Folks, it just won't do to say "the IRS did nothing wrong" when it has already admitted that it DID

[markpkessinger]

The IRS has admitted that groups whose name contained the words 'patriot' or 'tea party' were improperly targeted for special scrutiny, beyond what some other applicants for tax exempt status received. And the President has condemned that targeting in very strong terms. So it simply doesn't fly for Democrats, here or anywhere else, to insist they didn't. That train has already left that station, and when we Democrats refuse to acknowledge what the IRS has already admitted to, it makes out party look like a bunch of idiots.

From The Washington Post:

[font size=4]IRS admits targeting conservatives for tax scrutiny in 2012 election[/font]
By Zachary A. Goldfarb and Karen Tumulty,May 10, 2013

The Internal Revenue Service on Friday apologized for targeting groups with “tea party” or “patriot” in their names, confirming long-standing accusations by some conservatives that their applications for tax-exempt status were being improperly delayed and scrutinized.

Lois G. Lerner, the IRS official who oversees tax-exempt groups, said the “absolutely inappropriate” actions by “front-line people” were not driven by partisan motives.

Rather, Lerner said, they were a misguided effort to come up with an efficient means of dealing with a flood of applications from organizations seeking ­tax-exempt status between 2010 and 2012.

During that period, about 75 groups were selected for extra inquiry — including burdensome questionnaires and, in some cases, improper requests for the names of their donors — simply because of the words in their names, she said in a conference call with reporters.

< . . . >

[CJCRANE]

1. But the main point of the Tea Party was to endorse Tea Party candidates!

And it worked in 2010!

This thread might be relevant:

IRS 501 Code: "must refrain from traditional partisan political activity, like endorsing candidates"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022851815

[backscatter712]

2. They had the right idea, but did it the wrong way.

The problem is that so many groups, mostly right-wing groups, are abusing the 501c4 rules to get tax exemption, when their primary activities are political, rather than social-welfare.

The people at the IRS took a bad shortcut - doing those searches for tea party groups and the like, which comes with the reek of political bias and abuse of power, when they should have been scrutinizing all 501c4 groups to see how they're really functioning.

Obviously, the responsible people at the IRS are already getting shitcanned, but there also need to be some rules clarifications so IRS personnel have a better idea of the rules, the rules themselves make more sense, and these "charitable" groups have a firm line on what they are and aren't allowed to do while they have the privilege of tax exemption.

[Logical]

3. Also, Obama does not fire the IRS head unless they did something wrong. n-t

[markpkessinger]

5. Well, I'll quibble with that a bit. . .

. . . Firing the acting Commissioner was part of Washington, D.C.'s "accountability theater." They do it all the time: some scandal erupts in some agency, the opposing party demands "accountability," and the sitting administration "proves" its commitment to accountability by a high-profile firing (whether or not the person fired actually had anything at all to do with the particular scandal).

[Logical]

11. I see your point. But I would hope Obama would not fire someone for no reason. Maybe I am....

gullible.

[xocet]

16. Here is an example of the White House reacting instead of finding out what the facts are....

White House apologizes to fired USDA worker
'A disservice was done,' says press secretary Robert Gibbs of Shirley Sherrod's firing. She was asked to resign after a conservative website showed edited video of her at an NAACP event apparently saying she would refuse to help a white farmer.

July 22, 2010|By Michael A. Memoli, Tribune Washington Bureau

Reporting from Washington —

The White House has apologized to a former USDA employee it now says was fired before the situation involving controversial videotaped comments was fully reviewed.

"A disservice was done, for which we apologize," White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said Wednesday afternoon, saying he spoke for the entire administration.

Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack was attempting to reach the former employee, Shirley Sherrod, to speak further about the matter, Gibbs added. Vilsack said in a statement released overnight that he would reconsider the department's decision to demand Sherrod's resignation.

Although apologizing for the White House specifically, Gibbs said the media and political activists also were culpable for making "determinations and judgments without a full set of facts."

...

http://articles.latimes.com/2010/jul/22/nation/la-na-white-house-usda-apology-20100722

For more on this incident, google Shirley Sherrod. Of course, Van Jones was also forced to resign for no coherent reason other than that the Republicans were angry. So, here are two well-known examples of the White House not standing up to Republicans in any meaningful way.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

19. As much as I like Obama, in all faireness you are right! I was so furious over the whole

Shirley Sherrod blowup and the fact that Obama caved to the pressure before learning what really happened, really bugged me. He is so quick to lie down before the press and Republicans sometimes, it makes it very hard to defend him. I wish he would stop that.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

18. Actually I think he felt that had to fire someone. This guy was the Fall Guy. I don't believe

that the administration truly believes that what the IRS employees did was wrong. But for political reasons and to tamper down the fallout, the administration probably felt it best to fire someone. There's still other officials who need to go as well.

[Life Long Dem]

4. IRS should do more than target these political groups.

They should deny these political groups tax exemption.

