Rand Paul claims revealing memo exists in IRS scandal - CNN.com blogs

[Mad Mike]

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...n-irs-scandal/

(CNN) – While the Internal Revenue Service maintains it was not focusing on conservative groups out of political bias, Sen. Rand Paul claimed Sunday there was a "written policy" floating around the agency that said IRS officials were "targeting people who were opposed to the president."

"And when that comes forward, we need to know who wrote the policy and who approved the policy," the Republican senator from Kentucky said on CNN's "State of the Union."

Pressed for more precise details about the memo he was referring to, Paul said he hasn't seen such a policy statement but has heard about it.

"Well, we keep hearing the reports and we have several specifically worded items saying who was being targeted. In fact, one of the bullet points says those who are critical of the president. So I don't know if that comes from a policy, but that's what's being reported in the press and reported orally," he told CNN's chief political correspondent Candy Crowley. "I haven't seen a policy statement, but I think we need to see that."

Translation: No, I don't have any proof that such a memo exists but my right wingnut friends say it does so I demand that we see it. Because clearly, if we have not seen the memo, it is evidence of a cover up by that mean, intimidating, commie muslim, Obama.

[Larry]

Probably ought to just go in the IRS scandal thread. (With all of the rest of the "GOP politician makes lots of claims about how evil the IRS scandal is" posts.)

(And, I have to say. My personal opinion is, when somebody decides to target groups based on the names Tea Party and similar, then maybe that's not "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" that the motive is political, but it's certainly "probable cause".)

(In short, I think we already have enough evidence to conclude that somebody did something Wrong.)

[The Evil Genius]

Probably ought to just go in the IRS scandal thread. (With all of the rest of the "GOP politician makes lots of claims about how evil the IRS scandal is" posts.)

(And, I have to say. My personal opinion is, when somebody decides to target groups based on the names Tea Party and similar, then maybe that's not "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" that the motive is political, but it's certainly "probable cause".)

(In short, I think we already have enough evidence to conclude that somebody did something Wrong.)

I disagree.

This should go in the Rand Paul is a crazy **** that is dangerous to America thread.

[SKINS@THEGOALLINE]

There is a memo floating around that says "Republicans fabricate controversies".

[Monte51Coleman]

Wouldn't any tea party group be critical of the president?

[mcsluggo]

(And, I have to say. My personal opinion is, when somebody decides to target groups based on the names Tea Party and similar, then maybe that's not "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" that the motive is political, but it's certainly "probable cause".)

(In short, I think we already have enough evidence to conclude that somebody did something Wrong.)

i think everbody, including the whitehouse, has agreed that this is the case.

[Mad Mike]

i think everbody, including the whitehouse, has agreed that this is the case.

You can include me as well. Although I believe the biggest mistake by the IRS was method. The IRS is required to determine if groups meet the requirements for tex exempt status. The primary rule being that their principle reason for existence is not political. So when they give themselves political sounding names and focus on political issues, it should be no surprise that they get a second look.

And TEG... that was pretty much my thinking when I posted this. I wasn't posting about the IRS issue as much as I was posting about crazy cousin Paul (if Ron is the crazy uncle...:-) making **** up to fire up his base.

[Larry]

The primary rule being that their principle reason for existence is not political.

At least based on what I've read, I think your statement is only kinda true.

Near as I can tell, the 501c4 classification is intended for groups that I think are described as "issue advocacy". (I think that the NRA may be a perfect example.)

Yeah, the rule says that they aren't supposed to be "political" (and, if they do things that are political, then they get taxed on that segment of their business.)

BUT, the only thing that counts as "political" is campaigning for or against individual candidates or parties.

Under the rules, having a march/posters/mailers/commercials about how evil gun control is, isn't political. (As far as the law says.) (Having marches/mailers/posters/commercials saying "Vote for Ted" is.)

Even paying lobbyists to lobby for your agenda, isn't political, according to the law.

They can't be political (IRS definition of political). But they can be (and the classification is actually intended for them to be) political (English language definition of political).

[The Evil Genius]

On that note Larry, how could any agency be able to truthfully and accurately segregate their political activities (aka the unallowable costs in this case) from their allowable cost pools?

Makes me think that these type of agencies (the ones that dabble in anything political) really shouldn't be getting any of the tax exempt fruit.

[Mad Mike]

At least based on what I've read, I think your statement is only kinda true.

Near as I can tell, the 501c4 classification is intended for groups that I think are described as "issue advocacy". (I think that the NRA may be a perfect example.)

Yeah, the rule says that they aren't supposed to be "political" (and, if they do things that are political, then they get taxed on that segment of their business.)

BUT, the only thing that counts as "political" is campaigning for or against individual candidates or parties.

Under the rules, having a march/posters/mailers/commercials about how evil gun control is, isn't political. (As far as the law says.) (Having marches/mailers/posters/commercials saying "Vote for Ted" is.)

Even paying lobbyists to lobby for your agenda, isn't political, according to the law.

They can't be political (IRS definition of political). But they can be (and the classification is actually intended for them to be) political (English language definition of political).

I was trying not to write a book on the subject but I think it is fair to say that the rules need to be better defined, and had they been more clear, this whole issue would likely never have happened.

