Here's a good article that talks about the tax abuse ...

http://www.mintpressnews.com/inappropriate-criteria-inadequate-management-to-blame-for-irs-fiasco/

-David

Heheh. It's just spirited debate.

And a good one at that!

A couple interesting things to add:

- Apparently this story was first broken by Propublica, a Pulitzer prize winning progressive news organization

- Plenty of evidence exists that this is going to be hyped beyond exaggeration by the conservative press and used as evidence in support of their big government conspiracy theories.

From the comparisons to Watergate to the linking of this to Obama to what I'm guessing will be the inevitable calls for impeachment.

What I think frustrates us as liberals is that if liberal groups were targeted, as in how liberal groups are being targeted across America w/ burdensome voting regulations designed to reduce liberal turnout, there would be nary a peep in the corporate media.

What's frustrating is the skewed media perspective.

-David

Don't worry about it -- that "rip into it" was meant in a purely lighthearted fashion. Maybe it's the absence of Michale (where is he, anyway?), or maybe I just fully expected to get some flack by bringing J. Edgar into today's news in such a fashion (which I admit was going out on a limb), but I expect people to rip my logic up on a regular basis. How else will it ever improve? So, no apology is necessary -- perish the thought!

:-)

statusquoteme -

You're right... mea culpa. The "she" was also the same "she" who was manager of the group, I think.

-CW

Apologies if I've "ripped".

I think part of the problem here is that the commentary is getting out ahead of the facts of the story. Not all facts are in, so let's not over-analyze them quite yet.

Here are the facts as I understand them:

Citizens United decision opens up the floodgates for PACs. A whole bunch of them, after the 2010 election, file for non-profit status.

The IRS singles out some of them for extra review based upon their names -- by searching for "tea party" or "patriot" or "Constitution." They didn't single them out because of the data on their application, but because of the name they had chosen. This is not "impartial," this is indeed "targeting." Which is the heart of the problem.

These were not the only groups the IRS reviewed, but may be the only groups chosen for review in this fashion (or maybe "using these criteria").

At some point, the manager of the group doing these reviews was aware of what they were doing. She used to be an aide to Dick Cheney, I believe, so she's not some rabid partisan liberal or anything.

At some point, the administrator in Washington was aware of what was going on. He was a Bush appointee, and therefore not some rabid partisan liberal or anything.

Probably before those last two items on the timeline, the tea party groups complain about the treatment they are getting to their elected officials in Congress. Congress asks for answers, and the administrator denied any targeting was going on (whether before or after he knew about it, I'm not sure, but we'll all know the answer to that pretty soon, you can bet on that).

Because of the political pressure, an investigation is launched from the IRS' "boss" -- the Treasury Department.

The investigation finds some wrongdoing, and is about to be publicly released.

An IRS official, apparently answering questions at a public forum (after a speech, I think?) actually admits wrongdoing. He admits IRS agents were targeting groups based on their names. He made this admission (I am assuming) due to the imminence of the Treasury report's release.

That's pretty much where we're at now. The Treasury report is due out within days. It will likely paint a much more detailed picture of what went on.

But, even at this early point, what is kind of astounding is that the IRS spokesman already admitted doing something wrong. This is what "broke" the scandal story. Government spokespeople don't normally do this sort of thing, no matter how badly their department has screwed up. So you've got to believe that the evidence is pretty hard to dispute (which we'll all see when the report is released).

If these were defensible acts -- any sort of "well, that's just what we do, investigate non-profit claims" -- then that defense would have been mounted by now. It has not been. The scandal broke when the spokesman admitted wrongdoing -- not when he "tried to fight back against an unfounded accusation." In other words, not even the IRS is trying to "explain" the scandal away.

Obama's right to denounce this early. He should be firing people by the middle of next week, too. That's the only way to handle this sort of thing, really.

OK, now I've had my say, feel free to rip into it, as usual.

:-)

-CW

Fascinating ... Now Michale would be all about profiling :)

Ok, ok. I shouldn't pick on him when he's not here.

-David

The IRS did not stop targeting everyone else and "only target Tea Party groups." This particular policy only targeted Tea Party groups because Tea Party groups are political groups, and readily identifiable. The IRS has hundreds of similar guidelines targeting hundreds of other groups.

Where's the outrage over Republican legislatures passing laws, which are ALSO supposed to be "non-partisan," that "only target" Planned Parenthood?

