Why is everyone "outraged"??

[kentuck]

The President is "outraged". Jack Lew, Treasury Secretary, is "outraged". All the Democrats and Republicans at the hearing yesterday were "outraged" that conservative groups were "targeted" by the IRS. Why?

It seems to me that rather than "outraged", they should have been very pleased? I must be missing something here?

The number of Tea Party-type groups seeking tax exemption quadrupled after the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision. Shouldn't the IRS have flagged all these groups? All of them were saying they were not primarily "political" entities? They lied and deceived the IRS at the expense of all other tax payers.

But the wealthy contributors, whose pockets were opened up with Citizens United decision, did not want their names publicized. They needed a way to hide their contributions anonymously. Voila! Tax exempt Tea Party groups.

Basically, it was nothing less than political money laundering. I give you a million dollars. You tell the IRS you are a patriot group concerned about your country. And you can spend hundreds of millions of dollars for conservative campaigns and nobody knows where the money came from? Brilliant, isn't it?

So, it is puzzling to me why every politician from the President on down are "outraged" that the IRS were targeting these groups for special scrutiny? Shouldn't we be happy that the IRS was doing its job in this case?

Instead, we get, "What did the White House know and when did they know it?" Did they keep it hid just so they could win the election last November?

Now, I am "outraged", too...

[Honeycombe8]

1. Because they weren't targeting "groups that might not be 503(c) orgs," which is

what they are charged to do. They were targeting conservative or tea party groups.....groups of a particular leaning. Which is apparently against the law. It's that simple.

Even if it were legal, from a purely PR point of view, how incredibly stupid that was. That handed conservatives a reason to hate and distrust Democratic administrations even more. This gives them so-called proof of corruption.

There was a way to do this w/o saying outright that's what they were targeting. If I were sitting in a meeting where we discussed doing that, I would've spoken up immediately, pointing out the PR issue and suggesting, instead, to go about it another way.

Besides, it doesn't matter what the facts are. From a purely PR point of view, the talking points are already out there, that's all that most people will ever know about this issue, the damage has been done. A trifecta.

[RKP5637]

2. +1, n/t

[CJCRANE]

3. But who made the decision to target them?

That info would supply a better idea of the motivation.

Or maybe we don't have the details and conservative groups weren't unduly targeted. It's hard to tell.

[kentuck]

4. "That handed conservatives a reason to hate and distrust Democratic administrations..."

"...even more."

For real?

"This gives them so-called proof of corruption." ????????

Who is corrupt? Who should be hated and distrusted?

The IG said nothing was done that was "illegal" that he found in his investigation. Nobody seems to understand this shell game?

[Squinch]

5. Were they targeting conservative groups or

were they pulling out the ones that were most easily identified as political, which included those who had "tea party" or "patriot" in their names?

This isn't a rhetoric retort, I am asking seriously. I haven't been following this closely, and I truly am curious about the answer.

[RC]

35. You are seeing this correctly.

It is the so-called Democrats that are denigrating the IRS that have either a reality problem or are Right-of-Center Blue Dogs, 3rd Way, DINO's, etc. The people running the IRS are still bu$h appointees. The big money boys have been getting away with this same crap for many years. Now that the little people from the Far Right side, thanks to Citizens United, are doing this same con game and getting caught at it, they are calling "SCANDAL".

[patrice]

58. Nailed. It. - Since 1959, over 50 years of these exemptions. This is a tax-exempt food fight. nt

[nxylas]

78. The latter

Tea Party type groups only accounted for about a third of the groups selected for special scrutiny.

Source: http://www.salon.com/2013/05/16/wheres_the_irs_misconduct_partner/
(See figure 4 in particular)

[Squinch]

80. That tells us all we need to know, doesn't it? What a crock this whole thing is!

[kentuck]

85. I'm beginning to agree with you.

It's a crock.

[hay rick]

87. Agree.

Conservative groups were not singled out in particular- they were just more readily identifiable because they were well-financed and branded- Koch Bros. "Tea Parties" and Glenn Beck "9/12s." There were no equivalent easily identified liberal brands, hence no equivalent easy screen to separate out obviously political liberal organizations.

[graham4anything]

10. This has been debunked. But then, I guess it's almost Sunday.

[Honeycombe8]

19. Doesn't matter. The story is already spread. Most people won't read any further about it.

They've heard the rightwing talking points, and that's all they will ever know about it.

Besides, I'm somewhat following it, and although I've heard a rebuttal of the supposed original "facts," those are just rebuttal statements, like the original allegations are just allegations. The facts have not been determined yet.

You choose to believe the rebuttal statements. Rightwingnuts choose to believe the allegations. All the public knows is the original allegations with crickets for a response. Ba-da-bing. The damage was done.

One thing that is correct, though. Criticism of Obama's statement that he just heard about this along with the rest of the public. That is something that I just can't believe. That he wasn't briefed on this ahead of time.

