I do not believe that the word that David Ignatius is searching for here:
The crippling problem in Washington these days isn’t any organized conspiracy against conservatives, journalists or anyone else. Rather, it’s a federal establishment that’s increasingly paralyzed because of poor management and political second-guessing.
What should frighten the public is not the federal government’s monstrous power but its impotence.
is “impotence”. I think the word is incompetence. As I’ve said before I find an inherent problem with the view that government should be given broad discretionary powers. The greater those powers the more oversight they require.
Firing a few people may be necessary but it’s not nearly enough. We need better management of government 365 days a year.
The first job of the president isn’t commander-in-chief or inspirer-in-child, scold-in-chief, the 51st governor, or the 101st senator. Look in Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution. It’s manager of the federal government. There is only one and there isn’t anybody else to do it.
We need better management of government 365 days a year.
Well, guess what? The American people voted on this last year,m and they didn’t want a good manager, they wanted the incompetent we’ve got in there now. The American electorate wants the IRS harassing people, they want the DOJ issuing warrantless wiretaps, they want the DOJ going after the press, they want their Ambassadors getting ass-raped to death by towel-headed jihadis high on blood lust, they want a stagnant economy, they want falling median incomes, and they want a press that is completely prone, willing to lie down for and lie for the President.
So what you are saying is needed ain’t gonna happen. Welcome to the Third World, bitches.
PS It should be noted that it was already known last year well before the election that the DOJ had gone warrantless wiretap crazy during the Obama Administration. Tea party groups had been complaining about the IRS harassment since at least February of 2012. The economy has been a big giant oozing sore for years now. And the press refused to make an issue of any of it. Instead, they were obsessed with whether or not Obama was going to stop being a savage hate-monger (per Reynolds) and endorse gay marriage. They were obsessed with whether or not Mitt Romney was paying his fair share and whether or not he should go to jail for his taxes – because of course the IRS under Obama would NEVER look into that. They were obsessed with “binders full of women”. The press could have pressed Obama on Benghazi last year when it happened. Instead they effectively lied to make Romney look bad. (The four Pinocchios the Washington Post gave Obama in the last few days for his claims about the attack being a terrorist attack hardly make up for throwing the election to the bum.) This is what the press wanted last year, it’s what the American people wanted last year, and this sudden desire to pretend otherwise is actually the biggest crock of shit going on right now, much bigger than all the scandals put together.
I would like to see what David Ignatius predicted for a second-term agenda; I think there might have even been a bi-partisan consensus that this is close to what we should expect. (Some deficit reduction due to the deadlines, and perhaps immigration reform) Obama didn’t campaign on gun control or global warming. Did he campaign this time on Gitmo?
(The four Pinocchios the Washington Post gave Obama in the last few days for his claims about the attack being a terrorist attack hardly make up for throwing the election to the bum.)
…and, why weren’t those Pinocchios published earlier by the Washington Post? Why did it take them some 8 months to finally decide that Obama’s reference to terrorism wasn’t directed at Benghazi — that Obama essentially lied when he said he called it terrorism that day? All they had to do was review the script from that 9/12/2012 Rose Garden speech. Was that too much to ask of the media — to have an honest and inquiring mind?
It’s so frustrating to literally be told by the press, the liberal dems and others that what someone else has heard with their own ears, seen with their own eyes has no “there, there,” or simply is some kind of manufactured political bs! I really think that’s driving the conservative’s tenaciously aggressive stand this past week, regarding Benghazi, the IRS and the AP stories. Finally there is some long awaited for interest (and broader media coverage) questioning and investigating real intrinsic and foul problems that exist in this administration.
A funny piece in the Atlantic, though I don’t think they’re joking. Jill Lawrence writes:
First, I’m pretty sure there are more than three, but who’s paying attention to the stuff going on at HHS or the EPA?
But more saliently, are we really supposed to believe that no one in this Administration is responsible for anything? This is stating that not only is the President not responsible for anything, but neither is the Attorney General, the Secretary of Defense, the Director of the CIA, or the Secretary of State. And somehow the Secretary of the Treasury doesn’t even geet his name mentioned. Amazing bit of linguistic jui jitsu to state that these people should AT MOST only be held symbolically accountable, and that they have no actual responsibilities.
