For four years, Obama did nothing about I.R.S. chief Douglas Shulman

[brentspeak]

Last edited Thu May 16, 2013, 03:27 PM - Edit history (4)

We can give Obama the benefit of the doubt that he was unaware of any specific targeting of two-bit Tea Party conservative groups by some I.R.S. staff.

However, we can't give Obama any benefit of the doubt at all that he was unaware I.R.S. commissioner Douglas Shulman had, for four years, repeatedly ignored all urgent calls from watchdog groups to do something about big "dark money" groups' blatant abuse of article 501(c)(4) of the tax code.

Under the vaguely defined tax code, transparently political organizations like Karl Rove's Crossroads and the Koch Bros' FreedomWorks have pumped millions of tax-exempt, anonymously-given dollars into political campaigns all across the nation. Entire state legislatures, (not to mention state judicial and Congressional races) have flipped from Democratic to GOP because of the outright abuse of this tax-exempt status. And all Rove and the Koch brothers had to do to for their dark money groups to be granted 501(c)(4) status was to submit a form to the I.R.S. promising to have their entities behave like a "social welfare organization."

Needless to say, none of these large dark money groups have acted as "social welfare organizations", and all would have had their tax-exempt status revoked had the I.R.S. actually taken the time to scrutinize them.

All Shulman had to do to put a stop to this -- without specifically targeting any group of any particular political bent whatsoever -- was to simply issue firm I.R.S. clarifying rules as to what and what could not constitute an actual "social welfare organization". He did not do so, and therefore Obama, logically, should have fired him years ago and replaced him with a responsible acting I.R.S. commissioner. Obama refused to do so, and now he is paying the price (as have much of the Democratic party for the past two election cycles.)

It doesn't matter that Shulman was originally Bush's appointee; he ended up being Obama's man -- and Obama and the Democratic party's problem.

[phleshdef]

1. There are laws preventing President's from meddling in the IRS.

Obama would've been an idiot to attempt to do so as that would've also turned into another PHONY scandal.

[brentspeak]

2. No law that prevents the Chief Executive from firing the head I.R.S. commissioner

and appointing an acting head.

Q.E.D.

[phleshdef]

5. Appointing someone that would've never gotten confirmed.

And if he fired him because of the IRS head not doing what he wanted him to do, that most certainly would've put him in true Nixon territory.

You either aren't thinking this through or you just don't care.

[brentspeak]

13. Uh, what did Obama just do with Steven Miller?

[phleshdef]

17. Are you completely devoid of common sense?

Of course, in the heat of the current situation, asking the current IRS chief to step down because of an impending "scandal" is a pretty safe thing to do.

But had he went after the former chief because that person wasn't going after certain groups, it would've been an entirely different story.

You are just trying to throw some shit on the President like you always do. You don't really have a principled position.

[brentspeak]

22. "Because he wasn't going after certain groups"????

Because he wasn't issuing necessary guidelines to prevent the obvious and public abuse of nonprofit status, a practice which has been reported on for the past several years. Because he wasn't doing his job as the head of the I.R.S.

Apparently, this is too hard a concept for you to grasp.

[phleshdef]

23. It would've still turned into a "Presidential interference with the IRS" issue.

I guarandamntee it.

Apart from that, I don't expect one man to micromanage every aspect of a federal government as large as ours. Its just monumentally stupid to even suggest its possible.

[brentspeak]

27. And what did it "turn to" now?

[phleshdef]

29. We don't know yet. There hasn't been enough time to see how its really going to play out.

This so called "scandal" has only been known for a few days now.

But my guess is, BECAUSE there are laws that prevent Presidential meddling with the IRS and BECAUSE it seems very likely that President Obama has walked that line, it will fizzle and die in time.

[byeya]

32. Who cares about Senate approval when you can appoint a good person already in the agency

to be "acting"
The "can't be confirmed line" is a wanker's line.

[phleshdef]

33. No, its the absolute truth. Its only a wankers line to you because it undermines your talking pts.

If anyone is being a wanker, its people like you who refuse to acknowledge political realities.

[brentspeak]

34. Republican majority victories in state legislatures across the nation

Including several that have traditionally been Democratic strongholds. Numerous GOP Congressional victories that really should have gone to Democrats. All made possible in large part thanks to dark money groups which would have been emasculated for the past two cycles had the I.R.S. issued proper and specific guidelines making it impossible for Nakedly Obvious Political Front Group LLC from registering as tax-exempt "social welfare" organizations.

We can say with a fair degree of certainty pretty much how things have played out.