This administration has been terrible at informing the public on things and responding timely and strongly to charges against it.

[DonCoquixote]

75. This administration has been terrible at informing the public on things and responding timely and st

Or is it also that the media is going full bore to report anything negative. Let's face it, even if Obama was shouting talking points written by Michael Moore and Rachel Maddow every day on You tube, the media would drown him out.

[Honeycombe8]

84. Not true. Even with the ACA, the admin. didn't get out to sell it.

Notice that when the Republicans have something to sell, they send the dogs out to cover the media. You'll see their dogs on MSNBC, Fox, NBC, CNN, ABC, CBS, and even NPR. They'll spout their talking points over and over. That's how they get their line across to the public.

The Dems don't do this. They hunker down and watch and wait, with maybe a spattering of a Dem here, a Dem there, mildly objecting or explaining or whatever. I watched part of MTP this morning. I changed channels. There was some weak willed, mild mannered Clark Kent representing the Dems, responding about the IRS "scandal." What did he say? Who knows? Who would remember anything that guy said? Who was talking for the GOP? Mitch McConnell. Like him or hate him...at least he has a loud, authoritative (albeit disgusting) voice. And I can remember part of what he said.

That's generally how the Obama admin. has handled things since the start. They try to act above it all, I guess. But while they stay silent, everyone isn't silent. The other side is speaking loudly and repeatedly. And that's what the public will remember.

You know why we call the ACA Obamacare, don't you? The GOP messaging was so effective and complete that even we Dems call it that.

[John2]

13. Your response has a serious flaw though.

The issue was an important one, about these groups miss use of the Tax exempt status. The issue was bought to the fore front by Congress and other persons concerned about it at the time. People continue to leave out a letter sent by seven Democratic Senators with oversight authority, writing a letter to the IRS commissioner at the time, who was a Bush appointee about this very issue. That is the information left out of your argument. The IRS took proactive action from directions from that letter by scrutinizing these organizations that quadrupled during that time. They did their job period!

If it is true, it was more of these Tea Party groups popping up at the time than a Liberal organization going through the Tax exempt processes, then naturally more of them will get scrutinized just because of the nature of the process in obtaining tax exempt status. The letter was authored by Senator Shuman. I don't know why these seven senators has been silent on the issue? Some Republican Senators knew about this letter also, and protested at the time. But Congress does have oversight authority on the IRS.

[Honeycombe8]

22. "These organizations"? What organizations?

You shrewdly left out a description of "organizations." What exactly did the letter from the 7 senators say? What term did they use? Did they say we want you to target organizations with "tea party" or conservative organizations? You didn't include a link, so once again, it's hard to know any "facts" in support of the IRS.

That's assuming that such a letter was sent. I could find no authority for that, except from a blogger.

But when asked about it by Congress, the IRS did not disclosse they were targeting conservative orgs. Failure to disclose implies they knew it was illegal.

It's a PR failure, for sure. Everyone hates the IRS, anyway.

[John2]

41. I don't have to provide you a link to this letter,

when you can just type it in and it will come up with links all over the Internet. That is exactly how I found it. Why should I do the work for you when I easily found it? The letter was from Senator Charles E. Schumer March 12, 2012 and six other Democrats on the Senate Finance Committee.

And they did not mention Tea Party but groups sprouting up as Social welfare groups as a disguise to political activity. They asked the IRS to place particular scrutiny on these groups, because a lot of them were applying for tax exempt status. If most of them were conservative groups, then most naturally they would get examined more. So the concern did not come from the Obama Administration or the Whitehouse but from Congress about these groups.

Not only this, the Republicans knew about where the scrutiny began ned on these groups from because in a counter letter from Senator Orrin Hatch on the Finance Committee he and 10 other Republican Senators sent a letter to the Republican appointed Commissioner, not Miller, protesting the extra scrutiny.

That is the flaw in the Republicans' argument about inserting the Obama Administration or the White house into this fuss. The IRS placed extra scrutiny on these groups because it was initiated by Congress! The Press also knows this because they reported it at the time. The issue was a legitimate one because you had these organizations sprouting up and funded by certain donors like the Koch brothers, pretending to be for Social Welfare when in actuality these groups are mostly engaged in politics. It depends on whose side you are on? I don't think the American people will be fooled at all by this deception!

[csziggy]

65. It seems that all three of the current "scandals" were initiated by GOP actions.

Benghazi was in part to blame because of cuts to State Department security budgets.

The AP records were taken because Congress asked for an investigation into leaks of classified information.

And as you said, "That is the flaw in the Republicans' argument about inserting the Obama Administration or the White house into this fuss. The IRS placed extra scrutiny on these groups because it was initiated by Congress! The Press also knows this because they reported it at the time. The issue was a legitimate one because you had these organizations sprouting up and funded by certain donors like the Koch brothers, pretending to be for Social Welfare when in actuality these groups are mostly engaged in politics."

