Hat tip Breitbart
Now we get a clue as to why Lois Lerner took the 5th amendment last week before Congress rather than answer questions about the IRS's targeting of conservative groups. It wasn't just "a couple of rogue agents in Cincinnati" who wanted to target the Tea Party and other groups.
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/05/29/IRS-Harassment-of-Conservative-Groups%20Committed-By-Higher-Ups-Outside-Ohio
"Some of the letters are signed by Lois Lerner, the head of the tax-exempt division who pleaded the Fifth Amendment before Congress last week."
"Just the facts, Ma'am."
8 comments:
Behind the charade of righteous political outrage, is the fact that most of the groups that came in for instensive scrutiny were pushing the envelope, if not outside the boundaries, of the kind of political action that, while perfectly legal and constitutionally protected, is NOT entitled to tax exemption.
So for the most part, the IRS was just doing its job. And it just happened that the overwhelming majority of groups that were dubious had themes like Tea Party... sort of like, you know, it just happens that the majority of acts of terrorism in this decade are committed by Muslims.
So it was a bad choice of short cut, but not a big scandal at all. If she'd asked me instead of her weak-kneed spineless attorney, I'd tell her to march into congress and tell them so.
Siarlys,
Can you make the case that the Tea Party is "pushing the envelope"? How many Tea Partiers have been arrested for violence or disorderly conduct? This was a blatant drive to keep them from engaging in voter drives and political expression.
Why would the IRS then not also do its job relative to targeting "liberal" groups which are also "dubious" or "pushing the envelope" but are still tax-exempt?? Can't possibly be that there are none of them, because there are.
Gary has it exactly right.
There is all the difference in the world when you see the actual documents.
A couple of years ago I put in a Freedom of Information request to UCI for the information surrounding Galoway's fund raising event for HAMAS at UCI. All I felt at the onset was that fundraising was not allowed on UCI property. The top security chief of UCI was present. Soon it was clear that Viva Palestinia was a HAMAS front as Galoway was filmed giving the money to HAMAS.
After UCI jacking me around and delaying for months to ridiculous reasons I finally got copies of the actual documents. It turns out that in the application to hold the event, the MSU president, checked the box that the event would NOT be a fund raiser. Further, the security chief, in his report to the Chancellor did not say a WORD about fundraising. In other words, he did not know the university rules.
Eventually UCI held an "investigation" and sent me a letter saying they could find no UCI employee that had done anything wrong.
Had I not seen the documents, I would never had known the extent of UCI's complicity in MSU's success there.
I'm sure the documents in this case will also disclose more than anyone has volunteered so far.
.
Gary: the IRS was not reviewing AN application from THE Tea Party. It was reviewing a profusion of applications from grouplets all over the place that were, in sum total, probably 5% of those Americans who identify with the Tea Party motif, but were engaged in political advocacy, while trying to pose as something more "educational" in nature so that their wealthy backers (about 1% of those Americans who identify with the Tea Party motif) could get big tax deductions.
It had nothing to do with violence or disorderly conduct, which are in the jurisdiction of the Justice Department (or more likely the local police), not the IRS. The IRS only deals with tax code.
elwood: Lots of groups all over the spectrum ARE tax exempt, and many of them certainly do push the envelope. That is one reason I favor ending the entire status of "tax deductible donation." First, pay your taxes. Then, donate to whatever you wish. The IRS will be out of the business of putting its imprimatur on what you do with the money.
But at that point, the wave of new applications included a heavy contingent of this particular brand of unsavory manipulation.
Tax Exempt Primer
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324659404578503330771009700.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
"These categories have different requirements, and a few impose stricter rules if organizations want to claim tax-exempt status. Charitable 501(c)(3) groups, for instance, are barred from partisan campaign activities. That hasn't stopped Media Matters for America, the left-wing agitprop outfit, from claiming 501(c)(3) status for its daily attacks on conservatives."
and
"Viewed in this context, the IRS targeting of conservative 501(c)(4) groups is even MORE scandalous. The organizations were singled out for scrutiny not merely from other 501(c)(4) groups, but from all other groups that spend heavily on politics.
If Democrats are really scandalized that tax-exempt organizations are exploiting a "loophole" to play in politics, they could begin reform by calling for their union allies to stick to their own primary tax-exempt purpose. The Journal reported in July 2012 that organized labor had spent $4.4 billion on politics and lobbying since 2005 alone, much of it funded by union dues (rather than by union political-action committees, which fall under a separate section of the tax code and are funded with voluntary contributions)."
The Media Matters example is really scandelous. Even if they claimed 501 c4, it would be a joke, but 501 c3 is just beyond ridiculous.
All of these examples highlight that we have two choices:
1) Everyone continue to claim tax exempt status for their own preferred brand of shenanigans, while denouncing those of their opponents, or,
2) ending deductions from taxable income for contributions to anything whatsoever.
Post a Comment