IRS Targeted Conservative Groups

[maxiep]

It wasn't fair, but they don't have to be fair. Again, the people voted for these people so they go what they voted for. And it's all been exposed. Terrific!

I strongly disagree. A bureaucracy exists precisely because it has to be fair. The tradeoff is efficiency. When your goal is to be efficient, you can develop heuristics to identify items that require further examination. A bureaucracy--especially one that is entrusted with the kind of sensitive information the IRS handles--must treat everyone as equally as possible. That didn't happen here. Worse yet, the IRS administrator is unapologetic.

I said it before, but it deserves repeating. If you're going to advocate for Big Government, you're asking the citizenry to give up some liberties. And if you're going to shrink the role of the individual, then you had better be 100% trustworthy. You need to ensure that big government is beyond reproach. Instead, we seen even greater corruption.

It doesn't matter who knew what when or who gave orders. In management, you are responsible for EVERYTHING that happens within your unit. Government uses a command and control structure. A reports to B, B reports to C, etc., etc. To claim ignorance of what happens beneath you doesn't absolve you of culpability, it actually is an admission that you were negligent.

 

[Denny Crane]

I strongly disagree. A bureaucracy exists precisely because it has to be fair. The tradeoff is efficiency. When your goal is to be efficient, you can develop heuristics to identify items that require further examination. A bureaucracy--especially one that is entrusted with the kind of sensitive information the IRS handles--must treat everyone as equally as possible. That didn't happen here. Worse yet, the IRS administrator is unapologetic.

I said it before, but it deserves repeating. If you're going to advocate for Big Government, you're asking the citizenry to give up some liberties. And if you're going to shrink the role of the individual, then you had better be 100% trustworthy. You need to ensure that big government is beyond reproach. Instead, we seen even greater corruption.

It doesn't matter who knew what when or who gave orders. In management, you are responsible for EVERYTHING that happens within your unit. Government uses a command and control structure. A reports to B, B reports to C, etc., etc. To claim ignorance of what happens beneath you doesn't absolve you of culpability, it actually is an admission that you were negligent.

Too utopian.

If you give a govt. official the power to zone parking, he will extract bribes from restaurant owners to not zone the parking out front as 15 minute parking / loading zone.

If you grant congress the power to send free mail back to their districts, with the intent they're keeping their constituents informed, the congress people will abuse this to send mail for free that is designed to improve their standings in the next election.

It is what it is.

So a realist realizes that it is the way it is and that elected and appointed officials have party or policy leanings, so shit like this is going to happen.

The guy you fire is Obama, or Democrats, etc. The time is starting in 2014.

The "off with their heads!" routine is only going to end up gaining sympathy for those Democrats when it counts. Especially when you shout "fire" and there is none.

 

[Masbee]

The guy you fire is Obama, or Democrats, etc. The time is starting in 2014.

That is what the Tea Party groups tried to do in 2012, when they tried to maintain the momentum of their 2010 success in throwing some of the bums out.

Unfortunately, they were derailed in 2012.

How can they "fire" Obama, when they were blocked from exercising their rights to organize, educate and advocate?

This scandal is of the highest order and goes to the very heart of a democracy.

Which is why there are even Democrats and Left Wingers who are upset about this.

Your positions, claims and opinions on this issue, are, frankly, bizarre.

 

[Denny Crane]

That is what the Tea Party groups tried to do in 2012, when they tried to maintain the momentum of their 2010 success in throwing some of the bums out.

Unfortunately, they were derailed in 2012.

How can they "fire" Obama, when they were blocked from exercising their rights to organize, educate and advocate?

This scandal is of the highest order and goes to the very heart of a democracy.

Which is why there are even Democrats and Left Wingers who are upset about this.

Your positions, claims and opinions on this issue, are, frankly, bizarre.

The tea party groups spent nearly a $billion. To say they were kept from trying to fire Obama is absurd.

