There’s a paragraph in today’s Wall Street Journal editorial that summarizes neatly my views on the IRS’s singling conservative and libertarian organizations out for excessive scrutiny:
All IGs appear before Congress, but they are really answerable to the President who is responsible for what goes on in the IRS and what the agency actually does. If the IRS is not operating in a way that treats taxpayers evenhandedly and in accordance with its guidelines and mission, it is up to him to change the personnel and make any other corrections so that the taxing power of the federal government is legal and fair. If that isn’t the case, voters deserve to know exactly who is accountable for the decisions of the agency that takes a healthy fraction of their income every year.
I don’t blame the president, specifically, although I do take the point that’s been made by his opponents seriously. He didn’t need to give the “rogue IRS officials” directions. They undoubtedly thought they were doing his bidding.
If it could be proven definitely that he had been informed of the situation some time ago, my evaluation might be different.
Whether he’s known about the situation for some time, he knows now and just being outraged is an inadequate response. Clearly, he should ask for Lois Lerner’s resignation. If she declines, he might want to assign her to the IRS’s Anchorage office.
The WSJ is outraged about the lack of responsibility and accountability. I think that the IRS’s procedures need changing. It’s remarkable to me that the whole thing wasn’t obvious long, long ago and dealt with appropriate. Exactly how much discretion are low-level IRS officials allowed?
Even if the whole snafu turns out to have been the work of just a handful of IRS officials (a story that already seems to be falling apart) quite literally hundreds more must have known. I find it dismaying that it didn’t strike any of them as wrong.
I’ve been complaining for years around here that the moral education of most Americans seems to stop at about age 7. Our system really depends on the honesty, decency, and good sense of ordinary Americans. If that can no longer be depended on, the system that will necessarily replace our present system will look a lot more like Warsaw Pact East Germany than it does like the America I want it to be.
I think Lerner’s position became untenable when she took the Fifth. She clearly knows information about what went wrong with the program, but she’s no longer able to respond to proper Congressional oversight, which is part of her job. Her superior and her superior’s superior have resigned. It’s very sad and frustrating to read numerous comments that seem to find Congressional oversight a non-issue. Government expect less; pay more. I was glad to see Josh Marshal appear in the comments to disagree.
I don’t know if she should be fired since I haven’t read any of the transcripts of previous questioning that has members of Congress angry. My point about the firings over at OTB was that firing somebody even if they are ultimately reinstated by civil service can be a part of managing and taming the bureaucracy. It sends a message of warning to others that there are significant career risks in treading on politically sensitive areas. But I certainly wouldn’t want somebody fired that we knew civil service would reinstate; I’m assuming there are grey areas where outcomes are uncertain, in which case part of the cost/benefit analysis should include message-sending.
I’m shocked that when they put together their list of target words “tea party, 9/12 project, patriots” that someone didn’t think to add some left-leaning words for balance. Naivete or blind spot?
I also note with some dismay that the Peanut Gallery at OTB are arguing that the Congress has lost its authority and, consequently, rebellion is just peachy.
If it could be proven definitely that he had been informed of the situation some time ago, my evaluation might be different.
Something as thorny as the IRS pursuing a partisan agenda seems to be a matter the President should know about, before the last minute. Why is it that Obama seems so present when there is a glorious success to crow about? However, when it comes to tedious, dicey, less-than-desirable outcomes or decisions being made, he is no where to be found, completely absent and acting more like a voyeur than a leader?????
I’m shocked that when they put together their list of target words “tea party, 9/12 project, patriots†that someone didn’t think to add some left-leaning words for balance. Naivete or blind spot?
What about arrogance? After all, these people are working for a president who suffers mainly vague, softball questioning about issues or policies dealing with his first term in office. Why should they think anything would change? IMO, people involved in this administration really believe that almost anything goes, because flaws can easily be ignored, rationalized, or promised “to be fixed, so they never happen again.” This is what the press normally accepts as being acceptable about this amazing last 4 + years.
Congress has lost its authority and, consequently, rebellion is just peachy.
Would that be rebellion by the President, the executive branch bureaucracy, or the Democratic Party? I’m pretty sure they don’t me rebellion by the people, or at least not ‘conservative’ leaning people.
Ah, well, there’s an impeachable offense.
Here is Jon Stewart, no less, going into a Barack, The Clueless, Obama routine, that is so spot on!
Ah, well, there’s an impeachable offense.
Obama can’t be impeached. That would be considered a racist move!
Dave:
Not all of the peanut gallery at OTB.
It would certainly be better for all if Congress were run by rational public servants rather than rabid, partisan imbeciles, but hey, you go to scandal with the Congress you have, not the Congress you want. (And I have to say that Issa at least is interesting, with a background in explosive ordinance disposal and grand theft auto.)
Jan:
No, but acting as though race is the only reason he isn’t impeached goes to your tedious sense of white victimization and is racist.
Michael, I don’t consider you as part of the gang. I may not always agree with you but I do always have the utmost respect for the integrity of the views you articulate.
I don’t hold similar respect for those who will defend any idiot so long as it’s their idiot.
Who can disagree? I’m doing my level best to stand up for good government and the protection of rights. As I’ve said before, I think we need a major overhaul and the Powers That Be, regardless of political party, will fight to their last breaths to keep the corrupt, crooked, perverse system just the way it is.
