Sort of NT - IRS appologizes for targeting Tea Party in 2012

[BulldogTom]

There is a very good artilce on MSN today about the IRS apologizing for targeting Tea Party exempt organizations. They admit they did it, but deny anyone knew about it.

I don't post links, but you can go to the website and see it on the money page.

Tom

Hollister, CA

[kcjenkins]

I just posted the same story, with more detail, Tom. If I'd seen this I'd have put it here.

I just have to wonder how much coverage this will get? Now, I know, if the same thing had happened during a GOP administration, with the target being liberal groups, the story would be HEADLINE NEWS throughout the media. Let's see how much coverage this one gets.

[BulldogTom]

I am shocked that they are admiting it. The denials that it went all the way to the top of the IRS smells.

On the other hand, I think these "non-profits" are mostly political and not social welfare, regardless of the political point of view they have. So I can see why the IRS is checking them out closely. In a way, I would like to see all politics banned from any non-profit organization. Then the IRS could deny their status if they show any political activity.

However, targeting one political group is totally wrong and heads should roll for this. But they won't.

Tom

Hollister, CA

[Catherine]

The other side is that most of these little state and community groups run on a shoestring. They are headed by volunteers, and their donations frequently come by way of a coffee can with a slit in the lid, left out at meetings. The burden put on many of these tiny groups was absolutely inexcusable. And two weeks to respond -- when the IRS sat on paperwork for a year and a half? Punitive or incompetent or both -- you decide.

[kcjenkins]

Or Both, IMHO.

[kcjenkins]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124260113149028331?mg=reno64-wsj.html%3Fdsk%3Dy

GREAT ARTICLE IN WSJ

Tax Audits Are No Laughing Matter A president shouldn't even joke about abusing IRS power.

Barack Obama owes his presidency in no small part to the power of rhetoric. It's too bad he doesn't appreciate the damage that loose talk can do to America's tax system, even as exploding federal deficits make revenues more important than ever.

At his Arizona State University commencement speech last Wednesday, Mr. Obama noted that ASU had refused to grant him an honorary degree, citing his lack of experience, and the controversy this had caused. He then demonstrated ASU's point by remarking, "I really thought this was much ado about nothing, but I do think we all learned an important lesson. I learned never again to pick another team over the Sun Devils in my NCAA brackets. . . . President [Michael] Crowe and the Board of Regents will soon learn all about being audited by the IRS."

Just a joke about the power of the presidency. Made by Jay Leno it might have been funny. But as told by Mr. Obama, the actual president of the United States, it's hard to see the humor. Surely he's aware that other presidents, most notably Richard Nixon, have abused the power of the Internal Revenue Service to harass their political opponents. But that abuse generated a powerful backlash and with good reason. Should the IRS come to be seen as just a bunch of enforcers for whoever is in political power, the result would be an enormous loss of legitimacy for the tax system.

One reason why Americans don't act like Italians is that they see the income-tax system as basically fair in execution. A tax audit or a tax-fraud prosecution is still seen, usually, as evidence that someone has done something wrong. If it comes instead to be seen as "just politics" then the moral component of the system will be gone. For the system to work, people have to believe that it is fundamentally fair.

read the full article, it's excellent.

[mrichman333]

I just posted the same story, with more detail, Tom. If I'd seen this I'd have put it here.

I just have to wonder how much coverage this will get? Now, I know, if the same thing had happened during a GOP administration, with the target being liberal groups, the story would be HEADLINE NEWS throughout the media. Let's see how much coverage this one gets.

It won't get coverage just like benghazi

[mrichman333]

What our founding fathers tried to prevent Government from becoming has arrived. Tyranny in Government

[Guest Taxed]

Foxnews is doing a good job, non-stop since yesterday!

[RDennis]

It was the lead story on the CBS Evening News tonight!!

[Guest Taxed]

NBC carried it too. They interviewed the Ohio Tea Party fellow who applied and got that IRS letter?

[jainen]

>>if the same thing had happened during a GOP administration, with the target being liberal groups, the story would be HEADLINE NEWS throughout the media.<<

IF? Was there so little media coverage that you already forgot the IRS targeted liberal churches following the 2004 election?

I see nothing sinister in any of this. Like most government agencies, IRS has small-minded line workers and incompetent managers. The assignment was to examine 300 tax-exempt applications for political activity. Seems to me that is an important thing to do. Except in the way it was done 25% were chosen because they had suggestive names like "Tea Party" or "Patriot." That's just lazy bureaucrats who don't pay attention to high-level policy (or even the law)..

[Jack from Ohio]

If there was nothing wrong or "sinister" in their actions, why the apology?

[jainen]

>>If there was nothing wrong... <<

Certainly it was wrong and deserves an apology. It was wrong because incompetent managers failed to recognize the problem. They have to turn in numbers, and it's a lot faster to say, "This one sounds like it," than to actually analyze the application (like who's paying for it). That doesn't mean elected officials or their appointees are trying to destroy political opponents.

[BulldogTom]

Come on Jainen. You can't believe that. They targeted tea party applications in the middle of an election year. It stopped when the election was over. Denials went on all the way until the truth came out. Then they issue an apology and say it was low level line workers. No democratic or liberal leaning organizations got the same "extra examination". This thing stinks of politics. If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, and looks like a duck, it is most likely a duck.

