Tag Archives: Internal Revenue Service

The IRS Investigation Continues

Posted on by

This is a copy of part of one of the letters the IRS sent to a conservative organization seeking tax-exempt status. This copy is taken from an article posted at the Daily Caller yesterday. The article states that there were twelve different groups at the IRS that targeted conservative groups applying for tax-exempt status.

The article at the Daily Caller reports:

The revelation disproves the suggestion by a top congressional Democrat that only one IRS group was responsible for scrutinizing tea party and conservative applications.

Group 7821, Group 7822, Group 7823, Group 7824, Group 7827, Group 7828, Group 7829, Group 7830, Group 7838, EOG-7887, and EOG-7888, and the Tax Exempt and Government Entities Division in Washington, D.C. all targeted conservative groups between 2010 and 2012, according to documentation compiled by the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ), which has filed a class-action suit against the IRS.

ACLJ senior counsel David French told The Daily Caller:

“We know that the Tax Exempt and Government Entities Division in Washington, D.C. was involved, and that’s where Carter Hull and Lois Lerner were working. We have 14 letters directly from Lois Lerner,” French said. “When Lois Lerner said on May 10 that this was just a few agents in Cincinnati, we were literally holding in our hands 14 letters that she wrote to conservative groups.”

This is not how the IRS is supposed to work. Why are we giving them more power in ObamaCare?

Enhanced by Zemanta

Have The Democrats In Congress Realized That President Obama Plans To Make Them Obsolete?

Posted on by

The Hill is reporting today that President Obama’s plan to combat climate change does not include any action by Congress.

The article reports:

President Obama is launching fresh battles over climate change with plans to curb emissions using executive powers that sidestep Congress — including controversial rules to cut carbon pollution from existing power plants.

The basic premise of the need to combat climate change is not valid. WattsUpWithThat.com posted the following graph on its website. The graph is from NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration):

updated-june-at-max-temp11[1]

So why is the President making a speech about climate change today? He is hoping to take the focus off of the IRS, Benghazi, and the other scandals that have plagued his administration. President Obama does not seem to understand the concept of working with Congress to reach a compromise on proposed legislation. Hopefully, we will still have three viable branches of government by the time the Obama Administration is over.

Please follow the links above to The Hill and WattsUpWithThat to read further details of the President’s proposals.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Who Is Actually In Charge Of The Internal Revenue Service?

Posted on by

My Way News is reporting today that the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) is about to pay $70 million in employee bonuses. In April, a directive written by Dannie Weffel, a former budget official who has since been appointed acting IRS commissioner,  cancelled discretionary bonuses because of spending cuts.

The article reports:

 Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa says his office has learned that the IRS is executing an agreement with the employees’ union on Wednesday to pay the bonuses. Grassley says the bonuses should be canceled under an April directive from the White House budget office.

So does the government control the IRS or does the employees’ union control the IRS?

So let me get this straight–because of sequestration, school children cannot tour the White House, but IRS employees get $70 million in employee bonuses, and the President and his family tour the world for $100 million.

Is it time for new elected officials yet????

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

The Consequences Of Lack Of Oversight

Posted on by

On Friday, National Review posted an article by Gerald Walpin, a former Inspector General (IG), who was fired by the Obama Administration. The article deals with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) scandal and the fate of IG’s in the Obama Administration.

When IRS inspector general J. Russell George testified before Congress recently, he stated that he did not know who ordered the increased scrutiny of conservative groups seeking tax-exempt status.

The article reports:

Details of that testimony are interesting. Representative Tom Graves (R., Ga.) asked, “Have you asked the individuals who ordered them to use this extra scrutiny to punish, or penalize, or postpone, or deny?” George turns around to confer with his assistant. Just the fact that the inspector general had to confer to know the answer to this crucial question is amazing. George’s assistant says something to him that is not recorded, but one can see the assistant shaking his head back and forth. Then George responds publicly to the question, saying, “During our audit, Congressman, we did pose that question and no one would acknowledge who, if anyone, provided that direction.”

Notice that the IG refers to an audit–not an investigation. Mr. Walpin reminds us that an IG has two procedures to obtain information–an audit to determine whether an investigation is necessary and an investigation to find out who is responsible for whatever went wrong.

The article points out:

Once there is reason — and there clearly was reason here, given the obviously illegal conduct — the IG opens an investigation, in which investigators, not auditors, pose the questions, the department employees are placed under oath, and, as a federal court has approved, informed that “failure to answer completely and truthfully may result in disciplinary action, including dismissal.” The question is why George’s office didn’t do this immediately.

The article then reminds of us the reason Mr. Walpin was fired as an IG–he supported the investigation into the mishandling of funds by one of President Obama’s supporters. The Wall Street Journal told the story in June 2009. The firing of Mr. Walpin sent a message to other IG’s to tread carefully in investigating things that might negatively impact President Obama or his friends.

The article concludes:

Similar questions have been raised about other IGs who somehow have been discarded. Amtrak IG Fred Weiderhold, Treasury special IG Neil Barofsky, and International Trade Commission IG Judith Gwynn all left their positions after disputes that weren’t appreciated by the administration, giving more reason for others to go easy with the administration. Further, the president has significantly failed to fill IG vacancies in important agencies (State, Interior, Labor, Homeland Security, and USAID) – well-documented by former IG Joseph Schmitz — demeaning the importance of the IG position.

This administration’s treatment of IGs is not conducive to active, independent, and objective inspectors general, and explains at least in part why key questions about the IRS still have not been asked or investigated.

It is becoming very obvious that we have a corruption problem in Washington. The question is whether or not the voters will do something about it.

