Tag Archives: Wall Street Journal

May 18, 2013 · 2:49 PM

Nate Silver Debunks Peggy Noonan’s Claim IRS Also Went After Individuals Opposing Obama

Mediaite

2012 electoral polling star, the New York Times’s Nate Silver, who was lauded for being right on all things 2012 election, is back crunching the numbers, this time on the IRS political targeting scandal, specifically firing back at WSJ columnist Peggy Noonan’s claim that the Obama IRS went after wealthy Republican individuals in addition to Tea Party groups in his FiveThirtyEight blog Friday.

Noonan had wrote, “The second part of the scandal is the auditing of political activists who have opposed the administration,” espousing the IRS scandal as the “worst Washington scandal since Watergate.” She went on to point out specific wealthy individuals in Idaho and Georgia that had never been audited until going against President Obama.

After conceding that some conservative Romney supporters were targeted, Silver explains those high income earners supporting President Obama were also targeted based on simple math. Silver displays a chart that estimates the amount of high-income earners that were audited in 2012 by way of the IRS’s Data Book. He estimates the share of the vote that went to Romney versus Obama in each income bracket based on exit polling.

His results seem to debunk Ms. Noonan’s argument that only wealthy conservative individuals supporting Mitt Romney yielded an IRS audit, with an estimated 380,000 Romney voters being audited compared to 480,00 Obama voters.

Silver makes the larger point that even without intentional political targeting, hundreds of thousands of conservative voted would have beens selected for audits as part of their normal process. He goes on to suggest Noonan cherry picked few examples in a pool of thousands:

The fact that Ms. Noonan has identified four conservatives from that group of thousands provides no evidence at all toward her hypothesis. Nor would it tell us very much if dozens or even hundreds of conservative activists disclosed that they had been audited. This is exactly what you would expect in a country where there are 1.5 million audits every year.

He concludes that a handful of “anecdotal” data points aren’t worth much in a country of over 300 million people.

h/t FiveThirtyEight

Related articles

2 Comments

Filed under Nate Silver

Tagged as , , , , , , , , ,

May 5, 2013 · 8:23 PM

‘Meet The Press’ Drops All Pretense Of Journalism And Embraces Right Wing Conspiracies

tin_foil_hat

It has always been obvious that David Gregory is no real liberal…

Addicting Info

After watching Sunday’s Meet The Press, one could be forgiven for wondering exactly when the United States went from being a country that faced down nuclear armageddon in the Cold War to cowering under the sheets from the threat of terrorists that may or may not exist.

David Gregory, clearly one of the liberal elitists that are in the tank for Obama, did his very best to conflate Benghazi, Boston and Syria as if they were all part of a grand terrorist plan to destroy America 3 or 4 people at a time:

 I want to widen this out a little bit, because I think there’s the broader topic that we’re broaching here about national security, about our personal freedoms in America, coming out of the Boston bombing is, in part, ongoing concern about terrorism. The graphic this week in The Wall Street Journal about that growing al-Qaeda threat, even a couple of years now after Osama bin Laden is killed.

Looking in North Africa, in the Persian Gulf states, where you either have al-Qaeda with a safe haven, or, indeed, more activity. And it leads, too, to what happened last 9-11 in Benghazi, and the ongoing questions about what the United States knew about that, what the administration knew. Did they do enough to stop it? And now, new hearings coming up, new details being reported on, Mr. Mayor [Guiliani]. Is there something here that somehow gets to why we’re more vulnerable now and whether the administration has done enough, in your estimation? (Emphasis mine) 

I’m curious to know in what sense are we more vulnerable under Obama? Did terrorists hijack 4 airplanes and use them as missiles aimed at American buildings? Was anthrax used to kill several people using the mail? Were several different American consulates attacked resulting in dozens of causalities? If I’m not mistaken, so far in Obama’s 4+ years in office, terrorists have killed exactly 4 people on American soil and 4 Americans not in an active war zone.

Gregory goes on:

“Jane Harman, and Mayor Giuliani, as we look at all of this, whether it’s jihadist elements operating in Syria, whether we look at, now, this widening plot out of the Boston bombings, they wanted to attack, reportedly, on July Fourth, there are others now involved, friends of Dzokhar Tsarnaev, who show their pictures, who are involved, at some level, of clearing out some of the materials from his room, what does this tell us about what we’re up against here, specifically in the Boston plot, and this question of, “Are we any safer?”” 

