IRS confesses to inappropriately targeting conservative groups.

[Fern]

-snip-

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?

Nope.

For one you're conflating 501 C3's with 501 C4's.

Only the C3's are around 60k.

The C4's are only a couple of thousand each year.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics...n-irs-tax-exempt-applications-in-2010/275985/

When your workload is too high the last thing you do is create all sorts of new and usual requests to slow it down massively.

Only orgs with conservative key words in their name were targeted. There are C4 orgs with liberal type key words in their name and they were not targeted.

This explanation makes no sense.

Fern

 

[Lithium381]

Nope.

For one you're conflating 501 C3's with 501 C4's.

Only the C3's are around 60k.

The C4's are only a couple of thousand each year.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics...n-irs-tax-exempt-applications-in-2010/275985/

When your workload is too high the last thing you do is create all sorts of new and usual requests to slow it down massively.

Only orgs with conservative key words in their name were targeted. There are C4 orgs with liberal type key words in their name and they were not targeted.

This explanation makes no sense.

Fern

As I understand it they were slow on proccessing everyone, even liberal groups which was taking about 9 months. . . .

BUT, what are the statistical chances that ALL the liberal groups got approved within the year and the conservative groups went 2+ years?

How dispicable.

 

[Bowfinger]

Nope.

For one you're conflating 501 C3's with 501 C4's.

Only the C3's are around 60k.

The C4's are only a couple of thousand each year.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics...n-irs-tax-exempt-applications-in-2010/275985/

Fern, I was using the information from the CNN article linked a few posts up. If you think you have better information, take it up with them. It seems likely that the same IRS employees are responsible for processing both types of applications, thus the 60K statistic CNN cites.

When your workload is too high the last thing you do is create all sorts of new and usual requests to slow it down massively.

That depends on whether you're attempting to do your job well, or just blowing it off.

Only orgs with conservative key words in their name were targeted. There are C4 orgs with liberal type key words in their name and they were not targeted.

So then respond to my scenario. What set of keywords would you use to find political groups without unfairly slanting your search?

Also, do you know with certainty NO liberal groups were reviewed, or are you simply assuming that to be the case? I've not read anything making that claim, only that right-wing groups were disproportionately targeted.

This explanation makes no sense.

Fern

OK, YMMV. It seems plausible to me. Ultimately, however, we need the investigation to determine if it is actually what happened, or if there was, indeed, partisan targeting.

 

[xBiffx]

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/18/us/politics/irs-scandal-congressional-hearings.html?hp&_r=3&

The Treasury Department’s inspector general told senior Treasury officials in June 2012 he was investigating the Internal Revenue Service’s screening of politically active organizations seeking tax exemptions, disclosing for the first time on Friday that Obama administration officials were aware of the matter during the presidential campaign year.

So much for the Obama administration not knowing. Testimony says otherwise.

 

[PokerGuy]

Nope.

For one you're conflating 501 C3's with 501 C4's.

Only the C3's are around 60k.

The C4's are only a couple of thousand each year.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics...n-irs-tax-exempt-applications-in-2010/275985/

When your workload is too high the last thing you do is create all sorts of new and usual requests to slow it down massively.

Only orgs with conservative key words in their name were targeted. There are C4 orgs with liberal type key words in their name and they were not targeted.

This explanation makes no sense.

Fern

This theory of plausible deniability (saying it was wrong but it was not actually intended to target conservatives) appears to be the new direction for damage control efforts. The explanation simply doesn't hold water though. You don't use "shortcuts" when overwhelmed with work that result in MORE work being done, and even if that was the case, it makes no sense then to send absurd demands and letters exclusively to conservative groups being scrutinized.

There is no doubt this was abuse of IRS powers to target conservatives and other "undesirables". The questions is, who was involved and what will be done about it.

 

[Bowfinger]

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.

Once again, I don't have anywhere near enough information to judge the details of these IRS reviews. All we have today are a few anecdotes cherry-picked by partisans. I agree those examples are unreasonable, but we don't know if they are at all typical.

I also won't assume this was coordinated at a high level just because employees in different offices used similar methods. Believe it or not, employees talk to each other. They have phones and email. They meet at "company" meetings. They may even have internal forums or social media-style sites where they trade notes and get help from each other. Again be clear, I am NOT asserting higher levels of management were not involved. I'm simply saying its a non sequitur to insist they were involved.

