The IRS attacks: A scandal grows
Not only did the Internal Revenue Service target conservative groups for harassing and illegal scrutiny of their tax-exempt status, it appears to have lied about how far up the food chain knowledge of this thuggish practice went.
Friday last, the IRS threw under the bus low-level workers in Cincinnati for flagging groups that had the audacity to use the phrase “tea party,” “patriot” or “9/12 Project” in their paperwork during the 2012 election season. Now comes word that the practice was known at the highest levels of the agency the year before and that the targeting actually began in 2010.
But the “fix” was just as despicable as the first practice. Among other things, the criteria were changed to flag groups that might — hold on to your subversive hats — be proponents of limited government and educate the public about the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
Also reportedly targeted — pro-Israel Jewish groups whose activities contradicted Obama administration policies.
Other subversive red flags for the IRS — groups focused on making “America a better place to live” or those that criticized how the country was being run.
This is the stuff of police states.
Just last year, then-IRS chief Douglas Shulman adamantly denied any targeting. But the IRS chief counsel had been apprised of the targeting long before. That Mr. Shulman did not know is not believable.
As we editorialized on Saturday, not only must there be a full congressional investigation, a special prosecutor must be named to get to the bottom of this most sordid affair. The IRS must be brought to justice.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.