Amazing bit of linguistic jui jitsu to state that these people should AT MOST only be held symbolically accountable, and that they have no actual responsibilities.
Calling it “jui jitsu” is catchy….
Rumors are starting to fly around that if Eric Holder goes, his replace will be Obama’s pal, Duval Patrick. Also, the talking point queen, Susan Rice, is said to be assured the job of NSA head, replacing Tom Donilon when he leaves. This will be a promotion, having more power supposedly than even SOS. I guess it pays to do Obama’s bidding.
Christ
At least people are starting to figure it out. Its a start.
Time for more Miles Davis……….
What’s worse, a President who is delusional, or one who tells blatant lies? From the President’s comments today:
FUTURE Administration? No, your Administration, Mr. President. Right now, today, and over most of your term in office. This is happening during your term, under your stewardship, and completely to your benefit at the expense of both good government and good civic hygiene. It’s all on you, Choom Daddy. Own it, you fucking sociopathic lying sack of shit, you and all your voters. Own it.
At least people are starting to figure it out. Its a start.
There was never anything to figure out Drew, as some of us realized. The American electorate doesn’t care, and the media, financial, educational, legal and government elites want this. Some of them are just a little riled up now because they didn’t realize that THEY needed to be bottoms all the time.
“American electorate doesn’t care”
They care, they just dont buy into manufactured controversy.
Steve
Yeah, steve, ’cause your guys are all good little angels who never EVER do anything wrong.
They care, they just dont buy into manufactured controversy.
Steve,
Which is the manufactured controversy — AP, IRS, or Benghazi? Or, do you think all three of them are just made-up?
It’s all made up, jan. Obama could neveer, would never, do anything wrong. And with his God-like managerial powers, he would never let an underling fail to do a superior job that was above reproach.
There’s nothing to see here, folks, just move along.
Steve,
I just saw these comments from Bob Woodward. Since the Watergate scandal he has been an investigative hero for tenaciously pursuing the core issues of Watergate, even though there was initial denial and obfuscation from the Nixon Administration. Had he simply dropped everything, at the behest of people like you, believing this event to be nothing but a ‘manufactured’ one, just think about the injustices that never would have been exposed and rectified — at least for that administration.
Now we have three potential scandals tipping the scales of inquiry. Benghazi keeps getting flushed down the toilet by political obstructionists, aka the left, braying repeatedly that there is nothing there. However, the hero of Watergate begs to differ in comments made this morning:
The dems are going to say the same thing about the IRS selective targeting of conservative groups, too — “Just move on and we’re fix it.”. Miller this morning is even showing indignation to the word “targeting,’ which he says is a pejorative. He is also labeling the irregularities, which some are calling an IRS witch hunt, as nothing more than mistakes. Then you have Holder opting for amnesia versus simply telling the truth.
As one newsperson said, with much frustration, to a democratic operative being interviewed: “Why can’t you simply be honest!” Now, wouldn’t that be a refreshing change of pace for DC.
Regarding the IRS revelations, NBC’s Lisa Myers is claiming that the IRS deliberately chose not to “reveal that it had wrongly targeted conservative groups until after the 2012 presidential election.”
While political parties, on both sides, are known to make nice with not-so-nice issues, before an election — prime example, Nixon’s Watergate — should a bureaucracy, like the IRS, be given a pass for using the same tactics as a political party?
The Watergate comparison is utterly crazy. Nixon ran black-ops so that the most unelectable candidate would run against him.
Obama, on the other hand, is being accused of using the IRS to ensure that the dingbat Glenn Beck/Tea Party wing was somehow crushed so that the most electable opponent would emerge out of the primary process.
Unless you really think a Perry/Bachmann ticket would have swept the country, you have to find a different scandal to compare this one to.
@jan- First, Woodward is mostly interested in Woodward. Should be no surprise I hope.
Second. We still dont really know who carried out those attacks. If it was planned, we still dont know when they were planned. Connected to AQ? Why doesnt Woodward mention how tenuous those connections are for groups like Ansar al sharia? Because it ruins his position as “truth teller”? Why didnt they mention that Stevens had twice been offered more military support? Why not mention that the CIA had its own motivations when they made their warnings, i.e. they vetted the militia guarding the place. They were in charge of security. Why did it take them nearly half an hour to get there?
