Where’s that 5% unemployment rate Obama promised by now?
On the surface, the July jobs report — the unemployment rate dipped to 7.4% last month thanks to a shrinking workforce as the economy added a disappointing 162,000 net new payrolls — is just another dismal data point in America’s “new normal” recovery. But it’s also an important milestone and metric for judging the Keynesian fiscal experiment known as Obamanomics.In January 2009, Team Obama economists put together a report – half quantitative analysis, half sales pitch — outlining the potential economic impact of the proposed $800 billion stimulus. (See above chart from that report.) If Congress passed the plan, the report forecasted, the economy would generate enough additional demand, output, and employment that two big things would happen:
First, the unemployment rate would never reach 8%. Unfortunately, we hit 10% unemployment in October 2009. Failure number one.
Second, the unemployment rate would return to its long-term “natural rate” of 5% by July 2013 (a jobless rate, it should be noted, above the low points of the Bush and Clinton presidencies). Labor markets would be back to peak health. The Great Recession would truly and finally be over.
Mission accomplished by this jobless report.
Of course, we now know conclusively that this prediction — based as it was on the pixiedust magic of Keynesian fiscal multipliers — was a total failure, one even beyond what the July job numbers suggest.
This is important: Obama economists assumed the unemployment rate would return to 5% even without a stunning collapse in labor force participation. Why? Government stimulus would reignite the private economy, causing a return to 4% GDP growth or higher, growth not seen since the late 1990s.
- In August 2009, the White House predicted GDP would rise 4.3% in 2011, followed by 4.3% growth in 2012 and 2013, too.
- In its 2010 forecast, the White House said it was looking for 3.5% GDP growth in 2012, followed by 4.4% in 2013.
- In its 2011 forecast, the White House predicted 3.1% growth in 2011, 4.0% in 2012, and 4.5% in 2013.
And once you take that labor force decline into account, adjusted for the aging of the US population, the “real” unemployment rate is between 9% and 10% while the combined unemployment/underemployment number is 14.0%. As a recent report from the Century Foundation calculates it, almost the entire decline in the unemployment rate during this recovery was because of declining labor force participation rather than increased labor demand.
Yes, the Great Recession was worse than Team Obama knew back in 2009. And other bad stuff happened later, like the euro crisis. (Not to mention some good stuff like the Bernanke Fed’s unprecedented monetary easing.) Through it all, however, the White House stayed optimistic, even knowing the history of post-financial crisis recoveries. And there is no sign yet that Obama is reevaluating the notion that higher taxes and more government investment is the path to American prosperity, or acknowledging that uncertainty about Obamacare might be slowing the creation of full-time jobs.
Now, maybe the smart guys on Wall Street are right, and finally the economy is ready to really accelerate. Deutsche Bank, for instance, sees the unemployment rate falling to 5.6% by the first quarter of 2016 (including a less active labor force). If so, you can thank a) the Fed and b) the natural resilience of the entrepreneurial US economy. A job market recovery? Obamanomics never did build that.
http://www.aei-ideas.org/2013/08/wheres-that-5-unemployment-rate-obama-promised-by-now/
Obamacare Full Frontal: Of 953,000 Jobs Created In 2013, 77%, Or 731,000 Are Part-Time
When the payroll report was released last month, the world finally noticed what we had been saying for nearly three years: that the US was slowly being converted to a part-time worker society. This slow conversion accelerated drastically in the last few months, and especially in June, when part time jobs exploded higher by 360K while full time jobs dropped by 240K. In July we are sad to report that America's conversation to a part-time worker society is not "tapering": according to the Household Survey, of the 266K jobs created (note this number differs from the establishment survey), only 35% of jobs, or 92K, were full time. The rest were... not.What is worse, however, is when one looks at job creation broken down by "quality" in all of 2013. The chart below does the bottom line some justice:
But what really shows what is going on in America at least in 2013, is the following summary: of the 953K jobs "created" so far in 2013, only 23%, or 222K, were full-time. Part-time jobs? 731K or 953K of total.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-08-02/obamacare-full-frontal-953000-jobs-created-2013-77-or-731000-are-part-time
Bombshell: CIA Using "Unprecedented" Polygraphing, "Pure Intimidation" to Guard Benghazi Secrets
Waving away the Benghazi massacre as a "phony scandal" was vulgar and low class to begin with. Now, it's totally inoperative as a talking point. CNN sends Benghazi-gate into the stratosphere with a striking series of highly sensitive revelations. Wow:From Jake Tapper's exclusive:
