Remember the cacophony in 2011 when most of the country’s leading liberals — including Vice President Joe Biden — were loudly calling Tea Party supporters “terrorists.” I do, and I posted about it several times, because I think it is the height of irresponsibility to accuse people of terrorism simply because they think the government has gotten too large and want to rein in out-of-control spending.
Well surprise, surprise!
With talk like that emanating from the top, imagine what was going on in the minds of the underlings whose job it was to actually perform the more mundane functions of government.
Like, for example, carrying out the functions of the IRS.
While the current scandal is huge and deepening, it ought not to surprise anyone that the Tea Party and critics of big government would have been targeted.
After all, government underlings only want to please their bosses.
Especially a boss who openly “joked” about using the IRS to go after political adversaries.
(I’m old enough to remember Nixon’s abuse of the IRS, but he wasn’t nearly so blatant about it, nor were his enemies lists as large. Sheesh.)
MORE: Noting the president’s pathetic attempts at denial, Kim Strassel is not impressed:
President Obama and Co. are in full deniability mode, noting that the IRS is an “independent” agency and that they knew nothing about its abuse. The media and Congress are sleuthing for some hint that Mr. Obama picked up the phone and sicced the tax dogs on his enemies.
But that’s not how things work in post-Watergate Washington. Mr. Obama didn’t need to pick up the phone. All he needed to do was exactly what he did do, in full view, for three years: Publicly suggest that conservative political groups were engaged in nefarious deeds; publicly call out by name political opponents whom he’d like to see harassed; and publicly have his party pressure the IRS to take action.
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.
Throwing your own people under the bus for doing precisely what you wanted them to do is not good leadership, nor does it inspire confidence or loyalty.
Using powerful government agencies to go after political opponents is the antithesis of statesmanship. It is antidemocratic and tyrannical, and a hallmark of corrupt Third World dictatorships.
A bigger question is whether a majority of voters think it’s OK. If so, that does not bode well for the future of this country.
Comments
20 responses to “Is anyone surprised?”
Was a single entity denied tax-exempt status as a result of an audit?
Do you think the IRS should not make sure that these organizations are actually supposed to receive tax-exempt status? Do you think there should not be any scrutiny of political operatives claiming tax-exempt status? Is this another one of those case of the right being able to raid tax payer money whenever it wants?
I especially love how the whole right-wing “just cause we say something doesn’t mean we ordered the attacks on: holocaust museum, abortion clinic, PA, sikh temple, Spokane”) now thinks that because Obama happens to dislike Tea Partiers (imagine that, disliking morons) that translates into an open order to harass them. Love the logic.
The number of applications for tax exempt status went up by 1,000. About 60%.
Do you want monitor fraud or do you just want right-wing impunity?
TheAJ
Was a single entity denied tax-exempt status as a result of an audit?
From aNate Silver’s 538 blog in the NYT, we find out that in the first 3 months of 2010, five Tea Party related groups were approved.
After that, the approval rate slowed considerably.
From five groups approved in the first 3 months of 2012 to five groups approved in the next 24 months. That is a pretty good definition of “shut down.”
The approval rate increased considerably after April 2012 after Representative Camp [R-MI]asked the IRS if conservative groups were being singled out.
When the IRS got called on its game, it lightened up.
The number of applications for tax exempt status went up by 1,000.
Please document. Or do only “morons” have to document?
Your snarky remarks without documentation remind me of some reasons why I left the liberal camp.
I wondered how the “Pros” managed to take over so many of the Tea Parties. They were less frightened of the IRS.
The IRS and the tax code do not exist to raise revenues for the government. They exist as ‘carrot and stick’; a power to punish and reward.
The number of applications for tax exempt status went up by 1,000.
Please document. Or do only “morons” have to document?
A moron can learn how to use the google. 🙂
http://openchannel.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/05/14/18238920-as-applications-swell-irs-nonprofit-division-overloaded-understaffed?lite
Lerner, who denied the targeting was politically motivated, added that about 75 groups with words such as “tea party” or “patriot” received extra scrutiny but none had its tax-exempt status revoked.
I know this is difficult, but try thinking beyond Victory in the War against Liberals,” use your brain and think about what you think is appropriate here. Do you think these organizations primarily engage in social welfare? This literally happens on the left and right – these organizations are political operatives with minimal interest in promoting the social welfare, which is the purpose of being a 501.c.4 organization.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/05/15/crossroads-gps-and-priorities-usa-were-created-for-the-purpose-of-hiding-donors/
I know a lot of you guys are sitting back on social security while complaining about the government – that’s okay you paid into the system you deserve the benefits of it – but between my work and the equity in my business I am paying a significant amount of taxes. It would be nice to see that groups whose business is to send candidates to state and DC not get the same tax exemption as the Red Cross. But then again, Victory Against the Liberals is the most important thing . . .
“which is the purpose of being a 501.c.4 organization.”
