President Obama said, there’s 'Not Even a Smidgen of Corruption' at IRS

          In a taped interview with Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly before the Superbowl, President Obama says there is “not even a smidgen of corruption” at the IRS, but it that really true? In addition, when O’Reilly stated, “…some people are saying is that the IRS was used at a local level in Cincinnati, maybe other places,” President Obama interjected, “absolutely wrong!” O’Reilly then asked, “How do you know that because we still don’t know what happened there?” President Obama interjected again saying, “Bill, we do. That’s not what happened. Folks have again had multiple hearings on this. I mean, these kinds of things keep on surfacing, in part because you and your T.V. station will promote them” (‘Not even a smidgen of corruption’: Obama downplays IRS, other scandals, 2014). From President Obama’s comments you can see he tried to blame Fox News and O’Reilly for hyping the story (Andersen, 2014). Is covering and investigating a story, which is the role of journalism, justification for saying they are “promoting” and “hyping” the story? Also in the interview, President Obama, in an attempt to minimize the issues at the IRS, admitted “there were some bone-headed decisions,” but dismissed the notion of corruption (Andersen, 2014) (Rothman, 2014). It has come to light, however, that the IRS has in fact been targeting Tea Party and conservative groups. Are the President’s statements disingenuous or just misinformed? Is there corruption at the IRS or is this hype? Is the President trying to intentionally diminish the story? If so, why?

          First, let’s look at some comparisons to get a baseline for analysis. USA Today reported that in February 2010, the Champaign Tea Party in Illinois had received IRS approval of its tax-exempt status request with no questions in only 90 days, and this was one month before the IRS targeting began (Pompa, Schouten, & Hargro, 2013). In comparison, it was reported that in the 27 months following this approval, no Tea Party named groups were approved, while other liberal named groups with similar activities were approved in as little as nine months (Pompa, Schouten, & Hargro, IRS gave liberals a pass; Tea Party groups put on hold, 2013). Now that we have a baseline comparison, do you still think this story is hype? These facts alone justify additional inquiry. Let’s dig a little further.

          In the current IRS issue we can see tactics of defend, deny, deflect, divert, and delay. First, in an attempt to defend the IRS, President Obama cited confusion surrounding the rules for 501c4 organizations. He also said he did not recall meeting with then-IRS Commissioner Doug Shulman, who had been to the White House 157 times (Andersen, 2014) (Rothman, 2014). It seems highly unlikely during 157 visits to the White House that Mr. Shulman would have never met or talked with President Obama. Furthermore, during congressional testimony on March 22^nd, 2013, Mr. Shulman in a classic denial stated, “there's absolutely no targeting” (Fox News, 2013), and in a statement released on May 10^th, 2013 the IRS admitted “mistakes were made initially, but they were in no way due to any political or partisan rationale” (Williamson, 2013). However, Lois Lerner, the head of the IRS division that oversees tax-exempt groups, acknowledged on May 10^th, 2013 that organizations applying for tax-exempt status were singled out if they had the words “tea party” or “patriot” in their names. (Spakovsky, 2013). And, according to Fox News, “[at] least 72 applications with the term ‘tea party’ were targeted by the IRS as early as 2010 and 40 of those groups have filed suit against the IRS” (Andersen, IRS-Targeted Scandal Victims Will Not Be Silenced, 2014). It seems, Mr. Shulman was either uninformed or he was lying to congress. Furthermore, who did Mr. Shulman meet with in the White House in his 157 visits? If he met with the President, what was discussed?

          In the same May 10^th, 2013 testimony Lois Lerner tried deflect and localize the blame when she claimed that “the practice was initiated by low-level workers in Cincinnati and was not motivated by political bias” (Spakovsky, 2013). There are a few problems with this statement. First, in a letter to IRS Commissioner Douglas H. Shulman, members of The United States Senate Committee on Finance stated, “We have received reports and reviewed information from nonprofit civic organizations in Kentucky, Ohio, Tennessee, and Texas concerning recent IRS inquiries perceived to be excessive” (Senators to IRS: Don’t Let Politics Trump Policy on Non-Profit Group Designations, 2012) and “the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ) has confirmed that it represents 27 targeted conservative groups across 18 states” (Spakovsky, 2013). So we have Lerner claiming it was isolated to workers in Cincinnati, yet we have claims from organizations in at least 18 different states. Second, Lerner claimed that the actions of the IRS were “not motivated by political bias.” (Spakovsky, 2013). How is it possible to single out organizations by names associated with political groups and claim that it is not political bias? One can only conclude that Lerner is either both uninformed and naïve, or she is being deliberately disingenuous.