“Widening plot?” Until they can put a finger on who, if anyone, trained the older brother, Tamerlan, the “widening plot” amounts to three young idiots doing something phenomenally stupid. That these imbeciles, which one official referred to as “the Three Stooges,” tried to (poorly) cover up something of this magnitude doesn’t make them part of a grand terrorist conspiracy that makes America less safe; it just makes them dumber than a sack of hammers. No lovable goofball ending here, just a lot of jail time.

But it wasn’t a total fear-fest. Mr. Gregory did accidentally allow Sen. Patrick Leahy to make a point that interferes with the whole “It’s all Obama’s fault we’re under attack” narrative:

DAVID GREGORY: –how vulnerable we are and what we’re doing about it?

SEN. PATRICK LEAHY: Oh, there are questions should be asked. I know I chair a committee that handles the State Department’s budget. We put in extra money, a great deal of extra money, for embassy security.

DAVID GREGORY: I mean that’s what we’re hearing about– (Translation: ERROR! ERROR! That is off script! We can not blame Republicans for their actions!)

SEN. PATRICK LEAHY: Let me finish. And that was blocked by the House. They said they didn’t want to spend the money. Whether that would have made a difference or not, I don’t know. Should we look at Benghazi? Yes. But keep in mind that’s just one place. We should look at our security throughout our embassies, because there will always be easy targets.

…

DAVID GREGORY: Were warnings ignored on Benghazi, Congressman, in your judgment? (Translation: Let’s get back to promoting the right’s conspiracies!)

Continue reading here…

Related articles

4 Comments

Filed under David Gregory

Tagged as , , , , , , ,

April 10, 2013 · 12:55 PM

Republicans move the budget goal posts again

Official portrait of United States House Speak...

It looks to me that no matter how much President Obama acquiesces to GOP demands, he’s damned if he does and damned if he doesn’t (from both sides)…

The Week

President Obama’s months-delayed budget was finally released today, and it’s being sharply criticized from both sides.

Liberals suggest the president is a “sellout” for proposing cuts to Social Security and other entitlements by using a “Chained CPI” calculation, while Republicans are falling back on their familiar “tax-and-spend liberal” attacks.

John Avlon sees this political posturing as a good sign, noting that the budget “is not a positional bargaining document, designed simply to rally the base at the outset of negotiations.”

While it’s possible the White House is trying to triangulate its way to a “grand bargain” on the budget, what’s striking is that Obama has given Republicans exactly what they’ve asked for — and it’s still not good enough. Republicans remain unwilling to consider additional revenues as part of any package.

In the midst of the “fiscal cliff” negotiations last year, an aide to Speaker John Boehner told Bloomberg that the GOP leader wanted to include a Chained CPI calculation even more than he wanted other entitlement cuts, such as raising the Medicare eligibility age.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) explicitly told the Wall Street Journal that if Obama offered a Chained CPI calculation for entitlement benefits, Republicans would consider finding additional revenue.

Said McConnell: “Those are the kinds of things that would get Republicans interested in new revenue.”

To the annoyance of many liberals in his party, Obama included the Chained CPI in his budget.

But as Greg Sargent correctly points out, the GOP has moved the goal posts: “And so we have a moment of clarity in this debate once again: There is literally nothing that Obama can offer Republicans — not even things they themselves have asked for — that would induce them to agree to a compromise on new revenues.”

Related articles

1 Comment

Filed under Chained CPI, White House Budget

Tagged as , , , , , , ,

March 26, 2013 · 6:35 AM

5 Key Facts About the Supreme Court Gay Marriage Cases

[Today] and Wednesday, the Supreme Court will hear two cases dealing with same-sex marriage: Hollingsworth v. Perry, a review of California’s Proposition 8, which banned same-sex marriage in the state, and United States v. Windsor, which challenges the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), a law preventing the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages performed by the states.

The outcomes of these cases could change the status of same-sex marriage substantially, or the Court could rule narrowly, altering little in the current marriage landscape. Here are the key facts about the cases and what’s behind them.

Live Science

1. Challenges in California

In May 2008, the California Supreme Court ruled that marriage is a fundamental right under the state’s constitution, effectively legalizing same-sex marriage in the state. In November 2008, however, California voters approved Proposition 8, which amended the state constitution to state that only marriage “between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” [Same-Sex Marriage Gains Acceptance (Infographic)]

The Supreme Court case Hollingsworth v. Perry is the culmination of a string of legal challenges against Proposition 8. A federal district court judge in San Francisco overturned the proposition in 2010, but supporters appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which paused same-sex marriages in the state pending the appeal. The Ninth Circuit court then ruled that in approving Proposition 8, California voters had unfairly targeted a minority group and removed a right they once possessed, violating the Equal Protection Cause of the federal Constitution.