 

[Masbee]

When you get right down to it, the political targeting and stalling of tax-exempt applications by the IRS was an effort to defund the Tea Party. Rick Santelli, one of the Tea Party founders and my CNBC colleague, was the first to make this point. I've taken it a step further: The IRS was taking the Tea Party out of play for the 2012 election, as it looked to avoid a repeat of 2010 and another Tea Party landslide.

There are a lot of numbers out there. Some say Tea Party applications for tax-exempt status averaged 27 months for approval, while applications from liberal groups averaged nine. In one extreme case, according to the Washington Post, the IRS granted the Barack H. Obama Foundation tax-exempt status in a speedy one-month timeframe. Yet some conservative groups waited up to three years, and some still haven't received approval.

But there can be only one reason for the stalled-out approval process for conservative groups. The IRS was trying to put them out of business. Thus far, there's not one wit of contradictory evidence.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/100747566

After the 2012 election when the votes were able to be carefully analyzed, it turns out that the primary gap in votes, was not Hispanic votes or women voters, but was because he failed to get out the Vote of those who would vote for him. The momentum of the Tea Party explosion in 2010 was wiped out.

 

[Masbee]

The tea party groups spent nearly a $billion. To say they were kept from trying to fire Obama is absurd.

How much did Obama and Left wing groups spend?

And, I question your number regardless. A lot of establishment Republicans tried to take over or block Tea Party groups, and are not real Tea Party grass roots. You are probably counting that money.

 

[Masbee]

Dem Senator: "Fire EVERYONE involved"


Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-MO, issued a video statement Friday in response to reports that the Internal Revenue Service unfairly targeted conservative nonprofit groups.
“I’m mad. It is un-American, it is wrong, and we have to make sure that this gets fixed,” Missouri’s senior senator said. “There’s a reason Lady Justice wears a blindfold in America. That is because in America, we don’t apply the law based on who you are, who you know, or what you believe. We apply the law equally.”
McCaskill went on to say that the targeting of one group based on political beliefs “infuriates” her.
“We should not only fire the head of the IRS, which has occurred, but we’ve got to go down the line and find every single person who had anything to do with this and make sure that they are removed from the IRS and the word goes out that this is unacceptable,” she said. “It is un-American, it is wrong, and it cannot occur again.”
McCaskill concluded by saying many groups claim to be charities while doing political work and that it is a problem which needs to be fixed “but not in a way that highlights one belief over another.”

http://stlouis.cbslocal.com/2013/05...ing-of-all-involved-in-irs-targeting-scandal/​

 

[Denny Crane]

http://www.cnbc.com/id/100747566

After the 2012 election when the votes were able to be carefully analyzed, it turns out that the primary gap in votes, was not Hispanic votes or women voters, but was because he failed to get out the Vote of those who would vote for him. The momentum of the Tea Party explosion in 2010 was wiped out.

The hurricane that hit NYC basically shut down Romney's campaign and allowed Obama to look presidential. That won it for Obama more than allowing millionaires a tax break for donating to the tea party groups. Other than the tax break, which they shouldn't have received under any circumstances, there was nothing that impeded the tea party groups.

 

[Masbee]

The hurricane that hit NYC basically shut down Romney's campaign and allowed Obama to look presidential. That won it for Obama more than allowing millionaires a tax break for donating to the tea party groups. Other than the tax break, which they shouldn't have received under any circumstances, there was nothing that impeded the tea party groups.

That is a Media theory that turned out not to be backed up by the numbers.

NJ and NY were never in play. Sandy hitting there was meaningless.

 

[maxiep]

Too utopian.

If you give a govt. official the power to zone parking, he will extract bribes from restaurant owners to not zone the parking out front as 15 minute parking / loading zone.

If you grant congress the power to send free mail back to their districts, with the intent they're keeping their constituents informed, the congress people will abuse this to send mail for free that is designed to improve their standings in the next election.

It is what it is.

So a realist realizes that it is the way it is and that elected and appointed officials have party or policy leanings, so shit like this is going to happen.

The guy you fire is Obama, or Democrats, etc. The time is starting in 2014.