The fact is, they didnt really know who attacked them at first. People claimed they “knew” it was terrorists, they just didnt know which ones, and mostly still don’t. Is that really knowing?
Finally, there is the right wing PC issue where you have to use the word terrorist or you are hiding something, or being kind to Muslims or something. I think we use the term terrorist too broadly. For all we knew, this was an act by former Kadaffi supporters getting revenge. Not really terror in my book. We had a report that was harshly critical of the current admin and its lack of preparations. That has been ignored. Instead, you are concentrating on what was said by whom during the first few days. Since the Senate intel committee gets this info too, the idea of some effort to cover up what happened has never made sense.
Steve
@jan- The IRS thing is a big deal. As I have said, I believe that at the level of those carrying this out, I would bet that they were faced with a difficult task that doubled, and they took the easy way out. They had to determine which groups were sort of political, but not too political. How do you do that? I suspect that you ask lots of questions, so it looks like you made an effort, then approve them anyway, so you dont get too many complaints. Citizens United created this unintended consequence.
The problem is that management/leadership should have caught this. Need I point out again that the commissioner hiding this was a Bush appointee? That he used to run FINRA, so should be an icon of competence. It certainly is possible that Bush appointees would try to protect Obama, just not likely. Much more likely they were trying to protect themselves.
Steve
Steve, you keep redirecting focus to the low level cubicle grunts. Have you been following all that has come out about the people higher in the chain? The cover story of rogue employees has already disintegrated. It doesn’t matter if you think this type of behavior would be typical of lazy, dinsinterested beaurocrats. We already know enough to see that that’s Å„ot what happened.
Steve
You already pointed out that the commissioner was appointed during the Bush administration, as has every dem being interviewed on TV, to seemingly misdirect the conversation that this might again be Bush’s fault. However, that same commissioner is also a democrat. Does that then redirect it back to the dems, merely because of party affiliation?
It’s silly to continually bring up the R & D identification when unpleasant events errupt in an administration, IMO, to subtly absolve that administration of it’s full responsibility. As I’ve said before, long-term government employees frequently thread their public service through changing political administrations. What they do under one administration, the ethics followed, though, are representive of the leadership and policies of the President in which they are serving — not the one who originally appointed them. Basically, one’s boss, the one deferred to, is one’s current boss, not their previous one.
” We already know enough to see that that’s Å„ot what happened.”
Then maybe I missed something. What happened? I see a lot of conclusions, but nothing describing what really happened.
“As I’ve said before, long-term government employees frequently thread their public service through changing political administrations.”
FINRA is a private organization. It was, AFAICT, the only political job held by Schulman. Also, it looks like only the IRS commissioner is a political appointee. The rest are civil servants. They just suddenly decided to go after conservatives? Why?
Steve
There are really only two possibilities. Either it was more than a few rogue employees or IRS management was utterly incompetent.
The behavior was sufficiently widespread (at least four offices have been named so far) that the “rogue employee” explanation strains credulity. Unless they’re all rogue employees which may well be the case. I’m not sure I see how that’s encouraging.
Is incompetence exculpatory?
Matt Bernius, a long-time commenter at OTB, posted an interesting piece (James is apparently allowing commenters to post now): 501(c)4 vs 501(c)3 vs 527. Punchline:
It offers some support in favor of the “management incompetence” I suppose. On the other hand, if the the entire 501 menagerie is fundamentally resistant to clarification, then I’d scrap the whole fucking arrangement. But then, I’m for scrapping the whole tax code and going to a consumption-based system.
If that’s true, then it’s no surprise that the bureaucracy (or individuals within the organization) began to define requirements according to their own desires and biases.
Here’s the thing, Andy. In a properly run organization the procedures and policies in place should make it no more possible for low-level staff to make the kinds of decisions that rather clearly were made by somebody than it is for the checker at Wal-Mart to make pricing decisions or or a PN in a hospital to decide on courses of treatment for patients. Low-level staff do not make policy decisions. Full stop.
