I work in government, and if the politics here is any indication of the system as a whole, I can tell you that the bureaucracy is extremely well set up to spread or shift blame. No one is responsible for anything other than their little piece of work, which is dependent on someone else's work. If you screw up, it's always the fault of 10+ other people that either didn't provide you the information in time, or didn't provide the correct information. "It's not my job" is the rule around here. So, with years of practice of shifting and diverting blame for things, I seriously doubt anyone will be finger as having sole responsibility. The most you could get out of a situation like that is someone at the top stepping down for whatever reason, even if they themselves had nothing to do with it either (though you could blame them for having a lack of oversight, as mentioned, it's impossible to see who did what here).
Again, I'd just note that this is currently a criminal investigation. That says a lot. That means it's already moved out of the "business as usual" category.
Topic: IRS APOLOGIZES FOR TARGETING CONSERVATIVE GROUPS - page 3. (Read 2747 times)
10 of 12 IRS offices implicated in scandal are in Washington.
The Treasury Inspector General's damaging report on the IRS-Tea Party scandal has destroyed the administration's claim that low-level workers in a Cincinnati, Ohio office are to blame, revealing that 10 of 12 agency offices referenced in the affair are in Washington.
The report repeatedly references actions taken by the Washington-based Exempt Organizations unit and guidance specialists also in Washington. What's more, the report was researched in the Exempt Organizations offices and the Cincinnati-based Determinations Units, which has received the blame for targeting Tea Party groups.
The audit, for example, probes into how the Cincinnati-based Determinations Unit developed its plan to pay attention to groups with the words "Tea Party," "Patriot," and other phrases used by anti-Obama groups during the 2010 election.
Washington-based offices denied involvement, but did change the "criteria" for groups to target in July 2011. Instead of looking for "Tea Party" groups seeking tax exempt status to investigate, the criteria was broadened to "political, lobbying or [general] advocacy."
However, "the team of specialists subsequently changed the criteria in January 2012" back, apparently without telling their bosses. "Specialists" are both Washington- and Ohio- based.
Popular talk radio host Mark Levin, one of the first to post the IG report online, suggested that the House committees investigating the scandal use the IG's "High-Level Organization Chart of Offices Referenced in this Report" on page 29 in picking who should testify. He suggested that the heads of all 12 be called to testify.
http://washingtonexaminer.com/10-of-12-irs-offices-implicated-in-scandal-are-in-washington/article/2529725
The Treasury Inspector General's damaging report on the IRS-Tea Party scandal has destroyed the administration's claim that low-level workers in a Cincinnati, Ohio office are to blame, revealing that 10 of 12 agency offices referenced in the affair are in Washington.
The report repeatedly references actions taken by the Washington-based Exempt Organizations unit and guidance specialists also in Washington. What's more, the report was researched in the Exempt Organizations offices and the Cincinnati-based Determinations Units, which has received the blame for targeting Tea Party groups.
The audit, for example, probes into how the Cincinnati-based Determinations Unit developed its plan to pay attention to groups with the words "Tea Party," "Patriot," and other phrases used by anti-Obama groups during the 2010 election.
Washington-based offices denied involvement, but did change the "criteria" for groups to target in July 2011. Instead of looking for "Tea Party" groups seeking tax exempt status to investigate, the criteria was broadened to "political, lobbying or [general] advocacy."
However, "the team of specialists subsequently changed the criteria in January 2012" back, apparently without telling their bosses. "Specialists" are both Washington- and Ohio- based.
Popular talk radio host Mark Levin, one of the first to post the IG report online, suggested that the House committees investigating the scandal use the IG's "High-Level Organization Chart of Offices Referenced in this Report" on page 29 in picking who should testify. He suggested that the heads of all 12 be called to testify.
http://washingtonexaminer.com/10-of-12-irs-offices-implicated-in-scandal-are-in-washington/article/2529725
I work in government, and if the politics here is any indication of the system as a whole, I can tell you that the bureaucracy is extremely well set up to spread or shift blame. No one is responsible for anything other than their little piece of work, which is dependent on someone else's work. If you screw up, it's always the fault of 10+ other people that either didn't provide you the information in time, or didn't provide the correct information. "It's not my job" is the rule around here. So, with years of practice of shifting and diverting blame for things, I seriously doubt anyone will be finger as having sole responsibility. The most you could get out of a situation like that is someone at the top stepping down for whatever reason, even if they themselves had nothing to do with it either (though you could blame them for having a lack of oversight, as mentioned, it's impossible to see who did what here).