The "off with their heads!" routine is only going to end up gaining sympathy for those Democrats when it counts. Especially when you shout "fire" and there is none.

You can give into what you think are natural impulses. I have a different tactic: draconian penalties. When they fear the penalty for cheating more than they fear the penalty for not cheating, self-interest will take over. It's all about aligning incentives.

People that discriminated in our government need to do time. If they were ordered by their managers, it's no excuse. "I was just following orders" didn't work in Nuremburg and shouldn't work now.

By the way, Congress would do well to bring up Steven Miller on perjury charges as a first step.

 

[maxiep]

That is what the Tea Party groups tried to do in 2012, when they tried to maintain the momentum of their 2010 success in throwing some of the bums out.

Unfortunately, they were derailed in 2012.

How can they "fire" Obama, when they were blocked from exercising their rights to organize, educate and advocate?

This scandal is of the highest order and goes to the very heart of a democracy.

Which is why there are even Democrats and Left Wingers who are upset about this.

Your positions, claims and opinions on this issue, are, frankly, bizarre.

Smart people regardless of political persuasion are concerned about this issue. Why? Because they understand one day it could be done to them.

 

[maxiep]

Great editorial: http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2...ike-a-river-at-the-irs-scandal-robert-miller/

 

[Masbee]

What we have, then, is this: Under a Democratic administration, the IRS was under pressure from Democratic elected officials to investigate political enemies of the Democratic party. The agency did so. Its commissioner lied to Congress about its doing so. When the inspector general’s report was about to make these abuses public, the agency staged a classic Washington Friday news rollout at a sleepy American Bar Association tax-law conference, hoping to minimize the bad publicity. Lerner lied to the public about the nature, scope, and extent of the IRS intimidation campaign.

Much more at the link:
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/348428/nine-lies-lois-lerner-kevin-williamson

 

[Denny Crane]

Intimidation campaign. Intimidated them right into spending $1B.

It's the rhetoric. It's foolish. It's way out of proportion. Get it?

 

[PapaG]

Intimidation campaign. Intimidated them right into spending $1B.

It's the rhetoric. It's foolish. It's way out of proportion. Get it?

Could you please give a link to you "$1 billion" number for "Tea Party" groups?

I simply don't believe it. I can't find any proof that "Tea Party" PACs raised $1 billion. Even if they did, what does it matter if their approval process was deliberately held up by the IRS?

What a bizarre stance you have on this. I'm guessing it's just to keep discussion going, but it's making you look a bit foolish.

 

[Denny Crane]

Could you please give a link to you "$1 billion" number for "Tea Party" groups?

I simply don't believe it. I can't find any proof that "Tea Party" PACs raised $1 billion. Even if they did, what does it matter if their approval process was deliberately held up by the IRS?

What a bizarre stance you have on this. I'm guessing it's just to keep discussion going, but it's making you look a bit foolish.

What do you think happened if their approval process was held up or denied? Those groups operate whether the government approves or not. Karl Rove's PAC was huge without you and I contributing tax money to subsidize it.

I'm in favor of unlimited donations, but with full disclosure who donated how much to whom. If you see George Soros donated $1M to a candidate, it's up to you use that info to influence your vote. I'm not in favor of Soros being able to donate $100M anonymously. Are you?

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2012/11/most-expensive-election-history-numbers/58745/

$970B.

 

[maxiep]

What do you think happened if their approval process was held up or denied? Those groups operate whether the government approves or not. Karl Rove's PAC was huge without you and I contributing tax money to subsidize it.

I'm in favor of unlimited donations, but with full disclosure who donated how much to whom. If you see George Soros donated $1M to a candidate, it's up to you use that info to influence your vote. I'm not in favor of Soros being able to donate $100M anonymously. Are you?

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2012/11/most-expensive-election-history-numbers/58745/

$970B.