Enhanced by Zemanta

How To Investigate Without Really Investigating

Posted on by

Yesterday the Daily Caller reported that the FBI has not contacted a single tea party group in its investigation of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). Jay Sekulow of the American Center for Law and Justice, who is handling many of the lawsuits filed against the government has stated that neither he or any of his clients have been contacted or interviewed by the FBI.

The article reports:

The revelation suggests that the FBI is in no hurry to get to the bottom of the scandal, despite the Obama administration’s promise to investigate the IRS’s multi-year abuse of conservative groups.

…“I can assure you and the American people that we will take a dispassionate view of this,” Holder told congressional investigators on May 15. “This will not be about parties, this will not be about ideological persuasions. Anybody who has broken the law will be held accountable.”

But in separate testimony before congressional investigators Thursday, FBI Director Robert Mueller seemed completely unaware of the progress of any such investigation.

Director Mueller testified that he did not know the status of the interviews being conducted by the team investigating the IRS scandal. I may be missing something here, which is not all that unusual, but it seems to me that if you are the director of an organization that is supposed to be investigating something and you know that you are going to appear before a Congressional committee, you might want to check on what is going on with the investigation before you appear before the committee.

It is becoming very clear that the people running investigations for the Justice Department are either totally incompetent, incapable of conducting an investigation, or experts at stonewalling. These people are appointed by our elected officials. Maybe it is time to change the elected officials doing the appointing.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Some Good News About The Internal Revenue Service

Posted on by

CNS News posted an update on a story they posted earlier this week about spying equipment ordered by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS).

CNS News reports:

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has cancelled its purchase order for surveillance equipment, which had included coffee trays with hidden cameras and cameras that could be hidden in plants.

The IRS issued the cancellation on Wednesday at 11:49 a.m.

The article concludes:

Neither the IRS press office nor the IRS procurement office responded to inquiries from CNSNews.com asking why the purchase order was cancelled.

The story was carried on the Drudge Report–one of the most read news sites on the Internet. This illustrates one reason we need the alternative media.

Sometimes I Have More Questions Than Answers

Posted on by

If you ‘google’ Internal Revenue Service (IRS), it says, “The IRS is the U.S. government agency responsible for tax collection and tax law enforcement.” Sounds pretty basic to me. Lately of course, there have been some questions about how evenly that responsibility has been handled, but basically, tax collection and tax law enforcement are their responsibility. Sounded pretty harmless–until I read the following story at CNS News.

Yesterday CNS News reported that the IRS is ordering surveillance equipment that includes hidden cameras in coffee trays, plants and clock radios. Why? If all they are interested in is taxes and tax law, why are they going James Bond on us? I know that they are going to be managing ObamaCare, but does that need eavesdropping on Americans?

The article reports:

“The Internal Revenue Service intends to award a Purchase Order to an undisclosed Corporation,” reads the solicitation.

“The following descriptions are vague due to the use and nature of the items,” it says.

“If you feel that you can provide the following equipment, please respond to this email no later than 4 days after the solicitation date,” the IRS said.

Among the items the agency will purchase are four “Covert Coffee tray(s) with Camera concealment,” and four “Remote surveillance system(s)” with “Built-in DVD Burner and 2 Internal HDDs, cameras.”

The IRS also is buying four cameras to hide in plants: “(QTY 4) Plant Concealment Color 700 Lines Color IP Camera Concealment with Single Channel Network Server, supports dual video stream, Poe [Power over Ethernet], software included, case included, router included.

…The original solicitation was only available to private companies for bids for 19 business hours.

The notice was posted at 11:07 a.m. on June 6 and had a deadline of 2:00 p.m. on Monday. Taking a normal 9-to-5 work week, the solicitation was open for bids for six hours on Thursday, eight hours on Friday, and five hours on Monday, for a total of 19 hours.

The response date was changed on Monday, pushed back to 2:00 p.m. on Tuesday, June 11.

The location listed for the solicitation is the IRS’s National Office of Procurement, in Oxon Hill, Md.

“The Procurement Office acquires the products and services required to support the IRS mission,” according to its website.

This gives whole new meaning to the concept of being bugged by the IRS!

Enhanced by Zemanta

Why The Immigration Bill Should Not Pass

Posted on by

As I have previously stated, I realize that our current immigration system is broken. However, that is not an excuse to break it further. S.744, the Schumer-Rubio “comprehensive” immigration amnesty bill, would break it further.

Mickey Kaus at the Daily Caller provides a ‘pocket guide’ to the problems with the bill:

“Multiple triggers”/Legalization is immediate. DHS just has to write border “plan.”  The most any “triggers” can possibly do is delay green cards and citizenship.

“90 % effectiveness”/ If not reached, triggers only toothless commission

“Pay back taxes”/ Only if already “assessed” by IRS (unlikely). Newly legalized may instead get refunds.

“Learn English”/ Only need to sign up for English class.

“Clean record”/ Allows two free misdemeanors. Additional misdemeanors (including assaults) can be waived by DHS.

No “public charge.” Must earn 125% of poverty line / They’re going to deport people who earn only 124% or less? Ha.

“Pay a fine”/ Can be waived by DHS

“Back of the line”/ Get to wait out the line while living in the U.S (unlike suckers trying to come here legally).

Border fence/ Leaves it up to DHS, which decided not to complete fence in first place

“Comprehensive Southern Border Security Strategy”/ Only has to be “substantially” operational–whatever that means, as defined by DHS–before green cards are issued. (Legalization has already happened, remember!)

“E-verify” employment checks/ Replaces E-Verify with new system. Requires only that this system be “implemented” ( 30%? 70%? Who knows?).  Subject to lawsuit. If still in court after 10 years, never mind!

Entry-exit system for visas/Has been required since 1996. DHS must only be “using” a system before green cards can be issued. (Using in 10% of airports? 50%? Again, who knows?)

