The IRS Thing...

[DrBubbaLove]

Am not sure how to view what was done as anything but an attempt to influence an election. As long as our elections are suppose to be free, am not sure how to view such influence as legal. So some law or laws had to be broken in doing what was done and I think that is a given.

Proving who did what, when and at what level requires investigation, which requires money, which requires approvals by possibly some of the same people who either benefited or attempted to benefit from that same process or had knowledge of it going on. All with the realization that even if they approve the funding, it could drag for years and never "uncover" anything to be able to charge someone. So they lose there taste for it.

One cannot say it was just coincedental that a process just happen to result in significant delays for only PACs that leaned one way, delays that took many out of the cylce all together and several out of two election cycles. Those are admitted, known facts. The intent of having a process that woud result in that happening is rather obvious.

We could say no one has been found guilty or accused of breaking a law yet. Given the delays in PAC approvals for status are known to have happened, am not sure how to claim no one acted illegally.

 

[Yarddog]

Am not sure how to view what was done as anything but an attempt to influence an election. As long as our elections are suppose to be free, am not sure how to view such influence as legal. So some law or laws had to be broken in doing what was done and I think that is a given.

The IRS did nothing to stop a free election.

One cannot say it was just coincedental that a process just happen to result in significant delays for only PACs that leaned one way, delays that took many out of the cylce all together and several out of two election cycles. Those are admitted, known facts. The intent of having a process that woud result in that happening is rather obvious.

The IRS scandal wasn't about stopping PACs from forming. It was about preventing "tax exempt status" to certain categories, of which conservative PACs were delayed in receiving the exemption far more than liberal PACs.

I haven't seen a list of what those PACs were raising money for though. They raise money for many different causes or politicians. Many PACs die fairly quickly because their candidate drops out of the race.

We could say no one has been found guilty or accused of breaking a law yet. Given the delays in PAC approvals for status are known to have happened, am not sure how to claim no one acted illegally.

The Republican lawyer which I read an article from said that "intent" must be proven and he doubted that there was intent to violate any of the statutes which would cover this series of events.

Of course, which I have said in other posts, the civil trials may bring our information which allows prosecutors to file those charges.

 

[Albion]

Well, since no has been able to trace any further than some officials in the IRS, then it is apparent that you haven't been keeping up with this particular matter.

Mocking me is the best you can do? LOL You might just as well have admitted to not knowing the facts.

The IRS did nothing to stop a free election.

Proof positive of what I was saying. Not only do you not know how this escapade did, indeed, affect the election, but you claim the IRS "did nothing do stop a free election." How would you know it did nothing?

I do hope that if these charges can be sustained, that all will be prosecuted.

I hope that's not another tongue-in-cheek kind of bad joke.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

I could see how one could say IRS agents did not stand in front of voting sites and intimidate white voters, (not that Obama would consider that illegal - just unfortunate) but that is not the only way to influence an election.

I thought the whole point of the PAC status helps encourage the use of the PAC, making it easier to raise funds to support a campaign. If correct, then by delaying the status they have effectively removed viable options people have for supporting their candidate. I guess one could argue they could still donate in other ways, but my understanding is PACs play a large roll in funding campaigns and the availability of those funds directly helps influence voters in many ways. If it was not so, am guessing they would not have invented PACs and campaign contribution laws if no one thought such things INFLUENCED elections.

So if such things were created to help monitor, control the influence of campaign contributions on elections, am unclear how IRS acting to impede the legal process/actions of a PAC would not be attempting to influence an election. It does not matter if the attempt was successful or not. It does not matter that donars may have had other options. I would think any attempt to influence an election would be illegal.

Again, I agree they would have to prove intent and the difficulty would be in getting the documents supporting what had to be a directed policy, at least at some level. My undertanding is they already refused to hand over any docs, the IRS did their own internal investigation and found nothing and the mgmt involved refuses to testify and the DOJ still has yet to interview any of the PACs complaining of the treatment.(might be out of date on the last part)

 

[Albion]

I could see how one could say IRS agents did not stand in front of voting sites and intimidate white voters, (not that Obama would consider that illegal - just unfortunate) but that is not the only way to influence an election.

I thought the whole point of the PAC status helps encourage the use of the PAC, making it easier to raise funds to support a campaign. If correct, then by delaying the status they have effectively removed viable options people have for supporting their candidate. I guess one could argue they could still donate in other ways, but my understanding is PACs play a large roll in funding campaigns and the availability of those funds directly helps influence voters in many ways. If it was not so, am guessing they would not have invented PACs and campaign contribution laws if no one thought such things INFLUENCED elections.

So if such things were created to help monitor, control the influence of campaign contributions on elections, am unclear how IRS acting to impede the legal process/actions of a PAC would not be attempting to influence an election. It does not matter if the attempt was successful or not. It does not matter that donars may have had other options. I would think any attempt to influence an election would be illegal.

Exactly, and this has been testified to repeatedly. These PAC were unable to play a part in the election at the right time because of the deliberate interference of the IRS. That's what stealing an election is all about, although as you said there are other methods that can be used also.

