Besides, it turned out that it was a conservative Republican IRS agent that started the whole thing. He must have realized the hypocrisy of the tax law that would give ANY political group tax exempt status.
Applications delayed, are applications denied.That does not mean they denied any of the groups exempt status.
Laughable! It's pretty clear that the IRS people behind this were Lerner, and Paz, and Ingram.Besides, it turned out that it was a conservative Republican IRS agent that started the whole thing.
The IRS, along with other Bureaucratic agencies are corrupt with life long, and entrenched activist, and union influences that transcend administrations....The IRS needs to be abolished, and the tax system as it exists today repealed, and replaced with a fair tax system with no carve outs for special interests.He must have realized the hypocrisy of the tax law that would give ANY political group tax exempt status.
Good try, but your spin is hereby un-spun, debunked, trashed, and kicked to the curb.
'Lookout List' Not Much Broader Than Originally Thought, Contrary to Reports | National Review OnlineNO, THE IRS WASN’T TREATING “PROGRESSIVE” GROUPS THE SAME WAY IT WAS TREATING THE TEA PARTY: ‘Lookout List’ Not Much Broader Than Originally Thought, Contrary to Reports. That’s just spin in an effort to make the probe go away.
“We do not believe any group of men adequate enough or wise enough to operate without scrutiny or without criticism. We know that the only way to avoid error is to detect it, that the only way to detect it is to be free to inquire. We know that in secrecy error undetected will flourish and subvert”. – J Robert Oppenheimer.
The fact is the IRS used it's power to unfairly target fund raising groups leading up to an election. The groups are very vocal and have strong support (Tea Party), as close as the election was it is entirely possible that without this manipulation the election may have gone the other way. The IRS is at fault to a level that people should be facing serious prison time, and the administration shares the blame for allowing it to happen and then helping to try to cover it up. Keep it up Obama Admin, this kind of thing has happened before and it did not end well for the arrogant assholes in power.
fivethirtyeight tea party approvals.pngBut an inspector general’s report indicated that I.R.S. officials began targeting conservative groups in March 2010 by searching for groups with names containing “Tea Party,” “patriot” or “9/12.” The report says officials then switched to more expansive, less partisan search criteria in July 2011 and in January 2012, before broadening the criteria a third time on May 17, two weeks after Mr. Camp’s letter.
But the first two revisions to the search criteria do not appear to have resulted in more Tea Party groups gaining approval. During the entire two-year span — from March 2010, when the agency began singling out conservative groups, to April 2012, just before it received Mr. Camp’s letter and changed its search criteria for the last time — the I.R.S. approved the applications of just four groups with those conservative keywords in their names. After the I.R.S. altered its search criteria the final time, the agency approved more than 40 Tea Party applications.
Some further thoughts on the subject from Silver:
Iguana, your post factually incorrect. They did not all recieve their exemption, they especially did not recieve it in a timely manner.In a basic sense, scandals that reduce trust in government have the potential to harm those who argue for more government. Mr. Obama has predicated much of his agenda on the idea that Americans can and should trust the government to take action on health care, gun legislation and other issues. An issue like the I.R.S. scandal could be seized upon by those who argue that background checks for gun purchases will lead to a national registry, or that information the government collects in implementing the health care law will be abused, even if the government promises it will not.
That means the applications of progressive groups could be approved on the spot by line agents, while those of tea-party groups could not. Furthermore, the November 2010 list noted that tea-party cases were “currently being coordinated with EOT,” which stands for Exempt Organizations Technical, a group of tax lawyers in Washington, D.C. Those of progressive groups were not.
The AP reported earlier on Monday that “Terms including ‘Israel,’ ’Progressive’ and ‘Occupy’ were used by agency workers to help pick groups for closer examination.” That appears to be misleading, as there is no indication from the list examined by NRO that progressive groups were singled out for heightened scrutiny in a manner similar to tea-party groups. Cases involving healthcare legislation, however, were. “New applications are subject to secondary screening in Group 7821,” the list notes.