On Wednesday, Obama tried to change the national conversation about the long string of questions dogging the White House. He decided he is back to being serious about jobs. Very serious. Serious enough to talk about jobs for an hour at Knox College in Galesburg, Illinois. This speech was touted as the kick-off to a series of events and talks aimed to get refocused on jobs.
A funny thing happened on the way to the recovery. In the midst of his speech, Obama slips in a scolding remark to his critics:
“But with this endless parade of distractions and political posturing and phony scandals, Washington has taken its eye off the ball. And I am here to say this needs to stop. (Applause.) This needs to stop”
He is very brazen. To come out and call the scandals “phony” is downright delusional. What’s worse, by inserting it in the context of his speech about jobs and the economy, it purposely gives the suggestion that Obama’s critics are at fault.
“If only they would stop bothering me and asking me questions about what we are doing. Don’t they know I’m in charge, anyway? They won’t leave me alone to fix the economy and create jobs. They are being mean.”
Be aware. This tactic is going to continue to be repeated during his jobs apology tour and into the fall before election season. Obama is shaping the narrative that the Republicans et al. are too busy criticising him to tackle real issues, and it’s their fault the economy is still sluggish.
Keith Koffler, the White House watchdog reporter, makes a great point — if this was President Bush, you know darn well that the Democrats and media would not let up on talking about and reporting about these “phony scandals”.
As a CPA who has practiced for four decades, I can say without hesitation that the IRS conduct was severely overreaching. The cherry-picking of organizations and the burdensome scrutiny that was administered by IRS official is utterly beyond the scope of anything they should, and are allowed, to do.
The likelihood that the White House coordinated with the IRS (as well as the media) is strengthened based on the well-researched timeline provided by Kim Strassel at the WSJ. She demonstrated that the IRS attacks on conservative groups happened at the same time the Obama Administration and the media began chiding activity by ominous “shadowy groups”. In one specific example, Americans for Prosperity — a conservative 501c4 — was derided by the White House and media while also simultaneously being subject to intense scrutiny by the IRS.
Part of the issue stems from the difference between a 501c3 and a 501c4. A 501c3 engages in charitable, educational or religious activity, and donations are tax-deductible. Not so with a 501c4, whose main purpose is social welfare, and whose donations are not deductible.
It must be noted that tax-exempt social-welfare groups organized under section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code are allowed to engage in some political activity, but the primary focus of their efforts must remain promoting social welfare. That social-welfare activity can include lobbying and advocating for issues and legislation, but not outright political-campaign activity.
But some of the rules regarding 501c4s leave room for IRS officials to make judgment calls and probe individual groups for further information. This is how the IRS justified their targeting, except that they went way beyond what is normal and customary procedure.
In reality, the concept of being a “tax-exempt” organization really has little to no meaning. Despite what the Left has been trying to portray or insinuate, being “tax-exempt” does not mean tax evasion in any way, but rather that the particular organization simply generates no income. And if it does not generate income, it cannot be taxed. But there is nothing untoward about an organization being “tax-exempt” (except perhaps that the government laments this category as “lost revenue”).
A 501c4 operates by collecting money to do things in a collective manner, meaning as a group — as opposed to individually. This organizational status then allows them to function as a group and lets the IRS know that monies collected are for its own non-taxable (non-income generating) purposes.
The fact that there was a coordinated effort by the White House, media, and DCCC to try suggest that conservative-formed 501c4s might be operating in an illegal or clandestine manner is chilling. What’s worse is that low-information voters bought into the narrative because they cannot even recognize anymore whether or not they like a particular idea or position on an issue without knowing where it comes from.
We have freedom of speech and freedom of assembly in this country guaranteed under the First Amendment. If the Left truly believed that their ideas were right and true, those ideas should survive on merit. But that is not what has happened in this country. To go beyond the usual “talking points” that happens in the normal course of politics and use a function of the government in such an overreaching manner is alarming. It is anathema to many Americans that the Left has gone to such great lengths to try to silence or intimidate those who may have viewpoints counter to that in the White House. Such actions are disdainful and they are not the American Way.
Senator Barack Obama at Woodrow Wilson Center on Terrorism, 8/1/07:
“This Administration puts forward a false choice between the liberties we cherish and the security we provide…I will provide our intelligence and law enforcement agencies with the tools they need to track and take out the terrorists without undermining our Constitution and our Freedom”.
“That means no more illegal wiretapping of American citizens, no more National Security letters to spy on American citizens who are not suspected of a crime. No more tracking citizens who do nothing more than protest a misguided war. No more ignoring the law when it is inconvenient”
Faithful devotees on the Left continue to peddle the notion that Social Security is not in crisis, that it doesn’t contribute to the deficit, and there is no need for reform. However, reading through this year’s just-released Social Security Trustees report, the annual “State of the SSA”, we find that the Trustees tell a different narrative — one that is grim indeed. The following primer pulls directly from the report and then explains the statement in layman’s terms. It is copied text from summary of the entire report.
What it actually says:
“Social Security’s total expenditures have exceeded non-interest income of its combined trust funds since 2010, and the Trustees estimate that Social Security cost will exceed non-interest income throughout the 75-year projection period”.