@michael reynolds
It would certainly be better for all if Congress were run by rational public servants rather than rabid, partisan imbeciles …
Really. No, really. I would expect this from the OTB kids. You claim to know history, but this might just be your histrionics.
Two hundred years ago, today’s partisanship would have been considered a spat amongst the womenfolk. The truth was whatever lies you could get somebody to believe.
VP Cheney shooting birdshot into his friend’s face is the best today’s politicians can muster. Call me when VP Biden’s second begins negotiations.
michael, I don’t think you appeared in any of the OTB threads that I believe Dave is referencing. A large chunk of opinion yesterday was that Congress (Republicans) lacks the moral authority to conduct oversight here, and the President cannot be responsible for lower or mid-level employees of the federal government. Pro-government or anti-government?
I saw a responsible Republican House member (cannot remember his name) talking about oversight this a.m. on MSNBC. Among other things, he said we have no evidence that Obama orchestrated the program. He was so boring and reasonable, he will not appear on the Jon Stewart show and he won’t be mentioned by Rachel Maddow, etc. There was a clip of an impassioned Massachusetts Democrat abusing an IRS witness a bit. I’d say he was pro-government.
No, but acting as though race is the only reason he isn’t impeached goes to your tedious sense of white victimization and is racist.
My comment was ‘tongue and cheek,’ nothing more. I’m surprised, though, you felt the need to jump all over it in order to eagerly cast racial aspersions of your own.
@michael reynolds
This ain’t no lovefest, but you are not one of the OTB kids. You can be rational when you want to be. Most of them cannot.
….but you are not one of the OTB kids.
The key to that sentence, Tasty, is the last word, “kids.” Most of them act like one, even though many are probably much older. Maybe it’s just a case of arrested social progressive, liberal development.
@jan
Many of the comments are about a college junior level. Many of the comments are links or quotes, and there is little creative thought. Most of the arguments sound like they are based upon a professor’s lectures. The arguments are one-dimensional, and there is little substance.
They use of Wikipedia as an authoritative source, and this is based upon there being citations. I have serious doubts any of them have actually followed the citations. Unless things have changed, an authoritative source is not open for public editing.
It appears that few have actually read any of the sources material. They mostly quote from articles quoting articles. Using commentary based upon the actual source can be acceptable, and sometimes, a second order commentary may be appropriate.
Most people do not want to get a physics degree to discuss the Big Bang theory, but Stephen Hawking has books which are acceptable. This is still too technical for some people, but there are other books simplifying Hawking which are acceptable.
It is not limited to liberals. Many conservatives are just as bad.
Awww, I’m getting good feels as the kids say. Because apparently “feels” is now a noun. Where’s Ice to remind me what an asshole I am?
I think it’s hard for people to focus on their principles rather than their allegiances. And a lot of liberals have been able to do so — Jon Stewart being the easiest name to throw out there. But I have been disappointed that some liberals have taken a sort of “team” approach, shall we say, rather than what seems to me a more principaled approach.
If liberals aren’t willing to stand up for a free and unfettered press — even Fox News pseudo-reporters — then I don’t know what the hell we think we’re doing.
Oh, and politically targeted IRS also not cool.
@michael reynolds
Being intellectually honest and being an asshole are not mutually exclusive.
even Fox News pseudo-reporters
Michael,
Have you ever watched FOX and simply listened to people like James Rosen, Bret Baier, Brit Hume, Catherine Herridge, Jennifer Griffin? They are hardly pseudo-reporters, as you called them. I think you just like to run people down for the sport of it.
I’ve only seen this so far from right wing sources so I’m taking it with a dose of skepticism, but if true it is fishy…
http://mobile.spectator.org/theamericanspectator/#!/entry/obama-and-the-irs-the-smoking-gun,5199f844da27f5d9d0c83
Schuler: Michael, I don’t consider you as part of the gang. I may not always agree with you but I do always have the utmost respect for the integrity of the views you articulate.
Reynolds, May 2, 2013: I think trapped in Chicago, land of the eternally corrupt Democrats, you [Schuler] see this all through that prism. But the national dynamic is not the Chicago dynamic. And pretending that the GOP today is anything other than rich assholes and racists is nothing but nostalgia.
So Schuler, are you saying that all opposition to Obama is based solely on people being rich assholes or racists? That the only reason to be opposed to, say, the IRS being used as a tool to punish the President’s enemies is that one is a racist or rich asshole? That the only reason to be opposed to ObamaCare is that one is a racist or a rich asshole? Or that the only reason to not vote for Democrats, or for that matter the only reason to not BE a Democrat, is that one is a racist or a rich asshole? Or just that you think this is a position of utmost integrity and intellectual vigor?
“James Rosen, Bret Baier, Brit Hume, Catherine Herridge, Jennifer Griffin”
I have to watch them, this being Pennsyltucky. Hume and Baier can be ok, as can Wallace. The others not so much. Just to be a bit fair to Fox, I do think people confuse Hannity, OReilly, et al with the real news people.
““tea party, 9/12 project, patriots†that someone didn’t think to add some left-leaning words for balance. ”
Query- Put yourself back a few months. If someone asked you if tea party meant a social welfare group or a political group what would you have answered?
