a big mess and I honestly don't know who to believe. What I do know is I received an email today from the acting commish that noted he would be finished with his acting assignment in June and he hopes the next guy can "restore the public trust in the IRS". *SHRUG*
EDIT: Quote system acting up... Whembly posted the Obama question...
I wish the IRS were more strict on 501(c)(4) status in general. Not targeted at any particular political bent, but just not letting transparently political organizations get tax exempt status pretending to be something they're not.
Mannahnin wrote: I wish the IRS were more strict on 501(c)(4) status in general. Not targeted at any particular political bent, but just not letting transparently political organizations get tax exempt status pretending to be something they're not.
100% agreement with you there.
How 'bout this?
If we would just eliminate the corporate income tax, then people could organize groups, or not, just as they please. And the IRS would THEN not be in the position of deciding what counts as excessive political activity.
Without the corporate income tax, most of the incentive for lobbying would go away... not all of it, I'm sure. But the vast amount of effort that goes into lobbying for tax laws, and politicians often reward favored constituent businesses with little sweetheart deals to the tax code. Conversely, apparently neutral changes to the tax code often turn out to be excellent ways to hamstring your competition, particularly small businesses who cannot afford a huge tax department.
Want to get corporate money out of politics? Want to erode the power of the Chamber of Commerce? Take away one of their primary motives to get involved in the first place.
Mannahnin wrote: I wish the IRS were more strict on 501(c)(4) status in general. Not targeted at any particular political bent, but just not letting transparently political organizations get tax exempt status pretending to be something they're not.
You really seem to be struggling with this concept of just cause so let me put it another way - police right to target specific groups of people based on race/religion/etc. for investigations without any evidence of a crime being committed?
There is no component of US federal law (that I'm aware of) which makes discrimination due to political leaning explicitly illegal when the federal government engages in it.
Valion wrote: Do we take your word that you were saying the same thing and condemning the Bush impeachment calls even when you were stroking out on a daily basis over things he did?
Please go and find all the instances of me saying Bush should be impeached. Or, alternatively you can feel free to make up whatever random gak in your head that helps you pretend you're right.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: Without the corporate income tax, most of the incentive for lobbying would go away... not all of it, I'm sure. But the vast amount of effort that goes into lobbying for tax laws, and politicians often reward favored constituent businesses with little sweetheart deals to the tax code.
There is certainly tremendous scope in the US to reform the corporate tax code (and the overall tax code, especially the double taxation of dividends)... but it wouldn't meaningfully change corporate lobbying. Because there'll still be plenty of scope to lobby to chase favourable regulations (I mean, you have banking meltdown that wipes 5% off of worldwide GDP and the answer is to change nothing, basically), favourable EPA rulings, bizarrely low criminal penalties for corporations (when a person can face 30 years for a crime, but if its a corporation the fine is like $100,000 then you know something is screwy).
sebster wrote: Please go and find all the instances of me saying Bush should be impeached. Or, alternatively you can feel free to make up whatever random gak in your head that helps you pretend you're right.
Please read a little more closely next time. I didn't suggest you were saying Bush should be impeached, I suggested you probably weren't riding in on the high horse of arch-morality and condemning the people who were saying it.
You are now free to misread and respond with...hey, what do you know, whatever random gak in your head helps you pretend you're right.
Why not just eliminate taxes? America survived without this bull skat until the great depression and then it was WW2 that ultimately revived our economy(Opinion, I know.), income tax should've died there. Why would CEOs give a crap about how much taxes their businesses have to pay when they themselves don't have to pay taxes?
I know if I got to keep that extra 3k a month I'd buy a heck of alot more stuff and revive the economy while doing it. Instead I'll get taxed more because I want to be taxed less. Nice.
Valion wrote: Please read a little more closely next time. I didn't suggest you were saying Bush should be impeached, I suggested you probably weren't riding in on the high horse of arch-morality and condemning the people who were saying it.
Actually... that's exactly what I was doing.
Things were a lot more heated then, so I was less making fun of them and more pleading with them to stop with the easy impeachment, and instead look to getting something practical out of all that mess, but the end result was the same.
And it was for the exact same reason - by lurching straight to the big, political score of impeachment, you let lots of people tune out, dismiss the issue as just more political nonsense.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Newabortion wrote: Why not just eliminate taxes? America survived without this bull skat until the great depression and then it was WW2 that ultimately revived our economy(Opinion, I know.), income tax should've died there. Why would CEOs give a crap about how much taxes their businesses have to pay when they themselves don't have to pay taxes?
It isn't opinion that WWII did it, it's just straight, 100% political nonsense. Here's the thing, you save your economy from depression by driving up demand. The more stuff people are looking to buy, the more people are hired to make that stuff. Before long, hey presto, full employment.
And so, in WWII you got lots of people into jobs because government was putting in orders for jeeps and shermans and garands and everything else. And that drove the economy to full employment. But there's nothing magical about government getting people to buy guns or other military stuff, those people can just as easily be put to work building roads, bridges, dams and all the rest.
Oh, and in general, as to 'why income tax?' Because that's the only way of raising the money needed to run a government that serves a modern economy. Simply put, you don't have efficient interstate trade without government roads. You don't have a large supply of skilled labour without free education. You don't have efficient business practice without a court system to enforce contract and property rights. And without a welfare state, you have a large, impoverished underclass trapped in inter-generational poverty - and the economic drain is far greater than welfare.
In the counter intel world one of the indicators of espionage is joking about espionage. (Remember your SAEDA briefs for the old guys and TARP briefs for the newer)
I wonder if that also applies to using the IRS to audit folks?
(for the record, this is supposed to be a humorous post. I'm sure the various crap ton of tax payer funded investigations will figure out the Who and Why for this)
I would respectfully refer you back to my earlier posts, especially what I said in relation to not reading the links provided. If it is your position that targeting someone based on their political opinion is legitimate, lawful, fair and reasonable then I have nothing more to say to you.
I said back on Page 1 "There's none so blind as those who will not see.". I think that this could not be more apt. I have stated my case with examples, quotes, reason and logic. In return I've waded through ideologically driven responses that ignore the facts that have been widely reported and ignore arguments rather than make any attempt to counter them, while repeating the same tired old arguments.
I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on many points simply because you refuse to look objectively at the facts as they emerge, thus frustrating the possibility for anything approaching a reasonable, honest or mature discussion.
This group was told its tax-exempt application depended not on promising to stay out of electoral politics, but on pledging not to protest Planned Parenthood.
IRS officials refused to grant tax exempt status two pro-life organizations because of their position on the abortion issue, according to a non-profit law firm, which said that one group was pressured not to protest a pro-choice organization that endorsed President Obama during the last election.
“In one case, the IRS withheld approval of an application for tax exempt status for Coalition for Life of Iowa. In a phone call to Coalition for Life of Iowa leaders on June 6, 2009, the IRS agent ‘Ms. Richards’ told the group to send a letter to the IRS with the entire board’s signatures stating that, under perjury of the law, they do not picket/protest or organize groups to picket or protest outside of Planned Parenthood,” the Thomas More Society announced today. “Once the IRS received this letter, their application would be approved.”
Remember, 501(c)4s doesn't prohibit these groups to be involved in politics... only that their primary work would be for "social welfare", which can take on many forms.
If this is true, then the IRS was actively attempting to intimidate a pro-life group into curtailing its perfectly legal activism. In fact, protests against Planned Parenthood by this group would be exactly the kind of “social welfare” protected by an exemption.
And they can conveniently block organizations they don't agree with due to that ambiguity. When the definition should probably be made by a third party to prevent bias.
I think you'll find most people don't value orbelieve in free speech, just speech they agree with. College campuses and many workplaces are an excellent example of that.
Frazzled wrote: I think you'll find most people don't value orbelieve in free speech, just speech they agree with. College campuses and many workplaces are an excellent example of that.
Frazzled wrote: I think you'll find most people don't value orbelieve in free speech, just speech they agree with. College campuses and many workplaces are an excellent example of that.
whembly wrote:What does a stereotypical tea party really advocate?
I have no idea. They claim to be all about minimizing government intervention whilst endorsing massive government intervention.
Frazzled wrote: Same grounds any free speech is permitted as a benefit to society.
Sorry, Fraz, but I'm afraid that does not follow. Uness, of course, you are saying that (here it comes...) any speech is considered a benefit to society, (wait for it...) even neo-nazi rhetoric? (bam! Godwin'd!)
The idea of Free speech is to the benefit of society, but that does not mean the message contained within the speech is. It pains me that you are unable to make the distinction.
You cannot simply claim that "free speech is good, and this group is saying a thing, so they are helping society, so they should be tax free". That doesn't work. The group has to demonstrate that their specific actions are to the benefit of society. This was my question to Whemly: how is a protest of planned parenthood to the benefit of society?
Newabortion wrote:
Frazzled wrote: Same grounds any free speech is permitted as a benefit to society.
+1
Don't let Azazel The Cat read that though, he is liable to question for motive for wanting free speech.
I don't think you know me very well, sir. Would you care to explain your assumption, beyond that you simply heard two people say something and then reverting to unthinking herd behaviour? (oh, look, I did manage to answer Whembly's question, after all! )
EDIT: and I'll just leave this here. I'm not advocating that what the IRS is doing is okay. But I do find the current outrage to be more than coincidental.
whembly wrote:What does a stereotypical tea party really advocate?