I think Mr. Kaus pretty much covers it!

Enhanced by Zemanta

Why Character Matters

Posted on by

Character is one of those seemingly old-fashioned virtues that people mention every now and then. It sounds like something we all should have, but it doesn’t  seem relevant to everything. The events of the past few weeks show that it is.

Peggy Noonan posted an article in the Wall Street Journal this weekend about the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) scandal. The article details some of the facts of the IRS treatment of conservative groups–including the leaking of donor information for the National Organization for Marriage. That organization did its own computer forensic investigation and determined that the leak of donor information came from the IRS. Since that discovery, the IRS has stonewalled the investigation.

The article is very interesting in the examples it gives and the conclusions it reaches–I strongly suggest that you follow the link above and read the entire article.

The closing paragraph of the article says it all:

Finally, this week Russell George, the inspector general whose audit confirmed the targeting of conservative groups, mentioned, as we all do these days, Richard Nixon‘s attempt to use the agency to target his enemies. But part of that Watergate story is that Nixon failed. Last week David Dykes of the Greenville (S.C.) News wrote of meeting with 93-year-old Johnnie Mac Walters, head of the IRS almost 40 years ago, in the Nixon era. Mr. Dykes quoted Tim Naftali, former director of the Nixon Presidential Library and Museum, who told him the IRS wouldn’t do what Nixon asked: “It didn’t happen, not because the White House didn’t want it to happen, but because people like Johnnie Walters said ‘no.’ “

That was the IRS doing its job—attempting to be above politics, refusing to act as the muscle for a political agenda.

Man—those were the days.

This whole scandal could have been avoided if someone with character had stood up and said, “No, I won’t do that.”

Enhanced by Zemanta

Looking At The Timeline To Understand The Scandal

Posted on by

Kimberley Strassel posted an article today in the Wall Street Journal about the timeline of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) scandal. She points out that the political climate in Washington at the time conservative groups were discriminated against was such that anyone who was paying attention would put the blame on Washington.

Below are some of the dates and statements made during this time:

Aug. 9, 2010: In Texas, President Obama for the first time publicly names a group he is obsessed with—Americans for Prosperity (founded by the Koch Brothers)—and warns about conservative groups.

Aug. 11: The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee sends out a fundraising email warning about “Karl Rove-inspired shadow groups.”

Aug. 21: Mr. Obama devotes his weekly radio address to the threat of “attack ads run by shadowy groups with harmless-sounding names. We don’t know who’s behind these ads and we don’t know who’s paying for them. . . .

Week of Aug. 23: The New Yorker’s Jane Mayer authors a hit piece on the Koch brothers, entitled “Covert Operations,” in which she accuses them of funding “political front groups.”

Aug. 27: White House economist Austan Goolsbee, in a background briefing with reporters, accuses Koch industries of being a pass-through entity that does “not pay corporate income tax.” The Treasury inspector general investigates how it is that Mr. Goolsbee might have confidential tax information. The report has never been released.

Week of Aug 27: the Democratic Party files a complaint with the IRS claiming the Americans for Prosperity Foundation is violating its tax-exempt status.

Please follow the link above to see the entire list of dates and events. Part of the scandal is how the conservative groups were treated by the IRS, but another part of the scandal is the ignorance of American voters which resulted in a fairly effective public relations campaign against conservatives and tea party members. Both things are a threat to our republic, but the latter is actually a more serious long term threat.

Enhanced by Zemanta

The Dog Ate My Homework

Posted on by

Hot Air reported yesterday that the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has lost its receipts for its $4 million gala in Anaheim three years ago. (Don’t try this at home–if you can’t produce receipts for the IRS, the deduction is not allowed.) I love irony.

The article reports:

…This particular conference was held around the time they first started targeting tea partiers in the nonprofits division. While they were demanding reams of information from small groups, most of which have budgets under $25,000 a year, they were farting out millions of dollars you gave them with no serious attempt to account for how it was spent.

That’s not the language I would have used, but it does make the point.

The article states:

I asked on Twitter this morning, in honor of Susan Rice’s promotion to NSA and Victoria Nuland’s impending promotion to Assistant Secretary of State, whether anyone — anyone — has been held accountable yet for any of the scandals on Obama’s watch. Lois Lerner and one of the Benghazi scapegoats are on “administrative leave,” a.k.a. paid vacation, but haven’t been fired, thanks in part to union rules that make it difficult for the feds to can crappy employees. Steve Miller resigned as IRS commissioner, but he famously had just a few weeks left in his term when he did. Has anyone else been punished? Has Obama demanded a resignation from anyone inside the White House itself to prove his displeasure? He won’t boot Eric Holder over the DOJ leak dragnets either, despite the fact that some Democrats (including Democrats in the White House) also think he should go. What you’re seeing here, between the promotion/retention of malfeasors and incompetents and the IRS showering itself with cash with no serious effort made at keeping track of it, is the feds’ contempt for citizens who empowered them unleashed.

I don’t know how we got to runaway government, but we need to find a way to get back to government by the people very quickly.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Disturbing Testimony in Congress

Posted on by

Yesterday Hot Air posted a story about the testimony before the House Ways and Means Committee by a leader of one of the conservative groups targeted by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS).

Sue Martinek, President of the Coalition for Life of Iowa, detailed some of the correspondence she had received from the IRS:

“The IRS continued questioning us,” Martinek continued. “On June 22, 2009, IRS Agent Richards sent us additional written requests, as follows: ‘Please explain how all of your activities, including the prayer meetings held outside of Planned Parenthood are considered educational as defined under 501(c)(3).”

