home

Acting IRS Director Steven Miller Resigns

President Obama tonight announced that Acting IRS Director Steven Miller has resigned, at the request of Treasury Secretary Jack Lew.

A transcript of Obama's remarks at his press conference tonight is here.

< AG Eric Holder Grilled by Congress | American Idol Finale >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    All well and good, but (5.00 / 6) (#1)
    by Peter G on Wed May 15, 2013 at 08:39:09 PM EST
    501(c)(4) status is in fact often abused to get tax-exempt treatment for organizations which are principally designed to intervene in elections and partisan politics, and therefore legally ineligible to be tax exempt.  The IRS was right to investigate these groups.  If the squad in Cincinnati did not do so even-handedly, that is very wrong.  But the IRS should not be shy about denying or revoking tax exempt status to Tea Party groups or any other organizations that exist for the purpose of carrying on partisan political activities focused on electing or defeating particular candidates rather than on the "social welfare" purpose of advancing certain political ideas.

    Where do you think the NRA falls? Or do you have (none / 0) (#2)
    by Angel on Wed May 15, 2013 at 09:00:23 PM EST
    an opinion on their 501(c)(4) status?

    Parent
    Exactly. I certainly hope (none / 0) (#3)
    by oculus on Wed May 15, 2013 at 10:09:05 PM EST
    all those Citizen Uniteds don't get a free pass from the IRS.

    Parent
    You be Prez, Peter (none / 0) (#4)
    by Dadler on Wed May 15, 2013 at 11:21:06 PM EST
    At least for that press conference. Woulda been great.

    Parent
    Agreed. (none / 0) (#7)
    by ExcitableBoy on Thu May 16, 2013 at 07:37:27 AM EST
    There are plenty of groups on both sides who seem purely political that are getting this status. They should clean that up. But that's not the point of this situation. From the IRS' own admissions and apologies, "if" isn't the operative word here.

    Parent
    There are reports that liberal groups were (none / 0) (#17)
    by MKS on Thu May 16, 2013 at 02:50:21 PM EST
    targeted too.  It appears to be a bureaucratic short cut and not a political operation.

    Parent
    And other reports (none / 0) (#19)
    by jbindc on Thu May 16, 2013 at 03:05:13 PM EST
    That many liberal groups, who applied at the same time as the Tea Party groups, got their applications reviewed and approved, some in record time.

    Parent
    479 days to approve this (none / 0) (#21)
    by Angel on Thu May 16, 2013 at 03:27:00 PM EST
    liberal group's application.

    From article:  Now that the floodgates are good and burst, I'm getting a bunch of emailed IRS letters from groups whose leaders feel they were unusually hassled. Progress Texas sent this over, pointing to questions 1, 2, 12, 16, 19, and 21, and adding that their request took 479 days for approval.

    "Progress Texas and the Tea Party strongly disagree on the role of government," said PT executive director Ed Espinoza. "Yet, when we applied for tax-exempt status, Progress Texas received the same type of additional scrutiny that Tea Party groups are complaining about. The similar treatment indicates the IRS was likely addressing a flood of 501c4 applications after Citizens United, and undermines the paranoid notion that Tea Party groups were singled out."


    Parent

    And 90 days for (none / 0) (#23)
    by jbindc on Thu May 16, 2013 at 03:36:39 PM EST
    this one, no questions asked.

    And while some "liberal-sounding" groups got additional scrutiny, they still got thier tax-exempt status.

    Parent

    wonder why Republican groups got scrutinzed? (none / 0) (#24)
    by vicndabx on Thu May 16, 2013 at 03:48:21 PM EST
    from your article:

    Crossroads GPS, a social-welfare group created with help from Republican strategist Karl Rove, spent more than $71 million on last-minute advertising in the 2012 elections - the most of any social welfare organization, according to data collected y the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics

    oh yes, so much good works out there for the public.

    and while some "tea party" groups got additional scrutiny, they too also received their tax-exempt status.

    Parent

    Meh. (none / 0) (#27)
    by Angel on Thu May 16, 2013 at 04:21:46 PM EST
    "Tea party" groups are inherently (none / 0) (#32)
    by MKS on Fri May 17, 2013 at 10:54:00 AM EST
    doubtful candidates for tax exempt status.  The acutal wording of the statute, as Lawrence O'Donnell points out, provides that tax exempt status for 501(c)(4)orgnaizaitons is restricted to those who are not engaged in any political activity.

