.
6/30/13, "Editorial: Where's the special prosecutor?" Chicago Tribune Editorial. "The IRS scandal demands an independent investigation."
""It's inexcusable, and Americans are right to be angry about it,
and I am angry about it. I will not tolerate this kind of behavior in
any agency, but especially in the IRS, given the power that it has and
the reach that it has into all of our lives. ... I'll do everything in
my power to make sure nothing like this happens again by holding the
responsible parties accountable ...."
— President Barack Obama condemning "misconduct" at the Internal Revenue Service, May 15, 2013
.
All of us understand that IRS
misconduct, right? And we know which parties Obama needs to hold
accountable. It's obvious, right? End of story:
We learned at the get-go of this scandal that, during a long run-up
to the 2012 presidential election, IRS officials extensively hassled
conservative groups that had applied for tax-exempt status.
Congressional Republicans pounced on this as an attempt to hijack the
election.
But wait. Early last week we read that the agency used keywords such
as "progressive" to target left-leaning groups, too, for extra scrutiny.
"New IRS chief: Lists targeted more than tea partyers," said the
Chicago Tribune. "Documents Show Liberals in I.R.S. Dragnet," said The
New York Times. Congressional Democrats pounced on the suggestion that
the agency had treated conservatives and liberals with equal indignity.
But wait some more. On Wednesday a Treasury
Department inspector general undercut the equal-abuse argument: From May
2010 to May 2012, the IRS had flagged for added scrutiny six of the 20
applicant groups with words such as "progressive" in their titles. "In
comparison, our audit found that 100 percent of the (292) tax-exempt
applications with Tea Party, Patriots or 9/12 in their names were
processed as potential political cases" — that is, groups possibly too
political to merit tax-exempt status. "While we have multiple sources of
information corroborating the use of tea party and other related
criteria," wrote Inspector General J. Russell George, "including
employee interviews, emails and other documents, we found no indication
in any of these other materials that 'progressives' was a term used to
refer cases for scrutiny for political-campaign intervention."
Translation: The IRS was overwhelmingly one-sided in
scrutinizing applications. And the agency evidently was completely
one-sided in subjecting only conservative groups to long processing
delays and lengthy, often peculiar requests. Example: The IRS asked an
Iowa anti-abortion group "how all of your activities, including the
prayer meetings held outside of Planned Parenthood, are considered
educational as defined under 501(c)(3) ...."
So that's where things stand — until fresh reporting, a document leak
or perhaps a confession sends the story in some new direction. But
seven weeks into this scandal, the fact most Americans know best is that
... they still don't know much that's definitive. The murky intrigue
over who provoked what at this agency has become a playpen for
politicians. Three among many crucial questions still scream for
answers:
•Did someone nudge IRS employees to hassle certain groups or did agency officials spontaneously decide to do that?
•Inspector General George has testified that in June 2012, five
months before the election, he told top Treasury Department officials of
his probe into IRS targeting. Did his news, with its potential to rock
the presidential campaign, stop atop Treasury — or did it make its way
even higher in the administration?
•At multiple points in 2012, why did top IRS officials repeatedly
mislead Congress by not disclosing — in response to highly specific
questions — that the agency was targeting conservative groups?
We can only speculate on which tools will unlock the
grimy secrets of this egregious misuse of government authority. An
ongoing self-examination by the IRS is laughably untrustworthy. The U.S.
Department of Justice also is on the case.
But as we wrote May 23, many Americans won't be much interested in
what one arm of the Obama administration concludes about the conduct of
other arms — the IRS, the Treasury and possibly the White House. There
are times when only a special prosecutor has the independence and
credibility to resolve such a politically fraught matter.
Why hasn't Attorney General Eric Holder appointed a special
prosecutor? The White House, too, should be clamoring for one: The feds
are only three months from enrolling Americans in Obamacare, a program
that relies on citizens' willingness to have the IRS even more involved
in the financial details of their lives.
We applauded when Obama said he would make sure there will be no such
future scandal. But lofty pledges aren't enough. The president and his
underlings ought to be instructing a special prosecutor to unravel the
still mysterious scandal that confronts them today."
==============================
Comment: The GOP is only interested in two things: making life easy for Obama, and discrediting the Tea Party. That's why they haven't secured a special prosecutor for the IRS scandal. If anything, the GOP owes Obama big time for helping them defeat the TP.
.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment