IRS confesses to inappropriately targeting conservative groups.

[PokerGuy]

and here I thought you were going to spew your usual Democrat lies about conservatives never being targeted by big government.

I wonder how hard it would be to grab 10 or so quotes from eskimospy and other leftists saying things like "the paranoid conservatives..." blah blah blah. Now we have incontrovertible proof that conservatives have been unfairly targeted by at least one government agency (likely a lot more).

 

[fskimospy]

I wonder how hard it would be to grab 10 or so quotes from eskimospy and other leftists saying things like "the paranoid conservatives..." blah blah blah. Now we have incontrovertible proof that conservatives have been unfairly targeted by at least one government agency (likely a lot more).

I like how you think all of the black helicopter bullshit is somehow justified because the IRS looked at a conservative group inappropriately.

Hey though, conservatives need to believe they are victims. It's part of the MO.

 

[fskimospy]

and here I thought you were going to spew your usual Democrat lies about conservatives never being targeted by big government.

I'm just interested to see that you think such a hilariously stupid piece accurately reflects your views.

 

[PokerGuy]

Hey though, conservatives need to believe they are victims. It's part of the MO.

Yep, those crazy paranoid nutters, thinking they're the victims of some sort of conspiracy to target them. Such a thing could never happen, they're all just paranoid nut jobs. Oh, wait...... :whiste:

 

[fskimospy]

Yep, those crazy paranoid nutters, thinking they're the victims of some sort of conspiracy to target them. Such a thing could never happen, they're all just paranoid nut jobs. Oh, wait...... :whiste:

It's not that such a thing could never happen, it's that they think such a thing is ALWAYS happening. How many tremendously stupid paranoid conspiracy threads do I need to pull out of here?

 

[OutHouse]

It's not that such a thing could never happen, it's that they think such a thing is ALWAYS happening. How many tremendously stupid paranoid conspiracy threads do I need to pull out of here?

jesus does you political shilling every fricken stop? you and homerj should change your names to bagdad-Bob1 and Bagdad-Bob2

 

[OutHouse]

and since all conservative groups were granted tax-emempt status it didn't stop their business

it did for over a year.

 

[OutHouse]

and here I thought you were going to spew your usual Democrat lies about conservatives never being targeted by big government.

of course not, its attack the messenger not the message. when they got nothing and caught red handed its par for course with the shills in here.

 

[Lithium381]

I like how you think all of the black helicopter bullshit is somehow justified because the IRS looked at a conservative group inappropriately.

Hey though, conservatives need to believe they are victims. It's part of the MO.

heh i think you mixed that one up. typically it's the liberals that play the victim card . . .at least where i get my news from

 

[sunzt]

http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/17/politics/camp-irs-hearing/index.html

A huge increase in workload, rather than deliberate targeting, led to "foolish mistakes" and the political discrimination in the Internal Revenue Service cited by an inspector general's report

http://money.cnn.com/2013/05/16/news/economy/irs-employee-troubles/

The Internal Revenue Service group under fire in the current scandal was overworked, understaffed and lacked a layer of experienced middle managers, according to two former IRS employees.

"You have agents muddling through, trying to do their best with the law they're given, the workload they're given and with the folks they have at that office," said former IRS attorney Philip Hackney, who worked in Washington from 2006 to 2011, and advised Lois Lerner, director of the unit that approved applications from groups seeking tax-exempt status.

Staffing was "too small" to "quickly and accurately" review the volume of applications it was dealing with, according to Hackney.
...



Over the years, the Exempt Organizations group under fire was slow to replace managers and senior staff who departed or left the IRS, leaving it with what Hackney called a "vacuum of institutional knowledge."

"They just don't quite have the middle-level management that would have been telling them: 'Don't put 'Tea Party' in there as a search term,'" Hackney said.
...

The division receives 60,000 paper applications from groups seeking charity status each year.

"Of that 60,000 applications, the vast majority are from PTAs (parent teacher associations), scout troops and Little Leagues -- the main thing is getting their address right and we want to get them done quickly," said Owens, who is now an attorney at the tax advisory firm of Caplin & Drysdale. "Bobbing along in this river of applications are some real zingers."

