One of the beauties of a free society, particularly one built on the rule of law, free markets and individual liberty is that people are often free to pursue things that are simply not possible elsewhere. Entrepreneurship in the United States thrives like it does in no other place. From restaurants that let you choose how you want your food cooked to more cable channels than your cable box can handle to the frivolity of branded apparel and Christmas antlers, the United States is a study in the science of the division of labor.
Over the course of our American history, the division of labor has grown ever more important. While 150 years ago most people would have hunted or grown their own food, built their own houses and made their own clothes, today virtually none of us do any of those things. That’s because of the division of labor. We have come to depend on one another to do what we do best. Whether as individuals or as cogs in the wheel of a corporate machine, the division of labor allows us to live far richer lives than we ever could if we had to do everything for ourselves.
A key element of that reliance on the division of labor is trust. I will only purchase food from a vendor if I am confident they are not going to poison me. I will only fly with an airline if I’m confident they are sufficiently attending to safety that the plane will not crash. I will only allow a doctor to operate on me if I trust him not to come to work drunk and kill me.
So too it is with the government of free nations. The United States is one of, if not the most free country in the world when it comes to speech – except for college campuses of course. Citizens have put their trust in the Constitution and the government it created. It is that trust that allows them to go about that making widgets or doing whatever they do. They trust and expect – perhaps foolishly – that their elected officials will at least run the government with objectivity and honesty if not with competency and efficiency. Because the citizens trust the public servants to enforce laws and do so with detachment, the citizens themselves don’t have to enforce them or scrutinize official’s every move.
A complementary element of that trust in government is the First Amendment’s protection of the Freedom of Speech. A trust that you can speak your mind and the government will not penalize you for it. Nowhere else in the world is freedom of speech protected like it is here. Try standing on a street corner in Saudi Arabia and badmouthing the Koran. Try speaking out against the government in Russia or Venezuela. Insult some protected group in Canada or Europe and you’ll likely find yourself in court or shackles.
Free speech, particularly as it relates to opposition of government officials is as American as apple pie. Despite the vile and contemptible things said about him with great regularity and impunity, George Bush was hardly the first president to feel the sting of slings and arrows – John Adams and Thomas Jefferson also withered viscous storms of opposition – but he may end up being one of the last. And America will be much worse off for it. Why? Because Barack Obama has succeeded in destroying the trust the American people have in their government.
President Obama’s use of the IRS to tilt the election playing field in his direction is repugnant to everything Americans hold dear. Americans don’t mind a spirited fight, and even expect minor examples of local irregularities, after all, you can’t expect an election where over 100 million people vote to come off without a hitch.
Barack Obama however has done something that no American can condone. As he was getting ready to have his rear end handed to him in 2010 Congressional elections, he decided to use the police power of the government to ensure that he would be victorious two years later.
Of course he was not so transparent as to send in New Black Panther party stormtroopers to “encourage” voters into pulling the Obama lever. No, instead he clandestinely used what is possibly the single most intimidating organization in the United States, the IRS. To be clear, the IRS is far from an efficient bureaucracy, but there is a difference between a dysfunctional tax code and a tax enforcement agency that is explicitly political. This is the latter: not only did his IRS delay or refuse tax exempt status for 500 tea party and conservative organizations across the country, the agency also targeted conservatives and Romney donors for intense scrutiny and public backlash.
Barack Obama won election by a total of over 6 million votes – 5 million of which came from California and New York alone. The election would have gone the other way however if just three states had changed from blue to red: Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania. Together they cast 19.7 million votes and Barack Obama won the three by a total of 550,000 votes. Not coincidentally, the epicenter of the IRS scandal was Cincinnati Ohio.
To put the magnitude of this malfeasance in perspective, had each of those 500 organizations swayed a mere 500 citizens each in either Florida, Ohio or Pennsylvania, Barack Obama would have lost the election. But they were not able to do so because the IRS violated the public trust by becoming an extension of the Obama campaign. How many other organizations never formed because conservatives could see the writing on the wall and were not willing to jump through hoops just to be stonewalled? How much money was not donated to these organizations and others because donors feared for their livelihoods?
Whether Obama directed this travesty himself, or he merely pointed out the targets for others to harass, he is responsible for the destruction of the American trust. By turning the IRS into the arm of a police state, where one’s associations, donations, speeches and friends are scrutinized in order to stifle dissent and harm your business, he has undermined the single most important element of American society: Trust.
Americans have always looked at the actions of government with a critical and often partisan eye, but for the most part they have bought into the idea that whether it’s the Corps of Engineers, the Department of Education or even the IRS, most of government is run in a largely objective, if often inept, fashion. By using the IRS to intimidate opponents and guarantee himself a second term, Barack Obama has opened a fissure in the American body politic. One wonders how big it will grow and whether the republic can survive. If citizens begin to see the IRS as a thought police, they will begin hiding income and cheating on their taxes, rationalizing that they will be unfairly targeted regardless. And it won’t be limited to the IRS. If citizens begin to believe that the Justice Department is but the enforcement arm of whoever is in power they may begin to react differently when targeted. If citizens believe that the EPA or the Department of Energy have become political vehicles for the reward of friends or the restraint of enemies of the regime in power, they are likely to begin to disregard their rules or edicts.
At the end of the day a free society depends on the willing trust and voluntary participation of the citizens. Barack Obama has broken that trust in a big way. The question is, can the fissure be repaired so that citizens remain willing to openly engage in political debate rather than scheme under the cover of darkness with designs on upending a system they feel is no longer fair? The country survived a relative vaudvillesque version of this scandal forty years ago that ended up in a president’s resignation. Before that FDR, JFK and LBJ were experts at using the agency to pressure opponents, but their misdeeds rarely saw the light of day thanks to a servile press happy to carry their water. Barack Obama isn’t so lucky however and thanks to the Internet and a conservative press his crimes are difficult to deny, even for the blindest of followers. Whether he serves out his term or not, Barack Obama should be seen as the pernicious narcissist he is who sacrificed the public trust for his own self-aggrandizement. For anyone who has been paying attention, none of this is a surprise.