Sources now tell CNN dozens of people working for the CIA were on the ground that night, and that the agency is going to great lengths to make sure whatever it was doing, remains a secret. CNN has learned the CIA is involved in what one source calls an unprecedented attempt to keep the spy agency's Benghazi secrets from ever leaking out. Since January, some CIA operatives involved in the agency's missions in Libya, have been subjected to frequent, even monthly polygraph examinations, according to a source with deep inside knowledge of the agency's workings. The goal of the questioning, according to sources, is to find out if anyone is talking to the media or Congress. It is being described as pure intimidation, with the threat that any unauthorized CIA employee who leaks information could face the end of his or her career. In exclusive communications obtained by CNN, one insider writes, "You don't jeopardize yourself, you jeopardize your family as well." Another says, "You have no idea the amount of pressure being brought to bear on anyone with knowledge of this operation." Agency employees typically are polygraphed every three to four years. Never more than that," said former CIA operative and CNN analyst Robert Baer. In other words, the rate of the kind of polygraphs alleged by sources is rare.Americans are still in the dark about much of what happened that night. A few more details are now coming to the fore, despite the intelligence community's extraordinary efforts to keep a lid on them:
Among the many secrets still yet to be told about the Benghazi mission, is just how many Americans were there the night of the attack. A source now tells CNN that number was 35, with as many as seven wounded, some seriously. While it is still not known how many of them were CIA, a source tells CNN that 21 Americans were working in the building known as the annex, believed to be run by the agency.A Virginia Congressman, who recently revealed that Benghazi witnesses were being silence by nondisclosure agreements, is calling this a "cover-up" and demanding more answers:
In the aftermath of the attack, Wolf said he was contacted by people closely tied with CIA operatives and contractors who wanted to talk. Then suddenly, there was silence. "Initially they were not afraid to come forward. They wanted the opportunity, and they wanted to be subpoenaed, because if you're subpoenaed, it sort of protects you, you're forced to come before Congress. Now that's all changed," said Wolf.This much seems clear: There was more going on in Benghazi than meets the eye. CNN reports that nearly three dozen Americans were caught up in the dual terrorist raids; four were killed, and at least seven were injured. We learned earlier in the week that at least one unidentified US operator (likely CIA) was on that roof with ex-SEALs Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty. He survived, albeit with a "shredded" leg, yet help didn't arrive for nearly a full day. Now we know he wasn't alone among the injured, and several of his colleagues' wounds were "severe." For the last year, administration critics have advanced a three-pronged line of inquiry regarding Benghazi: (1) Why were security levels so inadequate in an obviously dangerous location, (2) why weren't reinforcements sent during the seven-hour raid? and (3) why did the administration revise and manipulate talking points after the fact in order to mislead the public about what happened? The answer to that last question appears to be political concerns, although it may also have had something to do with the shroud of secrecy that's been draped over the incident. For months, there have been rumblings about the CIA in Northern Africa quietly working to round up sophisticated weapons the US government had provided to radical Libyan rebels, then surreptitiously ship them off to Syria to aid the opposition there. Might there have been a much larger US presence in Benghazi to facilitate these covert dealings? That might explain why our facilities were so poorly protected -- our people didn't want to draw undue attention to a top secret operation. But if that's the case, they were taking a massive risk -- and the risk had deadly consequences. This theory may also reveal why the military seemed paralyzed for hours on end as the attack raged. Should they step in and salvage a busted, previously secret mission? Or let it play out and concoct a back story later?
This is all pure speculation, and none of it would justify the level of opacity with which the administration has treated the raid and its aftermath. Let's say this was a highly classified operation being kept secret for both domestic and international reasons. Once an operation blows up as badly as it did in Benghazi -- an ambassador is murdered, and dozens of Americans are surrounded by the enemy, fending for their lives -- accountability, and some degree of transparency, must follow. If these theories are close to accurate, Americans might be willing to cut the White House some slack -- except they've labeled the catastrophe "phony," deceived the public at every turn, and promoted several key players involved in the political cover-up. Plus, arming hyper-extreme Al Qaeda offshoots in Syria is highly unpopular. Another thing: The weapons-to-Syria theories are half out of the bag already, so what are they still covering-up? It's possible that the administration doesn't want the American people and our foreign allies to know just how heavily involved we've been in arming squads of exceedingly dangerous jihadi forces in two different countries, whose goals happen to align with our fleeting strategic interests. As I said, that course of action would be very, very unpopular. In any case, the CNN report has touched off a feverish guessing game, with theories flying left and right. All we know for sure at this point is that we have no idea what on earth happened that night, or why -- and that this scandal is anything but "phony."