I remember on one of the "let's talk bitcoin" soundcloud episode that http://www.fr33aid.com/ was mentionned. I do not remember all the details but they started to accept bitcoin because the IRS was making it very difficult if not impossible for them to "regulate" their financial situation based on what they wanted to create. Could fr33aid be one of the targeted victims of that tyranny?
The number keeps growing (around 500 groups). Obama's brother charity based on the president's name by the way went through in a couple of days... http://dailycaller.com/2013/05/14/irs-official-lerner-approved-exemption-for-obama-brothers-charity/
"The IRS targeting of conservative groups is far broader than first reported, with nearly 500 organizations singled out for additional scrutiny, according to two lawmakers briefed by the agency. IRS officials claimed on Friday that roughly 300 groups received additional scrutiny. Reps. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., and Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, said Tuesday that the number has actually risen to 471. Further, they said it is "unclear" whether Tea Party and other conservative groups are being targeted to this day.
We have an answer to that question now, too. Here's Carol again, quoting the cover letter from the IG's findings, dated yesterday: "A substantial number of applications have been under review, some for more than three years and through two election cycles, and remain open." Lest you even ask, nobody involved in this scheme has been disciplined (yet); just the opposite, in fact:
John King ✔ @JohnKingCNN
from #IRS briefing to Hill: no employees involved in inappropriate scrutiny of conservative groups disciplined, one was promoted."
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2013/05/15/reports-irs-spared-liberal-groups-as-tea-party-languished-more-conservative-orgs-targeted-than-first-thought-n1596864
The number keeps growing (around 500 groups). Obama's brother charity based on the president's name by the way went through in a couple of days... http://dailycaller.com/2013/05/14/irs-official-lerner-approved-exemption-for-obama-brothers-charity/
"The IRS targeting of conservative groups is far broader than first reported, with nearly 500 organizations singled out for additional scrutiny, according to two lawmakers briefed by the agency. IRS officials claimed on Friday that roughly 300 groups received additional scrutiny. Reps. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., and Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, said Tuesday that the number has actually risen to 471. Further, they said it is "unclear" whether Tea Party and other conservative groups are being targeted to this day.
We have an answer to that question now, too. Here's Carol again, quoting the cover letter from the IG's findings, dated yesterday: "A substantial number of applications have been under review, some for more than three years and through two election cycles, and remain open." Lest you even ask, nobody involved in this scheme has been disciplined (yet); just the opposite, in fact:
John King ✔ @JohnKingCNN
from #IRS briefing to Hill: no employees involved in inappropriate scrutiny of conservative groups disciplined, one was promoted."
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2013/05/15/reports-irs-spared-liberal-groups-as-tea-party-languished-more-conservative-orgs-targeted-than-first-thought-n1596864
I'd agree that all the inclinations from the left and liberal progressives would be to act indignant for a while, then let it be forgot, while if it were a Republican or conservative politician or public figure who had done something wrong, then for the very slightest or alleged wrong, the exact reverse would be done.
I don't have much love for democrats or republicans. I'm a libertarian AnCap. Your claim that if it were a republican or conservative politician has been thoroughly disproven during the Bush years. How many people went to jail for torture? For illegal phone wiretapping? I would actually claim the opposite, that Democrats get scrutinized WAY more than Republicans, for the simple fact that, while left-leaning news organizations at least attempt to show themselves as balanced, Republicans have practically all of radio and a well established news organization that blatantly and proudly parades itself as a part of the Republican party. Just based on the number of people screaming at each other in public, the number screaming at Democrats is higher. And neither party shies away from doing illegal things to undermine their opponents, or from trying to take away personal liberties, and neither party is interested in jailing their own.