It's more than money, it's time and energy. Time trying to comply with the IRS is time they're not organizing. As long as they're not approved as a tax-exempt organization, there is an appearance of shadiness. Furthermore, it does hamper fundraising, as there's no writeoff for these donors. Also, if you hear that your name may end up on a list submitted to the IRS, you're less likely to contribute or even get involved.

Playing Devil's Advocate is one thing, but I find your logic saying this isn't a big deal bizarre.

 

[Denny Crane]

It's more than money, it's time and energy. Time trying to comply with the IRS is time they're not organizing. As long as they're not approved as a tax-exempt organization, there is an appearance of shadiness. Furthermore, it does hamper fundraising, as there's no writeoff for these donors. Also, if you hear that your name may end up on a list submitted to the IRS, you're less likely to contribute or even get involved.

Playing Devil's Advocate is one thing, but I find your logic saying this isn't a big deal bizarre.

They're taking in 10s of $millions, and no CFO and don't file taxes? Whatever time that guy spends complying with the tax code is part of doing business.

As long as they're trying to eliminate transparency, they have an appearance of shadiness.

 

[PapaG]

What do you think happened if their approval process was held up or denied? Those groups operate whether the government approves or not. Karl Rove's PAC was huge without you and I contributing tax money to subsidize it.

I'm in favor of unlimited donations, but with full disclosure who donated how much to whom. If you see George Soros donated $1M to a candidate, it's up to you use that info to influence your vote. I'm not in favor of Soros being able to donate $100M anonymously. Are you?

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2012/11/most-expensive-election-history-numbers/58745/

$970B.

Your link says nothing about the "Tea Party" groups. It says "outside groups" at $970b, with no other details. I'm wondering how you arrived at that number, outside of some random Huffington Post links and posts. Are you assuming that all of that $970b are from the "Tea Party"? If so, that's a stupid post.

Seems like you're fudging the facts here...

 

[Denny Crane]

Here's an article in WaPost, a large corporation that contributed enormous sums of money in free media (attack Romney, spin for Obama).

The article is very harsh toward Obama due to the scandals. I find it to be right on.

It doesn't mention Nixon once. It makes the case government is in competent and not to be trusted. Obama's in charge. The buck stops where?

This is a winning argument. The people can look around and judge what govt. is doing to or for them and at ginormous cost.



http://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...0bb23a-bf21-11e2-97d4-a479289a31f9_print.html

The full political impact of what is unfolding now may not be clear until closer to the 2014 elections. Obama has been damaged, but how much? Republicans are on the offensive but risk overplaying their hand out of deep dislike for this president. But no matter how the electoral politics turn out, Obama’s goal of creating confidence in bigger government has taken a big hit.

 

[Denny Crane]

Your link says nothing about the "Tea Party" groups. It says "outside groups" at $970b, with no other details. I'm wondering how you arrived at that number, outside of some random Huffington Post links and posts. Are you assuming that all of that $970b are from the "Tea Party"? If so, that's a stupid post.

Seems like you're fudging the facts here...

The $1B sure looks like nobody was hindered. Not hindered by lack of 501(c)4 status.

Seems like you're screaming bloody murder where there is none.

 

[PapaG]

The $1B sure looks like nobody was hindered. Not hindered by lack of 501(c)4 status.

Seems like you're screaming bloody murder where there is none.

Wrong.

You claimed that Tea Party groups raised $1b. That doesn't seem to be the case.

Why are you lying?

 

[Denny Crane]

Wrong.

You claimed that Tea Party groups raised $1b. That doesn't seem to be the case.

Why are you lying?

Whatever.

The non-501(c)4 groups raised and spent that much. I am not seeing they had an issue raising and spending money. The non 501(c)4 status did not prevent them from doing so. Or the number would be $0.

Do you want Soros to be able to donate any amount anonymously? Answer it.

Do you think the donors to these Tea Party groups should be able to write it off as a charitable deduction? Answer it.

You argue for both.

 

[maxiep]

Like I said earlier, Denny, your logic is bizarre in this case.

 

[PapaG]

Whatever.

