Or, alternatively, they derived from less formal sources that if Ms Lerner were to testify in complete candor, they would have pretty much what they already have, what tennis players call “love”. And that pursuing the issue would only make them look desperate. More desperate, excuse.
Before, the “Hon.” Mr. Issa was all over the media, running his mouth about the *huge! * bombshell he was just about to drop, offering tantalizing hints and peeks as previews.
Of late, he seems to have slammed shut his pie induction orifice. How very odd.
This could very well all be incompetence, but even then it’s politically motivated incompetence. They’d still have to explain where all this new vigilance came from, when for decades the IRS had allowed organizations to claim tax exempt status when it was mostly liberal organizations doing it.
Citizens United opened the way to a lot of right wing money, and all of a sudden, an IRS filled with Democratic donors decides that they need to be really vigilant. There’s no getting around that it was politically motivated, even if it wasn’t necessarily motivated by malice.
Or the incompetence comes from some people advising the newly sprung Tea Party groups that donations can be tax discounted and anonymous so long as they weren’t predominately political. Which they most assuredly are, but they might have been ill advised.
Let me guess. You’re backing for this is the assumption that because many civil servants unions are pro-Democrat, you can sling this out there and get away with it? Seriously?
THe fact that the IRS contains mostly Democratic donors is not exactly hard information to come by. And Wilkins in particular is a bigtime political helper of the Obama team. He even represented Wright’s church when they had a tax issue.
So you’ve got a guy at the counsel’s office who defended a liberal church when that church stepped into politics, but who sought to give Tea Party groups the third degree.
These last few exchanges have finally prompted me to ask a question that’s been nagging at me for a while: have adaher and ELIZA ever been seen together? Because both seem to be generators of pre-programmed responses based on detecting pre-programmed keywords.
(Yes, I know that the foregoing is probably being insulting — though I’ll leave it up to the reader to decide who is the insultee.)
In any case, I’m not insinuating anything; I’m just, y’know . . . asking questions.
Even if we don’t get to the whole truth, legislation is being proposed that will bring some major accountability to the federal bureaucracy in general, not just the IRS:
That’s why it’s all the more important to both shrink the power of bureaucrats and make them as accountable as possible. This week, Representative Lynn Jenkins (R., Kan.) introduced the Citizen Empowerment Act as a step in the right direction. It would allow any citizen to record his meetings and telephone exchanges with federal regulatory officials engaged in enforcement actions, and it would require that citizens be informed of their right to do so. Last year, federal agencies conducted more than 939,000 enforcement actions, including trials. That’s ten times the number of trials or similar actions that were held in federal courts.
It would also help if every rule, every edict, and every decision memo contained the names of the people responsible for its creation and execution. Some members of Congress are already drafting legislation to require this. Some names would be accessible to the general public. Others, such as those on decision memos and other similar documents, would be available to members of Congress, who currently have to pry them out of the executive branch with letters or oversight hearings. As a journalist, I’ve found that bureaucrats absolutely hate having their name attached to anything — they react to sunlight the way Dracula does. It’s time to help them overcome their desire for anonymity by making them responsible for their actions.
Of course, if the names of bureaucrats who do things is going to be on paper, they can’t give the Clinton defense of, “Sure, I my signature is on it, but I didn’t know about it.”
Part of the reform has to be that no one’s signature goes on anything they didn’t physically sign. Underlings should be giving orders using their own signatures.
The investigation is still ongoing, and your link is hilarious: in order to ensure accountability in government, we must investigate the Inspector General! That’s some brilliant satire there.
If both liberal and conservative groups were treated equally, how come progressive applications were all handled at the Cincinnati level, while tea party groups went to the IRS chief counsel’s office to die?
Geez, you guys are still at it? Sure, the IRS made a mistake- in 1959! That’s when they implemented a regulation that contradicted a law. The statute said that these groups had to operate exclusively to benefit the public welfare, but the IRS in 1959 wrote a regulation that changed “exclusively” to “primarily”. So none of these groups should have had their tax-exempt status.
FACT: NONE of the Teabagger groups were denied tax exempt status, although NONE of them should have received it. THAT is the scandal.
None were denied, but many were not approved either.
The real mistake was in letting LBJ carry out a vendetta, and worse yet, inserting the law into an unrelated bill that no one read. The ban on political activity by church and social welfare groups was never passed in an up or down vote with everyone knowing what they were voting on.
Regardless of what the rules are, though, we should all be able to agree that everyone should be treated the same. It’s not just the IRS that treats conservatives and liberals differently. The EPA makes conservative groups pay for reports that they give for free to liberal groups. It’s a very small thing, but it demonstrates that under Obama the government has become biased.
That’s the Rand Paul defense. You’ve offered it for him yourself in GD.