That is the part I can't understand. Unless you are being paid to be scum, I think you should be very concerned. I would be just as concerned if hollywood or unions or dnc contributors were targeted.
IRS suspected a fishing boat owner wasn't paying proper wages to his deckhand and sent an agent to investigate him. IRS AUDITOR: "I need a list of your employees and how much you pay them". Boat Owner: "Well, there's Clarence, my deckhand, he's been with me for 3 years. I pay him $1,000 a week plus free room and board. Then there's the mentally challenged guy. He works about 18 hours every day and does about 90% of the work around here. He makes about $10 per week, pays his own room and board, and I buy him a bottle of Bacardi rum and a dozen Budweisers every Saturday night so he can cope with life. He also gets to sleep with my wife occasionally". IRS AUDITOR: "That's the guy I want to talk to - the mentally challenged one". Boat Owner: "That would be me. What would you like to know"?
Beltway, of course I'm not OK with that, don't be silly. There is not one shred of evidence of this White House using the IRS to attack political enemies. There is only innuendo, hearsay, and conspiracy theories. Let's move on to something productive.
Are you saying the IRS didn't attack Tea Party groups or are you saying that no evidence has surfaced to connect the WH to it? You know very well that if a democrat investigation were being stymied by government employees destroying evidence , the democrats and media would be screaming for an independent counsel. Bush appointed one for the phony scandal over some CIA desk jockey who sent her husband on some fool's errand to Africa.
...Quinnipiac University, registered voters favored a special prosecutor by 76 percent to 17 percent. Those backing such a move included 63 percent of Democrats... Apparently not everyone got pie hole's memo about there being no evidence whatsoever.
I'm saying that no evidence has surfaced to connect the WH to it. But I frankly haven't been following recent developments. Am I wrong about that? I agree with your other remarks, with the exception that I still don't no whether the IRS specifically went after Tea Party Groups in preference to Liberal groups. There were many more conservative groups applying against just a handful of liberal groups, so it is quite possible that if you simply used a politically blind review process and applied a list of criteria to trigger a review to a stack of applications you could end up reviewing a large number of conservative groups and only one or two liberal groups. What they did wasn't, in any case,politically astute, and no one as politically active and outspoken as Ms Lerner should have been involved. On the other hand, the IRS should have scrutinized all of these groups, liberal and conservative, and not allowed any of them to file as social welfare agencies. How in the hell did that nonsense get started in the first place? I will say this:a.The Issa committee has bent over backwards to make the IRS look as though they were specifically targeting conservative groups. ; b. that Lerner lady needs to be moved to a politically insensitive area and severely sanctioned; c. The code needs to be revised so that political action groups can not use the IRS to avoid disclosure of there donors. (That was certainly never the intention (or was it?) of Congress, from whose statutes all IRS code stems.)