          More discrepancies show up on May 21^st, 2013 when Holly Paz, the Internal Revenue Service's director of rulings and agreements and the highest-ranking IRS official with knowledge of the targeting to thus far cooperate with the congressional investigation, spoke to House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa, R-Calif., and bipartisan committee staffers. “Paz said agents in Cincinnati openly talked about handling “tea party” cases, but she thought the term was merely shorthand for all applications from groups that were politically active — conservative and liberal” (Johnsen, 2013). But in a June 2, 2011 e-mail Holly Paz wrote, “What criteria are being used to label a case a 'Tea Party case'?” She went on to say, “We want to think about whether those criteria are resulting in over-inclusion. Lois wants a briefing on these cases” (Korte, 2013). Then on June 17^th, 2013, through her lawyer, Paz stated that “on July 5^th, 2011, Lerner convened a meeting in Washington -- with Cincinnati managers attending by phone -- to discuss the Tea Party cases and it was clear that screeners were using key words like “Tea Party”, “Patriots” or “9/12” to identify cases for greater scrutiny” (Korte, 2013). So it appears that Holly Paz has been a little inconsistent in her statements. How could she believe that that term “tea party” referred to all politically active groups and then be concerned about over-inclusion?

          Then you have Elizabeth Hofacre, the IRS emerging issues coordinator in Cincinnati, who testified to investigators that she kicked out any progressive groups that other agents tried to put in with the Tea Party cases and that she understood the term to mean conservative or Republican groups. Hofacre said, “I was tasked to do Tea Parties, and I wasn't — I wasn't equipped or set up to do anything else.” Hofacre, who had been working on tax-exempt determinations in Cincinnati for 11 years, said the way the IRS handled Tea Party cases was unprecedented” (Korte, 2013) (Korte, Cincinnati IRS agents first raised Tea Party issues, 2013).

          Jay Carney in a press conference on May 14^th, 2013 tried to divert some of the blame to the previous administration when he stated that the “IRS is an independent enforcement agency, the, which I believe as I understand it contains only two political appointees within it the individual who was running the IRS at the time was actually an appointee from the previous administration” (Fox News, 2013). First, who appointed IRS Commissioner has no bearing in this case. Secondly, his claim that the IRS is an independent enforcement agency is not entirely true as the IRS is a bureau of the Department of the Treasury and is organized to carry out the responsibilities of the secretary of the Treasury under section 7801 of the Internal Revenue Code (The Agency, its Mission and Statutory Authority, 2014).

          Is there corruption at the IRS? President Obama does not think so; however, we have two high-level people in the IRS who have admitted that there was targeting of conservative groups which is illegal. Furthermore, it has come to light that “House Oversight Committee staff working for Democratic Ranking Member Elijah Cummings communicated with the IRS multiple times between 2012 and 2013 about voter fraud prevention group True the Vote” even though Mr. Cummings previously denied that his staff had made any inquiries. In addition, these communication records between Mr. Cummings’ staff and IRS officials were never disclosed to Majority Members or staff (Pavlich, 2014). The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines corruption as “dishonest or illegal behavior especially by powerful people” (corruption, 2014). So, perhaps President Obama does not understand the meaning of corruption. One thing is for sure, there is still more to come in this ever-unravelling story.

