What was Lois Lerner up to anyway??

[Roland99]

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2013/05/lois_lerner_irs_scandal.php

“Lois, a few months ago there were some concerns about the IRS’s review of 501(c)(4) organizations, of applications from tea party organizations,” Celia Roady, a veteran tax lawyer, asked Lois Lerner, head of the IRS’ tax-exempt organizations division, a few minutes after Lerner finished giving prepared remarks. “I was just wondering if you could provide an update.”

The name of the panel was “News From The IRS And Treasury.” But few, if any, of those present could have anticipated the kind of news Lerner would make with her response to Roady’s question.

Lerner began by describing the increase in 501(c)(4) applications the IRS received between 2010 and 2012. IRS employees in Cincinnati, Lerner said, had reacted by centralizing the applications for efficiency and consistency, something the IRS did “whenever we see an uptick in a new kind of application or something we haven’t seen before.” But in this case, Lerner said, the centralization had not been carried out properly.

...

But back at the Grand Hyatt on Friday, Lerner’s words were met with surprise and bafflement. The fact that the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration had a report on the issue just days from release was not yet widely known. Audience members couldn’t understand why Lerner had chosen that panel as the venue in which to make her admission. While Lerner’s remarks have since been referred to as a “slip” by lawmakers and media reports, several people in the audience on Friday said they saw Lerner refer to notes when answering the question, as if she’d prepared the response in advance. The whole thing was so strange, some even speculated that the question itself had been a plant.

[ZRT2209]

1. The lawyer who asked the question said Lerner planted the question with her

[kentuck]

2. But why??

At whose behest?

She speaks before ABA and lets this information "slip out"?

Perhaps she didn't understand the significance of her words?

Still, the biggest question remains: Why is the fact that she let this story "slip out" more important than the fact that "some people" were laundering campaign money thru these Tea Party groups so they could remain anonymous? Shouldn't that be the main story here rather than what did the President know and when did he know it??

[John2]

3. I'm going to keep asking this question until

I get an answer. How did the IG and Miss Lerner determine these groups were being targeted more than others? If these are new groups applying for tax exempt status, were there equal amounts applying from both Liberal and conservative groups? I what to know the answer to that question. The only way the IG or Miss Lerner can say certain groups were scrutinize more than others, the assumption has to be there were equal numbers applying on both sides, but if there were way more of these conservative groups applying, then more would be targeted. The methodology they are using to determine bias is important. For example if you have 800 conservative groups applying for tax exempt status and only 200 liberal groups applying, then you will get an uneven number going through the examination process. The classification of groups and numbers used by the IG and IRS needs to be examined by a researcher that knows about statistics.

How did they determine all these groups applying for tax exempt status was either conservative or Liberal? Another example, a church or the NAACP would neither be considered Liberal or conservative. The only way you can attach a political ideology is by the nomenclature, such as Tea Party, Patriot Party or Democratic and Republican Party. So saying the method workers used to identify political organizations shouldn't be flawed. That is the only way I know you can identify these groups.

[timdog44]

4. I totally agree with you.

There were so many groups applying, that no way could anyone know who they were representing. If the "totally offended" people are saying that a group is conservative because it has Tea Party in its name, then they are profiling as much as the people who they say were profiling.

The whole thing in my mind is that all these groups should be examined irregardless of the names. And these organizations should spell out there purpose. This is the purpose of the 501(c)(4) - http://www.irs.gov/Charities-&-Non-Profits/Other-Non-Profits/Social-Welfare-Organizations. Key is "Social Welfare Organizations".

My opinion is that no one should be able to be tax exempt, either in the organizations status or the donor status.

This whole thing is just another "scandal" to try and eliminate the Affordable Care Act, because the IRS administers it. And if they can make a big enough stink about the IRS then ----.

[LeftInTX]

14. I assume you have read the report

Easy to download from Bradblog
http://www.bradblog.com/?p=10018

After reading the report myself, I too have questions about methodology etc. Was the study done with the intent to determine whether there was bias against conservative groups? So in the respect, yes it will show bias.

Was the study itself objective?????

Were there other practices that were not addressed in the study such as liberal biased codewords? Or codewords from other groups such as marijuana, drugs, immigration etc.

What if the IG performed a separate study on liberal groups? What would be the outcome?

[timdog44]

5. I believe she knew exactly what she was doing.

At the behest of those who will stoop to any level to make the administration look bad, forcing them to apologize for something that never should have needed and apology.

And we know the big story is that campaign funds were being laundered, and that is the big story, but that takes too much effort to investigate that problem. So the M$M does as little as it can and shirks its duty, that of being the fourth estate.

[reformist2]

6. Are we seriously attacking the messenger now? Sad. Grim. Pathetic.

If what she said happened really happened, that's what should matter. Or would we rather this sort of thing went on without our knowledge?

[Roland99]

8. You don't find it even the least bit odd she chose then (not months ago) to bring this up?

and via a planted question w/a detailed response?

[timdog44]

9. The attack is for the manner and the timing.

I was an OR nurse. Had I seen something being done wrong, would you expect me to say something at the time or wait for a better opportunity. I'll tell you what I would and have done. I said something immediately and took care of the problem pronto. Period.

[Jim Lane]

12. Taking care of the problem and making it a newsmaking announcement are two different things.

She didn't notify the White House. She didn't even issue a press release. She broke the news publicly in a way that seemed initially to have been impromptu (before the lawyer came forward and revealed the planted question).

There's no suggestion that substantively addressing the issue was or should have been delayed for political reasons. Lerner's actions are unusual and suspicious, however.

[timdog44]

13. I agree and hope that is what I conveyed.

She was inept at her job in two ways. She did not correct a problem, that if she felt it needed corrected, she did not do.

And then she let it go on and on, and then did not have the guts to be a real whistle blower, again if there truly was something done that was wrong. Not sure if that has been proved yet, at least to the real thinking Americans. The Repukes will believe anything that even approaches being a stain on the administration.

[kentuck]

7. Maybe she wants a gig at FOX?

Maybe she has already been promised one?

[Poll_Blind]

10. That's a great fucking question. The 'quick' answers I've been seeing don't hold water.

The ball is probably still in play. No idea where it will wind up.

PB

[mainer]

11. my suspicion level on high alert

Instead of doing her job and simply ending the practice and fixing the problem within the IRS, she chose to explode it all over the news.

She is, let's not forget, a Bush appointee.