Tom

Hollister, CA

[jainen]

>>It stopped when the election was over.<<

No, it stopped early last year when the administration found out about it. You think political bosses ordered workers to do this? Which workers? I'll bet most of that level of auditor were hired in the last 4 to 12 years, that is, by the Republicans. So what? They're not political, just good civil service always looking for good shortcuts to good stats. And "keywords" is universally pushed on them at all the corporate seminars, as one of the goodest shortcuts of them all.

This only concerns one inexperienced unit (created for the task) pulling 300 applications for one type of entity. Apparently the vast majority were selected for legitimate reasons. Back in the days when I used to be sarcastic, I would have said one side (hard to say which side) is throwing this out as a red herring to distract us from the real problems.

[kcjenkins]

But the point you are overlooking is that this was first challenged 3 years ago, but supposedly no one in upper management knew a thing about it, in fact categorically denied it to Congress, until just THIS YEAR, not last year, and some of those organizations have STILL not gotten their responses. So if they are telling the truth about that, they should be fired for incompetence!!!!!

Oh, yeah, and none of the so-called lower level people have been disciplined either.

[kcjenkins]

>>if the same thing had happened during a GOP administration, with the target being liberal groups, the story would be HEADLINE NEWS throughout the media.<<

IF? Was there so little media coverage that you already forgot the IRS targeted liberal churches following the 2004 election?

You make my point, Jainen. It did happen a few times in the past, but when there was a GOP President, it DID make headline news. Heck, it was a major reason for Nixon being told by his own party that he must resign.

[mrichman333]

Mitch McConnell addressed the issue in a speech at the American Enterprise Institute also in June.

“Let’s be very clear: no individual or group in this country should have to face harassment or intimidation, or incur crippling expenses, defending themselves against their own government, simply because that government doesn’t like the message they’re advocating,” he said at the time.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2013/05/10/gop-blitzes-obama-administration-after-irs-admits-targeting-tea-party-groups-during-election/#ixzz2T28GLZO7

[mrichman333]

Bill O'Rielly criticized Clinton during his Presidency and was audited every year Clinton was in office. It’s getting to the point where people fear the Government and as Jefferson said

“When the people fear the government there is tyranny, when the government fears the people there is liberty.”

[jainen]

>>it was a major reason for Nixon being told by his own party that he must resign<<

The way I remember Nixon, his own staff provided incontrovertible evidence that he had personally assisted a criminal conspiracy to commit felonies (official tape recordings from the Oval Office).. The only non-profit involved was the Committee to Re-elect the President.

But yes, IRS targeting non-profits was important news in the Bush administration and this is important news now. It's on the front page of the Wall Street Journal, for crying out loud--how much coverage do you want?

[Guest Taxed]

No administration whether Republican or Democrat should use the IRS or any other Govt. entity to unfairly target the opposition who may not agree with their views.

We can debate logically the merits of an issue. That is the beauty of our system. Hopefully we can make it even better if the politicians (both parties) think about the welfare of the people first instead of their next reelection!

[kcjenkins]

But yes, IRS targeting non-profits was important news in the Bush administration and this is important news now. It's on the front page of the Wall Street Journal, for crying out loud--how much coverage do you want?

i

It's there NOW, but we now know that the head of that department knew of it in June 2011. So it took two years after she knew, for her to admit it? And she knew but did not stop it? Until after the election was over? And the media knew of the complaints for years before it made any headlines on any of the main stream media. And even now, most of the MSM is reporting it heavily loaded with the excuses of "lower level employees" intended to minimize the importance.

Any time anyone uses the IRS for political purposes it is BAD. VERY BAD. Everyone on all sides should be outraged at this. , I want a ton of coverage, Jainen, and not just on publication like WSJ. That's a fine publication, but hardly one read widely by the general population.

[Guest Taxed]

I think the IRS news will fade away by the end of the year! More than likely a few employes will be repramanded or fired and perhaps the Treasury secretary will apologize and that will be it! These things have happened before and the traction only gets so much coverage.

However I do think the Repubs. will try to hang the Benghazi story around Hillary Clinton's neck in the next election cycle. But I know that she is smart enough to avoid that. I would love to watch the debate between Rand Paul and Hillary Clinton!

[kcjenkins]

The report claims that Lerner was aware of the targeting as early as June 29, 2011, where she was told at a meeting that groups with “Tea Party,” “Patriot” or “9/12 Project” in their names were being flagged for additional and often burdensome scrutiny. The government agency even sought information about their family members, details of their postings on social media, and the identities of their donors.

Lerner instructed agents to change the criteria for flagging groups “immediately,” the report adds.

On Jan, 25, 2012, the criteria for flagging suspect groups was changed to “political action type organizations involved in limiting/expanding Government, educating on the Constitution and Bill of Rights, social economic reform/movement,” the report says.

DOES THIS GIVE ANYONE ELSE THE CHILLS? THOSE CRITERIA SOUND LIKE WHAT I CONSIDER THE "GOOD GUYS". EDUCATING ON THE CONSTITUTION IS A BAD THING?