IRS Admits They Targeted Conservative Groups

[Dirty Penguin]

I didn't vote for Obama based on his promises. Although the reason he backed off his executive order concerning Gitmo is interesting. He has restated recently to close it, but that will depend on Al Qaeda and Yemen.

Wasn't he blocked by Congress from closing it?

 

[TheKnight]

It was an issue... just not in the way that conservatives, or the average joe that just listens to the media thinks it was.

It would be like if you had a job where you had to sort out bad eggs from good eggs. You notice that the white eggs have a greater tendency to be bad than brown eggs. Your workload then suddenly triples one day, with the greatest influx being more white eggs. Instead of giving all the eggs equal levels of inspection, you now decide just to focus on the white eggs.

The purpose of your policy wasn't to be prejudiced against white eggs, but to do your job in a more expedient manner. The result, however, is that your policy is prejudiced against white eggs.

The way conservatives are trying to spin this is that it was the purpose of the policy to be prejudiced against white eggs, rather than a policy of expediency that had that poorly thought out effect. I think that's an important distinction. The effect of this prejudicial policy still requires an apology, but the policy was not enacted to purposefully be prejudicial.

What you describe is similar to criminal profiling that police do (which I don't disagree with). Suppose I work in an area that is 84% hispanic and 16% asian. As the local LEO I look for evidence of crimes as I drive around on patrol. Suppose that over the past month, in a particular part of the area, 32 robberies have occurred with the same suspect description (asian male age 17-25 wearing blue jeans and a gray sweatshirt carrying a black semi-automatic 9mm pistol). If it is my goal to find evidence of and apprehend the culprit, it makes no sense for me to spend my entire day applying a proportionate amount of scrutiny (presuming that fair scrutiny means I will stop 84% hispanics and 16% asians during each shift). Rather, it would then be my goal to stop/talk to/monitor the actions of all those fitting the description of those who committed the crimes.

 

[dawny0826]

Because they were wrong in the "way" they scrutinized these groups. They weren't "for" scrutinizing these groups. The apology came from the people in charge and not the people conducting the scrutiny.

It doesn't matter to those who were scrutinized outside the auspices of procedure. You're right. Apologies aren't going to soothe the beast, if they suspect politically charged motive.

 

[Revoltingest]

Actual scandals are different than manufactured scandals

One man's "manufactured" is another's "actual".
If I hear glib & quick pronouncements about which is which, but without cogent argument, then this is mere tendentious opinion.
Moreover, making it about the word "scandal" is to deflect from the real issue that wrong & harm were perpetrated.

 

[tytlyf]

So, as I've stated, my problem then would moreso be with the ridiculous apology that's opened an unnecessary can of worms and has placed the IRS and Obama Administration under scrutiny.

I believe the IRS apology concerning extra scrutiny came in response to the outrage and manufactured scandal by the right. The IRS did apologize for the extra scrutiny, but didn't take back what they did. I'm sure I could look at some other fields of scrutiny by the IRS and make up any scandal I want.

Wasn't he blocked by Congress from closing it?

I initially thought that, but with him signing the executive order on his 2nd day in presidency, he retracted closing Gitmo a year or so later when it was scheduled to close. Mostly due in fact that Gitmo's majority population are Yemeni and the recent influx of Al Qaeda in Yemen in the years of 2008-2009 changed the decision to send these prisoners back. I guess you could still close Gitmo in that case, but you'd send them here to the mainland.
Like I said, Gitmo held nearly 0% of the reason I voted for Obama. You can't expect everyone to keep every promise. Although Obama overall has kept more than not so far.

 

[Falvlun]

Why a public apology, admitting fault if there wasn't fault? Why drag your employees under the bus, if they were just doing their job and doing their jobs accurately? That wasn't the public admission.

I just explained it above. There was fault. The fault was that they enacted a policy of expediency that resulted in conservative groups more likely being flagged for greater scrutiny. It was a bad policy that had a prejudiced result.

My point was that the fault was not a politically motivated attempt to silence conservatives.

EDIT:
Sorry, I should have read your following posts before replying. I think we're on the same page.

