by | ARTICLES, HYPOCRISY, OBAMA, POLITICS
How does Obama go from being the smartest person ever to be elected President to learning about important stuff going on by watching the news?
One of the key components of Tea Party ideology is the championing for smaller government. As the IRS scandal targeting the Tea Party, Conservatives, and pro-Israel Jews continues to fester, a quick glance at the various figures involved in the wrongdoing have resorted to finger pointing and the blame game. According to Obama and others officials themselves, we have an answer: “Not Me” did it.
First, from the IG Report (emphasis mine):
“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”.
“During interviews with Determinations Unit specialists and managers, we could not specifically determine who had been involved in creating the criteria. EO [Exempt Organization] function officials later clarified that the expanded criteria were a compilation of various Determinations Unit specialists’ responses on how they were identifying Tea Party cases”
Next,from the IRS officials: Shulman (former) and Miller (current)
Former IRS offical Doug Shulman testified before the House Ways and Means Committee that he was “dismayed and saddened” when he learned about the IG report, and suggested that the IRS is burdened.
“Given the challenges the agency faces, it does its job in an admirable way the great majority of the time. Men and women of the IRS are hardworking, honest public servants. While the inspector general’s report did not indicate that there was any political motivation involved, the actions outlined in the report have justifiably led to questions about the fairness of the approach taken here. The effect has been bad for the agency and bad for the American taxpayer.”
Yet those same (nameless) hardworking, honest public servants are the ones that Shulman blames for the activity. He said, “I agree that this is an issue that when someone spotted it, they should have run up the chain, and they didn’t.
Recent IRS head Steven Miller concurred during his testimony that “I’m not going to disagree with your characterization at all of bad management here.”
So, where is the accountability within the levels of the IRS? Ultimately, the IRS falls under U.S. Department of the Treasury, which is part of the Executive Branch. But you wouldn’t know it talking to this Administration.
When the IRS scandal was erupting, Jay Carney and Obama both stated publicly (Jay on Friday, May 10, and Obama on Monday, May 13) that the IRS was an “independent agency”. This is patently untrue.
The Federalist Society reminds us that there are two types of agencies: One is an “independent agency” which is not part of an Executive Branch department (thinks Boards and Commissions). They are headed by a Cabinet Secretary and are “independent of presidential control, usually because the president’s power to dismiss the agency head or a member is limited”.
The other type of agency is the one kind that the IRS falls under. It is headed by a Senate-confirmed Presidential appointee, and is directly part of the Department of Treasury (in the same way that Federal Bureau of Investigation is part of the Department of Justice). The particular IRS Commissioner position was created in 1997, (26 USC 7803), and the confirmed appointee serves a five-year term.
Our President is counting on either ignorance from the general public ,or else he does not understand how his own government operates. “Not Me” is in charge.
The President and those with whom he has surrounded himself have not been leaders. They have abrogated the basic responsibilities of leadership by refusing to take ownership of the problem and deal with it. It is short on accountability and long on blame. Rich Lowry aptly noted this week that the corruption in our administration” is the distortion of our form of government by sidestepping democratic procedures and accountability and vesting authority in bureaucrats”.
The greatest irony in this debacle is that the Tea Party has been vindicated. It concern about a government-too-big has proven to be unequivocally and terrifyingly true.
by | ARTICLES, CONSTITUTION, OBAMA, OBAMACARE, POLITICS, TAXES
As each day passes, the various facets of Obamacare are getting implemented in order to be fully operational by 2014. And we are beginning to hear about difficulties in the implementation caused primarily by either 1) people or companies trying to avoid the “penalties” or 2) people wanting to pay the penalties in order to avoid having to pay for intentionally overpriced health “insurance”.
In order to achieve adequate and targeted enrollment in Obamacare those representing the Government have begun to be aggressive. They are choosing to use all methods at their disposal to pressure, cajole, and otherwise push people to “do the right thing” and buy the mandated insurance product. Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius has millions now at her disposal to dispatch “navigators” and “in-person assisters” to help enroll more Americans into Obamacare. But the very act of doing so may be rendering Obamacare unconstitutional.
