Re: Let's get something straight here and now: IRS DID NOT TARGET CONSERVATIVE GROUPS. NO, THEY DID NOT.

[Robert Westergrom,1900 Harvey rd.,Wilmington,D.E]

On May 22, 6:18 am, Kickin' Ass and Taking Names
<PopUlist...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 21 May 2013 21:07:28 -0700 (PDT), Ryanator
>
> <Ryana...@lavabit.com> wrote:
> >On May 21, 9:06 pm, Kickin'  Ass  and  Taking  Names
> ><PopUlist...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>http://blog.ourfuture.org/20130520/the-latest-lie-irs-targeted-conser...
>
> >> Remember the video of the guy in the “pimp costume” who got advice
> >> from ACORN employees on how to run his prostitution ring? Turns out
> >> the whole story was just a lie, a doctored-video smear job on an
> >> important organization. The guy never wore a “pimp costume” and the
> >> real, undoctored videos showed that ACORN employees did nothing wrong.
> >> But a lie travels around the world before the corporate media bothers
> >> to check the facts. The “news” media blasted the story everywhere, and
> >> Congress was so outraged they forced ACORN to close its doors. And
> >> here we are again.
>
> >> The corporate media is blasting out the story that the IRS “targeted
> >> conservative groups.” Some in the media say there was “IRS harassment
> >> of conservative groups.” Some of the media are going so far as
> >> claiming that conservative groups were “audited.”
>
> >> This story that is being repeated and treated as “true” is just not
> >> what happened at all. It is one more right-wing victimization fable,
> >> repeated endlessly until the public has no choice except to believe
> >> it.
>
> >> Conservative Groups Were Not “Targeted,” “Singled Out” Or Anything
> >> Else
>
> >> You are hearing that conservative groups were “targeted.” What you are
> >> not hearing is that progressive groups were also “targeted.” So were
> >> groups that are not progressive or conservative.
>
> >> All that happened here is that groups applying to the IRS for special
> >> tax status were checked to see if they were engaged in political
> >> activity. They were checked, not targeted. Only one-third of the
> >> groups checked were conservative groups.
>
> >> Once again: Only one-third of the groups checked were conservative
> >> groups.
>
> >> Conservative groups were not “singled out,” were not “targeted” and in
> >> the end none were denied special tax status – even though many
> >> obviously should have been.
>
> >> From last week’s House hearings on this:
>
> >> Rep. Peter Roskam, R-IL: “How come only conservative groups got
> >> snagged?”
>
> >> Outgoing acting IRS commissioner Steve Miller: “They didn’t sir.
> >> Organizations of all walks and all persuasions were pulled in. That’s
> >> shown by the fact that only 70 of the 300 organizations were tea party
> >> organizations, of the ones that were looked at by TIGTA [Treasury
> >> Inspector General for Tax Administration].”
>
> >> Bet you didn’t see that blasted all over your TV news that night.
>
> >> Click here to watch the video clip of this. It’s worth it.
>
> >> And from Bloomberg reporting: IRS Sent Same Letter to Democrats That
> >> Fed Tea Party Row, (emphasis added, for emphasis)
>
> >> One of those groups, Emerge America, saw its tax-exempt status denied,
> >> forcing it to disclose its donors and pay some taxes. None of the
> >> Republican groups have said their applications were rejected. Progress
> >> Texas … faced the same lines of questioning as the Tea Party groups
> >> from the same IRS office that issued letters to the
> >> Republican-friendly applicants. A third group, Clean Elections Texas,
> >> which supports public funding of campaigns, also received IRS
> >> inquiries.
>
> >> In a statement late yesterday, the tax agency said it had pooled
> >> together the politically active nonpartisan applicants — including a
> >> “minority” that were identified because of their names. “It is also
> >> important to understand that the group of centralized cases included
> >> organizations of all political views,” the IRS said in its statement.
> >> Again, for emphasis: “It is also important to understand that the
> >> group of centralized cases included organizations of all political
> >> views,” the IRS said in its statement.”
>
> >> But no matter, its conventional wisdom now that “the IRS targeted
> >> conservative groups.” And it’s very useful to the right if people
> >> believe this. But it just is not true. (If you want to see
> >> conventional wisdom at work watch this clip from the most recent
> >> Saturday Night Live.)
>
> >> What Did Happen?
>
> >> Here’s the story. After the “Citizen’s United” decision allowed
> >> unlimited corporate money into elections there was a flood of
> >> applications to get special tax status that allowed an organization to
> >> hide its donors from the public, and in some cases even be tax-exempt.
> >> But the rules say that political groups can’t get this special tax
> >> status. The IRS has to check out applications for tax status to see if
> >> it is really a political group trying to sneak in to a special tax
> >> status.
>
> >> Because they were flooded and couldn’t check out every applying
> >> organization, the IRS group looked for things in the applications that
> >> “flagged” an organization as possibly a political group. These flagged
> >> applications were then passed along to specialists to look deeper and
> >> determine if they were legit or not.
>
> >> So What Was The “Wrongdoing”?
>
> >> The Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA) has
> >> issued a full report: Inappropriate Criteria Were Used to Identify
