Now we know at least one of the things that she took the Fifth about (and lied about when she said she’d done nothing illegal):
The IRS apparently considered political speech by nonprofit groups to be so troublesome that it illegally assisted federal law-enforcement officials in assembling a massive database of the lawful political speech of thousands of American citizens, weeks before the 2010 midterm elections, using confidential taxpayer information.
Nixon would only dream of doing what Obama has gotten away with. But remember, there’s not a smidgen of corruption, and it’s a “phony scandal.”
We know that they didn’t just go after Tea Party groups but also groups related to Israel and pro-life groups. Then they went after the donors to these groups. Not content to target just groups and donors, they also went after individuals who were critical of Obama in the media.
We don’t know who instigated the political persecution but it appears to be a party wide effort by the Democrats. It doesn’t matter if Obama gave the order or not. He is complicit because the persecution continued for years after his administration was made aware of what was going on. This means he is culpable in the ongoing behavior of the IRS and other government organizations.
Obviously the IRS has no fear of being held accountable. in 2013, after the IRS IG report was completed and then shelved for a year, Lois Lerner was conspiring with the DOJ to throw people into prison based on their perceived political affiliation. These latest emails show that she was working with the DOJ as early as 2010.
Nothing to see here, democrats never break laws.
“At the very least,” the letter from the House committee chaired by Rep. Darrell Issa (D-CA) read, “this information suggests that the IRS considered the political speech activities of nonprofits to be worthy of investigation by federal law-enforcement officials.”
The Internal Revenue Act charges the IRS with enforcing restrictions on the political activities of 501c4 social welfare groups. Aren’t they supposed to contact the DOJ if they think those restrictions are being violated?
Always making excuses. The IRS wasn’t enforcing regulations but rather engaging in a one sided effort to persecute political dissidents. None of these groups targeted were breaking the law yet you presume their guilt based on perceived political affiliation.
Emails show that Lerner was colluding with the DOJ as late as 2013 with the explicit purpose to intimidate people other than Democrats from participating in our society. Democrats want to deny others from enjoying the same rights and privileges that Democrat activist groups enjoy.
The IRS already admitted the political persecution of dissidents took place but you continue to deny it.
Jim,
Why are you so gung-ho on the regulation of free speech anyway? In fact, why are you so pleased to see the expansion of our central government? I’m serious, I want an answer.
“I’m serious, I want an answer.”
Hold not, thy breath.
To my mind it isn’t a question of free speech, it’s a question of whether we want to let groups use 501c4 social welfare status as a end-run around campaign finance laws that require the disclosure of donors.
I don’ think this has anything to do with the size of our central government — we’ve had campaign finance laws and tax laws for many decades, and they were passed with the assumption that they’d be enforced. In general I’m indifferent to the size of our central government (which has been shrinking, at least in terms of its workforce, for quite a while). Some tasks are best done by the federal government, others aren’t, there’s nothing a priori good or bad about federal solutions.
it’s a question of whether we want to let groups use 501c4 social welfare status as a end-run around campaign finance laws that require the disclosure of donors.
Aren’t campaign finance laws anti-free speech? Why should we stop anyone from expressing their opinion? Who determines what is right and what is wrong with regards to campaign speech? Those in power? That’s always worked, hasn’t it?
I’m indifferent to the size of our central government (which has been shrinking, at least in terms of its workforce, for quite a while).
Are you saying the federal government has shrunk? Sure, relative to 2009! And only after the republicans started the sequester.
The fact that you are indifferent displays a gross ignorance. Frankly, it is creepy. Your indifference only tells me that you really only care about certain “solutions” that are important to you personally, not to the nation as a whole. It explains your selfishness with regard to health care (the solution is to get freebies)
As an aside, would you agree that more government does not mean more effective government? I use as my example the Department of Education. Surely you cannot say that they’ve improved education since 1979.
There’s nothing a priori good or bad about federal solutions.