But the M$M will never clarify these things for the American public, so the impression will be left that it is all the Obama administration's fault.

[noiretextatique]

70. sec 527 is the political organization tax-exempt designation, not 501c3

there is not "scandal." the so-called tea party is simply a way for a few billionaires to skirt the law and funnel money to create a so-called "movement." i do not see a problem here.

[kentuck]

71. But even if that were so...

It would put the Democrats at a disadvantage in campaigns. One thing our elections do not need is a overwhelming money advantage for any Party over another. It would not be healthy for our so-called democracy. If it gets to that point, it is time for some reform...

[noiretextatique]

89. agreed...and that's precisely why the IRS is investigating

these bogus groups. no scandal, just doing their job.

[JDPriestly]

72. Actually, if you want a tax exemption for your donations and include the words,

"Taxed Enough Already," I should think you would expect an audit or at least some questions about whether you are a political organization.

The ACLU has one organization that does lobbying and other political activities. Donations to that part of the organization are not tax exempt.

The ACLU Foundation does other work, not directly political work, but I assume, educational, and donations to it are tax deductible.

Of course, the IRS checks out groups to make sure they have selected the right tax category.

[LittleBlue]

77. Nail on head

The IRS is supposed to be an impartial entity. Its credibility depends upon it, and credibility as the nation's auditor and tax collector is imperative.

[malaise]

6. Excellent post

Dems love to be on the defensive

[John2]

20. Yeah, you

must mean the Democratic politicians because the people in their Base is getting tired of this crap. Why do we have to get a stick to make them stand up for themselves all the time on every issue. They need to quit listening to idiots like Chris Matthews. He doesn't represent anybody's opinion but his own. And then you have to point your finger in the wind to see which way his opinion will turn like some wind mill.

[femmocrat]

7. It made me happy!

Target more of them, I say. They are nothing but shills for blatant political maneuvering.

[graham4anything]

8. This has all been debunked. But then, I guess it's Saturday.

[kentuck]

9. Do you have any links??

You may have info we are looking for?

[graham4anything]

11. Not playing your circular means something other than it says games.Have a great Saturday.

As Mr. Bevis said, "time enough at last" to no longer play those sartorical games anymore.
(as Elton John said).

[femmocrat]

12. What are you talking about?

Some of us have been at work all week and are just catching up. I would also appreciate some links that would clarify the "de-bunking". I have heard that liberal groups were denied status, but it was barely a blip in the coverage about the wing nut groups being "targeted". I guess I could spend hours researching it, but if you have some information that would shorten that chore, I would certainly appreciate it.

Hope you have a great Saturday too.

[rbrnmw]

15. One Link I Just Read

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/johncassidy/2013/05/the-irs-and-the-tea-party-where-is-the-scandal.html

[G_j]

16. interesting

Last edited Sat May 18, 2013, 09:11 AM - Edit history (1)

"Of course, they will be able to indulge in the venerable (and, sadly, bipartisan) pastime of lashing out at the I.R.S. But even there, they will probably have difficulty in coming up with more than a few token scalps to add to that of Steven Miller, the agency’s now former head. Despite the reaction the report has engendered—including Miller’s effective firing and the launching of a criminal investigation by the Justice Department—it doesn’t provide any definitive evidence of wrongdoing at the I.R.S., or of the agency engaging in political bias. (My colleague Jeffrey Toobin asked a similar question.)"

[femmocrat]

39. Thank you! That is an excellent link that explains things very well.

Making that distinction, after all, was the I.R.S. employees’ job. As the report details, from 2010 onwards, there was a significant rise in the number of applications for tax-exempt status. (In 2011, the I.R.S. received almost sixty thousand applications for tax-exempt status as 501(c)3 charities and more than two thousand as 501(c)4 social-welfare organizations.) Given the rise of the Tea Party, it is probably safe to assume that many of these new groups had emerged from the populist right. With limited staffing and resources, the Cincinnati office may have realized that it couldn’t examine every application in detail. About seventy per cent of applications were approved after an initial review, with few or no demands for further information from the groups concerned. The issue was how to isolate applications that merited further inspection, and, in May, 2010, somebody in the Cincinnati office came up with the “Be On the Lookout” criteria related to the Tea Party.

The repukes are trying to create some huge "scandal" where there is none.

[kentuck]

43. Yep. I think that is probably the case? BOLO... Be On The Lookout

" The report doesn’t say whether the Inspector General accepted this argument, but it can’t be dismissed out of hand. It’s possible, I suppose, that the Cincinnati office was inhabited by a group of I.R.S. employees who detested the Tea Party and its hangers-on because of their anti-government stance, and who set out to hinder their activities. It’s also perfectly possible that what we had here was a group of overworked investigators who were swamped with a rising number of applications for tax-exempt status, and who were looking for short cuts to identify entities that were primarily political organizations rather than charities or social-welfare organizations."