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2013/08/02/report-cia-using-unprecedented-polygraphing-to-keep-benghazi-secrets-n1654411
CNN bombshell: Dozens of CIA operatives were on the ground during the Benghazi attack, agency in panic over revelations
What kind of panic are we talking about here? Actual quote from agency “insider” communications obtained by CNN: “You don’t jeopardize yourself, you jeopardize your family as well.”The word of the day is “unprecedented.” Phony scandal no more:
Since January, some CIA operatives involved in the agency’s missions in Libya, have been subjected to frequent, even monthly polygraph examinations, according to a source with deep inside knowledge of the agency’s workings…
It is being described as pure intimidation, with the threat that any unauthorized CIA employee who leaks information could face the end of his or her career…
Another [insider] says, “You have no idea the amount of pressure being brought to bear on anyone with knowledge of this operation.”…
Among the many secrets still yet to be told about the Benghazi mission, is just how many Americans were there the night of the attack.
A source now tells CNN that number was 35, with as many as seven wounded, some seriously.
While it is still not known how many of them were CIA, a source tells CNN that 21 Americans were working in the building known as the annex, believed to be run by the agency.Thirty-five Americans on the ground, 21 at the CIA annex. Maybe the skeletal security crew at the consulate wasn’t as skeletal as thought. Is that what happened here — not so much a security vacuum as a security presence so secret that it couldn’t be revealed publicly, despite the White House being pounded over its failures for months afterwards? None of which is to say that they shouldn’t have had more security; the consulate and annex were overrun regardless, no matter how many people were there. But maybe that helps explain why the formal security presence wasn’t bigger: There was a lot of CIA in the area and maybe the White House didn’t want to attract attention to what they were doing there by inserting a squad of Marines to patrol the grounds. We already had an inkling of that, in fact, per this interesting but vague WSJ story from last November, which argued that the CIA’s role in the city appeared to be more important than thought. (“The consulate provided diplomatic cover for the classified CIA operations.”) CNN itself followed up in May by reporting that “the larger mission in Benghazi was covert” and alleging that there were more Americans there tied to the CIA — 20 of 30 in all — than to State’s diplomatic presence.
But what were they doing there to justify such agency paranoia now about people blabbing? Former CIA analyst Robert Baer tells CNN that agents are typically polygraphed ever few years, not every month. What could be so tippy top secret that it needs to be kept under wraps even if it means threatening agents’ families to buy their silence? On Twitter, Lachlan Markay points to this Business Insider piece, also from May, speculating that weapons were involved. Which isn’t surprising — everyone knows the feds are trying to round up loose arms from Qaddafi’s stockpiles before jihadis get hold of them. What’s surprising is where the weapons might, might have been headed. To a depot back in the U.S.? Maybe not:
Also in October we reported the connection between Ambassador Christopher Stevens, who died in the attack, and a reported September shipment of SA-7 surface-to-air anti-craft missiles (i.e. MANPADS) and rocket-propelled grenades from Benghazi to Syria through southern Turkey.
That 400-ton shipment — “the largest consignment of weapons” yet for Syrian rebels — was organized by Abdelhakim Belhadj, who was the newly-appointed head of the Tripoli Military Council.
In March 2011 Stevens, the official U.S. liaison to the al-Qaeda-linked Libyan rebels, worked directly with Belhadj while he headed the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group.
Stevens’ last meeting on Sept. 11 was with Turkish Consul General Ali Sait Akin, and a source told Fox News that Stevens was in Benghazi “to negotiate a weapons transfer in an effort to get SA-7 missiles out of the hands of Libya-based extremists.”
Syrian rebels subsequently began shooting down Syrian helicopters and fighter jets with SA-7s akin to those in Qaddafi’s looted stock.This theory seems sound enough to CNN that they actually mention it in today’s bombshell, albeit as something that’s being kicked around on the Hill. Is that what happened here? The White House decided to secretly start arming the rebels a year ago with the sort of SAMs that everyone fears might eventually be used to shoot down western airliners? Did Congress, or at least the intel committees, know about it? Do note: Even now, after the U.S. announced that it would arm the rebels openly last month, we’re supposedly withholding SAMs from them because they’re too dangerous. If the “secret weapons shipments” theory is true, then in fact we’ve been giving them the dangerous stuff for at least a year. Beyond that, anyone recognize the name Abdelhakim Belhadj? I’ve written about him before. Belhadj is no “moderate” of the sort we’re allegedly working with within the rebel ranks. He’s a hardcore jihadi who fought with Bin Laden in Afghanistan. If he was the point man on helping to transfer dangerous weapons to the Syrian rebels, there’s even less reason to think that they ended up in “moderate” hands rather than in the hands of the mujahedeen.
