IRS Admits Targeting Conservative Groups; Apologizes

[99lamb]

round and round we go, where it stops no one knows.
Lies more lies and the liars who tell them.
First it was nothing but isolated rouge agents, acting on their own.
Now it seems it was directed from D.C.,

 

[jeffblue101]

wow, the low level employees admit that this was political in nature and the order came from the higher ups in D.C. office
http://hotair.com/archives/2013/06/03/transcripts-irs-targeting-deliberate-and-political/

And another more senior IRS Cincinnati employee complained about micromanagement from D.C.:

Q: But you specifically recall that the BOLO terms included “Tea Party?”
A: Yes, I do.
Q: And it was your understanding ‑‑ was it your understanding that the purpose of the BOLO was to identify Tea Party groups?
A: That is correct.
Q: Was it your understanding that the purpose of the BOLO was to identify conservative groups?
A: Yes, it was.
Q: Was it your understanding that the purpose of the BOLO was to identify Republican groups?
A: Yes, it was.

 

[PureX]

IRS Admits Targeting Conservative Groups; Apologizes ...

OK, now let's see if all those conservative groups will apologize to the IRS for all clamoring to get a phony tax-free status so that they can hide their politically motivated donor lists.

..... waiting ....

Nope. It's never gonna happen.

Or we could see if the Congress apologizes to the IRS for jury-rigging the rules every three minutes so that their wealthy corporate cronies could find a way to hide their donations to political action organizations from the public.

.... waiting ....

Nope, that's never gonna happen, either.

Let's see if the media apologized to the IRS for reporting the crap out of the "big IRS scandal" while never bothering to explain that there IRS was basically just doing the job it was appointed to do, and was doing it in the way that made the most sense given the flood of tax-free status applications that came in MOSTLY FROM CONSERVATIVE POLITICAL ACTION ORGANIZATIONS thanks to the constant interference from Congress.

.... waiting ....

Nope. No apologies from them, either.

 

[The Barbarian]

So far, the story lacks much interest for voters...

Fifty percent of those surveyed in Gallup’s three-day tracking poll released Wednesday say they approve of the job the president is doing, compared to 43 percent who said they disapprove.

.
The 7-percentage point positive margin is better than where the president stood in the poll over the two weeks before the IRS and Department of Justice scandals broke, and is near Obama’s rating over the waning days of the 2012 campaign when voters convincingly elected him to a second term in office.

Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-brief...up-despite-the-storm-of-scandal#ixzz2VAlBz9pz
Follow us: @thehill on Twitter | TheHill on

Which is remarkable. Even if the average American doesn't go for the story, it should be firming up the base for Tea Party, birthers, etc. Should be closer to 50% or less, until they come up with something solid, or until the press gets tired of the story.

And yes, some of those right-wing groups were poorly-disguised political organizations. But some of the left-wing organizations targeted by Bush were also like that. Fair is fair.

 

[PureX]

So far, the story lacks much interest for voters...

That's because most voters know this is just part of an endless chain of accusations that will continue to come from republicans as a way of throwing as much smoke and dirt at the democrats, at Obama, and at the government in general, as they can. That's their political "strategy", now. Stonewall all legislation sponsored by democrats, regardless of it's value, and sling mud until the next election cycle, hoping something will stick.

Don't they just make ya proud!

 

[jeffblue101]

was doing it in the way that made the most sense given the flood of tax-free status applications that came in.

that claim has already been debunked
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...dd-11e2-9b09-1638acc3942e_blog.html#pagebreak

Lerner made this comment while issuing a seemingly impromptu apology at an American Bar Association panel. (It was later learned that this was a planted question — more on that below.) In her telling, the tax-exempt branch was simply overwhelmed by applications, and so unfortunate shortcuts were taken.

But this claim of “more than doubled” appears to be a red herring. The targeting of groups began in early 2010, after the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United v. FEC was announced on Jan. 21. The ruling led to increased interest in a tax-exempt status known as 501(c)(4). Most charities apply under 501(c)(3), but under 501(c)(4), nonprofit groups that engage in “social welfare” can also perform a limited amount of election activity.

At first glance, the inspector general’s report appears to show that the number of 501(c)(4) applications actually went down that year, from 1,751 in 2009 to 1,735.

But it turns out that these are federal fiscal-year figures, meaning “2010” is actually Oct. 1, 2009 to Sept. 30, 2010, so the “2010” year includes more than three months before the Supreme Court decision was announced.