And if we turn just to pollsters and political analysts, leaving aside the IRS and the PACs for a moment, they have made the point amply clear that it was in those weeks between the primaries and the conventions when Romney had no more funding that other campaign organizations wanted to advertise...but were prohibited from doing so. That is where Romney probably lost the election, it is no secret. Meanwhile, the Democrat allies--unions, left-wing PACs, and all the "undercover" campaign organizations like environmental and "human rights" groups were free to unload on Romney--and did.

 

[Yarddog]

Mocking me is the best you can do? LOL You might just as well have admitted to not knowing the facts.

And you admitted that you didn't read anything that was written.

Proof positive of what I was saying. Not only do you not know how this escapade did, indeed, affect the election, but you claim the IRS "did nothing do stop a free election." How would you know it did nothing?

As of yet, nothing has been shown to prove that it had the slightest effect on the election. If you have something, please provide it. The PACs were free to operate and spend the money which they collected.

I hope that's not another tongue-in-cheek kind of bad joke.

Why would you consider that? Everything that I have written says that I want anyone involved fired or prosecuted if there was a violation of the law. As of yet, you nor anyone else has provided the proof which someone can be prosecuted.

I will say again, no tongue-in-cheek, I hope if someone has violated a federal law, that they are prosecuted, especially if they pressured employees to violate the law. As a former union president, it really irks me for supervision to force their employees to violate rules.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Yard dog does make at least one point - Without docs to prove the intent - it will be dificult to charge anyone. That there was wrong doing and there was absolutely an intent to do wrong is obvious.

 

[Yarddog]

I could see how one could say IRS agents did not stand in front of voting sites and intimidate white voters, (not that Obama would consider that illegal - just unfortunate) but that is not the only way to influence an election.

What does "white voters" have to do with this? That kinda raises "racist" flags.

I thought the whole point of the PAC status helps encourage the use of the PAC, making it easier to raise funds to support a campaign.

Well sure, that is what they want but they can still collect and spend money without the tax exemption.

If correct, then by delaying the status they have effectively removed viable options people have for supporting their candidate.

Why? Do you imply that the only reason to support your candidate is to get a tax break?

I guess one could argue they could still donate in other ways, but my understanding is PACs play a large roll in funding campaigns and the availability of those funds directly helps influence voters in many ways. If it was not so, am guessing they would not have invented PACs and campaign contribution laws if no one thought such things INFLUENCED elections.

How much money did Mitt Romney raise to finance his election campaign?
Independent Spending Totals - Campaign Finance - Election 2012 - NYTimes.com
The NY Times had an article showing the top independent PACs and how much they had been spent on the 2012 election. Of the top 10, Conservative PACs occupy 9 of those spots. Of the top 45, there were only 10 Democratic PACs. Republicans had no problem raising money for the campaign.

 

[Yarddog]

Yard dog does make at least one point - Without docs to prove the intent - it will be dificult to charge anyone. That there was wrong doing and there was absolutely an intent to do wrong is obvious.

And those people should be fired.

 

[HonestTruth]

Republicans created the IRS in 1863 and their Nelson Aldrich pushed for enactment of the income tax. At first they start the problem and then try to distance themselves from it by blaming Democrats for the problems they create.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Hmmm, not quite the way it happened.

True the first federal tax occurs to help pay for the Civil war under Republican administration, but it was set up to be and was temporary. Not true that act establishes the IRS as we know it now, which came decades later. Lincoln did have an administrator in charge of the collections service, so some see that as equal to the IRS chief today. However that whole org went away after the Civil war recovery as it was meant to when that act was passed.

Congress allowed the Civil War income tax act to expire (less than a decade after the war). However, use to what they saw as a revenue stream, the DEMOCRATS quickly passed laws supporting other federal income tax in 1894, which the Supremes later ruled unconstitutional. However many did not give up that cause and finally under the guidance of Theodore Rossvelt, a PROGRESSIVE Republican and then Taft, who perhaps not true Progressive adopted progressive policies to help himself get elected, they push through the 16th Amendment to establish the Federal Income tax in 1912 and we have our IRS, then in 1913 the very first form required to be submitted, a 1040.

So it is not as simple as laying blame at one party, but I would agree that it was Progressives in both parties who made it happen. Also would say both parties have Progressives now, but the Dems seem dominated by them. It is also IMO the liberal/progressive policies that are ruining this nation and one only need to look at Detroit and Chicago to see the result of such polices allowed uncheck over time. But I digress.

 

[HonestTruth]

I worked for the IRS for many years and the agency listed its original birth date starting in 1863. Therefore, it is the Republican party who created it.

Prior to the Civil War there were only 2 or 3 millionaires in the USA. After the war there were 100. Income taxes are created so that the government can bleed the people in order to finance wars which profit the rich. This was Nelson Aldrich's motivation in pushing for an income tax because he knew that World War One was about to start and he sought to profit from it. And he like so many others profited quite well form their war. Don't take my word on it. Read Professor Anthony Sutton's books on the subject of Wall Street and Hitler/Bolsheviks. Professor Sutton was a conservative so you need not trouble yourself to try to label him a Progressive.

