Outrage grows at IRS 'targeting' of conservative groups

[PonderThis]

This is another really big story that's been playing out lately, maybe some forum intellectuals will want to comment on this one too. I say it's not looking good for the Obama administration: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-22529435

Excerpt: "The outrage over reports the US tax collection authority singled out conservative groups for extra scrutiny has continued to build.

Three Congressional panels are planning hearings into actions by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS).

The agency's commissioner on Tuesday acknowledged "mistakes" before the 2012 election but denied political bias.

A senior Republican Congressman said the agency had gone after President Barack Obama's "political enemies".

"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," Darrell Issa, chairman of the House oversight committee, said on Tuesday on CBS television.

Also on Tuesday, two high-profile Republican governors called for Mr Obama to fire any IRS employees responsible for the actions and 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.

Mr Obama's spokesman Jay Carney said the White House was awaiting the expected released this week of a treasury department inspector general's report before taking any action.

Mr Carney said the White House was notified of the forthcoming report in late April but did not know the details of the findings.

He said he could categorically rule out that anyone in the White House or on the Obama political team had knowledge of the targeting or was involved in it.

For his part, Mr Obama on Monday denounced the actions, calling them "outrageous" and saying US taxpayers had to have confidence the tax agency worked in a non-partisan fashion.

The number of groups filing with the IRS for tax-exempt status shot up between 2010-12, after a Supreme Court decision loosened restrictions on campaign spending by groups not formally affiliated with candidates' campaigns.

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 and had received undue scrutiny.

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.

While the head of the IRS tax-exempt division has said the "absolutely inappropriate" actions were limited to the agency's branch office in Cincinnati, Ohio, the Washington Post reported on Tuesday additional queries to conservative groups came from the Washington office and at least two other branch offices.

In an opinion piece in USA Today published on Tuesday, IRS Commissioner Steven Miller acknowledged the agency had made mistakes but insisted "they were in no way due to any political or partisan motivation". {HAHAHAHA - my emphasis}

He wrote the agency had made mistakes in its process for handling the influx of applications, including "a shortcut taken in our processes to determine which groups needed additional review".

The House Ways and Means committee will hold a hearing on Friday, in which Mr Miller is expected to testify. The Senate finance and investigations committees have said they will hold hearings after reading the inspector general's report."

[Leonard]

This is another really big story that's been playing out lately, maybe some forum intellectuals will want to comment on this one too. I say it's not looking good for the Obama administration: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-22529435

Excerpt: "The outrage over reports the US tax collection authority singled out conservative groups for extra scrutiny has continued to build.

Three Congressional panels are planning hearings into actions by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS).

The agency's commissioner on Tuesday acknowledged "mistakes" before the 2012 election but denied political bias.

A senior Republican Congressman said the agency had gone after President Barack Obama's "political enemies".

"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," Darrell Issa, chairman of the House oversight committee, said on Tuesday on CBS television.

Also on Tuesday, two high-profile Republican governors called for Mr Obama to fire any IRS employees responsible for the actions and 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.

Mr Obama's spokesman Jay Carney said the White House was awaiting the expected released this week of a treasury department inspector general's report before taking any action.

Mr Carney said the White House was notified of the forthcoming report in late April but did not know the details of the findings.

He said he could categorically rule out that anyone in the White House or on the Obama political team had knowledge of the targeting or was involved in it.

For his part, Mr Obama on Monday denounced the actions, calling them "outrageous" and saying US taxpayers had to have confidence the tax agency worked in a non-partisan fashion.

The number of groups filing with the IRS for tax-exempt status shot up between 2010-12, after a Supreme Court decision loosened restrictions on campaign spending by groups not formally affiliated with candidates' campaigns.

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 and had received undue scrutiny.

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.

While the head of the IRS tax-exempt division has said the "absolutely inappropriate" actions were limited to the agency's branch office in Cincinnati, Ohio, the Washington Post reported on Tuesday additional queries to conservative groups came from the Washington office and at least two other branch offices.

In an opinion piece in USA Today published on Tuesday, IRS Commissioner Steven Miller acknowledged the agency had made mistakes but insisted "they were in no way due to any political or partisan motivation". {HAHAHAHA - my emphasis}

He wrote the agency had made mistakes in its process for handling the influx of applications, including "a shortcut taken in our processes to determine which groups needed additional review".

The House Ways and Means committee will hold a hearing on Friday, in which Mr Miller is expected to testify. The Senate finance and investigations committees have said they will hold hearings after reading the inspector general's report."