I did want to address this, though:

So, as I've stated, my problem then would moreso be with the ridiculous apology that's opened an unnecessary can of worms and has placed the IRS and Obama Administration under scrutiny. Stabs from opposition is par for the course, be it warranted or not.

I really don't see how you can find fault in apologizing for a screw up. I mean, isn't that the transparent way of dealing with something like this? Would you have really preferred for Obama to quietly fix it without telling the American public what was up? An apology is an acknowledgement of a mistake and the intent to fix it; I see nothing wrong with that.

But as has plagued this president from the get-go, for all his way with words, he and his administration really suck at controlling the narrative.

 

[Revoltingest]

What you describe is similar to criminal profiling that police do (which I don't disagree with). Suppose I work in an area that is 84% hispanic and 16% korean. As the local LEO I look for evidence of crimes as I drive around on patrol. Suppose that over the past month, in a particular part of the area, 32 robberies have occurred with the same suspect description (korean male age 17-25 wearing blue jeans and a gray sweatshirt carrying a black semi-automatic 9mm pistol). If it is my goal to find evidence of and apprehend the culprit, it makes no sense for me to spend my entire day applying a proportionate amount of scrutiny (presuming that fair scrutiny means I will stop 84% hispanics and 16% koreans during each shift). Rather, it would then be my goal to stop/talk to/monitor the actions of all those fitting the description of those who committed the crimes.

To make it about non-Asians & a specific nefarious Korean suspect is the wrong analogy.
To search based upon a description of a person seen committing a particular crime is quite different
from profiling an entire political wing based upon the possibility they might do something wrong.
The IRS was profiling all groups of a particular differing political orientation.

Moreover, the IRS argument that this profiling was an expedient response to an increase in
applications doesn't pass the smell test, given that they actually increased their workload
for the groups subject to extensive audits.

 

[tytlyf]

Let's keep in mind the extra scrutiny was most likely due to tons of Tea Party and Patriot applications compared to the rest. The prayer issue is part of policy and I'm sure the IRS knows that these organizations are religiously motivated more so than the other side. It's a no-brainer

 

[Falvlun]

Moreover, making it about the word "scandal" is to deflect from the real issue that wrong & harm were perpetrated.

Calling it a scandal, however, is a semantical trick that inflates small harm or normal mistakes into sounding like big harm and bumbling blunders.

 

[TheKnight]

To make it about non-Asians & a specific nefarious Korean suspect is the wrong analogy.

True...edited to correct such a mistake.

To search based upon a description of a person seen committing a particular crime is quite different
from profiling an entire political wing based upon the possibility they might do something wrong.
The IRS was profiling all groups of a particular differing political orientation.

Were groups of a similar (IE Democratic/liberal) political orientation even applying for the same tax-exempt status? And if so, did they not receive the same level of scrutiny (I don't know enough about the whole ordeal, but it would certainly be an indicator of whether or not the scandal was as scandalous as it's being made out to be).

 

[dawny0826]

I believe the IRS apology concerning extra scrutiny came in response to the outrage and manufactured scandal by the right. The IRS did apologize for the extra scrutiny, but didn't take back what they did. I'm sure I could look at some other fields of scrutiny by the IRS and make up any scandal I want.

There was no manufactured scandal that I can see from any of the articles on the topic. Do you have a source to support this? I'd be interested in reading it.

Everything from the "right" appears to be reactive to lengthy screening, questioning and then a public apology from the IRS with an admittence that specific groups were "targeted". Though there doesn't appear to be political motive, there's no way for you and I to know for sure as to what really happened. We can only rely on our nation's media as source.

Again, as far as I'm concerned, I can see such a situation panning out as a politically charged situation, as these "lower level workers" are not working on their own accord. They report to someone, who reports to someone else. This has been the entire point in terms of "political climate". It's not off base for someone to ponder as to the possibility of politics playing a role, regardless as to the statement that's been issued by the IRS.

And if this was a genuine mistake made by "lower level workers", I think the IRS did their own employees an injustice by not taking full responsibiilty for the mishap as an entity, as opposed to running a group of employees under the bus. That was foul.