Here’s another, more pointed example. When you apply for a driver’s license, the clerk at the DMV (here it’s the Secretary of State’s Office) doesn’t just size you up and decide what you need to do to qualify. There are forms, procedures, etc. Everybody goes through the same process.
This process should be standardized, most or all of it should be online, and a decent workflow procedure would have reports that went to higher-ups who then couldn’t deny that they knew anything about it. Sounds to me like they’re stuck fifty years behind the times in terms of operating procedures.
I agree completely Dave. It should have been obvious to the management at the IRS that the definition lacked “meat” which should have spurred the leadership to institute standards and procedures. The lower level and middle managers should have recognized that there was a problem and sought guidance from more senior management.
” or IRS management was utterly incompetent.”
Sort of my point, but that is a bit harsh since I think SCOTUS and Congress also bear some responsibility. If a 501 c3 is supposed to have essentially no political involvement, that is pretty easy. A 527 is purely political, very easy. A 501 c4 political, but not too political. What could be worse? How do you determine that? People keep passing over this because they want to score points. Even Dave avoids this. How do you do that w/o asking lots of questions, many of which can and will be portrayed as inappropriate?
Steve
That’s not the problem Steve. Again, the issue here is not that they were asking lots of questions, but that they were asking lots of questions to some groups but not others. If the IRS needs to ask a lot of questions then they must use a uniform set of criteria in a fair open and understandable process.
Confusion and Staff Troubles Rife at I.R.S. Office in Ohio
While it’s true that Tea Party (et al) groups were the subject of most of the inquiries, some left-leaning groups were also subject to inquiry:
I thought I’d been pretty clear about this. I object to what certainly looks to my like the lack of a standardized procedure.
I also note that the entire issue vanishes if you abolish the corporate income tax. As Steve V. would certainly point out at this juncture, the point is not deriving the revenue required by law. The point is controlling behavior in ways that suppress fundamental freedoms.
A lot of lame excuses from those who support the left. Just omit the R & D from the sides involved, and look at it in the shoes of those who were selectively and then excessively hassled by the IRS. And then, maybe, an honest appraisal of indignation will surface in these otherwise rationalizations of reality. IMO, this is dangerous stuff, setting a precedent that few would want to deal with in their own lives.
“I thought I’d been pretty clear about this. I object to what certainly looks to my like the lack of a standardized procedure.”
I am surprised that you even think there could be such a thing. If you need to determine if any given group is 49% political and 51% apolitical, how can you do that w/o addressing each entity as a unique problem? While it makes sense to have a standard set of base questions, wouldnt you have to fine tune it with questions unique to each state, city and purported social welfare issue? Either you rubber stamp everything, or ask lots of questions, many of which need to be tailored to the group in question. Heck, how do you even define political?
Steve
@Dave
“The point is controlling behavior in ways that suppress fundamental freedoms.”
Can you expand on that? What lies behind this mess is the principle that groups that actively engage in politics ought not to be subsidized via tax breaks. In what sense does that principle suppress fundamental freedoms?
Steve,
There were two problems with what the IRS did. One is the lack of standardized questions and inquiries. This was a deficiency identified in the IG report. The IG disagrees with you on this problem and the problem wasn’t limited only to 501(c)4’s but affected all the 501(c) nonprofits.
But there is a second issue, one that is more disturbing. It was the process the IRS used to select which groups to scrutinize with these queries and questions. The selection criteria used certain words in the name of the organization: Tea Party, Patriot, We the People, etc. That issue is supposedly fixed, but it went on for 18 months.
For more details I’d recommend this:
Inspector General's Report on the IRS: A Summary – NPQ – Nonprofit Quarterly
If the IRS uses its discretion to target some political groups but not others I think that’s a pretty big problem. Discrimination based on politics is, IMO, “suppressing” fundamental freedoms. Additionally, the purpose of the tax code is to raise revenue to fund government, not to incentivize some kinds of political activity but not others. Here I agree with Dave that this is yet another good reason to get rid of corporate taxes completely.
“If the IRS uses its discretion to target some political groups but not others I think that’s a pretty big problem”
Andy, that’s not an argument against the principle, but an argument against its (in this case, fucked up) application.