AJ, AJ, many, if not most of us know the real purposes of the “Professional” 501.c.4’s are: #1, to provide nice paying jobs for friends, relatives, bundlers, and any little people that are ‘owed’ one. #2, to promote whatever will make you and your organization or group, one that is ‘owed’ big by politicians, lobbyists, and/or big money donors.#3 Find hot causes and donors; big and small, milk them,and pass their info on to those who will be most grateful #4 Develop new recruits with money raising and networking talents. #5 Keep the amateurs and the zealots from screwing up a really sweet system and steal their supporters. #6 Try to grow into a “Super Group” #7 Follow the simple rules for being a 501.c.4; often by being an umbrella group for 501.c.3’s. Which; can do much of the same, but with lots of free volunteer labor and usually have lower paid but tolerable executive positions. Which; are exceedingly handy for temporarily parking those who need to be compensated for being put ‘under a bus’. #8 Stand ready to hype and take the credit for any real, faked, or even just imagined social benefits or charitable successes.
Republicans tend to keep their 501.c4 umbrellas leaner on total personnel but with larger and fewer groups under it than Democrats. The system isn’t free market but it has got; power, perks and good money for those who understand the rules of the game.
TheAJ
I especially love how the whole right-wing “just cause we say something doesn’t mean we ordered the attacks on: holocaust museum, abortion clinic, PA, sikh temple, Spokane”) now thinks that because Obama happens to dislike Tea Partiers (imagine that, disliking morons) that translates into an open order to harass them. Love the logic.
The logic is that Obama is Chief Executive of the federal government. His statements set the tone for his subordinates in the federal government. Apparently only a “moron” can figure out that logic.
Question: if Obama was so set against the IRS “special treatment: of the Tea Party, then why did he not fire Sarah Hall Ingram, who from 2009 to 2012 was in charge of the IRS office responsible for tax exempt organizations? On the contrary, Sarah Hall Ingram is not in charge of the IRS section relating to Obamacare.
TheAJ:
What about the dozens of 501.c.4’s with “Progressive” or “Social Justice” in the title, who received their tax-exempt status with only the standard questions asked, at the same time as groups with “Tea Party” in the title were round-filed after receiving questionnaires that included:
-If you pray, what is the content of your prayers?
-Attach, in printed form, all social networking postings made by members of the organization (and upon clarification, yes, the agents were asking for the entire contents of every member’s personal Facebook account).
-On penalty of perjury, list all contacts by all members with elected officials.
Etc.
By comparison with the treatment given to organizationally-identical leftist groups, this was clearly meant not just to intimidate. This was intended to actually punish, if the tea party organizations were so brazen as to follow through with their applications. Had they continued to organize as privacy-protected non-profits, they had every reason to expect that they would end up in jail. For the crime of political activity against the majority party.
AJ, I don’t normally do this in any any context anywhere, online or in person. But I’ll be blunt. In claiming that this was somehow a normal operation of the IRS, or somehow justified, you’re an apologist for tyranny and worse. A direct threat to my life and the futures of my children.
Go fuck yourself.
The number of applications for tax exempt status went up by 1,000. About 60%.
The link which you so graciously supplied – would you consider a professor a “moron” for requiring documentation in a paper you wrote?- indicates that the increase of “1,000.About 60” is from 2010 to 2012. Yet the IRS began paying “special attention” to the Tea Party groups in March 2010, before this surge occurred.
The WaPo points out that there was “No surge in 501(c)(4) applications in 2010.”
Your reason for the IRS beginning to pay “special attention” to Tea Party groups in March 2010, due to a surge of 501 c4 applications in 2010, doesn’t hold any water.
Correction
Question: if Obama was so set against the IRS “special treatment: of the Tea Party, then why did he not fire Sarah Hall Ingram, who from 2009 to 2012 was in charge of the IRS office responsible for tax exempt organizations? On the contrary, Sarah Hall Ingram isnow in charge of the IRS section relating to Obamacare.
If Obama were sincere about being upset about the IRS targeting of Tea Party groups, he would have fired Sarah Hall Ingram. Au contraire.
There is little advantage to forming a tax exempt 501(c)4 as Warren Meyer explains:
This whole notion that 501(c)4 groups are receiving some kind of huge implicit tax subsidy whose use needs to be policed is simply absurd. I am a board member of several 501(c)6 trade associations, which have roughly the same taxation rules as 501(c)4.
The largest tax subsidy, by far, available to some non-profits is the deductibility of donations to the group. This is available to 501(c)3 groups (traditional charitable organizations) but NOT to 501(c)4 or 501(c)6 groups. Whether the Tea Party of Cincinnati is a 501(c)4 or not, you cannot deduct your donations to them.
The one tax break that 501(c)4 corporations get is that they do not pay taxes on any surplus they accumulate in a year. In general, non profit groups like this collect donations and spend them. So in general, their outlays match their revenues, such that they tend to show very little income anyway, even if it were taxable. The only thing the non-profit status brings to 501(c)4 organizations is that they don’t have to spend a lot of time and effort trying to make sure, at the end of the fiscal year, that expenditures and revenues exactly match. Basically, the one benefit granted is that these groups can collect money in November for expenditure in January without paying taxes on this money. This is hardly much of a subsidy, just a common sense provision.
http://www.coyoteblog.com/
The one advantage that such a group has is the ability to keep their donors anonymous.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/05/14/lets-back-up-how-is-the-irs-supposed-to-scrutinize-501c4s-anyway/
The thuggish nature of the left is apparent here. They wanted the names of those supporting the Tea Party movement so they could harass and audit them.