 

[PokerGuy]

Once again, I don't have anywhere near enough information to judge the details of these IRS reviews. All we have today are a few anecdotes cherry-picked by partisans. I agree those examples are unreasonable, but we don't know if they are at all typical.

Funny that all those anecdotal items come from conservative groups. Not a single liberal group has come forward with a similar claim. Funny that. I'm sure that's just a coincidence, along with the targeting of conservative groups and subsequent abuse of those groups. All a coincidence, no political targeting intended

They meet at "company" meetings. They may even have internal forums or social media-style sites where they trade notes and get help from each other. Again be clear, I am NOT asserting higher levels of management were not involved. I'm simply saying its a non sequitur to insist they were involved.

If management is completely unaware of absurd demands and letters going out from their departments on such a scale (multiple offices, using the same text verbatim), then obviously there is massive incompetence in the managerial ranks and they should all be fired.

Heck, if a manager was aware of even one such letter and did not take corrective action immediately they should be fired.

I understand why there's going to be big attempt to whitewash this whole thing as just some low level employees and that there was no political targeting per se (just "foolish mistakes" ha!), but one has to be very naive to believe that narrative.

 

[Bowfinger]

This theory of plausible deniability (saying it was wrong but it was not actually intended to target conservatives) appears to be the new direction for damage control efforts. The explanation simply doesn't hold water though. You don't use "shortcuts" when overwhelmed with work that result in MORE work being done, and even if that was the case, it makes no sense then to send absurd demands and letters exclusively to conservative groups being scrutinized.

That's because you start with your conclusion, then select facts to fit it. If instead of subjecting your entire stack of 60,000 applications to detailed review, you instead filter it down to a few hundred applications for detailed review, you have cut your workload tremendously. Remember that their job was to ensure all applications qualified. They would not be doing their jobs if they rubber stamped everything. Instead, they (reportedly) came up with a way to prioritize applications for detailed review, letting the easy ones slip through quickly so they could focus their attention on those more likely to be problematic. Done correctly, that is a common, effective, and quite proper business technique.

There is no doubt this was abuse of IRS powers to target conservatives and other "undesirables". The questions is, who was involved and what will be done about it.

You mean YOU have no doubt. While I agree it was an abuse, it is yet to be determined whether there was a partisan intent to target. Of that there is doubt.

 

[Fern]

-snip-
So then respond to my scenario. What set of keywords would you use to find political groups without unfairly slanting your search?

There are only a couple of thousand C4 applications in a year. I don't see why a filter would be necessary. The IRS agent need merely read the 'essay' part of the application that explains what purpose and activities the applicant group claims.

Given the low number of claims if you were just dying to use a filter, use "PTA" to weed out the obvious non-political groups. I.e., filter it 'backward'.

Also, do you know with certainty NO liberal groups were reviewed, or are you simply assuming that to be the case? I've not read anything making that claim, only that right-wing groups were disproportionately targeted.

There should some liberal groups who had their app delayed. Not all apps are completed correctly etc.

But to date I haven't heard of any.

But delayed is not really the point here. There were 27 months where none of the conservative groups were approved. If true, that makes no sense. More importantly are the bizarre follow up questions etc sent to the conservative groups. Those are so far outside of regulations and policy I find it almost unbelievable the info was actually requested.

Fern

 

[PokerGuy]

That's because you start with your conclusion, then select facts to fit it. If instead of subjecting your entire stack of 60,000 applications to detailed review, you instead filter it down to a few hundred applications for detailed review, you have cut your workload tremendously. Remember that their job was to ensure all applications qualified. They would not be doing their jobs if they rubber stamped everything. Instead, they (reportedly) came up with a way to prioritize applications for detailed review, letting the easy ones slip through quickly so they could focus their attention on those more likely to be problematic.

... and that explains subsequent abuse of those who were singled out (conveniently coincidentally all conservative groups)? Or are you saying the letters and abusive demands (all targeted at conservative groups) are just a coincidence as well?

 

[PokerGuy]

There were 27 months where none of the conservative groups were approved. If true, that makes no sense. More importantly are the bizarre follow up questions etc sent to the conservative groups. Those are so far outside of regulations and policy I find it almost unbelievable the info was actually requested.