 

[Yarddog]

I worked for the IRS for many years and the agency listed its original birth date starting in 1863. Therefore, it is the Republican party who created it.

The IRS claims that the "roots" for the agency are found in 1862 but not that it was the birth of the IRS, according to their web site. As Dr. Bubba points out, the Act only lasted 10 years, after that, there was no Commissioner of Internal Revenue.








Brief History of IRS

Origin
The roots of IRS go back to the Civil War when President Lincoln and Congress, in 1862, created the position of commissioner of Internal Revenue and enacted an income tax to pay war expenses. The income tax was repealed 10 years later. Congress revived the income tax in 1894, but the Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional the following year.
16th Amendment
In 1913, Wyoming ratified the 16th Amendment, providing the three-quarter majority of states necessary to amend the Constitution. The 16th Amendment gave Congress the authority to enact an income tax. That same year, the first Form 1040 appeared after Congress levied a 1 percent tax on net personal incomes above $3,000 with a 6 percent surtax on incomes of more than $500,000.

Therefore, it is the Republican party who created it.

In essence, that may be correct since it was Republican Presidents which pushed for the 16th Amendment and a Republican Senator from Nebraska, Norris Brown, which proposed the Amendment before a very heavily sided Republican Senate and Congress.

 

[HonestTruth]

When I worked for the IRS in 1983 there was a brief ceremony for its 120th birthday. None of us actually celebrated but we did take note of that date.

 

[ebedmelech]

Republicans created the IRS in 1863 and their Nelson Aldrich pushed for enactment of the income tax. At first they start the problem and then try to distance themselves from it by blaming Democrats for the problems they create.

Here's the thing. I don't care about the IRS history and who started it.

My concern is:

*Why Mrs Lerner pleads the 5th.

*Why the placed her on leave.

*Why were they targeted at that particular time.

I'm not claiming The White House is behind it...but someone was. They need to get to the bottom of it.

No doubt, until there's a whistle blower...it will remain unclear.

 

[Yarddog]

My concern is:

*Why Mrs Lerner pleads the 5th.

The same reason that anyone who may have what they say used against them in a court of law, pleads the 5th. They don't want to incriminate themselves.

*Why the placed her on leave.

So she wouldn't be in charge of her position while an investigation is on going. She would have no authority.

*Why were they targeted at that particular time.

After the 2010 deregulation of campaign laws, groups, mostly conservative, began to form tax exempt PACs. Some Advocacy groups began to complain about the IRS and FEC not checking into those political groups because the tax exemption still wasn't suppose to be granted to groups whose main goal was politics. IOW, a tax exempt group could lobby but that wasn't supposed to be their main reason. PACs or Super PACs were skirting the regulations.

Members of Congress began to ask the IRS to investigate the matter to ensure that those groups were not violating rules and abusing the tax exemption. Thus, we have the matter at hand.

Congress later asked Treasury Dept. Inspector General to investigate and he turned up what was occurring.

I'm not claiming The White House is behind it...but someone was. They need to get to the bottom of it.

It is very doubtful that the White House was behind those employees targeting certain conservative and liberal groups, who were filing for the tax exempt status, but you can bet they were concerned. I also wouldn't doubt that discussions were held with the IRS Commissioner voicing concern about granting improper tax exempt status to PACs, which would not be illegal or improper. But targeting conservative groups would.

What we must remember is that conservative groups were filing at a much higher rate than others so this would explain the greater number of conservative groups which were not granted the tax exemption. Percentage wise, the numbers were equal, 35%, which were held up on receiving the status when comparing conservative and liberal groups.

 

[Albion]

Here's the thing. I don't care about the IRS history and who started it.

My concern is:

*Why Mrs Lerner pleads the 5th.

*Why the placed her on leave.

*Why were they targeted at that particular time.

I'm not claiming The White House is behind it...but someone was. They need to get to the bottom of it.

No doubt, until there's a whistle blower...it will remain unclear.

All true. And I agree that when the IRS was started doesn't mean a thing in this discussion. Was that some clumsy attempt to change the subject?

 

[DaisyDay]

Lois Lerner has retired.

Lois Lerner Retires: Official At Heart Of IRS Scandal Leaving

 

[Albion]

That's a news note, all right, but it doesn't change anything.

 

[HonestTruth]

All true. And I agree that when the IRS was started doesn't mean a thing in this discussion. Was that some clumsy attempt to change the subject?

Perhaps you would understand if you troubled yourself to see the earlier posts which called for government accountability. It was said by a right winger that "cleanup" was necessary and I replied that this should have been done a long time ago. No such accountability was called for when the IRS or other agencies abused their authority against lefty groups. Now all of a sudden the right wing demands it when their side has (allegedly) been targeted. Bit of a double standard there.