I have no idea. They claim to be all about minimizing government intervention whilst endorsing massive government intervention.
Frazzled wrote: Same grounds any free speech is permitted as a benefit to society.
Sorry, Fraz, but I'm afraid that does not follow. Uness, of course, you are saying that (here it comes...) any speech is considered a benefit to society, (wait for it...) even neo-nazi rhetoric? (bam! Godwin'd!)
The idea of Free speech is to the benefit of society, but that does not mean the message contained within the speech is. It pains me that you are unable to make the distinction.
Wow dude, I'm tempted to say your ignorant. Neo-nazi speech spam is what free speech is all about. Anytime someone exercises their rights it benefits society.
Dang that ignorance from you is pissing me off, (OMFG HERE IS IS!) Just because you don't agree with someone doesn't mean you can shut them up, society learns to control itself by letting everyone (even neo nazis) speak their mind and opinions. Its called tolerance. They have just as much right to exercise their rights as you do, its only your opinion that their opinion is bad.
Edit: To clear things up about political parties, The "Tea party" isn't a political party, its an organisation that is made up of several conservative groups. The two main groups are Republicans and Libertarians. I'll let you look what those two groups stand for for yourself. I'm not a Republican for the very fact that they want less government but want government to tell people what to do based on what they think is morally right. I'm Pro-life, but who am I to tell someone they can't kill their own baby. I'm a libertarian for that very reason, I don't like how libertarians are isolationists but im starting to think it might be a good idea based on how much the world hates us.
whembly wrote:What does a stereotypical tea party really advocate?
I have no idea. They claim to be all about minimizing government intervention whilst endorsing massive government intervention.
Frazzled wrote: Same grounds any free speech is permitted as a benefit to society.
Sorry, Fraz, but I'm afraid that does not follow. Uness, of course, you are saying that (here it comes...) any speech is considered a benefit to society, (wait for it...) even neo-nazi rhetoric? (bam! Godwin'd!)
The idea of Free speech is to the benefit of society, but that does not mean the message contained within the speech is. It pains me that you are unable to make the distinction.
You cannot simply claim that "free speech is good, and this group is saying a thing, so they are helping society, so they should be tax free". That doesn't work. The group has to demonstrate that their specific actions are to the benefit of society. This was my question to Whemly: how is a protest of planned parenthood to the benefit of society?
Newabortion wrote:
Frazzled wrote: Same grounds any free speech is permitted as a benefit to society.
+1
Don't let Azazel The Cat read that though, he is liable to question for motive for wanting free speech.
I don't think you know me very well, sir. Would you care to explain your assumption, beyond that you simply heard two people say something and then reverting to unthinking herd behaviour? (oh, look, I did manage to answer Whembly's question, after all! )
EDIT: and I'll just leave this here. I'm not advocating that what the IRS is doing is okay. But I do find the current outrage to be more than coincidental.
Wow I did not actually expect you to come back and literally be the poster boy for what the previous posters and I were saying. Speech is speech. Absent extremely minor limits put in place historically to prevent riots, its not defined as good speech or bad speech, just speech, who's overall usage is a benefit to society (AND PROTECTED VIGOROUSLY UNDER THE FIRST AMENDMENT). The moment you start saying some speech is not good speech, you might as well just turn in the democracy keys right there, because you'll be a dictatorship in a generation or two.
whembly wrote:What does a stereotypical tea party really advocate?
I have no idea. They claim to be all about minimizing government intervention whilst endorsing massive government intervention.
Frazzled wrote: Same grounds any free speech is permitted as a benefit to society.
Sorry, Fraz, but I'm afraid that does not follow. Uness, of course, you are saying that (here it comes...) any speech is considered a benefit to society, (wait for it...) even neo-nazi rhetoric? (bam! Godwin'd!)
The idea of Free speech is to the benefit of society, but that does not mean the message contained within the speech is. It pains me that you are unable to make the distinction.
Wow dude, I'm tempted to say your ignorant. Neo-nazi speech spam is what free speech is all about. Anytime someone exercises their rights it benefits society. Dang that ignorance from you is pissing me off, (OMFG HERE IS IS!) Just because you don't agree with someone doesn't mean you can shut them up, society learns to control itself by letting everyone (even neo nazis) speak their mind and opinions. Its called tolerance. They have just as much right to exercise their rights as you do, its only your opinion that their opinion is bad.
Yup. That's right. Free speech is of benefit to society. But it is not of benefit to society every time that right is exercised. I laid that right out there for you, plain as day, and you just completely missed it. So I will repeat:
Having the right to free speech is of benefit to society, but that does not mean that everything said is: having the ability to shout hate is an example of a right that is beneficial to society, but that does not imply the hate itself is beneficial.
If you cannot make the distinction, then I honestly pity you.
@Frazzled: the same goes with you. It is of great benefit to society that a person has the liberty to scream "kill all dem n****** ". However, that does not mean that society benefits from the message of "kill all dem n****** ".
You guys honestly don't understand the disctinction between the right to speech being beneficial, yet the message of the speech itself being detrimental, do you?
EDIT: What's the John Adams line? "I do not agree with a word you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"? That's the same principle. It's possible that a person's right to say something asinine is for the good of society, because it is a right that should not be infringed (barring likely the same circumstances Frazzled alluded to), yet that does not mean the asinine thing that is said, in itself and of its own merits, is beneficial on its face.
"The voice of opponents
no less than that of friends
has a right to be heard"
- C.P. Scott 1921
Automatically Appended Next Post: Is it in society's interests that a government body responsible for taxes takes an active role in preventing a legitimate group from expressing their opinions, their political views, or their religious beliefs?
Dreadclaw69 wrote: "The voice of opponents
no less than that of friends
has a right to be heard"
- C.P. Scott 1921
Automatically Appended Next Post: Is it in society's interests that a government body responsible for taxes takes an active role in preventing a legitimate group from expressing their opinions, their political views, or their religious beliefs?
Only insofar as the group requesting tax exemption for a specific set of characteristics for said group. If they aren't staying within the legally defined lines, they should not be given tax exempt status.
NOTE: I'm not saying any of these organizations did or did not meet said guidelines, only that this would be the only reason a tax body should care about the political or religious views of a certain group.
Then again, I think tax exempt status should be done away with wholesale, so my thoughts are probably moot.
As yet it has not been revealed whether the organisation would have been eligible. But the fact remains that granting tax exempt status on the basis of discontinuing an activity is on the face of it very untoward. The IRS should have granted or refused, they should not have attached conditions as they did.
In addition it may be arguable that the IRS broke policy under Number 2 below, which is the list of questions that the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration identified as being unnecassary
Dreadclaw69 wrote: "The voice of opponents
no less than that of friends
has a right to be heard"
- C.P. Scott 1921
Automatically Appended Next Post: Is it in society's interests that a government body responsible for taxes takes an active role in preventing a legitimate group from expressing their opinions, their political views, or their religious beliefs?
Only insofar as the group requesting tax exemption for a specific set of characteristics for said group. If they aren't staying within the legally defined lines, they should not be given tax exempt status.
NOTE: I'm not saying any of these organizations did or did not meet said guidelines, only that this would be the only reason a tax body should care about the political or religious views of a certain group.
Then again, I think tax exempt status should be done away with wholesale, so my thoughts are probably moot.
NOTE: I'm not saying any of these organizations did or did not meet said guidelines, only that this would be the only reason a tax body should care about the political or religious views of a certain group.
I disagree, WHAT the view is should make zero difference, adherence to the law/tax code in how they voice those views should be what matters.
"Social welfare" is ambiguous as hell. So, that determination is left to the decision makers within the IRS. This should be made crystal clear.
I agree with you...
Grey Templar wrote:
And they can conveniently block organizations they don't agree with due to that ambiguity. When the definition should probably be made by a third party to prevent bias.
Newabortion wrote:Why not just do away with taxes?
Because nominally, a government requires some sort of income to operate. Especially given the rise in costs of social services, doing away with taxes wholesale would basically force social services out to private groups. And frankly, with the mess that is privatized health care and for-profit prisons, I don't see that as a good thing. Perhaps because I've worked in antitrust regulations and corporate fraud litigation for so long.
I also have little trust in non-profit organizations; most are simply businesses masquerading as some sort of benevolent organization. Susan G Kommen springs to mind, with their group spending more time on their lawyer squad 'protecting their brand name' than on actually worrying about cancer. When you sue a small town dog sled race because "Mush for the Cure" sounds too much like "Race for the Cure", you lose a lot of standing in my eyes.
NOTE: I'm not saying any of these organizations did or did not meet said guidelines, only that this would be the only reason a tax body should care about the political or religious views of a certain group.
I disagree, WHAT the view is should make zero difference, adherence to the law/tax code in how they voice those views should be what matters.
Rereading my sentence, I'm honestly surprised it made sense to anyone. Basically I was saying that the only reason the IRS should care about political leanings, is making sure that the group's activities fall within the legal guidelines of what a non-profit is allowed to do. Once they step outside those guidelines, however, they should have their tax-exempt status immediately revoked.