[John2]

50. As a person who has

considerable education on research methods, the methodology they used was completely logical and acceptable for their task. Tell me another way they could have accomplished their task? As far as I'm concerned these people did a good job. I've indicated before for example, a church or social welfare organization by definition, would not be considered Liberal or conservative because of what they do. They don't endorse candidates but the Tea Party does and it is mostly Republicans. They openly campaign for them. What social welfare is the Tea Party doing other than influencing certain types of legislation which involves their Political ideology? Their use of Social Welfare is deceptive. The only way you can make sure would be for them to be completely transparent about their donors and their welfare programs if there are any?

[graham4anything]

18. Indeed, some have been at work all week.

It's Saturday morning, I am busy listening to Elton John and his best single he ever recorded
that wasn't written with Bernie Taupin, but with the legendary leader of the TRB band, Tom Robinson

As a teacher I once had told me, there are no short cuts to knowledge. Always told me not to read Cliff Notes.

Be seeing you.

[Pelican]

54. How convenient...

[Chathamization]

49. Here you go:

Reposting this from earlier. I should also note that the report found that Tea Party cases made up the minority of cases sent to the special unit.

From the report:

According to the Director, Rulings and Agreements, thefact that the team of specialists worked applications that did not involve the Tea Party, Patriots, or 9/12 groups demonstrated that the IRS was not politically biased in its identification of applications for processing by the team of specialists.

Note: it's not just that they worked on applications not involving those groups, it's that the majority of their applications didn't involve those groups. But this is even more interesting:

Based on our review of other BOLO listing criteria, the use of organization names on the BOLO listing is not unique to potential political cases.16

So there were other groups included as well. But they don't list them...hey, what's footnote 16?

16 We did not review the use of other named organizations on the BOLO listing to determine if their use was appropriate.

Why not? Why did they only look to see whether or not Tea Party groups were targeted?

Now if we look back to see why they started this investigation: "TIGTA initiated this audit based on concerns expressed by members of Congress." Ah, so that's why they only looked at whether or not the Tea Party groups were treated inappropriately!

[G_j]

14. what has been debunked?

not sure what you are referring to

[tularetom]

17. Because we are truly living in bizarro world

When you advocate things like constitutional amendments to abolish the income tax.....you might be a political organization.

It's a no brainer. Besides the "outrage" is just more typical republican fake outrage. What I'm outraged about is that the President for whatever reason felt he needed to climb on the outrage bandwagon. Maybe he thought this would be the thing that finally got the republicans to like him.

[John2]

25. It is that compromise

attitude again, just like with Entitlements and nation building. When he learns who we are dealing with, then we can get some where. The other Party are extremists and they intend to destroy his Administration and the Democratic Party. They will do anything to obtain their objective, even if it means destroying this country. The President and Democratic politicians need to get with the ball game. There are more important issues than the whining from the Right extremists and their Media accomplices about their Rights. It happens to be the Rights they are trying to take from the rest of us. There needs to be more investigations on them, like rigging Elections and getting us into costly Wars illegally. Also their misuse of power through trumped up hearings such as Benghazi. The Press has been just as guilty on that.

[Autumn]

21. It seems to me they were doing their jobs.

They audit tax payers too. I'm outraged over the outrage.

[KoKo]

23. Well..at least it's "bi-partisan."

We've finally found that "Center" that has been touted as where we all must be politically, these days.

[rbrnmw]

24. Meanwhile the federal budget limbo is hurting the American People

So sick of the BS

[John2]

26. I'm not impressed

with those Drama queens in Congress at all. The only ones need investigating are them!

[Newest Reality]

27. This is outrageous

and it is only one organization that is considered a "benefit to our general welfare". The Koch Brother's politically active organizations they create to strangle us are entitled to a special tax status?

The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) is a 501(c)(3) American organization composed of legislators, businesses and foundations which produces model legislation for state legislatures and says it promotes free-market and conservative ideas.

This is a general outline of the Koch crock:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Legislative_Exchange_Council

This site reveals what ALEC is actually doing and gives us good reason to not only be outraged, but to demand that the tax favors are recinded:

http://www.alecexposed.org/wiki/ALEC_Exposed

[John2]

29. I read a recent article

about how a lot of American Corporations are getting away on their taxes. Now that is probably the real scandal in this country and needs to be investigated. I think the Senate needs to call Miss Lerner to the Hill.

[Sunlei]

28. why? because the Rs expected Pres. O to defend the IRS and he didn't. Bipartisan outrage :)

He's a wise President

[RC]

40. He's a wise President because he came out near the beginning, like an outraged Republican?

It would have been best if he would have said he was waiting till all the facts were in.
I am so tired of Obama not standing up the the Republicans in any meaningful way.

[Sunlei]

45. I meant it was wise to remove the Rs target and that target is always Pres. O.

Besides, the IRS has to be trusted to do their job without any bias what so ever.

