IDBillzFan Posted February 10, 2014 Posted February 10, 2014 On a side note, if Clinton were still in office, what do you think he would have done to that woman? Before or after getting her number from Tom Sizemore?
B-Man Posted February 10, 2014 Posted February 10, 2014 Washington Post: Unions, Trade Associations Worried About Possible IRS Rule Changes Akron Beacon Journal: All Da King's Men: Not a Smidgen of Corruption? The GOP Should Use the Power of the Purse: The way to cure the rogue behavior of Obama’s agencies is not to pay for it. .
Tiberius Posted February 10, 2014 Posted February 10, 2014 The GOP Should Use the Power of the Purse: The way to cure the rogue behavior of Obama’s agencies is not to pay for it. . Ha ha, Wesley Snipes is out there saying, why now???
3rdnlng Posted February 11, 2014 Posted February 11, 2014 Equal rights for all: http://scrappleface.com/2014/02/10/holder-gays-deserve-equal-treatment-from-irs-nsa/ (2014-02-10) — Attorney General Eric Holder announced today that from now on the Justice Department will make sure that the federal government treats homosexual couples the same as heterosexuals, ensuring equally-vigorous IRS scrutiny for their political groups, generous NSA eavesdropping on personal communications, and proactive government exclusion of their viewpoints from the public schools. “I’ve grown concerned recently that gay people are not receiving the kind of attention they should from the federal government,” said Holder. “We don’t know for a fact that government policy excludes gay people, but the seriousness of the allegation is sufficient to merit additional funding and staffing to ensure that both civil rights and civil constraints are equally applicable to all.”
DC Tom Posted February 11, 2014 Posted February 11, 2014 Be careful what you wish for... Which just gave me a thought: Gay men are being forced to purchase maternity coverage.
3rdnlng Posted February 11, 2014 Posted February 11, 2014 Which just gave me a thought: Gay men are being forced to purchase maternity coverage. So is my 85 year old mother.
DC Tom Posted February 11, 2014 Posted February 11, 2014 So is my 85 year old mother. Your mother probably didn't support the ACA like the gay rights' lobby did.
keepthefaith Posted February 11, 2014 Posted February 11, 2014 Which just gave me a thought: Gay men are being forced to purchase maternity coverage. Yeah but is surrogate coverage provided? That's probably more costly than a more traditional birth.
B-Man Posted February 11, 2014 Posted February 11, 2014 Chicago Sun-Times: Signs say IRS targeted tea party. Watchdog to IRS: Quit killing conservatives with paperwork. : Congressional Investigation: Treasury, IRS, HHS Conspired To Create An Unauthorized, Half-Trillion Dollar Entitlement.
DC Tom Posted February 11, 2014 Posted February 11, 2014 Chicago Sun-Times: Signs say IRS targeted tea party. "Signs say?" What the !@#$ is that? Someone investigate that with a Magic 8-Ball?
Azalin Posted February 11, 2014 Author Posted February 11, 2014 "Signs say?" What the !@#$ is that? Someone investigate that with a Magic 8-Ball? TEA leaves.
OCinBuffalo Posted February 11, 2014 Posted February 11, 2014 (edited) TEA leaves. Nice. There's the real story, which is that this investigation is only ~50% over, and there's a long way to go. Then there's the real, real story which is, the TEA party has already raised $7 million for 2014, more than the Rs, and Ds, largely by using the IRS story. That's the immediate impact, and regardless of how the investigation goes, the PR/political damage is already done. So, the gatorman's of the world should ask themselves: wouldn't they have rather had simple, straightforward answers to this question, have those responsible for the policy(which is not anyone in Cincy)fall on their swords, Obama escapes but gets censured, etc....whatever, deal with it and end it, rather than leaving it open for so long that it defeats them in 2014, and again in 2016? I have no idea why Obama et al have chosen this approach. This means they lose both ways. The only way this makes sense? IF the investigation IS going to run into something big, and they know it, so they are just delaying it as long as possible. I've always been curious as to why this, Benghazi, the WH reporter phone tapping/leaks story all came out at the same time. I don't believe that's a coincidence, not even a little bit. I think they sent them all out at the same time, because they knew they would all break soon, in an effort to overload the media, and never thought they would be hearing about them a full year later. Edited February 11, 2014 by OCinBuffalo