We thought Nixon was bad, Obama is worse and the next president will be ever more so whither is is Hillary or Jeb or something they pull from the political cesspool.

As my dear old Granny used to say, ''The biggest chunks always rise to the top of the septic tank''.

So welcome to GWBush's 4th term in office. Really, can you tell the difference between the two except for the skin tone and one speaks fluent English?

This government is out of control, but at least the conservatives are finding out what it is like to be on the other side of the coin.

I remember the anti-war days of the 60's and 70's and this is small, though none the less as offensive compared what those anti-war Patriots had to endure.

[Prospero]

Looks like a remake of Whitewater/Monica coming up.

[Willie Krash]

Looks like a remake of Whitewater/Monica coming up.

And a good go get 'em special prosecutor.

The Horseless Car club of America was tagged a few years back, as a non-profit they were not devoting funds for education, part of their by-laws.

When avowed tax hating groups like the Tea Party (have they ever heard of responsible taxation, take note G.P.) funnel money into a non profit I expect the IRS to look at them. When churches take political stands they should pay taxes.
I would rather have the IRS scrutinize those wishing to be exempt from tax than those actually paying tax. I mean really it makes sense.
Oh that Citizens United ruling.
If you form a corp and say you will use the money in fashion X, then yes it should be verified that you are doing what you say you will do to become tax exempt.

[GoCometsGo]

Looks like a remake of Whitewater/Monica coming up.

And a good go get 'em special prosecutor.

The Horseless Car club of America was tagged a few years back, as a non-profit they were not devoting funds for education, part of their by-laws.

When avowed tax hating groups like the Tea Party (have they ever heard of responsible taxation, take note G.P.) funnel money into a non profit I expect the IRS to look at them.

Wait a sec... I thought the Tea Party was about racism, not taxes

When churches take political stands they should pay taxes.
I would rather have the IRS scrutinize those wishing to be exempt from tax than those actually paying tax. I mean really it makes sense.

Agreed. Let's start with Tim Geithner, Tom Daschle, Charlie Rangel and Claire McCaskill.


Oh that Citizens United ruling.
If you form a corp and say you will use the money in fashion X, then yes it should be verified that you are doing what you say you will do to become tax exempt.

What's that got to do with targeting conservatives?

[Willie Krash]

Oh that Citizens United ruling.
If you form a corp and say you will use the money in fashion X, then yes it should be verified that you are doing what you say you will do to become tax exempt.

What's that got to do with targeting conservatives?

I gave a non-conservative example. I explained why if you read my post.
As to the Tea Party being racist I've never said that. However what does a possible tax dodge have to do with racism?
Targeting political groups has been going on a long time. It happened on Bush's watch but it seemed to be no big deal.
The Repugs desperate to seek scandal compare it to Watergate. I seriously doubt we will find the President (unlike Watergate) had anything to do with this..
As I reported in another thread CBS News has caught them doctoring Benghazi emails.

[cletus1]

Oh that Citizens United ruling.
If you form a corp and say you will use the money in fashion X, then yes it should be verified that you are doing what you say you will do to become tax exempt.

What's that got to do with targeting conservatives?

I gave a non-conservative example. I explained why if you read my post.
As to the Tea Party being racist I've never said that. However what does a possible tax dodge have to do with racism?
Targeting political groups has been going on a long time. It happened on Bush's watch but it seemed to be no big deal.
The Repugs desperate to seek scandal compare it to Watergate. I seriously doubt we will find the President (unlike Watergate) had anything to do with this..
As I reported in another thread CBS News has caught them doctoring Benghazi emails.

If I were the IRS commissioner I would flag all those anti tax tea party groups asking for tax exempt status for additional review. Isn't that the IRS's job?

[Willie Krash]

Oh that Citizens United ruling.
If you form a corp and say you will use the money in fashion X, then yes it should be verified that you are doing what you say you will do to become tax exempt.

What's that got to do with targeting conservatives?

I gave a non-conservative example. I explained why if you read my post.
As to the Tea Party being racist I've never said that. However what does a possible tax dodge have to do with racism?
Targeting political groups has been going on a long time. It happened on Bush's watch but it seemed to be no big deal.
The Repugs desperate to seek scandal compare it to Watergate. I seriously doubt we will find the President (unlike Watergate) had anything to do with this..
As I reported in another thread CBS News has caught them doctoring Benghazi emails.

If I were the IRS commissioner I would flag all those anti tax tea party groups asking for tax exempt status for additional review. Isn't that the IRS's job?