[underpants]

30. I agree kentuck. In fact I have experience at a 501c3 and reporting

As part of my current job I complete annual reports to 27 states. Yes they are arduous and time consuming but guess what- they are the law IF you want to fund raise in those states.

South Carolina has a best and worst list that is jawdropping when you see some of the bad ones
http://www.sos.sc.gov/forms/ScroogeandAngelpr.pdf

North Dakota has 3 forms and 3 different checks that we have to mail

etc. Some states don't require filings to raise money from their residents.

Okay so that is annual State filings. For the initial determination there was considerable effort needed. I wasn't at the organization when they initially filed but I reviewed the paperwork that they completed in 2003 to the IRS (Form 1023) just this week - it was 13 pages. Lots of specific questions about operations, intended purposes, and specific questions about political activity.
Now remember this is for 501c3 status. 501c4 criteria changed (40 years ago) to allow for some political activity. The fact that these rightwing groups were clearly fully political is not why I would have looked into them, the shear number of applicants for 501c4 status would have warranted a closer look. I have a lot of compliance audit experience and an increase in any group or sub-group of that size that have recently occurred demands a closer look.

Now - should they have used "tea party" and "9/12" and other terms for their search....mmm probably not but was the expanded group comprised of a large sample of such groups? If so then yes. In fact part of part of Miller's testimony dealt with efficiency (don't the TeaBagger types what better efficiency in government?)
http://swampland.time.com/2013/05/17/ousted-irs-chief-regrets-treatment-of-tea-party/

Once you have tax exempt status, which is rarely revoked, you not only can raise funds (or be bankrolled) where you don't pay taxes AND the donors get a tax credit you also get to buy office supplies, food, pretty much anything you want tax free as long as they are bought BY the organization. Need new tires (that will be used by the President of the 501c4)? Tax exempt. Need a new computer (that will be used for 501c4 activities)? Tax exempt. They do have to file a 990 report with the IRS so those expenses could (read: should) be reviewed but they typically aren't.


The 990 report brings up another factor - paperwork. How did my 501c3 organization respond to the initial Form 1023 questions? Their lawyers completed it. Expensive and cumbersome yes but necessary. You have to do the paperwork.
From an NPR report just this week - they didn't want to do the paperwork.

Bower says they use the money they raise to buy pocket Constitutions to hand out, and they are all unpaid volunteers. She said they did note, on one form, that they are an educational group that occasionally holds book study groups. She says they were then asked by the IRS for a written summary of each book.

"I don't have time to write him a book report; I did that in high school," Bower says.

She says the group had read two books. The first was endorsed by talk show host Glenn Beck, called The 5000 Year Leap. The other was the pocket Constitution they've been handing out. So she packed both up and sent them to the IRS, saying they could read the books for themselves.
http://www.npr.org/2013/05/15/184040236/irs-inquiries-crossed-the-line-tea-party-groups-say


Here is the part that really gets me. I can't find the complete list of the 300 organizations that were scrutinized. What was "75%" of the 300 is now switched to "300 conservative groups" in a short amount of time. Trust me I have looked but then maybe I am just not using the right search criteria.

[kentuck]

44. Thanks underpants!

Here is a bit of info from this link: http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/johncassidy/2013/05/the-irs-and-the-tea-party-where-is-the-scandal.html

<snip>
Making that distinction, after all, was the I.R.S. employees’ job. As the report details, from 2010 onwards, there was a significant rise in the number of applications for tax-exempt status. (In 2011, the I.R.S. received almost sixty thousand applications for tax-exempt status as 501(c)3 charities and more than two thousand as 501(c)4 social-welfare organizations.) Given the rise of the Tea Party, it is probably safe to assume that many of these new groups had emerged from the populist right. With limited staffing and resources, the Cincinnati office may have realized that it couldn’t examine every application in detail. About seventy per cent of applications were approved after an initial review, with few or no demands for further information from the groups concerned. The issue was how to isolate applications that merited further inspection, and, in May, 2010, somebody in the Cincinnati office came up with the “Be On the Lookout” criteria related to the Tea Party.

<snip>
The Inspector General’s staff reviewed almost three hundred applications that the I.R.S. field office had tagged as potential political cases. From the report:

In the majority of cases, we agreed that the applications submitted included indications of significant political campaign intervention.

To put it another way, most of the time the I.R.S. examiners appear to have got it right. Here are the exact numbers: of the two hundred and ninety-eight applications they flagged for further review, two hundred and seven were from organizations that genuinely appeared to be political groups.

What about the other ninety-one applications that the I.R.S. office flagged? In reviewing these, the Inspector General’s staff couldn’t find any immediate indication that they came from political groups, which is potentially troubling. But it doesn’t necessarily mean that the I.R.S. officials acted without due cause. As they explained to the Inspector General’s staff, some dubious applications “may not literally include statements indicating significant political campaign intervention.” And why is that?