One other point. As far as I know, it’s a lingering mystery as to how the jihadis who attacked the consulate in Benghazi knew where the CIA annex was. The consulate’s a public presence so it’s a sitting duck. The annex kept a lower profile, even though it was close by, and yet the attackers zeroed in on it later in the evening of 9/11/12. Why? Could be it was as simple as knowing that there was another building in the neighborhood that had lots of Americans working at it and therefore that building was worth hitting too. Or maybe they just noticed suspicious traffic to the annex on the evening of the attack and decided to take a closer look. But if the “secret weapons shipments” theory is true, it could also be that bad actors in the city had actually dealt with the CIA there about getting arms to Syria and therefore knew full well where the annex was and who was inside. If that’s what happened, it’s like Afghanistan in microcosm in terms of jihadis ultimately biting the American hand that fed them.
Exit question: What was the CIA doing in Benghazi?
http://hotair.com/archives/2013/08/01/cnn-bombshell-dozens-of-cia-operations-were-on-the-ground-during-the-benghazi-attack-agency-in-panic-over-revelations/
Connecting IRS Targeting Dots -- to the Obama Campaign
Connecting the dots of the IRS targeting scandal is
complicated work. Yesterday, it was reported that, among other
misconduct, the IRS's Lois Lerner had illegitimately provided confidential tax information about a conservative group, the American Issues Project, to a staff lawyer at the FEC seeking to build a case against AIP.
Commenting on this development, the Wall Street Journal's Kimberly Strassel adds an invaluable reminder: The initial attack on AIP was launched by the Obama campaign:
By February 2009, an FEC attorney was asking Lerner to share "any information" on AIP -- and nine minutes after that request was made, Lerner directed IRS attorneys to comply with it. This occurred even though it is illegal for the IRS to share confidential information and despite the FEC staff lacking permission from the Commission even to conduct this inquiry.
Commenting on this development, the Wall Street Journal's Kimberly Strassel adds an invaluable reminder: The initial attack on AIP was launched by the Obama campaign:
In late summer of 2008, Obama lawyer Bob Bauer took issue with ads run against his boss by a 501(c)(4) conservative outfit called American Issues Project. Mr. Bauer filed a complaint with the FEC, called on the criminal division of the Justice Department to prosecute AIP, and demanded to see documents the group had filed with the IRS.
By February 2009, an FEC attorney was asking Lerner to share "any information" on AIP -- and nine minutes after that request was made, Lerner directed IRS attorneys to comply with it. This occurred even though it is illegal for the IRS to share confidential information and despite the FEC staff lacking permission from the Commission even to conduct this inquiry.
Earlier this week, all three Republican FEC commissioners released a statement
detailing the extremes to which the FEC staff went to try to deliver a
"win" for the Obama administration against AIP. These measures included
producing three different reports with three different rationales for
why the FEC should pursue AIP; conducting an unauthorized investigation
into AIP; and wrongly withholding the results of its (unathorized)
research from AIP. The report makes it clear that one of the staff's
novel theories, on AIP's expenditures (advocated to force the conclusion
that it violated the law), creates "the potential for . . . targeting"
and concludes that "Due process should prevent such shenanigans."
Indeed.
The entire sordid episode raises serious questions for the Obama administration. As Ms. Strassel succinctly puts it:
How long can The White House and its allies continue to claim this is all just a big coincidence?
The Obama campaign takes its vendetta against a political opponent to the FEC. The FEC staff, as part of an extraordinary campaign to bring down AIP and other 501(c)(4) groups, reaches out to Lois Lerner, the woman overseeing IRS targeting. [FEC Vice Chairman Don] McGahn has also noted that FEC staff has in recent years had an improperly tight relationship with the Justice Department—to which the Obama campaign also complained about AIP.
How long can The White House and its allies continue to claim this is all just a big coincidence?
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/carolplattliebau/2013/08/01/connecting-all-the-ugly-irs-dots-n1654598
New Links Emerge in the IRS Scandal
Emails released this week sweep the Federal Election Commission into the conservative-targeting probe.
Congressional investigators this week released emails suggesting that
staff at the Federal Election Commission have been engaged in their own
conservative targeting, with help from the IRS's infamous Lois Lerner.
This means more than just an expansion of the probe to the FEC. It's a
new link to the Obama team.
In May this column noted that the targeting of conservatives started in 2008, when liberals began a coordinated campaign of siccing the federal government on political opponents. The Obama campaign helped pioneer this tactic.