Nevertheless, same-sex marriages are still on hold in California, as Prop 8 proponents appeal the case to the Supreme Court, hoping to get the Ninth Circuit Court decision reversed. The justices will hear an hour of oral arguments in the case on Tuesday morning (March 26).

2. The case against DOMA

United States v. Windsor, on the other hand, deals with federal law. In 1996, Congress passed the Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA, which prevents same-sex married couplesfrom receiving federal benefits, such as the ability to jointly file taxes or collect Social Security survivor’s benefits.

The Supreme Court will consider whether denying these benefits violates the Equal Protection clause of the U.S. Constitution. This clause, part of the 14th Amendment, says that no state shall “deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” The courts have held that equal protection requirements apply to the federal government as well.

3. The people behind the cases

The “Windsor” in United States v. Windsor is Edith Windsor, who married Thea Spyer in Toronto, where same-sex marriage is legal, in 2007. The two New York residents had been together for 40 years. In 2009, Spyer died. New York recognized the two women’s union, but the federal government, because of DOMA, did not. Windsor was thus required to pay more than $363,000 in federal estate taxes on her wife’s estate, a payment not required by couples whose marriages are legally recognized by the federal government. [5 Myths About Gay People Debunked]

In Perry v. Hollingsworth, Kristin Perry of California, who was denied a marriage license in 2009 in Alameda County, Calif., is the prosecutor; Dennis Hollingsworth, head of ProtectMarriage.com, a group formed to promote Proposition 8, is the defendant.

4. Possible outcomes: Hollingsworth v. Perry

In dealing with Proposition 8, the Supreme Court justices have a wide range of options. They could rule that Hollingsworth and his organization don’t have “standing” to file a lawsuit challenging earlier decisions about the proposition, because same-sex marriage would not threaten them personally. That would allow same-sex marriage to stand in California without changing policy elsewhere. The justices might also keep their ruling narrow, allowing earlier decisions to overthrow Proposition 8 to stand on the basis that it was a voter initiative that took away a right gay and lesbian citizens in California already had. That ruling would re-open same-sex marriage in California, but not speak to marriage rights in other states.

Or the Court could tackle same-sex marriage broadly with Proposition 8 as its impetus, deciding whether same-sex couples have a fundamental right to marry. A final possibility, urged by the federal government, would be to strike down Proposition 8 based on the fact that California allows same-sex civil unions but not marriage. According to a brief filed by the federal government, this sets up two “separate but equal” institutions, violating Constitutional promises of equal protection. A ruling striking down Proposition 8 on those grounds would affect seven other states that permit same-sex civil unions and ban marriage.

5. Possible outcomes: United States v. Windsor

The question of standing, or who has the right to argue a case in front of the Court, comes into play in United States v. Windsor as well. The Obama administration announced in 2011 that it would no longer be defending DOMA in court, believing it to be an unconstitutional law. Republicans in the House of Representatives formed a group called the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (BLAG) to step in and defend the law in the administration’s stead. The Court will have to determine if BLAG has standing to defend DOMA before hearing other arguments. If the justices decide BLAG doesn’t have standing, the same-sex marriage case returns to the lower courts and would likely wind its way back to the Supreme Court eventually.

If the Court decides not to dismiss the case, they could uphold DOMA, continuing the status quo of state marriages remaining unrecognized federally. If the law is struck down, the Court could write the decision narrowly, opening federal benefits to married gay couples but not broadly addressing the question of marriage as a fundamental right. Or the justices could address whether prohibiting same-sex marriage violates the Equal Protection Clause, recognizing a constitution right to same-sex marriage.

The justice’s rulings are expected in late June.

Related articles

3 Comments

Filed under Prop 8, U.S. Supreme Court

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , ,

March 12, 2013 · 11:01 AM

Ryan Proposes An Even Bigger Tax Cut For The Richest Americans

If I recall correctly, the American people rejected Ryan’s budget plan in November 2012 when they re-elected President Obama.  His budget will never pass the Democratic controlled Senate.  So, what is his point?

Think Progress

House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-WI) previewed the latest version of his budget, which he will formally unveil today, in an editorial in the Wall Street Journal, and the proposal closely mirrors both his past budgets and the plans he and Mitt Romney laid out during the 2012 presidential campaign. Like the Romney-Ryan 2012 plans, this version includes massive budget cuts to safety net programs and a major overhaul of the tax code that will largely benefit the wealthy and corporations.