See author page
I just read another article trying to explain what Obama has done in different terms.
From the looks of Keith Riler’s articles it appears he is at least an economist, if not also an accountant.
http://www.americanthinker.com/keith_riler/
This latest article takes an accounting term, ”Unit of Account,” from generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP), and uses it to show how Obama has been shrinking his personal arena of responsibility.
Unit of account is a GAAP concept that refers to an entity for which results can be clearly distinguished and accountability logically required.
When Obama first ran for president he claimed a UNIVERSAL unit of account: Elect me and the oceans will stop rising!
But soon after becoming president Obama downsized his unit of account.
For over 4 years, for instance, the the economy and employment issues have all been ”Bush’s fault.”
But at least Obama was the head of the Administration…our Executive Branch of our three-part government.
Recently, if you notice, Obama has shrunken his unit of responsibility further and does not acknowledge being responsible over the Administration.
It is only the White House he lords it over.
OOPS
Then we learned that Obama’s own White House staff were tightly involved in these scandals.
So, NOW Obama shrinks again!
He just owns up to being leader of his “senior staff!”
Then a new OOPS.
Even they have been tied to scandals!
So what to do?
The writer suggests a dualism between mind and body on Obama’s part.
After all…..
*Lois Lerner did just that, herself so it is not without precedent.
She signed the letters targeting conservative groups and claimed both that she had done nothing wrong and that targeting was the work of rogue agents.
*Eric Holder, too.
Holder signed the warrant naming Fox journalist James Rosen a criminal “co-conspirator” and is very concerned that the investigations could have a chilling effect on investigative journalism.
IF Obama does invoke dualism he will have disappeared his unit of responsibility over his own actions altogether!
Will his syncophantic press and supporters allow Obama to have a smaller unit of responsibility than they, personally, have?
Time will tell.
Lois Lerner who was the head of the Tax Exempt Division was appointed to that position in 2006 by President Bush. Most Americans do not know this BUT they still do not hold Obama responsible to what happened.
Lois Lerner’s husband’s law firm is a very heavy GOP donor. Being tax exempt is not a “right” it is something taht you are required to PROVE to the IRS.
When liberal groups were targeted by the IRS under Bush where was the OUTRAGE !!!
http://www.opposingviews.com/i/politics/obama-presidency/irs-audited-liberal-groups-under-president-bush-no-outrage-gop
Under Bush the IRS went after the NAACP
http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2004-10-29/news/0410290318_1_tax-exempt-organizations-audit-naacp
They also went after Greenpeace and other groups. And YES Lois Lerner was the head of that same Tax Exempt Division in that case also.
Too many people first forkm a conclusion and tehn look for facts to back it up
@john:
Has it occurred to you, John, that not all are partisan and it matters not one bit who appointed Lerner? What matters is what gave her the idea that it would be OK to target U.S. citizens for their political beliefs, particularly those that oppose the very objectionable policies of this President?
I read the account of the audit of the NAACP; this was done because the NAACP was actively campaigning for and contributing to Democrat candidates ONLY. No doubt, they had justifyable reasons, as an audit of the NAACP would certainly draw criticism and investigation, which it did and which proved unfounded.
Not even a good example of a weak excuse.
Vince- I agree with most of what you said about this administration’s abuse of power and trust. I’d trust it as far as I could throw it. One area where I would have to respectfully disagree is the outcome of the 2012 election. On election day Obama’s approval rating, which is the best indicator of the percent of the popular vote an incumbent will receive, stood around 51% which is what he received. I don’t think much of anything, including another Republican candidate, would have changed that. If a person approves of someone’s job performance, why would they vote for someone else? As for the impact of the IRS’s abuses, I think the lopsided MSM coverage as well as successful cover ups of what really happened with regards to issues such as Benghazi and the intel leaks, impacted the election more. Perhaps if those issues and others would have been given the attention they deserved, his approval rating would have been lowered to the point where he would have lost. Then again, it’s kind of hard to campaign against Santa Claus.
john
you try too hard to make it a non scandal,
it jump in your face,
From the OP:
It is this overreach that tends to hurt the conservative movement overall.
Yes… the IRS behavior is scandalous.
No, it was not hurting free speech. What it was doing was denying a proper procedure for conservative organizations to become tax exempt/non profits. In other words, it was about whether they could receive a tax bennie. Just because you don’t get a tax break doesn’t mean you still don’t enjoy free speech and influence.
Nor could donors be “in fear for their livelihoods” if they are unaware until recently that the IRS is asking these groups for names of the donors. Was the IRS wrong in doing so? Hang yeah. No one disagrees with that. But this hardly stopped TP donations at any time until discovered. I wouldn’t be surprised if donations to the TPs have increased since the IRS scandal came to light. (Well gosh darn… so they have been experiencing a bump in both reputation and money…) Probably was a bit of good press, being as they were the victim, that will play in their favor.
The various TPs were not tax exempt in 2008. They were not tax exempt in 2010, when gains were made in the midterms. And they were not tax exempt in 2012, yet their voices were heard. 2012 wasn’t a problem of TPs not being heard. It was a candidate problem.. a guy who didn’t appeal to either side very much.
If the conservatives would focus on the shared gripe of both the political spectrum.. i.e. using the IRS to single out anyone or any group based on political beliefs… much more would be accomplished, and leaving a sense of good will for the conservative brand. It then becomes citizens vs over empowered government instead of right vs left.
Instead I will remain forever amused at the desperate search for the smoking gun to convict Obama. It’s my guess that Axel’grease, or any in the Obama campaign, wouldn’t be dumb enough to leave that footprint, and you’ll be left with circumstantial and speculative evidence for the argument.
One of these days ya’ll might figure out he won’t be running in 2016.