B-Man Posted February 13, 2014 Posted February 13, 2014 (edited) No need to even pretend anymore: Vulnerable Dems want IRS to step up Senate Democrats facing tough elections this year want the Internal Revenue Service to play a more aggressive role in regulating outside groups expected to spend millions of dollars on their races. In the wake of the IRS targeting scandal, the Democrats are publicly prodding the agency instead of lobbying them directly. Read more: http://thehill.com/h...p#ixzz2tD10qrIB House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Dave Camp (R., Mich.) said Tuesday that the committee’s investigation of the Internal Revenue Service found that 100 percent of the tax-exempt groups that were flagged and targeted with an audit were right-leaning. The Wall Street Journal reports: “We now know that the IRS targeted not only right-leaning applicants, but also right-leaning groups that were already operating as 501©(4)s,” Mr. Camp said in a statement. “At Washington, DC’s direction, dozens of groups operating as 501©(4)s were flagged for IRS surveillance, including monitoring of the groups’ activities, websites and any other publicly available information. Of these groups, 83% were right-leaning. And of the groups the IRS selected for audit, 100 percent were right-leaning.” House Republicans have been investigating the IRS, after the agency admitted last spring that it had singled out conservative groups for special scrutiny when they applied for tax-exempt status. . Edited February 14, 2014 by B-Man
B-Man Posted February 14, 2014 Posted February 14, 2014 IRS Scandals by Veronique de Rugy I have a piece up at the Washington Examiner arguing that the IRS’s systematic targeting of nonprofit organizations applying for tax-exempt status simply on the basis of their names or assumed political leanings is only one of the questionable moves the agency has made. Taxpayers who have to put up with a complicated tax code are receiving increasingly worse services from the tax agency. Its customer service representatives are answering fewer “customer” calls and keeping callers on hold for longer periods. Instead of trying to jack up the quality of its services, the IRS decided to stop answering the harder, more time-consuming questions. But it doesn’t stop there. The IRS also decided that in this context it would be a great idea to try to squeeze the competition and make it harder for taxpayers to get tax advices from small tax-prep companies by imposing onerous (and unnecessary) education and licensing requirements. Tim Carney has a good piece explaining how the IRS move would benefit the big companies like H&R Block. The great news is that didn’t work: Thankfully, as Reason Magazine’s Katherine Mangu-Ward explains, “The libertarian legal outfit Institute for Justice helped mom-and-pop tax prep firms challenge the new regs.” In this case, the good guys won. News arrived a few days ago that the “D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the IRS had no legal authority to impose a nationwide licensing scheme on tax-return preparers.” For now, you can at least seek prompt, affordable, tax assistance from private firms while the IRS gets its customer service act together. However, this victory is merely one small riposte against the IRS’ disturbing broader power grab. But it gets much worse than that. Michael Cannon at the Cato Institute is fighting to prevent the IRS and Treasury from illegally rewriting the healthcare law: Cannon reports that the IRS and Treasury Department have rolled out possibly illegal taxes for the payment of Obamacare’s premium subsidies in states that declined to establish their own exchange. As written, the ACA only directs the IRS to impose specific taxes and pay premium subsidies in state-established exchanges. Yet, as Cannon writes: “Nevertheless, agency officials agreed, again with apparent unanimity, to impose those taxes and dispense those subsidies in states with federal exchanges, the undisputed plain meaning of the PPACA notwithstanding.” This action isn’t just potentially illegal, it could have serious financial consequences for the country. As Cannon explains, “Treasury, IRS, and HHS officials simply rewrote the law to create a new, unauthorized entitlement program whose cost ‘may exceed $500 billion dollars over 10 years.’ (My own estimate puts the 10-year cost closer to $700 billion .