I disagree, WHAT the view is should make zero difference, adherence to the law/tax code in how they voice those views should be what matters.
Presently 501(c)(3)s cannot take political action of any kind*. 501(c)(4)s are allowed to do this, but it cannot be their sole activity**. However the suits following the IRS admission will almost certainly change both of those classifications due to the establishment of the corporate right to free speech in FEC v. Citizens United.
*But, of course they do it all the time.
**Which is why the IRS would scrutinize groups that clearly define themselves in a political sense.
In addition it may be arguable that the IRS broke policy under Number 2 below, which is the list of questions that the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration identified as being unnecassary.
An investigation after the fact does not necessarily indicate a breach of policy.
As usual, this is going to wind up halfway between both party lines.
It's going to end up being a policy breach. It will turn out that the IRS was using the names as a shortcut for actually checking things for red flags and as a result were disproportionally harassing right wing groups in pursuit of doing their actual legitimate job.
It's a middle of the road screwup. It's wrong and some people are going to resign in the end, but it's not watergate plus iran contra times ten.
In May 2011, Drew Ryun, a conservative activist and former Republican National Committee staffer, began filling out the Internal Revenue Service application to achieve nonprofit status for a new conservative watchdog group.
He submitted the paperwork to the IRS in July 2011 for a research site called Media Trackers, which calls itself a “non-partisan investigative watchdog dedicated to promoting accountability in the media and government.” Although the site has investigated Republicans like Ohio Gov. John Kasich and Florida Gov. Rick Scott, the site’s organizers are unapologetically conservative.
“One thing we don’t hide is: ‘Yeah, we’re conservative—free-market, free-enterprise, full-spectrum conservative,’” Ryun told Mother Jones magazine last year.
Eight months passed without word from the agency about the group’s application, Ryun said. In February 2012, Ryun’s attorney contacted the IRS to ask if it needed more information to secure its nonprofit status as a 501(c)3 organization. According to Ryun, the IRS told him that the application was being processed by the agency’s office in Cincinnati, Ohio—the same one currently facing scrutiny for targeting conservative groups—and to check back in two months.
As directed, Ryun followed up with the IRS in April 2012, and was told that Media Trackers’ application was still under review.
When September 2012 arrived with still no word from the IRS, Ryun determined that Media Trackers would likely never obtain standalone nonprofit status, and he tried a new approach: He applied for permanent nonprofit status for a separate group called Greenhouse Solutions, a pre-existing organization that was reaching the end of its determination period.
The IRS approved Greenhouse Solutions’ request for permanent nonprofit status in three weeks.
Not really? A new request will always take longer than a request (seemingly) from an existing group. Unless Im reading that article wrong, the guy has exactly 0a proof that anything untpward happened, other than that his application took a long time to process.
streamdragon wrote: Not really? A new request will always take longer than a request (seemingly) from an existing group. Unless Im reading that article wrong, the guy has exactly 0a proof that anything untpward happened, other than that his application took a long time to process.
14 months they waited, checking repeatedly, and kept being told to wait.
Yeah... nothing bad going down there. It's all just how the system works.
@Frazzled: dammit, you're right, that was Voltaire. What was John Adams' super-catchy quote, then? And can I take it by your disengagement that you now understand the very important semantic difference I was speaking of?
Dreadclaw69 wrote:Is it in society's interests that a government body responsible for taxes takes an active role in preventing a legitimate group from expressing their opinions, their political views, or their religious beliefs?
Absolutely not -in fact it is to the detriment of society if a government body were to attempt such. However, the group still has to pay taxes.
Newabortion wrote:Why not just do away with taxes?
Because then you'd also have to do away with roads and fire departments. And most people like roads and fire departments.
Rented Tritium wrote:As usual, this is going to wind up halfway between both party lines.
It's going to end up being a policy breach. It will turn out that the IRS was using the names as a shortcut for actually checking things for red flags and as a result were disproportionally harassing right wing groups in pursuit of doing their actual legitimate job.
It's a middle of the road screwup. It's wrong and some people are going to resign in the end, but it's not watergate plus iran contra times ten.
Hey! The time for tempered reasoning and cooler heads was several pages back! Get this not-nonsense out of here, pick a side, a colour and a bat with nails in it and start screaming like everyone else.
streamdragon wrote: Not really? A new request will always take longer than a request (seemingly) from an existing group. Unless Im reading that article wrong, the guy has exactly 0a proof that anything untpward happened, other than that his application took a long time to process.
14 months they waited, checking repeatedly, and kept being told to wait.
Yeah... nothing bad going down there. It's all just how the system works.
Load of horsewad.
I presume you know how long the norm is then? I don't, so I can't really say either way.
What the article insinuates is that a conservative group's application took ages while a liberal sounding organization's did not. It glosses over the fact that the liberal org already had an existing tax exempt status. Essentially, he compares a new application to what on the surface would look like a renewal. Completely different beasts, but we are supposed to be outraged nonetheless. Hardly "busted!!1!zomgwtfbbq" material.
Show me any evidence that the (most likely but again I dont know exacts and suspect you don't either) excessively long waiting period was because "zomg conservatives" and I will readily agree it was nonesense. But dont compare a granny smith to a red delicious and wonder why one isnt green enough.
Absolutely not -in fact it is to the detriment of society if a government body were to attempt such. However, the group still has to pay taxes.
Unless it is an exempt group. Status that was being denied to it until it refrained from exercising the rights listed. If it was protesting against Planned Parenthood then it may still be exempt
501(c)(3)
The exempt purposes set forth in section 501(c)(3) are charitable, religious, educational, scientific, literary, testing for public safety, fostering national or international amateur sports competition, and preventing cruelty to children or animals. The term charitable is used in its generally accepted legal sense and includes relief of the poor, the distressed, or the underprivileged; advancement of religion; advancement of education or science; erecting or maintaining public buildings, monuments, or works; lessening the burdens of government; lessening neighborhood tensions; eliminating prejudice and discrimination; defending human and civil rights secured by law; and combating community deterioration and juvenile delinquency.
501(c)(4)
To be tax-exempt as a social welfare organization described in Internal Revenue Code (IRC) section 501(c)(4), an organization must not be organized for profit and must be operated exclusively to promote social welfare. . .To be operated exclusively to promote social welfare, an organization must operate primarily to further the common good and general welfare of the people of the community (such as by bringing about civic betterment and social improvements). . .The promotion of social welfare does not include direct or indirect participation or intervention in political campaigns on behalf of or in opposition to any candidate for public office. However, a section 501(c)(4) social welfare organization may engage in some political activities, so long as that is not its primary activity.
The goal of Coalition For Life (the group in question) - "The Coalition for Life is a community based Christian pro-life organization made up of over 60 churches and thousands of individuals who are working to end abortion in the Brazos Valley, peacefully and prayerfully." - http://www.coalitionforlife.com/index.cfm?load=page&page=2
Absolutely not -in fact it is to the detriment of society if a government body were to attempt such. However, the group still has to pay taxes.
Unless it is an exempt group. Status that was being denied to it until it refrained from exercising the rights listed. If it was protesting against Planned Parenthood then it may still be exempt
501(c)(3)
The exempt purposes set forth in section 501(c)(3) are charitable, religious, educational, scientific, literary, testing for public safety, fostering national or international amateur sports competition, and preventing cruelty to children or animals. The term charitable is used in its generally accepted legal sense and includes relief of the poor, the distressed, or the underprivileged; advancement of religion; advancement of education or science; erecting or maintaining public buildings, monuments, or works; lessening the burdens of government; lessening neighborhood tensions; eliminating prejudice and discrimination; defending human and civil rights secured by law; and combating community deterioration and juvenile delinquency.
501(c)(4)
To be tax-exempt as a social welfare organization described in Internal Revenue Code (IRC) section 501(c)(4), an organization must not be organized for profit and must be operated exclusively to promote social welfare. . .To be operated exclusively to promote social welfare, an organization must operate primarily to further the common good and general welfare of the people of the community (such as by bringing about civic betterment and social improvements). . .The promotion of social welfare does not include direct or indirect participation or intervention in political campaigns on behalf of or in opposition to any candidate for public office. However, a section 501(c)(4) social welfare organization may engage in some political activities, so long as that is not its primary activity.
The goal of Coalition For Life (the group in question) - "The Coalition for Life is a community based Christian pro-life organization made up of over 60 churches and thousands of individuals who are working to end abortion in the Brazos Valley, peacefully and prayerfully." - http://www.coalitionforlife.com/index.cfm?load=page&page=2
First off- thank you for the concise differentiation between the two groupings in the tax code; this is actually something I was not privy to and can now sound off more than ideologically or based off of the articles.
Second- according to this, if the Coalition for Life was applying for 501(c)(4) status, then they should have been denied. However, I agree with you that under 501(c)(3) they likely have a case based on your highlighted segment.