 

[Falvlun]

Moreover, the IRS argument that this profiling was an expedient response to an increase in
applications doesn't pass the smell test, given that they actually increased their workload
for the groups subject to extensive audits.

It wasn't about making less work over all, but to more easily identify which groups required greater scrutiny.

And really, it wasn't a completely boneheaded idea to think "Oh. Groups which have political names and agendas are more likely to be too political for non-profit status. Therefore, maybe we should focus on those sorts of groups."

 

[Falvlun]

Were groups of a similar (IE Democratic/liberal) political orientation even applying for the same tax-exempt status? And if so, did they not receive the same level of scrutiny (I don't know enough about the whole ordeal, but it would certainly be an indicator of whether or not the scandal was as scandalous as it's being made out to be).

That's a good question and I was just asking myself this as I wrote my last post.

I wonder if they included words like "Liberal" or "Socialist" or "We <3 Obama" in their criteria if that would have balanced it all out and made this whole selection process legit.

 

[dawny0826]

I just explained it above. There was fault. The fault was that they enacted a policy of expediency that resulted in conservative groups more likely being flagged for greater scrutiny. It was a bad policy that had a prejudiced result.

My point was that the fault was not a politically motivated attempt to silence conservatives.

EDIT:
Sorry, I should have read your following posts before replying. I think we're on the same page.

I did want to address this, though:


I really don't see how you can find fault in apologizing for a screw up. I mean, isn't that the transparent way of dealing with something like this? Would you have really preferred for Obama to quietly fix it without telling the American public what was up? An apology is an acknowledgement of a mistake and the intent to fix it; I see nothing wrong with that.

But as has plagued this president from the get-go, for all his way with words, he and his administration really suck at controlling the narrative.

Because, the apology issued was for "targeting" conservative groups. The IRS pegged blame on their own employees, referring to them as "low level workers" who didn't do anything politically motivated, but decided, on their own, to "target" conservative applications and subject these groups to additional screening, questioning, etc.

If the "targeting" was in effect innocent, at least in intent - because of the influx in conservative group applications and the sorting and "targeting" was deemed necessary as a business practice, did they do anything wrong? Why didn't the IRS support them?

 

[Falvlun]

Because, the apology issued was for "targeting" conservative groups. That was the apology issued. The IRS pegged blame on their own employees, referring to them as "low level workers" who didn't do anything politically motivated, but decided, on their own, to "target" conservative applications and subject these groups to additional screening, questioning, etc.

It makes no damn sense. Of course there was political motivation. Why else would you "target" these groups?

Because, if your "targeting" was SPECIFIC to the fact that you needed to undergo additional screening, reviewing, etc. because of the influx of applications - you didn't do anything wrong. You just did your job and the IRS should be defending you, not apologizing.

I don't know how better to explain it.

You would target these groups because there's a lot of them and they seem likely to fail the non-majority political activity requirement for non-profit status. Don't you think it reasonable to suspect that a group called "Tea Party for Congress!" may be too political to be considered a non-profit?

I can see how this could be a reasonable criterion for additional scrutiny, and I can also see how such a criterion could produce questionable results, namely excessively scrutinizing specifically conservative groups.

The apology is for the result-- excessive scrutiny of conservative groups.

These workers probably were doing their job in good faith. But surely you can agree that criteria which single out specific political groups, regardless of the reason, should be avoided.

(Unless, as noted in my post above, all political groups are scrutinized. If they had "liberal" and "tea party" both as trigger words, I don't see what the big deal is.)

 

[dawny0826]

I don't know how better to explain it.

You would target these groups because there's a lot of them and they seem likely to fail the non-majority political activity requirement for non-profit status. Don't you think it reasonable to suspect that a group called "Tea Party for Congress!" may be too political to be considered a non-profit?

I can see how this could be a reasonable criterion for additional scrutiny, and I can also see how such a criterion could produce questionable results, namely excessively scrutinizing specifically conservative groups.

The apology is for the result-- excessive scrutiny of conservative groups.

These workers probably were doing their job in good faith. But surely you can agree that criteria which single out specific political groups, regardless of the reason, should be avoided.