Of course continuing a barrage of insinuation that the tea party members were lower than dirt, stupid and ignorant and so forth would assist in this methodology.
There is only one group of people I really dislike, and that's conservatives. I mean that by the actual definition of the word, not as a political label. Religious nutcases, communists, status-quo democrats, fundamentalists, social-issues Republicans, and yes, Tea Party. Fuck all those people. I know there's that "first they came for..." , and freedom of speech thing though, but it's hard to defend the freedom of those assholes, when their purpose is to deny everyone else freedom.
Ok with me, as I fall into the 'fiscal conservative' category and don't have a lot of interest in most social issues. But the use of the term 'conservative' as used today with respect to the IRS targeting of groups is certainly not aligned with your personal definition.
Of course. Someone at the IRS had a personal vendetta against groups they saw as being far-right and opposing their personal political beliefs. I would be against those groups as well, as I see them as being nothing more than fascists. I doubt that whoever was doing it was concerned about the underlying fascism, though, and was probably doing it for much simpler political reasons (e.g. "they are not my party, thus they are the enemy").
My personal definition of "conservative" is one who resists change and wishes to "conserve" things as they are. "Fiscal conservative" is a well established colloquial term, but it also likely doesn't apply to us in a dictionary definition sense, since preserving the current monetary and financial systems is as far from what we wish to accomplish as you could get.
P.S. Sorry for messing up the quote earlier, making it hard to read who said what. Hope this split clears it up for future readers.
I'd agree that all the inclinations from the left and liberal progressives would be to act indignant for a while, then let it be forgot, while if it were a Republican or conservative politician or public figure who had done something wrong, then for the very slightest or alleged wrong, the exact reverse would be done.
I don't have much love for democrats or republicans. I'm a libertarian AnCap. Your claim that if it were a republican or conservative politician has been thoroughly disproven during the Bush years. How many people went to jail for torture? For illegal phone wiretapping? I would actually claim the opposite, that Democrats get scrutinized WAY more than Republicans, for the simple fact that, while left-leaning news organizations at least attempt to show themselves as balanced, Republicans have practically all of radio and a well established news organization that blatantly and proudly parades itself as a part of the Republican party. Just based on the number of people screaming at each other in public, the number screaming at Democrats is higher. And neither party shies away from doing illegal things to undermine their opponents, or from trying to take away personal liberties, and neither party is interested in jailing their own.
Of course continuing a barrage of insinuation that the tea party members were lower than dirt, stupid and ignorant and so forth would assist in this methodology.
There is only one group of people I really dislike, and that's conservatives. I mean that by the actual definition of the word, not as a political label. Religious nutcases, communists, status-quo democrats, fundamentalists, social-issues Republicans, and yes, Tea Party. Fuck all those people. I know there's that "first they came for..." , and freedom of speech thing though, but it's hard to defend the freedom of those assholes, when their purpose is to deny everyone else freedom.
Ok with me, as I fall into the 'fiscal conservative' category and don't have a lot of interest in most social issues. But the use of the term 'conservative' as used today with respect to the IRS targeting of groups is certainly not aligned with your personal definition.
Goddam that was hard to parse.
I'd agree that all the inclinations from the left and liberal progressives would be to act indignant for a while, then let it be forgot, while if it were a Republican or conservative politician or public figure who had done something wrong, then for the very slightest or alleged wrong, the exact reverse would be done.
There is only one group of people I really dislike, and that's conservatives. I mean that by the actual definition of the word, not as a political label. Religious nutcases, communists, status-quo democrats, fundamentalists, social-issues Republicans, and yes, Tea Party. Fuck all those people. I know there's that "first they came for..." , and freedom of speech thing though, but it's hard to defend the freedom of those assholes, when their purpose is to deny everyone else freedom.
Of course continuing a barrage of insinuation that the tea party members were lower than dirt, stupid and ignorant and so forth would assist in this methodology.
