IRS targeted Tea Party: Abuse of Power by Obama Administration

[Hemodoc]

The Tea Party and other conservative groups have complained for a couple of years of abusive over sight by the IRS. Now the IRS has publicly stated that happened and publicly apologized. The long list of using the IRS to target political enemies goes back to Nixon and perhaps beyond, but well documented back to Nixon. However, it is the Obama administration that has taken claim to being the most "transparent" administration. It is nothing more than political games once again with the allegedly "apolitical" current regime.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/05/12/house-committee-outlines-questions-for-irs-at-planned-hearing-on-targeting-tea/

[Simon Dog]

A mighty convenient distraction as more information about the Benghazi mendacity surfaces.

[MooseMom]

Since the IRS is an independent agency, I don't think the President, whoever that might be, has the legal authority to fire anyone over there.  Employees of the IRS are civil servants.  How can the executive branch discipline/fire an IRS employee?  Anyone know?

[Hober Mallow]

Just curious, Hemodoc:  were you writing posts on this board speaking out against the IRS when was targeting liberal groups during the Bush administration?

Benghazi is a non-scandal.

I'm more interested in the AP story, as well as a thousand other big news stories our mainstream news won't cover.

[Hemodoc]

Just curious, Hemodoc:  were you writing posts on this board speaking out against the IRS when was targeting liberal groups during the Bush administration?

Benghazi is a non-scandal.

I'm more interested in the AP story, as well as a thousand other big news stories our mainstream news won't cover.

I didn't get hooked up with IHD until sometime in 2008 if I remember correctly, but ever stated I was a fan of Bush and his Patriot Act, the John Warner Defense bill of 2007 or the Military Commissions Act signed the same day as the John Warner Defense Bill which seriously expanded government intrusion into our lives.

[Big E]

What I believe about the IRS "scandal" is that it's the IRS's job to evaulate whether an organization is eligible for tax-exempt status, and in this instance they were doing their job. Donations to political advocacy groups are not tax-exempt, and a lot of groups are known to get around this by trying to get themselves labeled as social welfare or educational groups. And if more conservative than liberal organizations are being investigated, maybe it's just because conservatives are more likely to attempt this particular tax-avoidance scheme.

No one is entitled to a tax exemption just because they want one!

[Hemodoc]

What I believe about the IRS "scandal" is that it's the IRS's job to evaulate whether an organization is eligible for tax-exempt status, and in this instance they were doing their job. Donations to political advocacy groups are not tax-exempt, and a lot of groups are known to get around this by trying to get themselves labeled as social welfare or educational groups. And if more conservative than liberal organizations are being investigated, maybe it's just because conservatives are more likely to attempt this particular tax-avoidance scheme.

No one is entitled to a tax exemption just because they want one!

Sorry, that is not the issue whatsoever. The issue is using the coercion of the IRS to gain political advantage over your adversaries. The tax exempt status is not the issue, it is taking confidential documents submitted to the IRS in the application process and handing these documents to political opponents.

What you are stating implies some sort of wrong doing on the part of these conservative groups which is completely inaccurate. Instead, the focus is on the IRS and whoever wanted this information and coercion against these groups. This is actually quite a big deal.

[MooseMom]

Sorry, that is not the issue whatsoever. The issue is using the coercion of the IRS to gain political advantage over your adversaries. The tax exempt status is not the issue, it is taking confidential documents submitted to the IRS in the application process and handing these documents to political opponents.

What you are stating implies some sort of wrong doing on the part of these conservative groups which is completely inaccurate. Instead, the focus is on the IRS and whoever wanted this information and coercion against these groups. This is actually quite a big deal.

No, Hemodoc, sorry, I don't think that's correct.  The tax exempt status IS the issue.  What kind of "confidential documents" were handed over to political opponents?  Which "political opponents" received this information, and what did they do with it?  Are you implying that "political opponents" outside of the IRS were engaging in some sort of conspiracy?  That's not what the IG report says.  If certain GOP congresspeople suspect that the IG report is complicit in a cover-up, then by all means they should investigate further. 

Tea party activists had been complaining for some time that their applications for tax exempt status had been delayed or had been overly queried, so they complained to their Congresspeople.  It has since been revealed that yes, such applications containing the words "tea party" or "patriot" or some such things WERE overly scrutinized and questioned, so now the question is the legality of those actions.  The whole Citizens United debacle changed the rules, making things a lot more complicated.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/14/irs-tea-party-white-house_n_3275899.html

While I understand that everything that happens under any President's watch will be attributed to and/or blamed on him, I'm not sure it is fair to condemn the entire Obama Administration or the President himself. 