Moreover, I’m sure at all that the abolition of the corporate income tax would have any effect on this mess at all. If the corporate income tax were eliminated, how would that bear on the donor’s claiming a deduction for his or her contribution to the untaxed corporate entity? Wouldn’t the nature of the corporate entity bear on the legitimacy of the claimed deduction? And wouldn’t that still require some determination of the nature of the corporate entity?
What principle?
Sure it would. There would no longer be a “tax exempt” status for corporations since they’d all be tax exempt. The IRS would not be in the business of determining what is and isn’t taxable political activity by organizations.
What principle?
This principle:
“Groups that actively engage in politics ought not to be subsidized via tax breaks.”
So, if the corporate income tax is eliminated, no one who donates to any corporate entity, of any stripe, can claim a tax deduction for the donation? Is that what would happen?
@Andy- I agree that the problem is their choice of selection criteria. Just as it is illegal to profile based upon race, you cannot do what they did. What I am saying is that the people actually trying to sort this out were given a near impossible task, made worse by a doubling in their workload. They took inappropriate shortcuts (who would ever think that a group with Tea Party in its name would be political?) that made sense to them since the sudden increase came from groups with Tea Party, etc in their names. Their management and legal counsel failed them. (Geez, werent you enlisted at one point and not an officer? Didnt you ever find some clever way to get around rules that seemed pretty stupid. Didnt you ever have a senior NCO or officer explain why you couldnt do it that way and why the regs had to be followed? Maybe I was uniquely a troublemaker.)
Steve
“Groups that actively engage in politics ought not to be subsidized via tax breaks.”
Ok, to put it simply, I don’t subscribe to that principle.
I think you are confusing corporate and individual income taxes. You can eliminate corporate income taxes and still allow individuals to deduct donations on their individual taxes.
Oops, sorry for the double-post.
Steve,
Except they took those shortcuts well before their workload increased. The number of 501(c)4 applications went from 1751 in 2009 to 1735 in 2010 to 2265 in 2011 to 3357 in 2012. The targeting of tea party groups began in April 2010 and ended in July 2011 when management changed to neutral criteria. The “workload” argument doesn’t fly because there wasn’t a substantial workload increase in that period.
Additionally, in January 2012, IRS employees took it on themselves to ignore the July 2011 directive and went back to what they were doing before because they thought the new criteria were too broad. No mention of workload was made. Then in May 2012 management issued another set of neutral criteria and the practice finally ended.
Citizens United passed in January, 2010, so I should amend it to anticipated increase in workload. If that was not the impetus for the change, why did they suddenly do this? If they were all a bunch of flaming liberals, why do it then?
If you are correct, then it appears that the grunts came up with a plan and management stopped them. What is the controversy about?
Steve
I’m sorry, Andy, but I think you’re the one who is confused. At least I hope you are. I stated this principle:
“Groups that actively engage in politics ought not to be subsidized via tax breaks.”
You said, “Ok, to put it simply, I don’t subscribe to that principle.”
So, then, you believe that granting tax breaks, preferences, to political parties would be OK? To groups that state publicly that the sole reason for their existence is the realization of this or that political agenda? To religious organizations the actively engage in political activity for the purpose of having their doctrinal beliefs enacted in law binding on nonbelievers. All this is OK with you? Seriously?
As for confusing corporate and individual taxes, I’m afraid it’s you, not I, that is missing the mark. My point was this. Even if corporations are not taxed, and personal donations are allowed, the legitimacy of the donation as regards reducing one’s tax burden would depend on the nature of the corporation donated to. You cannot deduct donations to the Republican or Democratic Party, for instance. So, in the end, a determination would still have to be made about the nature of the corporation you are donating to: Is it a primarily political organization or not? If it is primarily political, you cannot deduct your donation. This would have zero to do with the tax status of the corporation.
I recommend the OTB post on 501(c) organizations:
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/501c4-vs-501c3-vs-527/
I don’t think the issues have anything to do with tax benefits, since these organizations can promote political candidates, but they are taxed on that spending. Its about disclosures.
Dang. Turns out that Congress knew about the investigation. Issa claimed that he requested it. White House cover up of an ongoing investigation? An investigation the GOP asked for? So exactly what is the scandal?
http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2013/05/20/18374386-the-who-knew-what-when-game-and-the-irs-controversy
Steve