IRS apologizes for targeting conservative groups...

[Jamie_B]

This whole NSA crap is really a different topic completely from the IRS issue.  It should probably have it's own thread.  However I find the NSA's activities MUCH more disturbing than the IRS crap.

Ditto

[Go Skins]

http://wtop.com/?nid=289&sid=3362963

 

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Internal Revenue Service is about to pay $70 million in employee bonuses despite an Obama administration directive to cancel discretionary bonuses because of automatic spending cuts enacted this year, according to a GOP senator.

 

Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa says his office has learned that the IRS is executing an agreement with the employees' union on Wednesday to pay the bonuses. Grassley says the bonuses should be canceled under an April directive from the White House budget office.

 

The directive was written by Danny Werfel, a former budget official who has since been appointed acting IRS commissioner.

 

"The IRS always claims to be short on resources," Grassley said. "But it appears to have $70 million for union bonuses. And it appears to be making an extra effort to give the bonuses despite opportunities to renegotiate with the union and federal instruction to cease discretionary bonuses during sequestration."

 

The IRS said it is negotiating with the union over the matter but did not dispute Grassley's claim that the bonuses are imminent.

Office of Management and Budget "guidance directs that agencies should not pay discretionary monetary awards at this time, unless legally required," IRS spokeswoman Michelle Eldridge said in a statement. "IRS is under a legal obligation to comply with its collective bargaining agreement, which specifies the terms by which awards are paid to bargaining-unit employees."

 

Eldridge, however, would not say whether the IRS believes it is contractually obligated to pay the bonuses.

 

"In accordance with OMB guidance, the IRS is actively engaged with NTEU on these matters in recognition of our current budgetary constraints," Eldridge said.

 

The National Treasury Employees Union did not respond to requests for comment.

 

The IRS has been under fire since last month, when IRS officials acknowledged that agents had improperly targeted conservative groups for additional scrutiny when they applied for tax-exempt status during the 2010 and 2012 elections. A few weeks later, the agency's inspector general issued a report documenting lavish employee conferences during the same time period.

[Jamie_B]

Not really surprised

[MichaelWeston]

Not really surprised

Get right out of town.

[bengalrick]

This whole NSA crap is really a different topic completely from the IRS issue.  It should probably have it's own thread.  However I find the NSA's activities MUCH more disturbing than the IRS crap.

 

While I agree that the NSA stuff is more disturbing b/c of how unbelievably illegal it seems to be, I wonder how some would think if a Rep president was in office and all groups with the word progressive, liberal, or stuff like that was being audited while all Tea party affiliated groups were skirted through... wouldn't that be messed up? The potential of the IRS stuff has blackmail and power grab written all over it. 

[MichaelWeston]

 

While I agree that the NSA stuff is more disturbing b/c of how unbelievably illegal it seems to be, I wonder how some would think if a Rep president was in office and all groups with the word progressive, liberal, or stuff like that was being audited while all Tea party affiliated groups were skirted through... wouldn't that be messed up? The potential of the IRS stuff has blackmail and power grab written all over it. 

 

While I think that has merit it ignores the fact that the Tea Party has as it's mission not to pay taxes which has to factor in.

 

In addition I think it was these groups that were applying for non profit status at a higher rate and they were seemingly blatantly political, which just shortly prior they weren't allowed to be.

[Jamie_B]

 

While I agree that the NSA stuff is more disturbing b/c of how unbelievably illegal it seems to be, I wonder how some would think if a Rep president was in office and all groups with the word progressive, liberal, or stuff like that was being audited while all Tea party affiliated groups were skirted through... wouldn't that be messed up? The potential of the IRS stuff has blackmail and power grab written all over it. 

 

 

You mean like when that actually happened?

[|Elflocko|]

 

 

You mean like when that actually happened?

 

:32:

[bengalrick]

From your own article:

 

Close to a third of the advocacy groups named by the Internal Revenue Service as recipients of special scrutiny during tax-exempt application reviews were liberal or neutral in political outlook, a leading nonpartisan tax newsletterreported after conducting an independent analysis of data released by the agency.