Owens said it can be tough finding complicated applications that need a tougher review in a sea of applications.

The watchdog report confirms these accounts -- from 2010 through 2012, new "coordinators" and "managers" took over the case on 8 different occasions. The report doesn't detail how or why so many new faces came on board.

Generally, the IRS has been plagued with a wave of retirements and departures, losing some 10,000 employees in the past two years, or over 9% of its total workforce.

Far less sinister than what is being portrayed by GOP.

 

[monovillage]

Yep, those crazy paranoid nutters, thinking they're the victims of some sort of conspiracy to target them. Such a thing could never happen, they're all just paranoid nut jobs. Oh, wait...... :whiste:

and then the asshole brings in black helicopters in a vile attempt to smear perfectly valid concerns.

 

[fskimospy]

and then the asshole brings in black helicopters in a vile attempt to smear perfectly valid concerns.

I want to be clear that I'm not attacking the concerns, I'm attacking you. The concerns are absolutely valid, but your attempts to complain about them are childish, transparent, and inept.

Also, Peggy Noonan is a joke. The IRS screwed up because Obama is mean? She gets paid to write that shit?

 

[ivwshane]

It's funny because righties will tell us the government is broken and then they elect people who are hell bent on breaking it and then the righties say, "see I told you government was broken". Yeah no shit what did you think would happen when you elected a politician who thinks various government agencies shouldn't even exist?


My favorite answer from the right is to get rid of the government entity that is broken or reduce its funding making things even worse rather than fixing it. Just watch as this story unfolds and you will start hearing cries from the right to cut the IRS's budget or to get rid of it.

 

[xBiffx]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=hZqROJZTf3c

I'm shocked....that NBC didn't cut this discussion.

 

[michal1980]

http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/17/politics/camp-irs-hearing/index.html


http://money.cnn.com/2013/05/16/news/economy/irs-employee-troubles/



Far less sinister than what is being portrayed by GOP.

Sorry that explanation makes no sense.

How is it that only certain groups got targeted by these over worked employees? How is it that almost all of the targeted groups were conservative?

The overworked/understaffed lie of an explanation ship has sailed a long time ago.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Sorry that explanation makes no sense.

How is it that only certain groups got targeted by these over worked employees? How is it that almost all of the targeted groups were conservative?

The overworked/understaffed lie of an explanation ship has sailed a long time ago.

These were just "foolish mistakes"...now move along...nothing to see here.

 

[xBiffx]

These were just "foolish mistakes"...now move along...nothing to see here.

Are you sure you can remember they were? Seems the only answer is "I can't remember."

 

[waggy]

http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/17/politics/camp-irs-hearing/index.html


http://money.cnn.com/2013/05/16/news/economy/irs-employee-troubles/



Far less sinister than what is being portrayed by GOP.

that excuse is bullshit. i would buy it if it was more then just one side being targeted.

also the fact some who filled have been subject to fbi visits and audits.

 

[Bowfinger]

These were just "foolish mistakes"...now move along...nothing to see here.

You're so much smarter than he is. Don't stoop to his level. For anyone who's worked in a large office environment, it should be pretty easy to understand how this might have happened. Once again, it was still improper and the results apparently unfairly slanted, but that doesn't mean there was partisan intent.

Here's a little thought experiment for you. Put yourself in their shoes. You're understaffed. You have a pile of 60,000 applications to receive preferential, non-profit tax status. Most are routine and not controversial: PTAs, kids' sports, scouting, etc. They need little more than a rubber stamp. Thanks to Karl Rove, however, many are now political to some extent, and your regulations require that you ensure those applicants cannot be primarily political in nature. How do you quickly separate the rubber stamps from those that require extra scrutiny?

The easy, obvious way is to search for key words indicating political focus. Your challenge: what words will primarily identify political groups? At least for me, it's much easier to think of keywords that are associated with right-wing organizations (e.g., "Tea Party", "taxes", "liberty") than it is for left-wing orgs (maybe "progressive"?).