(Although one might wonder what calculus is used when they seek the advancement of religion, whilst simultaneously inhibit the advancement of education, science, human and civil rights and indirectly increase the burdens of government, community deterioration and juvenile delinquency )
The exempt purposes set forth in section 501(c)(3) are charitable, religious, educational, scientific, literary, testing for public safety, fostering national or international amateur sports competition, and preventing cruelty to children or animals. The term charitable is used in its generally accepted legal sense and includes relief of the poor, the distressed, or the underprivileged; advancement of religion; advancement of education or science; erecting or maintaining public buildings, monuments, or works; lessening the burdens of government; lessening neighborhood tensions; eliminating prejudice and discrimination; defending human and civil rights secured by law; and combating community deterioration and juvenile delinquency. . .Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. Contributions to political campaign funds or public statements of position (verbal or written) made on behalf of the organization in favor of or in opposition to any candidate for public office clearly violate the prohibition against political campaign activity. Violating this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes.
Certain activities or expenditures may not be prohibited depending on the facts and circumstances. For example, certain voter education activities (including presenting public forums and publishing voter education guides) conducted in a non-partisan manner do not constitute prohibited political campaign activity. In addition, other activities intended to encourage people to participate in the electoral process, such as voter registration and get-out-the-vote drives, would not be prohibited political campaign activity if conducted in a non-partisan manner.
On the other hand, voter education or registration activities with evidence of bias that (a) would favor one candidate over another; (b) oppose a candidate in some manner; or (c) have the effect of favoring a candidate or group of candidates, will constitute prohibited participation or intervention.
Looking back at the PDF linked to I'd like you to note Part III Question 1;
"Briefly describe the organization's mission: DEDICATED TO COMPREHENSIVELY MONITORING, ANALYZING, AND CORRECTING CONSERVATIVE MISINFORMATION IN THE U.S. MEDIA."
That is hardly non-partisan yet they received tax exempt status
Automatically Appended Next Post:
azazel the cat wrote: (Although one might wonder what calculus is used when they seek the advancement of religion, whilst simultaneously inhibit the advancement of education, science, human and civil rights and indirectly increase the burdens of government, community deterioration and juvenile delinquency )
I would assume that is immaterial. They only have to show that they fall under one heading of the activities permitted, their relationship to/effect on the others is immaterial when applying for tax exempt status
In May 2011, Drew Ryun, a conservative activist and former Republican National Committee staffer, began filling out the Internal Revenue Service application to achieve nonprofit status for a new conservative watchdog group.
He submitted the paperwork to the IRS in July 2011 for a research site called Media Trackers, which calls itself a “non-partisan investigative watchdog dedicated to promoting accountability in the media and government.” Although the site has investigated Republicans like Ohio Gov. John Kasich and Florida Gov. Rick Scott, the site’s organizers are unapologetically conservative.
“One thing we don’t hide is: ‘Yeah, we’re conservative—free-market, free-enterprise, full-spectrum conservative,’” Ryun told Mother Jones magazine last year.
Eight months passed without word from the agency about the group’s application, Ryun said. In February 2012, Ryun’s attorney contacted the IRS to ask if it needed more information to secure its nonprofit status as a 501(c)3 organization. According to Ryun, the IRS told him that the application was being processed by the agency’s office in Cincinnati, Ohio—the same one currently facing scrutiny for targeting conservative groups—and to check back in two months.
As directed, Ryun followed up with the IRS in April 2012, and was told that Media Trackers’ application was still under review.
When September 2012 arrived with still no word from the IRS, Ryun determined that Media Trackers would likely never obtain standalone nonprofit status, and he tried a new approach: He applied for permanent nonprofit status for a separate group called Greenhouse Solutions, a pre-existing organization that was reaching the end of its determination period.
The IRS approved Greenhouse Solutions’ request for permanent nonprofit status in three weeks.
Can we say here... BUSTED!
No.
There is a difference between applying for nonprofit status and filing as a nonprofit. And the article itself even alludes to this fact:
Having a previous file with the IRS could very well have been the reason Greenhouse's application was approved so quickly.
The exempt purposes set forth in section 501(c)(3) are charitable, religious, educational, scientific, literary, testing for public safety, fostering national or international amateur sports competition, and preventing cruelty to children or animals. The term charitable is used in its generally accepted legal sense and includes relief of the poor, the distressed, or the underprivileged; advancement of religion; advancement of education or science; erecting or maintaining public buildings, monuments, or works; lessening the burdens of government; lessening neighborhood tensions; eliminating prejudice and discrimination; defending human and civil rights secured by law; and combating community deterioration and juvenile delinquency. . .Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. Contributions to political campaign funds or public statements of position (verbal or written) made on behalf of the organization in favor of or in opposition to any candidate for public office clearly violate the prohibition against political campaign activity. Violating this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes.
Certain activities or expenditures may not be prohibited depending on the facts and circumstances. For example, certain voter education activities (including presenting public forums and publishing voter education guides) conducted in a non-partisan manner do not constitute prohibited political campaign activity. In addition, other activities intended to encourage people to participate in the electoral process, such as voter registration and get-out-the-vote drives, would not be prohibited political campaign activity if conducted in a non-partisan manner.
On the other hand, voter education or registration activities with evidence of bias that (a) would favor one candidate over another; (b) oppose a candidate in some manner; or (c) have the effect of favoring a candidate or group of candidates, will constitute prohibited participation or intervention.
Looking back at the PDF linked to I'd like you to note Part III Question 1;
"Briefly describe the organization's mission: DEDICATED TO COMPREHENSIVELY MONITORING, ANALYZING, AND CORRECTING CONSERVATIVE MISINFORMATION IN THE U.S. MEDIA."
That is hardly non-partisan yet they received tax exempt status
Sounds like education to me. Irrespective of what side of the aisle the perpetrators sit on, misinformation in the media should always be corrected. (and by "corrected" I mean validated/invalidated via peer-reviewed, published scientific studies with proper methodology)
Dreadclaw69 wrote:
azazel the cat wrote: (Although one might wonder what calculus is used when they seek the advancement of religion, whilst simultaneously inhibit the advancement of education, science, human and civil rights and indirectly increase the burdens of government, community deterioration and juvenile delinquency )
I would assume that is immaterial. They only have to show that they fall under one heading of the activities permitted, their relationship to/effect on the others is immaterial when applying for tax exempt status
azazel the cat wrote: Sounds like education to me. Irrespective of what side of the aisle the perpetrators sit on, misinformation in the media should always be corrected. (and by "corrected" I mean validated/invalidated via peer-reviewed, published scientific studies with proper methodology)
I agree that misinformation should be corrected. However it should be done in a non-partisan way. Media Matters specifically targets what it terms "Conservative misinformation", without extending the same critical eye to left leaning misinformation. It should be plain to see that they are a partisan group, and should therefore not have been eligible for the tax-exempt status that they have received.
Frazzled wrote: I pity Canada. God help them if you get into power. You have no conception of freedom of speech do you boy.
The rright of free speech is a benefit. To utilize that right all speech must generally be permitted, not just GoodSpeech.
I'm sorry, did I miss something? Where did azazel ever argue that any kind of speech should be prohibited at all? All he/she/it is saying is that there are instances where the exercise of free speech is not beneficial for society. This doesn't mean that said exercises are bad for the society, it just means it isn't very useful given the context of the discussion at hand. Responding to a question about the ecology of the Great Barrier Reef with "Kill all Hungarians!", for example, probably isn't beneficial to society at all, but it doesn't reduce the value or impact of free speech.
In May 2011, Drew Ryun, a conservative activist and former Republican National Committee staffer, began filling out the Internal Revenue Service application to achieve nonprofit status for a new conservative watchdog group.
He submitted the paperwork to the IRS in July 2011 for a research site called Media Trackers, which calls itself a “non-partisan investigative watchdog dedicated to promoting accountability in the media and government.” Although the site has investigated Republicans like Ohio Gov. John Kasich and Florida Gov. Rick Scott, the site’s organizers are unapologetically conservative.
“One thing we don’t hide is: ‘Yeah, we’re conservative—free-market, free-enterprise, full-spectrum conservative,’” Ryun told Mother Jones magazine last year.
Eight months passed without word from the agency about the group’s application, Ryun said. In February 2012, Ryun’s attorney contacted the IRS to ask if it needed more information to secure its nonprofit status as a 501(c)3 organization. According to Ryun, the IRS told him that the application was being processed by the agency’s office in Cincinnati, Ohio—the same one currently facing scrutiny for targeting conservative groups—and to check back in two months.
As directed, Ryun followed up with the IRS in April 2012, and was told that Media Trackers’ application was still under review.
When September 2012 arrived with still no word from the IRS, Ryun determined that Media Trackers would likely never obtain standalone nonprofit status, and he tried a new approach: He applied for permanent nonprofit status for a separate group called Greenhouse Solutions, a pre-existing organization that was reaching the end of its determination period.
The IRS approved Greenhouse Solutions’ request for permanent nonprofit status in three weeks.
Can we say here... BUSTED!
No.
There is a difference between applying for nonprofit status and filing as a nonprofit. And the article itself even alludes to this fact:
Having a previous file with the IRS could very well have been the reason Greenhouse's application was approved so quickly.
I'm not trying to be snarky...
But, what's the difference between "filing" vs "applying"? Shouldn't both those actions warrant the same scrutiny (if any) by the IRS?
Dreadclaw69 wrote: Media Matters specifically targets what it terms "Conservative misinformation", without extending the same critical eye to left leaning misinformation. It should be plain to see that they are a partisan group, and should therefore not have been eligible for the tax-exempt status that they have received.
