The SS (Schutzstaffel - Protection Squad) or the IRS ?

Politically biased research groups like The Heritage Foundation and Media Matters are legitimate 501(c) organizations and your donations are tax deductible. Does it make sense?

The IRS Was Dead Right To Scrutinize Tea Party
Peter S. Goodman

Lost in the latest political scandal is a simple fact: The Internal Revenue Service was acting in the public interest when it opted to train its auditing power on the Tea Party and affiliated groups.

In castigating government as the root of all evil while portraying taxation as a form of tyranny, the Tea Party is no less than a mass celebration of the evasion of the basic responsibilities of American citizenship. Common sense alone tells you that people drawn to its ranks may feel extra temptation to find ways to limit what they surrender to the rogue federal bureaucrats who have supposedly seized the nation.

The IRS -- an agency loved by no one and responsible for stocking the Treasury with federal tax proceeds, due under the law -- appears to have devoted unique effort to making sure that Tea Party organizations were not fudging the paperwork in their bids to secure tax exemption.

Good for the IRS.
.
.
.

The Tea Party stands for many things, but a big part of its message is that sending money to Washington amounts to the perpetuation of a dangerous welfare state that's intent on turning America into a helpless land where our lone skill is filling out the forms to go on the dole.

Isn't it reasonable to assume that people who hold such beliefs might feel additional motivation to pursue grey areas and loopholes at tax time? Wouldn't the people who oversee federal coffers have been derelict had they not at least had a good look?
.
.
.
This scandal does not stem from the IRS actually levying action that contravenes the law. It's simply about whom the IRS decided to scrutinize. And the IRS had abundant reason to look carefully at the applications for tax exempt status sent in by people who are prone to portray taxes as something as base as slavery.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-s-g ... f=business

These organizations were basically asking to have TAXPAYERS subsidize them in order to use the silly rules to hide their donors and lob tax-free-subsidized bombs at whatever perceived political boogy-man they see. (And so were some of the liberal groups.) This was about enhanced scrutiny for the designation--not harassment-after-the-fact. (In point of fact, none of them were denied status...Some of the liberal groups were.)

Comparing heightened scrutiny in acquiring a tax-free/donor-hiding designation to the IRS-audits during the Bush years (demanded not by Bush, but by GOP senators), for the NAACP and some anti-war churches is apples and oranges. Groups like Crossroads GPS, the myriad of Koch Brothers backed hit-groups, etc., DESERVE to be subjected to heightened scrutiny...Such is the reality in the post-Citizens United world.

I still do not condone ANY GROUP being singled-out for "special treatment", but methinks they doth protest too much.

Today's progressives talking points... blame it on the victim.

pineinthegrass wrote:

Something the Dog Said wrote: Of course the real scandal here is the fact that the tea party groups were claiming tax exemption as nonpolitical social welfare organizations.

You are becoming a total joke in this thread alone. So it's just tea party groups?

WASHINGTON -- In February 2010, the Champaign Tea Party in Illinois received approval of its tax-exempt status from the IRS in 90 days, no questions asked.

That was the month before the Internal Revenue Service started singling out Tea Party groups for special treatment. There wouldn't be another Tea Party application approved for 27 months.

In that time, the IRS approved perhaps dozens of applications from similar liberal and progressive groups, a USA TODAY review of IRS data shows.

STORY: IRS gave liberals a pass; Tea Party groups put on hold

As applications from conservative groups sat in limbo, groups with liberal-sounding names had their applications approved in as little as nine months. With names including words like "Progress" or "Progressive," the liberal groups applied for the same tax status and were engaged in the same kinds of activities as the conservative groups.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/05/14/irs-tea-party-progressive-groups/2158831/

IMO, no political groups should get tax exempt status, but apparently that's the way the courts ruled. But your political hack bias is still showing by only mentioning tea party groups.

And you only occasionally post incorrect information?

In this thread alone I showed you were wrong about the President being able to fire the IRS commissioner.

Plus I provided links suggesting you were wrong about the former IRS commissioner being a Republican, only Republican Presidents abusing the system with the IRS, and the 1998 IRS reform act creating greater separation from the executive branch.

Again, you haven't provided any evidence other than your own BS. Maybe I missed something, but at least I posted links to read unlike you. And your new scandal about tea party groups is beyond belief when you don't include the fact that progressive groups were doing the same thing, as the law (which I disagree with) apparently allowed.

I did not state that only Republican presidents have abused the IRS, that is your mistaken conjecture. I do not provide links since most of the conservatives do not do so. Whether or not progressive groups are also seeking tax exempt status as social welfare groups does not excuse that the topic of this thread, tea party groups sought to do so.

While the Dog does have a point about if these organizations do fulfill the 501C requirements, the IRS approving lefty sounding organizations with green or progressive in their name and holding up not only political organizations like Crossroads, but also religious ones that would seem to be meeting regulations like Billy Graham's group would seem to show a horrible bias.

Funny example: Dog was talking about how the IRS is not supposed to have political pressure, I heard an interview with a conservative 501C that was having trouble getting approved. They called their congressman(r) and magically were accepted. Looks like even the GOP has influence with this IRS.

It is simple. Thom Hartmann summed it up yesterday.

Liberal=good (help people)

Conservative=evil(enrich billionaires and poison the air)

Therefore conservatives need scrutiny , libs do not.

He has a point....

FredHayek wrote: I heard an interview with a conservative 501C that was having trouble getting approved. They called their congressman(r) and magically were accepted. Looks like even the GOP has influence with this IRS.

Gee, I heard, (of course with NO SOURCE, like Fred--who also cites no source), that story is a bunch of hooey.

Hugh Hewitt radio show last night. 710 KNUS in Denver, they might even have it on their website still. The interview was with the head of the 501C and it was a tea-party type organization.

Good to see you back, LJ.I thought you were on vacation, awful quiet and not defending your POTUS on these charges. Does HuffPo not have their talking points tacked up yet? Or maybe the press is actually upset with Obama's incompetence like Stewart on the Comedy channel?

Naw, I just get tired of the "scandal-of-the-day" fact-free echo-chamber... I thought you guys set up your own little nest to do that? Too bad the stuff like "Benghazi" and now the IRS flaps are turning into nothing...

Besides, I've been really busy lately...(making money)...

And you know what I'm REALLY enjoying?

The FACTS are in--and Paul Ryan is STILL Wrong...
It still hasn't changed...

And y'know what? All of these so-called "scandals" are just making the people that already HATE Obama, hate him even more... Big whoop.

But the numbers still don't lie...After spending $10 million to get that information, they find out that they are losing by ever-widening numbers with women (55%), Hispanics (71%), blacks (93%), Asians (73%), seniors (you lost them by 55+% in 40% of the states), LGBT (78%)...But hey, you got 59% of the "old, angry white guys"--which are disappearing...Congratulations. Do you REALLY think the constituencies that the GOTP lost in the last election are going to flip to the "angry, white guy party" just because the teabaggers keep throwing more stuff up on the wall to see if it sticks? You might get a few more old, angry white guys, but the wackos are still as wacko as ever, and seem to be getting moreso as this moves on... All you're going to have going for you is the legacy of the never-ending attacks and obstruction... (and the ever-widening numbers with women (55%), Hispanics (71%), blacks (93%), Asians (73%), seniors (you lost them by 55+% in 40% of the states), LGBT (78%)...and the 59% of the "old, angry white guys")

And the more the old, angry white guys die off, the harder it is going to be to hold on to the gerrymandered districts... Will they lose control of the House?...Probably not yet...It'll take a bit for enough of the gerrymandered districts to be reclaimed...