    Any "Tea Party" group is telling the world they are engaged in poltical activity.   They are not entitled to tax exempt status.

    Parent

    Not allowed to campaign? (none / 0) (#9)
    by Mr Natural on Thu May 16, 2013 at 09:03:55 AM EST
    A big oops.  Nine or ten years ago me and a bunch of fellow rabble rousers concocted a 501C to do exactly that.  We had no idea partisan politics wasn't allowed.  Neither did the pro-development Bozos who opposed us, who all had 501cs of their own.

    I'm wondering if the real purpose of the investigations wasn't to uncover non-filers, i.e., tax protesters of the Wesley Snipes school.


    Parent

    The investigations were into groups (none / 0) (#13)
    by ruffian on Thu May 16, 2013 at 12:52:46 PM EST
    that were applying for the tax exempt status, so I don't think it was to go after Snipes-types, unless they were advertising themselves by requesting tax-exempt status!

    Parent
    That Wiki link... (none / 0) (#16)
    by kdog on Thu May 16, 2013 at 01:23:35 PM EST
    made my head hurt.

    This 501c can lobby, this 501c can't, 29 kinds of 501c...I can't 501-see straight.

    It's enough to push me further towards a progressive flat tax...everybody pays a nickel of every dollar that comes in over 30 grand, a dime of every dollar over 250k, 15 cents of every dollar over 1 million, 25 cents of every dollar over 10 milion.  I don't care how it comes in or what you do to get it in.  Individuals, corporations, churches, or groups...wages, capital gains, or contributions. No loopholes, no deductions, no nuthin'.  We can lay off 3/4ths of the IRS staff.  Who is with me?

    Parent

    Obama is getting slammed, isn't he? (none / 0) (#5)
    by kmblue on Thu May 16, 2013 at 05:35:56 AM EST
    The chickens come home to roost.  If he had figured out Republicans will hate him no matter what he does, he might have grown a spine. Then he might defend himself better now.

    I am not advocating... (none / 0) (#6)
    by unitron on Thu May 16, 2013 at 06:41:12 AM EST
    ...violence against women or anything like that when I extend the analogy and say that next time Charlie Brown needs to ignore the football and give Lucy a swift kick in the rear.

    Parent
    Missing the point. (none / 0) (#8)
    by ExcitableBoy on Thu May 16, 2013 at 07:43:59 AM EST
    You can certainly claim that Benghazi is purely a Republican hack job, but not so with the IRS and AP stories. These aren't GOP smear campaigns; they're self-inflicted wounds.

    Which is not to say that these have anything to do with the President himself, obviously. But it's his administration, so it's his problem. Nothing to do with Republicans, or hate, or spines.

    Parent

    The AP story (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by CoralGables on Thu May 16, 2013 at 11:12:31 AM EST
    can certainly be considered a Republican hack job if Republicans don't side with the White House on this issue. The DOJ wouldn't have had the power to act if Republican Senators didn't filibuster the Free Flow of Information Act in 2007.

    Benghazi? Obvious hack job.

    IRS? Obvious con job but not by the government. The term political non-profit is damn near an oxymoron and every single one of them should be investigated annually.


    Parent

    Or, again (none / 0) (#18)
    by jbindc on Thu May 16, 2013 at 03:04:23 PM EST
    If Obama hadn't reversed his position on shield laws. There are no clean hands here.

    Glenn says it well, as always:

    As I noted yesterday, TPM's Josh Marshall - who fancies himself an edgy insurgent against mainstream media complacency as he spends day after day defending the US government's most powerful officials - printed an anonymous email accusing AP of engineering a "smear of Justice". Worse, Media Matters this morning posted "talking points" designed to defend the DOJ in the AP matter that easily could have come directly from the White House and which sounded like Alberto Gonzales, arguing that "if the press compromised active counter-terror operations for a story that only tipped off the terrorists, that sounds like it should be investigated" and that "it was not acceptable when the Bush Administration exposed Valerie Plame working undercover to stop terrorists from attacking us. It is not acceptable when anonymous sources do it either." It also sought to blame Republicans for defeating a bill to protect journalists without mentioning that Obama, once he became president, reversed his position on such bills and helped to defeat it. Meanwhile, the only outright, spirited, unqualified defense of the DOJ's conduct toward AP that I've seen comes from a Media Matters employee and "liberal" blogger.