But, what's the difference between "filing" vs "applying"? Shouldn't both those actions warrant the same scrutiny (if any) by the IRS?
There is a specific form (which itself varies according to the desired classification) that any prospective nonprofit must submit in order to apply for nonprofit status. After that is submitted, and accepted, the relevant organization must submit a different form whenever it files its taxes.
The first step involves applying, the second filing.
azazel the cat wrote: Sounds like education to me. Irrespective of what side of the aisle the perpetrators sit on, misinformation in the media should always be corrected. (and by "corrected" I mean validated/invalidated via peer-reviewed, published scientific studies with proper methodology)
I agree that misinformation should be corrected. However it should be done in a non-partisan way. Media Matters specifically targets what it terms "Conservative misinformation", without extending the same critical eye to left leaning misinformation. It should be plain to see that they are a partisan group, and should therefore not have been eligible for the tax-exempt status that they have received.
The President couldn’t even bring himself to breathe a word of the truth.
He could fire some hapless Acting Commissioner, but last night Mr. Obama never came close to discussing that which must never be discussed.
The IRS?
It’s about a union: the National Treasury Employees Union. The NTEU. A left-wing union representing 150,000 employees in 31 separate government agencies, including the IRS. A union that not only endorsed President Obama for election and re-election, but a union whose current president, Colleen Kelly, was a 14-year IRS agent and now is both union president and Obama administration appointee (of which more in a moment).
It’s about 94% of NTEU union contributions going to Democrats in the Senate and House in 2012 — candidates who campaigned as vociferous opponents of the Tea Party.
And the recently released report from the Treasury Inspector General? You will not find a single reference to the NTEU. Whose members are both player and referee in the exploding controversy over the IRS targeting of conservative groups.
Which raises the obvious question: how many NTEU members were involved in the writing of the Inspector General’s report?
Even more to the point, what contact — what coordination — has the Obama White House had with their allies in the NTEU leadership as both the White House and the NTEU race to get on top of a scandal that is rapidly engulfing both?
Did I mention that the NTEU has no comment on all of this? And that when President Obama went in front of cameras to make his statement on the IRS scandal — he never once mentioned his very powerful union buddies that have the run of the IRS? Right down to the control of who gets a Blackberry? Literally.
Let’s first see how the IRS/NTEU game with the Tea Party and conservatives is played, shall we?
In the 2012 election cycle, the IRS union gave its money this way:
For the U.S. Senate: Total to Democrats: $156,750
Total to Republicans: $1,000
For the U.S. House: Total to Democrats: $391,062
Total to Republicans: $23,000
And the candidates on the receiving end of those IRS employee dollars? Yes indeed. They were candidates who were running flat out against the Tea Party, depicting Tea Party-supported candidates as dangerous, extremists, and crazies. Exhibiting exactly the anti-Tea Party antipathy on the campaign trail that has been revealed to be permeating the IRS.
No wonder. These Senate and House races were fueled in part by money donated by IRS employees.
Let’s take a look at specific races where the IRS employee money was involved.
• Wisconsin: One of those IRS employee-backed Senate candidates was Democrat Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin, who in fact won her Senate race over ex-Republican Governor Tommy Thompson.
The NTEU, the union representing IRS employees, gave Baldwin $8,500. And what was Baldwin’s view of the Tea Party? If you check over here at the Midwest Values PAC, a left-wing political action committee set up by liberal Senator Al Franken of Minnesota, you will find this headline:
National Memo: Tammy Baldwin Runs Straight At The Tea Party
The story begins this way, and I have put the key sentence in bold print:
Wisconsin Democratic Rep. Tammy Baldwin wants to be the first openly gay candidate elected to the United States Senate. In an exclusive interview with The National Memo over the weekend, she made clear how she means to go about doing it: running straight at the Tea Party.
• Indiana: In the Indiana Senate race, the Democrats’ candidate was Joe Donnelly, who used his $5,000 contribution to run a winning anti-Tea Party race against Republican Richard Mourdock. Donnelly’s campaign website, presumably financed in part with the money contributed by IRS employees, has this headline attacking the Tea Party:
FACT CHECK: Mourdock Trying to Change Subject from Extreme TEA Party Views
The text of the Donnelly press release begins this way, with a direct attack on the Tea Party:
Indianapolis, Ind.—Today, Joe Donnelly’s campaign responded to Richard Mourdock’s latest ad trying to change the subject from his pattern of extreme TEA Party views.
“Hoosier voters are rejecting Richard Mourdock’s pattern of TEA Party extreme positions, so he is desperate to change the subject,” said Paul Tencher, campaign manager. “In fact, Indiana voters are responding to Joe’s message of working with both parties to get things done for middle class families. The only person playing politics in this race is Mr. Mourdock, as he tries to distract voters from his extreme views that are out of the mainstream.”
• Missouri: Over in the Missouri Senate race between Democrat Claire McCaskill and Republican Todd Akin, the IRS employee money — in the form of a $10,000 contribution to McCaskill — was used by the McCaskill campaign to help send this e-mail to supporters that bluntly attacked the Tea Party as “dangerous”:
Akin’s Rap Sheet Makes It Clear: Tea Party Congressman’s Outside Of The Mainstream Views, Dangerous Policies Are Wrong for Missouri, From his record to his rhetoric, everything about Todd Akin’s Tea Party policies are outside of the mainstream and dangerous for Missouri families.
When Missouri Republicans nominated him last night, they pinned their Senate hopes on a far right, Tea Party Congressman whose candidacy diminishes the party’s prospects for November.
And over in House races? At the very top of the high dollar list were two vividly anti-Tea Party candidates who each received a $10,000 contribution of IRS employee dollars.
• House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi: Pelosi’s strategy was made plain in this interview with liberal columnist Eleanor Clift of the Daily Beast:
Stung by the debt-deal loss, the minority leader plans to get Democrats back on their jobs message and hammer Tea Party lawmakers as extremists who want to destroy government.
• House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer: Hoyer famously attacked the Tea Party this way, as seen with this headline:
Hoyer: Tea Party People Come From Unhappy Families “There are a whole lot of people in the Tea Party that I see in these polls who don’t want any compromise. My presumption is they have unhappy families.”
Understanding all of this — that IRS employees themselves are paying, through their union the NTEU, for the election of anti-Tea Party candidates — the absence of any mention whatsoever of the connection between the IRS and the NTEU puts the IG report in a very different light.
For example.
The IG report says — and I will bold print the key phrases — the following:
The IRS used inappropriate criteria that identified for review Tea Party and other organizations applying for tax-exempt status based upon their names or policy positions instead of indications of potential political campaign intervention. Ineffective management: 1) allowed inappropriate criteria to be developed and stay in place for more than 18 months, 2) resulted in substantial delays in processing certain applications, and 3) allowed unnecessary potentially involving information requests to be issued.
Although the processing of some applications with potential significant political campaign
intervention was started soon after receipt, no work was completed on the majority of these
applications for 13 months. This was due to delays in receiving assistance from the Exempt Organizations function Headquarters office. For the 296 total political campaign intervention applications TIGTA reviewed as of December 17, 2012, 108 had been approved, 28 were withdrawn by the applicant, none had been denied, and 160 were open from 206 to1,138 calendar days (some for more than three years and crossing two election cycles).
More than 20 months after the initial case was identified, processing the cases began in earnest. ….IRS officials stated that any donor information received in response to a request from its Determinations Unit was later destroyed.
Just in these opening statements of the IG report there is one very significant and glaring omission.
Where is the NTEU?
Note the phrases in bold print:
“The IRS”
“identified for review Tea Party and other organizations”
“Ineffective management”
“the processing”
“delays in receiving assistance from”
“approved”
“IRS officials stated”
“request from its Determinations Unit”
In each and every case these phrases identify actions taken by people — by IRS employees. IRS employees are members of the NTEU. The NTEU that is using money from these very same IRS employees to fund the campaigns of anti-Tea Party candidates like Baldwin, Donnelly, McCaskill, Pelosi and Hoyer. Not to mention all the rest of the Democrats who got a piece of the IRS employee money action.
As one would suspect, given the enormous clout of the liberal IRS union, it’s all about the politics. Liberal politics and the financing of the liberal welfare state. A federal version, if you will, of the recent famous struggle between Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker and state employee unions.
How powerful is the NTEU within the IRS?
Look no further than this IG report from back in January of this year that discusses the role the union has inside the IRS bureaucracy in the minutia of which IRS employees get to carry a Blackberry. The report notes:
In June 2010, the IRS and the NTEU signed an agreement to standardize IRS policy regarding which IRS employees would be allowed (referred to as a “profiled” position in the agreement) to receive certain information technology equipment, including aircards and BlackBerry® smartphones.
This doesn’t even mention the power the NTEU has inside the IRS to decide everything from promotion rules to size of employee workspaces and on and on.
So the obvious.
If you are working in the IRS, and you are an NTEU member, and you know your union leadership is funneling your union dues to anti-Tea Party candidates, and your union has so much raw power within the IRS that they even control whether you, an IRS employee, can get even such mundane tech gear as a Blackberry — what attitude are you going to display as you review Tea Party applications that must, by law, come in to the IRS for approval?