Fern

Bowfinger is trying to separate the screening process from the subsequent abuse, when clearly they have to be tied together, unless you want to believe in a massively unlikely coincidence. I don't see how any rational observer could look at some of the numbers (as your example of 27 months of no conservative groups getting approval etc) combined with subsequent behavior and come to any conclusion other than political targeting and abuse of power.

 

[palehorse]

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/18/us/politics/irs-scandal-congressional-hearings.html?hp&_r=3&

So much for the Obama administration not knowing. Testimony says otherwise.

Shit just got real...

 

[Bowfinger]

Funny that all those anecdotal items come from conservative groups. Not a single liberal group has come forward with a similar claim. Funny that. I'm sure that's just a coincidence, along with the targeting of conservative groups and subsequent abuse of those groups. All a coincidence, no political targeting intended

It's not at all funny if you consider the situation honestly. This is a breaking news story. The early intensity for this story came from right-wing "media", and they are pulling out all the stops to find tidbits they can use to attack the Obama administration. They will also suppress anything they find that undercuts their claims of intentional bias. So, it is easy to expect that they have focused their "investigations" on contacting right-wing groups that may have juicy stories to tell.

If management is completely unaware of absurd demands and letters going out from their departments on such a scale (multiple offices, using the same text verbatim), then obviously there is massive incompetence in the managerial ranks and they should all be fired.

Heck, if a manager was aware of even one such letter and did not take corrective action immediately they should be fired.

I understand why there's going to be big attempt to whitewash this whole thing as just some low level employees and that there was no political targeting per se (just "foolish mistakes" ha!), but one has to be very naive to believe that narrative.

The CNN piece suggests this isn't exactly news, that insiders already knew there was a huge gap in management due to turnover and retirements.

What you choose to call it naive others would call being responsible and waiting for facts rather than jumping to partisan conclusions that match preexisting biases. I'm not the one asserting I know what happened. I am the one saying we need a full investigation to separate the facts from the partisan hyperbole.

This is much like the Benghazi story, where initial claims from the professional Obama bashers, though repeated loudly and enthusiastically as fact, were in fact often blatantly biased and inaccurate. It only served to make the GOP look ridiculous.

 

[Bowfinger]

... and that explains subsequent abuse of those who were singled out (conveniently coincidentally all conservative groups)? Or are you saying the letters and abusive demands (all targeted at conservative groups) are just a coincidence as well?

I've already addressed this. Cherry-picked anecdotes, no matter how over the line they may be, are not data.

 

[Bowfinger]

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/18/us/politics/irs-scandal-congressional-hearings.html?hp&_r=3&

So much for the Obama administration not knowing. Testimony says otherwise.

You might want to follow along. I believe this is the same testimony that acting IRS head Miller (?) was just fired for, because he falsely denied knowledge of this in front of Congress.

 

[Paul98]

I can't help but laugh at these congress men asking questions then not getting answers. This is the shit they do 24/7 then get angry when someone does the same thing to them.

 

[Lithium381]

I've already addressed this. Cherry-picked anecdotes, no matter how over the line they may be, are not data.

They certainly ARE data points . . . but to draw a conclusion from those alone would be foolish.

 

[Lithium381]

I can't help but laugh at these congress men asking questions then not getting answers. This is the shit they do 24/7 then get angry when someone does the same thing to them.

Haha, truth!

 

[PokerGuy]

It's not at all funny if you consider the situation honestly. This is a breaking news story. The early intensity for this story came from right-wing "media", and they are pulling out all the stops to find tidbits they can use to attack the Obama administration. They will also suppress anything they find that undercuts their claims of intentional bias. So, it is easy to expect that they have focused their "investigations" on contacting right-wing groups that may have juicy stories to tell.

Right. And the left wing media (ie, the other 90% of it), also has not been able to present even a single incidence of the same abuse happening to a leftist group. Again, amazing coincidence I'm sure.

What you choose to call it naive others would call being responsible and waiting for facts rather than jumping to partisan conclusions that match preexisting biases. I'm not the one asserting I know what happened.

There is enough information in to draw certain conclusion. We don't know all the details yet (as in, how high did it go, who was involved), but we do know enough to draw conclusions such as that this had to be politically targeted abuse. No way around that, unless you want to completely suspend disbelief.

 

[PokerGuy]

I've already addressed this. Cherry-picked anecdotes, no matter how over the line they may be, are not data.