If the conservatives take the non partisan fight of an overreaching government, and stop trying to just do a “gotcha” on Obama every morning upon waking, conservatives will appear less the fool to moderate voters in the Dem party. And it’s all about the 2014 midterms right now.
when you think about it,
it’s COWARDLY ACTIONS to win that kind of election,
and the 51 including the deads from HELL must realize they elect a COWARD,
he sneak his election with attack from the IRS to his opponent PARTY,
decent people who believe in the CONSTITUTION of AMERICA as a foundation holding and protecting the PEOPLE from abusive GOVERNEMENT TARGETING, it did happen,
and the election is not won, it is taken and hold hostage since then.
the future will condemn the frauds they will resurface to accuse the usurper of rights
of the CITIZENS, so tolerant and well behave being abused with outrage,
all targeted for what they believe, and for who they expose publicly to be wrong.
by the way, how much did OBAMA gave to HOLLYWOOD
the MOVIE MAKERS and all the ARTIST who are in his party,
how much money? and does the HOLLYWOOD know
the source of that money come from the rest of AMERICA,
the hard workers of AMERICA sweating to make a budget,
and pay their tax.
this money going in smoke with OBAMA, spending it
without a care in the world
From Mother Jones, Friday, May 17th: Actually, Tea Party Groups Gave the IRS Lots of Good Reasons to Be Interested
Maybe if Tea Party donors aren’t the least bit concerned whether their contributions were ripped off rather than properly used for the causes they intended, the IRS shouldn’t worry about it either.
On the other hand, tax evasion adversely affects every honest taxpayer. Either we pay more to offset what gets evaded—a direct effect—or we watch the deficit increase more than it otherwise would and eventually live with the consequences. That second adverse effect is indirect, but every bit as real.
@Greg:
Odd that you would want to use Mother Jones to try to bring doubt on the Tea Party since Mother Jones is the print/internet arm of the Foundation For National Progress, a 501(c)3 group that not only promotes, but only promotes left wing policies and Democrat candidates.
@retire05, #9:
Maybe you should spend a minute or two considering what’s being reported, rather than reflexively taking a tar brush to whoever is reporting it. I haven’t noticed any of these questionable situations even being mentioned on the right.
The bottom line is that when 51% of voters get “free” money from the politicians and have absolutely no shame in demanding even greater amounts of government sanctioned theft from those who actually EARN a living, the republic is doomed. The moochers are living it up now but they refuse to see what is coming when the producers don’t have anything left to steal. I have to work a second job now just to pay the bloody taxes on the income from my primary job. How much longer I can put up with having to support ungrateful strangers will depend solely on when my kids are grown and on their own.
The criminal acts of obama, Holder and Lehrner only hasten the day when I finally say “enough”.
@retire05: Wouldn’t it be interesting to see if and how much of the taxpayer bailout money in the Stimulus Plan went back into the coffers of the dems?
@Pete, #11:
51 percent of voters? That’s a rather large percentage, isn’t it? Apparently you’re including retired people on Social Security, disabled people on Social Security, and anyone receiving a civilian or military federal pension after giving 20 or 30 years of service. Given the fact that a disproportionate number of conservatives are retired Americans, you’re apparently talking about a lot of them.
Greg
shame on you for lending evil actions to the TEA PARTY.
stick to OBAMA SCANDALS, you even have some more coming,
what is your nefarious intent? to come here with that kind of comment,
you’re like this guy covering for HOLDER at FOX now,
he sais, ah e, o o o he REMORSE, hey ou PRESIDENT OBAMA
a eh oh won’t fire him, and oh ah he doesn’t see wrong,
ah ah e hey, he never was told oh eh a
@Greg:
Social Security is the biggest pyramid scam ever created in the history of the world. I would gladly give up the 1% return of my “investment” to see the government get out of controlling retirement.
@Greg:
Shall we take a look at just one of the cases mentioned by Mother Jones, King Street Patriots? Sued by the Texas Democrat Party, the TxDP got the case moved out of Harris County where it should have been (KSP is in Houston) to Travis County, bastion of the TxDP. The TxDP took their case in front of Judge John Dietz. Shall we look at Judge Dietz’ campaign contributions?
Lloyd Doggett for Congress – $1,000.00
DNC Services – $1,750.00
Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. for President – $1,500.00
Nah, no bias on the part of the Judge who received campaign funding (as a lower court judge) from the Texas Democrat Party. The case is on appeal.
But what about True the Vote? Why all the pressure on them? They are truly a non-partisan group that works to clean up the voter rolls. When there is vote fraud, Greggie, it impacts minorities more than the high rent district. Don’t you believe that minorities have a right to have their vote count and not be disenfranchised by voter fraud?
Back to True the Vote; not only have they been waiting for almost three years for their 501(c) exemption, the chairwoman, Catherine Englebrecht has had her personal taxes audited TWICE (2011/2012), her family business taxes have been audited, her business has been investigated by the FBI, ATF and EPA. When a poll watcher, not even connected to TTV, saw Sheila Jackson Lee campaigning inside a polling station, clearly a violation of election rules, they notified TTV. Jackson-Lee, who had violated the law, sent a letter to Eric Holder requesting TTV be investigated.
Nah, there was no witch hunt against those who don’t agree with the Democrats politically, Greggie. (snark) So why don’t you tell us the names of those liberal groups that were denied, or had their applications put on hold for three years since the head of the IRS admitted he couldn’t name any.
Whethe or not there were individual TEA Party organizations that had questionable accounts, what BUSINESS was it of the IRS to demand (on pain of penalty) the contents of the PRAYERS of some groups?
Or the READING MATERIAL?
Or their future speaking plans?
Or information about the organization’s website, Facebook page, and other social media outlets?
Each letter added this:
And how was this invasive information used?