The IRS didn't "intimidate" anyone. It makes perfect sense for the IRS to target groups promoting political activism who're claiming tax-exempt status based on non-political issue advocacy. The simple fact is these groups are breaking the law, and dodging taxes. The problem is proving it in court. Because the politicians, and courts, make it nearly impossible to investigate or prosecute them. The IRS is in trouble because of the political implications of their actions. In, effect, Republicans are accusing the IRS of being politically motivated because they engaged in an investigatory practice, which makes perfect sense given their mission and limited resources, but which has unacceptable political overtones. In other words, in a classic Catch-22, they're in trouble because they are supposed to be non-political, and weren't politically astute enough to see how politicians could paint their actions as political. To protect democracy the IRS shouldn't be used to intimidate or harass groups or individuals for political reasons. That does not mean they shouldn't intimidate or harass political groups, even if they're engaged in breaking the law.

If these groups weren't political then how is targeting them "politically motivated?" IF they are political then their tax-exempt status applications were likely fraudulent and deserved closer scrutiny. There's no scandal here. Unless you count deliberate attempts to systematically break the law, and politicians aiding the attempt by defunding IRS investigators, slandering enforcement efforts, and making the absurd argument that simply because an organization exists to advocate political positions is no reason to suspect their issue advocacy may be political, any more than any one else's.

The IRS said the policy was inappropriate. I agree. But inappropriate was all that it was.

I certainly agree with Benghazify. I assert Breibarted, because 95% of the MSM stuff I see speaks of the IRS trageting the Tea Party; when in actuality it is the interplay of the Tea Party groups seeking tax-exempt status. Tax exempts can't engage in certain political activities. & God love him, Michale recognized that in the last thread; & was reduced to trying to deny the Tea Party as a political group. It's not that they are the Tea Party. It's not that they oppose President Obama. It's that they are engaging in prohibited activities that draws the scrutiny. And I don't have to prove they have engaged in such activities. I only have to assert that an investigation is warranted.

You remember the Churches that came out & opposed President Obama a few months ago? They need to be investigated because that activity is not allowed tax exempt Churches. It's the political activity; not where that activity is directed.

I'm just very frustrated at how the MSM has (Bleep) up the story & given the RWMO a ready made "scandal" where the story should be the Tea Party using "Your tax dollars" for their fun & games.

And I'm frustrated at Chris for buying into the scandal story the RWMO & MSM are pushing.

I recognize there are many groups comprising the "Tea Party". It's a convenient shorthand & is in most of the stories I see.

Shameless Plug: If it weren't for CBS Radio News; I wouldn't have heard of the tax-exempt angle which makes the whole story understandable.

'Cause you've either got to admit that this is an outgrowth of a tax exemption issue; or you've got to imagine some sort of Nixonian plot against the Tea Party.

AND

When you come down to it the Tea Party is one of President Obama's best friends. They look so bad, he looks good by comparison.

But it appears there is probably more than this here, otherwise I doubt the IRS would make a statement. My guess would be that they intended to scrutinize these groups like they would normal tax avoidance groups but someone in the IRS took it too far...

Also, to stop naming buildings after the perpetrators of such abuse, of course.

Actually, according to a tour guide in Washington when I was last there, J.E.H believed that the FBI building was one of the ugliest in Washington and hated it. It is believed that they named it after him more as an ironic jab rather than a reward. Of course this could just be tour-guide exaggeration ;)

Hey db- I haven't seen any evidence to support this. If this is the case, it is also wrong. But I haven't seen any evidence to indicate this is the case.

By your argument the IRS can not investigate them BECAUSE they are opposed to the President.

I think Chris is arguing that the law should apply to everyone equally and any abuses of power should be treated as such.

You've been Breitbarted dude

What I do fear is going to happen is that conservatives are going to attempt to "Benghazify" this issue- to turn it into a big government conspiracy somehow orchestrated by Obama.

This would also be wrong as there is no evidence of an Obama conspiracy.

I think Chris hit the nail on the head when he said: "Admittedly, all the facts are not yet in."

I'd like to know more though as Chris also mentioned, the IRS has admitted that mistakes were made. Let's investigate then.

I was proud to hear our President come out and say:

"So we'll wait and see what exactly all the details and the facts are. But I've got no patience with it. I will not tolerate it. And we'll make sure that we find out exactly what happened on this."

I think this is the right thing to do. And why I'm proud to be a liberal.

-David

Unless you buy Michale's argument that the Tea Party is just a bunch of people devoted to small government & those pictures of president Obama as Hitler, & those pictures of President Obama as the Joker, and... are just good, clean, fun;

Then

You have groups applying for tax-exempt status; with no intention of complying with the requirements for that status. That, to my mind, is fraud.

By your argument the IRS can not investigate them BECAUSE they are opposed to the President.

You've been Breibarted dude, the News Media has sold you that this is a Tea Party issue; not a tax exempt issue.