Where the hell did you come up with that? Our constitution is based on the a posteriori idea (see: English Government circa 1776) that federal solutions will lead to problems, which is why they should be minimized. Note I did not say there should be no federal solutions, only that they should be minimized. Anyone who has read the Federalist Papers would understand this (and certainly the Anti-Federalist Papers.)
Are you saying the federal government has shrunk?
Its workforce has shrunk dramatically, relative to the size of the country’s workforce overall. In 2013 the federal civilian payroll was 2% of all workers; in 1966 it was 4.3%.
As an aside, would you agree that more government does not mean more effective government?
Yes, and I’d also say that less government does not mean more effective government.
Our constitution is based on the a posteriori idea (see: English Government circa 1776) that federal solutions will lead to problems
Actually our Constitution was a response to the failure of the Articles of Confederation, which did not give enough power to the federal government. That’s the sort of pragmatic lawmaking I support: try something, see if it works, and make adjustments accordingly.
Its workforce has shrunk dramatically, relative to the size of the country’s workforce overall. In 2013 the federal civilian payroll was 2% of all workers; in 1966 it was 4.3%.
The size of the federal civilian payroll is not a proxie for the size of the government.
“laws that require the disclosure of donors.”
Ya, we know why Democrats want to know who the donors are. Its the same reason Democrats and the KKK wanted to know who was funding groups supporting civil rights, so they can show up outside their houses with torches and pitchforks.
Lerner didn’t refer violations to IRS code to the DOJ. She referred lawful activities to the DOJ.
Oh, don’t confuse the resident fascist with reality.
She referred lawful activities to the DOJ.
So she wrote the DOJ and said “hey, you guys should investigate these people who definitely aren’t breaking any laws”? Of course not. She asked them to look into activities that she believed were illegal.
And in doing so, she broke the law herself.
But you don’t care, because she was going after the “bad” people.
What law, exactly, did she break, and what’s the evidence that she broke it? The emails shown in the linked article are just about data formats, there’s nothing about what data was transmitted, or what the laws are regarding that transmission.
If Lerner did break the law she should be prosecuted, regardless of who she was going after. But you and Issa seem offended at the very notion of enforcing restrictions on 501c4 groups. What do you think the IRS should do when a 501c4 social welfare group violates the restrictions of that status?
What do you think the IRS should do when a 501c4 social welfare group violates the restrictions of that status
It should deny their application for tax-free status, not put them in limbo for years, or illegally send their confidential data to the Justice Department. That’s a police state.
She said something more like, “Hey DOJ, something has to be done about these Tea Party and other right leaning groups that are expressing views critical of Obama and the Democrats. Can you guys sift through all this data and find literally any violation large or small that we can use to send people to jail to intimidate other people who think like they do from participating in our society? Also, I look forward to your help in setting up training seminars for Democrat groups so that we can help them navigate around the restrictions we are placing on non-Democrat groups.”
In her own words, Lerner was not acting out of suspicion that a law was broken, she was acting out of political animosity and trying to get people thrown in jail because they dared not be Democrats.
She said something more like
Where’s that email?
In her own words, Lerner was not acting out of suspicion that a law was broken
What words, exactly?
trying to get people thrown in jail because they dared not be Democrats
You have a vivid imagination.
I could give you links and you wouldn’t read them. Then the next day you will ask for the exact same links. There is a lot off stuff out there about the IRS scandal go read it yourself. Try and expand your resources beyond OFA emails.
If the Internal Revenue Act abridges freedom of speech then it is unconstitutional and therefore an invalid law.
Then find a group whose 501c4 status was revoked for electioneering and have them sue to overturn the law. Until then, the IRS should go on enforcing the Internal Revenue act, and people shouldn’t pretend to be shocked by their efforts to do so.
“Until then, the IRS should go on enforcing the Internal Revenue act”
The IRS IG report concluded that the actions taken by the IRS were not an effort to enforce the law but rather to abuse non-Democrats.
You keep saying Tea Party groups are criminals yet they have broken no laws.