There is only one group of people I really dislike, and that's conservatives. I mean that by the actual definition of the word, not as a political label. Religious nutcases, communists, status-quo democrats, fundamentalists, social-issues Republicans, and yes, Tea Party. Fuck all those people. I know there's that "first they came for..." , and freedom of speech thing though, but it's hard to defend the freedom of those assholes, when their purpose is to deny everyone else freedom.
Ok with me, as I fall into the 'fiscal conservative' category and don't have a lot of interest in most social issues. But the use of the term 'conservative' as used today with respect to the IRS targeting of groups is certainly not aligned with your personal definition.
I'd agree that all the inclinations from the left and liberal progressives would be to act indignant for a while, then let it be forgot, while if it were a Republican or conservative politician or public figure who had done something wrong, then for the very slightest or alleged wrong, the exact reverse would be done.
I don't have much love for democrats or republicans. I'm a libertarian AnCap. Your claim that if it were a republican or conservative politician has been thoroughly disproven during the Bush years. How many people went to jail for torture? For illegal phone wiretapping? I would actually claim the opposite, that Democrats get scrutinized WAY more than Republicans, for the simple fact that, while left-leaning news organizations at least attempt to show themselves as balanced, Republicans have practically all of radio and a well established news organization that blatantly and proudly parades itself as a part of the Republican party. Just based on the number of people screaming at each other in public, the number screaming at Democrats is higher. And neither party shies away from doing illegal things to undermine their opponents, or from trying to take away personal liberties, and neither party is interested in jailing their own.
Of course continuing a barrage of insinuation that the tea party members were lower than dirt, stupid and ignorant and so forth would assist in this methodology.
There is only one group of people I really dislike, and that's conservatives. I mean that by the actual definition of the word, not as a political label. Religious nutcases, communists, status-quo democrats, fundamentalists, social-issues Republicans, and yes, Tea Party. Fuck all those people. I know there's that "first they came for..." , and freedom of speech thing though, but it's hard to defend the freedom of those assholes, when their purpose is to deny everyone else freedom.
If valid criminal charges exist, it'd be a very easy matter for a corrupt administration to pick out some low and middle level personnel as scapegoats. Problem is some might start singing like canaries.
Too much hassle and paperwork. Easier to just "investigate" it until people forget. Last time I remember someone going to jail, it was Scooter Libby, and that guy did some really bad stuff. No way anyone will be sent to jail for this. No way this problem will be fixed and never happen again, either.
Of course continuing a barrage of insinuation that the tea party members were lower than dirt, stupid and ignorant and so forth would assist in this methodology. The details and operational methods can be found at mediamatters.com, and the talking points are also easy to find. Feel free to ask if you need help in finding any of these.
If valid criminal charges exist, it'd be a very easy matter for a corrupt administration to pick out some low and middle level personnel as scapegoats. Problem is some might start singing like canaries.
Too much hassle and paperwork. Easier to just "investigate" it until people forget. Last time I remember someone going to jail, it was Scooter Libby, and that guy did some really bad stuff. No way anyone will be sent to jail for this. No way this problem will be fixed and never happen again, either.
What is at issue is whether IRS personnel face jail time.
Got it now?
Jail.
Got it now?
Jail.
Lol, yeah, we both know that's not happening
No, I don't know that. If valid criminal charges exist, it'd be a very easy matter for a corrupt administration to pick out some low and middle level personnel as scapegoats. Problem is some might start singing like canaries.
And the IRS - those are the goons that people would entrust with their medical datasets.
Wait....now who are the fascists?
What is at issue is whether IRS personnel face jail time.
Got it now?
Jail.
Got it now?
Jail.
Lol, yeah, we both know that's not happening
Got some more info on this today. It's apparently for their 501c (?) SuperPac status. Basically those groups we've all been hearing about that allow unlimited anonymous political donations, using a tax group organization that was set up as "service the social welfare." They get away with it by claiming that their "concern" ads that attack opposing politicians are just to "increase awareness of an issue that may adversely affect general welfare." It's basically bullshit that needs to stop, and need to stop on both sides. Yes, it's unfair that it was done more to the right-wing nuts than to left-wing nuts. And yeah, I'm kinda conflicted about it, since with Bitcoin you'd be able to do unlimited political donations and advertising, anyway.