In late summer of 2008, Obama lawyer Bob Bauer took issue with ads run against his boss by a 501(c)(4) conservative outfit called American Issues Project. Mr. Bauer filed a complaint with the FEC, called on the criminal division of the Justice Department to prosecute AIP, and demanded to see documents the group had filed with the IRS.
Thanks to Congress's newly released emails, we now know that FEC attorneys went to Ms. Lerner to pry out information about AIP—the organization the Obama campaign wanted targeted. An email from Feb. 3, 2009, shows an FEC attorney asking Ms. Lerner "whether the IRS had issued an exemption letter" to AIP, and requesting that she share "any information" on the group. Nine minutes after Ms. Lerner received this FEC email, she directed IRS attorneys to fulfill the request.
This matters because FEC staff didn't have permission from the Commission to conduct this inquiry. It matters because the IRS is prohibited from sharing confidential information, even with the FEC. What the IRS divulged is unclear. Congressional investigators are demanding to see all communications between the IRS and FEC since 2008, and given that Ms. Lerner came out of the FEC's office of the general counsel, that correspondence could prove illuminating.
It also matters because we now know FEC staff engaged in a multiyear effort to deliver to the Obama campaign its win against AIP. This past week, FEC Vice Chairman Don McGahn, joined by his two fellow Republican commissioners, wrote an extraordinary statement recounting the staff's behavior in the case.
When the FEC receives a complaint, it falls to the general counsel's office to first issue a report on the merits of the alleged campaign violations. The six-person commission then votes on whether there is a "reason to believe" a violation occurred. No formal investigations are to take place before that point.
The Obama team's complaint broadly claimed AIP was masquerading as a nonprofit, when it should have registered as a highly regulated political action committee. It was a ludicrous claim (see below), yet the FEC staff issued a report in April 2009 recommending the commission go after AIP, not long after its attorneys had been in touch with Ms. Lerner.
When the Supreme Court's 2010 ruling in Citizens United v. FEC made most of the Obama complaint irrelevant, the staff withdrew its first report, then took 18 months to come up with a second rationale for why the commission should pursue AIP. All this time, FEC staff—Mr. McGahn recounts—were conducting an unauthorized investigation into AIP. The staff was also improperly withholding the results of its research from AIP.
When new issues made its second attempt moot, the general counsel's office went after the group with a third report. AIP's defense all along was that it spent the majority of its money from 2007 to 2010 on its "major" organizational "purpose" of educating and informing the public of conservative principles, and only a minority (less than one-third) on direct campaign expenditures. As such, it easily meets the tests for being a 501(c)(4).
And so the FEC staff's third report presented a novel theory. The staff argued that AIP ought to be judged on what it spent per "calendar year." By shortening the timeline, and looking only at AIP's spending in 2008—an election year—the staff argued AIP had violated campaign law.
The Republican commissioners were appalled, noting that FEC staff had always taken a multiyear view of expenditures, including when it came to cases against liberal groups, like the League of Conservation Voters or the Moveon.org Voter Fund. The FEC staff also sought to impose this new standard after the fact, with no notice to election players and no input from the commissioners.
Vice Chairman McGahn's statement is scathing. "Here," he writes, FEC staff "could be seen as manipulating the timeline to reach the conclusion that AIP is a political committee. . . . Such after-the-fact determinations create the appearance of impropriety, whether or not such impropriety exists."
The broader AIP case is, in fact, beyond improper. It's fishy. The Obama campaign takes its vendetta against a political opponent to the FEC. The FEC staff, as part of an extraordinary campaign to bring down AIP and other 501(c)(4) groups, reaches out to Lois Lerner, the woman overseeing IRS targeting. Mr. McGahn has also noted that FEC staff has in recent years had an improperly tight relationship with the Justice Department—to which the Obama campaign also complained about AIP.
Democrats are increasingly desperate to suggest that the IRS scandal was the work of a few rogue agents. With the stink spreading to new parts of the federal government, that's getting harder to do.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323681904578642180886421040.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop
IRS Harasses Pro-Life Groups
“Even though the inspector general’s report claimed that the harassment of tea-party groups ended in 2012, the harassment of pro-life groups continues unabated,” says Peter Breen, Thomas More’s vice president and senior counsel.
In
a memo released yesterday, TMS, a nonprofit law firm focused on
pro-life and religious-liberty causes, detailed the obstacles that three
different pro-life groups faced in their attempts to be recognized as
charitable institutions. Two of the organizations, Cherish Life
Ministries and LIFE Runners, have finally been granted tax-exempt status
(although it took until late July for the latter to receive it), while a
third, Emerald Coast Coalition for Life, is still waiting.