My God! Somebody got it..!!!
Hey who appointed those guys? It wasn't even out of a Washington DC office.

[cletus1]

Oh that Citizens United ruling.
If you form a corp and say you will use the money in fashion X, then yes it should be verified that you are doing what you say you will do to become tax exempt.

What's that got to do with targeting conservatives?

I gave a non-conservative example. I explained why if you read my post.
As to the Tea Party being racist I've never said that. However what does a possible tax dodge have to do with racism?
Targeting political groups has been going on a long time. It happened on Bush's watch but it seemed to be no big deal.
The Repugs desperate to seek scandal compare it to Watergate. I seriously doubt we will find the President (unlike Watergate) had anything to do with this..
As I reported in another thread CBS News has caught them doctoring Benghazi emails.

If I were the IRS commissioner I would flag all those anti tax tea party groups asking for tax exempt status for additional review. Isn't that the IRS's job?

My God! Somebody got it..!!!
Hey who appointed those guys? It wasn't even out of a Washington DC office.

Didn't GW Bush appoint the IRS commissioner that was in charge during this so called scandal? I know the interim commissioner resigned, but it did not start on his watch. Acting IRS Commissioner Steven Miller and Joseph Grant, the commissioner of the agency's tax-exempt and government entities division are sacrificial lambs IMO.

[GoCometsGo]

I just found it ironic that many, MANY, on the left claimed that the TEA party objective was really anti-black and not anti-tax. By targeting them as possible tax evaders based on their TRUE objective kind of makes those that were screaming racism look like morons.

I was also pointing out the if the IRS was really after tax evaders then they would realize that the guilty parties are on both sides of the aisle.

Finally, and what everyone knows, is that this was NEVER about tax evaders but rather about punishing those opposed to current regime.

[csrowan]

I never heard anyone say that the tea party objective was anti-black. I only heard that a lot of tea party people were also anti-black. And anti-hispanic. And anti-liberal. And anti-bipartisan compromise.

Also, as was mentioned in another thread, a 501©3 not for profit is not permitted to engage in behaviors designed to intervene in an election by endorsing or opposing a candidate.

Given the extreme political stance of these tea party groups and the massive influx of them, and using that rule alone, I personally would feel that any application for 501©3 status by one of them would warrant extra investigation.

[Leonard]

I never heard anyone say that the tea party objective was anti-black. I only heard that a lot of tea party people were also anti-black. And anti-hispanic. And anti-liberal. And anti-bipartisan compromise.

Also, as was mentioned in another thread, a 501©3 not for profit is not permitted to engage in behaviors designed to intervene in an election by endorsing or opposing a candidate.

Given the extreme political stance of these tea party groups and the massive influx of them, and using that rule alone, I personally would feel that any application for 501©3 status by one of them would warrant extra investigation.

Churches also commit behaviours that are not permitted under 501c3 but no one is going after them.

[csrowan]

I never heard anyone say that the tea party objective was anti-black. I only heard that a lot of tea party people were also anti-black. And anti-hispanic. And anti-liberal. And anti-bipartisan compromise.

Also, as was mentioned in another thread, a 501©3 not for profit is not permitted to engage in behaviors designed to intervene in an election by endorsing or opposing a candidate.

Given the extreme political stance of these tea party groups and the massive influx of them, and using that rule alone, I personally would feel that any application for 501©3 status by one of them would warrant extra investigation.

Churches also commit behaviours that are not permitted under 501c3 but no one is going after them.

That's addressed in the other thread. Summary is, only some churches are doing it, and they already have 501©3 status; the IRS should be taking away that status from any church that breaks the law, but that's a separate issue from scrutinizing new applications before such status is awarded.

[Leonard]

[gapper]

Is Ben and Jerry's now a Rush Limbaugh sponsor?

[cletus1]

This article from the Washington Post is a little old, but I cant see what the hell this woman did that was wrong. Would someone explain it to me. And why is Obama firing people for doing their jobs.


IRS official Lois Lerner becomes face of scandal over targeting of conservative groups

By David A. Fahrenthold

Lois G. Lerner and her subordinates do some of the most sensitive work at the Internal Revenue Service. They oversee politically active nonprofit groups — whose politicking often tiptoes to the edge of what a nonprofit is legally allowed to do.

That task requires agents to know politics. But they can’t show even a hint of partisan bias.

So Lerner tells them: Don’t do anything you wouldn’t want to explain to Congress.