Bibliography

‘Not even a smidgen of corruption’: Obama downplays IRS, other scandals. (2014, February 3). Retrieved May 4, 2014, from Fox News: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/02/03/not-even-smidgen-corruption-obama-downplays-irs-other-scandals/

Andersen, E. (2014, February 10). IRS-Targeted Scandal Victims Will Not Be Silenced. Retrieved April 16, 2014, from The Foundry: http://blog.heritage.org/2014/02/10/irs-targeted-scandal-victims-will-silenced-video/

Andersen, E. (2014, February 3). Obama: 'Not Even a Smidgen of Corruption' at IRS. Retrieved April 16, 2014, from The Foundry: http://blog.heritage.org/2014/02/03/obama-even-smidgen-corruption-irs/

corruption. (2014). Retrieved May 3, 2014, from Oxford Dictionaries: http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/corruption

corruption. (2014). Retrieved May 3, 2014, from Merriam-Webster: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/corruption

Fox News. (2013, November 7). Obama : Administration ordered I.R.S. to target Conservative Based Tea Party Groups (May 10, 2013). Retrieved May 3, 2014, from You Tube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lBnasus3JH4

Johnsen, E. (2013, June 17). Oh, good: IRS supervisor in DC “personally involved” in scrutinizing conservative groups’ early cases. Retrieved May 3, 2014, from Hot Air: http://hotair.com/archives/2013/06/17/oh-good-irs-supervisor-in-dc-personally-involved-in-scrutinizing-conservative-groups-early-cases/

Korte, G. (2013, June 17). At IRS, 'Tea Party' could mean 'liberal,' official says. Retrieved April 16, 2014, from USA Today: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/06/16/irs-paz-targeting-tea%20-%20party/2426773/

Korte, G. (2013, June 11). Cincinnati IRS agents first raised Tea Party issues. Retrieved April 13, 2014, from USA Today: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/06/11/how-irs-tea-party-targeting-started/2411515/

McConnell, M. (2013, May 10). McConnell Calls on Obama Administration to Conduct Government-wide Review in Wake of IRS Admission of Harassment . Retrieved April 16, 2014, from Mitch McConnell, Rebublican Leader, U.S. Senator for Kentucky: http://www.mcconnell.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=53d179d9-59b8-4ba2-b544-11002c72c7ad

Pavlich, K. (2014, April 9). BREAKING: Emails Show Lois Lerner Fed True the Vote Tax Information to Democrat Elijah Cummings. Retrieved May 3, 2014, from Townhall Magazine: http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2014/04/09/new-emaisl-show-lois-lerner-fed-information-about-true-the-vote-to-democrat-elijah-cummings-n1822247?utm_source=thdaily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl

Pompa, F., Schouten, F., & Hargro, T. (2013, May 15). IRS approved liberal groups while Tea Party in limbo. Retrieved April 13, 2014, from USA Today: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/05/14/irs-tea-party-progressive-groups/2158831/

Pompa, F., Schouten, F., & Hargro, T. (2013, May 5). IRS gave liberals a pass; Tea Party groups put on hold. Retrieved April 16, 2014, from USA Today: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/05/14/irs-gave-progressives-a-pass-tea-party-groups-put-on-hold/2159983/

Rothman, N. (2014, February 6). Not a 'Smidgen' of Corruption? Witnesses Say the IRS Targeting Scandal Is Real - And STILL GOING ON. Retrieved May 4, 2014, from Fox Nation: http://nation.foxnews.com/2014/02/06/not-smidgen-corruption-witnesses-say-irs-targeting-scandal-real-and-still-going

Senators to IRS: Don’t Let Politics Trump Policy on Non-Profit Group Designations. (2012, March 14). Retrieved May 3, 2014, from The United States Senate Committe on Finance: http://www.finance.senate.gov/newsroom/ranking/release/?id=b49bd610-6a0f-4ea5-bea2-8ce37e2e5e04

Spakovsky, H. v. (2013, May 10). IRS Admits It Targeted the Tea Party. Retrieved April 16, 2014, from The Foundry: http://blog.heritage.org/2013/05/10/the-irs-admits-it-targeted-the-tea-party/

The Agency, its Mission and Statutory Authority. (2014, February 12). Retrieved May 4, 2014, from IRS: http://www.irs.gov/uac/The-Agency,-its-Mission-and-Statutory-Authority

Williamson, K. D. (2013, May 10). ‘Mistakes Were Made’. Retrieved April 16, 2014, from National Review Online: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/347950/mistakes-were-made