[Seeking Serenity]

31. Among the allegations

is that "liberal" groups' 501(c)4 applications were subjected to either "normal" scrutiny or little at all, and generally these applications were approved within 6 months or so.

The "conservative," Tea Party, Patriot, etc., groups' applications were given "extra" scrutiny and approval time was generally more than 2 years.

I'm sorry, but I see the outrage. Abuse of discretion. Not treating all applications equally (equal protection of the laws).

And yeah, it just LOOKS bad.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/politics/irs-targets-conservative-groups/

[kentuck]

34. Your post assumes equal scrutiny is a necessity.

I think that is a false equivalency argument that would overlook obvious red flags for the sake of being "fair". That would be unequal protection of the laws by letting some abuse the tax laws for fear of creating outrage.

Yes, Tea Baggers might be outraged. It might look bad. But the IRS has a duty to the rest of the citizenry to do their job. These groups did not deserve "normal" scrutiny.

Yes, the IRS may have been wiser not to group them as anti-tax, anti-government organizations. But, in my opinion, they did it because they were overloaded with work and underfunded by the Congress so they were looking at the best way to do their job. They probably grouped (targeted) "new businesses" and "progressive" organizations also? The only difference was that they received more "normal" scrutiny because they were not all equal. They should not have treated all the applications the same if they thought some were more apt to abuse the system.

The fact that they were breaking the law is more important than whether or not the Tea Party was pissed off and their Republican masters were outraged, in my opinion.

[Seeking Serenity]

37. "These groups did not deserve "normal" scrutiny."

See? This is the problem. Your statement presumes that the groups with "conservative" sounding names were more likely to engage in unlawful conduct than those with "liberal" sounding names.

It's not a false equivalency. All groups SHOULD be treated equally (equal protection of the laws), unless an individual application gives reason to give it heightened scrutiny. And simply having the words "Tea Party" or "Patriot" etc., is not in and of itself sufficient reason.

[kentuck]

46. But the problem is not that they had a "conservative" sounding name.

That is not why they were flagged. They could have been Libertarian or Liberal sounding names. The problem was with their intent to deceive and use the tax laws for tax exempt purposes. They were flagged for that - not because they had a "conservative" sounding name.

[TheKentuckian]

61. How do you declare intent to deceive before you even look at an application?

They were exactly scrutinized for name and keywords in their mission and while it is possible to sympathize with folks trying figure out some way to get through a massive workload, I don't see how the methods can be seen as acceptable.

I agree with your conclusion but we cannot even aspire too equal protection under the law if the government is permitted to work backward from the conclusions of whoever is sitting in a chair.

This was a bad process, I don't see why that is something to debate, even if outcomes justify it.

[kentuck]

66. Perhaps bad wording on my part...?

I think it was common procedure to look at all new applications. They were looking for a way to group them due to the large number of new applications. I guess they could have grouped them as dumb and dumber but even that would have brought criticism. Who you calling "dumber"??

I would agree it was not a pretty process but we need to look at the bottom line. There was a requirement for anyone that wanted to be classified as tax exempt. It was not and should not have been an automatic process.

I will be surprised if there was any conspiracy against the conservative groups by the IRS. I think they just flooded the system with new applications and there simply wasn't enough manpower to handle it in a suitable time frame.

Just curious, what type of social welfare would Tea Partiers and conservatives do for the public good?? Print out copies of the US Constitution? Buy snake flags? Buy truckloads of tea? Buy poster boards for their misspelled signs? Buy more ammunition?

[TheKentuckian]

86. I don't think they do anything for the public good at all, in fact I think they are a black hole

and reviewing their applications should have ferreted that out or found a reasonable argument to support their application for status. Those reasonable arguments may indeed be passing out copies of the constitution (which I'd grant as legitimate) or pushing their views on taxation (which I disagree with but also would have to approve).

The thing is you can't skip to the bottom line when you have a process problem and say it all worked out in the wash.

[KoKo]

47. They were not targeted because they were Right Wing groups

they were targeted because they were political groups seeking tax exempt status. Its a big difference. After "Citizens United" was given the approval of the SC..there was a flood of groups seeking tax exempt status. Also with rise of the Tea Party (which was engaged in political actions) it would have made sense for the IRS to try to do their job and analyze groups with "Tea Party or Patriot" in their request for Tax Exempt status.

Why the TeaParty groups in Ohio were targeted specifically, though...who knows? Maybe IRS had more evidence of direct political activity of the Ohio groups? Maybe some direct evidence of Koch Brothers money involved. If you are short staffed you have to go after the most of obvious evidence of abuse.

[Seeking Serenity]

52. Except that the Treasury Department's

Office of the Inspector General (an executive agency, not an arm of Congress) found evidence of improper behavior by the IRS.

[Sunlei]

51. I bet the apps are treated equally, but once the IRS flags an error or has a question..the app gets

more scrutiny. The group who wants that tax free status gets a letter and has to answer the IRS questions.