 

So lets see, 1/3 of liberal or independent groups had special scrutiny while 1/3 of all tea party groups were scrutinized. Not 1/3 liberal, 1/3 conservative... 1/3 of all liberal AND independent vs. 1/3 of all tea party (small portion of conservatives). Not a very convincing argument to be honest... 

 

Of these, "the majority of the groups selected for extra scrutiny probably matched the political criteria the IRS used and backed conservative causes, the Tea Party, or limited government generally," wrote Martin A. Sullivan in a June 3 piece in Tax Notes, a newsletter published by the Tax Analysts group. "But a substantial minority -- almost one third of the subset -- did not fit that description."

 

Wow it sounds here that 66% fit the description of tea party, while 33% didn't... Am I reading that wrong?

[Jamie_B]

So wait were going from it happening to liberal groups during a republican presidency at all to well it only happened some of the time.

 

 

Come on Rick.

[bengalrick]

Can you rephrase your question Jamie... I am not sure I understand what you are saying. 

[Jamie_B]

If I am reading you right, you were suggesting "what if this would have happend to liberal groups during a republican presidecy?" which I thought is a completely fair question and as such I pointed out to you that it did indeed happen to liberal groups during a republican presidency and you then suggested that the numbers showed it only happened sometimes and not nearly as much as it did to tea party groups. My question is so?

 

Wrong is wrong Rick, dont back down from your original stance just because it didnt happen as much to liberal groups.

 

Further I still stand by my claims that the process they went about doing this was wrong and think they should have given them more scrutinity than just looking at their name.

[bengalrick]

If I am reading you right, you were suggesting "what if this would have happend to liberal groups during a republican presidecy?" which I thought is a completely fair question and as such I pointed out to you that it did indeed happen to liberal groups during a republican presidency and you then suggested that the numbers showed it only happened sometimes and not nearly as much as it did to tea party groups. My question is so?

 

Wrong is wrong Rick, dont back down from your original stance just because it didnt happen as much to liberal groups.

 

Further I still stand by my claims that the process they went about doing this was wrong and think they should have given them more scrutinity than just looking at their name.

 

Did you link to the wrong link or something? I do not see where this mentions a rep president targeting liberals. I thought you were making the point that only 1/3 of the groups being scrutinized were tea party affiliated.

 

Also I agree that wrong is wrong and if proven that republican's did this to liberal groups as blatant as this, I am completely against that as well.

[Jamie_B]

Sorry here you go Rick.

 

http://www.npr.org/2013/06/19/193383914/liberal-groups-say-they-received-irs-scrutiny-too

[bengalrick]

Sorry here you go Rick.

 

http://www.npr.org/2013/06/19/193383914/liberal-groups-say-they-received-irs-scrutiny-too

 

No problem... I still don't see where a Republican president was in power while the IRS specifically targeted liberal leaning groups. I think we should all agree that that is wrong.

[BengalBacker]

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/irs-sent-46378040-refunds-23994-unauthorized-aliens-1-atlanta-address

[Jamie_B]

Yep they targeted liberal groups with names like occupy

 

http://occupydemocrats.com/irs-scandal-dies-liberal-groups-with-occupy-progressive-in-names-were-flagged/

[alleycat]

Yep, a shocking revelation that was seen coming for so long that we can only assume that Democrats have been playing a little rope-a-dope.

 

Next up on the docket: calling the Inspector General who failed to mention that, along with words like "Tea Party" and "Patriot" there were BOLO lists for words like "Occupy" and "Progressive."

 

Sadly, not since Slick Willy have Democrats had any ability to play the same dirty game Republicans do, and so this news is predictably finding itself one the back-pages of even their own sympathetic publications (i.e. NYTimes). Of course, this liberal bias in the media fantasy is sadly just that.  If there were a real liberal bias this would be bigger news that it is on its own.  But the media has been conspicuously silent now that it's been annexed by the international conglomerates. It's just another tool for the 1% to keep on keepin' on. 