[ProSense]

36. Obama can help himself and the national Democrats NOW if only he clamps down on illegal Rove TV ads

"Obama can help himself and the national Democrats NOW if only he clamps down on illegal Rove TV ads"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002778698

If the President had listened to you (serious hypothetical), he'd have been impeached before he won re-election in a landslide.

You were advocating that he do the very thing Repbulicans are now accusing him of (target conservative groups to "help himself," and some people on the left were initially inclined to believe.

Like I said, the article you posted is about complaints directed at the IRS (that groups on both sides were abusing there tax exempt status), but with no response. These are matters for the IRS, not the President.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2853035

What you were and are advocating is that the President use the IRS for political purposes. This is what happens when Presidential administrations simply run roughshod over independent appointees.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022851944

[brentspeak]

43. Impeached for firing an IRS chief who let blatant abuse of the tax code run rampant?

Why stop at that logic? If Al Capone were the head of the I.R.S., you would have found some reason to justify Obama not sacking him.



The issue with the I.R.S. scandal is that the two-bit Tea Party conservative groups' applications in question were targeted simply because they were prejudged to abuse any nonprofit status given, not because they actually did so. But we already know that Crossroads and Freedomworks have misused their 501(c)(4) status; there would have been no unfair "targeting" had the I.R.S. investigated obvious abuse that had already taken place. None of those groups would have had a leg to stand on, and any attempt to impeach Obama -- let alone call for the I.R.S. chief's head -- would have been laughed away by the public.

In any case, to justify Obama keeping him aboard, Shulman didn't even have to investigate the Rove-type groups. All Shulman had to do was to establish general, non-partisan rules governing what can and what can't constitute a tax-exempt "social welfare organization". Obama was either perfectly fine or otherwise clueless with keeping a ridiculous and corrupt system in place that he saw no reason to replace Shulman.

[ProSense]

45. No,

"Impeached for firing an IRS chief who let blatant abuse of the tax code run rampant?"

..."impeached" for interfering with an internal IRS process involving review of political groups affiliated with him.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2853877

I could see all the posts claiming Obama abused his power.

[tavalon]

40. Isn't it annoying when every attempt to get to the bottom of well, anything, these days,

is quickly quashed by calling one an Obama hater, sans any credible evidence? I'm having the same problem with the First Amendment breach.

[sabrina 1]

21. And there it is again. 'The President is Powerless' routine. And that is why we are in the mess we

are in. I had no idea how powerless a US President was until the last few years. In my living memory, presidents have exerted enormous power over issues like this. Eg, Bush Sr. actually overturned convictions and indictments of his co-conspirators in the Iran Contra crimes. I don't remember anyone saying 'he can't do that'. He did it and didn't much care what anyone thought. It worked, they all got off.

It's funny how much power presidents have when it's convenient.

Obama should have removed ALL Bush appointees as soon as he was inaugurated, and in Jan. 2009 he should have had a list of legislation he wanted to see passed when he took office. Ending DADT should have happened right then eg rather than being held up to use as a bargaining chip later by Republicans to keep the Bush Tax Cuts rather than letting them die as was intended.

Presidents get done what they want to get done. Unless their power has been removed over the past few years which means we should ignore the Presidential race from now on and focus on Congressional races exclusively. There is zero point in putting so much time, money and effort into electing presidents if they have lost all of their power.

[phleshdef]

24. No one said the President is powerless, so your argument is means nothing to me.

Furthermore, there was no apparent reason for the President to believe he needed to remove the head of the IRS until very recently. You don't just fire people because the last guy hired them. That's fucking stupid.

[rhett o rick]

48. She beat me to the comment. I am getting sick and tired of all the "Obama cant do anything"

arguments. You used "political reality" as your justification for his inaction. I think political reality would reveal he has a lot more power than you attest. I read you as saying that the president is powerless.

[phleshdef]

49. After you are done being sick and tired, take a civics class...

...then come back to this discussion with some credibility.

[sabrina 1]

54. One glaring apparent reason. He was a BUSH APPOINTEE!

[ProSense]

28. No,

"And there it is again. 'The President is Powerless' routine. And that is why we are in the mess we are in. I had no idea how powerless a US President was until the last few years."

...there it is again: Pushing for the President to interfere with agencies based on opinions. The President doesn't run the IRS. The head of the IRS is a political appointee. Expecting Presidents to simply fire political appointees of federal agencies is the kind of thing the RW does. There was no scandal or wrongdoing idenfied before this issue came to light. Why would the President have fired the commissioner?

This is what happens when Presidential administrations simply run roughshod over independent appointees.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022851944

[ProSense]

8. He

"and appointing an acting head. "

...fired the acting head yesterday based on an IG report. Is it your understanding that the President can interfere with the IRS otherwise?