She added: “Organizations exempt under 501(c)(3) may present opinions with scientific or medical facts. Please explain in detail the activities at the prayer meetings. Also, please provide the percentage of time your organization spends on prayer groups as compared with the other activities of the organization. Please explain in detail the signs that are being held up outside of Planned Parenthood and explain how they are considered educational.’ When we met at our next board meeting, we all were disappointed with the IRS’ request.”

It gets worse. There was one pro-life group that was told it would not receive its tax-exempt status unless they signed an agreement not to protest at Planned Parenthood abortion clinics. That is not only an infringement of the pro-life groups’ civil rights, it is illegal.

Someone needs to go to jail because of the actions of the IRS. It will be interesting to see who is chosen for that role–if anyone.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Testimony From An Internal Revenue Employee In Cincinnati

Posted on by

Breitbart.com posted an article today showing testimony from one of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) employees interviewed by the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. The article shows testimony from a Cincinnati IRS employee. I strongly suggest that you follow the link above and read the entire transcript.

The key exchange goes something like this:

Q: So what do you think about this, that allegation has been made, I think as you have seen in lots of press reports, that there were two rogue agents in Cincinnati that are sort of responsible for all of the issues that we have been talking about today.  What do you think about those allegations?

[…]

A:  It’s impossible.  As an agent we are controlled by many, many people.  We have to submit many, many reports.  So the chance of two agents being rogue and doing things like that could never happen.

The article concludes:

The Oversight Committee will be conducting hearings this week focusing on the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration report on excessive IRS conference spending and abuses of taxpayer dollars. Chairman Issa sent a letter to then-IRS Commissioner Douglas Shulman in April, 2012 regarding the agency’s bloated spending habits. According to the Committee, the IRS spent $50 million on at least 220 conferences between 2010 and 2012.

Anyone who has ever dealt with “low-level” government employees knows that their authority is limited. There is usually a procedures manual that they have to follow to do anything. There is no way a “low-level” employee could create the havoc that was created in the tax-exempt division of the IRS. Orders had to come from higher up. The question at hand is how much higher up.

Note that the problem began in 2010 after the passage of ObamaCare and as the Tea Party was gaining strength. The Democrats saw the threat and dealt with it–illegally, but they did deal with it. If the Democrats were as quick and efficient in dealing with the financial problems of America, America would no longer have financial problems!

Enhanced by Zemanta

The Seamy Side Of The Internal Revenue Service

Posted on by

It seems rather obvious that the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) was a little unfair to to conservative groups seeking tax-exempt status, but there is more to the story. Hot Air posted an article yesterday about some other very questionable activities the IRS was engaging in during the past few years.

The article at Hot Air cites a McClatchy news story about IRS harrassment:

McClatchy includes the case of Catherine Engelbrecht, which CBS News’ Sharyl Attkisson co-reported yesterday.  That case, of course, goes far beyond the IRS; Engelbrecht’s business got harassed by the FBI, ATF, and OSHA as well, which would mean coordination far above the Treasury Department.  They also include the case of an anti-abortion group that was told they couldn’t picket Planned Parenthood locations if they wanted to keep their exemption, and a Nebraska veteran who got hassled in an IRS audit over his donations to his church once he began donating to conservative causes.

John Eastman, a constitutional law professor and former Dean at Chapman University in California, posted an article at USA Today explaining an IRS abuse that took place during the debate on homosexual marriage in California in 2012.

Professor Eastman explains:

My organization was not the only conservative-linked political group or business that appears to have faced shady actions from IRS employees. ProPublica reported this week that the IRS handed over to them confidential documents of nine conservative organizations whose applications for non-profit status were still pending. Among them: Crossroads GPS, a key group backing Mitt Romney‘s presidential campaign.

Our case was particularly egregious because the IRS leak of confidential information fed directly into an ongoing political battle. For months before March 2012, the pro-gay marriage HRC had been demanding that my group, NOM, publicly identify its major donors, something that NOM and many other non-profits refuse to do. The reason is simple. In the past, gay marriage advocates have used such information to launch campaigns of intimidation against traditional marriage supporters.

Just as gay marriage proponents were demanding the information, the IRS appears to have illegally given them exactly what they were looking for. The tax return released by the HRC contained the names and addresses of dozens of major donors to NOM. And there’s little doubt where the documents came from. The tax returns contained internal coding added by the IRS after the returns were originally submitted.

For the IRS to leak any organization’s tax return to its political opponents is an outrageous breach of ethics and, if proven, constitutes a felony. Every organization — liberal and conservative — should shudder at the idea of the IRS playing politics with its confidential tax return information. But the situation here is even more egregious because the head of the HRC was at the time serving as a national co-chair of President Obama’s re-election campaign.

On Tuesday the House Ways and Means Committee will hold hearings to allow the victims of IRS targeting to testify. During the next two weeks, the House Oversight Committee will be interviewing the ‘low level employees’ in Cincinnati who have been scapegoated for these crimes. It will be interesting to hear what they say about who was directing their activities. Keep in mind that targeting specific groups and releasing tax information is a crime. It may be an interesting week.Enhanced by Zemanta

An Incredible Coincidence

Posted on by

Today’s Daily Caller posted a story about former Internal Revenue Service commissioner Douglas H. Shulman, a frequent White House guest during the period when the IRS was targeting conservative nonprofits. Mr. Shulman is married to Susan L. Anderson, senior program advisor for Public Campaign, an “organization dedicated to sweeping campaign reform that aims to dramatically reduce the role of big special interest money in American politics.” I don’t have a problem with the idea of reducing special interest money in American politics as long as the reductions include both unions and corporations. So far, those suggesting these changes are only citing corporations and conservatives.

The article reports:

Public Campaign receives “major funding” from the pro-Obamacare alliance Health Care for America NOW!, which is comprised of the labor unions AFL-CIO, AFSCME, SEIU, and the progressive activist organization Move On, among others.