    During the Bush years, it was conservatives who supported the Bush DOJ and Alberto Gonzales' threats against the press on national security grounds; now, defenders of such threats to press freedoms are found almost exclusively from progressive circles (similarly, many of the most vicious and vocal attacks on WikiLeaks and Bradley Manning have come from progressives).

    This is such an under-appreciated but crucial aspect of the Obama legacy. Recall back in 2008 that the CIA prepared a secret report (subsequently leaked to WikiLeaks) that presciently noted that the election of Barack Obama would be the most effective way to stem the tide of antiwar sentiment in western Europe, because it would put a pleasant, happy, progressive face on those wars and thus convert large numbers of Obama supporters from war opponents into war supporters. That, of course, is exactly what happened: not just in the realm of militarism but civil liberties and a whole variety of other issues. That has had the effect of transforming what were, just a few years ago, symbols of highly contentious right-wing radicalism into harmonious bipartisan consensus. That the most vocal defenders of this unprecedented government acquisition of journalists' phone records comes from government-loyal progressives - reciting the standard slogans of National Security and Keeping Us Safe and The Terrorists - is a potent symbol indeed of this transformation.



    Parent
    479 days to approve this (none / 0) (#20)
    by Angel on Thu May 16, 2013 at 03:24:26 PM EST
    liberal group's application.

    From article:  Now that the floodgates are good and burst, I'm getting a bunch of emailed IRS letters from groups whose leaders feel they were unusually hassled. Progress Texas sent this over, pointing to questions 1, 2, 12, 16, 19, and 21, and adding that their request took 479 days for approval.

    "Progress Texas and the Tea Party strongly disagree on the role of government," said PT executive director Ed Espinoza. "Yet, when we applied for tax-exempt status, Progress Texas received the same type of additional scrutiny that Tea Party groups are complaining about. The similar treatment indicates the IRS was likely addressing a flood of 501c4 applications after Citizens United, and undermines the paranoid notion that Tea Party groups were singled out."


    Parent

    Apologies. This has been reposted as a reply (none / 0) (#22)
    by Angel on Thu May 16, 2013 at 03:28:00 PM EST
    to comment #19.

    Parent
    "Threats" against the press (none / 0) (#25)
    by vicndabx on Thu May 16, 2013 at 03:58:50 PM EST
    are nothing new, and oddly never seem to materialize into anything of significance - other than maybe a reporter's concern about his/her bottom line.

    The Press & Subpoenas

    In response to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request FRONTLINE submitted, the Justice Department reported that there were media-related subpoenas issued in "approximately 143 matters" between 1991 and October 2006. Of these, the U.S. attorney general approved fewer than 20 requests for media subpoenas seeking reporters' confidential sources

    This is nothing new and will continue into the foreseeable future.  Reporters just need to keep doing their jobs.

    and again, you keep making statements like "if Obama hadn't" when it's been posted time and time again that the DOJ is supposed to be independent.

    Parent

    I have no idea (none / 0) (#26)
    by jbindc on Thu May 16, 2013 at 04:18:56 PM EST
    What you mean about "the DOJ is supposed to be independent".  No, it really isn't. Maybe you should revist your 8th grade civics class.  The DOJ is one of the Cabinet Agencies, one that directly reports to the President. (The Attorney General is 6th in line of succession to the Presidency). It is NOT an independent agency, such as the FEC, where the President cannot fire the commissioners.  He certainly does have the power to fire the Attorney General.

    Maybe you meant to say that the president should refrain from inserting himself into DOJ investigations, but that is a completely different thing than saying "The DOJ is supposed to be independent."

    Parent

    Ok, thanks. You said it better (none / 0) (#28)
    by vicndabx on Thu May 16, 2013 at 04:49:48 PM EST
    the president shouldn't insert himself in DOJ matters.

    Which would make his stance on shield laws irrelevant, yes?

    Beyond that however, I don't disagree w/all that you said about appointments and the practical effects that go along w/them.  Although, the AG was created along w/the judiciary:

    The Department of Justice traces its beginning to the First Congress meeting in New York in 1789, at which time the Congress devoted itself to creating the infrastructure for operating the Federal Government. After meeting for several months the legislators passed a bill known as the Judiciary Act that provided for the organization and administration of the judicial branch of the new government, and included in that Act was a provision for appointment of a "...meet person learned in the law, to act as attorney-general for the United States..."

    I'm no historian, but to me, that implies the founding fathers were thinking the AG would be independent.