It is worthwhile to remember that the only way in which the law of Obamacare was saved from being declared unconstitutional was the that that there is no penalty associated with Obamacare. It was ruled to be a “tax” derived from not purchasing the mandated health coverage. In reaching his conclusion, Justice Roberts accepted the Administration’s position that there is absolutely no negative interference whatsoever on anyone opting to pay the “tax” rather than buy the product.
Therefore, any attempt by the administration or any of the implementing bodies to pressure, threaten or even imply some sort of wrongdoing by those choosing to not buy insurance would be clearly unconstitutional.
If those implementing Obamacare are properly following the Supreme Court’s mandate, they should be telling prospective insurance purchasers that they should be deciding for themselves whether they would be better off with the insurance or the penalty. We know this is not happening. At the macro level, governors have been hustled to implement the exchanges in their states. And at the individual level, Obamacare officials are pushing for more enrollees to ensure a steady flow of premiums paid by healthy patients in order to cover those who are high-risk and high-cost.
What can be done? If we are vigilant in not allowing individuals and businesses into being compelled to buy Obamacare, can we starve the beast? Are the tactics and funding unconstitutional? If so, Obamacare may just die of its own deficiencies.
by | ARTICLES, BUSINESS, ECONOMY, OBAMA, TAXES
There is an erroneous sentiment perpetuated by the media that our government gives corporate tax breaks for moving jobs overseas, implying that our tax laws favor countries like China and India over the United States. This is simply untrue. Expenses that companies and businesses incur while doing business are rightly deductible (“a tax break”) but no specific tax benefits exist in our tax code for companies who relocate outside of our country.
What you don’t hear in the media, however, is that the real reason jobs are moving overseas is because of terrible business policies here at home. Companies operating abroad can undersell us — not so much because wages and costs are lower, but more importantly because their ability to conduct day to day business is not burdened by a) government at all levels hampering their every move, b) very high tax rates, and c) courts that allow frivolous and anti-business litigation to become a significant cost of doing business. We are part of a global economy now, but the foreign countries are rapidly becoming more user friendly than our own.
We are overburdening our businesses with convoluted tax codes and paperwork. The host of local, state, and federal regulations and taxes becomes a cost of every product we make and every service we sell. Additionally, the costs of our legal system itself — not just the direct costs of dealing with frivolous lawsuits but also the need to defensively organize business records and processes — constitutes a large and growing tax on conducting business.The end result makes it more expensive to produce a job here and many companies must move overseas to a friendlier business environment in order to remain financially solvent.
I have a close relative who is an owner and executive of a substantial manufacturing operation that he started in Shenzhen, China because of its business friendly environment. I’ve heard from him many times that he went into business, not to comply with government regulations, but to make things. The wages he pays and his operating costs are much lower than they would be here in the US, but that is substantially offset by less skilled workers and high transportation costs. But his taxes are much less than what they would be in the US, and his total legal expenses would be at least 50 times higher here. And he has not suffered a single expensive lawsuit since he started business in China 25 years ago! Is there any wonder why China’s economy is thriving while ours is stagnating?
Simply put, due to government interference, if a company is going to lose money here, it is going to leave. The real reason for jobs moving overseas is that higher taxes, expensive and complex regulations, and stifling legal environment have rendered the United States less globally competitive. Without major changes, we are destined to become a declining force in the business world.
by | ARTICLES, BUSINESS, NEW YORK, POLITICS
Governor Cuomo is on the list of presidential potentials for 2016. His positions on state and federal taxes need to be elucidated in case he becomes a major candidate in the next couple of years.
For instance, Governor Cuomo lashed out against the recent federal proposal to eliminate the Federal tax deductions for state and local taxes. He calls this “double taxation” because it forces individuals to pay two separate taxes – federal and NY State – on the same income- without giving any relief against the federal tax in recognition of the tax paid to the State. Without the deduction, Cuomo warns that tax bills will rise substantially for New Yorkers.