[markpkessinger]

6. I agree, so long as that denial applies across the board to political groups n/t

[BlueCaliDem]

9. They haven't denied a single TeaBagger 501(c)4. Not. A. One.

But they have denied a Democratic Party supporting group, Emerge America.

[ieoeja]

13. I read on here yesterday that 79 groups, or 82% of the total investigated, were denied.

Of course, if true, then that puts the lie to the IRS did something wrong. I mean, if 82% of the organizations investigated ended up being guilty of wrong doing, I would say the IRS did a pretty good job of deciding who needed investigating.

[magellan]

7. It targeted the NAMES, not the political persuasion. n/t

[BlueCaliDem]

8. The IRS should admit they wrote law and THAT is the wrong that they've done.

That is the scandal here.

They've changed the wording under 501(c)4 exemption from "exclusively" to "primarily", which opened the floodgates to the many corporate-backed/Koch-funded TeaBagger Party "social welfare" entities where donors could remain anonymous and pour in as much cash from god knows where, to fund attack ads against their political opponents.

Section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code defines tax-exempt social welfare groups like this:

"Civic leagues or organizations not organized for profit but operated exclusively for the promotion of social welfare."

In 1959, under the administration of Dwight Eisenhower, the meaning of this section was changed dramatically when the IRS decided the word “exclusively” could, in effect, be read as “primarily.”

“For 54 years, the IRS has gotten away with the crime of changing the word ‘exclusively’ to ‘primarily,” said Lawrence O’Donnell on The Last Word Monday. “The IRS took a hard, clear word like ‘exclusively’ and changed it into a soft word ’primarily’ and then left it to the IRS agents to determine if your organization was primarily concerned with the promotion of social welfare.”
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/51873128/t/odonnell-real-irs-scandal-happened/#.UZTspaLOFr8

That's where the wrong and scandal really lies.

NO ONE in their right mind, not drunk on Koch Koolaid, that is, believes that any of those groups, especially Rove's Crossroads GPS, was working in the best interest of social welfare. No. One.

[uponit7771]

12. +1

[redqueen]

10. Inappropriate, sure. Misguided, yes. 'Wrong'...

It's the difference between saying someone mischaracterized something and accusing them of lying.

No sale. I won't jump on the spin bandwagon.

And no, refusing to jump on the spin bandwagon doesn't make 'our party' look like idiots.

It makes those who refuse to dance when the caller says to look like people who know more than a tiny smidgen about politics.

[Marrah_G]

14. Would the people defending it do the same if it was Bush targeting liberal type names?

Somehow I doubt they would be here saying "no big deal".

Politics is about real people's lives, about real issues that matter, about real justice, about real fairness. These are the things we should be fighting for.

Politics is not a sporting event. It's not about your favorite team, it's not about your favorite player. When you continue to cheer for your team when they screw up then that makes you a fan rather then someone truly interested in the direction the team takes.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

21. The Bush administration DID target liberal groups. Going after the NAACP was legendary.

And yes, I feel the same. If you're posing as a non-political group but you really ARE political, your tax exempt status should be revoked. Priorities USA, the Obama-related group shouldn't be tax exempt, wither. Liberal commentators have been making that clear. Liberals are different than Republicans. We tend not to be hypocrites. I haven't heard one liberal commentator claim that it's o.k. for liberal or progressive groups to be tax exempt. Not one!

[librechik]

15. do you suppose "peace" and"anti war" and "equal" or "community" or "democratic"

were also on the key word list searching for politically related groups?

There is too much left out of this story. Like the fact that NO ONE was actually audited, and ONLY ONE group lost their tax exempt status: a liberal group.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

17. It would be wrong if they not only targeted the Teabagger groups, but also DENIED them 501(c)(4)

status. Every single on of these groups were granted special status. I assert that the procedure may have been wrong, but the targeting isn't. When you have nearly 3,500 new Teabag groups applying for "non-political" status, I think they SHOULD be targeted. I would feel the same about liberal politically-oriented groups. The real problem is Citizens United. That's what's wrong. The IRS did its job. And in fact, there were liberal groups targeted, too.

If people really want to be angry, be angry at Citizens United, then take action.

[treestar]

20. That does not mean we have to agree

IMO it is perfectly logical to target any group that looks political. And they targeted liberal groups too. There is no reason the Tea Party should get to funnel money through tax exempt entities meant for the politically neutral.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

22. ...and yet they did. Not one of those groups were denied special tax-exempt status. Not one!

[treestar]

23. Which makes the "scandal" all the more ridiculous

Really if this is the best they can do, they should give up.

Bill Clinton gave them some stuff to work with, but with President Obama, all I can say is Really Republicans? That's all ya got? Give up and admit the man is honest.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

24. They are so desperate and obsessed with destroying Obama and finally they got

their opening. It's up to us to bring their shenanigans to light. Can't rely on the Corporate Media which has done absolutely nothing to hold Rethugs accountable. Instead they feed the beast, desperate for dirt on this president who appears to be squeaky clean.