In May this column noted that the targeting of conservatives started in 2008, when liberals began a coordinated campaign of siccing the federal government on political opponents. The Obama campaign helped pioneer this tactic.
In late summer of 2008, Obama lawyer Bob Bauer took issue with ads run against his boss by a 501(c)(4) conservative outfit called American Issues Project. Mr. Bauer filed a complaint with the FEC, called on the criminal division of the Justice Department to prosecute AIP, and demanded to see documents the group had filed with the IRS.
Thanks to Congress's newly released emails, we now know that FEC attorneys went to Ms. Lerner to pry out information about AIP—the organization the Obama campaign wanted targeted. An email from Feb. 3, 2009, shows an FEC attorney asking Ms. Lerner "whether the IRS had issued an exemption letter" to AIP, and requesting that she share "any information" on the group. Nine minutes after Ms. Lerner received this FEC email, she directed IRS attorneys to fulfill the request.
This matters because FEC staff didn't have permission from the Commission to conduct this inquiry. It matters because the IRS is prohibited from sharing confidential information, even with the FEC. What the IRS divulged is unclear. Congressional investigators are demanding to see all communications between the IRS and FEC since 2008, and given that Ms. Lerner came out of the FEC's office of the general counsel, that correspondence could prove illuminating.
It also matters because we now know FEC staff engaged in a multiyear effort to deliver to the Obama campaign its win against AIP. This past week, FEC Vice Chairman Don McGahn, joined by his two fellow Republican commissioners, wrote an extraordinary statement recounting the staff's behavior in the case.
When the FEC receives a complaint, it falls to the general counsel's office to first issue a report on the merits of the alleged campaign violations. The six-person commission then votes on whether there is a "reason to believe" a violation occurred. No formal investigations are to take place before that point.
The Obama team's complaint broadly claimed AIP was masquerading as a nonprofit, when it should have registered as a highly regulated political action committee. It was a ludicrous claim (see below), yet the FEC staff issued a report in April 2009 recommending the commission go after AIP, not long after its attorneys had been in touch with Ms. Lerner.
When the Supreme Court's 2010 ruling in Citizens United v. FEC made most of the Obama complaint irrelevant, the staff withdrew its first report, then took 18 months to come up with a second rationale for why the commission should pursue AIP. All this time, FEC staff—Mr. McGahn recounts—were conducting an unauthorized investigation into AIP. The staff was also improperly withholding the results of its research from AIP.
When new issues made its second attempt moot, the general counsel's office went after the group with a third report. AIP's defense all along was that it spent the majority of its money from 2007 to 2010 on its "major" organizational "purpose" of educating and informing the public of conservative principles, and only a minority (less than one-third) on direct campaign expenditures. As such, it easily meets the tests for being a 501(c)(4).
And so the FEC staff's third report presented a novel theory. The staff argued that AIP ought to be judged on what it spent per "calendar year." By shortening the timeline, and looking only at AIP's spending in 2008—an election year—the staff argued AIP had violated campaign law.
The Republican commissioners were appalled, noting that FEC staff had always taken a multiyear view of expenditures, including when it came to cases against liberal groups, like the League of Conservation Voters or the Moveon.org Voter Fund. The FEC staff also sought to impose this new standard after the fact, with no notice to election players and no input from the commissioners.
Vice Chairman McGahn's statement is scathing. "Here," he writes, FEC staff "could be seen as manipulating the timeline to reach the conclusion that AIP is a political committee. . . . Such after-the-fact determinations create the appearance of impropriety, whether or not such impropriety exists."
The broader AIP case is, in fact, beyond improper. It's fishy. The Obama campaign takes its vendetta against a political opponent to the FEC. The FEC staff, as part of an extraordinary campaign to bring down AIP and other 501(c)(4) groups, reaches out to Lois Lerner, the woman overseeing IRS targeting. Mr. McGahn has also noted that FEC staff has in recent years had an improperly tight relationship with the Justice Department—to which the Obama campaign also complained about AIP.
Democrats are increasingly desperate to suggest that the IRS scandal was the work of a few rogue agents. With the stink spreading to new parts of the federal government, that's getting harder to do.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323681904578642180886421040.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop
IRS Harasses Pro-Life Groups
Months later, the IRS is still targeting activists who oppose Obama's policies.