If the IRS was only enforcing the law, they wouldn’t be holding seminars for Democrat groups on how to skirt campaign finance rules or rubber stamping Obama’s campaign turned “social welfare” organization.
Remember when you said it wasn’t like Tea Party groups were sent to the camps? What do you think now that we know Lerner was colluding with Obama’s DOJ to put people in prison because of their political affiliation?
The IRS IG report concluded that the actions taken by the IRS were not an effort to enforce the law but rather to abuse non-Democrats.
No, it concluded no such thing.
“No, it concluded no such thing.”
That is exactly what it concluded and why this is such a scandal. If there was no wrong doing, the IG report wouldn’t have said there was.
Government employees are sworn to uphold the Constitution, not the law.
“Nixon would only dream of doing what Obama has gotten away with.”
“But Nixon was a reactionary! Dear Leader only wants to take us into a brave new world where people will stop worrying about their precious ‘liberty” and joyfully submit to the loving guidance of their betters!”–Baghdad Jim.
Its workforce has shrunk dramatically, relative to the size of the country’s workforce overall. In 2013 the federal civilian payroll was 2% of all workers; in 1966 it was 4.3%.
If you use GDP, you’ll see how much it has risen since Obama came into office. It shrunk after the sequester.
Yes, and I’d also say that less government does not mean more effective government.
No one ever said as such. So will you agree that there are areas where we can reduce government spending? You’ve never mentioned it before. Also, would you agree that more spending on Obamacare may not benefit any Americans?
Actually our Constitution was a response to the failure of the Articles of Confederation, which did not give enough power to the federal government. That’s the sort of pragmatic lawmaking I support: try something, see if it works, and make adjustments accordingly.
You certainly do weasel out of questions. You used the word “a priori” for federal solutions to problems. I guess I’m supposed to be impressed by “a priori”. I pointed out that our Constitution was built on the idea that federal solutions should be minimized and you bring up the Articles. Weasel, weasel, weasel. Hell, if the reason we wrote the Constitution was because the Articles were too weak, why not just can the Constitution and make something that gets rid of the 50 states. The Constitution was written with the fear of tyranny in mind, which is why the federal power was implemented with firewalls built into the system.
That’s the sort of pragmatic lawmaking I support: try something, see if it works, and make adjustments accordingly.
I hope you realize how silly that sounds. If you wanted to improve, say, Jim Crow laws, then you would be making bad laws even worse. But it would be pragmatic. Every society has assumptions built into its laws. By saying “what works”, you fall prey to those with bad intentions.
So will you agree that there are areas where we can reduce government spending?
Of course! I’d cut ethanol and farm subsidies, cancel SLS and Orion, spend less on defense, the drug war, incarceration, anti-terror efforts, etc. But I’d spend more on energy research, education, and social security, and I’d implement a federal guaranteed basic income.
You used the word “a priori” for federal solutions to problems. I guess I’m supposed to be impressed by “a priori”.
I’m not trying to impress anyone, just get an idea across. What I’m saying is that a “federal solution” is not a good solution because it’s federal, and isn’t a bad solution because it’s federal. I don’t have any general prejudice for or against using the federal government to address problems. It all depends on the particulars.
The Constitution was written with the fear of tyranny in mind
Yes, but it was also written with the fear of leaving too much power to the states.
If you wanted to improve, say, Jim Crow laws, then you would be making bad laws even worse.
You have to define “what works” with reference to values. The Jim Crow era was an example of states having too much power, with the result that black Americans were subject to nearly a century of violence, theft and tyranny. That did not end until the federal government was given the power to intervene. If the Constitution had been interpreted to disallow that exercise of federal power, out of fear of tyranny, it would have allowed evil policies to persist even longer.
“You have to define “what works” with reference to values.”
And yet you want to increase spending on failed federal programs because they fit your ideology regardless of their outcomes.
