ANOTHER IRS Scandal

[kcjenkins]

In yet another example of how endless political scandals aren’t just quirks of the Obama administration, but are rather symptoms of any big government in action, this is how the IRS tax mafia “respects” your hard-earned dollars:

A small technology contractor that won more than $500 million in Internal Revenue Service awards in less than a year had a “cozy” relationship with an agency official, according to a congressional staff report.

Greg Roseman, an IRS deputy director, may have “influenced the selection process” to benefit his friend, Braulio Castillo, president of Washington-based Strong Castle Inc., according to the House committee document. The two exchanged frequent phone calls and text messages, the report shows.

The Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, led by Representative Darrell Issa, a California Republican, is investigating how the small business, formed in late 2011, managed to attract so much contract business.

The House oversight committee needs to do more than just be a watchdog, it needs to be an attack dog. Lock people up, criminalize the behavior of those you can’t lock up, and stop the chatter already.

http://www.ijreview.com/2013/06/61627-scandalmania-500-million-in-government-bids-given-to-irs-agents-buddy/?utm_source=EmailElect&utm_medium=Email&utm_content=Subscriber%2319098&utm_campaign=06-26-2013%20IJ%20Review

[Guest Taxed]

D. Issa has no credibility after he refused to release the full transcript. I doubt if this attack dog has any bite left. It is all barking now.

Since we are talking about cozy relationships perhaps we can revisit Dick Cheney, Halliburton, Blackwter and the sorts??

Let all the dirty laundry hang out from all administrations??

[kcjenkins]

Bulls___

[SFA]

Ok, but then why bother to discuss or fix any problems, if all we do is reduce our conversations to "tit for tat" accusations.

[kcjenkins]

TOP TEN MOST RIDICULOUS ITEMS PURCHASED WITH IRS CREDIT CARDS

Item #1: “Nerf Footballs”

IRS employees used their credit card to purchase $119 worth of Nerf footballs that were intended to be used for a “team-building exercise.” As if that wasn’t bad enough, they never used the balls, which are “currently stored in a filing cabinet” somewhere in the bowels of the IRS.

Item #2: “Related Alcohol Purchases”

At one luncheon, IRS credit cards were used for “related alcohol purchases” including 28 bottles of wine—for 41 guests. As a bottle of wine contains about five servings, this equates to three and a half glasses of wine per person. YOLO!

Item #3: “Thomas the Tank Engine Rubber Wristbands”

For the child in all of us, the IRS purchased these for “managers’ meetings.” These were part of the “almost $4,000 in improper decorative and give-away items” that TIGTA found in their review.

Item #4: World’s Largest Crossword Puzzle

Along with some jigsaw puzzles, the IRS purchased the “world’s largest crossword puzzle.” These purchases cost $89 of taxpayer money. Hopefully the IRS actually used these in their “team building” activities — unlike those poor Nerf footballs.

Item #5: “Plush Animals”

Even IRS agents need a little love sometimes, which may be why plush animals were purchased with IRS credit cards as give away prizes. Who wouldn’t want to go home and squeeze their little teddy after a long day of harassing free-market grassroots groups?

Item #6: “Bathtub Toy Boats”

Another one of the “give-away items” at the IRS managers’ meetings were “bathtub toy boats”. The IRS spent $418 to purchase these, along with some other “improper decorative and give-away items.”

Item #7: “Stove Top Hats”

Not many people can pull off the hat like Abe Lincoln did, but that didn’t stop IRS agents from trying to outdo our 16th President. Stove top hats were purchased using an IRS credit card as yet another “give-away prize.”

Item #8: “Kazoos”

The IRS must enjoy the sound of Kazoos. They used your tax money for “novelty decorations and give-away items, such as kazoos” which were awarded as prizes during their managers’ meetings. Don’t you really wish you knew what went on in these meetings?

Item #9: “Dinner at an approximate cost of $140 per person.”

The report notes a “dinner at an approximate cost of $140 per person, four times the Federal Government per diem rate in Washington D.C.” At the time of this conference the per diem rate was $36 for dinner.

Item #10: A $100 Per Person Lunch

The IRS spent five times the Federal Government per diem rate of $18 when they bought lunch at $100 per guest. And they say there is no such thing as a free lunch.