As the 2012 budget did, the 2013 version reduces the number of income tax brackets from six to two, with marginal rates set at 10 percent and 25 percent. It is expected to stick to Ryan’s past tax proposals as well by repealing the Alternative Minimum Tax, cutting the top corporate tax rate to 25 percent, and converting the corporate tax code to an “international” system.

Estimates showed that past plans amounted to $3 trillion tax giveaways to the wealthy, but because of tax increases that took effect in 2013, Ryan’s newest tax cut is even larger. The federal government in all would lose a total of $7 trillion in revenue, according to Center for American Progress Tax and Budget Policy Director Michael Linden, the majority of which would go to the richest Americans and corporations. Reducing the corporate income tax to 25 percent would provide a tax break of more than $1 trillion; further tax changes would result in even bigger cuts. Trillions more would go to the wealthy.

Ryan again insists that those tax cuts won’t actually be realized, since any reform will be neutral thanks to the closure of tax loopholes. But he made similar claims in both 2011 and 2012, and in neither of those instances did he offer specific loopholes for closure, likely because doing so would have proven politically impractical.

Romney and Ryan also insisted that their proposal would cut taxes for every American (especially the wealthy) while not adding a dime to the federal deficit, but nonpartisan analysts found that upholding both of those standards was impossible. The Tax Policy Center found that Romney’s plan would have to make up $4.8 trillion through the closure of tax loopholes; failing that, he would have no choice but to add to the deficit or raise taxes by $2,000 on the average middle class family. Ryan’s version will have to make up even more revenue to avoid similar pitfalls.

Ryan has also stuck to the same spending principles of past budgets. He again turns Medicare into a voucher program and converts many social safety net programs to block grants modeled after the failed 1996 welfare reform law. Those plans would result in higher health care costs to seniors and major cuts to the social safety net, all while his plan gives a massive tax break to the richest Americans.

Related articles

2 Comments

Filed under Rep. Paul Ryan

Tagged as , , , , , , ,

January 15, 2013 · 8:56 PM

The Wall Street Journal Doesn’t Think Anyone Makes Under $100k a Year

The Contributor

“While the top 1 percent of taxpayers will bear the biggest burden, many other families, affluent and poor, will pay more as well,” wrote Wall Street Journalreporter Laura Saunders in a story about the effect the “fiscal cliff” agreement would have on taxpayers.

However, a graphic that accompanied the story might help explain the conservative mindset about cutting taxes for the rich. Despite writing about the effect tax inceases will have for the poor, apparently no one in their Wall Street Journal’s world makes under $100,000 a year.

I especially feel bad for the poor, single parent struggling to get by on the measly $260,000 she earns a year. After all, how’s she going to afford paying an extra $280 a month in taxes when she’s only bringing in $21,666 a month?

At least the retired couple that barely squeaks by with $180,000 a year of income in retirement won’t have to pay more taxes (although, wearing a sweater tied around your neck like Carlton Banks is a requirement).

I would remind the editors of the Wall Street Journal that the median income in the United States is right around $50,000 a year, and less than 5 percent of households in the country earn more than $166,000 a year.

Related articles

 

8 Comments

Filed under Taxes, Wall Street

Tagged as , , , , , , , ,

January 5, 2013 · 2:21 AM

Obama the master strategist: How conservatives see the fiscal-cliff deal

Beneath that devil-may-care exterior lies a ruthless political Jedi... at least according to some conservatives.

With each of us possessing our own opinion about a host of political issues, the author of this instant article is pragmatic enough to know that everyone will not agree with him.

I happen to be one that does but undoubtedly I accept that I may well be in the “exception to the consensus” category.

I like the following article.  The young columnist, Ryu Spaeth‘s analogy comparing the POTUS’ fiscal cliff victory to a masterful Jedi move is both his reality and frankly, mine too…

The Week

To liberals, Obama is a hapless bungler when it comes to high-stakes negotiations. But the president is a ruthless operator in the conservative mind

Like beauty, politics is in the eye of the beholder. To wit: President Obama has been assailed by some liberal commentators for his supposedly incompetent handling of the fiscal cliff negotiations, particularly his inability to keep to his pledge to raise taxes on those making $250,000 a year. “The World’s Worst Poker Player,”read a headline on Paul Krugman’s blog. And as the budget battle in Congress moves toward the debt ceiling, many have suggested that Obama, abetted by his baffling inability to think strategically, has painted himself into a corner. “Obama claims, and seems to genuinely believe, that he won’t let Republicans jack him over the debt ceiling,” says Jonathan Chait at New York. “But if Republicans could hold the middle class tax cuts hostage, they’ll try to hold the debt ceiling hostage.”

