Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Newspaper contacts | All Access E-Edition | Home RSS
 
 
 

Double standard

May 26, 2013

If, during the administration of George Bush, it was discovered that the IRS was targeting liberal non-profit organizations for additional scrutiny, and Congress decided to convene an investigation,......

« Back to Article

 
 
sort: oldest | newest

Comments

(57)

Ritty77

May-26-13 5:35 AM

Good letter, Mr. Carlucci.

12 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CHayes

May-26-13 6:19 AM

The IRS DID in fact go after liberal organizations during the Bush administration. IOW, it did it's job of trying to protect the American taxpayer by culling political groups (businesses) from tax exempt status.

I don't recall it being splashed all over the media, nor do I recall Congress launching into investigations. I wonder why? Maybe because it's a waste of taxpayer resources to investigate an agency for DOING IT'S JOB?

1 Agrees | 14 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Ritty77

May-26-13 6:34 AM

Obama's (outward) reaction and the stance taken by the IRS employees in Congressional hearings suggests they did more than their "job," Chris.

I will drink to the "Bush did it, too" excuse, though.

11 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CHayes

May-26-13 6:51 AM

"I will drink to the "Bush did it, too" excuse, though"

I didn't make any excuse. The letter writer, whose letter you said was "good" brought it up.

0 Agrees | 10 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Ritty77

May-26-13 6:52 AM

Yes, because you only use that excuse when the LTE references it.

Drink again!

9 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CHayes

May-26-13 6:53 AM

"employees in Congressional hearings suggests they did more than their "job," Chris"

Why is it necessary to waste taxpayer dollars to have a hearing into why a govt entity is doing it's job? Same reason it's necessary to waste millions of taxpayer dollars to hold THIRTY SEVEN votes to repeal the ACA maybe?

0 Agrees | 9 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CHayes

May-26-13 6:54 AM

"Yes, because you only use that excuse when the LTE references it."

It's not an "excuse" to ask on about your selective outrage. I wasn't outraged then, nor was the media. You weren't outraged when the IRS went after Greenpeace, the NAACP, and liberal churches a few years ago. Why the change of heart?

0 Agrees | 9 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

ToTEXASfromPA

May-26-13 6:55 AM

"My guess is that they will ignore the issue this time,"

++

It appears like the honeymoon is over and some of the press are slowing coming around to understand the character flaws in their mate.

The issue of the DOJ (and their leader Mr. Holder) "scrutinizing/invading" the freedoms of the press, is like urinating in their bowl of Cheerios. This may be the issue that finally gets the press to be more objective in their assessments of the current administrations.

8 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

spike2

May-26-13 6:58 AM

Let's make one thing clear - the I.R.S. is a monolithic nightmare. However,non-political Non-Profits take about 14 months for approval. Getting a questionnaire after application is not unusual even when you use legal counsel and an accountant prior to application. No group should be targeted. However, no group gets quick approval either. The I.R.S. and the Non-Profit division needs an overhaul for everyone applying.

6 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

eriklatranyi

May-26-13 6:59 AM

CHayes:

You perfectly demonstrate how to be a useful idiot.

11 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CHayes

May-26-13 7:11 AM

Ah erik's here now. Maybe he can answer the seemingly simple question for me that nobody seems to be able to answer.

Why should a political business not have to pay taxes like every other business in America?

I thought you people were always interested in defending the American taxpayer? Suddenly you seem more interested in obtaining tax breaks for your political cronies.

4 Agrees | 9 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Ritty77

May-26-13 7:16 AM

chayes denies and defends things that the IRS has already admitted to and apologized for.

Just how much colorful, fruit-flavored beverage can a person consume?

12 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CHayes

May-26-13 7:26 AM

So you STILL can't answer the question ritty?

0 Agrees | 7 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CHayes

May-26-13 7:29 AM

Another question. When someone applies to the IRS for a tax exempt status for their business, can the IRS reject the application out of hand? You know, just stamp "DENIED" on it and send it back?

0 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Ritty77

May-26-13 7:42 AM

I only answer legitimate, relevant questions, Chris. Otherwise, the issue at hand gets lost in the straw men.

9 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

VinceKnauff

May-26-13 7:45 AM

Why should a political business not have to pay taxes like every other business in America?

Because the laws enacted allow them to do so.

Next question?

9 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

VinceKnauff

May-26-13 7:49 AM

Why is it necessary to waste taxpayer dollars to have a hearing into why a govt entity is doing it's job?

Is "it's job" described as treating those groups with views opposite of the administration while allowing groups we agree with sail through the process?

You claimed that the same thing was done under Bush. Have any proof of that? Does that proof compare in magnitude to the hundreds of instances that have been revealed this time?

8 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

VinceKnauff

May-26-13 7:51 AM

I forgot to proof this comment before entering it. .....treating those groups with views opposite of the administration with extreme and prolonged scrutiny while allowing groups we agree with sail through the process?.....

is what I meant below.

7 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CarlHiller

May-26-13 7:52 AM

CHayes - I actually agree with this - "Why should a political business not have to pay taxes like every other business in America?" The only reason they do not is that they are exempt under the law. If they had a to pay a tax there would be thousands of pages of rules, regulations and exemptions, so, since the political hacks receive so much from them, on both sides, they choose to keep them exempt.

7 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

gavinf56

May-26-13 8:18 AM

Isn't it funny that we never heard a single complaint from those on the left back when Media Matters, Move On dot Org, or Progressives for Obama got their tax exempt status.

Oh, and yea, and this was long before the SCOTUS Citizens United decision.

10 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CHayes

May-26-13 8:29 AM

" Is "it's job" described as treating those groups with views opposite of the administration while allowing groups we agree with sail through the process?"

Prove that statement or retract it. All you need to do to prove it is produce the average time it took for approval of "liberal" groups, and the average time it took for approval of "conservative" groups.

I'll be waiting for your response Vince.

0 Agrees | 7 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CHayes

May-26-13 8:33 AM

" Isn't it funny that we never heard a single complaint from those on the left back when Media Matters, Move On dot Org, or Progressives for Obama got their tax exempt status."

Are those groups 501(c)(4) dark money groups? I know for a fact that Media Matters is a 501(c)(3).

Any group called "Progressives for Obama" should have their tax exempt status rejected out of hand immediately because they endorse a specific candidate IN THEIR NAME. If they received tax exempt status, it is indeed an outrage.

0 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CHayes

May-26-13 8:37 AM

" The only reason they do not is that they are exempt under the law"

They aren't exempt under any law. They are exempt under the Citizens United Court ruling. I thought you folks were against "judicial activism"?

0 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

gavinf56

May-26-13 8:41 AM

Sorry Chris, it should have been Organizing for America not Progressives for Obama.

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

VinceKnauff

May-26-13 8:41 AM

The IRS used inappropriate criteria that identified for review Tea Party and other organizations applying for tax-exempt status based upon their names or policy positions instead of indications of potential political campaign intervention. Ineffective management: 1) allowed inappropriate criteria to be developed and stay in place for more than 18 months, 2) resulted in substantial delays in processing certain applications, and 3) allowed unnecessary information requests to be issued.

This was straight from the Treasury audit released May 14. That good enough Chris? (Reference Number: 2013-10-053)

7 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 25 of 57 comments Show More Comments
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
*Password:
Remember my email address.
or
 
 

 

I am looking for:
in:
News, Blogs & Events Web