However, the truth is that Cuomo’s attacks are nothing more than an attempt to shift the focus away from New York State failing its fiduciary responsibility to its taxpayers. It currently levies a very high level of taxation upon its citizens. The deduction is simply a subsidy that masks the egregious overspending of the state which creates the situation in which high taxation is necessary to feed the body politic.
Why should the federal government have to subsidize New York at all? If the residents of New York State think that high (some would say ludicrously wasteful) government spending paid for by very high taxes is the right way to run a state, it is certainly their right. But these residents also have no right to ask taxpayers of other states to subsidize them. And that is exactly what happens when the federal tax code enables New Yorkers to reduce their federal tax simply because they pay high taxes to their state.
Furthermore, Governor Cuomo’s outrage over this “tax increase” is blatantly hypocritical. Where was his outrage when the federal government raised tax rates which fall so overwhelmingly on his NY constituents? Where was his outrage when the federal government’s Alternative Minimum Tax (“AMT”) kept exploding the tax liability of New Yorkers (mostly because the AMT does not allow the deductions for state and local taxes)? And where was his outrage against himself when he broke his clear promise and substantially raised NY income taxes on the most productive New Yorkers?
So yes, although the proposal will seriously hurt all New Yorkers, it is essentially and simply a reform that puts all taxpayers around the country on a level playing field. If Cuomo is so concerned with New York’s taxpayers, he should aim to reduce the scope and size of government and the wildly out of control spending that created it, instead of adding to the budget deficit by his latest spending schemes.
by | BLOG, OBAMA, OBAMACARE, POLITICS, TAXES
Back in 2009, Obama gave a speech at Arizona State University and joked about using the IRS to audit unsavory people. In a jolting forecast nearly four years ago, Glenn Reynolds wrote a response in the WSJ, saying,
“Should the IRS come to be seen as just a bunch of enforcers for whoever is in political power, the result would be an enormous loss of legitimacy for the tax system”.
As the IRS problems continue to unfold, it’s pretty clear that confidence from all sides is low right now.
With that in mind, one question should definitely be discussed: Should we delay the implementation of Obamacare? Obamacare is designed to be enforced by….the IRS.
Last week, CNBC explained how this will work:
“Get ready for the Internal Revenue Service to play a dominant role in health care. When Obamacare takes full effect next year, the agency will enforce most of the laws involved in the reform — even deciding who gets included in the health-care mandate.”
and further:
“In its 5-4 ruling last year, the Supreme Court upheld the law’s mandate that Americans have health insurance, saying that Congress can enforce the mandate under its taxing authority and through the IRS.
As a result, the agency has to administer 47 tax provisions under Obamacare. They include the right to levy a penalty against businesses and individuals who don’t provide or acquire insurance. Noting that the IRS will collect the penalties, the decision labeled them a tax.
The IRS also has to determine how to distribute annual subsidies to 18 million people who make less than $45,000 a year and thus qualify for subsidies in buying health coverage, as well as how to deliver tax credits to small businesses that buy coverage for workers”.
Obviously we currently have incompetency, partisanship, and trust issues in the IRS. And don’t forget about financial — IRS head Shulman asked for more money (prior to leaving in November 2012) in order to handle Obamacare in 2014. And on top of it all, the head of the IRS, Steven Miller, resigned yesterday.
At this point, the targeting has swelled to 500. Can the IRS be trusted anymore in implement Obamacare in a fair and just manner?
UPDATE:….and the concern is now very real, folks. The Internal Revenue Service official in charge of the tax-exempt organizations at the time when the unit targeted tea party groups now runs the IRS office responsible for the health care legislation.
Sarah Hall Ingram served as commissioner of the office responsible for tax-exempt organizations between 2009 and 2012. But Ingram has since left that part of the IRS and is now the director of the IRS’ Affordable Care Act office. This was confirmed today by the IRS.
by | ARTICLES, BLOG, HYPOCRISY, OBAMA, POLITICS, TAXES
A fresh Op-Ed this morning by IRS head Steven Miller reveals the lengths to which the IRS and the White House are going to spin the on-going scandal.
“The agency was simply trying to manage the explosive growth in applications for 501(c)(4) status that started pouring in to the IRS in 2010. The Internal Revenue Service recognizes that we should have done a better job of handling the influx of applications by advocacy groups,” Miller wrote.