You already know what to do. And inside the IRS, that’s exactly what was done. The Tea Party, in the vernacular, was screwed. By IRS bureaucrats whose union money is being used to attack the Tea Party. Of course these IRS employees know what to do — most probably without even being asked. There is no need to ask. And if they don’t follow the union program — and want a Blackberry — tough luck.
And what of the NTEU president, Ms. Kelly? The one-time IRS agent also doubles as an Obama appointee (announced here by the Obama White House) to the Federal Salary Council. Identified in the Washington Post as:
…a panel obscure to most Washingtonians but one that performs a vital role in recommending raises for most federal employees.
Got that? The President of the NTEU — a union that has gone out of its way to use IRS employee money to defeat the Tea Party — has a “vital role in recommending raises for most federal employees” — which includes, of course, IRS employees.
As if IRS employees don’t have enough incentive to go after the Tea Party, their anti-Tea Party president has a say in whether they get not just a Blackberry but a raise as well.
Can you say: “conflict of interest”?
Let’s stop here and take a look at a famous incident with the IRS that has made news in the last few days: the Articles of Impeachment filed against President Richard Nixon.
By now, all manner of people have been reminded that President Nixon’s resignation was prompted by the House Judiciary Committee passing Articles of Impeachment, with Article 2, Section One specifically saying:
He has, acting personally and through his subordinates and agents, endeavored to obtain from the Internal Revenue Service, in violation of the constitutional rights of citizens, confidential information contained in income tax returns for purposed not authorized by law, and to cause, in violation of the constitutional rights of citizens, income tax audits or other income tax investigations to be initiated or conducted in a discriminatory manner.
But there’s something missing in this recall of the tale of Nixon and the IRS.
In the early 1970s, President Nixon bypassed Congress and postponed salary increases for General Schedule federal employees. This included, of course, the IRS. The NTEU was furious with Nixon and took the President to court in a case called NTEU v. Nixon. The union won, and the federal government was forced to pay $533 million in back pay to federal employees.
So far, so normal in the world of Washington and relationships between a president and federal employees. Right?
Wrong.
Two years later, in 1974, the year the Watergate scandal reached high tide and Nixon was forced to resign, his abuse of the IRS cited in Article 2 as one of the reasons, there was another story out there involving the IRS and Richard Nixon.
As the liberal drive to get Nixon increased to the force of a political hurricane, reporter Jack White of Rhode Island’s Providence Journal-Evening Bulletin received an illegal leak — from the IRS. Specifically, an illegal leak from someone inside the IRS — an IRS employee — that leaked Richard Nixon’s 1970 and 1971 taxes. There was an immediate uproar — not about the leak or the identity of the leaker — but over the accusation that Nixon had underpaid his taxes. The House Judiciary Committee took the information and ran with it, opening an entire line of inquiry about Nixon’s tax deductions. So public was this it resulted in Nixon famously answering a question at a press conference this way:
People have got to know whether or not their President is a crook. Well, I’m not a crook. I’ve earned everything I’ve got.
And while people are remembering Nixon in the current furor over the IRS because of his own abuse of the IRS and Article 2, there was another Article —Article 4
— that was based on the leaked information from the still-unknown IRS employee to reporter Jack White. Read Article 4:
He knowingly and fraudulently failed to report certain income and claimed deductions in the year 1969, 1970, 1971, and 1972 on his Federal income tax returns which were not authorized by law, including deductions for a gift of papers to the United States valued at approximately $576,000.
Nixon vigorously disputed this, of course. But it didn’t matter. He was out the door, forced to resign. A leak from the IRS to the media about Nixon’s taxes one big no-never-mind.
And what happened to reporter Jack White? The man who received the illegal leak of Nixon’s tax returns — a violation of law — and published them?
Jack White was rewarded by his liberal media peers with the 1974 Pulitzer Prize in Journalism for National Reporting.
So.
What’s really going on with the IRS?
The Internal Revenue Service , with all of its mighty taxing and police powers, is in the hands of anti-Tea Party, anti-conservative, political activists. Liberal political activists from the NTEU masquerading as neutral career bureaucrats. The money of IRS employees used to fuel the National Treasury Employees Union’s open and expensive assault on the Tea Party and conservatives.
And comment on all this from the NTEU? Here’s this from the Washington Post:
So far, the National Treasury Employees Union, which generally is not shy with public comment, has next to nothing to say about that or anything else.
“NTEU is working to get the facts but does not have any specifics at this time. Moreover, IRS employees are not permitted to discuss taxpayer cases. We cannot comment further at this time,” NTEU President Colleen M. Kelley said via e-mail.
A call to the NTEU office in Cincinnati resulted in a similar response: “We’ve been directed by national office. We have no comment.”
No comment? No wonder.
“IRS employees are not permitted to discuss taxpayer cases”??!! What a joke.
Here in the Wall Street Journal is author James Bovard with a short history of the political manipulation of the IRS by various presidents, and Bovard notes that: “With the current IRS scandal, we may have seen only the tip of the iceberg.”
Aside from Nixon they include FDR, JFK, and Bill Clinton. The difference is the latter three weren’t forced to resign because of it — and Clinton’s abuse of the IRS was not include in the Articles of Impeachment that focused on his lying to a grand jury over that liberal favorite — sexual harassment.
The real question now?
With the IRS assuming serious police powers of Obamacare, in effect the members of one left-wing labor union will have access to the private health care records of every single American.
And notes the Wall Street Journal, again the bold print for emphasis:
This March the IRS Inspector General reiterated that ObamaCare’s 47 major changes to the revenue code “represent the largest set of tax law changes the IRS has had to implement in more than 20 years.” Thus the IRS is playing Thelma to the Health and Human Service Department’s Louise. The tax agency has requested funding for 1,954 full-time equivalent employees for its Affordable Care Act office in 2014.
Got that? The real meaning here is that the NTEU is asking for 1,954 more union members whose union dues will be put to use to “hammer the Tea Party” in the words of Nancy Pelosi.
As James Taranto also noted over in the Wall Street Journal yesterday:
The Internal Revenue Service last year supplied a left-leaning nonprofit charity with confidential information about conservative organizations, which the charity disseminated to the public, ProPublica reported yesterday.
Once again, IRS employees — they of the anti-Tea Party union NTEU — were caught leaking private information.
Did I mention they were targeting Billy Graham — 95 year old Billy Graham??!!! Why? Because the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association was urging “voters to back ‘candidates who base their decisions on biblical principles….’”
You know what terrifies every liberal in America right now? You want to know the real reason President Obama abruptly felt the need to go on national television last night and fire the Acting Commissioner of the IRS last night as Americans were having their dinner?
The distinct possibility that the IRS and the whole confection of Big Government liberalism built around the federal taxing power is about to implode in scandal.
Big scandal. The kind of scandal that will make Watergate look like a piker.
And the irony?
That in seeking to destroy the credibility of the Tea Party, the Obama administration and its allies have destroyed not just the credibility of the IRS and one very seriously powerful union.
Rented Tritium wrote: That is, hands down, the most bonkers tinfoil hat screed I have ever seen posted on Dakka. I feel significantly dumber having read it.
It takes the fact that the employees all form a single union and jumps straight from that to deciding that the union is calling the shots.
Um, what?
The employees are also probably all netflix subscribers. When will netflix come clean about their hand in this?
I agree here, senior level executives that call the shots in the IRS are non-bargaining, as are most lower level management.
While the NTEU is a powerful union, you have to think of why they would support the Dems in the last election, look at the "budget proposal" done up by Paul Ryan, not very federal employee friendly. I have a feeling that if Obama would have lost I would not have a job due to "smaller govt", and if I did it would be for less pay. So when you look at it, of course the NTEU is going to throw their full weight behind the Dems, if they support the folks who want to remove our jobs, we would no longer support them and they wouldn't have union dues to pay for anything.
It also shows a staggering lack of knowledge of how the federal employment system works.
"The union decided promotions": next to impossible. Each position within the government has a range of grades associated with it. You can be brought on at any grade within the position, commensurate to your experience and prior time (if any) within the federal government. Each year after that, assuming you haven't done anything to warrant being fired or placed on probation, you automatically promote to the next grade. So if a position is from GS11 through GS13, and you are brought in as a GS11, after your first year you automatically get promoted to GS12. The year after that, GS13. Once you reach the top grade for a particular position, you start moving up the "step" system. GS13-1, GS13-2, GS13-3 ,etc. all the way to GS13-10. After that, there's no more promotion potential. Unless you change positions, you are done, regardless of what any union says.
"But Stream, they'll control who moves between positions!"
Bullcrap. The hiring process in the federal government usually takes forever because of how regulated it is. HR takes in all the resumes for a particular position. Anyone without correct experience or education is immediately rejected. Once the first cull is done, veterans and people with disabilities are moved to the top of the list. If there are none, the candidates are given scores according to experience and education. The position is then awarded to one of the top three candidates, with management being required to submit written justification if the TOP candidate is not chosen.
I mean really, there's certainly a wealth of things to pick apart in that piece of conspiracy trash.
This group was told its tax-exempt application depended not on promising to stay out of electoral politics, but on pledging not to protest Planned Parenthood.