Yes, this is a big deal because the IRS has historically targetted all sorts of groups.

People who WANT to see coercion and general evil-doing will certainly see it. If a GOP president was in office and it was discovered that groups applying for tax-exempt status were being targetted if they had the word "progressive" in their names, there would be a great hue and cry among Democrats, I'm sure.

[MooseMom]

And I'm sure you realize that the executive branch cannot legally have a hand in the workings of the DOJ and the IRS for obvious reasons, and quite rightly so.  So it makes it doubly difficult for any White House to do much.  I've asked before and no one has answered...what can this President or ANY president legally do in situations like this?  Seems to me that the only avenue available is to look as outraged as possible.

[Hemodoc]

Sorry, that is not the issue whatsoever. The issue is using the coercion of the IRS to gain political advantage over your adversaries. The tax exempt status is not the issue, it is taking confidential documents submitted to the IRS in the application process and handing these documents to political opponents.

What you are stating implies some sort of wrong doing on the part of these conservative groups which is completely inaccurate. Instead, the focus is on the IRS and whoever wanted this information and coercion against these groups. This is actually quite a big deal.

No, Hemodoc, sorry, I don't think that's correct.  The tax exempt status IS the issue.  What kind of "confidential documents" were handed over to political opponents?  Which "political opponents" received this information, and what did they do with it?  Are you implying that "political opponents" outside of the IRS were engaging in some sort of conspiracy?  That's not what the IG report says.  If certain GOP congresspeople suspect that the IG report is complicit in a cover-up, then by all means they should investigate further. 

Tea party activists had been complaining for some time that their applications for tax exempt status had been delayed or had been overly queried, so they complained to their Congresspeople.  It has since been revealed that yes, such applications containing the words "tea party" or "patriot" or some such things WERE overly scrutinized and questioned, so now the question is the legality of those actions.  The whole Citizens United debacle changed the rules, making things a lot more complicated.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/14/irs-tea-party-white-house_n_3275899.html

While I understand that everything that happens under any President's watch will be attributed to and/or blamed on him, I'm not sure it is fair to condemn the entire Obama Administration or the President himself. 

Yes, this is a big deal because the IRS has historically targetted all sorts of groups.

People who WANT to see coercion and general evil-doing will certainly see it. If a GOP president was in office and it was discovered that groups applying for tax-exempt status were being targetted if they had the word "progressive" in their names, there would be a great hue and cry among Democrats, I'm sure.

Sorry, but you have not accurately described the issue Moosemom. Of course the president and White House will have plausible deniability. That is the way the game is played in D.C. But to believe that a bunch of middle managers did this without anyone up the food chain knowing about this and it just happened by chance to be against the current administrations political enemies does defy logic. Proving that connection, well won't happen unless emails and whistleblowers step forward, a very unlikely event.

Nevertheless, tax exempt status is supposed to be equally applied and it wasn't. In addition, the IRS folks did go beyond in their questioning and further released politically sensitive documents, one example to the Huffington Post, that targeted donors against prop 8.

I believe we are just at the outset of this entire story. We will have to wait and see what links to whom is developed, reported and documented, but to believe that there is no linkage defies logic.

[Hemodoc]

And I'm sure you realize that the executive branch cannot legally have a hand in the workings of the DOJ and the IRS for obvious reasons, and quite rightly so.  So it makes it doubly difficult for any White House to do much.  I've asked before and no one has answered...what can this President or ANY president legally do in situations like this?  Seems to me that the only avenue available is to look as outraged as possible.

You mean to hide his illegal activity, or just to keep the administrative branch in line?

The DOJ is under the authority of the White House as we have seen with the Fast and Furious scandal among others. The president could start with firing those who have oversight of these organizations, that is the way it is done in the military when private snuff messes up and they fire a couple of generals who didn't conduct proper control of their chain of command. In fact, that would be the appropriate step in this case as well.

[MooseMom]

Hemodoc, I don't see your link to anything by Propublica.  All I see is your link to Fox News.  Did I miss something?

Maybe it would be easier if you could just explain the issue as you see it.

[MooseMom]

that is the way it is done in the military when private snuff messes up and they fire a couple of generals who didn't conduct proper control of their chain of command. In fact, that would be the appropriate step in this case as well.

You mean the ways heads have rolled following the torrent of rape and sexual abuse amongst our military?  I see.

[Hemodoc]

that is the way it is done in the military when private snuff messes up and they fire a couple of generals who didn't conduct proper control of their chain of command. In fact, that would be the appropriate step in this case as well.