In this view, Obama is the equivalent of Boy Blunder: He was not only incapable of winning big when his hand was strong, but has potentially set himself up for a bloodbath at the hands of the GOP. But if we take a trip to the other side of the op-ed page, a starkly different narrative merges. According to some conservatives, Obama is the most brilliant political operative in town — ruthless, cunning, unstoppable. This is how Charles Krauthammer at The Washington Post seesObama’s handling of the fiscal cliff talks:

Now he’s won. The old Obama is back. He must not be underestimated. He has deftly leveraged his class-war-themed election victory (a) to secure a source of funding (albeit still small) for the bloated welfare state, (b) to carry out an admirably candid bit of income redistribution and (c) to fracture the one remaining institutional obstacle to the rest of his ideological agenda.

Not bad for two months’ work. [Washington Post]

This version of Obama enjoys nothing more than to crush his enemies, see them driven before him, and revel in the lamentations of their women. Per Peggy Noonan at The Wall Street Journal:

He doesn’t want big bipartisan victories that let everyone crow a little and move forward and make progress. He wants his opponents in disarray, fighting without and within. He wants them incapable. He wants them confused…

The president intends to consistently beat his opponents and leave them looking bad, or, failing that, to lose to them sometimes and then make them look bad. That’s how he does politics….

In part it’s because he seems to like the tension. He likes cliffs, which is why it’s always a cliff with him and never a deal. He likes the high-stakes, tottering air of crisis. Maybe it makes him feel his mastery and reminds him how cool he is, unrattled while he rattles others. He can take it. Can they? [Wall Street Journal]

At this point, we would usually say something like, “The truth probably lies somewhere in the middle.” But in this case, the answer is obvious: Obama is clearly the love child of a Jedi Master and Sauron.

Related articles

4 Comments

Filed under President Obama

Tagged as , , , , , , ,

December 19, 2012 · 2:54 PM

The Benghazi report: Big trouble for Hillary Clinton?

Hillary Clinton won't testify as scheduled at congressional Benghazi hearings due to a concussion.

Hillary Clinton won’t testify as scheduled at congressional Benghazi hearings due to a concussion.

Let there be no doubt about it.  This will in no way hinder the Secretary of State’s excellent record nor will it be a problem if she decides to run in 2016.

Hillary Clinton has been an outstanding public servant for decades and a few rumblings from the other side, in an effort to derail anything with Barack Obama’s name on it, will be an epic fail.

The Week

An independent inquiry faults missteps by the State Department in the death of Ambassador Chris Stevens.

“So much for any presidential aspirations Hillary Clinton may be entertaining for 2016,” says Janet Shan atHinterland Gazette. An independent review board investigating the Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, released its unclassified report late Tuesday. (Read the whole thing below.) The upshot? “Systemic failures and leadership and management deficiencies” at high levels of the State Department contributed to the death of four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens. As secretary of state, that’s a pretty big stain on Clinton’s reputation.

The board, led by former diplomat Thomas Pickering and retired Joint Chiefs Chairman Admiral Mike Mullen, eventually concluded that blame for the American deaths rests “solely and completely with the terrorists,” and pointedly “did not find reasonable cause to determine that any individual U.S. government employee breached his or her duty.” But the board did fault the State Department for relying on unseasoned U.S. security personnel and Libyan militias to protect Stevens, ignoring requests for more guards, failing to make needed security upgrades, not adjusting to the deteriorating situation in Benghazi, and for poor intra-agency coordination. Clinton was expected to testify before Congress about the report on Thursday, but begged out, citing a concussion sustained during a fall last week while she was fighting a stomach bug.

Conservatives aren’t buying it. With U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice pulling out of the running for Clinton’s job and CIA Director David Petraeus ousted amid a sex scandal, “Clinton is the latest scapegoat for ongoing frustrations over Benghazi,” says Alexander Abad-Santos at The Atlantic Wire. And since the report declined to name new victims to destroy in their Benghazi-gate crusade, they’re making do with “Concussiongate.”