From the article you posted:

Over the last two years, government watchdog groups filed more than a dozen complaints with the Internal Revenue Service seeking inquiries into whether large nonprofit organizations like those founded by the Republican political operative Karl Rove and former Obama administration aides had violated their tax-exempt status by spending tens of millions of dollars on political advertising.

The I.R.S. never responded.

The GOP claim is that the IRS only targeted conservatives. This piece is about complaints directed at the IRS, but with no response. These are matters for the IRS, not the President.

[brentspeak]

12. Is it your understanding that Obama couldn't have had a IG report during Shulman's tenure?

.........?

[ProSense]

14. I think

"Is it your understanding that Obama couldn't have had a IG report during Shulman's tenure?"

...this is an appropriate question: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2853091

I already know the answer, though.

[brentspeak]

18. Taken to mean: You admit that Obama failed to fire Shulman

A non-action which ended up burning both him and the Democratic party as a whole.

And you're at a loss to respond other than to link to somebody else's non-sensical post.

[ProSense]

19. Take it however you want to.

You have no fucking idea what you're talking about, despite the bravado.

[Skidmore]

20. +1

[brentspeak]

25. You sure rebutted me

Come back when you have some facts in hand.

[bahrbearian]

30. You know your winning when the personal attacks start.

Last edited Thu May 16, 2013, 05:14 PM - Edit history (1)

[SidDithers]

26. Nailed it...nt

Sid

[eomer]

38. I don't believe that is true. The President has ultimate executive authority over IRS.

Here's an example:

On Jan. 20, 2010, President Barack Obama directed the IRS to review whether contractors bidding for Federal contracts owed Federal taxes.

“In accordance with the presidential directive, the Internal Revenue Service must ensure that businesses contracting to provide services to the IRS are compliant with Federal tax laws,” said J. Russell George, the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA), while releasing the audit report.

The report noted that the IRS “does not annually verify that government contractors have paid Federal taxes, despite a presidential directive that contractors with serious tax delinquencies not receive new work from Federal agencies.”

http://gantdaily.com/2011/01/10/despite-white-house-directive-irs-refuses-audit-recommendations/

It is not meddling; it is what the president is elected to do - be the head of the executive branch and all the agencies it encompasses.

[phleshdef]

39. That one makes sense because its people directly doing business with the federal government.

The OP was referring to dark money groups who are pretty much all Republican political organizations. If the President had directed the IRS to go after them, it would basically be directing them to go after his own political foes and I guarantee that would not have went well for him at all.

[eomer]

42. It is an area of enforcement by IRS.

It is normal for the president to direct an agency like the IRS on which areas of enforcement activity to expend resources.

And it wouldn't have been in the form of directing to go after specific organizations that are his enemies but rather to enforce the law for all 501(c)(4)s, regardless of who they are.

[ProSense]

44. That's about federal contracting

"It is normal for the president to direct an agency like the IRS on which areas of enforcement activity to expend resources"

The President was acting in the capacity of Chief Executive. Implying that he could interfere with the IRS review of tax exempt status of political groups, which is what the OP article was about, is absurd.

From the OP article:

Over the last two years, government watchdog groups filed more than a dozen complaints with the Internal Revenue Service seeking inquiries into whether large nonprofit organizations like those founded by the Republican political operative Karl Rove and former Obama administration aides had violated their tax-exempt status by spending tens of millions of dollars on political advertising.

The I.R.S. never responded.

The premise of the OP is that Obama should have intervened in an internal IRS process because the IRS didn't respond to "watchdog groups." That's not the President's job.

In fact, the OP has http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2853609 and continues to use the argument that the President should have done so for his own and his party's benefit (http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2853512).

[eomer]

46. I think he should direct them to enforce those rules, but not in order to benefit Democrats.

He should do so because of its potential beneficial effect on moving the USA toward democracy, not toward Democrats.

Likely there would be groups on both sides (D and R) that would be affected. The effect hopefully would be to move politicians of both parties (slightly) away from corruption and (slightly) toward true representation of the citizens who supposedly elect them.

[brentspeak]

47. The premise of the OP is Obama should have replaced the I.R.S. head

for not doing his job to establish clear, non-partisan guidelines governing 501(c)(4) nonprofit tax-exempt status. That would have restored some law-and-order to the nation's electoral process, made possible by the Wild West of blatantly political organizations abusing a vague tax code. No "intervening" by the Chief Executive in the "internal IRS process" was called for by my OP nor would it have been necessary (though eomer points out that some involvement by Obama would have been permissible); simply removing a clearly corrupt and/or incompetent I.R.S. head commissioner was all that was required (assuming his replacement was competent) -- and is well within the rights of the Chief Executive to do so.