We saw the shoots of this line of thinking yesterday both from David Plouffe and Nancy Pelosi. Trying to suggest that all these groups that have sprung from the Citizen’s United ruling clogged up the IRS, who was then somehow reduced to scrutinizing groups in order to manage this problem. If only Citizen’s United could be overturned!
David Plouffe, former WH Adviser observed on Twitter “What IRS did dumb and wrong. Impt to note GOP groups flourished last 2 elections, overwhelming Ds. And they will use this to raise more $.”
And Nancy Pelosi was a bit more to the point:
“We need accountability at the IRS, of course, as to how this happened. But we’ve really got to overturn Citizens United which has exacerbated the situation. So I’ve called for DISCLOSE, that’s a dare, disclose… I’ve been calling for it for over a year, disclose, who are these people? Transparency, amend the constitution to overturn Citizens United, reform the political system, let’s take money down as far as possible. Public financing of campaigns, clean campaigns and empowerment of people because people feel very left out of the loop“.
However, the organizations who were subject to additional scrutiny were applying for either 501(c)3 or 501(c)4 or others, as revealed in this timeline put out by the WSJ on May 13th. but the apologists are counting on citizens to not know the different. By focusing on the 501(c)4 side of it, they can focus on calling out and blaming Citizens United.
Now back to Steven Miller. Further down his Op-Ed, he writes
“Mistakes were made, but they were in no way due to any political or partisan motivation,” he wrote. “We are — and will continue to be — dedicated to reviewing all applications for tax-exempt status in an impartial manner.”
Except, of course, when it comes to the Barack H Obama Foundation.
I have not found this elsewhere, so you’re seeing it here first.
Let’s go back to May 8, 2011, right in the thick of the IRS targeting activity. The NY Post writes a revealing piece about the Barack H Obama Foundation, run by Obama’s half-brother Malik:
“President Obama’s half-brother runs an off-the-books American charity that claims to support poor Kenyans — but it lies about its federal status and no one knows how it spends its money.” … “Malik started his charity the year his brother ran for president. The foundation claims to be a tax-exempt, federally recognized nonprofit. It is not. Nor are there any filings of its expenditures, which the IRS requires of larger charities. Alton Ray Baysden, a former State Department employee at whose Virginia home the charity was founded in 2008, admitted the organization has not even applied for tax-exempt status”
Oh and incidentally, the National Legal and Policy Center, a Washington, DC, watchdog group, made a formal complaint to the IRS and US Post Office about the Foundation that prior week in the beginning of May 2011.
The result? This sunlight on the foundation means that the The Barack H Obama Foundation hurriedly applied for and received tax exempt status in an unprecedented 30 days. The letter of their approval is currently available on the foundations’ website.It was signed Lois Lerner, the senior IRS in the middle of this scandal, of all people. On top of it, the status was made retroactive to December 2008.
See here:
Barack H Foundation Letter For Tax Exempt Status in June 2011
The plot thickens, as the apologies ring hollow.
UPDATE: Thanks Daily Caller for “borrowing” from information regarding the Obama Foundation in my post this morning (written at 9:45 am) for your post at 5:00pm. It was also posted on Canada Free Press and Red State this morning before anyone else wrote on it. Glad I could help (without receiving credit).
by | ARTICLES, BLOG, HYPOCRISY, OBAMA, POLITICS, TAXES
(h/t) pjmedia
With all the reports coming in fast and furiously from different news agencies, here’s a pieced-together timeline of events. The information below is a timeline of events taken from numerous media outlets with their links provided.
Early 2010:
WSJ: The report [Inspector General’s report due out this week] indicates that in 2010 and 2011, some IRS workers weren’t just singling out groups because their names contained certain words, as IRS officials suggested on Friday [May 12], but appeared to be probing for indications of political interests or leanings.
March 2010:
Washington Post: The IRS targeted We the People, Take Back the Country, and 9/12, a group founded by political commentator Glenn Beck, starting around March 2010, according to a TIGTA timeline provided to congressional staff.