The same IRS office that deliberately targeted conservative groups applying for tax-exempt status in the run-up to the 2012 election released nine pending confidential applications of conservative groups to liberal organization ProPublica late last year.
is in it called TREASON to THE PEOPLE OF AMERICA, TREACHEROUS, violating allegiance, BETRAYING TRUST,
perfidious, not to be relied on, deceptive, TREACHERY,
trechour a cheat, TREASON: violation by subject to allegiance
to SOVEREIGN or to chief authority of STATE, BREACH OF FAITH, disloyalty
AND WHAT IS THE PUNISHMENT FOR THAT?
THEY DESERVE IT,
I JUST MISS A SHORT NEWS ABOUT LERNER ‘s comment one day also TARGETING THE MILITARY,
something about money on hold,
@MataHarley:
I don’t disagree in principle with that statement, Mata.
I do, however, believe that what the IRS actions did were to deny equal access to “free speech” outlets, by allowing liberal/progressive groups easier access to tax-exempt status, thereby allowing them access to more of the donations they took in to put towards ads, rallies, and candidates.
For me, it isn’t the extra scrutiny that has me so incensed about it. It is the unfair and unequal treatment, based on political ideas and ideology.
@Greg:
You miss the entire point about the scandal, Greg.
It isn’t that conservative groups received the extra scrutiny.
It’s that they received it while liberal/progressive groups didn’t.
You love to bleat about around FA regarding taxation and people paying their “fair share”. You love to talk about equality and such.
How about equal access to tax-exempt status for these kind of groups, then? I wouldn’t even care if all of the conservative groups got turned down for tax-exempt status, as long as the liberal/progressive groups received the same treatment, which they apparently didn’t.
And that is what you should be concerned about as well, and not trying to dodge the real issue at hand.
For, if it can happen to conservative groups with a liberal/progressive administration, then it can happen to liberal/progressive groups with a GOP administration.
And if you say nothing about it now, then you don’t have any right to complain about it in the future if the shoe is on the other foot.
@johngalt:
Because any thinking person understand that there is a lot of voter fraud in this country, which impacts minorities more than anyone, I attended a True The Vote seminar. The table I was assigned to sat 8 and everyone but my friend and me were Democrats at our table. They were from another county (Hidalgo, I believe, which made national news over its voter fraud) who also were worried about voters being disenfranchised by the number of illegal registrations submitted by groups like La Raza and ACORN. Those Democrats at our table were completely opposite from me in policies, but they cared about the integrity of the vote, and for that I praised them.
Anita Moncrief, the ACORN whistleblower and a Democrat, was one of the speakers. So why would the Texas Democrats go after a group that is clearly non-partisan and simply wants free, and fair, elections? Simple. The DNC thinks they can’t win without fraud.
Excellent expression for fairness…..just not the kind of fairness Obama talks about when he really means redistribution.
But you mean real fairness.
Impartiality.
Yet how did the IRS act?
Unfairly.
With partiality.
Planned Parenthood is granted tax exempt status despite the fact it only puts out one side of the abortion issue.
BUT Cherish Life Ministries was denied tax exempt status because it only puts out one side of the abortion issue.
Cherish Life Ministries is a charitable organization dedicated to bringing pro-life churches together to provide aid to mothers and babies in need, and educate communities about abortion and life issues.
MORE HERE:
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/pro-life-group-says-irs-refused-to-grant-tax-exempt-status-unless-they-prom
Not only was the group denied an exemption others who take one side of an issue get, but the IRS even re-wrote the organizations by-laws just to try to make their point!
@MataHarley:
Yep. If ever there was a time to make a case the government is too big and too powerful, now is that time. But the republicans in DC have no intention of giving up that power any more than the democrats in DC.
@Greg:
Any tax exempt corp should be scrutinized, that’s not the point. The point is the way it was done. The government does not have the right to ask for this of one group and not of another. The details for what is and is not a 501(c)3 corp are spelled out in USC 501(c)3. It does not say anything about who the donors can and cannot be. It does not say what prayers you can and cannot pray. That’s the problem. You can try to spin out of it all you want, but it is a problem.
one question pop in my mind,
does the TEA PARTY ask who was asking questions,
or if they ask was it refuse?
or did the IRS person gave his name?
if so it would be easier to pinpoint them,
johngalt, you do realize what you are arguing here, yes? Is this the same johngalt who supports tax reform and questions lobbyists? Or is this another johngalt who says that if the leftist groups get tax breaks, so should the right?
To my second sentence, certainly I would agree that if you’re going to allow some to suck at the government teat with financial favors, it should at least be applied equally. But my problem is that the concept of giving political PACs and organizations tax breaks for more lobbying and influence is reprehensible. Therefore, for an organization who prides itself on promoting fiscal sanity in the beltway to be whining about not getting their fair share of tax breaks strikes me as the height of hypocrisy.
Then to top it off that because they weren’t getting their government handout fairly, they want to cry about how their free speech has been quashed because they didn’t have that federal tax money? Maybe I can’t see it the way you guys do, but I think focusing on the cash they didn’t get to keep, or mumbling about how they didn’t get to spend a bit more on lobbying, ads or candidates, is a really bad way to portray a group that generally stands for the antithesis of this type of thinking. Especially since they have been quite formidable without sucking off the tax credit teat.
Here’s the thing, johngalt. My stance is consistent. All of them should be stripped of the non profit status, and all should pay their federal taxes. That 501(c) designation should be for genuine charitable organizations only. And my idea of “charitable” and “social welfare” organizations that deserve these tax breaks doesn’t include either left or right organizations who’s sole purpose of existence is to influence elections, fund candidates and lobby.
I agree with this 100%. If you look around, you’ll also find the leftist media and Dem elected ones *also* agreeing with you 100%. And that’s a moment that is best utilized when you bond together to reign in over reaching government – together – and promoting a lot of goodwill for the conservative brand while doing so. Instead, the focus is on playing “gotcha” for a lame duck POTUS.