What it means:
Non-interest income includes payroll taxes, taxes on scheduled benefits, and general fund transfers. Expenditures (payouts to beneficiaries) have exceeded (been more than) income (taxes collected ) since 2010. Social Security has not been paying for itself for the last three years. Anyone telling you otherwise is patently false.
What it actually says:
“The deficit of non-interest income relative to cost was about $49 billion in 2010, $45 billion in 2011, and $55 billion in 2012”.
What it means:
Again, right here the report describes that there is a deficit occurring and provides a tangible figure for each year. It directly contradicts the notion the idea that Social Security is PAYGO. It is not.
What it actually says:
“The Trustees project that this cash-flow deficit will average about $75 billion between 2013 and 2018 before rising steeply as income growth slows to the sustainable trend rate after the economic recovery is complete and the number of beneficiaries continues to grow at a substantially faster rate than the number of covered workers”
What it means:
The deficit is only going to worsen by about 30% over the next 5 years to $75 billion a year. Then the deficit is going to RISE STEEPLY because even more people will be claiming benefits than those working and paying into the system.
What it actually says:
Redemption of trust fund asset reserves by the General Fund of the Treasury will provide the resources needed to offset Social Security’s annual aggregate cash-flow deficits.
What it means:
The Government is using Trust Fund Asset Reserves by the General Fund of the Treasury NOW — and has been for three years — to meet its Social Security obligations. What the Left fails to understand or deliberately doesn’t explain is that we are already borrowing from reserves (think using savings) just to meet basic program costs.
What it actually says:
“Since the cash-flow deficit will be less than interest earnings through 2020, reserves of the combined trust funds measured in current dollars will continue to grow, but not by enough to prevent the ratio of reserves to one year’s projected cost (the combined trust fund ratio) from declining. (This ratio peaked in 2008, declined through 2012, and is expected to decline steadily in future years.)”
What it means:
Remember, we are talking about the reserves now. The reserve amount (savings) will still grow slowly even after paying the Social Security deficit, until about 2020. This is how the Left claims that there is a Social Security “surplus”. They count the Social Security Trust Fund (deficit) + Trust Fund Asset Reserves (savings) = surplus. That is not a true surplus. That is fuzzy math.
What it actually says:
“After 2020, Treasury will redeem trust fund asset reserves to the extent that program cost exceeds tax revenue and interest earnings until depletion of total trust fund reserves in 2033, the same year projected in last year’s Trustees Report”.
What it means:
By 2020 (that’s 7 years from now) the Social Security Trust Fund deficit amount will grow and finally outpace any growth (surplus) in the Trust Fund Asset Reserves (savings). This outpacing will continue until 2033: that’s the year that the Social Security Trustees project a depletion of total trust fund reserves (the savings account runs out!). Yet because this projection date, 2033, was also in last year’s report, the Left can dismissively remark that there are “relatively few changes or surprises” in this year’s report — so that no one bothers to actually read it.
What it actually says: “Thereafter, tax income would be sufficient to pay about three-quarters of scheduled benefits through 2087”.
What it means:
Even though you’ve faithfully paid in, you’ll only be able to get back 75% of the money. One-fourth of it gone. Poof. That means the Trust Fund Asset Reserves (savings) will have been propping up the Social Security Trust Fund a full 25% by 2033, and that Social Security will have been under-funded for 23 years by that time.
What to do about it?
Well, the very first paragraph of the Social Security Trustees report urges action:
‘Neither Medicare nor Social Security can sustain projected long-run programs in full under currently scheduled financing, and legislative changes are necessary to avoid disruptive consequences for beneficiaries and taxpayers. If lawmakers take action sooner rather than later, more options and more time will be available to phase in changes so that the public has adequate time to prepare. Earlier action will also help elected officials minimize adverse impacts on vulnerable populations, including lower-income workers and people already dependent on program benefits”
So, despite what the media and the Left tell you, Social Security is not fully funded. There is no surplus. Its current modus operandi takes the benefits being paid today and uses them to pay their current beneficiary obligations (instead of being held in trust like its original intent). It also borrows from reserves (savings) in order to meet just those basic current obligations.
The Trustee Summary concludes,
“Lawmakers should address the financial challenges facing Social Security and Medicare as soon as possible. Taking action sooner rather than later will leave more options and more time available to phase in changes so that the public has adequate time to prepare.”
It is signed by the Trustees:
Jacob J. Lew, Secretary of the Treasury, and Managing Trustee of the Trust Funds. Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of Health and Human Services, and Trustee. Charles P. Blahous III, Trustee. Seth D. Harris, Acting Secretary of Labor, and Trustee. Carolyn W. Colvin, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, and Trustee. Robert D. Reischauer, Trustee.
Therefore, the next time someone claims that Social Security is not in a crisis, is solvent, is able to meet all of its obligations, and/or is running a surplus, show them the Trustees report about the real situation — in the Trustees own words.
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.
“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”
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.
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.
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.
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.
“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?
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.
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 $.”
“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.
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.