They are indeed data. By themselves perhaps not sufficient to draw conclusions, but combined with the information we know from the IG they are sufficient to at least know that this was political targeted abuse. Further details will still need to be investigated, but that much is known.

 

[Bowfinger]

There are only a couple of thousand C4 applications in a year. I don't see why a filter would be necessary. The IRS agent need merely read the 'essay' part of the application that explains what purpose and activities the applicant group claims.

Given the low number of claims if you were just dying to use a filter, use "PTA" to weed out the obvious non-political groups. I.e., filter it 'backward'.

You may be onto something here, but we need to understand the difference between a (C)(3) and a (C)(4). Are you saying the applications and screening process for the two are substantially different? If so, please give us more information. Again, I'm basing this on the CNN report which suggests the applications are processed similarly by the same IRS staff.

There should some liberal groups who had their app delayed. Not all apps are completed correctly etc.

But to date I haven't heard of any.

Have you looked? It's a sure bet the Foxes and Breitbarts of the media aren't going to report this. Someone in a post today stated that "liberal" applications were also delayed. Is that incorrect?

But delayed is not really the point here. There were 27 months where none of the conservative groups were approved. If true, that makes no sense.

Source? Not a one? I suspect you're misinterpreting what you've read or heard, but I could well be wrong. I've not heard that assertion, however, only that right-wing groups were disproportionately targeted.

More importantly are the bizarre follow up questions etc sent to the conservative groups. Those are so far outside of regulations and policy I find it almost unbelievable the info was actually requested.

Fern

Again, I agree the examples cited seem way out of line. Data is not the plural of anecdote, however. We need to understand whether such practices were common, or whether they are simply extreme outliers.

 

[Bowfinger]

They certainly ARE data points . . . but to draw a conclusion from those alone would be foolish.

Exactly. They are bad, no doubt about it. What we need to know is whether they are at all representative of the follow-up done, or whether they're just a few really bizarre examples.

 

[PokerGuy]

Have you looked? It's a sure bet the Foxes and Breitbarts of the media aren't going to report this. Someone in a post today stated that "liberal" applications were also delayed. Is that incorrect?

There are a multitude of organizations that would LOVE to be able to show examples of abusive letters and demands from leftist groups to try and deflect this fiasco (cnn, msnbc, huffpo, dailykos, abc, nbc, cbs, and on and on). If there were any significant number of such letters around, why aren't we seeing them? Why are there multitudes of such letters from conservative groups but not a single one from the leftist groups? Coincidence again?

Again, I agree the examples cited seem way out of line. Data is not the plural of anecdote, however. We need to understand whether such practices were common, or whether they are simply extreme outliers.

Amazingly all the "outliers" were targeted at one side of the political spectrum. Just coincidence, surely.

 

[Bowfinger]

Right. And the left wing media (ie, the other 90% of it), also has not been able to present even a single incidence of the same abuse happening to a leftist group. Again, amazing coincidence I'm sure.

But the "left wing" media are later to the game, as I explained already, and they presumably aren't trying nearly so hard to disprove the scandal and the right-wing "media" are trying to prove it. After all, as much as some love to cry about the biased "liberal" media, the real driver for them is money, not ideology. Scandals sell papers and draw viewers, so the media have a vested interest in prolonging scandals, not refuting them.

There is enough information in to draw certain conclusion. We don't know all the details yet (as in, how high did it go, who was involved), but we do know enough to draw conclusions such as that this had to be politically targeted abuse. No way around that, unless you want to completely suspend disbelief.

No, we cannot draw the conclusion this was politically targeted. It is also quite possible this was the result of an ill-considered shortcut. I'll also invite you to try my thought experiment. What keywords would you use to effectively identify political groups without introducing a partisan slant? I think it's telling that nobody so far has been up to that challenge.

 

[Bowfinger]

There are a multitude of organizations that would LOVE to be able to show examples of abusive letters and demands from leftist groups to try and deflect this fiasco (cnn, msnbc, huffpo, dailykos, abc, nbc, cbs, and on and on). If there were any significant number of such letters around, why aren't we seeing them? Why are there multitudes of such letters from conservative groups but not a single one from the leftist groups? Coincidence again?


Amazingly all the "outliers" were targeted at one side of the political spectrum. Just coincidence, surely.

Already addressed twice. The so-called "liberal" media is later to the game, and all media have a vested interest in prolonging scandals.