The non-501(c)4 groups raised and spent that much. I am not seeing they had an issue raising and spending money. The non 501(c)4 status did not prevent them from doing so. Or the number would be $0.

Do you want Soros to be able to donate any amount anonymously? Answer it.

Do you think the donors to these Tea Party groups should be able to write it off as a charitable deduction? Answer it.

You argue for both.

You made the $1b Tea Party claim. You've yet to back it up.

 

[PapaG]

Remember this one?

From The White House web site: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/Facts-Are-Stubborn-Things/

"There is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform out there, spanning from control of personal finances to end of life care. These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation. Since we can’t keep track of all of them here at the White House, we’re asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov."

Denny sees nothing wrong with this, though. He's a "Libertarian".

 

[Masbee]

Denny, you are losing your shit. Your posts are incoherent.

Provide a legit link for your one billion spent by Tea Party groups claim or stand down.

Hint, Rove is not Tea Party. They hate each other.

 

[Denny Crane]

Denny, you are losing your shit. Your posts are incoherent.

Provide a legit link for your one billion spent by Tea Party groups claim or stand down.

Hint, Rove is not Tea Party. They hate each other.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterjr...-501c4-damned-if-they-do-damned-if-they-dont/

IRS And 501(c)(4) Damned If They Do Damned If They Don't

Damned if you do, damned if you don’t. While heads role at the IRS for allegedly picking on Tea Party groups, the agency is being sued by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) for generally being too easy on 501(c)(4) organizations engaging in politics. The suit, Gill v. Department of Treasury focuses on the unsuccessful campaign of Dr. David Gill for the Illinois 13th Congressional District. According to CREW, Doctor Gill was favored to win the race. Then along came the American Action Network which spent $1.5 million dollars on advertising attacking him, falsely accusing him of opposing Medicare.

So why is the suit against the IRS ? That’s what the IRS is asking, claiming that CREW and Doctor Gill do not have standing to sue the IRS. If they are going to sue somebody, they should sue American Action Network. My good friend, Bob Baty would be stressed with me, if I did not point out that this is the problem that the Freedom From Religion Foundation faced in challenging the parsonage exemption, which allows tax free housing allowances to “ministers of the gospel”. If the IRS picks on you, you generally have recourse to the courts. The people who were whining about how long it was taking to get their exempt status approved because somebody in Cincinnati reasoned that if an organization refers to itself as a “party”, maybe it needs to be reviewed for political activity, could have sued once 270 days had gone by. None of them did. Go figure.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

http://www.hulu.com/watch/491723?playlist_id=1739

[video]http://www.hulu.com/watch/491723?playlist_id=1739[/video]

 

[PapaG]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterjr...-501c4-damned-if-they-do-damned-if-they-dont/

IRS And 501(c)(4) Damned If They Do Damned If They Don't

Damned if you do, damned if you don’t. While heads role at the IRS for allegedly picking on Tea Party groups, the agency is being sued by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) for generally being too easy on 501(c)(4) organizations engaging in politics. The suit, Gill v. Department of Treasury focuses on the unsuccessful campaign of Dr. David Gill for the Illinois 13th Congressional District. According to CREW, Doctor Gill was favored to win the race. Then along came the American Action Network which spent $1.5 million dollars on advertising attacking him, falsely accusing him of opposing Medicare.

So why is the suit against the IRS ? That’s what the IRS is asking, claiming that CREW and Doctor Gill do not have standing to sue the IRS. If they are going to sue somebody, they should sue American Action Network. My good friend, Bob Baty would be stressed with me, if I did not point out that this is the problem that the Freedom From Religion Foundation faced in challenging the parsonage exemption, which allows tax free housing allowances to “ministers of the gospel”. If the IRS picks on you, you generally have recourse to the courts. The people who were whining about how long it was taking to get their exempt status approved because somebody in Cincinnati reasoned that if an organization refers to itself as a “party”, maybe it needs to be reviewed for political activity, could have sued once 270 days had gone by. None of them did. Go figure.

I see $1.5 million, but nothing about a billion. You made that number up.