You mean the ways heads have rolled following the torrent of rape and sexual abuse amongst our military?  I see.

Hmmm, perhaps taking a closer look at one general fired last month:

http://www.military.com/daily-news/2013/04/05/officials-general-fired-over-alcohol-sex-charges.html

[Hemodoc]

that is the way it is done in the military when private snuff messes up and they fire a couple of generals who didn't conduct proper control of their chain of command. In fact, that would be the appropriate step in this case as well.

You mean the ways heads have rolled following the torrent of rape and sexual abuse amongst our military?  I see.

Here is another general who has hit a brick wall in her promotions because of the sexual abuse cases.

http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-05-06/world/39060954_1_sexual-assault-jury-commander

Yes, the military does clean house in the midst of scandals. Obama should take a lesson from them in doing the same starting with Eric Holder.

[MooseMom]

You know that's not nearly enough, Hemodoc.  No doubt you've heard of the documentary "Invisible War".  If not, watch it and then get back to me.

Getting back on topic, though, let's just wait and see what happens, OK?  Maybe the upside in all of this will be a simplification of the tax code like all sides would like to see.

[Hemodoc]

that is the way it is done in the military when private snuff messes up and they fire a couple of generals who didn't conduct proper control of their chain of command. In fact, that would be the appropriate step in this case as well.

You mean the ways heads have rolled following the torrent of rape and sexual abuse amongst our military?  I see.

Here is another general facing court martial for his own conduct. Yes, the military does take allegations of sexual misconduct seriously as anyone who has spent time in the military knows. Your comment lacks the intimate knowledge of how the military really acts on these issues.

http://news.yahoo.com/sex-major-reason-military-commanders-fired-123720150.html

[Hemodoc]

You know that's not nearly enough, Hemodoc.  No doubt you've heard of the documentary "Invisible War".  If not, watch it and then get back to me.

Getting back on topic, though, let's just wait and see what happens, OK?  Maybe the upside in all of this will be a simplification of the tax code like all sides would like to see.

Nope, haven't heard of it at all. I do know from nine years in the military that the consequences of sexual misconduct is very likely to get you a room with a view at Ft. Leavenworth Kansas, but no beach front property.

Since this is such a national scandal, I suspect many more heads will roll. In any case, I have listed two more people fired for the military scandal than Obama has fired for any of his numerous scandals. I suspect that will continue but shouldn't. Yes, I have no doubt that the military will clean up their act. I have seen how a public scandal gets immediate action since careers are on the line. When a general is in the line of fire himself, heads do roll, oh my yes they do and I have seen it during my nine years as a military officer.

[MooseMom]

Yes, but this article only addresses the issue of sexual misconduct of commanders.  What about all of those who rape their fellow soldiers and who are NOT commanders? 

I know you were in the military for nine years, but you yourself have said that that was a long time ago.  Perhaps the values that you fear we are losing are being lost in the military, too, to a more extensive degree than you remember.  Perhaps if you were to watch "Invisible War" (available on Netflix and OnDemand, at least it was this time last year), you might have a better idea of what current conditions are in this regard.

But again, getting back to the IRS issue, I think we should wait until all the information is in before anyone is fired (and as of now, I do think a firing is in order, but I may prove to be wrong).  I'm sure the Obama Administration is still embarrassed about the whole Shirley Sherrod debacle.

[Hemodoc]

Yes, but this article only addresses the issue of sexual misconduct of commanders.  What about all of those who rape their fellow soldiers and who are NOT commanders? 

I know you were in the military for nine years, but you yourself have said that that was a long time ago.  Perhaps the values that you fear we are losing are being lost in the military, too, to a more extensive degree than you remember.  Perhaps if you were to watch "Invisible War" (available on Netflix and OnDemand, at least it was this time last year), you might have a better idea of what current conditions are in this regard.

But again, getting back to the IRS issue, I think we should wait until all the information is in before anyone is fired (and as of now, I do think a firing is in order, but I may prove to be wrong).  I'm sure the Obama Administration is still embarrassed about the whole Shirley Sherrod debacle.

It is certainly possible that the military is changing as well, however, when it becomes a public scandal, the military has something called the chain of command and they do have something else most organizations lack, AUTHORITY. When a general says jump, that is what you do. When a general is in danger of promotion or other discipline personally, yes, heads do roll and I doubt that aspect of the military has changed one bit. This is a big scandal and generals have already had career altering problems from this scandal. That is a warning shot across the bow of all ships in the fleet so to speak. Yes, I believe that the military will take much greater steps than the IRS will in this whole scandal. Just the way it is.