Well really, Clinton is bowing out from yet another round of Benghazi hearings, this time because of a supposed concussion, “and we’re supposed to just take her word for it”? says Jim Treacher at The Daily Caller. “If she has a concussion, let’s see the medical report.” Imagine the outrage if Clinton predecessors Colin Powell or Condoleezza Rice had called in sick for Iraq War hearings. Yes, “Clinton’s story beggars belief,” says the New York Post in an editorial. Thissupposed concussion “looks like one of the most transparent dodges in the history of diplomacy,” and Republicans must insist she testify later if not now.

Give me a break, says Joe Gandelman at The Moderate Voice. Clinton is faking an illness? Theseconservatives “are fixated on creating crises where they aren’t any,” and doing so in a “cravenly partisan” manner. Congratulations, or something: Your paranoia has earned you a coveted spot in our “Get a Life” club.

In the end, Clinton will probably emerge from this relatively unscathed, says The Wall Street Journal in an editorial. Before she gets another chance to testify, she will likely “leave the Obama cabinet with sky-high approval ratings and an eye on the 2016 presidential nomination,” and at this point, “it’s logical for her not to want to dwell on the worst debacle of her tenure at State.”

Read the report for yourself:

Benghazi Report

Related articles

Comments Off

Filed under Hillary Clinton, State Department

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , ,

August 13, 2012 · 2:01 PM

Swiftboat Author Jerome Corsi: Fox News Is ‘Packed With Leftist Commentators’

The paranoid rambling of a madman in the video below…

NewsHounds

Remember when Jerome Corsi was a somewhat regular guest andtopic on Fox News? For a long time, the co-author of the Swiftboat book attacking John Kerry has gotten favorable treatment by the network – something he seems to have forgotten, because now he’s declaring war on the hand that used to feed him. In a recent Youtube rant, Corsi attacks Fox News for being “packed with leftist commentators,” an accusation he seems to base solely on the presence of host Bob Beckel (grudge much?).

On the occasion of Paul Ryan being named as Mitt Romney’s running mate, Corsi said, “Fox may now finally get behind Romney. Fox has been moving to the left. Maybe we’ll finally hear some less of Bob Beckel.”

He later issued a warning to Fox and the rest of the media to change their evil, liberal ways:

It’s an historic opportunity for the Tea Party to tell the establishment, Wall Street Journal included, New York Times, the whole bunch of them, you know they’d better face up to the reality, that the left – trying to please the left, by appearing to sympathize with the left… with Fox, packed with leftist commentators, is going to lose the fundamental audience of America.

How will Fox News take him on without compromising all the smears he’s helped them build? We’re gonna have fun finding out!

Related articles

Comments Off

Filed under Jerome R. Corsi

Tagged as , , , , , , , ,

July 2, 2012 · 10:56 AM

IRS Taking Harder Look at Political ‘Charities’

IRS Taking Harder Look at Political ‘Charities’

It’s about time.  Of course the naysayers will say this is just politics as usual, but so are those so-called “charities”…

TPMMuckraker

Is the IRS starting to look into political groups set up as 501(c)4s?

A Wall Street Journal article last week reported that the agency was “taking initial steps to examine whether Crossroads GPS, a pro-Republican group affiliated with Karl Rove, and similar political entities are violating their tax-exempt status by spending too much on partisan activities.” But the IRS told TPM that the plan has been around for a while.

In an article published Wednesday, the Journal reported:

Holly Paz, a senior official in the IRS’s tax-exempt division, said Friday that the agency was working on a questionnaire to send to some of the largest of the groups. Sending such a questionnaire is considered to be the first step in an IRS investigation.The voluntary questionnaires will ask the organizations about their activities and compliance, said Ms. Paz, the IRS’s director of tax-exempt rulings and agreements, speaking at a conference of the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants.

Contacted by TPM last week, IRS spokesman Dean Patterson said in an emailed statement that Paz’s comments at the conference “are the same as what we’ve had on our web site and in our Exempt Organization work plan since February.” He pointed us to a passage on “501(c)(4), (5) and (6) self-declarers” in the agency’s 2012 Exempt Organization work plan that reads, in part:

“In FY 2012, EO will send a comprehensive questionnaire to organizations based on Form 990 filings to assess compliance in this area.”

According to Patterson, the questionnaire is not yet ready to send out.

“We have not announced when the questionnaire will be sent, and we have not announced any specific details about this beyond what’s in the work plan. Other details have not been finalized, such as who will receive the questionnaire or the size of the groups receiving the questionnaire,” he said in the statement. “We anticipate asking groups a range of questions on topics including executive compensation, member services, political activity and a number of other issues.”

Related articles

Comments Off

Filed under Uncategorized

Tagged as , , , , , , ,