Though I do have some schadenfreude about a fascist theocratic party getting shafted.
Though I do have some schadenfreude about a fascist theocratic party getting shafted.
Well, you have it about half right. To get it completely right, take off the ideological filters for a second. You don't need to discuss the character of the groups that were targeted.
Slander them some other time and place. No, nobody cares if you think it was fair or unfair.
What is at issue is whether IRS personnel face jail time.
Got it now?
Jail.
Conversely, there's a term for those who might NOT think the IRS behavior was problematic.
Fascist.
LOL....but I use the term properly.
Got some more info on this today. It's apparently for their 501c (?) SuperPac status. Basically those groups we've all been hearing about that allow unlimited anonymous political donations, using a tax group organization that was set up as "service the social welfare." They get away with it by claiming that their "concern" ads that attack opposing politicians are just to "increase awareness of an issue that may adversely affect general welfare." It's basically bullshit that needs to stop, and need to stop on both sides. Yes, it's unfair that it was done more to the right-wing nuts than to left-wing nuts. And yeah, I'm kinda conflicted about it, since with Bitcoin you'd be able to do unlimited political donations and advertising, anyway.
Though I do have some schadenfreude about a fascist theocratic party getting shafted.
Though I do have some schadenfreude about a fascist theocratic party getting shafted.
The thing is, when the machine is up and running when and to what point do you stop it? As long as it targets the people you oppose it is all fun and game maybe. Remember the Patriot Act? that was evil back then. Now since 110% of it is still running (10% above now, thanks to the AP phone taps scandal) not so much.
More examples beyond the Tea Party people?
IRS tells pro-life ministry to promote abortion:
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/05/irs-tells-pro-life-ministry-to-promote-abortion/#jAufHjDGJgoEqYuh.99
IRS targeted news anchor after Obama interview:
http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2013/05/kmov-anchor-the-irs-is-targeting-me-163945.html
Got some more info on this today. It's apparently for their 501c (?) SuperPac status. Basically those groups we've all been hearing about that allow unlimited anonymous political donations, using a tax group organization that was set up as "service the social welfare." They get away with it by claiming that their "concern" ads that attack opposing politicians are just to "increase awareness of an issue that may adversely affect general welfare." It's basically bullshit that needs to stop, and need to stop on both sides. Yes, it's unfair that it was done more to the right-wing nuts than to left-wing nuts. And yeah, I'm kinda conflicted about it, since with Bitcoin you'd be able to do unlimited political donations and advertising, anyway.
Though I do have some schadenfreude about a fascist theocratic party getting shafted.
Though I do have some schadenfreude about a fascist theocratic party getting shafted.
I have ny sympathy for religious nutcases, even if they call themselves Tea Party.
Though I'm wondering, why are getting tax exempt? Can we get tax exempt status too please?
Also, it would probably be in Democrats' best interests to help the Tea Party as much as possible. They divide republican voters quite well, allowing Democrats to win more seats. Hell, some Democratic politicians actually admitted to funding local Tea Party candidates, just because they are so loony that beating them in elections is easier. So I doubt this is an order that came from above.
Ah...Though I'm wondering, why are getting tax exempt? Can we get tax exempt status too please?
Also, it would probably be in Democrats' best interests to help the Tea Party as much as possible. They divide republican voters quite well, allowing Democrats to win more seats. Hell, some Democratic politicians actually admitted to funding local Tea Party candidates, just because they are so loony that beating them in elections is easier. So I doubt this is an order that came from above.
You might want to dig into it a bit further. This is roughly equivalent to say, Bush having the founders of MoveOn.org, Thinkprogress, and TPM audited by the IRS, and forcing them to disclose their donor lists, right before an election.
Wait....you wouldn't have stood for that from Bush? No kidding?
http://c0391070.cdn2.cloudfiles.rackspacecloud.com/pdf/irs-questions-aclj-tea-party-clients.pdf
No, I'm upset about them having tax exempt status. I want one too
Why? Why support in any sense political operatives making it virtually impossible for their opponents to get tax exempt status for their organizations?