IRS officials refused to grant tax exempt status two pro-life organizations because of their position on the abortion issue, according to a non-profit law firm, which said that one group was pressured not to protest a pro-choice organization that endorsed President Obama during the last election.
Forget people getting fired, if the above is true some people need to go to jail.
Seriously, making life difficult for people because of the political affiliation of their not-for-profit is one thing and bad enough in itself, directly contacting them and telling them what political action they can and cannot take is something else entirely.
streamdragon wrote: It also shows a staggering lack of knowledge of how the federal employment system works.
"The union decided promotions": next to impossible. Each position within the government has a range of grades associated with it. You can be brought on at any grade within the position, commensurate to your experience and prior time (if any) within the federal government. Each year after that, assuming you haven't done anything to warrant being fired or placed on probation, you automatically promote to the next grade. So if a position is from GS11 through GS13, and you are brought in as a GS11, after your first year you automatically get promoted to GS12. The year after that, GS13. Once you reach the top grade for a particular position, you start moving up the "step" system. GS13-1, GS13-2, GS13-3 ,etc. all the way to GS13-10. After that, there's no more promotion potential. Unless you change positions, you are done, regardless of what any union says.
Huh... didn't know that. Is that true for basically all Federal Jobs (other than the elected officials)?
So, working for the feds is like getting tenure?
"But Stream, they'll control who moves between positions!"
Bullcrap. The hiring process in the federal government usually takes forever because of how regulated it is. HR takes in all the resumes for a particular position. Anyone without correct experience or education is immediately rejected. Once the first cull is done, veterans and people with disabilities are moved to the top of the list. If there are none, the candidates are given scores according to experience and education. The position is then awarded to one of the top three candidates, with management being required to submit written justification if the TOP candidate is not chosen.
I mean really, there's certainly a wealth of things to pick apart in that piece of conspiracy trash.
That part didn't jive... I didn't want to parse that article so I posted the whole thing...
I thought it might've been one attempt to explain why the IRS in general is hostile towards the tea party / patriot /conservative groups.
This group was told its tax-exempt application depended not on promising to stay out of electoral politics, but on pledging not to protest Planned Parenthood.
IRS officials refused to grant tax exempt status two pro-life organizations because of their position on the abortion issue, according to a non-profit law firm, which said that one group was pressured not to protest a pro-choice organization that endorsed President Obama during the last election.
Forget people getting fired, if the above is true some people need to go to jail.
Seriously, making life difficult for people because of the political affiliation of their not-for-profit is one thing and bad enough in itself, directly contacting them and telling them what political action they can and cannot take is something else entirely.
Agreed... but, I seriously doubt they'll find anything concrete. All we know is their actions and hearsay. It's going to take some time to sort this out.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Damn... the quote thingy is goober'ed up.
Bullcrap. The hiring process in the federal government usually takes forever because of how regulated it is. HR takes in all the resumes for a particular position. Anyone without correct experience or education is immediately rejected. Once the first cull is done, veterans and people with disabilities are moved to the top of the list. If there are none, the candidates are given scores according to experience and education. The position is then awarded to one of the top three candidates, with management being required to submit written justification if the TOP candidate is not chosen.
Steam right. Also its law for them to post the job but have someone already in line for it....its a point syste they use
5 points for a vet
10 points for a disable vet
then the disability rating goes into play. Go o USAJOBS and make an account...and a resume....and go through the process for the positon. Its quite interesting. Like someone said though....have a security clearence thats active and be prepared to get fitted into a position that won't relate to the outside world.
whembly wrote:>snipped my quote<
Huh... didn't know that. Is that true for basically all Federal Jobs (other than the elected officials)?
So, working for the feds is like getting tenure?
That part didn't jive... I didn't want to parse that article so I posted the whole thing...
I thought it might've been one attempt to explain why the IRS in general is hostile towards the tea party / patriot /conservative groups.
No worries on not cutting up the article, and I honestly don't really blame people for being unfamiliar with the federal employment system. It's rather unique in its rigidness I suppose. I also want to be clear I was attacking the article, not you. I just get tired of hearing how great federal employees have it and ZOMG the secret benefits (someone I know was convinced federal employees got free health care, for instance).
Anyway:
1) Mostly, yes, it applies to all federal positions. There are some exceptions:
a. the military, most obviously
b. the Senior Executive Service (SES). These guys basically transcend the GS system, which comes with certain perks (usually higher pay), but also major drawbacks (much easier to replace or reassign).
c. Federal law enforcement, I believe, uses a system more similar to the military, but I'm not 100% sure on this one.
2) It's not really like tenure, no. Being a higher grade than someone else doesn't necessarily protect your job. If you've got 5 years as a research analyst for FDA, for instance, and the guy in the cube across the way has 2 years as a research contract manager, even though you are in separate (but related) fields, you are in separate job series. If there are cuts, the analyst could (and most likely would) be cut before the contract manager. Certain positions are considered "inherently governmental", while others are not. Contract management is almost always considered inherently governmental, because you can't have a contractor doling out government funds.
3) Not even going to guess why the IRS might have been hostile to conservative / tea party groups. I'll wait for the investigation to play itself out.
Jihadin wrote:
Bullcrap. The hiring process in the federal government usually takes forever because of how regulated it is. HR takes in all the resumes for a particular position. Anyone without correct experience or education is immediately rejected. Once the first cull is done, veterans and people with disabilities are moved to the top of the list. If there are none, the candidates are given scores according to experience and education. The position is then awarded to one of the top three candidates, with management being required to submit written justification if the TOP candidate is not chosen.
Steam right. Also its law for them to post the job but have someone already in line for it....its a point syste they use
5 points for a vet
10 points for a disable vet
then the disability rating goes into play. Go o USAJOBS and make an account...and a resume....and go through the process for the positon. Its quite interesting. Like someone said though....have a security clearence thats active and be prepared to get fitted into a position that won't relate to the outside world.
Actually that's a really good suggestion. USAJOBS.gov has an (almost) complete listing of all open federal positions available. It's how I applied for my position.
And yeah, usually jobs in the federal government are listed twice: once as MPP, once as DEU. I don't remember what DEU stands for, but MPP is Merit Promotion Program. It's a program for federal employees to move up in position, but they still have to compete against non-federal employees and being a fed doesn't actually give you any benefit in terms of points. If a current federal employee and a disabled and/or veteran private sector worker are generally equal in all other regards and apply for the same position, the disabled and/or veteran will generally be given preference. I know more than one person who has watched a job they felt was "their promotion" end up having to train their new boss...
Think Obama kind of made that into law. Veterans are to be giving first consideration on gov't jobs. Wounded Warrior units are giving oppurtunity to OJT for six or more months. Also depending on deployment assignments be it Iraq, Afghanistan, Kuwait, or Qatar one if smart enough would have establish a network
Also another thing about USAJOB tailor your resume to the job being offered. There's a keyword filter to
Jihadin wrote: Think Obama kind of made that into law. Veterans are to be giving first consideration on gov't jobs. Wounded Warrior units are giving oppurtunity to OJT for six or more months. Also depending on deployment assignments be it Iraq, Afghanistan, Kuwait, or Qatar one if smart enough would have establish a network
Also another thing about USAJOB tailor your resume to the job being offered. There's a keyword filter to
The points for veterans/disabled veterans have been around a lot longer than Obama has been president.
The IRS commissioner "has known for at least a year that this was going on," said Myers, "and that this had happened. And did he share any of that information with the White House? But even more importantly, Congress is going to ask him, why did you mislead us for an entire year? Members of Congress were saying conservatives are being targeted. What's going on here? The IRS denied it. Then when -- after these officials are briefed by the IG that this is going on, they don't disclose it. In fact, the commissioner sent a letter to Congress in September on this subject and did not reveal this. Imagine if we -- if you can -- what would have happened if this fact came out in September 2012, in the middle of a presidential election? The terrain would have looked very different."
I really doubt it would had that much impact, if at all, to the election... but, damn!
A reminder that members of Congress have actively called for this to occur in the past.
Called for what to occur? A crackdown on 501(c)(4)s? Because the only component of that article which claims that Schumer and Franken urged the IRS to target the Tea Party is the headline.
A reminder that members of Congress have actively called for this to occur in the past.
Called for what to occur? A crackdown on 501(c)(4)s? Because the only component of that article which claims that Schumer and Franken urged the IRS to target the Tea Party is the headline.
But that's the most important part! That's why it's first, right?!
A reminder that members of Congress have actively called for this to occur in the past.
Called for what to occur? A crackdown on 501(c)(4)s? Because the only component of that article which claims that Schumer and Franken urged the IRS to target the Tea Party is the headline.
But that's the most important part! That's why it's first, right?!
Isn't it more plausible that this is a case of Henry II's "will someone rid me of this toublesome priest" event?
The IRS commissioner "has known for at least a year that this was going on," said Myers, "and that this had happened. And did he share any of that information with the White House? But even more importantly, Congress is going to ask him, why did you mislead us for an entire year? Members of Congress were saying conservatives are being targeted. What's going on here? The IRS denied it. Then when -- after these officials are briefed by the IG that this is going on, they don't disclose it. In fact, the commissioner sent a letter to Congress in September on this subject and did not reveal this. Imagine if we -- if you can -- what would have happened if this fact came out in September 2012, in the middle of a presidential election? The terrain would have looked very different."