Astonishingly, despite Lerner’s public claim, an IRS spokeswoman was not able to provide the actual calendar year numbers. By allocating one-quarter of the fiscal year numbers to the prior year, we can get a very rough sense of the increase on a calendar-year basis. (Figures are rounded to avoid false precision; 2012 is not possible to calculate.)

2009: 1745
2010: 1865
2011: 2540

In other words, while there was an increase in 2010, it was relatively small. The real jump did not come until 2011, long after the targeting of conservative groups had been implemented. Also, it appears Lerner significantly understated the number of applications in 2010 (“1500”) in order to make her claim of “more than doubled.”

 

[PureX]

that claim has already been debunked
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...dd-11e2-9b09-1638acc3942e_blog.html#pagebreak

All I see here are a few admittedly inaccurate numbers. That hardly constitutes any "debunking".

 

[jeffblue101]

And yes, some of those right-wing groups were poorly-disguised political organizations. But some of the left-wing organizations targeted by Bush were also like that. Fair is fair.

This isn't something that can be brushed under the rug as politics as usual. This is a perfect example what happens when you have big government running the show.

"Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely". --Lord Acton

 

[jeffblue101]

All I see here are a few admittedly inaccurate numbers. That hardly constitutes any "debunking".

The main debunking part is exposing the lie that conservatives were only targeted after a flood of applicants but as the those numbers show it happened before that flood occurred.

 

[PureX]

The main debunking part is exposing the lie that conservatives were only targeted after a flood of applicants but as the those numbers show it happened before that flood occurred.

But the numbers don't show that, because they are admittedly inaccurate. Also, why has someone tried to make the numbers fit the calendar year? What does the calendar have to do with anything? But even that's not the point. The point is that to "debunk" the IRS claim, you'd have to somehow deny the possibility of there having been an impression of a sudden increase of such applications among the agents involved. And that's probably not really even possible to do.

I think the IRS agents believed, rightly or wrongly, that most of the FALSIFIED applications (the one's they were looking for) for tax-free status were coming from conservative political action groups wanting to use the new rules to hide their donor information. I personally suspect that their impression was correct, because the people who spend money trying to influence political opinions are more likely to be wealthy corporations supporting conservative political agendas, who do not want the public to know that's what they're doing.

So the agents, rightly or wrongly, had good reason to focus on those groups.

What we're talking about, here, is profiling. And it's interesting that republicans and conservatives are all for profiling when the people being profiled are muslims, or poor, or foreigners, or someone else. But oh! Just watch them wallow in indignation when someone profiled them!

 

[jeffblue101]

factcheck.org has come to the same conclusion as the Washington post.
http://factcheck.org/2013/05/irs-officials-misled-congress-public/

Lerner blamed a heavy workload for the problem, telling reporters that the applications for 501(c)(4) nonprofit status had “more than doubled,” from 1,500 in 2010 to over 3,400 in 2012. That’s true, but use of the “inappropriate criteria” began in March 2010 and 501(c)(4) applications declined in the fiscal year that ended Sept. 30, 2010, according to the inspector general’s report....

Lerner cited a heavy workload as a reason for developing the inappropriate criteria. In her May 10 conference call with reporters, Lerner said applications for 501(c)(4) nonprofit status had “more than doubled,” from 1,500 in 2010 to over 3,400 in 2012.

That’s true, but the inspector general’s report shows that development of the “inappropriate criteria” began in March 2010 and there was a slight decline in 501(c)(4) applications in the fiscal year that ended Sept. 30, 2010. The report said there were 1,751 applications for 501(c)(4) organizations in fiscal 2009 and 1,735 in fiscal 2010.

The IG timeline and report says that all these actions were taken before the end of fiscal 2010 and, subsequently, before there was an increase in 501(c)(4) applications

March-April 2010: The Determinations Unit began searching for other requests for tax exemption involving the Tea Party, Patriots, 9/12, and I.R.C. § 501(c)(4) applications involving political sounding names, e.g., “We the People” or “Take Back the Country.”

June 2010: Determinations Unit began training its specialists on issues to be aware of, including Tea Party cases.

July 2010: Determinations Unit management requested its specialists to be on the lookout [BOLO] for Tea Party applications.

August 2010: First BOLO listing issued with criteria listed as ‘…various local organizations in the Tea Party movement … applying for exemption under 501(c)(3) or 501(c)(4).’