Aqua
I’m glad you came,
best to you
It’s been awhile since I’ve read and/or posted here, but it’s good to see that Greg is still coming in here, pooping, then leaving when his face gets rubbed in it.
Sponge
that was funny.
@retire05, #16:
Liberal “dark money” groups weren’t proliferating like toadstools after a summer rain, as were conservative Tea Party-related groups following the moronic Citizens United SCOTUS decision. As this article in Vanity Fair points out, there were grossly inadequate numbers of IRS personnel available to process an avalanche of new 501(c)(4) tax exemption applications. The critical question when “charitable” organizations claim 501(c)(4) tax exempt status is whether or not they devote less than 50 percent of their time and resources to political activities.
The guy who wrote the article poses the following question:
The point being that the organization names on a disproportionately high number of new 501(c)(4) applications—which were disproportionately conservative groups to begin with—were red flags indicating a strong likelihood that they were primarily devoted to political activity, and hence were more likely not to quality for 501(c)(4) tax exempt status.
The bottom line? This is for the most part another one of your fabricated anti-Obama scandals that falls apart when subjected to close inspection. Tea Party groups got closer attention because they brought it upon themselves.
@retire05, #16:
Emerge America, a liberal group supporting the election of Democratic women candidates, revealed themselves that they had been denied 501(c)(4) exempt status by the IRS.
The IRS itself reported in June of last year that another such group had been denied 510(c)(4) status. The group was not named, however, because it is unlawful for the IRS itself to reveal such information. There’s a difference between couldn’t name and wouldn’t name, which is apparently lost on some people.
This article predates your over-inflated scandal concerning IRS anti-conservative bias: IRS denials a worry for US political tax-exempt groups-attorneys. No doubt you’ll totally disregard it, since it comes from a Chicago newspaper.
@Greg:
Oh, wow!!! Greggie, and the DNC came up with ONE name. Now compare that to the hundreds of conservative groups that were either denied or have been waiting THREE years for a decision.
@Greg:
Applications for tax exemption from advocacy nonprofits had not yet spiked when the Internal Revenue Service began using what it admits was inappropriate scrutiny of conservative groups in 2010.
In fact, applications were declining, data show.
Top IRS officials have been saying that a “significant increase” in applications from advocacy groups seeking tax-exempt status spurred its Cincinnati office in 2010 to filter those requests by using such politically loaded phrases as “Tea Party,” “patriots,” and “9/12.”
Both Steven Miller, the agency’s acting commissioner until he stepped down Wednesday, and Lois Lerner, director of the agency’s exempt-organization division, have said over the past week that IRS officials started the scrutiny after observing a surge in applications for status as 501(c)(4) “social welfare” groups. Both officials cited an increase from about 1,500 applications in 2010 and to nearly 3,500 in 2012. President Obama ask Mr. Miller to resign on Wednesday.
The scrutiny began, however, in March 2010, before an uptick could have been observed, according to data contained in the audit released Tuesday from the Treasury Department’s inspector general for tax administration.
The number of 501(c)(4) applications for all of 2010 was actually less than in 2009.
“It doesn’t bear out the statement that there was a surge in 2010,” said Bruce Hopkins, a tax attorney specializing in nonprofits. “That’s inconsistent with what Lois said last week.”
‘Inappropriate Criteria’
The audit says the IRS began to use “inappropriate criteria” to single out applications in March 2010. By April 2010, a “sensitive case report” was issued on “Tea Party cases,” indicating that managers in Cincinnati were aware of the sensitive nature of the reviews.
According to the audit, 1,735 groups applied for 501(c)(4) exemption for the federal fiscal year that ended September 30, 2010—six months after the IRS began its scrutiny. That was down slightly from 1,751 the prior year.
The number grew to 2,265 during the fiscal year that ended September 30, 2011, and to 3,357 in 2012. By then the criteria the IRS was using to flag groups had changed three times to include searches for groups with names that contained “Bill of Rights,” “educating on the constitution,” and “limiting/expanding government.”
Mr. Miller wrote in USA Today on Monday that the IRS began to centralize those applications in 2010 because the division that supervises tax-exempt organizations observed a sharp increase in the number of applications from groups “potentially engaged in political campaign intervention” that were seeking either 501(c)(4) status or designation as a 501(c)(3) charity. He then cites the increase between 2010 and 2012.
The audit shows that 501(c)(3) applications also declined in both 2010 and 2011 from the previous years.
@retire05, #32:
The relevant factor with processing any such workload is not how many items have come in during a particular time frame, but how many items have accumulated and are awaiting attention. This applies equally to IRS, SSA, and VA workloads. Changes in procedural guidelines are most commonly made in response to backlogs, because you can’t accurately predict what changes will be needed ahead of time. If you could make such predictions, there would never be any processing backlogs.
It’s interesting how often republican criticisms depend on minimizing or totally ignoring the different levels of accuracy that can be expected with foresight vs. hindsight.
@Greg:
Nice try at moving the goal posts. But the number was of applications received, not processed.
Just for you, retire5; a story no one here seems to have considered worth mention, from USA Today, May 15, 2013:
CBO drops 2013 deficit estimate to $642 billion
Republicans had better keep cranking out those scandals and conspiracy theories. Otherwise media attention might suddenly focus on stories like that one.
@Greg:
.
If it wasn’t for DNC talking points, you would be a mute.
It must break your heart that even HuffingtonPost is calling for Eric Holder to resign.
Or try this one: Obama Channels Eisenhower With Anemic Government Spending Growth
I don’t recall hearing any mention of that one, either.
@Greg:
And at what level is the American work force, Greggie? Why don’t you tell all those unemployed Americans what a great job Obama is doing?
Bloomberg? ROTFLMAO.
@retire05, #37:
Those are facts first, and talking points second. A fact doesn’t become any less a fact, just because democrats have decided it’s something particularly worthy of mention.
I mean, just because the far right talking point list is total bullsh-t doesn’t mean everyone else’s is, too.