If I understand correctly many of these groups are STILL WAITING for their applications to be approved or rejected.
Alan P. Dye, a nonprofit attorney with the Washington, D.C. firm of Webster, Chamberlain & Bean, told MailOnline that he represents six tea party groups that have been waiting for periods of up to 30 months for the IRS to issue rulings.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2323978/Revealed-The-55-questions-IRS-asked-tea-party-group-years-waiting--including-demands-names-donors-volunteers.html#ixzz2TGf1lhOI
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
You do have tax exempt status! Just don't tell anyone you have Bitcoins
I have ny sympathy for religious nutcases, even if they call themselves Tea Party.
Though I'm wondering, why are getting tax exempt? Can we get tax exempt status too please?
Also, it would probably be in Democrats' best interests to help the Tea Party as much as possible. They divide republican voters quite well, allowing Democrats to win more seats. Hell, some Democratic politicians actually admitted to funding local Tea Party candidates, just because they are so loony that beating them in elections is easier. So I doubt this is an order that came from above.
Ah...Though I'm wondering, why are getting tax exempt? Can we get tax exempt status too please?
Also, it would probably be in Democrats' best interests to help the Tea Party as much as possible. They divide republican voters quite well, allowing Democrats to win more seats. Hell, some Democratic politicians actually admitted to funding local Tea Party candidates, just because they are so loony that beating them in elections is easier. So I doubt this is an order that came from above.
You might want to dig into it a bit further. This is roughly equivalent to say, Bush having the founders of MoveOn.org, Thinkprogress, and TPM audited by the IRS, and forcing them to disclose their donor lists, right before an election.
Wait....you wouldn't have stood for that from Bush? No kidding?
http://c0391070.cdn2.cloudfiles.rackspacecloud.com/pdf/irs-questions-aclj-tea-party-clients.pdf
No, I'm upset about them having tax exempt status. I want one too
I have ny sympathy for religious nutcases, even if they call themselves Tea Party.
Though I'm wondering, why are getting tax exempt? Can we get tax exempt status too please?
Also, it would probably be in Democrats' best interests to help the Tea Party as much as possible. They divide republican voters quite well, allowing Democrats to win more seats. Hell, some Democratic politicians actually admitted to funding local Tea Party candidates, just because they are so loony that beating them in elections is easier. So I doubt this is an order that came from above.
Ah...Though I'm wondering, why are getting tax exempt? Can we get tax exempt status too please?
Also, it would probably be in Democrats' best interests to help the Tea Party as much as possible. They divide republican voters quite well, allowing Democrats to win more seats. Hell, some Democratic politicians actually admitted to funding local Tea Party candidates, just because they are so loony that beating them in elections is easier. So I doubt this is an order that came from above.
You might want to dig into it a bit further. This is roughly equivalent to say, Bush having the founders of MoveOn.org, Thinkprogress, and TPM audited by the IRS, and forcing them to disclose their donor lists, right before an election.
Wait....you wouldn't have stood for that from Bush? No kidding?
http://c0391070.cdn2.cloudfiles.rackspacecloud.com/pdf/irs-questions-aclj-tea-party-clients.pdf
I have ny sympathy for religious nutcases, even if they call themselves Tea Party.
Though I'm wondering, why are getting tax exempt? Can we get tax exempt status too please?
Also, it would probably be in Democrats' best interests to help the Tea Party as much as possible. They divide republican voters quite well, allowing Democrats to win more seats. Hell, some Democratic politicians actually admitted to funding local Tea Party candidates, just because they are so loony that beating them in elections is easier. So I doubt this is an order that came from above.
Though I'm wondering, why are getting tax exempt? Can we get tax exempt status too please?
Also, it would probably be in Democrats' best interests to help the Tea Party as much as possible. They divide republican voters quite well, allowing Democrats to win more seats. Hell, some Democratic politicians actually admitted to funding local Tea Party candidates, just because they are so loony that beating them in elections is easier. So I doubt this is an order that came from above.
Jump to: