General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsIRS tax scandal in US: new evidence undermines political bias claims
Source: The Guardian
Dan Roberts in Washington
guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 4 June 2013 01.01 BST
Nearly three-quarters of the political groups subjected to extra tax inspection during a recent IRS scandal were not identifiably opponents of the White House, officials have revealed.
Republicans have called for a special prosecutor to investigate what they call "attacks on American democracy" after it emerged that rightwing groups were singled out for special treatment by the Inland Revenue Service.
But in testimony before Congress, two senior civil servants brought in to clean up after the affair gave evidence that suggests the reality may have been more complex than a simple case of political bias.
[font size=1]-snip-[/font]
However a further 226 other political groups were also placed in the same review whose affiliations were not immediately apparent from their name alone, which is often the case among liberal campaign groups. It remains unknown how many of these were in fact Democrat-leaning groups, partly because individual names cannot be publicly released under IRS confidentiality laws.
[font size=1]-snip-[/font]
Read more: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/04/irs-tax-scandal-new-evidence
zbdent
(35,392 posts)not so much in today's "liberally-biased media" ...
Rosa Luxemburg
(28,627 posts)and the undercover operations that are associated with some of these groups such laundering
Igel
(35,191 posts)Lots of arguments rely on innumeracy. It's not the absolute numbers that matter, it's the proportions and rates.
Let's say that in a given town 80% of the arrests for violent crime are of whites. The town's police can't be racist. Then it's pointed out that only 3% of the town is non-white. Are the town's police racist? Probably.
If a quarter of those subject to extra review could be seen as "opponents of the White House" but 3% were "allies," then there's something wrong. Probably.
If a quarter of those subject to extra review could be seen as "opponents" but they comprised only 10% of the applications, there's something wrong. Probably.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)in your police example, you have it a little reversed ... Shouldn't it read:
Then it's pointed out that only 3% of the town is
Likewise, there is not enough information to support the first part of your "of the White House" example.
Your final example is more supportable; depending on the characteristics and what happenned with the other 90.
But I completely agree, most arguments rely on innumeracy ... but more troubling, the press (that really should know better) push these narratives, without bothering to have a statistician (or at least someone that took and passed a grad-level Research Methods/Stats class).
jmowreader
(50,447 posts)Assuming whites and nonwhites commit violent crime at similar rates, arresting 3 percent of the population for committing either 20 or 80 percent of the violent crime indicates possible violence. We'd have to see the crime reports to be sure.
I'd also like to see poverty statistics because poor people at least get targeted for violent crime arrest more than the non-poor do.
AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)When it comes to the GOP, this is a given.
kentuck
(110,947 posts)How did the Republicans find out about all the Republican groups?? "because individual names cannot be publicly released under IRS confidentiality laws." Did somebody break the law in getting the names of these "conservative" groups??
cstanleytech
(26,080 posts)In fact I also wonder if the people funding and running these groups from the shadows set this up to try and defang the IRS from investigating the groups deeper and finding out that they were coordinating the groups during the last elections.
jimlup
(7,968 posts)which seems awkwardly defined. This is an umbrella group status for partisan political activity.
From wiki:
Tax exemption
United States federal tax law, specifically Section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code (26 U.S.C. § 501(c)), generally exempts certain types of nonprofit organizations from federal income tax. The statutory language of IRC 501(c)(4) generally requires civic organizations described in that section to be "operated exclusively for the promotion of social welfare". Treasury regulations interpreting this statutory language apply a more relaxed standard, namely, that the organization "is operated primarily for the purpose of bringing about civic betterments and social improvements."[3] As a result, the IRS traditionally has permitted organizations described in IRC 501(c)(4) to engage in lobbying and political campaign activities if those activities are not the organization's primary activity.[4]
Seems that we should just end this charade.
Veilex
(1,555 posts)over when "operated exclusively for the promotion of social welfare" became "is operated primarily for the purpose of bringing about civic betterments and social improvements". For the life of me, I cant seem to find it or I'd post it here. The video shows Elizabeth exposing that the word "exclusively" was substituted with the word "primarily" without proper authority to do so. Its quite a significant change in how 501(c)(4)s work.
Skip Intro
(19,768 posts)Something stinks bigtime about this.
I don't see how anyone capable of obtaining an unbiased view, even a fleeting one, would disagree.
Merlot
(9,696 posts)The minute I heard it, alarms went off. It wasn't professional. The tea party groups only made up a minority percentage of the number of groups that were scrutinized. Why mention them by name? It would have been more correct to name the type of application - the 503K - instead of naming that group.
I did read somewhere that the woman who made the apology actually planted the question to a reporter in the audience so that she could make the "apology."
Skip Intro
(19,768 posts)Why?
Merlot
(9,696 posts)Skip Intro
(19,768 posts)It may be more about a lot of people.
Pleading the fifth doesn't exactly equal transparency or support claims of innocence either.
But I just want to know what the truth is, the whole truth.
If the IRS was used to intimidate or prevent dissenting political expression and activism, then we got a big problem.
Kingofalldems
(38,359 posts)Chathamization
(1,638 posts)to read. Including liberal commentators on MSNBC. Which also mentioned that they didn't look into whether or not non-Tea Party groups were treated fairly. Oh yeah, and the report is only 18 pages long.
John2
(2,730 posts)the question before the report came out and she claimed personel targeted conservative groups. Did she have some motive in doing so? The result of it, made these conservative groups look like victims, even though there was a need to scrutinize these groups for applying for tax exempt status, merely because the number had quadrupled. And it was the Press carried it from there. Apparently this heightened scrutiny began around the period of 2010. Many of these conservative groups were complaining to, enough for Issa to get involved. Allegedly, that was the reason for this IG report, which clearly reported back to Issa. My question, if the report was iniated by Issa, how independent was this report, if he was giving updates to Issa? Did Issa influence the findings in any way? I also would like to know if Lerner had any contact with Republicans or these groups? I'm not for a politcal appointed Special Counsel, such as a Ken Starr. I think the DOJ is perfectly capable of doing its job.
Chathamization
(1,638 posts)"TIGTA initiated this audit based on concerns expressed by members of Congress."
What gets me is that this issue could have been mostly debunked if anyone in the media read the 18 page report. Conservative representatives pressed for this investigation, it only looked at how Tea Party groups were treated, even though they were just one group on that list, and found that there was no bias against them since the majority of groups sent to the special unit were not connected to the Tea Party at all.
And the media keeps saying that "conservative groups" were targeted; that's about as accurate as saying that "American groups" were targeted. "Tea Party" groups (groups naming themselves after a political movement) were targeted. No one's claimed so far that "conservative" or what have you were on the BOLO. Which is why it's so stupid when people say "why wasn't 'progressive' on that list?" Eh, the same reason why "conservative" wasn't on it.
blkmusclmachine
(16,149 posts).
burnodo
(2,017 posts)So I can avoid the Inland Revenue Service and its possible complexities and simple biases.
Kingofalldems
(38,359 posts)Berlum
(7,044 posts)They really need to get over their faux "victim" pose. It is not just lame, it is fundamentally immoral.