Also in 2010:
Jewish Press: the passionately pro-Israel organization Z STREET filed a lawsuit against the IRS, claiming it had been told by an IRS agent that because the organization was “connected to Israel,” its application for tax-exempt status would receive additional scrutiny. This admission was made in response to a query about the lengthy reveiw of Z STREET’s tax exempt status application.
In addition, the IRS agent told a Z STREET representative that the applications of some of those Israel-related organizations have been assigned to “a special unit in the D.C. office to determine whether the organization’s activities contradict the Administration’s public policies”
March 2011:
WaPo: The report is being prepared at the request of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, which asked in March 2011 for an audit of the IRS’s tax-exempt unit amid complaints from conservative groups who were seeking tax-exempt status.
Mid 2011:
WSJ: The investigation also revealed that a high-ranking IRS official knew as early as mid-2011 that conservative groups were being inappropriately targeted—nearly a year before then-IRS Commissioner Douglas Shulman told a congressional committee the agency wasn’t targeting conservative groups.
June 2011
WSJ: According to the report, by June 2011 some IRS specialists were probing applications using the following criteria: “issues include government spending, government debt or taxes; education of the public by advocacy/lobbying to ‘make America a better place to live’; statements in the case file criticize how the country is being run.”
June 29, 2011
AP: 2011: Lois G. Lerner, who heads the IRS division that oversees tax-exempt organizations, said last week that the practice was initiated by low-level workers in Cincinnati and was not motivated by political bias.
But on June 29, 2011, Lerner learned at a meeting that groups were being targeted, according to the watchdog’s report. At the meeting, she was told that groups with “Tea Party,” `’Patriot” or “9/12 Project” in their names were being flagged for additional and often burdensome scrutiny, the report says.
July 2011
WaPo The IRS switched to more generic search criteria in July 2011 due to concerns from senior agency officials, the timeline said.
and
WSJ The report’s timeline indicates that the criteria were changed to be more neutral in July 2011 after Ms. Lerner “raised concerns.” The criteria for heightened scrutiny continued to evolve over the next year or so, even as complaints from tea-party groups—and questions from GOP lawmakers—mounted over IRS inquiries to various groups about their activities.
Late 2011 – Mid 2012
WaPo: The IRS made no mention of targeting conservative groups in five separate responses to congressional inquiries between Nov. 18, 2011, and June 15, 2012, according to the TIGTA timeline.
January 2012
Reuters But then [instruction] changed again in January 2012 to cover “political action type organizations involved in limiting/expanding government, educating on the constitution and bill of rights, social economic reform/movement,” according to the findings contained in a Treasury Department watchdog report”
March 2,2012
NRO reports on the American Center for Law and Justice’s (ACLJ) interaction with tea party groups which had been receiving missives from the IRS to find out more about their activities
March 2012
WSJ The IRS also said the report reflects that “IRS senior leadership was not aware of this level of specific details” at the time of a March 2012 hearing where Mr. Shulman denied any targeting of conservative groups. Mr. Shulman, who no longer works for the IRS, declined to comment”
April – May 2012
WSJ Letters from Ms. Lerner in April and May 2012 responding to questions by Republican lawmakers made no mention of the problems that had surfaced in the IRS unit.
According to the draft report, on April 24 and 25 of last year, officials in Ms. Lerner’s office were reviewing “troubling questions” that had been asked of organizations, including “the names of donors.”
Ms. Lerner’s April 26 {2012} letter to Mr. Issa, the chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, said that “there are instances where donor information may be needed…such as when the application presents possible issues of…private benefit.”
May 2012
Reuters The criteria for scrutiny were revised again to cover a variety of tax-exempt groups “with indicators of significant amounts of political campaign intervention (raising questions as to exempt purpose and/or excess private benefit),” according to a TIGTA timeline included in the findings.
Other Factoids:
WaPo: Lerner said that about 75 groups were selected for extra inquiry — including, in some cases, improper requests for the names of donors, but added that the targeting was not driven by partisan motives.