Unfortunately, that easy approach is the wrong approach if it results in discrimination against one party. They reportedly lacked the experienced oversight needed to look at their easy approach and say, "Time out, guys. There's a problem here."

For now, I find this to be a plausible explanation. The investigation will determine if it is the truthful explanation, or whether there really was some partisan intent. In either case, the result was discriminatory and is therefore unacceptable. The open question for me is intent.

 

[JockoJohnson]

You're so much smarter than he is. Don't stoop to his level. For anyone who's worked in a large office environment, it should be pretty easy to understand how this might have happened. Once again, it was still improper and the results apparently unfairly slanted, but that doesn't mean there was partisan intent.

Here's a little thought experiment for you. Put yourself in their shoes. You're understaffed. You have a pile of 60,000 applications to receive preferential, non-profit tax status. Most are routine and not controversial: PTAs, kids' sports, scouting, etc. They need little more than a rubber stamp. Thanks to Karl Rove, however, many are now political to some extent, and your regulations require that you ensure those applicants cannot be primarily political in nature. How do you quickly separate the rubber stamps from those that require extra scrutiny?

The easy, obvious way is to search for key words indicating political focus. Your challenge: what words will primarily identify political groups? At least for me, it's much easier to think of keywords that are associated with right-wing organizations (e.g., "Tea Party", "taxes", "liberty") than it is for left-wing orgs (maybe "progressive"?).

Unfortunately, that easy approach is the wrong approach if it results in discrimination against one party. They reportedly lacked the experienced oversight needed to look at their easy approach and say, "Time out, guys. There's a problem here."

For now, I find this to be a plausible explanation. The investigation will determine if it is the truthful explanation, or whether there really was some partisan intent. In either case, the result was discriminatory and is therefore unacceptable. The open question for me is intent.

I have to admit, that is actually a well thought-out scenario that explains alot. It doesn't excuse the fact that most terms happened to target conservative groups---but it seems plausible to me.

 

[monovillage]

I want to be clear that I'm not attacking the concerns, I'm attacking you. The concerns are absolutely valid, but your attempts to complain about them are childish, transparent, and inept.

Also, Peggy Noonan is a joke. The IRS screwed up because Obama is mean? She gets paid to write that shit?

That's not she wrote, so you're just lying once again about her commentary.

 

[monovillage]

I have to admit, that is actually a well thought-out scenario that explains alot. It doesn't excuse the fact that most terms happened to target conservative groups---but it seems plausible to me.

Is that why they were also targeting Jewish groups?

 

[JockoJohnson]

Is that why they were also targeting Jewish groups?

Can't say. But that is why the inquiry needs to occur. There need to be meetings held to find out what happened and why. Were the terms chosen to try and make things easier or were they specifically chosen to target conservatives and others that people within the IRS don't like? I am all for Congress digging in and finding out what exactly is going on. I hope they spend lots of time on it--all the time needed until they have an answer. And I only hope it stays in the spotlight in the media.

Too many times do we see other groups who are targeted "unintentionally" stay in the spotlight for long periods of time.

 

[dali71]

They reportedly lacked the experienced oversight needed to look at their easy approach and say, "Time out, guys. There's a problem here."

That's not a lack of oversight, rather lack of a moral compass.

 

[PokerGuy]

For now, I find this to be a plausible explanation.

No, it isn't a plausible explanation when you view the entire picture. If it was just a matter of processing the pile, then yes. It does not in any way explain the absurd demands subsequently placed on those groups getting scrutinized, including demands for signed statements from all board members that they would never picket a planned parenthood location, or demands for books read by members and so forth.

Viewed in isolation, you could come up with explanations for the scrutiny of some groups (which would still be wrong) that would be less egregious. When combined with the letters and abuse that followed, one can not reasonably reach that conclusion.

The other factor that has not been discussed much is that the letters and absurd demands came from multiple offices around the country, so it was obviously not isolated to a few people at one location. This was systematic, which means management was involved, or management was hopelessly incompetent.