Months after the inspector general’s report in May that revealed the IRS had specifically targeted tea-party groups applying for tax-exempt status as charitable organizations, the IRS continued to stall pro-life groups’ applications for tax-exempt status, according to the Thomas More Society (TMS). What President Obama condemned as one of various “phony scandals” isn’t nearly over yet.“Even though the inspector general’s report claimed that the harassment of tea-party groups ended in 2012, the harassment of pro-life groups continues unabated,” says Peter Breen, Thomas More’s vice president and senior counsel.
Both Cherish Life and LIFE endured an unusually lengthy application
process: It took them 16 and 14 months respectively to receive 501(c)(3)
status (which is for tax-exempt charities). According to TMS, the IRS
approves most groups within nine months.
But there are troubling signs that the delays were motivated by disapproval of the groups’ pro-life work. The IRS asked LIFE, “Does your organization provide information regarding other alternatives to ‘pro life’?” To put that question into context, recall that Planned Parenthood has 501(c)(3) status. LIFE co-founder and president Pat Castle says he found the question “shocking.”
The pro-life groups also observed other red flags. Both LIFE and Emerald Coast were deemed to need an “Exempt Organization specialist” to review their application, an extra hurdle in the process that most groups don’t face. The IRS letter to Emerald Coast stating that the organization would need such a specialist was signed by none other than Lois Lerner. The letter, which Emerald Coast received September 7, 2012, informed the group that the IRS would be in touch in approximately 90 days. The IRS didn’t contact Emerald Coast, however, until June 19, 2013 — 285 days later.
Furthermore, both LIFE and Cherish Life initially received letters from the IRS stating that they were not eligible for 501(c)(3) status. If the groups had not persisted and appealed, they would not have received tax-exempt status.
According to LIFE’s Castle, who is also an Air Force commander, the long delay hurt the group financially. LIFE had initially applied for the tax-exempt status in March 2012. Having heard that many groups received such status six to eight months after the IRS received their application, LIFE anticipated winning approval by October 2012, when the group held one of its biggest events. But they had not received any answer from the IRS by then. Nor had the group yet received tax-exempt status when it held other large events in January, March, and April 2013.
“It hurt us,” Castle says bluntly, noting that the October 2012 marathon event (runners across the country participate in Marathons to benefit LIFE Runners) was particularly crucial. “We would have been able to say, ‘Hey, sponsors, contributors, we’re tax-exempt.’ We weren’t able to do that.”
“If the process went as it should have gone, we would have been able to motivate a whole lot more giving,” Castle says. “Of course it affects contributions.”
TMS’s Breen underscores that we should see these pro-life groups as part of a “pattern of harassment from the IRS starting in 2009” and continuing to this day.
“The only conclusion we can draw,” Breen says, “is that it was the Obama administration that changed a policy, whether informally or formally, which resulted in numerous organizations being targeted.”
And it’s giving left-wing organizations an unfair advantage.
“Left-wing groups don’t have to go and get lawyers and make constitutional arguments to justify their existence as public charities,” Breen points out. At least for now, some pro-life groups are still facing partisan hurdles from the IRS when it comes to obtaining tax-exempt status.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/355021/irs-harasses-pro-life-groups-katrina-trinko
But there are troubling signs that the delays were motivated by disapproval of the groups’ pro-life work. The IRS asked LIFE, “Does your organization provide information regarding other alternatives to ‘pro life’?” To put that question into context, recall that Planned Parenthood has 501(c)(3) status. LIFE co-founder and president Pat Castle says he found the question “shocking.”
The pro-life groups also observed other red flags. Both LIFE and Emerald Coast were deemed to need an “Exempt Organization specialist” to review their application, an extra hurdle in the process that most groups don’t face. The IRS letter to Emerald Coast stating that the organization would need such a specialist was signed by none other than Lois Lerner. The letter, which Emerald Coast received September 7, 2012, informed the group that the IRS would be in touch in approximately 90 days. The IRS didn’t contact Emerald Coast, however, until June 19, 2013 — 285 days later.
Furthermore, both LIFE and Cherish Life initially received letters from the IRS stating that they were not eligible for 501(c)(3) status. If the groups had not persisted and appealed, they would not have received tax-exempt status.
According to LIFE’s Castle, who is also an Air Force commander, the long delay hurt the group financially. LIFE had initially applied for the tax-exempt status in March 2012. Having heard that many groups received such status six to eight months after the IRS received their application, LIFE anticipated winning approval by October 2012, when the group held one of its biggest events. But they had not received any answer from the IRS by then. Nor had the group yet received tax-exempt status when it held other large events in January, March, and April 2013.
