Why is everyone "outraged"??

[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?