*

*
MoPOP at dusk, Seattle

Tuesday, June 25, 2013

Selectively indignant

If you run into any conservatives talking about the I.R.S., I suggest that you give them a wide berth right now, they are pretty steamed. You see for weeks they have been engaged in a kabuki drama of wallowing grief because the I.R.S. was said to be going after Tea Party groups seeking non profit status.

Now liberals are crashing their pity party. You see, when the I.R.S. man was questioned by Chairman Issa, he was specifically asked about right wing groups and that is what he spilled on. Now word comes, that people from both sides of the spectrum were being singled out for abuse, words like Progressive, Occupy, Israel, Medical Marijuana, Blue all got your file put in the dumper for further scrutiny and delaying tactics.

When word broke about the targeting of conservatives, many liberals, myself included, were outraged. Nixonian, wrong is wrong, etc. You think that the conservatives will return the favor and chastise the I.R.S. for going after progressives? Not a chance. They would rather play the "who's the bigger victim" game.

There are several possibilities here. One, the I.R.S. employees were doing there jobs as best as they saw fit, and this was just business as usual, two, they were actually targeting the administration's enemies on the left and the right. In any case I hope that the Republicans will stop with the crying about persecution. It's getting to be an old act.

You can read a bit more about the saga here.

3 comments:

Sanoguy said...

I think that a good part of this problem comes from the law itself. The 501(C)(4) law was originally written to help organizations doing "strictly social welfare" work. In 1959, the IRS changed the wording of the law in their regulations to cover groups doing "primarily social welfare" work. Consequently, groups wanting to get the benefits of the (C)(4) designation were playing games to get the benefit. The IRS then had to take a close look at the groups to see if they were doing "primarily" social welfare work. It would be much cleaner if the law was clarified such that only groups doing social welfare work received the benefit.

Blue Heron said...

I totally agree, Mike.

barbara and nancy said...

I totally, totally agree.
Barbara