“Think about [if] you’re in the spotlight, before a congressional committee, and they’re asking you, ‘Why did you do it?’?” said Marvin Friedlander, a retired subordinate, repeating what he’d heard Lerner say. “If you can explain that, fine. .?.?. If you don’t have a good explanation, then you need to think a little bit about this.”

Today, the spotlight is on Lerner. And it is not going well.

Lerner, director of the IRS’s exempt-organi­zations division, let slip last week that low-level IRS staffers had focused extra scrutiny on conservative groups with words such as “tea party” or “patriot” in their names. Since then, internal reviews have shown that Lerner knew about the targeting in 2011 — but neither Congress nor the public knew until Friday.

In interviews Monday, even Lerner’s critics said she had done her job without showing a political bent.

In fact, many thought she had gone too easy on some conservative groups. That reputation is now being called into question with the revelations of one disastrous day.

“If anything, my critique of her was that she wasn’t aggressive enough,” said Paul Streckfus, who edits a newsletter devoted to tax-exempt organizations. “Which is rather ironic.”

Lerner, 62, did not respond Monday to a request for an interview made through an IRS spokesman. Last week, she became the face of a scandal that has put the Obama administration on the defensive.

Full story: http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/i...story.html

[cletus1]

Well for those of you that are hoping the IRS scandal will damage Obama, it is not happening yet. Look at the "among Republicans" bar.


Obama's support steady during firestorm

By Steve Benen - Mon May 20, 2013

I mentioned last week that President Obama's poll numbers would almost certainly drop in the face of intense criticism. Even if there are no meaningful allegations of wrongdoing involving the White House, when the public hears the words "president" and "scandal" over and over again, it's likely to take a toll.

Or perhaps not. CNN released a poll yesterday showing Obama's approval rating going up, not down, reaching 53%. What's more, Gallup daily tracking put the president's standing at 47% a week ago, then reaching 51% on Saturday, before inching to 50% yesterday.

How is this possible given the media firestorm and the constant talk of a "White House in crisis"? It may have something to do with the fact that there are partisan differences in how the news is being perceived.



I put together this chart, for example, showing the partisan breakdown responding to this question in the CNN poll: Do you think that what Barack Obama has said in public about [the IRS controversy] has been completely true, mostly true, mostly false, or completely false?" I then combined "true" and "mostly true," followed by "false" and "completely false."

Democrats and independents believe the president's remarks have been truthful; Republicans do not. This isn't surprising, of course, but it does help explain the larger political dynamic -- those who were already inclined to support Obama continue to do so; those inclined to believe the worst about the president continue to do that, too. Similar results were found in response to Benghazi-related questions.

As Greg Sargent put it, "In the case of the IRS and Benghazi stories, the lurid and nefarious view of Obama's involvement in them being peddled by the right is held only by Republicans -- big majorities of them -- while most moderates and independents, i.e. the middle of the country, believe the White House's arguments."

It probably doesn't hurt that news consumers who take a closer look at the available facts find that the president find that the IRS and Benghazi stories don't point to presidential wrongdoing, either.

[gapper]

Interesting, although I'm not real surprised. In talking and listening to individuals I encounter, it seems it is those that tend to grab on to manufactured outrage that are most concerned with what has ALLEGEDLY taken place in the White House.

It would be interesting, were it possible, to see a chart illustrating where responders get their "news", too.

[BeerMe]

Interesting, although I'm not real surprised. In talking and listening to individuals I encounter, it seems it is those that tend to grab on to manufactured outrage that are most concerned with what has ALLEGEDLY taken place in the White House.

It would be interesting, were it possible, to see a chart illustrating where responders get their "news", too.

Thank you gapper. Before I got to your post I went to Huffington Post. First mention of the IRS is the eighth story down. Oops, as I was typing this, they put another story up, now is the first! But, I'm with you gapper, definitely depends on where (or even IF) the poll responder gets their news.

[cletus1]

Interesting, although I'm not real surprised. In talking and listening to individuals I encounter, it seems it is those that tend to grab on to manufactured outrage that are most concerned with what has ALLEGEDLY taken place in the White House.

It would be interesting, were it possible, to see a chart illustrating where responders get their "news", too.

Thank you gapper. Before I got to your post I went to Huffington Post. First mention of the IRS is the eighth story down. Oops, as I was typing this, they put another story up, now is the first! But, I'm with you gapper, definitely depends on where (or even IF) the poll responder gets their news.

No brainer. Republicans get their News from Fox News, WND and Rush Limbaugh and everyone else from CNN, ABC, CBS and all the mainstream newspapers.