Steve
Tasty:
Quite true.
Jan:
If it makes you feel any better, I also don’t think MSNBC is a news organization. I’m not sure they employ a single reporter other than the ones they borrow from NBC.
Stanley:
First that link sent m to the Spectator landing page, now it leads me to a broken link page.
See if this works:
http://spectator.org/archives/2013/05/20/obama-and-the-irs-the-smoking
Again I note that it is clearly a hyperpartisan article from a hyperpartisan source. And I did just notice that even the Daily Caller published something perhaps rebutting the premise….a denial by NTEU that their president met privately that day with Obama.
@michael reynolds
Obama and the IRS: The Smoking Gun?
I stopped reading about halfway through. I was waiting for the chemtrail connection, but I ran out of string trying to track the connections.
steve: “If someone asked you if tea party meant a social welfare group or a political group what would you have answered?”
I would have said that this is a categorical error. The opposite of “social welfare” is not “politics,” its individual profit. Groups engaged in political advocacy are presumptively seeking to promote social welfare. Many groups like the Sierra Club form “social welfare” subsidiaries expressly to do their lobbying work.
Here is an example of what “social welfare” means as a limiting concept: a neighborhood association forms a non-profit organization to raise money to build a pool for the neighborhood. To determine whether such a group will be a social welfare organization requires considering who benefits from the pool. If the pool is closed to non-association members then it cannot be a “social welfare,” because the community is too small and the benefits appear to be directed towards the members.
In my experience, “social welfare” groups are broadly political by nature, they just can’t get too political in terms electioneering. Perhaps its because I work in a state capitol, but I find everybody’s assumption that these not profit can’t be political baffling.
CStanley, that article is too long and slow for me to read.
Stanley:
Yeah, that worked, and yes it looks bad on its face. I doubt the dots will ever be connected, but if they are it’s a Nixonian abuse of power.
The implausibility that jumped out at me was the notion that some portion of government was able to respond to anything within 24 hours. On the other hand, the IRS, bless their little hearts, can be damnably efficient.
PD:
Quick summary. Day 1: IRS employees union chief meets with Mr. Obama at WH. Day 2: Tea Party targeted by IRS.
steve, my question to you is why were none of the tea party groups rejected if it was so obvious that they didn’t qualify?
I am unsure of the answer, but there appear to be three possibilities: (a) I am correct and there is ultimately nothing inappropriate about tea party social welfare organizations; (b) there was a problem with some of them, but those either withdrew their applications in the face of scrutiny or are still awaiting a rejection; or (c) the tea party applications should have been rejected, but the IRS was afraid of the backlash or lacked the ability to defend a poorly conceived operation in any appeal.
I have to watch them, this being Pennsyltucky. Hume and Baier can be ok, as can Wallace. The others not so much. Just to be a bit fair to Fox, I do think people confuse Hannity, OReilly, et al with the real news people.
Steve.
Fox has some excellent reporters. The ones I named are among them..and, I agree that Wallace is another, taking after his father in being blunt to both sides of the aisle. As for Hannity, O’Reilly and the like they are news hosts, commentators, not reporters, IMO. I see the latter people as entertainers, very partisan, and nothing more.
Kirsten Powers, who writes for the Daily Beast, and is frequently on Fox panels as the ‘liberal,’ is also straight forward and honest, IMO, with her opinions. As a matter of fact, she is the one I agree with the most of anyone….
Michael,
Although you and I appear to be polar opposites on most issues, I do give you kudos for showing some healthy skepticism, dealing with the IRS and perhaps the media controversies. For me, at least, it makes you seem more like an open-minded person, for whatever that is worth.
I’ve mostly given up on all cable news, which is sad because they used to be the background music of my life.
Fox is the GOP’s Pravda. They have no respect for reality let alone capital ‘T’ truth. The company is run by Roger Ailes, a GOP apparatchik, and has that dishonest, race-baiting cretin Hannity as a headliner. They get points for firing Glen Beck, who should probably be getting treatment somewhere, but it’s not enough.
MSNBC turned me off with Ed Schultz and Reverend Al. I don’t enjoy bombast, especially mispronounced bombast. I used to like Olbermann as a great broadcaster. Nuts, but a hell of a broadcaster. But as I’m not a conservative I don’t enjoy hearing the same sermon every fucking day. I actually want news. As in “new.” O’Donnell is good only for inside baseball stuff on Congress. Maddow is the only saving grace, she’s smart and generally fair within the limits of her partisanship. But she’s fallen in love with her own cleverness and lost me. I listen to Chris Matthews on Sirius because that’s what’s on when I’m picking up the kids. Also I like him for the same reason I like Icepick: talks nonsense, foams at the mouth, but is nevertheless and interesting character.
As for CNN, well. . . Blitzer, the dullest human being in the entire news business. And then there’s the obsession with pointless graphics. And the use of the dullest pundits available, including the couple that will be seated next to me on the flight to hell: Carville and Matalin. I kind of like Anderson Cooper, but not enough to pay attention to him.
I like BBC and NPR, but again, that’s radio, not TV, and radio for me is car only. If Howard’s on I listen to Howard, otherwise if I want to hear words being spoken it’s NPR and BBC and crazy Chris Matthews.
The puter is my news instrument now, not the Teevee.
Heh, good point.