It is true that with clarified 501(c)(4) guidelines, the Democratic party would have benefited by default since the Repubs and others couldn't so blatantly break the law. However, that would have been considered an "impeachable" offense only by the most rabid and marginalized conservatives -- and maybe, I guess, yourself.

[ProSense]

50. The

"The premise of the OP is Obama should have replaced the I.R.S. head"

...premise of the OP is absurd because the President's job is not to interfere with the IRS when there is no legal justification.

Had an inquiry been launched, as is the current case, then there would have been action, as is the curent case.

You're advocating that the President simply fire polical appointees based on people not being pleased.

You would be OK with a Republican President firing say an NLRB head appointed by a Democratic President based on complaints.

That's absurd.

[Buzz Clik]

3. Godammit! When the hell are DUers going to read the report and quit repeating GOP talking points!!!

Read this and get back to us with some real information.

http://www.treasury.gov/tigta/auditreports/2013reports/201310053fr.pdf

[Tx4obama]

4. Not five years.

Obama had been president UNDER four years at the time Shulman left the IRS in November 2012.


And according to the article in the link in the OP...

Over the last two years, government watchdog groups filed more than a dozen complaints with the Internal Revenue Service seeking inquiries into whether large nonprofit organizations like those founded by the Republican political operative Karl Rove and former Obama administration aides had violated their tax-exempt status by spending tens of millions of dollars on political advertising.

So, in my opinion your subject line (and the 'five years' in the body) is incorrect.

[brentspeak]

37. Corrected to 'four years'

Thanks for pointing it out.

[patrice]

6. But the issue of secret money in politics would have had a much MUCH different political valence

a few years ago than it does in today's particular political/economic climate.

[Wellstone ruled]

7. As the day is happening today.

Press Conference = IRS = Benghazi = Coverup = Lacky Press questions
Here is a back story that many are missing. Obama is holding Keystone Pipeline hostage,he knows the 2014 elections are pivotal to his party and his legacy. But,the Koch Brothers and Karl Rove are manufacturing the Impeachment and other fake issues to get Obama to cave on the pipeline. Just follow the F'en money folks. Story after story about money changing hands on the Senate and House floors to the likes we have never seen since the Robber Baron days of the 1890's.

And so it goes!!!

[G_j]

10. +1

[Sheepshank]

9. Oh, it's you....

...with another gripe against Obama. Where was this talking point in the last 20+ years?

Obama ignored urgent third hand calls from watchdog groups? Wow..that lazy do nothing SOB. Because I'm pretty sure you are telling us that Obama has had to have copies of those calls, Shulman made sure they all got to Obama, and there is only important watchdog group that ever has urgent messages.

[brentspeak]

15. Your post is comedy, right?

You...really thought that my OP was referring to phone calls?

[CatWoman]

11. just wtf are you talking about?

?


?

?

[FSogol]

16. LOL: You Better Believe It!

[geek tragedy]

31. yBBI. nt

[The Link]

41. He thought a Republican was the best person for the job.

Just like at the Defense Dept. He admires Republicans.

[whistler162]

51. Could he legally fire the head of the IRS...

aren't there a few appointed jobs that aren't subject to the whim(s) of a President, FEC members. He may have been able to get around it by appointing the man Ambassador to Tasmania or some other out of the way place.

"The Commissioner of Internal Revenue is the chief executive officer for the IRS. The Commissioner is nominated by the President of the United States and confirmed by the Senate for a five-year term, and may be reappointed to more than one term."

http://www.irs.gov/irm/part1/irm_01-001-005.html#d0e10

[Tarheel_Dem]

52. Remember when Liberals were "outraged" when GWB & Karl Rove fired all those US atty's....

cause they weren't sufficiently loyal to the administration? Remember the liberal "outrage" back then? Remember when they were stacking the Justice Dept with folks who swore an oath to the administration over the American people, by some flunky graduate of Jerry Falwell's or Pat Robertson's "Law School"?

What many "liberals" now argue is that Obama should've cleaned house of all former rivals. It strains the bounds of credulity to hear this from "liberals" who claim to be civil libertarians at heart. Pres. Obama would've been sued, just like the Bush Administration, had he gone in and relieved his political rivals of their duties, but nice try. It's all Obama's fault. How do we distinguish you guys from the teabaggers these days?

[Ian David]

53. If he'd done anything, the same fuckers calling for investigations now would have yelled, "Fascism!"