Public Campaign also receives funding from the liberal Ford Foundation, the Common Cause Education Fund, and Barbra Streisand’s The Streisand Foundation, among other foundations and private donors.

I think that list of organizations provides a pretty good idea of where the group sits politically.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Conservative Groups Fight Back

Posted on by

CBN News reported today that the American Center for Law & Justice (ACLJ) is suing the IRS on behalf of 25 Tea Party and conservative groups.

The article states:

The Inspector General‘s report said a few low-level employees from the IRS Cincinnati office were involved. But Jay Sekulow, chief counsel with the American Center for Law & Justice, says he has new evidence showing the targeting of conservative groups went beyond a few agents in a single city.

“This is a letter from the United States Department of Treasury, Internal Revenue Service, Washington, D.C.,” Sekulow said. “We have the letter; we have the documents.”

“These aren’t hard to get,” he added. “Their agents wrote them to us: 15 agents, four different offices.”

It would seem that if four different offices were involved that the scandal may have involved more than a few rogue agents in Cincinnati.

The article further states:

Meanwhile, the scope and breadth of the allegations have many wondering what the tax agency was really up to.

“When a government decides to start targeting its own citizens for no other reason than political affiliation we all have a right to be very, very scared,” Adam Brandon, executive vice president of FreedomWorks, told CBN News.

The IRS sent out questionnaires wanting to know what books people read, their Facebook posts, donor names. Some groups were even asked to give information about their prayers.

The IRS is not supposed to be a political playground. Whoever was using it as such needs to be held accountable.

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

Answering Questions By Not Answering Questions

Posted on by

On Wednesday, Representative John Campbell posted an article in his laptop report about his questioning of Treasury Secretary (and former Obama Chief of Staff) Jack Lew.

Below is a video of that questioning:

Representative Campbell was a successful businessman before entering Congress and has the ability to get things done. He was obviously not impressed with the answers he received from Secretary Lew.

Representative Campbell posted the following parody on his laptop report:

Now, based on what you just saw from Sec. Jack Lew (and from my previous experience with him), I present for your further enjoyment a fictional dramatization of my hypothetical question to him, “Is the sky ever blue?”:
___________________

Campbell: So, Secretary Lew, is the sky ever blue?

Lew: Well, Congressman, that depends. Sometime there are clouds. The clouds can be light grey or…

Campbell: I understand that there can be clouds, Secretary Lew. My question is if you believe that the sky is ever blue?

Lew: This is really quite complicated. Sometime it can be dark at night and you can’t really tell what color the sky is. Is it really black or another color that you can’t see? It could be….

Campbell: No Mr. Lew. I didn’t ask if the sky was black. I asked if it is ever blue. Have you ever seen a blue sky?

Lew: I have never had anything to do with the color of the sky, either as Treasury Secretary or as President Obama’s Chief of Staff. But, I assure you that the President is very interested in this subject and we intend to investigate this thoroughly.

Campbell: Secretary Lew. It’s really not that complicated. Have you ever seen a blue sky or has anyone ever told you that the sky was blue?

Lew: It’s important that we thoroughly investigate all the facts before conclusions are drawn in any such matter involving celestial bodies and the movement thereof. The latest report from the Inspector General did not contain any facts about the color of the sky, although it did acknowledge that the sky, in fact, exists. Therefore, it would be premature for me to make any assertions about the color until all the facts are in. But, I assure you that we will work tirelessly in pursuit of those facts…just as diligently as OJ Simpson pursued the real killer of his wife.

Campbell:  How about this, Mr. Secretary? Have you personally ever even wondered what color the sky is?

Lew: I don’t think it’s productive to speculate on such things over which the administration has no control and which, at this point, really don’t matter.

Campbell: Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time since the Secretary has clearly yielded his common sense.

That is the current state of the search for answers in the power abuse by the Internal Revenue Service’s targeting of conservatives and conservative groups.

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

Where It Began

Posted on by

Kimberly Strassel posted an article in today’s Wall Street Journal that sheds a lot of light on what has happened at the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) in the past two years. The article reminds us of some of the activities of the Obama campaign and those associated with it during the 2008 primary elections.

The article points out:

On Aug. 21, 2008, the conservative American Issues Project (AIP) ran an ad highlighting ties between candidate Obama and Bill Ayers, formerly of the Weather Underground. The Obama campaign and supporters were furious, and they pressured TV stations to pull the ad—a common-enough tactic in such ad spats.

What came next was not common. Bob Bauer, general counsel for the campaign (and later general counsel for the White House), on the same day wrote to the criminal division of the Justice Department, demanding an investigation into AIP, “its officers and directors,” and its “anonymous donors.” Mr. Bauer claimed that the nonprofit, as a 501(c)(4), was committing a “knowing and willful violation” of election law, and wanted “action to enforce against criminal violations.”

After the charges, AIP gave the Justice Department a full explanation of its activities, stating that it was operating in a manner similar to the operations of groups like Naral Pro-Choice. AIP also disclosed its donor, Texas businessman Harold Simmons. Mr. Bauer then sent a second letter to the Justice Department asking that Mr. Simmons be prosecuted. On September 8, Mr. Bauer sent a third letter. On that date Mr. Bauer also complained to the Federal Elections Commission about AIP and Mr. Simmons. He than demanded that AIP turn over certain documents to his campaign–some of those documents they were entitled to and some they were not.