There are also plenty of regular Americans who scrutinize all these charities and their finances. Groups can be turned in to the IRS anonymously. Plenty are. IRS even has a rewards system where you turn in a tax fraud group and get a percent of the recovery money.

[TNNurse]

32. Outrage

Well, is there a possibility that there is one or more employees in that IRS office in Cincinnati who actually understood the law for tax exempt status and began to do a little research??

I am still waiting on an example of any Tea Party titled organization that has ever done ANYTHING to promote social welfare except for their very own members.

[KoKo]

48. Agree..and could be they found Koch Brothers or other "outside money" involved

that flagged those groups.

[abelenkpe]

33. Outrage?

Everyone needs their daily dose, their daily hate, brought to us all by our corporate media masters.


It is money laundering and a great example of how the very rich attempt to buy elections. If anything it should be used as an example of why we need to remove money from politics altogether. But no....

[mountain grammy]

36. Outraged that the Kochs and others have created new tax havens that influence elections.

What could possibly be wrong with that? I am outraged that they are granted tax exempt status and every American should be outraged. That's the real scandal here in bizzaro stupid America... Every time I donate to the party or candidate of my choice, I am told in no uncertain terms the donation is not tax deductable. I am really confused by this so called targeting.
Get the secret money out of politics.. our only hope for the survival of democracy.

[JEB]

60. Could not agree more.

These groups are an industry for the Right Wing feeding off Koch money.

[tomp]

38. every person or group claiming tax exempt status should be examined.

the burden of proof should be on the entity claiming exemption BEFORE tax exempt status is granted. If there aren't enough resources to screen all the applicants, you wait in line until your case gets reviewed. Perhaps when people have to wait in line, enough political pressure will build to allocate appropriate resources.

[Chathamization]

59. Good point.

If the IRS can't do its job because of budget cuts:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/12/business/budget-cuts-hamper-irs-from-performing-its-duties-report-says.html?_r=0

Then it may as well slow down the tax exempt line in order to focus on bigger issues. Of course, the IRS would be given hell for that and it would be stepping into a political ring where half the people are attacking them and the other half ready to throw them under the bus, so I can understand why it didn't.

[Pelican]

63. The problem...

... as stated above is when left leaning groups get a pass in a few months and right leaning groups get a pass in a few years.

That is a problem, both ethically and from a perception standpoint.

[kentuck]

67. What if there are 20 times more conservative groups than liberal groups??

Should it still take the same amount of time?

[tomp]

83. not quite sure what you're asking.

Are there actually 20 x's more conservative groups making such requests? If there are, that sounds like good cause for flagging them.

[GoCubsGo]

81. Yes, especially those whose group name contains the word "Party".

As in "political party". And, especially those who have held hundreds of anti-tax rallies over the past 5 year, and ran dozens of candidates in political primaries. I really cannot believe there is some sort of controversy here to be outraged over. Of course, the supposedly offended party controls the media, so they were able deluge us with their "outrage" propaganda. The real outrage is that they are getting away with it.

[Purplehazed]

42. Debunked?

If this report has truly been debunked, someone forgot to tell the president.

[1StrongBlackMan]

53. Simple ...

The President is "outraged". Jack Lew, Treasury Secretary, is "outraged". All the Democrats and Republicans at the hearing yesterday were "outraged" that conservative groups were "targeted" by the IRS. Why?

Because the average (mostly uninformed, but even some here) member of the public is out-raged!

"When your enemy AND the public is moving in the direction you want, you don't fight them."

What are the gop and the public calling for? "Fair" treatment.

What is the likely result? The OIG called for "clear and unambiguous" rules on how 501(C)(4) eligibility is are to be determined.

Fine, the new Acting Commissioner's first official action, after two more days of apologies (to show he is sufficiently outraged), should be the proclamation: "The IRS will, from this day forward, to follow the letter of the law ... 'No 501(C)(4) tax exemption status for any organization involved in political activity, period'. So, good-bye ... Crossroads, teaparty, andd Emerge."

Well, actually, all of these groups can still do whatever the hell they want to do; just not under a tax-exempt status that ALLOWS THEM TO SPEND UNLIMITED MONEY ON POLITICAL ACTIVITY, WHILE RECEIVING UNLIMITED DONATIONS WITHOUT DISCLOSING THE SOURCE OF THOSE DONATIONS. (Sorry about shouting, but) We must remember THIS is what this whole thing is Really about.

What else are the more extreme gop and the public calling for? ... "reform" of the tax system.

What's the likely result? Taxes are out front again ... only, now, tax reform can now be framed in the context of tax exemptions, e.g., closing of loop-hole; rather than, raising or lowering taxes.