AP: The report also said that the IRS asked “unnecessary questions” of conservative groups, according to the aide.The IRS’ Lerner said that about 300 groups were singled out for additional review, with about one-quarter scrutinized because they had “tea party” or “patriot” somewhere in their applications. She said 150 of the cases have been closed and no group had its tax-exempt status revoked, though some withdrew their applications.
The Anatomy of an IRS Process:
The Richmond Tea Party has been blogging about their interactions with the IRS since they began their IRS status request on December 28, 2009. Included in their reporting has dates and document links. You can read the overview here: and the chronicles of the Richmond Tea Party here
As more information comes out, I will update this timeline accordingly.
UPDATE: David Plouffe, former WH advisor, suggests: “What IRS did dumb and wrong. Impt to note GOP groups flourished last 2 elections, overwhelming Ds. And they will use this to raise more $” REALLY?s
FLASHBACK: Obama jokes in 2009 about the IRS auditing people — and a thoughtful responsive essay in the WSJ and a chilling prophecy: Should the IRS come to be seen as just a bunch of enforcers for whoever is in political power, the result would be an enormous loss of legitimacy for the tax system.” Indeed.
by | BLOG, BUSINESS, ECONOMY, NEW YORK
I Love NY (money)
Knowing that Gov. Cuomo’s is considered a possible contender for 2016, his use of taxpayer funds in this regard is appalling. My latest on Canada Free Press this morning:
It is an outrage that Gov. Andrew Cuomo is spending up to $140 million of taxpayer money and funds received for disaster relief, to publicize the advantages of conducting business in New York. New York is indisputably one of the most unfriendly business states, with a Legislature that piles huge administrative burdens onto businesses and a Department of Taxation that is among the most aggressive in the country.
Thanks to the NY Legislature, the state demands a payment of an LLC fee every Jan. 30, causing large administrative burdens disproportionate to a small amount of additional tax revenue. It also requires a high minimum-wage, creating an unnecessary and expensive burden on small businesses.
The state also introduced a brand new “MTA” tax with new forms to fill out as a separate levy, simply because they did not want to take the heat for raising existing rates. When a huge outcry against this ridiculous tax was made, the state’s “fix” was to exempt some lower income businesses while making the complications for the remaining businesses even worse.
New York State recently created a new burden on all employers requiring every employer to make specific annual reports to each of its employees in significant detail, a provision clearly intended more to provide fodder for employer lawsuits than to protect the rights of workers. As long as Sheldon Silver continues as Speaker of the NYS Assembly (and a current partner in an anti-business civil litigation law firm), the legislature will continue to make it inordinately difficult to carry on with business in New York. It should be noted that some well known restaurant organizations have sworn never to open any new facilities in New York State, specifically due to its impossible and litigation-friendly business environment.
The Legislature continues to add the latest nanny state employment regulations each year, making New York a gold mine for lawyers to sue employers over technicalities. Its insistence on giving enormous amounts to its public-service unions guarantees that the tax burden will keep growing in the years ahead. And New York has the “only one in the world” statute (called the Triborough Amendment) — that requires the state to continue paying its public service employees on the items contained within an expired contract — making it impossible to negotiate any austerity.
The New York Department of Taxation is no better, as it ruthlessly goes after extra New York City taxes paid by state residents and New York state taxes paid by non-New York state residents. It demands huge and automatic penalties built into tax law on each assessment, penalties that are used as levers to get the New York taxpayer or business owner to agree to compromises that they often don’t really owe.
One anecdote that encapsulates this mentality is the individual who lived with his family out-of-state. He bought a home for his elderly parents in Staten Island and was successfully taxed as a NY City resident. The state’s determination? He had a key to the front door, and a few items of clothing in the closet!
Clearly, for the average person in New York, it is an onerous state in which to do business. If Mr. Cuomo wants to create a better business image, he must make the state a better and more business-friendly place from the ground up. Instead of trying to deceive people with taxpayer funded propaganda into thinking that New York has a healthy business climate, use that $140 million to reform his deplorable Legislature and Department of Taxation. Any non-NY business that falls for Gov. Cuomo’s propaganda campaign gets what it deserves.
