I've remained pretty consistent on the three controversies which have surrounded the Obama Administration in recent weeks. While I believe there was a fair amount of incompetence surrounding the administration during the Benghazi attacks, I don't believe it was a cover-up. The longer the case has drug on, the more I believe that Congressional Republicans' main intent is to drag Hillary Clinton's name through the mud to decrease the threat of her becoming the Democratic nominee in the 2016 presidential election. The AP controversy is the one which has bothered me the most. Unfortunately, due to the Patriot Act and with it, increased powers of the DOJ (Department of Justice) since the 9/11 attacks, chances are Eric Holder's actions weren't illegal. Also unfortunately, since Mitch McConnell and other Congressional Republicans have defended Holder's actions, chances are no changes are going to be made through Congress. The controversy which I've had the most difficulty deciding upon is the case involving the IRS, and it continues to be that way in light of a recent report released by the Treasury Inspector General For Tax Administration.
To become 501(c)(4) eligible for tax-exempt status, a group must showcase that their main intent is through "social welfare" and not "politics." The vague terminology has presented its share of problems, making it more difficult to differentiate between the two (social welfare and politics), and through that, making it easier for some groups to take advantage of the vagueness to attain tax-exempt status even though their main intent may be political. These very groups increased exponentially after the Citizen's United ruling, which has placed an even great amount of pressure on the IRS, as well as a greater likelihood that some politically-oriented groups will be able to slip through the cracks.
So even before the previously mentioned report was released, I felt that Congress needed to step up and specify the language used in differentiating between social-welfare groups and politically-motivated ones in order to decide who was eligible for tax-exempt status and who wasn't. What has puzzled me somewhat is how the media has seemingly ignored when liberal groups were targeted by the IRS during the Bush years, as well as a few during Obama's tenure, yet has made a big fuss about conservative groups that have been targeted. I'm not saying it was right in either case. I'm simply trying to understand how we can ignore one, while blowing the other out-of-proportion. Yes, I said things have been blown out-of-proportion, as the Treasury Inspector General For Tax Administration's recent report showcased.
In this report, it showed that 298 groups were reviewed as potential political cases - 96 of which were affiliated with the Tea Party (Tea Party, 9/12, or Patriots). That equals 32.2% of all such cases, which means that 202 groups or 67.8% of them were not in any way affiliated with the Tea Party. How is it that a group which made up approximately one-third of all the reviewed cases can dominate the headlines, while the remaining two-thirds received minimal airplay? Like I said, things appear to have been blown out-of-proportion by much of the media, conservative outlets in particular.
Like I've said previously, both liberal- and conservative-organizations seeking 501(c)(4) status may have reasons to gripe, but it's about time Congressmen and women on both sides of the aisle stop their griping on the issue and do something about it, so it becomes less prone to occurring again in the future. If they specify the language concerning 501(c)(4) status and help to overturn the Citizen's United ruling, chances are neither side will have as much to gripe about in the future concerning the issue.
http://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/700698/i-r-s-inspector-generals-report-on-targeting.pdf
To become 501(c)(4) eligible for tax-exempt status, a group must showcase that their main intent is through "social welfare" and not "politics." The vague terminology has presented its share of problems, making it more difficult to differentiate between the two (social welfare and politics), and through that, making it easier for some groups to take advantage of the vagueness to attain tax-exempt status even though their main intent may be political. These very groups increased exponentially after the Citizen's United ruling, which has placed an even great amount of pressure on the IRS, as well as a greater likelihood that some politically-oriented groups will be able to slip through the cracks.
So even before the previously mentioned report was released, I felt that Congress needed to step up and specify the language used in differentiating between social-welfare groups and politically-motivated ones in order to decide who was eligible for tax-exempt status and who wasn't. What has puzzled me somewhat is how the media has seemingly ignored when liberal groups were targeted by the IRS during the Bush years, as well as a few during Obama's tenure, yet has made a big fuss about conservative groups that have been targeted. I'm not saying it was right in either case. I'm simply trying to understand how we can ignore one, while blowing the other out-of-proportion. Yes, I said things have been blown out-of-proportion, as the Treasury Inspector General For Tax Administration's recent report showcased.
In this report, it showed that 298 groups were reviewed as potential political cases - 96 of which were affiliated with the Tea Party (Tea Party, 9/12, or Patriots). That equals 32.2% of all such cases, which means that 202 groups or 67.8% of them were not in any way affiliated with the Tea Party. How is it that a group which made up approximately one-third of all the reviewed cases can dominate the headlines, while the remaining two-thirds received minimal airplay? Like I said, things appear to have been blown out-of-proportion by much of the media, conservative outlets in particular.
Like I've said previously, both liberal- and conservative-organizations seeking 501(c)(4) status may have reasons to gripe, but it's about time Congressmen and women on both sides of the aisle stop their griping on the issue and do something about it, so it becomes less prone to occurring again in the future. If they specify the language concerning 501(c)(4) status and help to overturn the Citizen's United ruling, chances are neither side will have as much to gripe about in the future concerning the issue.
http://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/700698/i-r-s-inspector-generals-report-on-targeting.pdf
Comments
Post a Comment