“NBC’s Lisa Myers reported this morning that the IRS deliberately chose not to reveal that it had wrongly targeted conservative groups until after the 2012 presidential election:”
Video is available at the link.
Author: Hondo
-
What A Surprise . . . .
-
Today’s IRS Scandal Update
From news reports over the last 24 hours or so:
- Conservative Hispanic groups were also apparently targeted by the IRS for “special attention”.
- At least one conservative public media figure (a Fox News host) was audited during the period after publicly criticizing the POTUS, raising the specter of the possibility of a deliberate attempt to silence opposing media voices by agents of the Federal government. (First Amendment, anyone?)
- Four (NOT two) IRS employees in Cincinnati involved in the scandal have claimed they “simply did what their bosses ordered”.
- The individual in charge of the IRS tax-exempt organizations office for the bulk of the time that harassment activities were occurring, Sarah Hall Ingram. now runs the IRS “Obamacare” office. And someone apparently really liked her former division’s performance during that period of unethical and probably unlawful harassment. She received more than $100k in bonuses during that 4 year period (2009-2012), or an average of over $25k/year in bonuses.
That’s it for today. “Move along, folks; nothing to see here.”
Yeah, right. This is getting so bad that even Chrissy-poo Mathews’ leg is apparently no longer all tingly.
But at least one individual has found an IMO completely apropos symbolic response to the IRS’s high-handed and potentially unlawful conduct. (Suggestive, but probably OK for work – unless you work for the IRS.) (smile)
-
Liberation Trilogy Complete
A quick note for those interested in US military history – and specifically the history of the US Army during World War II.
Some of you may have heard of Rick Atkinson. He’s been working on a 3-volume history of the US Army during World War II for several years. He called the 3-volume series the “Liberation Trilogy.”
The first volume, “An Army at Dawn”, covered the North Africa campaign. It was published in 2002. It received the Pulitzer.Prize for History in 2003.
The second volume, “The Day of Battle”, was published in 2007. It focused on Sicily and Italy. It did not receive a Pulitzer, but was nonetheless excellent.
The third volume, “The Guns at Last Light”, was released this week. It covers the liberation of France and the end of Nazi Germany.
Atkinson’s Wikipedia bio can be found here. It’s quite impressive.
Can he write? In a word – yes. But you’d expect that from someone who’s been awarded a Pulitzer for History; has had a hand in two others as a journalist; has received the Gerald R. Ford Award for Distinguished Reporting on National Defense; who’s held the Omar N. Bradley Chair for Distinguished Leadership at the National Defense University; and who’s been awarded the Pritzker Military Library Literature Award for Lifetime Achievement in Military Writing.
But don’t take my word for it; judge for yourself. A sample of his latest work (the Prologue) can be found here. Excerpts from the other two volumes may be found here (Volume 1) and here (Volume 2).
I have no economic interest in Atkinson’s works. But for anyone interested in the history of the US Army – like many readers of TAH – the first two volumes are absolutely wonderful books. I have no doubt that the third will be their equal.
I’ll let you know how good the third volume is after my copy comes in and I’ve finished it. I ordered it today. It’s the first time in quite a while I’ve bought a book the week it was released.
-
I’m Still Chuckling About This One . . . .
Title from a UK Daily Mail article today:
Men who are physically strong are more likely to have right wing political views
The first “subtitle” after that:
“Weaker men more likely to support welfare state and wealth redistribution”
That was apparently the finding of a study of a sample consisting of individuals from the US, Argentina, and Denmark.
Well, duh. That’s simple common sense. Those who are able to take care of themselves would be expected to be in favor of self-reliance. In contrast, those who are less able to take care of themselves would be expected to be in favor of the government taking care of things for them “cradle to grave” (while someone else pays for it, of course – thus the support for “wealth redistribution”). Who’d a thunk it!
Still: I’m still chucking over those two statements, and their implication: conservative = strong, liberal = weak. Seeing that in print reduced to “bullet points” was nice. (smile)
The article is worth a read. Interestingly enough, apparently women don’t show the same linkage between physical strength and political philosophy.
And IMO it’s worth following the link just to see that title and subtitle in print. (smile)
-
Another “IRS Thing” Update
Some additional revelations regarding the ongoing IRS scandal that came out in the past 24 hours:
- USA Today reports that an analysis of statistics regarding political groups applying for tax-exempt status shows clear bias against conservative and in favor of liberal groups on the part of the IRS from 2009-2011. Organizations whose titles self-identified them as conservative organizations were slow-rolled; organizations whose titles self-identified them as liberal were apparently expedited.
- Close to 500 groups appear to have been targeted by the IRS, and maybe more. The Administration originally claimed 75..
- A prominent Catholic academic was audited by the IRS in 2010 after publicly opposing Administration allies and/or policies. She was asked “who was paying her”; attempts were made to keep her husband, with whom she files jointly, from being present at the audit. Many of the questions asked at the audit were reportedly of a political vice financial nature.
- One of the co-chairmen of the POTUS’s re-election committee has been accused of receiving and using unlawfully leaked IRS information against Mitt Romney.