I really doubt it would had that much impact, if at all, to the election... but, damn!
Why is this shocking?
The OP article noted that IRS Commissioner Douglas Shulman publicly noted the issue in March 2012, so why would IRS Commissioner Steven Miller not be aware of it?
Moreover, Steven Miller hasn't been IRS Commissioner for a full year.
Isn't it more plausible that this is a case of Henry II's "will someone rid me of this toublesome priest" event?
No.
It's not.
It is not more plausible that the IRS was listening to off hand comments made by senators who they do not answer to and changed policies to attack those senators' political opponents than it is that the IRS took a wrongheaded and ill advised shortcut in determining which groups were political in nature.
Isn't it more plausible that this is a case of Henry II's "will someone rid me of this toublesome priest" event?
No.
It's not.
It is not more plausible that the IRS was listening to off hand comments made by senators who they do not answer to and changed policies to attack those senators' political opponents than it is that the IRS took a wrongheaded and ill advised shortcut in determining which groups were political in nature.
Mr. Obama now professes shock and outrage that bureaucrats at the IRS did exactly what the president of the United States said was the right and honorable thing to do. "He put a target on our backs, and he's now going to blame the people who are shooting at us?" asks Idaho businessman and longtime Republican donor Frank VanderSloot.
Mr. VanderSloot is the Obama target who in 2011 made a sizable donation to a group supporting Mitt Romney. In April 2012, an Obama campaign website named and slurred eight Romney donors. It tarred Mr. VanderSloot as a "wealthy individual" with a "less-than-reputable record." Other donors were described as having been "on the wrong side of the law."
This was the Obama version of the phone call—put out to every government investigator (and liberal activist) in the land.
Twelve days later, a man working for a political opposition-research firm called an Idaho courthouse for Mr. VanderSloot's divorce records. In June, the IRS informed Mr. VanderSloot and his wife of an audit of two years of their taxes. In July, the Department of Labor informed him of an audit of the guest workers on his Idaho cattle ranch. In September, the IRS informed him of a second audit, of one of his businesses. Mr. VanderSloot, who had never been audited before, was subject to three in the four months after Mr. Obama teed him up for such scrutiny.
The last of these audits was only concluded in recent weeks. Not one resulted in a fine or penalty. But Mr. VanderSloot has been waiting more than 20 months for a sizable refund and estimates his legal bills are $80,000.That figure doesn't account for what the president's vilification has done to his business and reputation.
Donate, and the president would at best tie you to Big Oil or Wall Street, at worst put your name in bold, and flag you as "less than reputable" to everyone who worked for him: the IRS, the SEC, the Justice Department. The president didn't need a telephone; he had a megaphone.
The same threat was made to conservative groups that might dare play in the election. As early as January 2010, Mr. Obama would, in his state of the union address, cast aspersions on the Supreme Court's Citizens United ruling, claiming that it "reversed a century of law to open the floodgates for special interests" (read conservative groups).
The president derided "tea baggers." Vice President Joe Biden compared them to "terrorists." In more than a dozen speeches Mr. Obama raised the specter that these groups represented nefarious interests that were perverting elections. "Nobody knows who's paying for these ads," he warned. "We don't know where this money is coming from," he intoned.
In case the IRS missed his point, he raised the threat of illegality: "All around this country there are groups with harmless-sounding names like Americans for Prosperity, who are running millions of dollars of ads against Democratic candidates . . . And they don't have to say who exactly the Americans for Prosperity are. You don't know if it's a foreign-controlled corporation."
The IRS is easy to demonize, but it doesn't exist in a vacuum. It got its heading from a president, and his party, who did in fact send it orders—openly, for the world to see. In his Tuesday press grilling, no question agitated White House Press Secretary Jay Carney more than the one that got to the heart of the matter: Given the president's "animosity" toward Citizens United, might he have "appreciated or wanted the IRS to be looking and scrutinizing those . . ." Mr. Carney cut off the reporter with "That's a preposterous assertion."
Preposterous because, according to Mr. Obama, he is "outraged" and "angry" that the IRS looked into the very groups and individuals that he spent years claiming were shady, undemocratic, even lawbreaking. After all, he expects the IRS to "operate with absolute integrity." Even when he does not.
The IRS commissioner "has known for at least a year that this was going on," said Myers, "and that this had happened. And did he share any of that information with the White House? But even more importantly, Congress is going to ask him, why did you mislead us for an entire year? Members of Congress were saying conservatives are being targeted. What's going on here? The IRS denied it. Then when -- after these officials are briefed by the IG that this is going on, they don't disclose it. In fact, the commissioner sent a letter to Congress in September on this subject and did not reveal this. Imagine if we -- if you can -- what would have happened if this fact came out in September 2012, in the middle of a presidential election? The terrain would have looked very different."
I really doubt it would had that much impact, if at all, to the election... but, damn!
Why is this shocking?
The OP article noted that IRS Commissioner Douglas Shulman publicly noted the issue in March 2012, so why would IRS Commissioner Steven Miller not be aware of it?
Moreover, Steven Miller hasn't been IRS Commissioner for a full year.
Actually the person Congress should be asking these questions is Sarah Hall Ingram, who is now in charge of Obamacare(scary thought doncha think?).
Mr. VanderSloot is the Obama target who in 2011 made a sizable donation to a group supporting Mitt Romney. In April 2012, an Obama campaign website named and slurred eight Romney donors. It tarred Mr. VanderSloot as a "wealthy individual" with a "less-than-reputable record." Other donors were described as having been "on the wrong side of the law."
This was the Obama version of the phone call—put out to every government investigator (and liberal activist) in the land.
How is making a public declaration equivalent to explicit administrative instruction? And how are liberal activists equivalent to government employees?
A president sets a mood, a tone. He establishes an atmosphere.
Oh no, he set a tone. Obviously that's the same as telling administrative agencies under your authority that they should target a particular sort group with a particular political leaning.
The IRS commissioner "has known for at least a year that this was going on," said Myers, "and that this had happened. And did he share any of that information with the White House? But even more importantly, Congress is going to ask him, why did you mislead us for an entire year? Members of Congress were saying conservatives are being targeted. What's going on here? The IRS denied it. Then when -- after these officials are briefed by the IG that this is going on, they don't disclose it. In fact, the commissioner sent a letter to Congress in September on this subject and did not reveal this. Imagine if we -- if you can -- what would have happened if this fact came out in September 2012, in the middle of a presidential election? The terrain would have looked very different."
I really doubt it would had that much impact, if at all, to the election... but, damn!
Why is this shocking?
The OP article noted that IRS Commissioner Douglas Shulman publicly noted the issue in March 2012, so why would IRS Commissioner Steven Miller not be aware of it?
Moreover, Steven Miller hasn't been IRS Commissioner for a full year.
Actually the person Congress should be asking these questions is Sarah Hall Ingram, who is now in charge of Obamacare(scary thought doncha think?).
Yes. She should be fired out of hand and then criinal charges pursued.
I find it telling that the iRS guys wouldn't name names. this means no one will get punished. Love it. Obama should drop the hammer and fire the whole group. he won't.
Preposterous because, according to Mr. Obama, he is "outraged" and "angry" that the IRS looked into the very groups and individuals that he spent years claiming were shady, undemocratic, even lawbreaking. After all, he expects the IRS to "operate with absolute integrity." Even when he does not.
I'm curious as to what Obama's breach of integrity was. Are politicians no longer allowed to make political statements?
dogma wrote: I'm curious as to what Obama's breach of integrity was. Are politicians no longer allowed to make political statements?
I'm unaware that I ever made the argument that Obama should no longer be allowed to make political statements. If you could show me where I did I would be much obliged
If I had any faith that you had in fact read everything that I wrote, and not just what you appear to have misread and taken objection to you may have noted the following;
an Obama campaign website named and slurred eight Romney donors. It tarred Mr. VanderSloot as a "wealthy individual" with a "less-than-reputable record."
The president derided "tea baggers." Vice President Joe Biden compared them to "terrorists." In more than a dozen speeches Mr. Obama raised the specter that these groups represented nefarious interests that were perverting elections. "Nobody knows who's paying for these ads," he warned. "We don't know where this money is coming from," he intoned.
"All around this country there are groups with harmless-sounding names like Americans for Prosperity, who are running millions of dollars of ads against Democratic candidates . . . And they don't have to say who exactly the Americans for Prosperity are. You don't know if it's a foreign-controlled corporation."
I think it is fair comment to say that publicly slurring individuals who is donating to your opponent, using derogatory names for political rivals, implying that bodies with differing political views are under foreign influence and implying that they have something to hide (all seemingly without evidence) could all very easily been seen to be breaches of integrity, and not what most people would consider "political statements". Especially when running for the highest office in the land.
probably isn't beneficial to society at all, but it doesn't reduce the value or impact of free speech.
So there is no point in silencing it then.
It starts with good intentions. Then its silencing your opposition.
Yes, you're right, there is no point in silencing anyone. Which is why no one has suggested that. All azazel did was argue that there's speech that isn't beneficial for society, not that anyone should be silenced. That's the strawman Fraz set up and ran with.