Maybe you could resolve the ROTFLMAO problem by laying off the nitrous oxide.
@Greg:
Well, obviously the Huffington Post is not buying into the whole “Republicans cranking out scandals” meme since they are demanding Eric Holder resign. Petty tough for a Democrat when they lose Huffington Post.
You seem to know a lot about nitrous oxide, Greggie. Is that what is wrong with your brain? I knew that no one could be that naturally stupid as you are, buying into every lie put out by the DNC.
@Greg: I see, lower the standard first and then brag about it when you get somewhat close to the previous standard. Obama will need something close to balanced budgets the rest of his term to get even with the last 4 presidents. And the average unemployment rate under him is a whole other story. I realize this isn’t Mother Jones, the Daily Kos or some other “reputable” source.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesglassman/2012/07/11/the-facts-about-budget-deficits-how-the-presidents-truly-rank/
@another vet, #42:
That statement is ludicrous. Averaging the yearly ratios totally obscures what matters most—the percentage by which the total national debt changes over the course of a given presidency, and how that compares with other presidencies. You can’t average yearly deficit-to-GDP ratios and then honestly equate the result with an overall percentage of increase, which is actually what everyone is thinking about.
Applying Glassman’s methodology leads to the conclusion that the years of George W. Bush’s administration were marked by a degree of fiscal stewardship and restraint greatly surpassing that of either the Ronald Reagan or George H. W. Bush era. I’m not sure we can reconcile that conclusion with the fact that during W’s administration more debt was added than during all preceding presidencies combined, and that the total debt was nearly doubled.
We have admittedly seen another $6 trillion added during the Obama years, but the fact that he walked in on a situation where the economy was already tanking and federal revenues were falling through the floorboards might have had a little something to do with that—not to mention 2 unfunded wars already in progress and millions suddenly out of work, looking to the federal government to keep them from going over the edge.
In any case, what the CBO figures demonstrate is that the rate of spending is slowing more quickly than at any time since the Eisenhower administration. Do we consider that a positive development and a movement in the right direction, or not?
I suspect most people do. That’s why some don’t want to hear about it.
YES he will balance the budget on the back POCKET of the MILITARY VETERANS,
and MILITARY FIGHTING THAT WAR BEING CUT ON THE MOST NEEDED THINGS
affecting their life, threatening their sanity, with despair. and going as far as questioning the CHRISTIANITY OF THE TROOPS, in an UNACCEPTABLE COMMANDING SPEECH.
600 K you receive from the back pocket of the CITIZENS. the VETERANS behind MORE THAN 5 YEARS in receiving their due money, DON”T YOU ALL DEMOCRATS BRAGG ABOUT IT,
because you take 200k to do that fraud, you all should be out of the PEOPLE”S WHITE HOUSE, because you are stealing the PEOPLE which don’t get that kind of money in the public place, why would the elected get so much as more than half for sitting on their ASSES and aiming at destroying AMERICA
and the IRS was order to do the same , take it on the back pocket of the good CONSERVATIVES ORGANIZATION who are struggling to preserve what is still falling behind in AMERICA,
that is the VALUES of AMERICA, the CONSTITUTION, BILL OF RIGHT AND COMMERCE CLAUSE BEING ATTACK CONSTANTLY BY THE LEADER WHO FIND IT to be IN HIS WAY to advance his agenda
OF MARXIST COMMUNIST, and the CONSERVATIVES trying to preserve the FLAG BEING SHOWN PUBLICLY at all time and places, and the CHRISTIANITY of the PEOPLE WHICH STAND IN THE WAY OF THE AGENDA OF THE LEADERS TRYING TO TEACH THE STUDENTS only their decadent views from hell.
and demonize the CONSERVATIVES, even taking over the task to teach under the UNIONS communist
minded leaders, you see the CONSERVATIVES being insulted in school if they try to make a speech to the young afflicted with idiocy transmit by their teachers,
or and the TEA PARTY trying to debrief the young being indoctrinated to hate the CONSERVATIVES,
or and the DEMOCRATES being led to falsify the VOTES in so many way that they go and get them
IN THE WORLD OF DEAD ZOMBIES FROM HELL.
200K for GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES TO DESTROY AMERICA, in these last years ,
IT”S TIME TO SCREEN THE GOVERNMENT AND THROW THE CORRUPT LIARS BUMS OUT.
thank GOD for THE PATRIOTS, and long life to the CONSERVATIVES who won’t go away no matter how much THE OBAMA MACHINE TRY, and THE TEA PARTY are here to stay and more and more are joining those good FAMILIES,
they are coming back to take the DEMOCRATES, next time,
you won’t be able to steal the ELECTION.
@MataHarley: Mata, I have to disagree, speech was very much being repressed. In addition to the 500 groups targeted – that we know of – how many other people who wanted to begin one didn’t do so because they saw the handwriting on the wall and didn’t want to put up with the full body cavity search at the hands of the IRS thugs? The Tea Parties didn’t exist in 2008, which probably why they didn’t have tax exempt status, and in 2010 they were riding a wave of anger and passion that is responsible for the 2010 victories. However, in politics it’s often difficult (and not necessarily productive) to maintain such a high level of fervor. At some point you have to begin looking at what it takes to carry a message forward to the country beyond the core acolytes, i.e. the larger public. That takes organization and yes, money. Lots of it. Which is exactly what the IRS was stifling… the money to bring the message to the larger public via television, radio, flyers and other forms of media in an attempt to offset the biased message being put out by the MSM. You stop the flow of money – and be certain – tax exempt status is a big deal. For a donor who is looking to donate $2,500, if they can donate the money to one group with no tax benefits and to a different group’s and it is, which do you think they will pick?
As for intimidation… I don’t know if you clicked on the piece about Gibson Guitars… and then there is the Koch brothers as well as the targeting and releasing of IRS data of Romney donors. That is intimidation plain and simple.