- Among the information requested by the IRS from conservative groups applying for tax-exempt status were donor rolls, copies of Facebook posts, resumes, descriptions of media interviews, what issues the group considered “important to them”, copies of web pages, copies of blog posts, and in at least one case members’ recent reading preferences. The IRS also asked at times if anyone in a conservative group applying for tax-exempt status knew other selected individuals – by name.
- The IRS cursory, “scratch the surface” IG Investigation into the issue itself is titled “Inappropriate Criteria Were Used to Identify Tax-Exempt Applications for Review”.
- Even Chuck Rangel – himself hardly a shining example of ethical conduct himself – has publicly stated that the Presidents answers to date have been lacking.
- The Chairman of the House Ways and Means committee ain’t too happy about being lied to during Congressional testimony by a top IRS officials, including a former Director..
- Lower-level IRS employees in Cincinnati apparently have stated “”they simply did what their bosses ordered”. And there appear to be at least four Cincinnati IRS employees involved – not two, as the Administration has claimed.
- Letters have surfaced sent from offices in DC and California to conservative groups that appear to be ideologically-based harassment.
But again, folks: “don’t worry – be happy”. Everything is under control. The Administration has only your best interests in mind. They have investigated the matter and found that all this IRS brouhaha was due to “two ‘rogue’ employees in the agency’s Cincinnati office”.
Yeah. Right. If you believe that last claim, I have this bridge. And I can make you a really great deal on it.
-
More on Sinclair
Well, it appears that the Sinclair legal team has tipped its hand, at least partially, regarding its strategy.
They’re going to call the former and current XVIII Airborne Corps Commanders to testify. It appears they’re going to allege “unlawful command influence”
It’s unclear at this time what the rest of their strategy will be. Personally, I’d recommend a plea deal – if they can get one.
Stay tuned
-
Even More on that “IRS Thing”
It’s beginning to look like the politically-motivated abuses at the IRS have been around for a while longer than originally thought. And it also looks like they may be a bit more expansive – both organizationally and in scope – than originally reported.
Here new highlights that have been reported over the last 24 hours or so:
- Senior IRS officials knew about ideologically-motivated targeting of IRS-scrutiny by lower-level subordinates as early as August 2011.
- Individuals at IRS HQ appear to have been directly involved in the targeting of conservative groups by the IRS.
- A ridiculously excessive amount of information was requested from conservative groups so targeted, including requests for lists of donors, applying for tax-exempt status.
- The acting IRS chief knew about the targeting of conservative groups in early May 2012, but said nothing – even when questioned about the matter at a Congressional matter nearly 3 months later.
- At least one member of the media has now alleged that he was targeted by the IRS for harassment after interviewing the POTUS, presumably in retaliation.
- The Billy Graham Evangelical Association has indicated it believes it may have been targeted by the IRS.
- An application for a charity that had been soliciting donations unlawfully for years and which was run by the POTUS’s half-brother was approved in June 2011 in roughly one month – with the approval retroactive to December 2008. (Some conservative groups applying for tax-exempt status have seen waiting periods of more than 3 years.)
- White House spokesman Jay Carney has acknowledged that some individuals at the White House (not identified) “were aware” that the IRS was targeting conservative groups and did nothing.
Yes, the above appears to draw a rather troubling picture. But don’t worry. The Administration has everything under control. Nothing to see here; move along. “Pay no attention to the man behind the screen.”
Or the names on the “enemies list”.
-
SECDEF to DoD Civilians: You’re Getting 11 Unpaid Days Off
The SECDEF has announced DoD’s decision on civilian furloughs this afternoon. That announcement directs a total of 11 unpaid days off for most of the DoD civilian workforce (650,000 of 750,000 civilian employees will be affected) between now and 30 September 2013. Furloughs will begin the week of 8 July 2013, with one unpaid day off per week. They may end earlier than the end of September if financial conditions allow.
Sequestration, of course, is the reason.
The financial savings will not be inconsequential. The exact dollar amount isn’t easy to calculate quickly. But making an assumption or two, we can come up with what should be a reasonable, “ballpark” estimate.
Eleven workdays equates to 88 paid hours per employee. Since the furloughs will affect 650,000 civilian employees, that will save salary and benefits costs associated with 57,200,000 staff-hours.
Benefits costs typically add between 1/3 and 1/2 to the cost of hourly wages. Let’s be conservative and use 1/2 to get a “worst case” number.
Determining the average hourly wage across all affected DoD employees would be difficult. So let’s assume that averages out to an hourly rate of somewhere in the mid-GS12 ramge. This is probably too high – but we need to use something. It will at least be “in the ballpark”.
Doing the math, that works out to a savings of about $3,260,400,000
No, that’s not chump change. But to put it in perspective: that’s also not much over 0.6% of this year’s DoD 2013 base budget – and less than 0.5% of DoD’s 2013 total outlays, when contingency operation supplemental appropriations and other outlays are counted.
But we should count our blessings. Uncle Sam still has plenty of money to pay for really nice hotels when the POTUS or Vice President travel. Or to fly the Vice President that 110 miles or so between DC and Wilmington, DE of AF-2 most weekends.
Maybe you don’t want to mention that fact to any of the folks who’ll be directly affected by the furlough, though. Since the furloughs will be imposed on a 1-day-per-workweek basis, those individuals will be seeing a 20+% cut in take-home pay for 11 weeks. That might affect their outlook, attitude, and sense of humor just a bit.