Nothing to see here. Move along now... http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324715704578478851998004528.html
I can't comment on the legality or not, but I might be on the wrong side of this one. If all it is is applying some extra scrutiny to make sure you didn't pull one over on the government, I don't necessarily have a problem with it. If you didn't do anything wrong, what's the worry? All claims are subject to audit, right? (I've personally been to two where I was asked to document tithing, but I don't know that that was "profiling") Then again, I also don't see a problem with having to show documentation saying that you are eligible to drive, be in the country legally, vote, buy a gun, etc. So like I said, I could be on the wrong side of history and "progress" here. Now, if they charged different fees to these groups, or didn't audit churches at all, or applied different rules based on political leanings, that is a problem. But I don't necessarily see it here. Maybe one of you who are against it can help me understand your view better.
These aren't reasonable analogies as they aren't targeting anybody (Theoretically, and ideally). They are just enforcing existing laws in a non-bias way, hopefully with some level of randomness or in the case of the IRS, triggered by some abnormal, outlier data. Here's a couple analogies: -- Everybody that voted for raising the speed limit on freeways is documented, and then their license plate numbers are put on a list. Those license plate numbers are then targeted and looked for more closely than any other cars on the highway, trying to catch them speeding. If a cop sees that license plate parked in a parking lot, he waits around to follow that particular car onto the freeway just to see if he can catch them for speeding. -- Will everybody that is in favor of Obamacare be placed under more scrutiny and higher levels of investigation to make sure that they are complying with the insurance mandates? -- Should those that voted against legalizing same-sex marriage be put on a list and followed around to see if they commit any hate crimes against homosexuals? Just because an individual votes a certain way doesn't mean they are more likely to break the laws.
This is bad. But it will be ignored and blow over in no time. Notice how the one Obama supporter that has replied in this thread hasn't even commented on the topic, but instead wants to divert the attention to catch phrases.
Those aren't good analogies either Perhaps a better one is you apply for an engineering job so they put extra scrutiny on you if you claim you went to MIT. That is, they'll ask MIT for your transcripts. If you apply for a receptionist job, they don't bother checking your education.
I'm hoping you just forgot to add the green font to your post. Sorry if the sarcasm flew right by me. You must have missed the part where the profiling is based on voting and political leanings. Your analogy has nothing to do with either, and is simply called background checking. They are checking for proof that you will be able to perform the job they are hiring you to do. In the words of PapaG... What an idiotic post.
Let's look at it from a different angle. Where are the damages? If these groups were to sue the IRS for wrongful profiling (LOL), what would they ask for in penalties, and why?
Go ahead and look at it that way, if you want to waste your own time. That isn't what makes government agency actions wrong or right.
Government is made up of incompetent human beings. You can't sue them for doing their job poorly. It is against the law for 501(c)3 organizations to be political in nature. So new organizations requesting tax exempt status who appear to be political in nature should be profiled. I'm not seeing that any of these groups were denied tax exempt status, audited, or otherwise harassed.
Cool strawman, bro. Organizations are different than individuals. I know you're playing devil's advocate just to argue and drive up the page views, but remember your self-proclaimed libertarian views, Denny.
Your responses aren't responses to what I wrote. Whatever. I'm no fan of the IRS. In my perfect world, there wouldn't be one and this sort of thing wouldn't be an issue. There is an IRS. Their duty is to enforce hundreds of thousands of pages of tax code. The 501(c)4 status is seen by campaign finance watchdog groups as a way to get around disclosure rules and they put pressure on the IRS to try and catch groups (illegally) taking advantage of this loophole. The senior official at the IRS, who is mentioned in the news stories, is a former FEC official. FWIW. http://www.irs.gov/uac/Lois-G.-Lerner-Selected-as-Director-of-IRS-Exempt-Organizations-Division Lerner came to the IRS in 2001 from the Federal Election Commission, where she was Associate General Counsel for Enforcement and Acting General Counsel. (my note: 2001 would be during the Bush administration)
They're not strawmen. Your analogies are What exactly do you want to see happen because the morons in the IRS botched doing their job 100% correctly? I think people will be fired for their incompetence. There's no smoking gun of any kind that suggests there was anything sinister that went on. Nothing linking Obama, his campaign, etc., to this. There's no high crime or misdemeanor here. Not even close. If Obama ordered the IRS to scrutinize organizations with the name "tea party" in them, it wouldn't be a high crime or misdemeanor. I'm really looking for what your complaint is. You seem to be making a similar complaint to your last wait at the DMV being a little long.
I get your DMV analogy....but only if DMV made you wait while all of the registered democrats went through ahead of you because you are a libertarian, republican, or other party. It still wouldn't be a high crime, but it would seem to be harassment and discrimination. Go Blazers
But they didn't deny all registered republicans. Not even close. These analogies blow, but... It's more like the DMV deciding to make people who never had a truck driver's license take a driving test. These groups are applying for 501(c)4 status so they can hide who their donors are and to have tax exempt status and to perform political activities. Personally, I don't think they should be able to shield their donors or even have tax exempt status.
Yes, you've made it clear several times you don't get it. You keep making up strawman after strawman. I never said it was Obama. Nice strawman. I never said it was a "high crime". Nice strawman. I never said this was somebody "botching their job". Nice strawman. You're just rambling about some random topics you happen to want to type about at the time. If you want to discuss the actual topic and thread, let us know.
WTF are you talking about? You're so far off with these "analogies" (and I have to use that word extremely loosely in this case) it is humorous. You keep ignoring the fact that it was completely political-leaning related.