> >> Tax-Exempt Applications for Review that looked into the accusation
> >> that the IRS “targeted” tea party groups that were applying for
> >> special tax status for extra scrutiny. The report is not all that
> >> long. You should read it. (Apparently most the people you are hearing
> >> from in the media haven’t read it.)
>
> >> According to the report, the swamped IRS group involved in this came
> >> up with ways – “criteria” – to identify groups that really needed to
> >> be checked further because it was possible they might be engaged in
> >> the kind of political activity that would exclude them from getting
> >> the special tax status. (The rules for what constitutes political
> >> activity that would keep a group for getting special tax status are,
> >> to say the least, not clear. See the P.S. below.) Some groups were
> >> chosen to receive the required scrutiny because they had
> >> “political-sounding” names. Some of the “political-sounding names”
> >> included the words “tea party.” Others included “We the People” and
> >> “Take Back the Country.” (The inspector general’s report does not
> >> disclose if or which other “political sounding names” were also used
> >> as criteria.)
>
> >> And the other problem was that the scrutiny these groups received
> >> involved some “unnecessary, burdensome questions.”
>
> >> That was the extent of the wrongdoing. At a time when they couldn’t
> >> give all applying groups the necessary scrutiny they used criteria
> >> that included the names of an applying group to decide if it would get
> >> the required scrutiny. And they asked “unnecessary, burdensome
> >> questions.” That’s it. That’s the whole thing.
>
> >> Normally all groups applying for special tax status would and should
> >> all get looked at to see if they were really political groups. In this
> >> case no groups received any extra scrutiny as has been accused,
> >> instead many received less than usual. No group was “singled out” or
> >> “targeted” for extra scrutiny, instead they were not given the free
> >> pass others were getting because of the overload of applicants.
>
> >> The IG report concluded that it was wrong to use a group’s name as a
> >> criteria to help determine if an applicant would be checked out at a
> >> time when there were so many applications that every group was not
> >> being checked out. (However, the IG report did say that most of the
> >> groups forwarded with this criteria in fact should have been
> >> forwarded.)
>
> >> Again, that’s the wrongdoing that has triggered the absolute frenzy of
> >> outrage you are hearing from … everyone. They said it was silly to use
> >> a group’s name as criteria for deciding if they should be checked out
> >> thoroughly at a time when the IRS was too busy to thoroughly check all
> >> applications as they usually do. And they said groups filing for a
> >> special tax status but suspected of political activity were then asked
> >> “unnecessary, burdensome questions.”
>
> >> And again, that’s it, That’s the whole “scandal.” That’s the whole
> >> “IRS harassing conservative groups.” That’s the whole “Obama the
> >> dictatorial tyrant going after his enemies” hissy-fit. (Pleasee read
> >> Digby’s The Art of the Hissy-Fit)
>
> >> A Few Facts
>
> >> Fact: The IRS is required to determine whether organizations applying
> >> for special tax status are “social welfare” groups or are instead
> >> engaged in political activity. Political groups cannot get the special
> >> tax status these groups were applying for.
>
> >> Fact: Only one-third of the groups that were passed to specialists for
> >> a closer look were “conservative.” Lots of other organizations were
> >> also checked, including progressive organizations.
>
> >> Fact: No groups were audited or harassed or “targeted” or “singled
> >> out.” This was about applications for special tax status being
> >> forwarded to specialists for a closer look to see if they were engaged
> >> in political activity that would disqualify them for the special tax
> >> status. This closer look is the kind of review all organization should
> >> get, but the IRS was swamped because of the flood of groups applying
> >> for a status that let them mask their donors, after Citizens United.
>
> >> Fact: No groups were harmed. There were delays while the groups were
> >> checked to see if they should have special tax status. That’s it. But
> >> the rules are that they are allowed to operate as if they had that
> >> status while they waited for official approval.
>
> >> Fact: The only groups actually denied special tax status were
> >> progressive groups, not conservative groups. In 2011, during the
> >> period that “conservative groups were targeted” the New York Times
> >> carried the story, 3 Groups Denied Break by I.R.S. Are Named . The
> >> three groups? Drum roll … “The I.R.S. denied tax exemption to the
> >> groups — Emerge Nevada, Emerge Maine and Emerge Massachusetts —
> >> because, the agency wrote in denial letters, they were set up
> >> specifically to cultivate Democratic candidates.”
>
> >> Fact: The IRS commissioner in charge at the IRS at the time this
> >> happened was ...
>
> >> read more »
>
> >Why is Lerner taking the 5th to protect herself from self
> >INCRIMINATION if there was no crime?
>
> >http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2328696/Lois-Lerner-Top-IRS-o...
>
> Probably because she knows the GOTP will twist every syllable she
> utters and, besides, it's not ladylike to tell an entire political
> party to "Kiss my ass, you rightwing piece of shit."

Yeah, that's it. That's gotta be the reason. It isn't like she has
anything to hide. I mean after all, whaddabout Bush?