Even with a release of this report on the spend-thrift, fiscal insanity of the IRS, they are still granting employee bonuses totaling $70 million.

[jainen]

>>ridiculous items<<

This report, http://www.treasury.gov/tigta/auditreports/2013reports/201310056fr.pdf, was released by Obama's own Treasury inspectors. The time period studied started in the Bush administration.

[Guest Taxed]

This stuff happens 100x more in corporations with generous entertainment budgets. The difference is that they are wasting shareholder money and the IRS wasted taxpayer money!

Won't it be nice if we all were a bit frugal with money??

[JohnH]

Shareholder money is voluntarily invested in the company.

Taxpayer money is confiscated from hard-working citizens by the power of the state.

Even if there were any equivalence in the two types of waste, there's a huge difference between the two for anyone who cares enough to think through it.

[Richcpaman]

It doesn't matter the Administration. It just matters that they start doing something about it.

If you watched the linked video, you see where this guy goes from $250,000 in annual revenue to $500,000,000. That is amazing.

If you look at the iRS, budget, it would be $12b. So that $500m would be 4.1 % of the total IRS budget. And if you review the operation and support line item, you have $4.083B so he gets 12% of that.

http://www.treasury.gov/about/budget-performance/Documents/CJ_FY2012_IRS_508.pdf

He may be the most wonderful provider in the world.

But he fudged a non-military injury to claim to be a "war disabled veteran" and he never served in uniform.

Sorry.

It smells and it smells bad. Set asides have their uses. but this is fraud.

Rich

[SFA]

But he fudged a non-military injury to claim to be a "war disabled veteran" and he never served in uniform.

Sorry.

It smells and it smells bad. Set asides have their uses. but this is fraud.

Rich

It makes me sick.

[cred65]

I wish you lefties would refrain from checking your brain in at the door when you enter a discussion beyond political rhetoric.

This is not about who done what back when, but how we have progressed into a totalitarian state and who is doing who now!

I realize that you libs are not big fans of capitalism, but would you rather live in the authoritarian regimes of Cuba and North Korea? If so, I may buy you a one-way ticket to the country of your choice providing the stock market (DJIA) increases by 500 points tomorrow.

Capitalistic Pig.

[kcjenkins]

Its just like this latest tidbit from the Congressional hearings. Dems tried to say that liberal groups were also targeted. Here's what the IRS investigator said about that.

In response to Levin's queries, George responded on Wednesday that the term "progressives" appeared in a section of the BOLO spreadsheet labeled "Historical," and, unlike other BOLO entries, did not include instructions on how to handle cases that met the "progressive" criteria.

George indicated that numbers tell the story:

"Based on the information you flagged regarding the existence of a 'Progressives' entry on BOLO lists, TIGTA performed additional research which determined that six tax-exempt applications filed between May 2010 and May 2012 having the words "progress" or "progressive" in their names were included in the 298 cases the IRS identified as potential political cases. We also determined that 14 tax-exempt applications filed between May 2010 and May 2012 using the words "progress" or "progressive" in their names were not referred for added scrutiny as potential political cases. In total, 30 percent of the organizations we identified with the words "progress" or "progressive" in their names were processed as potential political cases.

"In comparison, our audit found that 100 percent of the tax-exempt applications with Tea Party, Patriots, or 9/12 in their names were processed as potential political cases during the timeframe of our audit."

Folks, 30% may be a reasonable percentage, no way is 100% reasonable. I also wonder if any of those six liberals groups are still, two + years later, still waiting for a determination? I do know a lot more than six of the conservative groups are still waiting.

[kcjenkins]

>>ridiculous items<<

This report, http://www.treasury.gov/tigta/auditreports/2013reports/201310056fr.pdf, was released by Obama's own Treasury inspectors. The time period studied started in the Bush administration.

So? What does that matter? The point is that it happens over and over again, and yet nothing is done to those who abuse the public trust. In fact, many of the main abusers get bonuses, get promoted even. The Civil Service laws and the structure of the bureaucracy protect them, and they think they are above the law. The only reason we found out about the targeting of conservative groups was that they got so arrogant that they went too far to be able to hide it, [100%?!?] and even so it took a long time to come out. Heck, we had people on this board complaining about the process for a couple of years now, and their complaints were pretty much 'blown off' by our liberal members for quite a while. As for the abuse of the taxpayer's money for excessive conference expenses, etc, we've been hearing about it for several years, and they did pull back some thanks to the exposure of some of the trips [remember the hot-tub pic?] but this latest report shows it is still happening, just not quite as extreme as in the past. But as long as no one gets fired, and no one goes to jail, not even the guy in the hot tub, we won't see them truly clean up their acts.