    Parent

    No (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by jbindc on Fri May 17, 2013 at 10:11:34 AM EST
    That's most defintely not what I said.  Obama is in charge of the DOJ, as Eric Holder reports directly to him, (unlike, say, an independent agency like the FEC). Please look at an organization chart of the executive branch sometime. While Obama is not running the day-to-day activities of the DOJ (just as he does not run the day-to-day activities of say, the Labor Department), they still directly work for him. It's the same thing as a big company - the CEO does not run the HR or Marketing departments, but they still all report to her.

    Article 2, Section II of the Constitution says:

    The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

    The highlighted quote pretty much says that the president runs the executive branch agencies and can pretty much insert himself anywhere the he sees fit.  Ever hear of the phrase that the cabinet "serves at the pleasure of the president?"

    Oh, and by the way, a president can certainly order the DOJ to investigate and prosecute crimes. It is tradition that he not publicly comment on an investigation once started, because the words of the president carry great weight on people like potential witnesses and jurors. It is improper, not illegal.

    Here's a good example of how the WH wants it both ways - applying pressure to the DOJ in one area, and claiming it is "independent" in another. (And why that is a b-s argument).

    I will chalk it up to the fact that you don't understand how the federal government is organized or how it works.

    Parent

    John Mitchell is the reason (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by MKS on Fri May 17, 2013 at 10:45:29 AM EST
    why there should be some distance between the DOJ and the White House.....

    It is not a good idea to have the President directly involved in who gets subpoenas.....

    He can fire Holder but beyond that it is bad idea for him to be directly involved in ongoing criminal investigations....

    The FBI is also under the Executive Branch in the organizational chart.  But the President has little direct control over the FBI.  As it should be.  The FBI director serves a ten year term.

    Parent

    Heh, you're funny (none / 0) (#31)
    by vicndabx on Fri May 17, 2013 at 10:45:35 AM EST
    you mean you didn't just post this?

    Maybe you meant to say that the president should refrain from inserting himself into DOJ investigations, but that is a completely different thing than saying "The DOJ is supposed to be independent."

    and then you go on to say:

    Oh, and by the way, a president can certainly order the DOJ to investigate and prosecute crimes. It is tradition that he not publicly comment on an investigation once started, because the words of the president carry great weight on people like potential witnesses and jurors. It is improper, not illegal.

    Both of which make the same point I raised - the president should stay out of it and his earlier positions should be irrelevant if he's staying out of it.

    You want to try a gotcha on some point that no one is discussing and then use that as a basis to discredit someone's original point.  Everybody knows the president is in charge of the agencies under the executive branch.  If you're going to use an analogy - use an appropriate one.  Corporations have an accounting dept.  While the CEO is over the accounting dept, it doesn't look good when the CEO mucks with what they do in the accounting dept.

    Parent

    I think you are missing the point (none / 0) (#10)
    by sj on Thu May 16, 2013 at 10:40:32 AM EST
    I could be wrong but I believe kmblue is looking back much further than Benghazi and the IRS and AP stories.

    Parent
    Starting With... (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by ScottW714 on Thu May 16, 2013 at 11:04:07 AM EST
    ...reverend Jeremiah Wright from one angle and Muslim Kenyan birther non-sense from the other.

    The facts are always few, the outrage unprecedented, and it never amounts to a hill of beans.  It's the whole 'boy who cried wolf' way too many times.

    Parent

    I read it in the newspaper (none / 0) (#14)
    by Slado on Thu May 16, 2013 at 12:59:50 PM EST
    What is it with this administration?

    They make the news then find out about it in the newspaper.

        One of the White House officials involved in the talking-points debate, former National Security Council spokesman Tommy Vietor, issued a statement Wednesday defending the way the administration handled the matter.

       

    "Some people have understandably asked how we were so wrong about there being a protest," Mr. Vietor said in the statement. "I don't know. When I was in government, I asked some intelligence officials how it happened. They told me that there were many different strands of information indicating there was a protest, both open source and intelligence based."

        He added, "In fact, a number of news outlets reported there were protests."



    With THIS administration? (5.00 / 3) (#15)
    by Yman on Thu May 16, 2013 at 01:20:45 PM EST
    Intelligence agencies under ANY administration will use information gleaned from media sources and intelligence sources when analyzing an event or situation.  Are you seriously complaining about this, now?  Jesus - to ignore open-source information would be idiotic.

    Parent