One of the things that struck me this evening is the reporting that Lerner used to work for the FEC. Some of the coverage focuses on her role in the lawsuit against the Christian Coalition for engaging in express advocacy and coordination with political campaigns. Since I think the IRS has been pulled into trying to police politics, which is not its core function, this is suggestive of the source of that problem.
Jan:
I was around for Watergate, actually living in DC at the time, working as a library grunt at a big Democrat law firm. (Wilmer, Cutler, Pickering back then, now Wilmer and Hale.) As it happened, I voted for Nixon. (One of like 3 votes he got in the District.) I didn’t like McGovern’s guaranteed minimum income thing (later dropped IIRC) and like a lot of people I could not believe Nixon was that damned stupid. (For those too young to remember, Watergate broke before the 72 election, but was in early stages.) A few weeks later I was in front of the White House holding a “Honk For Impeachment” sign.
My religious devotion is to the truth. Like most people I fail from time to time in my devotion. But in the end I’m a sucker for evidence.
My first OTB reaction to the Rosen story:
And my second:
I think was my first comment on the IRS thing. (Didn’t know at the time that the IRS commissioner had been swapped out already.)
I don’t lie. I had plenty of lying earlier in my life and just find it distasteful now. (Although I will say that as my wife is going through mail order dresses by the dozen in preparation for her big speech, and asking my opinion on each, it’s possible that I feigned interest I didn’t actually feel.)
” like BBC and NPR, but again, that’s radio, not TV”
I watch the BBC World News lead-in to The Show Formerly Known as The MacNeil/Lehrer Report. I can’t watch cable news at all any more.
As for the AP-Rosen story, see Orin Kerr, Labeling Reporters “Criminals,†or Just Complying With the Privacy Protection Act?:
Folks might want to look at that.
I sympathize. “How fat does this dress make me look?” It’s a failure-oriented activity.
@steve
Anybody who understood the origins would have said social welfare group.
The Tea Party movement began after Rick Santelli’s rant went viral. Many ordinary citizens realized there were other folks who thought the same way. They were tired of bailouts, government debt, size of government, and fiscal irresponsibility. Beyond a few specific economic issues, there was no agreement. This is the reason the movement would never become a political party.
The name Tea Party is derived from Boston Tea Party, and it was meant to be a group of similar ideas about economic issues. Few in the Tea Party movement were activists, but some of the groups did try to move into politics.
The IRS issue is not very complicated to most people. If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, what comes out of its ass is duck shit. We can now add “IRS Truthers” to the other nutcases.
@sam
I am not sure what makes the reporter different than a spy, and I would like to know what makes a reporter different than an ordinary person. If the classified information is aiding and abetting US enemies, it is treason. If the classified information is not harmful, it should not be classified.
Daniel Ellsberg should have been shot for treason.
@Tastybits, the First Amendment protects every person, but Congress also passed a privacy law to protect people who “disseminate to the public [by] newspaper, book, broadcast, or other similar form of public communication.” So in a sense publishers of information, whether institutional or bloggers, are treated differently.
Part of the conflict or objection is that the government labels an act as espionage on the one hand, while on the other it recognizes that the information is for traditional publication purposes.
@PD- My biases are as follows. First, I dont think most people are especially malevolent. There are many real conspiracies, mostly people being lazy or sloppy. Next, most people dont care that much about politics. People reading political blogs are a minority. Given a choice between less work and helping “their ” party, most people would pick less work. Lastly, the GOP has spent so much time crying wolf, I tend to assume they are wrong.
That said, if they were going to have a conspiracy, picking key words for liberal groups would have been an obvious thing to do. Why didnt they? I guess they could also be stupid. However, why didnt they do this before? Why restrict it to just tea party groups and not all conservatives? Why did they suddenly do this in 2010? Why approve them all anyway?
I still think the most likely answer is that they thought they would see a big increase in applications after Cit. United. (They ended up being correct, just later than expected.) They perceived the tea party as a political group, so they set up key words to catch and investigate them, assuming any increase from their base load of work would come from these groups. They asked lots of questions to cover their butts in case someone asked why they approved all of these apparent political groups. (I would predict they dont turn many applications from anyone as that creates more work.)
Overall, the whole thing doesnt fit together well. It would have been so easy to put together a list with key words for right wing groups and key words for left wing groups. Knowing that the party out of power will be more aggressive, they could have investigated the tea party while having the cover of a list they knew would not be active.
Query- Why hasnt someone just asked the people in those offices why they did it? I could certainly be wrong and maybe those offices were full of Democratic activists willing to risk losing their jobs for the cause.
Steve
Why hasnt someone just asked the people in those offices why they did it? I could certainly be wrong and maybe those offices were full of Democratic activists willing to risk losing their jobs for the cause.
Steve,
If it were just a few democratic activists, at the root of this in-house IRS targeting problem, why weren’t people fired when improprieties were first aired by the IG, last year? Why weren’t these abuses addressed immediately, instead of waiting until the Friday before the IG report was to come out for public consumption, at which point a lame apology by Lois Lerner, was supposed to suffice. Furthermore, individuals have been airing their concerns about IRS abuses for 2 years now. If this was really derived from the actions of some overcharged IRS political zealots, wouldn’t the many citizen complaints have caught the attention of upper tier IRS officials before now, prompting a swift response to appropriately explore and rectify any inappropriate handling of non-profit applications?