I don't care whether they are Dems or Republicans, those who abuse their positions should have to pay a price. More than just a momentary embarrassment.

[Guest Taxed]

>>>I don't care whether they are Dems or Republicans, those who abuse their positions should have to pay a price.<<<

Had D. Issa focused on that instead of his laser focus to try to link it directly to the white house and calling the press secretary a paid liar, would have got more respect from moderates. Right now it has turned into a witch hunt.

Issa is discredited now and as you will notice except for certain shows on Foxnews and right wing talk radio no one is really that interested to rehash this matter. This news is not getting the traction that the Repubs were hoping!

Guess where the news cycle is going to focus next. Immigration.

[jainen]

>>The point is that it happens over and over again<<

Yes, that is my point too. Your link in the original post says, "endless political scandals aren’t just quirks of the Obama administration, but are rather symptoms of any big government in action." But the headline says "Scandalmania," suggesting widespread malfeasance instead of business as usual. My observation on the 10 things was that the culture was not suddenly transformed on January 20, 2009.

On the other hand, those ten things are a mixed bag. $140 for lunch seems like a lot to me, but I'm not negotiating with international executives in Washington. It's hard to judge without genuine context, but when they put it with cheap party favors the listing itself looks more ridiculous than the items on it. That's ordinary stuff in large organizations, on the theory that it builds teamwork and employee morale at little cost.

[Guest Taxed]

Shareholder money is voluntarily invested in the company.

Taxpayer money is confiscated from hard-working citizens by the power of the state.

Even if there were any equivalence in the two types of waste, there's a huge difference between the two for anyone who cares enough to think through it.

So John are you ok. if the corporation wastes your voluntarily given money BUT you are really ticked off if the Govt. wastes your confiscated money?

When I buy (voluntarily) shares in a corporation I want to see the company managed right, to be a good steward of my investment and get me a good return on my money. That is my expectation.

When I pay my taxes (a bit reluctantly but I understand why i must pay) I also expect my Govt. to be good steward of that money and not waste it and provide me good services.

I am sorry I fail to see the big difference. Can you give some examples so it is clear?

[JohnH]

Very simple if you apply even a rudimentary understanding of the facts.

Your last statement tells me you don't know the difference between verbal equivalence and moral equivalence.

I can do my research and choose which corporations I invest in.

If I still make a mistake and buy Monsanto, I can sell my shares and choose someone to manage my investment elsewhere.

None of that applies with the US government.

Monsanto can't force me to invest in their enterprise - the US government can and does.

Monsanto can't use the power of the state to seize my earnings, waste what they wish, and give much of the rest to others whom they believe are "more deserving'. Incidentally, I have a moral obligation to help others, but by attempting to make that decision for me, the government robs me of the ability to be a good steward of the resources I have available.

There are certain jobs only government can do well. It has an obligation to do them and we should pay taxes to support them. Social engineering does not fall into that category.

Any more questions, or do you need to pull out your Economics 101 book so we can have an intelligent discussion about this?

[Richcpaman]

Well,

It just got more interesting. The IRS Contracting officer involved with all this has plead the Fifth: http://www.accountingtoday.com/news/IRS-Deputy-Wont-Testify-Congress-Awards-Friend-67266-1.html?ET=webcpa:e7313:272947a:&st=email&utm_source=editorial&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=tpt_062813&taxpro

Rich

[Guest Taxed]

>>>I can do my research and choose which corporations I invest in.

If I still make a mistake and buy Monsanto, I can sell my shares and choose someone to manage my investment elsewhere.<<<

I suppose unlike others you can tell when you are doing the research if a corporation will waste your money? Wonder if Mr. Buffett can do that as well as you can?

And in the unlikely event you make a mistake and the corporation wastes your money you are able to get out without a capital loss?