Barack Obama used his troops in the IRS to steal the election. This is in no way however to take the blame off the shoulders of Mitt Romney. He ran a terrible campaign and it should never have been close enough so that the actions of the IRS could have had an impact. He should have won in a cakewalk but he refused to carry the conservative message forcefully and he refused to focus on Benghazi. Lots of conservatives stayed home because he was simply a poor, middling candidate. While Obama may have stolen the election, the loss sits squarely on the shoulders of Mittens and the GOP.
Vince
good POST as you can see the RESPONSE,
I too have to disagree on MITT ROMNEY not doing what it took,
you forgot the slaughtering of the CANDIDATES before as they presented their AGENDA,
you forgot the snake underneath the ground attacks from the DEMOCRATS hypocrites,
you forgot the votes coming from the DEAD in hell.
MITT ROMNEY DID THE BEST HE COULD to face the DEVIL,
he had too much class to descend to his level,
his upbrigning did not allowed it.
he gave his message and explain his SKILLS perfectly he had the GOVERNORS WITH HIM,
but he was against the UNIONS and the idiots under the transe of indoctrination from 4 years of work from the TEACHERS and the 47% getting houses and phone and gas from OBAMA minions.
hell we just found out he had the IRS working against him tormenting the CONSERVATIVES,
he could not never imagine that he was to fight the DEVIL himself,
all he wanted is being a tool to bring the wealth in AMERICA aiming at JOB RECOVERY
and he had the ability to do a good job , because he was a man who was TRUSTED by the MONEY MAKERS they where ready for him like an ARMY OF WEALTHY to create jobs for all the workers for generation to come, and bring AMERICA back on her STATURE of WORLD SUPERIORITY,
but MITT ROMNEY was too much a rightfulness person to be able to conquer the BEAST.
it would have took the ANGELS TO DO THE JOBS and prepare the path clean.
you forgot that he was a father of a big family which bring serious thoughts to see them mix with the OPONANTS
advance AGENDA already,
he could have put his family in danger if he would have,
gone as far as needed, and would have had to destroy the UNIONS from the school all of them would have needed a total DEBRIEFING from the now curiculum which is pure indoctrination related closely to the HITLER WAY OF TAKING THE YOUTH WITH CANDY FIRST AND SPEECHS .
51% ? DARK MARK? of corruption against the rest which
is LIGHT and DECENCY and righteous,
plus SUPERIOR INTELLIGENCE.
the GOP AND MITT ROMNEY DID NOT LOOSE THE ELECTION,
IT”S THE DEMOCRATS who lost, just look at now the desintegration of his party on the way
@Greg: As of next month the recession will have been over with for 4 years. That means out of Obama’s 52 months in office, only 5 months or 10% of it, was spent in a recession. Both the deficits and average unemployment rates under this recovery are higher than what they were during the recession. You can go to the government web sites and figure it out on your own. I’ve posted the unemployment numbers here before last year. The only reason we didn’t double dip was because the fed started putting more money into the economy which presents another set of issues. Remember when they did that right before the election? The economy is not standing on its own. Before you get too giddy, remember we haven’t seen the full effects of Obamacare either.
Having been hit hard like most Americans during the last 4-5 years, I’ll take any good news. But I’m not exactly going to be running around declaring everything is all fine and dandy especially considering the millions who have given up looking for work which you don’t seem to care too much about since those numbers don’t make Obama look good as well as the increase in the number of people getting government assistance. Neither are good indicators of a healthy economy. If you think they are, I’d be interested in hearing your reasoning. You can downplay Obama’s deficits all you want and blame everyone and everything else, but the fact remains he went on a massive spending spree and has now burdened future generations with even more debt just like his predecessors. My biggest complaint about Bush were the deficits. Obama’s are far worse so likewise I blame him for his. I’m not a hypocrite. How about yourself? Do you blame Obama for his deficits or just Bush for his?
http://www.skymachines.com/US-National-Debt-Per-Capita-Percent-of-GDP-and-by-Presidental-Term.htm
http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000
I stand corrected, thank you. The first local Tea Party protests were in late January 2009, and the first national protests were in February 2009… altho the Chicago Tea Party registered in August of 2008. I’ll get to your follow ups in a minute. Their inception was rising up against government bailouts using tax payer cash, which is why my brain raced to 2008… when that happened first.
Vince, you need to think about what you are saying. The public… i.e. those “other people” you say are in fear of starting an organization in your parallel universe argument… did not learn of the IRS scandal until late April/early May of 2013. So what handwriting on the wall did people see that prevented them from starting a non profit, political PAC type organization in time for the midterms (a TP success) and 2012 (a Romney failure)?
And why should it be a burning need that they have to have a tax exemption to start such an organization? The obvious answer to that won’t sit well with you. It’s because non-profits are big business and can be more than lucrative with both money and fame for the few at the top.
Again, I suggest that it’s hypocritical for a group that wants to have fiscal sanity, stop the teat sucking, and reform the tax code, to be incensed they were held up in getting their own suckle. Why does this irony go over the heads of so many?
First, let’s address these donors who you think won’t be giving money to the Tea Party without their non profit status.. and yet they did, didn’t they? Now you’re citing all the money you think they lost by imaginary supporters who wouldn’t donate because they, themselves didn’t get a tax break?
A 501(c)(3) is the IRS designation of a “charity”. Those donations are tax deductible for an individual tax return. It’s going to take quite the spin for anyone to convince me, or the IRS for that matter, that a political PAC is anything that resembles a genuine “charity”.
A 501(c)(4) is designation for an organization that is operated “exclusively for the promotion of social welfare.” While you might be able to fit political activity into social welfare (the status most of these organizations use), current tax code does not allow for donor tax deductions to 501(c)(4) organizations. So that’s a dead argument.