In fact, Kim Strassel just wrote a WSJ piece noting that Conservatives became targets in 2008, when Obama’s campaign counsel sought an investigation into the donors of the America Issues Project (AIP) Such targeting was initiated simply because of a damaging ad that was run against Obama during the ’08 election. Because of this they asked for a list of AIP’s officers and directors and it’s anonymous donors. claiming that this non-profit was committing ” knowing and willful violation” of election law, and wanted “action to enforce against criminal violations.”
It’s apparent that the intent to monitor and then silence ideological opponents to Obama, was part and parcel of the tactics used by the Obama team, at the very beginning of his presidential run (before any Citizen’s United ruling, too). Only now, such arm-twisting has been expanded, inside the IRS itself, growing into a full-blown, unorthodox exercise aimed at muting conservative groups by putting their ability to secure funding into unending limbo-land.
If the shoe were on the other foot, and it was progressive groups who had undergone the same gauntlet of scrutiny, would you be giving the same tepid reasoning?
@steve, I think those are reasonable observations. For my part, I find it easier to divide the timeframe into two pieces. First, why did the IRS start this program? The program started around 3/1/10 with directions to study how many tea party applications they were receiving to identify the extent of the problem. During the year preceding 3/1/10, there were nationwide tea party protests, the historic Congressional elections in November, and an act of domestic terrorism by a man flying a plane into an IRS building in February. Citizens United (1/25/10) might have been a secondary contributor to the concerns, but I think primarily this was an anti-Tea Party program that grew from IRS animosity not necessarily to Republicans, but to an anti-tax movement, with potentially dangerous elements.
In the second timeframe we have a program that was never structured in any meaningful way to accomplish much. Incompetent execution. Applications pulled for further review, but not reviewed. Questions sent out, but then retracted.
I think you are too inclined to think that asking more questions is safe, which it probably is in many fields. What is safe for a bureaucrat is to rely upon pre-approved forms and standardized procedures. Asking additional case-specific questions in a letter opens the agent up to claims of disparate treatment over which they could lose their job. What would have been safer would have been to create additional questions on the application after publishing the language and giving the public an opportunity to respond.
(Its also hard not to be cynical when it appears that grass-roots organizations had all the problems, but the big guys (Rove’s Crossroads GPS, and the Obama-supporting Priorities USA) appeared to have sailed through the process.)
Really?
You don’t say.
“If it were just a few democratic activists, at the root of this in-house IRS targeting problem, why weren’t people fired when improprieties were first aired by the IG, last year? ”
Perhaps because, as the IG said, they fond no evidence that this was politically motivated.
“sought an investigation into the donors of the America Issues Project (AIP)”
Seeking an investigation about a single entity is much different than a supposed plot to get hundreds of groups. IIRC, this was also done openly.
“It’s apparent that the intent to monitor and then silence ideological opponents to Obama,”
But they approved them all. Pretty crappy plot. As noted, they let the big organizations, the ones with all of the money that really were political organizations (does anyone really believe Crossroads was a social welfare organization?) through with no hassle.
So, you have no evidence of intent to conspire. No evidence that people were willing to risk jobs to carry out a political agenda. You have major inconsistencies that just dont fit, but you are willing to make them fit your preconceived ideas as you have been part of the group banging the conspiracy drum.
“If the shoe were on the other foot, and it was progressive groups who had undergone the same gauntlet of scrutiny, would you be giving the same tepid reasoning?”
I hope I would be saying that the arguments dont make sense. Why doesnt someone just talk to the folks involved? Why would someone risk their cushy govt jobs (lets just assume they are all cushy) to accomplish what exactly? They approved the big dogs who were really going to affect the vote. They delayed, but approved essentially all of the others. Malevolent? Hard to see. Really, really stupid. Possible. Lazy and/or confused? More likely.
Steve
Steve,
The WSJ article was linked to show an early-on tendency of the Obama crowd to intimidate those it wanted to go away — in that example it was AIP. First steps usually start small, then grow larger, if they are found to be successful in whatever purpose they were intended. It’s like a virulent flu virus. First you have a few cases, and then it spreads until it becomes an epidemic.
“As noted, they let the big organizations, the ones with all of the money that really were political organizations (does anyone really believe Crossroads was a social welfare organization?) through with no hassle.”
MoveOn, Media Matters, and Pro Publica are just a few progressive non-profits with basically the same functions as conservative ones like Crossroads.
Bigger organizations have the financial ability, though, to fight back in a big way. Who wants to go against Karl Rove or the Koch Brothers? However, small individuals aren’t well funded, nor are they experienced in the tactics of hard-nose political play. They give up easier, and so are better targets of large, imposing government institutions such as the IRS. And, that is what happened with many of these small Tea Party folks, in that they simply withdrew their applications. This erosion of interest helped slow this blooming conservative movement down, especially during the last election. However, the tenacious few who hung in there are, three years later, still nowhere.
As for comparing the processing of liberal versus conservative organizations, the lopsidedness is just too great to keep denying that something wasn’t deliberately askew in the considerations given the applications of these different political groups. If both political groups had experienced similar time delays, excessive questionnaires etc. there would be no issue here, regarding allegations that the IRS was treating requests for a non-profit status, unequally, based on the political ideology of a group requesting it.