Mr. Bauer set an example soon followed by other left-sing groups:

The Bauer onslaught was a big part of a new liberal strategy to thwart the rise of conservative groups. In early August 2008, the New York Times trumpeted the creation of a left-wing group (a 501(c)4) called Accountable America. Founded by Obama supporter and liberal activist Tom Mattzie, the group—as the story explained—would start by sending “warning” letters to 10,000 GOP donors, “hoping to create a chilling effect that will dry up contributions.” The letters would alert “right-wing groups to a variety of potential dangers, including legal trouble, public exposure and watchdog groups digging through their lives.” As Mr. Mattzie told Mother Jones: “We’re going to put them at risk.”

In 2008, Mr. Bauer also went after supporters of Hillary Clinton and John Edwards:

American Leadership head (and Democrat) Jason Kinney would rail that Mr. Bauer had gone from “credible legal authority” to “political hatchet man”—but the damage was done. As Politico reported in August 2008, Mr. Bauer’s words had “the effect of scaring [Clinton and Edwards] donors and consultants,” even if they hadn’t yet “result[ed] in any prosecution.”

As general counsel to the Obama re-election campaign, Mr. Bauer used the same tactics on pro-Romney groups. The Obama campaign targeted private citizens who had donated to Romney groups. Democratic senators demanded that the IRS investigate these organizations.

So what have we learned? The targeting of any group opposed to Barack Obama was an everyday event during President Obama’s 2008 campaign. The targeting was not related to the Citizens United Supreme Court Decision–it was related to the way the Obama campaign did business. The same tactics were used in 2012 that were used in 2008–the only thing different were the political opponents.

We may never officially know whether President Obama was directly involved in the IRS’s targeting of conservatives and conservative groups. What we do know is that President Obama does not believe in a level playing field when running for election. During the past five years, America has gotten a not-so-free lesson on how Chicago politics works. I just hope we are paying attention.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Sometimes A “Preposterous Assertion” Leads To The Truth

Posted on by

On Sunday Kimberly Strassel posted an article at the Wall Street Journal detailing some aspects of the current Internal Revenue Service (IRS) scandal. Ms. Strassel reminds us that leadership comes from the top. President Obama didn’t have to be directly involved in the increased IRS scrutiny of conservative groups–he simply had to set the tone.

The article states:

Mr. Obama didn’t need to pick up the phone. All he needed to do was exactly what he did do, in full view, for three years: Publicly suggest that conservative political groups were engaged in nefarious deeds; publicly call out by name political opponents whom he’d like to see harassed; and publicly have his party pressure the IRS to take action.

One of the Democrat talking point on this scandal is that it is the result of the Citizens United decision by the Supreme Court in 2010. What that decision did was to allow corporations, associations, and political groups the same privileges in election campaigns that unions had enjoyed for years. The decision essentially leveled the playing field. Unions had been legally pouring money into campaigns for years whether their members supported the candidates they were supporting or not. The Citizens United decision meant that corporations would also have that right. It is interesting to note that corporations generally have a Board of Directors they have to answer to–unions are answerable only to their own leadership–the ones making the donations.

Ms. Strassel reminds us how the Obama campaign treated Idaho businessman and longtime Republican donor Frank VanderSloot:

Mr. VanderSloot is the Obama target who in 2011 made a sizable donation to a group supporting Mitt Romney. In April 2012, an Obama campaign website named and slurred eight Romney donors. It tarred Mr. VanderSloot as a “wealthy individual” with a “less-than-reputable record.” Other donors were described as having been “on the wrong side of the law.”

This was the Obama version of the phone call—put out to every government investigator (and liberal activist) in the land.

Twelve days later, a man working for a political opposition-research firm called an Idaho courthouse for Mr. VanderSloot’s divorce records. In June, the IRS informed Mr. VanderSloot and his wife of an audit of two years of their taxes. In July, the Department of Labor informed him of an audit of the guest workers on his Idaho cattle ranch. In September, the IRS informed him of a second audit, of one of his businesses. Mr. VanderSloot, who had never been audited before, was subject to three in the four months after Mr. Obama teed him up for such scrutiny.

This leads me back to the title of this article and to Ms. Stassel’s conclusion:

The IRS is easy to demonize, but it doesn’t exist in a vacuum. It got its heading from a president, and his party, who did in fact send it orders—openly, for the world to see. In his Tuesday press grilling, no question agitated White House Press Secretary Jay Carney more than the one that got to the heart of the matter: Given the president’s “animosity” toward Citizens United, might he have “appreciated or wanted the IRS to be looking and scrutinizing those . . .” Mr. Carney cut off the reporter with “That’s a preposterous assertion.”

Preposterous because, according to Mr. Obama, he is “outraged” and “angry” that the IRS looked into the very groups and individuals that he spent years claiming were shady, undemocratic, even lawbreaking. After all, he expects the IRS to “operate with absolute integrity.” Even when he does not.

I need to go on the record again as saying that I do not believe President Obama should be impeached. I believe that he has encouraged overreach by government agencies and misdeeds by supporters, but I don’t believe he should be impeached. President Obama has had enough Chicago experience to know how to avoid leaving his fingerprints on any questionable activity–an impeachment would simply divide the country and accomplish nothing.

So what do we need to do? If the mounting scandals bother you, get involved–in either party. There are good men in both parties–find one you can support and get to work. Every candidate needs people to mail things, hold signs, make phone calls, or simply show up at rallies. If you want to see integrity brought to Washington, become part of the process.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Using Scare Tactics To Discourage Whistleblowers

Posted on by

I will admit that I have only followed current events for the last twenty years or so, but I can’t remember ever hearing anything like the story I am about to report.

Yesterday Breitbart.com reported that two ABC News reporters who entered the Peck Federal Building in Cincinnati were escorted through the building by an armed uniformed police officer with the Federal Protective Service. The Peck Building is a public building, it is also the home of the Internal Revenue Service office in Cincinnati.