(Unless, as noted in my post above, all political groups are scrutinized. If they had "liberal" and "tea party" both as trigger words, I don't see what the big deal is.)

I get everything you've said, in fact, I've stated much of this myself in prior posts.

What doesn't make sense to me is the mindset that there couldn't possibly be political motive behind this in anyway - just because the IRS has said so. They've also ran their own people under the bus, when they could have taken responsibily for this as a singular entity.

Wouldn't surprise if the "low level workers" did nothing wrong and were doing what their superiors told them to do. We won't know what really happened. We're going to take what we want from our media.

I think the apology was a stupid call, personally. The government has chosen to publicly open a can of worms and deserve backlash for their decision to do so.

 

[Falvlun]

What doesn't make sense to me is the mindset that there couldn't possibly be political motive behind this in anyway - just because the IRS has said so.

There could be a political motive, just like Obama could have faked Bin Laden's death. There's no proof of such though, and I would suspect that if there was such a motive, someone would have come out by now and said "Hey! I was specifically told by a top Obama aide to target conservative groups to aid his election chances" or "I heard that the big bosses in the IRS are targetting conservative groups because they want Obama to win." The fact that that hasn't occurred is pretty indicative; that's not something that would be able to remain hidden long in this climate. And believe me, I'm sure the conservatives are digging for it.

They've also ran their own people under the bus, when they could have taken responsibily for this as a singular entity.

Wouldn't surprise if the "low level workers" did nothing wrong and were doing what their superiors told them to do. We won't know what really happened. We're going to take what we want from our media.

By "low level workers" I don't think they mean just the techs or something like that. This probably does encompass a whole slew of superiors, bosses, etc. I think the point was to make it clear that it didn't go all the way to the top. But yeah, I agree that taking it as a whole would have likely sounded better.

I think the apology was a stupid call, personally. The government has chosen to publicly open a can of worms and deserve backlash for their decision to do so.

It basically sounds to me that you want a scandal over how the IRS scandal was handled.

 

[Revoltingest]

True...edited to correct such a mistake.

Were groups of a similar (IE Democratic/liberal) political orientation even applying for the same tax-exempt status? And if so, did they not receive the same level of scrutiny (I don't know enough about the whole ordeal, but it would certainly be an indicator of whether or not the scandal was as scandalous as it's being made out to be).

If the IRS had applied the same level of scrutiny to left leaning groups, do you suppose that
they would've offered this up as evidence of neutrality in their own defense? I would think so.
But instead they apologized for profiling right leaning & also possibly right leaning groups.
And we also see this embarrassing tidbit in the news...
IRS stalled conservative groups, but gave speedy approval to Obama foundation - The Washington Post

 

[Falvlun]

And we also see this embarrassing tidbit in the news...
IRS stalled conservative groups, but gave speedy approval to Obama foundation - The Washington Post

I'm sure you can find many groups on either side of the aisle that received speedy approvals.

But the IRS largely maintained a hands-off policy with the much larger, big-budget organizations on the left and right that were most influential in the elections and are organized under a section of the tax code that allows them to hide their donors.

/snip/

Karl Rove's Crossroads GPS and the Koch brothers' Americans for Prosperity were among those that spent tens of millions of dollars on TV ads and get-out-the-vote efforts to help Republicans. Democrats were aided in similar fashion by Priorities USA, made up of former Barack Obama campaign aides, and American Bridge 21st Century Foundation, an opposition research group led by a former adviser to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.

And yet those groups so far have escaped investigations into whether they have crossed the blurry line under the law between what constitutes a tax-exempt "social welfare" organization that is free from donor reporting requirements and a political committee subject to taxes and disclosures.

from HERE

 

[Revoltingest]

It wasn't about making less work over all, but to more easily identify which groups required greater scrutiny.

Have a link to evidence for right leaning groups actually requiring greater scrutiny, particularly compared to the left?

And really, it wasn't a completely boneheaded idea to think "Oh. Groups which have political names and agendas are more likely to be too political for non-profit status. Therefore, maybe we should focus on those sorts of groups."

"Boneheaded" would be the most charitable description for choosing political
names & agendas which profiled primarily right leaning groups.