Bottom line is that Rand Paul is resorting to making **** up to feed the paranoid delusions of his supporters.

---------- Post added May-20th-2013 at 08:02 PM ----------

More....

http://www.nationofchange.org/rand-p...dal-1369060181

Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) went on CNN’s State of the Union on Sunday to use the IRS scandal to attack the Obama administraiton, but flubbed a key part of his case: he couldn’t defend the claim that IRS was targeting conservative groups as part of a political strategy to help the White House.

Paul, like most Republicans, has been spinning the scandal as an Obama Administration attack on dissenters. “What the IRS did is how the KGB used to target dissidents,” he wrote in a CNN op-ed. “It is how they deal with troublemakers in China.”

PAUL: Well, I think we’re going to have to see the memorandum. Apparently there is a policy, and I think we’re going to find there’s a written policy that says we were targeting people who were opposed to the President. And when that comes forward, we need to know who wrote the policy and who approved the policy…now there’s rumors who wrote the policy is the person running Obamacare, which doesn’t give us a lot of confidence about Obamacare.

CROWLEY: Senator, I have to run. I’m way over on this, but I have to just go back to something you said. Are you telling me you think there’s a memo somewhere in which someone said in the memo we’re targeting people going after the president? Is that what I heard you say?

PAUL: Well, we keep hearing the reports and we have several specifically worded items saying who was being targeted. In fact, one of the bullet points says those who are critical of the President. So I don’t know if that comes from a policy, but that’s what’s being reported in the press.

[Larry]

On that note Larry, how could any agency be able to truthfully and accurately segregate their political activities (aka the unallowable costs in this case) from their allowable cost pools?

Makes me think that these type of agencies (the ones that dabble in anything political) really shouldn't be getting any of the tax exempt fruit.

I could see it argued either way.

I could see the argument that a tax exemption is kind of a government subsidy, and should the government really by subsidizing lobbyists and political parties?

I could see the argument that political activities should be exempt for the same reason churches are exempt: To keep them independent and as exempt as possible from government pressure.

(I have a serious problem with making them tax deductible. That, to me, needs to be a really bright line.)

[Tulane Skins Fan]

I could see it argued either way.

I could see the argument that a tax exemption is kind of a government subsidy, and should the government really by subsidizing lobbyists and political parties?

I could see the argument that political activities should be exempt for the same reason churches are exempt: To keep them independent and as exempt as possible from government pressure.

(I have a serious problem with making them tax deductible. That, to me, needs to be a really bright line.)

The goal of this exemption, as I understand it, is not to give political groups tax exemption so that they are more independent or something. No, the exemption is for "social welfare" groups, but there is some crossover into politics. These tea party groups, in so much as they are true social welfare groups, meet the criteria because 1) they are NOT primarily political in nature, and 2) they provide some social good. Most of them do things like "educate about the Constitution" or "promote the exercise of free rights" or some bull**** like that. Most of these 501(c)(4)'s are all BS, truthfully, but they are not tax exempt BECAUSE they are political in nature. And if they are primarily political, then they do not get the tax exemption, hence the investigation by the IRS in the first place.

[Larry]

The goal of this exemption, as I understand it, is not to give political groups tax exemption so that they are more independent or something. No, the exemption is for "social welfare" groups, but there is some crossover into politics. These tea party groups, in so much as they are true social welfare groups, meet the criteria because 1) they are NOT primarily political in nature, and 2) they provide some social good. Most of them do things like "educate about the Constitution" or "promote the exercise of free rights" or some bull**** like that. Most of these 501(c)(4)'s are all BS, truthfully, but they are not tax exempt BECAUSE they are political in nature. And if they are primarily political, then they do not get the tax exemption, hence the investigation by the IRS in the first place.

But you can certainly go to far, too.

If a "social welfare" group decides that it's a good idea to go into poor neighborhoods and provide remedial education, and then they teach evolution, is that political?

I mean, there's precious few subjects in our society that our contentious political parties can't MAKE political.

Heck, it's debatable whether the question "should Planned Parenthood be allowed to exist" is political.

----------

And it can be looked at from the other side, too.

I dare say that pretty much every political group honestly believes that they're "advocating for the good of society".

(Although there are times when I'm not sure about the GOP. Been getting the impression for the last several years that if you give the GOP a position where "it's bad for the country, but it will get the GOP more power", they'll take that deal. Unanimously.)

(I wish I were 100% kidding, there.)

Is the NRA a "social welfare" group? The ACLU?

[SteveFromYellowstone]

Why does the media continue to tolerate lies and just plain made up bull**** from people like Rand Paul? It's almost like most news stations have become entertainment tonight instead of keeping politicians accountable. They will keep on saying this ridiculousness as long as they can get away with it.

[twa]

Why does the media continue to tolerate lies and just plain made up bull**** from people like Rand Paul? It's almost like most news stations have become entertainment tonight instead of keeping politicians accountable. They will keep on saying this ridiculousness as long as they can get away with it.

strangely enough the low level IRS employees interviewed agree with him, directives exist(despite the IRS's failure to produce them under a FOI request)

add...enjoy

http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/20..._theorist.html

How Lazy Reporting Made Rand Paul Look Like a Conspiracy Theorist