[bengalrick]

BS:

 

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2013/06/25/report-irs-screened-but-didnt-target-progressive-groups-n1627588

 

A November 2010 version of the list obtained by National Review Online, however, suggests that while the list did contain the word “progressive,” screeners were in fact instructed to treat “progressive” groups differently from “tea party” groups. Whereas screeners were merely alerted that a designation of 501(c)(3) status “may not be appropriate” for applications containing the word ”progressive” – 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from conducting any political activities – they were told to send those of tea-party groups off IRS higher-ups for further scrutiny.  That means the applications of progressive groups could be approved on the spot by line agents, while those of tea-party groups could not. Furthermore, the November 2010 list noted that tea-party cases were “currently being coordinated with EOT,” which stands for Exempt Organizations Technical, a group of tax lawyers in Washington, D.C. Those of progressive groups were not. 

 

 In February 2010, the Champaign Tea Party in Illinois received approval of its tax-exempt status from the IRS in 90 days, no questions asked. That was the month before the Internal Revenue Service started singling out Tea Party groups for special treatment. There wouldn't be another Tea Party application approved for 27 months. In that time, the IRS approved perhaps dozens of applications from similar liberal and progressive groups, a USA TODAY review of IRS data shows. As applications from conservative groups sat in limbo, groups with liberal-sounding names had their applications approved in as little as nine months. With names including words like "Progress" or "Progressive," the liberal groups applied for the same tax status and were engaged in the same kinds of activities as the conservative groups. 

[bengalrick]

Yep, a shocking revelation that was seen coming for so long that we can only assume that Democrats have been playing a little rope-a-dope.

 

Next up on the docket: calling the Inspector General who failed to mention that, along with words like "Tea Party" and "Patriot" there were BOLO lists for words like "Occupy" and "Progressive."

 

Sadly, not since Slick Willy have Democrats had any ability to play the same dirty game Republicans do, and so this news is predictably finding itself one the back-pages of even their own sympathetic publications (i.e. NYTimes). Of course, this liberal bias in the media fantasy is sadly just that.  If there were a real liberal bias this would be bigger news that it is on its own.  But the media has been conspicuously silent now that it's been annexed by the international conglomerates. It's just another tool for the 1% to keep on keepin' on. 

 

 

This has nothing to do with Republicans... Jamie said earlier that he had a link that showed Rep's did it also but I couldn't find it nor did he rebutt or show me where it said that.

[Jamie_B]

IRS Sent Same Letter to Democrats That Fed Tea Party Row

[Justice]

So wait were going from it happening to liberal groups during a republican presidency at all to well it only happened some of the time.

 

 

Come on Rick.

are you talking about how he got money from Merrick for vaccinating those girls? well Michelle Bauchman called him out on that.

[Jamie_B]

are you talking about how he got money from Merrick for vaccinating those girls? well Michelle Bauchman called him out on that.

 

 

No I'm not, read the article I just posted.

[bengalrick]

IRS Sent Same Letter to Democrats That Fed Tea Party Row

 

Context is everything. Not a big deal that they sent the same form letter.

 

The fact is, progressive groups were able to be approved by screeners, while tea party groups were designated to higher ups for more scrutiny. While dozens of progressive groups kept getting approved after sometimes 9 months, NOT ONE tea party applicant was approved for over 2 YEARS. You said earlier in this thread:

and as such I pointed out to you that it did indeed happen to liberal groups during a republican presidency and you then suggested that the numbers showed it only happened sometimes and not nearly as much as it did to tea party groups. My question is so?

 

I am still waiting for you to point this fact out to me. You seemed to call me out and then base a lot of your argument on that point. Other people in this thread (who didn't read your links) have used that very point... you have never shown where republicans did this to liberal groups during a republican presidency. I did a google search for just that topic and all I see is that liberals were also targeted. And I feel like I blew that point out of the water too. 

 

All I am asking for consistency.  My question originally was what if George Bush would have targeted liberal groups during his presidency. You would be furious if he did, but he didn't... He did plenty wrong but he didn't do that. The same should stand here even if you think tea party people are anarchists.

 

Right is right..... right?

[Jamie_B]

Rick did you read the last link? Progressive groups were denied under this Bush created program. Not sure why you keep saying they weren't