“It hurt us,” Castle says bluntly, noting that the October 2012 marathon event (runners across the country participate in Marathons to benefit LIFE Runners) was particularly crucial. “We would have been able to say, ‘Hey, sponsors, contributors, we’re tax-exempt.’ We weren’t able to do that.”
“If the process went as it should have gone, we would have been able to motivate a whole lot more giving,” Castle says. “Of course it affects contributions.”
TMS’s Breen underscores that we should see these pro-life groups as part of a “pattern of harassment from the IRS starting in 2009” and continuing to this day.
“The only conclusion we can draw,” Breen says, “is that it was the Obama administration that changed a policy, whether informally or formally, which resulted in numerous organizations being targeted.”
And it’s giving left-wing organizations an unfair advantage.
“Left-wing groups don’t have to go and get lawyers and make constitutional arguments to justify their existence as public charities,” Breen points out. At least for now, some pro-life groups are still facing partisan hurdles from the IRS when it comes to obtaining tax-exempt status.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/355021/irs-harasses-pro-life-groups-katrina-trinko
Seattle officials call for ban on 'potentially offensive' language
Government workers in the city of Seattle have been advised that the
terms "citizen" and "brown bag" are potentially offensive and may no
longer be used in official documents and discussions.
KOMO-TV reports that the city's Office of Civil Rights instructed city workers in a recent internal memo to avoid using the words because some may find them offensive.
"Luckily, we've got options," Elliott Bronstein of the Office for
Civil Rights wrote in the memo obtained by the station. "For 'citizens,'
how about 'residents?'"
In an interview with Seattle's KIRO Radio, Bronstein said the term "brown bag" has been used historically as a way to judge skin color.
"For a lot of particularly African-American community members, the phrase brown bag does bring up associations with the past when a brown bag was actually used, I understand, to determine if people's skin color was light enough to allow admission to an event or to come into a party that was being held in a private home," Bronstein said.
According to the memo, city employees should use the terms "lunch-and-learn" or "sack lunch" instead of "brown bag."
Bronstein told KIRO Radio the word "citizen" should be avoided because many people who live in Seattle are residents, not citizens.
"They are legal residents of the United States and they are residents of Seattle. They pay taxes and if we use a term like citizens in common use, then it doesn't include a lot of folks," Bronstein said.
Seattle, however, isn't the only city with an eye on potentially disruptive words.
The New York Post reported in March 2012 that the city’s Department of Education avoids references to words like “dinosaurs,” “birthdays,” “Halloween” and dozens of other topics on city-issued tests because they could evoke “unpleasant emotions” among the students.
Dinosaurs, for example, conjures the topic of evolution, which could rile fundamentalists and birthdays are not celebrated by Jehovah’s Witnesses. Halloween, meanwhile, suggests an affiliation to Paganism.
Officials said such exclusions are normal procedure, insisting it’s not censorship.
“This is standard language that has been used by test publishers for many years and allows our students to complete practice exams without distraction,” a Department of Education spokeswoman told the newspaper last year.
KOMO-TV reports that the city's Office of Civil Rights instructed city workers in a recent internal memo to avoid using the words because some may find them offensive.
"Luckily, we've got options."- Elliott Bronstein, Seattle's Office for Civil Rights
In an interview with Seattle's KIRO Radio, Bronstein said the term "brown bag" has been used historically as a way to judge skin color.
"For a lot of particularly African-American community members, the phrase brown bag does bring up associations with the past when a brown bag was actually used, I understand, to determine if people's skin color was light enough to allow admission to an event or to come into a party that was being held in a private home," Bronstein said.
According to the memo, city employees should use the terms "lunch-and-learn" or "sack lunch" instead of "brown bag."
Bronstein told KIRO Radio the word "citizen" should be avoided because many people who live in Seattle are residents, not citizens.
"They are legal residents of the United States and they are residents of Seattle. They pay taxes and if we use a term like citizens in common use, then it doesn't include a lot of folks," Bronstein said.
Seattle, however, isn't the only city with an eye on potentially disruptive words.
The New York Post reported in March 2012 that the city’s Department of Education avoids references to words like “dinosaurs,” “birthdays,” “Halloween” and dozens of other topics on city-issued tests because they could evoke “unpleasant emotions” among the students.
Dinosaurs, for example, conjures the topic of evolution, which could rile fundamentalists and birthdays are not celebrated by Jehovah’s Witnesses. Halloween, meanwhile, suggests an affiliation to Paganism.
Officials said such exclusions are normal procedure, insisting it’s not censorship.
“This is standard language that has been used by test publishers for many years and allows our students to complete practice exams without distraction,” a Department of Education spokeswoman told the newspaper last year.
No comments:
Post a Comment