Weren’t the IRS employees just as partisan under the Bush administration?
http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/lookup2.php?cycle=2012&strID=C00107128
Why Yes; yes they were.
The logic is that Obama is Chief Executive of the federal government. His statements set the tone for his subordinates in the federal government. Apparently only a “moron” can figure out that logic.
Lol. Oh no, the TONE. That meanie Obama! How dare he criticize groups he disagrees with! Nobody else would ever do that. Certainly not the president.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/You%27re_either_with_us,_or_against_us
AJ, I don’t normally do this in any any context anywhere, online or in person. But I’ll be blunt. In claiming that this was somehow a normal operation of the IRS, or somehow justified, you’re an apologist for tyranny and worse. A direct threat to my life and the futures of my children.
Lol. I have an opinion, there fore I am a direct threat to your children and your life. Yes! So what is tough internet guy going to do about it?
Go fuck yourself.
There it is. So Brave!
http://www.npr.org/2013/05/19/185206908/nonconservative-groups-say-irs-scrutinized-them-too
-If you pray, what is the content of your prayers?
-Attach, in printed form, all social networking postings made by members of the organization (and upon clarification, yes, the agents were asking for the entire contents of every member’s personal Facebook account).
-On penalty of perjury, list all contacts by all members with elected officials.
Etc.
Look I get it. The belief here is that conservatives should be able to take every tax break they want, with impunity and without any sort of scrutiny. The act of having a form sent to you is the worst form of tyranny since Hitler.
I understand most of you guys are internet tough guys collecting social security and disability, so you have nothing to worry about. I have to work with a lot of vendors and some clients. I know who is cheating on their taxes and who is not. Again I paid close to 40% in taxes last year. I file my taxes honestly. It would be nice to not have to subsidize the cheats.
By comparison with the treatment given to organizationally-identical leftist groups, this was clearly meant not just to intimidate. This was intended to actually punish, if the tea party organizations were so brazen as to follow through with their applications. Had they continued to organize as privacy-protected non-profits, they had every reason to expect that
Why did no one complain in 2010, 2011 or 2012? If it was that bad wouldn’t someone have complained prior to the story coming out?
It would be nice to not have to subsidize the cheats.
You mean cheats like:
-Bus for Progress
-Missourians Organizing for Reform and Empowerment
-Progress Florida
…just to name a few that I found with 15 seconds of searching. All leftist, all of which got their exemptions quickly and with only standard questions while the tea party was put through the wringer. Think of that, troll–it took 15 seconds to uncover your lie.
Why did no one complain in 2010, 2011 or 2012
OK, so you’re not just a lying troll, you’re an ignorant lying troll. Do I need to type the search terms into the browser bar for you?
I’ll say it again, you’re spreading lies, trying placate people who just wish the whole thing would go away–who’d really prefer that politics just leave them alone. All the while, the Party establishes itself as the final arbiter of what thoughts may be expressed publicly without retribution. You are a threat to freedom of conscience.
I’ve known too many people like you. You hate the “wrong sort of people”. You just can’t stand the thought that somebody, somewhere, is thinking a thought that you don’t approve of, and you believe that if they have enough power the Party can fix that. Maybe you even think they won’t eventually come for you.
Go fuck yourself.
AJ, I am not on Social Security or disability, I have never received any unemployment, food stamps, SNAP, housing assistance, or any other form of government assistance. In my entire adult life I have had just one year in which I did not pay federal income tax (or payroll taxes: 2012*). I have never had a negative tax burden. If Social Security continues to exist I may take it some day, because I am certain the money will be better spent if I do the spending.
You must be quite the psychic to know how the “internet tough guys” find the time to post here.
* And I absolutely intend to duplicate that as often as I can in future.
TheAJ:
Apparently your sense of history doesn’t extend before AD 2009. Comments from the Boss are quite often followed up on.Such as Henry II’s remark “Will no one rid me of this meddlesome priest?”
I noticed that you didn’t reply to my comments about Sarah Ingram Hall. Here is more information.
Sarah Hall Ingram, in charge of the tax exempt division from 2009-2012, was awarded $103,390 in bonuses in the years 2009-2012. Of the 5,757 IRS employees whose bonus awards totaled $5,000 or more from 2009-2012, only one employee- Richard E. Byrd Jr.- was awarded more bonus money than Sarah Hall Ingram’s $103,390. [ranking obtained from the spreadsheet downloaded at the link.]
More information on
Did the bonuses awarded Sarah Hall Ingram require Presidential approval?
Sarah Hall Ingram was in charge of the tax exempt division during the time the IRS was paying “special attention” to Tea Party applications. There is good indication that her bonuses- larger than only one other IRS employee during that time- required Presidential approval. And thus approval of her work. And thus knowledge of her work.
If Obama disapproved of her actions heading the tax exempt division [last week he expressed upset about the “special treatment.”], why didn’t he fire her last week?
http://news.yahoo.com/irs-replaces-official-tea-party-controversy-223044834.html