The ones who wanted that non profit status the most were the TPs themselves, in order to avoid paying any federal taxation on their activities. I repeat, see my comment about the irony of that above, as well as how lucrative a business it is for the non profit heads.
Citizens United was a result of McCain’s campaign reform. While it may have had the lofty goal of not inhibiting how much money citizens should be able to give candidates legally, it’s implementation created a new monster.. the SuperPac. The point is, if you believe in fiscal sanity, tax code reform – not to mention not allowing vast amounts of cash to buy elections – it’s absurd to give any of these groups.. left or right… tax havens.
Becoming part of the political game/beltway money machine as a non profit PACs is just as big money as career politics… and subject to just as much corruption.
Was it wrong for the IRS to apply the law unequally based on political beliefs? You betcha… and even the left media and elected ones agree with the same. There is the common ground. Stick with that and enjoy good will. Leave that with with extra hyperbole such as imaginary people, not wanting “to put up with the full body cavity search at the hands of the IRS thugs” and destroy the power you can have for reform. Get serious… this wasn’t “full body cavity searches”. It was asking questions of an organization, counter to Citizens United law, about donors and delaying a status where they could get federal tax credit perks.
In the meantime, these organizations spoke loud and clear, raked in the dough, and functioned quite well in the free speech department. Donations rolled in… all without some non existent tax credit for their donors’ individual returns. That’s because they believed in the organization’s message.. not the tax deduction.
Elections were lost not because the TP didn’t have enough money… it was because the candidates were weak. Witness Bachmann… who’s got problems of her own with how her money was (and wasn’t) spent. She pulled in four times the money of her opponent in MN, spent more than four times what he did, yet barely eke’d by with a win. I daresay that with equal funds and spending, she would have lost her seat in 2012. Now she’s retiring… probably a cheaper avenue for her to take.
As I said, I’m more confused why everyone wants the political PACs to get any tax breaks. Do you all want tax code reform or not? Do you think these organizations are the equivalent of a church charity, sheltering and feeding the homeless? Or charities that fund medical services for children? I sure don’t… let them pay federal taxes. It’s big business for them, just as elections are big business for career politicians.
INRE some other stuff… The Gibson Guitar saga isn’t a new story. No one is defending the IRS here, Vince. Definitely not me. Not even the left is defending the IRS, so I’m not sure what direction you’re attempting to go here.
My point is that the right looks like complete loons and hypocrites when they waste a perfectly good moment to unite the country behind a common goal against big government. Instead they choose to play “gotcha” with Obama, whine about “stolen elections”, while emoting as the hapless and helpless victims who had their mouths supposedly duct taped shut for years. That’s just not the way it is.
I swear, the modern conservative movement can get a vessel adrift, despite more wind in their sails than ever before, and all because they are focused on revenge instead of a genuine and united reform.
@MataHarley:
I can see Vince’s point on the freedom of speech issue. Not really with the 501c3 stuff, but in general. This administration has strong armed a lot of companies and groups. Gibson Guitars springs to mind. Insurance companies paraded before congress and threatened. Sebelius threatening insurance companies…..the list is long and distinguished. Anyone speaking out against this administration seems to get audited or raided. Honestly, I wonder if this is how liberals feel when a republican is in the White House. And if so, I think it just goes to show that we all have given these idiots too damn much power.
Aqua, if the media coverage is indicative, as well as the shared outrage of IRS policies by Dem elected ones themselves, then liberals share conservative distaste and caution of the IRS. It is an agency that has been used by previous administrations for targeting those for political beliefs, including liberals in the past. And yet it is an agency that was empowered by Congress themselves. And that’s a big problem of mine… Congress sets up generic legislation, and then left civil employees over various agencies to construct the regulations and rules, as well as enforcement of that legislation. Drives me crazy, this delegation of so much power to a government that is so bloated, it’s impossible to conduct effective oversight.
Jonathan Turley addressed this extraordinary rise to power by a 4th branch of power in an article just this past week. Naturally, because Turley is a left leaning type of attorney, it was received with scoffing by the conservative readers, letting their partisan attitude (i.e. it was an “excuse” for a cover up) cloud the actual message… that the power of 2,840,000 federal workers in 15 departments, 69 agencies and 383 nonmilitary sub-agencies, has put the balance of power dangerously off kilter.
But you can’t compare Gibson Guitars to the TPs. Gibson came under investigation for allegedly running afoul of Indian import laws for the wood they use in the bodies of their instruments. i.e., they did not willingly seek out the wary investigative eye of the IRS.
The TPs did exactly the opposite. If you are going to apply for federal tax benefits, you have to willingly open yourself up to scrutiny. I don’t think there is disagreement that they should be scrutinized. Only that the scrutiny applied was unequal, and deliberately delayed. And both sides of the aisle are PO’ed about that one. It’s a moment to that should be worked to the GOPs advantage, and not be led off path from the quest… reigning in over empowered government.
However their free speech was not curtailed. They asked for the scrutiny, and when you do that with the IRS – proven time and time again over history – you always risk intimidation. However they did continue to exercise their free speech for the duration of the application’s review. It seems that most are just mad that they didn’t have the extra funds they wouldn’t have been paying the federal governments in taxes.
Aqua
yes it’s the UNION”S thug mentality, and OBAMA WAS IN IT before and now he still act like a thug,
in his speechs, like ; VOTE FOR REVENGE, the young are scare of him, he make them believe they think he is GOD and can stop the ripple in the OCEAN.
and anyone that express his own thoughts get a reprimande,
they must think like the teacher tell them or they get bad notes,
it’s savage of them, they teach like in AFRICA,
they overlook that those children are from AMERICAN ROOTTS AND SMART but kept silent and must no show their smart, because it offend the idiots.
so THE YOUNG AMERICANS ARE BEING CHOKED UP AND GIVE UP LEARNING AND THINKING, that is a tragic generation of youngs who are choking inside, and can’t take it anymore,
they will do erratic actions just to liberate their inner explosif stuck inside their being,