OCinBuffalo Posted February 17, 2014 Posted February 17, 2014 (edited) IRS Scandals by Veronique de Rugy I have a piece up at the Washington Examiner arguing that the IRS’s systematic targeting of nonprofit organizations applying for tax-exempt status simply on the basis of their names or assumed political leanings is only one of the questionable moves the agency has made. Taxpayers who have to put up with a complicated tax code are receiving increasingly worse services from the tax agency. Its customer service representatives are answering fewer “customer” calls and keeping callers on hold for longer periods. Instead of trying to jack up the quality of its services, the IRS decided to stop answering the harder, more time-consuming questions. But it doesn’t stop there. The IRS also decided that in this context it would be a great idea to try to squeeze the competition and make it harder for taxpayers to get tax advices from small tax-prep companies by imposing onerous (and unnecessary) education and licensing requirements. Tim Carney has a good piece explaining how the IRS move would benefit the big companies like H&R Block. The great news is that didn’t work: Thankfully, as Reason Magazine’s Katherine Mangu-Ward explains, “The libertarian legal outfit Institute for Justice helped mom-and-pop tax prep firms challenge the new regs.” In this case, the good guys won. News arrived a few days ago that the “D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the IRS had no legal authority to impose a nationwide licensing scheme on tax-return preparers.” For now, you can at least seek prompt, affordable, tax assistance from private firms while the IRS gets its customer service act together. However, this victory is merely one small riposte against the IRS’ disturbing broader power grab. But it gets much worse than that. Michael Cannon at the Cato Institute is fighting to prevent the IRS and Treasury from illegally rewriting the healthcare law: Cannon reports that the IRS and Treasury Department have rolled out possibly illegal taxes for the payment of Obamacare’s premium subsidies in states that declined to establish their own exchange. As written, the ACA only directs the IRS to impose specific taxes and pay premium subsidies in state-established exchanges. Yet, as Cannon writes: “Nevertheless, agency officials agreed, again with apparent unanimity, to impose those taxes and dispense those subsidies in states with federal exchanges, the undisputed plain meaning of the PPACA notwithstanding.” This action isn’t just potentially illegal, it could have serious financial consequences for the country. As Cannon explains, “Treasury, IRS, and HHS officials simply rewrote the law to create a new, unauthorized entitlement program whose cost ‘may exceed $500 billion dollars over 10 years.’ (My own estimate puts the 10-year cost closer to $700 billion . The above may finally contain the elusive legal "standing" that has been so difficult to find in all of this. You can't sue the government without standing. Somebody who is forced to pay these taxes in a state with a federal exchange has litterally been illegally harmed by the government, personally. Thus, standing has been achieved. And, any story that curtails this Administration's, or any government entity's ability to sell their influence to the highest campaign contributor, is a good thing. Edited February 17, 2014 by OCinBuffalo
B-Man Posted February 17, 2014 Posted February 17, 2014 THE NEW YORK POST: Calling Lois Lerner: The American people still need to hear from Lois Lerner. That’s a point that can’t be made often enough. Remember her? She’s the IRS official who gave a statement before Congress declaring herself innocent of any wrongdoing — and then promptly took the Fifth. Recently, Congress unearthed another IRS e-mail on which she was copied, talking about taking “off-plan” a discussion about how to harass the 501©4 groups the IRS had targeted. Meanwhile, leaks from officials involved in the investigation claim the FBI has not found anything criminal. That’s an amazing finding, given the statement by the American Center for Law and Justice, which represents the IRS targets, that the FBI hadn’t interviewed a single of the center’s 41 clients. Congress has been trying to get to the bottom of things with hearings, but it has not had much help from the administration. That’s partly because the Department of Justice is hiding behind the idea that it can’t do anything that might jeopardize an ongoing criminal investigation. We believe this gets priorities backward. The Constitution does not hold government agencies such as the IRS accountable to the FBI. The Constitution holds the government accountable to the people, acting through their elected representatives in Congress. Read the whole thing.
B-Man Posted February 20, 2014 Posted February 20, 2014 Unions vs. Democrats: A difference of opinion about IRS suppression of speech. FTA: The disagreement between Democratic politicians and unions is especially illuminating. Generally speaking, there is a confluence of interest between unions (especially public-sector ones like the SEIU) and Democratic politicians. The unions help elect Democrats, who help maintain and enhance union power, which enables them to help elect Democrats, and so on. Yet confluent interests are not identical ones. Politicians are interested in winning elections; unions are interested in acquiring and maintaining power; and for each, helping the other is a means to an end. In the proposed 501©(4) regulations, the Democrats evidently see an opportunity to help win elections (or at least lose fewer of them) this fall. The unions see a precedent that could pose a long-term threat to their interests.
3rdnlng Posted February 26, 2014 Posted February 26, 2014 (edited) Lois Lerner recalled to testify before Issa's committee: http://dailycaller.c...-irs-targeting/ It would appear that her options all suck. Edited February 28, 2014 by 3rdnlng
keepthefaith Posted February 27, 2014 Posted February 27, 2014 Lois Lerner recalled to testify before Issa's committee: http://dailycaller.c...-irs-targeting/ I would appear that her options all suck. I put the chances of her disclosing anything meaningful at about 10%. What are they going to do if her attorney's position is that she has not waived her 5th amendment rights? Even if she talks she may withhold the truth or simply say she cannot recall things. These hearings (including fast and furious, Benghazi, and others) have no teeth because witnesses routinely don't answer truthfully or fully and there is no downside. Nobody gets cuffed in contempt or ever is prosecuted for perjury. That and Issa and the rest don't ask the questions that get to the heart of these matters. They leave opportunity on the table.
Recommended Posts