Acting IRS Commissioner Steven Miller, who has resigned from his position effective next month, also cited an increase in 501(c)(4) applications during his May 21 testimony before the Senate Finance Committee. He said such applications doubled and cited the Citizens United court case decided Jan. 21, 2010 that allowed labor groups and corporations to spend an unlimited amounts of money to influence political campaigns.

IRS records show there was an increase over time, but neither Lerner nor Miller provided evidence that there was a significant spike less than two months after the Citizens United decision when the IRS first started to single out tea party and other conservative groups by name for review.

 

[jeffblue101]

But the numbers don't show that, because they are admittedly inaccurate. Also, why has someone tried to make the numbers fit the calendar year? What does the calendar have to do with anything?

because when Lerner spoke of doubling it sounds as if Lerner is speaking in context of regular calendar years instead of fiscal years. So The Washington Post just adjusted the numbers to prove that he is still a liar even if you adjust the numbers into calendar years.

The point is that to "debunk" the IRS claim, you'd have to somehow deny the possibility of there having been an impression of a sudden increase of such applications among the agents involved.

the burden of proof is on those making the excuse. So they have to provide the data that a sudden increase in applications led them to accidentally use improper guidelines.

I think the IRS agents believed, rightly or wrongly, that most of the FALSIFIED applications (the one's they were looking for) for tax-free status were coming from conservative political action groups wanting to use the new rules to hide their donor information. I personally suspect that their impression was correct, because the people who spend money trying to influence political opinions are more likely to be wealthy corporations supporting conservative political agendas, who do not want the public to know that's what they're doing.

Bill Gates, George Soros, Warren Buffet and a boat of load of other extremely rich donors are magically not rich simply because they vote democrat.

 

[PureX]

because when Lerner spoke of doubling it sounds as if Lerner is speaking in context of regular calendar years instead of fiscal years. So The Washington Post just adjusted the numbers to prove that he is still a liar even if you adjust the numbers into calendar years.

No bias, there, right?

the burden of proof is on those making the excuse. So they have to provide the data that a sudden increase in applications led them to accidentally use improper guidelines.

The burden of proof is on those who are making accusations. You know ... innocent until proven guilty and all that.

But this has been a political football right from the start, so fairness and proof went out the window before it even began.

 

[jeffblue101]

No bias, there, right?

bias on my part for calling him a liar but the Washington Post and factcheck.org both came to the same conclusion that the IRS targeted conservative groups before a surge in applications was noticed

The burden of proof is on those who are making accusations. You know ... innocent until proven guilty and all that

Their "alibi" was proven to be false.

 

[PureX]

Their "alibi" was proven to be false.

No, it wasn't. But I can see there is no way you're going to accept that fact.

Peace.

 

[The Barbarian]

This isn't something that can be brushed under the rug as politics as usual.

As you learned it is politics as usual. The only difference is the IRS targeted people Bush didn't like when Bush was president. And yes, some of those left-leaning organizations, like some of the right-leaning ones later, were really political organizations, trying to get a free ride. But some of them weren't. And that's the issue.

This is a perfect example what happens when you have big government running the show.

Regardless of whether it's big government conservatives or big government liberals.

"Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely". --Lord Acton

And those who suppose that their particular political slant is immune from it, are those who let the system continue.

 

[PureX]

I am actually very disappointed in Obama for not ferreting out at least some of the ridiculous abuses of government money and power. It was one of the things he promised to do when he campaigned, and as far as I know, his administration didn't find, expose, or stop a single instance of governmental excess. It's only the republicans that are doing it, and of course they're only doing it to try and make the democrats and government in general, look bad.

None of them are actually interested in seeing that the American people are getting proper value and treatment for their tax dollars.

 

[The Barbarian]

I am actually very disappointed in Obama for not ferreting out at least some of the ridiculous abuses of government money and power.

Me too. Another reason not to vote for him.

It was one of the things he promised to do when he campaigned, and as far as I know, his administration didn't find, expose, or stop a single instance of governmental excess.

Hard to think of one. Republican lite.

It's only the republicans that are doing it, and of course they're only doing it to try and make the democrats and government in general, look bad.

Motivation isn't really the issue. Republicans have become so short-sighted, they can't see beyond the next election. The irony is, they don't see that reform will harm them more than it harms the democrats.

If you're trying to govern as the minority party, then you need all the edges you can get. And they're throwing away one of those that could help them.

Or maybe they do see it, but they want so badly to survive the next election, it doesn't matter.

And the winner will be the voters.

 

[serpentdove]

IRS Workers Say Supervisors Directed Targeting

Report: DC officials knew in 2010

 

[PureX]

That's about the way of it.