Exactly. Jim doesn’t understand that all of his problem areas are derived from an overreaching central government. And his increase in spending on certain sectors will lead to the same problems. As an example, to spend more on a failed education system is a perfect example of his flawed reasoning. He would never admit our educational system is flawed, even though test scores have remained flat or have declined since 1979.
He ignores my point about Jim Crow and how a law would seem to work if the assumptions were wrong. Instead he twists it into some weird anti-state argument. Our rights are derived from the very documents that he wants to eliminate.
That’s the sort of pragmatic lawmaking I support: try something, see if it works, and make adjustments accordingly.
Jim,
Your definition of “what works” is not objective. Hidden behind that technocrat mind is a set of biases and assumptions that tilt your observations in a certain direction. The problem is that you believe (quite irrationally) that your biases are objective.
Liberals will say Fox is biased. But when asked if CNN is biased, they’ll say, “Of course not.” A conservative will readily admit Fox is biased but will also point out CNN tilts to the left. For some reason, liberals think their assumptions on reality are the Objective Truth. That is not only pretentious, hubristic and foolish, but it is also dangerous.
Will you admit Jim, that you have biased assumptions?
Your definition of “what works” is not objective.
Of course it isn’t. We can disagree about what sort of goals and values we want to strive for, and what sort of evils we want to avoid or oppose. But when there is agreement on a goal, we should evaluate policies based on how they move us towards that goal, and not reflexively oppose them because they’re federal, or state-run, or use public employees, or use private contractors, or whatever.
Liberals will say Fox is biased. But when asked if CNN is biased, they’ll say, “Of course not.”
I’d say that both Fox and CNN are biased in favor of making money, and they both make money by tailoring their editorial stance to their audience. I don’t watch either; I don’t think TV news is a very good way to stay informed.
Will you admit Jim, that you have biased assumptions?
Certainly, which is why I try to back up my positions with evidence, and to abandon assumptions that I can’t find good evidence for.
I’d say that both Fox and CNN are biased in favor of making money, and they both make money by tailoring their editorial stance to their audience.
If CNN is all about making money, why do they hang on to their bias as their audience diminishes? Ditto for MSNBC.
But when there is agreement on a goal, we should evaluate policies based on how they move us towards that goal, and not reflexively oppose them because they’re federal, or state-run, or use public employees, or use private contractors, or whatever.
The fact that a program is federally run is exactly the problem that you cannot see. This is not a “reflexive” response. You are the reflexive one, always pushing for highly centralized plans as the solution when it is clear that they usually do not work. Let each state do it their own way. Not only will there be more tailor-made solutions for the citizens (because the solutions are at a local level), but there is a better chance for accountability. Let each state be a laboratory that other states can learn from.
When 70 percent of money headed to welfare is spent in Washington, how is that helping the poor?
Am I also reflexive when I say public employees are a problem? The facts show that they are. Again, you are the reflexive one.
“Certainly, which is why I try to back up my positions with evidence”
Lol…
So Jim, you’re willing to spend more money on a flawed educational system? The place that spends the highest per student is Washington, DC. Not quite the model for high grades. Could it be that money doesn’t go to the students? That indeed, schools are corrupt? That public unions are keeping high standards out of the classroom?
My conclusion is that you have been bought out by the system. You are drinking out of the trough and will say anything to keep the moolah coming.
Start here Jim, http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2014/06/the-irs-scandal-9.html
Scroll down and check the links from the last year.
But I’d spend more on energy research, education, and social security, and I’d implement a federal guaranteed basic income.
200 billion a year spent on disability? And you want more????? The fraud in disability is rampant.
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/06/24/the-rise-of-disability/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0
Yes, but it was also written with the fear of leaving too much power to the states.
Egads, did you even read the Constitution? Their intent was to make a sustainable central government with as little centralized power as possible. Is that hard to understand?
You have your monthly bills, you need to spend enough to get by, so you pay your mortgage, bills, and food. It doesn’t mean you buy a hundred pounds of steak, a bushel of Twinkies, 5000 jars of peanut butter, etc and put it on your credit card.