So, frankly, I think this "outrage" on the part of the Administration is theatre. Or, maybe not ... but they will soon get there, once they re-remember that a good bunch of americans really are idiots, hoping and praying that their god will intervene and grant the gop/teaparty SOMETHING/ANYTHING that will rid them of this blight in the whitehouse

[John2]

57. Yeah, the Right

,Media and their defenders. Everybody else is on to them and that is the majority of this country. Their whining will not help them at all with the groups that voted against them. Who cares about the Tea Parties Rights when they are trying to violate our Rights? They got the nerve to complain about Rights and disguising themselves as some kind of social welfare organization!. Give me a Break! They are still the Stupid Party as far as I'm concerned!

[amerciti001]

55. I'm not "outraged" at the IRS scrutinizing these 501(c)4 org...

I'm becoming "outraged" at the talking points of the IRS so called targeting these 5401(c)4 scam operations trying to set themselves up as a "Social Welfare" org, to do what? As stated="nothing less than political money laundering" operations.

What is the best way to move untold Millions of Dollars (perhaps Koch Brothers millions of dollars/ money), for campaign finances around the country, without attracting attention or notice being paid to this type of money? As stated=Voila! Tax exempt Tea Party groups.

My surprise to all of this so called "outrage", is the very people, from the President on down are "outraged" that the IRS were targeting these groups for special scrutiny. Why?, is not the IRS vetted with the task of investigating any and all 501(c)4 applications irregardless of whatever the group uses as it title or name? Shouldn't the IRS be able to do the task of this job of investigating, simply, any and all 501(c)4's applications as required by procedural code? Shouldn't the IRS be doing its job?

The cat is out of the bag. This vast Right-Wing Conspiracy has come to light. Do you not think that the 2012 election was just a dry run, to test and modify, the ways to get all of this illegal campaign finances to the Conservative candidates runing for Office? Can you not see that Karl Rove Crossroads GPS is the lead dog to all of this, through "Social Welfare" 501(c)4 org, better known as Tea Party Groups?

Instead, we get, "What did the White House know and when did they know it?" Did they keep it hid just so they could win the election last November?

Now, I am "outraged", too...

[They_Live]

73. Not only that

with a 501c4 super pac you can decide to just keep the "left over money". Perfect legal money laundering.

http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/421160/november-12-2012/colbert-super-pac-shh----secret-second-501c4---trevor-potter

[Joey Liberal]

56. I am not outraged at all

1. Benghazi is simply a witch hunt
2. The AP phone log checks are legal and the republicans in Congress have voted to keep it legal.
3. The IRS has every right to target groups like the Tea Party Patriots *gag* who are making tons of requests for tax-exempt status.

Nothing illegal was done, but it is fun to watch the holier-than-thou republicans compare this stuff to Watergate.

[Life Long Dem]

62. Koch brothers

(According to Forbes, the brothers’ wealth has almost doubled in just three years to $34 billion each – while 46 million Americans without lobbyists and clever tax attorneys live below the poverty level, including one in five children.)

...snip

"The Tea Party is not the Republican Party, the Democratic Party, the Greens or the Libertarians. It is a name that has become so heavily aligned with the Koch brothers that if you search Koch brothers together with the words Tea Party in the Google search engine, you find 1.4 million links."

http://wallstreetonparade.com/2013/05/it-wasn%E2%80%99t-conservatives-that-were-being-investigated-by-the-irs-it-was-the-koch-brothers%E2%80%99-front-groups/

[indepat]

68. I'm outraged that Republican obstruction of the lawful functioning of crucial governmental

operations is not even a small blip on the MSM radar.

[kentuck]

69. Bingo!

Same here!

[awoke_in_2003]

74. I'm outraged at your lack of outrage...

just kidding

[DonCoquixote]

76. Because, on all sides

Outrage has become a sort of sacharrine anger, one that does not threaten the way things are done.

[MrModerate]

79. Because fairness is at least as much perception as reality.

Obama is outraged that his moral high road has suffered a washout. The Treasury Secretary is outraged because he knows that taxpayers only pay their taxes so long as they consider it a moral obligation to do so. Have a look at Greece for an example of what happens when taxpayers reject that obligation.

There was no need to target anyone. While Citizens United is a disastrous decision right up there with Dred Scott, it was still essential that the IRS apply the mechanisms they have to prevent tax fraud evenhandedly.

They didn't, and now the IRS' ability to keep these frauds as honest as the system will allow has been seriously compromised.

And the wingnuts have been handed a stick to beat Obama with and an excuse to avoid any responsibility to govern.

[Smarmie Doofus]

82. Kick and Rec. n/t

[Proud Liberal Dem]

88. I agree

Everybody is reflexively/knee-jerking a political response to these situations instead of simply letting the investigations into these matters, particularly the IRS situation, take their course and let them lead where they will. The whole thing is really overblown IMHO, especially considering that nobody lost their lives or livelihoods over being asked a few more questions. I'll stipulate that perhaps the IRS employees went about things the wrong way (with minimal guidance and supervision) but it's sort of unclear whether or not rules and legislation have been firmly established in the post-Citizens United era, which probably was a contributing factor.