>>>There are certain jobs only government can do well. It has an obligation to do them and we should pay taxes to support them. Social engineering does not fall into that category. <<<

Who decides what is "Social engineering". You or the elected representatives that you and I have voted to make laws and run the Govt.?

If you don't like what your elected representatives are doing, there is always the voting booth to make your selection??

If the crux of your point is that taxes are a confiscation of your hard earned money only to be redistributed to other people by your Govt. and " the government robs me of the ability to be a good steward of the resources I have available. " then you will be disappointed by our democratic system.

Do you like any other form of Govt?

I don't need a Eco 101 book all I need is common sense 101!

[JohnH]

Please go back to page 1 of Common Sense 101 and re-read in its entirety.

You're badly misunderstanding the content.

[Catherine]

Please go back to page 1 of Common Sense 101 and re-read in its entirety.

You're badly misunderstanding the content.

For reference: Thomas Paine's "Common Sense," in its entirety: http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/milestones/commonsense/text.html

However, Taxed consistently refused to comprehend that this country is NOT a democracy; it is a Constitutional Republic. There is a substantial difference between the two!

The Declaration of Independence (part of the "organic laws" of the country) clearly states that the sole legitimate purpose of government is to secure our rights (rights, endowed by our Creator, not separable (unalienable), not dependent upon any government or government document for existence, not dependent upon any other person to provide). That's it -- no other reason or purpose. See for yourself: http://www.ushistory.org/Declaration/document/

We, as humans (and as you stated earlier, JohnH), have our own obligations to take care of the poor and infirm. My position, after years of analysis *begun from a very liberal - almost socialist - viewpoint* which changed reluctantly but wildly upon examination of hard evidence, is that it is both impossible (on a practical level) and immoral (on a personal level) to attempt to foist on to the government those tasks which belong to us as individuals. I go into this in depth in some of my writings, and will not re-create those here. In brief: Impossible because no bureaucracy can actually do the job, and the bigger the bureaucracy the _worse_ job they ultimately do (those who deserve help don't get it; those who don't deserve it, do get it); Immoral because we cannot actually out-source our own obligations -- yet act (far too often) as though we can.

[Guest Taxed]

>>>However, Taxed consistently refused to comprehend that this country is NOT a democracy<<<

I am a simple and practical person. The fact that in USA my vote has the same weight as your or JohnH is good enough for me. I would not want it another way.

>>>We, as humans (and as you stated earlier, JohnH), have our own obligations to take care of the poor and infirm<<<

I commend everyone who is kind and charitable. However I would not want to be at the sole mercy of kind and charitable person in my time of need.

If my house is on fire, I want the FD there pronto. I appreciate my neighbor with his garden hose trying to douse the fire.

When my town is flooded or a storm destroys the infrstructure, I want Govt. to step in and rebuild. I do appreciate all the neighbors trying to help cleanup and provide basic necessities but I don't expect them to rebuild roads and bridges!

There is a reason why all civilized nations have Govt. institutions and laws to take care of certain welfare of its citizens and not leave it up to charitable citizens to help others. We can debate the effectiveness of certain programs but I would not want that function served solely by charitable people.

[jainen]

>the sole legitimate purpose of government is to secure our rights... not dependent upon any government<<

The rights mentioned are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. (I believe the right to property was specifically removed from mention.) Then it says that people agree to government so they can secure these rights. In our country, we do the agreeing in a certain formal way, called elected representatives. And those representatives secure those rights by passing laws. And the laws embrace a social compassion, based in part on a long-standing philosophy that faith without good deeds is dead..

Other forms of government also use public resources to make sure everyone has those rights, but most of us think our way is best. From time to time we consider whether we should avoid compassion as a society and require staunch individualism, but that hasn't worked out very well in the matter of good deeds.

[taxxcpa]

The biggest problem with our system of government is career politicians and their need for the financial support of major contributors. Even the best of our politicians should be replaced after feeding at the public trough too long.

What we need is term limits: one term in office and one term in prison.

[Guest Taxed]

Well the debate for public financing of elections has been going on for a long time. Remember that check box at the top of the 1040? Half of my clients do not want that checked?

The way things stand right now the politician for any state or Federal office has to think about the next re-election the moment they get elected first. It is a never ending cycle as long as they are in office.