Paul L. Caron

Friday, January 23, 2015

The IRS Scandal, Day 624

IRS Logo 2Wall Street Journal, 7 Down, 1 to Go: An Ungracious Address Even By This President’s Standards, by James Taranto:

In four of the past six midterm elections, voters have administered what is sometimes called a “shellacking” or a “thumpin’ ” to the sitting president’s party. In 1994, 2006, 2010 and 2014, the president’s party lost seats in both houses of Congress and the majority in at least one. In 1995, 2007 and 2011 the president began his State of the Union address with an acknowledgment of the other party’s electoral success. ...

This year’s State of the Union was an ungracious address even by this president’s standards. There was no word of congratulation for the Republicans or even for the new Congress. Worse, Obama extemporaneously taunted his adversaries about his own past electoral success.

“I have no more campaigns to run,” the president declared during the speech’s coda. One suspects that was not intended as an applause line, but applaud some in the audience did. Obama began reading his next sentence, then interrupted with a #humblebrag: “My only agenda—I know because I won both of them.”

To which we add the obligatory asterisk: While it is true without qualification that he won the first one, the second came with the assistance of the Internal Revenue Service’s suppression of his opponents. To be sure, one cannot rule out the possibility that he would have won a licit campaign. But then again, it’s not as if it was a 45-7 blowout.

IRS News, IRS Scandal, Tax | Permalink


I always find it interesting that the same party marching and rioting across the country to bring attention to the alleged violation of people's civil rights do not give a fig about their party violating people's civil rights.

How many of the Democrat activist groups leading protests are tax exempt. Should they be? Where does their money come from? What is the relationship between donors, militant activists, and politicians in power over both police forces and government?

Democrats are known for their activism. It is a point of pride. But they will not allow anyone else to exercise their rights.

Posted by: wodun | Jan 23, 2015 2:15:29 PM

"The WSJ is treating them as part of the Romney campaign, suggesting this taints the election result, which would mean, of course, that the IRS was right to target these groups (and should have taken their tax exemptions away)."

It isn't illegal for tax exempt groups to engage in politics. There is a threshold that needs to be passed before they are disqualified. Much like drinking and driving. It isn't illegal to drink and drive. It is illegal to drink too much and drive.

Democrat groups that are tax exempt regularly engage in politics, and they do so with pride. Obama's own campaign was granted tax exempt status in less than 30 days. Obama's half brother got retro active tax exempt status in a similarly short period of time.

Militant Democrat activist tax exempt groups are engaged in political protests all over the country right now.

It was only after the Tea Party protests over Obamacare, the first time in modern history that non-Democrats have organized and protested like Democrats, that the IRS cracked down on groups on Obama's enemies list.

Why can't non-Democrat groups operate the same way Democrat groups do? If this is really about cracking down on tax exempt groups engaging in politics, when are Democrat groups going to have the hammer come down on them rather than get special treatment?

Posted by: wodun | Jan 23, 2015 2:10:26 PM


We did find WMD in Iraq.

If you keep repeating your lies about what the IRS did, some people might believe but some of us will keep fighting for our civil rights and to hold politicians accountable for their actions.

Posted by: wodun | Jan 23, 2015 2:00:57 PM

The accusation in this two year old alleged scandal is that the Obama administration officials targeted independent, non-campaign groups who should not have been targeted because they were not part of any political campaign. The WSJ is treating them as part of the Romney campaign, suggesting this taints the election result, which would mean, of course, that the IRS was right to target these groups (and should have taken their tax exemptions away).

Posted by: JDESq | Jan 23, 2015 10:27:09 AM

If they keep repeating it, it will become true, even though there is no objective evidence to support it. And we found WMD in Iraq.

Posted by: Publius Novus | Jan 23, 2015 6:05:05 AM