I have personally not used the ‘conspiracy’ word for the IRS controversy . What I see here is an inside the beltway attempt to make it more difficult for political opponents of the president to gain footing or any headway in forming conservative groups. The government tool used to implement this was the IRS, which is an abuse of power, not a conspiracy.
A prime illustration of progressive groups taking advantage of the tax exemption status of 501(c)(3) and 501(c)(4), with alacrity, are The Center for American Progress (CAP) & it’s side kick, The Center for American Progress Action fund.
It’s kind of ironic that this progressive organization doesn’t want to disclose it’s donors, like the IRS is demanding of Tea Party groups to do.
Also, Think Progress, an active forum touting progressive ideas and policies, was birthed by the above action fund. There are lots and lots of tentacles to progressive politics. At the same time progressives in government don’t want to give the same scope to anything with conservatism attached.
Steve:
Stupid, lazy and incompetent are always the most likely explanations.
“First you have a few cases, and then it spreads until it becomes an epidemic.”
You have one case. Challenges on tax status are pretty common. Right wing groups challenged, among others, Jesse Jackson’s group. After that they waited until 2010. Why? You use the word intimidate. You assume that everyone in a 501 is legit. How do you know?
“n’t deliberately askew in the considerations given the applications of these different political groups.”
Yes, that has already been admitted to, the question is why. The only existing investigation says there was no political motive. You have no evidence to show otherwise. There are a lot of reasons to think a political pogrom makes no sense.
“small individuals aren’t well funded,”
Exactly. So if you want to influence an election, why go after small groups with no money who are really social welfare groups anyway? Why only tea party groups? Why not all conservative groups? Why be so obvious about it? You think the IRS has forgotten about the Roth hearings where the GOP just made up stuff?
“the tenacious few who hung in there”
The sources I saw said only a few dropped out. Do you have info otherwise?
Steve
You have no evidence to show otherwise.
I am a lay person listening to and reading news statements. The opinion I have is based on the lack of consistency in processing a liberal group’s non-profit application (average 9 mos) to a conservative’s one (average around 27 months), as well as the ridiculous, lengthy, and personally invasive questions demanded of them. That doesn’t bode well for fairness, unless you are apt to look at conservative groups as trying to take advantage of this exemption more than liberal ones — which is a solely a judgment on your part. Where is your evidence faulting the legitimacy of the conservative’s applying for these exemptions, meriting the lousy, far-fetched treatment they received? And, what was the number of progressive groups having the same kind of scrutiny that has been documented by conservative ones. Next week law suits will be filed against the IRS enumerating this end of it more.
You have one case. Challenges on tax status are pretty common…..You use the word intimidate. You assume that everyone in a 501 is legit. How do you know?
If you read the WSJ article it was that Obama’s counsel (Bob Bauer) to his ’08 campaign who not only frivolously wanted an investigation of AIP, because of an unfavorable Obama ad, but also prosecution of it’s principle donor, with continual hounding calling for them to submit tax documents and more. If this isn’t intimidation I don’t know what is!
The obnoxious behavior directed at AIP seems to have become a similar template of how the Tea Party groups were treated, two years later, after what was deemed their extraordinary influence in turning the 2010 midterms into a conservative ‘wave.’ This is when more IRS scrutiny commenced, directed towards the flurry of conservative applications that were coming in. Also, it has been noted that WH logs indicate an anti-tea party IRS Union Chief met with the President, the day before the IG has said the IRS started targeting conservative groups. Coincidence? Or, is there some kind of cause and effect with such a meeting, and the subsequent hassle the IRS begin to put certain political organizations through?
Finally, in trying to sort all the details out, why has the IRS been so uncooperative? Why didn’t they remedy problems when informed by the IG of them last year? Why has Lois Lerner had so many conflicting statements, and then taken the 5th? Even though there has been paperwork generated, regarding all 3 controversies — IRS, journalist phone record subpoenas, and the IRS — it has been reluctantly and chaotically submitted, oftentimes with gaps and holes in timelines, making any investigation into these matters confusing, and lacking coherent clarity. It almost seems deliberate, on the part of the government, having the appearances of a passive/aggressive type of partnership with Congress, in getting down to the facts and truth of all three inquiries.
So if you want to influence an election, why go after small groups with no money who are really social welfare groups anyway? Why only tea party groups? Why not all conservative groups? Why be so obvious about it? You think the IRS has forgotten about the Roth hearings where the GOP just made up stuff?
No one knows of a concrete directive being given to the IRS, to unduly influence the election. However, there was clearly a less than neutral sentiment in the IRS towards how they approached one political group versus another. By, implementing such an elongated application process with various conservative groups (with few to none being cited by progressive ones), asking pages of convoluted, personal questions, with subsets of questions — this aggravated and discouraged citizen groups, as well as limited their funding in the last election period. Indirectly, such conduct would have an influence on an election. The fact this conduct wasn’t disclosed before the election shows further blatant IRS bias. Also, there are quite a few Romney donors who were subjected to inexplicit audits, once they were identified as donating to his campaign. Did this happen to Obama donors.
The Roth hearings should have nothing to do with this investigation. Or, are you bringing this up merely as a straw man argument, or maybe because the IRS has reason to carry a grudge over from 2005?