The article at Breitbart reports:

At the [Cincinnati] IRS office on the fourth floor, a woman who answered the buzzer referred reporters to officials in Washington, though they were not returning very many calls. That staffer also said she was not allowed to speak to anyone – a line that was repeated by agency personnel during the week.

IRS headquarters in Washington denied that a no-talk rule was official policy because, after all, agency staffers still have a constitutional right to talk to whomever they want. …

Not so, said IRS folks in Ohio.

One of them, who asked not be named, told ABC News that security guards did remind employees of the official policy not to talk with the press – a warning cemented by the punch line “or risk losing our jobs.”

All we need is one honest, brave employee to come forward and explain exactly what happened. Unfortunately, that would be the Obama Administration’s worst nightmare and they will do everything they can to keep that from happening.

Enhanced by Zemanta

The People Who Are Winning The Economic Lottery In President Obama’s Second Term

Posted on by

The economy is recovering at the speed of snails. The last raise my husband received paid more to the government than it did to him–and he is one of the lucky ones who has a steady job. So who is prospering in the current economy?

On April 25, Forbes Magazine posted a list of America‘s wealthiest counties:

While Loudoun (VA) ranks at the top, it’s far from alone on the list of wealthiest counties that surround Washington. In fact, it’s just the beginning. The neighboring counties of Falls Church City, Fairfax, Arlington and Prince William in Virginia and Howard County in Maryland all make the cut, giving the D.C. area six of the nation’s ten wealthiest counties. All boast median household incomes between $93,000 and $117,000 annually.

This is one of many reasons why the Tea Party exists. This is also one of many reasons why the Tea Party is such a threat to the government establishment (both Democrats and Republicans). But it gets even more interesting…

Clarice Feldman posted an article at American Thinker today about how the current scandals are impacting the pocketbooks of Washington lawyers. The article is a bit tongue-in-cheek, but makes some really good points. The scene is a Washington bistro frequented by lawyers, politicians, and upper-level civil servants. The restaurant is packed with lawyers celebrating the coming uptick of business in Washington.

This is just a sample of the article–please follow the link above to read the entire article:

“What are the colored badges for?” I asked.

“They signify which scandal defendants they are representing so they can exchange useful procedural and related information without disclosing who they are representing or breaching client confidentiality. The orange tag means the attorney is representing someone in the Benghazi scandal.”

“I see seven — probably Petraeus, Clinton, Rice, Donilon, Brennan, Nuland, Rhodes. And the blue badge?” I asked, sipping the drink.

“IRS scandal,” George whispered, wiping the counter to appear more inconspicuous.

“Hmm,” I thought, “Shulman, Ingram, Miller, Lerner, and some others to be named at a later date. And the red badge?”

“Small table — must be Justice officials on the Associated Press scandal.”

“Yeah, so far Holder and his deputy Cole. Will Cole cover for Holder who preposterously testified he recused himself because he speaks to the press, that he can’t remember when he recused himself, and that he didn’t follow the statutory mandate for recusal procedure?”

“You did notice,” Joe laughed, “that the ‘security breach’ which Holder claims occasioned the wiretapping of reporters turns out to be AP waiting to publish until they got the CIA’s approval but before the White House crowd could publicly pat themselves on the back for getting the underwear bomber?”

“Wasn’t that something? The whole story is too flimsy to hold a drop of water and even the press can grasp this one.”

At least someone is actually prospering in the Obama economy.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Why We Need To Drastically Shrink The Internal Revenue Service–Not Expand It

Posted on by

Yesterday the Washington Times reported that someone is actually suing the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). Turn about is fair play! So what did the IRS do that resulted in a lawsuit.

The lawsuit charges that the IRS violated the Fourth Amendment. The Fourth Amendment states:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The article explains:

…(IRS) agents executed a search warrant for financial data on one employee – and that led to the seizure of information on 10 million, including state judges.

The search warrant did not specify that the IRS could take medical information, UPI said. And information technology officials warned the IRS about the potential to violate medical privacy laws before agents executed the warrant, the complaint said, as reported by UPI.

“Despite knowing that these medical records were not within the scope of the warrant, defendants threatened to ‘rip’ the servers containing the medical data out of the building if IT personnel would not voluntarily hand them over,” the complaint states, UPI reported.

The article reports that the records taken could impact up to one in 25 Americans.

Meanwhile, Forbes Magazine posted an article on Friday noting:

…Obamacare dramatically expands the authority and the scope of the Internal Revenue Service. Two provisions in particular will require thousands of new IRS agents, and billions in funding, to enforce: the law’s individual mandate, forcing most Americans to buy government-approved health insurance; and its employer mandate, forcing most employers to take money out of workers’ paychecks to purchase costly health insurance on their behalf.

The IRS will be enforcing the individual mandate. We knew that. What you may not be aware of is that there are a number of exceptions to the individual mandate, and the IRS has to have a good deal of information about you to see if you are eligible for one of those exceptions–they are only collecting all of this personal information for your own good!

The law is also written in a way that forces employers with 50 or more “full-time employees” offer “minimum essential coverage” in an “affordable” manner. There are all sorts of rules and regulations surrounding this that also require the IRS to collect more information on all of us.

The article in Forbes suggests a solution:

Others are suggesting that the duty to enforce the individual and employer mandates be taken out of IRS’ hands and moved into another agency. But, to me, this doesn’t make much sense. Do we really want another government agency to have sensitive information about our incomes and our insurance policies?

The only viable solution to this problem is to repeal the employer mandate altogether, and to replace the individual mandate with something else, like a limited open enrollment period, that does not require expanding the power and the authority of the IRS.