[Rerun]

If the IRS didn't do anything "wrong" then why did they apologize. 

               

[MooseMom]

I was watching PBS this evening, and on the broadcast was a reporter for the Washington Post who has covered the issue of sexual assault in the military for several years now.  He said that the Pentagon estimates that there were 26,000 sexual assaults in the military in 2012 alone.  I couldn't believe it was that many!  So this isn't an issue of disciplining a few generals or commanders; this is an issue of the present-day culture in the military.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/07/sexual-assaults-military_n_3229790.html

Now that we have become aware of this undeniably pervasive problem, I am hoping that there will be more measures in place to prevent this.  Maybe the military could lead the way on getting the rest of us back on a track paved by "traditional" American values. 

Rerun, I don't think anyone has said that the IRS didn't do anything wrong.  The Assistant Director of the IRS has already resigned.  What do you think would be the appropriate action to take?

[Hemodoc]

I was watching PBS this evening, and on the broadcast was a reporter for the Washington Post who has covered the issue of sexual assault in the military for several years now.  He said that the Pentagon estimates that there were 26,000 sexual assaults in the military in 2012 alone.  I couldn't believe it was that many!  So this isn't an issue of disciplining a few generals or commanders; this is an issue of the present-day culture in the military.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/07/sexual-assaults-military_n_3229790.html

Now that we have become aware of this undeniably pervasive problem, I am hoping that there will be more measures in place to prevent this.  Maybe the military could lead the way on getting the rest of us back on a track paved by "traditional" American values. 

Rerun, I don't think anyone has said that the IRS didn't do anything wrong.  The Assistant Director of the IRS has already resigned.  What do you think would be the appropriate action to take?

Well, we will have to wait and see, but the firing of two generals is big news in the military. That means a whole lot of folks below those generals are also in trouble as well. I wonder what 26,000 is per capita and how that compares to other populations. I don't have anything to compare that to, but you are right, that is huge number of sexual assaults that should not be tolerated.

What should happen, if someone broke the law, they deserve their day in court.

[rocker]

Sorry, but you have not accurately described the issue Moosemom. Of course the president and White House will have plausible deniability. That is the way the game is played in D.C. But to believe that a bunch of middle managers did this without anyone up the food chain knowing about this and it just happened by chance to be against the current administrations political enemies does defy logic. Proving that connection, well won't happen unless emails and whistleblowers step forward, a very unlikely event.

So if facts are not in evidence, you will simply make things up until it sounds bad.

Nevertheless, tax exempt status is supposed to be equally applied and it wasn't.

This, at least, is correct. Liberal groups were targetted in the same way. At least one liberal group was denied tax-exempt status.

No conservative groups were.

But this, I'm sure, is ok.  If a liberal group was targetted, it was surely for good and logical reasons.  If a conservative group was targetted, it's undeniable evidence of a giant conspiracy cooked up by the President.

[Hemodoc]

Sorry, but you have not accurately described the issue Moosemom. Of course the president and White House will have plausible deniability. That is the way the game is played in D.C. But to believe that a bunch of middle managers did this without anyone up the food chain knowing about this and it just happened by chance to be against the current administrations political enemies does defy logic. Proving that connection, well won't happen unless emails and whistleblowers step forward, a very unlikely event.

So if facts are not in evidence, you will simply make things up until it sounds bad.

Nevertheless, tax exempt status is supposed to be equally applied and it wasn't.

This, at least, is correct. Liberal groups were targetted in the same way. At least one liberal group was denied tax-exempt status.

No conservative groups were.

But this, I'm sure, is ok.  If a liberal group was targetted, it was surely for good and logical reasons.  If a conservative group was targetted, it's undeniable evidence of a giant conspiracy cooked up by the President.

Well, Nixon mused about getting the IRS on his political enemies, but to date, no evidence that he actually did such a thing has ever surfaced. If you believe that such an activity came about at lower level IRS folks, that defies logic. Do I have proof? Of course not, but if you really believe the Obama and his Chicago thugs knew nothing of this, then I would say you have your head in the sand. This is just Chicago politics on a national level.

In any case, this is not over and much more shall come out in the coming weeks and perhaps months. I suspect your comment will be proven quite wrong with time, but you are correct, we don't know for sure yet but don't hold your breath. And in any case, I never ventured having proof of my suspicions thus you are in error that I have made up anything, just venturing a likely scenario of what is going on.