Basically Steve, all of these controversies are loaded with evasiveness by key players in the government. There are so many “I don’t knows,” “Not me” and Obama’s ridiculous lack of key information concerning difficulties in the administration he heads — or is he just hedging or skirting what he knew so as not to be involved in a scandal? No matter how you want to parse or rationalize what is happening, it’s neither credible nor comforting to believe that the powerful in DC know so little about the internal workings of the treasury, the DOJ, the SOS, national security protocol and policy. What is the President supposed to be doing in that Oval Office, anyway — just fiddling with buttons on his phone!
Jan already mentioned ancillary incidents like the overtly aggressive pushback by Obama campaign’s Bob Bauer against AIP. There also are other facets to the IRS story that indicate a pervasive bias toward conservative 501 4(c) s. Most notably, we know that someone in the same Cincinatti office that admitted using partisan filters also illegally gave out copies of conservative groups’ applications to ProPublica. I don’t know how anyone can square that piece of evidence of deliberate wrongdoing with the explanation that the targeting was just due to laziness or incompetence. We don’t have to wonder if there was a partisan basis for one group of actions, once we know that some of the people involved were going so far as to break the law in order to leak confidential information including donor lists, of conservative applicants.
” The opinion I have is based on the lack of consistency in processing a liberal group’s non-profit application (average 9 mos) to a conservative’s one (average around 27 months), as well as the ridiculous, lengthy, and personally invasive questions demanded of them. ”
Then you need to read more. The same thing happened to all of the groups that were flagged for extra attention. The majority of groups flagged were not tea party groups. What was the make up of those groups? They were treated the same way? What did they do? Your opinion is that the tea party groups got singled out. That is not in dispute. They got worse treatment than the average, that is not in dispute, though they got treated the same as the other flagged groups. The question is why they did this.
“If this isn’t intimidation I don’t know what is!”
Then you dont know what it is. It is not uncommon for politicians to ask for investigations into their opposition’s tax exempt status. This is nothing like what the IRS did. There is no analogy. I guarantee you no one was intimidated.
“Finally, in trying to sort all the details out, why has the IRS been so uncooperative?”
Issa asked for an investigation. They investigated.
“Why didn’t they remedy problems when informed by the IG of them last year?”
As PD (Andy?) noted, management did order them to stop when they found out. The workers then changed to a different set of rules that was also bad. They then ordered them to stop that also.
“Why has Lois Lerner had so many conflicting statements, and then taken the 5th?”
She is under criminal investigation. I expect her lawyer, wisely, told her not to testify.
” it has been reluctantly and chaotically submitted, oftentimes with gaps and holes in timelines”
That is the media. We could have an orderly investigation. Heck, we could even have a real review of the IG investigation, which isnt being done by the news organizations. What we are getting is drama with everything being leaked out. Most of the attention has been on when it was released and trying to prove there is a cover up. Not that much attention is being paid to how and why it happened.
” The fact this conduct wasn’t disclosed before the election shows further blatant IRS bias. ”
Uhh, Issa asked for the IG to investigate. Congress knew there was a problem. At the time, there was concern about some plot to influence the primaries and make sure Romney got nominated. Now the story has changed and it is a plot to elect Obama. Wish you guys could be consistent in your conspiracies.
” Or, are you bringing this up merely as a straw man argument”
Because the IRS knows it is watched. That its opponents will make stuff up if needed. If they did this deliberately based upon political motivations, they had to know it would be found out and people would lose jobs. Why doesn’t anyone go talk with those guys in Cincinatti?
Steve
steve,
Actually, the IG investigation doesn’t say there was no political motive. It doesn’t make any conclusions about motive and is mostly silent on that matter (assuming here that motive isn’t covered in the redacted portions of the report). The only thing it does say is that the criteria were not were influenced by any individual or organization outside the IRS – at least everyone they talked to at the IRS told them that. The report goes on to say (emphasis mine), “Instead, the Determinations Unit developed and implemented inappropriate criteria in part due to insufficient oversight provided by management.” So that’s part of it. The report is pretty vague on other factors, but here is what the IRS indicated to the investigators:
“Determinations Unit employees stated that they considered the Tea Party criterion as a shorthand term for all potential political cases. Whether the inappropriate criterion was shorthand for all potential political cases or not, developing and using criteria that focuses on organization names and policy positions instead of the activities permitted under the Treasury Regulations does not promote public confidence that tax-exempt laws are being adhered to impartially.”
and
“Determinations Unit employees also did not consider the public perception of using politically sensitive criteria when identifying these cases. Lastly, the criteria developed showed a lack of knowledge in the Determinations Unit of what activities are allowed by I.R.C. § 501(c)(3) and I.R.C. § 501(c)(4) organizations.”
So, there isn’t much there regarding the “why” except for the IRS officials saying the “tea party” was simply shorthand for all political cases. I don’t find that very credible for a few reasons, particularly the facts regarding who got additional screening and who didn’t:
“While the team of specialists reviewed applications from a variety of organizations, we determined during our reviews of statistical samples of I.R.C. § 501(c)(4) tax-exempt applications that all cases with Tea Party, Patriots, or 9/12 in their names were forwarded to the team of specialists.”