ObamaCare will not be repealed unless it becomes an obstacle for Democrats running for office. Until the American people make it clear that they will not vote for anyone who does not support the repeal of ObamaCare, we will be stuck with it. Even then, it may take a little time for politicians to get the message. The thing to remember is that there will be a point of no return–a place where ObamaCare has so totally impacted health care in America that it cannot be repealed. Hopefully we get repeal it before we reach that point.

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

The Internal Revenue Service Scandal Raises More Questions Than It Answers

Posted on by

Yesterday’s Daily Caller posted a story that asked the following question:

…could someone at the IRS have leaked Romney’s tax information to Reid? At the time, Reid claimed he learned of Romney’s tax background from someone who had once been an investor in Romney’s firm, though he wouldn’t say who.

The question arises because it has come to light that for the last two years, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has been targeting conservative groups and leaking confidential information to liberal groups.

Harry Reid used his position as Senate Majority Leader to level charges at Mitt Romney that would have been impossible to disprove without totally compromising any bit of privacy Governor Romney might have had. In essence, he demanded that Mitt Romney prove a negative. The narrative went something like this:

In an interview with The Huffington Post, Reid claimed he had been called by someone who had invested in Romney’s former firm, Bain Capital. That person said Romney didn’t pay taxes for 10 years.

“He didn’t pay taxes for 10 years! Now, do I know that that’s true? Well, I’m not certain,” Reid told the liberal news outlet. “But obviously he can’t release those tax returns. How would it look?”

Romney’s campaign denied Reid’s accusations, eventually releasing a summary of the former Massachusetts governor’s taxes that — according to Romney staffers — showed he paid taxes over the last 20 years.

But Reid continued to argue that Romney’s tax returns included something that the Republican didn’t want everyone to see.

“He’s hiding something,” Reid said on a conference call. “He’s hiding something! It is so evident he’s hiding something!”

First of all, I seriously doubt the charges were true. However, since when did investors get to see the tax returns of board members of the companies in which they were investing? If in fact Harry Reid actually knew anything about Mitt Romney’s tax returns, where did he get that information?

Just a note–last year was the first year my husband and I have ever been audited. I am on the membership list of a number of conservative groups that probably have applied for tax exempt status. Hopefully, that is just a coincidence.

Enhanced by Zemanta

How To Silence Your Political Opposition Before An Election

Posted on by

Like it or not, political success in America has a lot to do with money. One way to stifle your political opposition is to dry up their money supply. One way to dry up their money supply is to refuse tax exempt status to their organizations that would buy advertising time in the major media. When you do that, their donations are no longer tax deductible and they receive less money. When you leave their tax-exempt status in limbo, they receive less in donations and thus have a smaller voice in the political process. That is the reason the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) scandal is important.

Today’s Weekly Standard reports:

NBC’s Lisa Myers reported this morning that the IRS  deliberately chose not to reveal that it had wrongly targeted conservative groups until after the 2012 presidential election. The IRS commissioner “has known for at least a year that this was going on,” said Myers, “and that this had happened. And did he share any of that information with the White House? But even more importantly, Congress is going to ask him, why did you mislead us for an entire year? Members of Congress were saying conservatives are being targeted. What’s going on here? The IRS denied it.

I don’t know if this would have made a difference. I am not sure how many people were or actually are paying attention to what is going on. Remember the stories we heard that said that the Tea Party was losing its impact? Well, due to the actions of the IRS, it was losing its funding.

I am not sure what the proper response to this mess is. I watched some of the hearings this morning and was disgusted. The Democrats are still denying and defending, and I am not sure if anyone is noticing what is going on. We are in danger of losing our system of government–we are on the edge of having our government tell us what we can think and how we can vote. We just watched the government defund the people who disagreed with them. My heart hurts for America right now. Unless more Americans wake up to what is happening, we have a government that controls us–not a government that represents us.

Rearranging The Deck Chairs On The Titanic

Posted on by

The Obama Administration has promised to get to the bottom of the Internal Revenue Service‘s (IRS) scandal involving the targeting of conservative groups. They have promised that the person responsible will be held accountable. Because of the time frame, they can’t blame it on George Bush, but that doesn’t mean that the concept of accountability isn’t flexible.

ABC News reported today that the person who was in charge of the tax-exempt organizations at the time the Tea Party was targeted is now head of the IRS’ Affordable Care Act office. Oddly enough, she was not the one asked to resign.

The article reports:

Her successor, Joseph Grant, is taking the fall for misdeeds at the scandal-plagued unit between 2010 and 2012. During at least part of that time, Grant served as deputy commissioner of the tax-exempt unit.

Grant announced today that he would retire June 3, despite being appointed as commissioner of the tax-exempt office May 8, a week ago.

As the House voted to fully repeal the Affordable Care Act Thursday evening, House Speaker John Boehner expressed “serious concerns” that the IRS is empowered as the law’s chief enforcer.

The IRS scandal has some rather subtle consequences. It vindicates those conservative organizations that were complaining about being targeting in 2010. It shows that Congress and the Inspector General were slow to respond to those complaints. But there is another aspect of this story that is interesting. The House of Representatives voted today to repeal ObamaCare. That is nothing new–they have been doing that pretty much on a regular basis. It won’t be repealed under this Congress–it would never pass the Senate, and even it it did, the Senate would not be able to override a Presidential veto. But there is a twist to this story. The IRS scandal is one that every American can relate to. As the scandal unfolds, the Republicans (assuming they have given up being the stupid party) will remind people that the IRS will be administering ObamaCare. After this scandal, that will be a scary prospect to many people. ObamaCare is not popular to begin with, it was passed with only Democrat votes–no Republicans voted for it, and the mid-term elections are a year and a half away. There will be more votes on the repeal of ObamaCare, and it will be interesting to see if any Democrats running for re-election change their votes.

Enhanced by Zemanta