So the “why” question remains very open. I don’t think incompetence is a sufficient explanation, nor does “tea party” as shorthand for all “political” groups.
That was only part of the problem at the IRS, however. The second part covers the delay in application processing after organizations were selected for additional screening. In this area, I think “incompetence” is probably the primary factor even though the delays for “political” screening were significantly longer than delays for other types of screening based on my reading of the report.
The Inspector General’s report found that the IRS used inappropriate criteria to identify potentially political cases, because it foccused on names (tea party, patriotos, 9/12), and positions. This is all on pages 5 throgh 6 of the report.
steve, I think you’re missing several things. First, you’re treating things that are not in dispute as though they were in dispute. There is no longer any dispute that the IRS improperly targeted conservative and libertarian groups for scrutiny. The IG audit found that to be the case and IRS officials have acknowledged it.
Second, liberal and progressive groups do not appear to have been similarly targeted. Don’t demand that jan, etc. prove a negative. If you think that liberal and progressive groups were similarly targeted, prove it.
Third, just as negligence can be inferred when X-rays clearly identify the outlines of a scalpel in a patient’s abdomen following an appendectomy, political motive can be inferred from the undisputed fact that libertarian and conservative groups were singled out for scrutiny and the apparent reality that liberal and progressive groups weren’t. Political motive doesn’t need to be shown by videos of their cackling and rubbing their hands together over the prospect of doing a dirty to the evil Tea Party. It can be as simple as unquestioning confidence in the benignity of liberal and progressive groups and heightened concern over the evil intent of libertarian and conservative groups. That is political motivation. The thing speaks for itself.
Their mandate is to determine the political activity of an applicant organization not to make sure it’s the right kind of political activity. The IRS has rather clearly exceeded its mandate.
Fourth, the IG’s audit paints a picture of an IRS in a state of institutional collapse. The kind of thing that induces companies to abolish departments or divisions and replace them from the ground up, as I suggested (I think) last week. I don’t think that will or can happen with the IRS but some sort of major reform is obviously necessary.
Finally, I still don’t see direct presidential wrongdoing here but there is the need for strong White House action. This is pretty serious and the president needs to take it seriously and not circle the wagons (as I see some of his supporters doing). So far I think the president is doing well but he can’t stop now. Serious action is necessary and, well, that’s his job.
The same thing happened to all of the groups that were flagged for extra attention. The majority of groups flagged were not tea party groups. What was the make up of those groups?
There is just not enough time in a day to address every detail of this unfolding IRS abuse of power. Like what was mentioned in other comments, an ever increasing set of words were added in as ‘red flags’ for the IRS, other than just “tea party,” to then hone in on for special scrutiny. Some, but not all, were patriotic, Constitution, words posing opposition to the President or his policies, or hinting of conservative leanings.
Also, remember the cardboard apology that was given, out-of-the-blue, by Ms. Lerner, on a Friday news dump day? What were the origins of that? Did she give a swift apology for no reason? Your responses kind of reflects such a sentiment, that there is really nothing to this, but a little bit of laziness and incompetence. Actually as we learn more, Lerner admitted a staged wrongdoing to head off an imminent, more scathing IG report enumerating a number of IRS abuses.
In the meantime, it has been further revealed that Ms Lerner and the IRS knew about these findings for almost a year! Ms. Lerner noted, though, in her initial comments, that she stopped the alleged irregularities once the IG reported his findings to the IRS, last year. However, that simply wasn’t true, as letters continued to be received, as late as March of this year, parlaying the same inane demands from the same aggrieved individuals.
Wish you guys could be consistent in your conspiracies.
Steve,
Believe it or not, there really is no “you guys” in situations like this. It’s different POVs, all under the umbrella of one country. Everyone benefits from clarity and fairness. And, again you keep using ‘conspiracy,’ which tends to lower the debate into the realm of being fanciful speculation or unsubstantiated rumor. Nothing could be further from the truth. Even during Nixon’s Watergate, it took time and tenacious digging for real facts to surface, putting into focus a more accurate picture of the Nixon Administration abuses. During that time, there were many naysayers, like you, repeatedly saying there was no “there” there, either.
I suspect this started by IRS workers bringing their biases into the workplace. Like @steve, they could not fathom a tea party or similar group being anything other than a political organization. The workers saw the protests on television, and they heard the commentary on MSNBC. This was an axiom, and no further proof was required. Any group fitting this bias would be required to prove they were not political.
Some among the supervisors probably agreed, and they did not see a problem. At some point, somebody complained, and it was investigated. They were told to stop, but the supervisors did not supervise. Management failed, and they need to go.
This seems similar to a sexual abuse problem in the military. The “Tailhook” and other scandals were about a permissive atmosphere. There was no directive to abuse women sexually, but there was no discouragement of it either. I think this is similar to institutional collapse @Dave Schuler mentioned.
The IRS is not a new organization, and if this is a recent phenomenon, it should be fixable. There should be an institutional tradition of being non-political, and institutional memories do not change quickly. The fix needs to be harsh to establish a precedent – get political and get fired.
…get political and get fired.
Sounds fitting, but the unions won’t let something like that happen
They protect workers, in all unions, no matter how much a worker deserves to be fired. A good case in point are school unions, where it almost takes an act of Congress to let a dysfunctional but tenured teacher go.