Democrats: "IRS problems? It's the Supreme Court's fault!"
The administration's lies about the IRS just get funnier--or sicker, depending on your party--every day.
Turns out Democrats on the senate "finance committee" are actually claiming that the blame for the IRS abuses of conservative applicants for tax-exempt classification lies with...well certainly not with Democrat bureaucrats in the IRS. And certainly not with their supervisors.
And MOST certainly not with the head of the Democratic Party, Barack "Kenya" Obama.
Rather, the blame lies with...the Supreme Court!
Yep, they're really claiming that. See, back in 2010 the court made this ghastly, awful ruling that no branch of the government could limit political spending, whether by unions, corporations or any other group.
According to Democrats this decision was absolutely ghastly because...well it's hard to get a straight answer. You get a lot of emotion and hype and hyperbole but the substance seems to be that the decision put corporations under the same rules as unions.
Naturally union bosses hated that, because up til that point they'd been able to "suggest" that their individual members donate to Democrat campaigns. Which they did. In way lopsided numbers.
Example: Donations by members of the "National Treasury Employees Union" went to Dems by something like 93% to 7%.
Plus, unions are allowed to use part of every members' dues for political donations--a huge advantage corporations simply don't have. So unions viewed taking away that advantage--levelling the playing field--as a huge hit.
But hey, it's all good. Nothing to see here, citizen. All part of the "layered defense" strategy of top Democrat strategists. Here's the list:
1) There was absolutely no targeting by the IRS;
2) If anything remotely like that happened, it only affected perhaps ten or 12 wacko-fringe, Tea Party, "insurrectionist" groups, so there's nothing to be concerned about;
3) If anything happened it was all due to decisions made by overzealous, low-level (or in Lois Lerner's clever phrasing, "front-line") employees, acting entirely on their own with no direction from anyone higher up;
4) If anything happened it was because Republicans cut the IRS budget...meaning the IRS didn't have enough employees...so the poor government employees were all terribly overworked, which logically means they'd be more prone to make mistakes;
5) If anything happened it was because the Supreme Court, in "Citizens United," ruled that conservative political-action groups could get tax-exempt status just like unions and liberal political-action groups, which led to a wave of applications--and overworked IRS employees;
6) "This entire thing is a political witch-hunt ginned up by Republicans to damage the president!"
7) No one in the White House knew anything about this until they read it in the papers--indeed, it would be impossible for anyone in the WH to have known about this because government is so vast that it's virtually unmanageable (but not so vast that we Dems didn't vote to expand it to take over all health insurance and health care decisions);
8) Okay, it's theoretically possible that some minor, low-level employee on the White House staff may have known about the alleged IRS activity before Ms. Lerner's scripted question. But if so, no one ever informed anyone higher up the chain of command. This is called "compartmentalization" and is a very sophisticated technique used in managing large organizations;
9) If any secret emails were to be discovered on an unwiped server, using a fake name but coming from the computer of Valerie Jarrett, it doesn't prove anything; Republicans are constantly hacking into the computers of upstanding Democrats. After all, look what happened to Anthony Weiner;
10) "What the IRS may have done may have been poor judgment but was NOT illegal!" -- Nancy Pelosi, former Speaker of the House;
11) Even if it turns out Ms. Jarrett knew about the alleged IRS "heightened scrutiny," it doesn't mean she told the president, because compartmentalization;
12) You people are all raaacists!
13) "If the president does it, that makes it legal."
14) "I am not a crook."
Turns out Democrats on the senate "finance committee" are actually claiming that the blame for the IRS abuses of conservative applicants for tax-exempt classification lies with...well certainly not with Democrat bureaucrats in the IRS. And certainly not with their supervisors.
And MOST certainly not with the head of the Democratic Party, Barack "Kenya" Obama.
Rather, the blame lies with...the Supreme Court!
Yep, they're really claiming that. See, back in 2010 the court made this ghastly, awful ruling that no branch of the government could limit political spending, whether by unions, corporations or any other group.
According to Democrats this decision was absolutely ghastly because...well it's hard to get a straight answer. You get a lot of emotion and hype and hyperbole but the substance seems to be that the decision put corporations under the same rules as unions.
Naturally union bosses hated that, because up til that point they'd been able to "suggest" that their individual members donate to Democrat campaigns. Which they did. In way lopsided numbers.
Example: Donations by members of the "National Treasury Employees Union" went to Dems by something like 93% to 7%.
Plus, unions are allowed to use part of every members' dues for political donations--a huge advantage corporations simply don't have. So unions viewed taking away that advantage--levelling the playing field--as a huge hit.
But hey, it's all good. Nothing to see here, citizen. All part of the "layered defense" strategy of top Democrat strategists. Here's the list:
1) There was absolutely no targeting by the IRS;
2) If anything remotely like that happened, it only affected perhaps ten or 12 wacko-fringe, Tea Party, "insurrectionist" groups, so there's nothing to be concerned about;
3) If anything happened it was all due to decisions made by overzealous, low-level (or in Lois Lerner's clever phrasing, "front-line") employees, acting entirely on their own with no direction from anyone higher up;
4) If anything happened it was because Republicans cut the IRS budget...meaning the IRS didn't have enough employees...so the poor government employees were all terribly overworked, which logically means they'd be more prone to make mistakes;
5) If anything happened it was because the Supreme Court, in "Citizens United," ruled that conservative political-action groups could get tax-exempt status just like unions and liberal political-action groups, which led to a wave of applications--and overworked IRS employees;
6) "This entire thing is a political witch-hunt ginned up by Republicans to damage the president!"
7) No one in the White House knew anything about this until they read it in the papers--indeed, it would be impossible for anyone in the WH to have known about this because government is so vast that it's virtually unmanageable (but not so vast that we Dems didn't vote to expand it to take over all health insurance and health care decisions);
8) Okay, it's theoretically possible that some minor, low-level employee on the White House staff may have known about the alleged IRS activity before Ms. Lerner's scripted question. But if so, no one ever informed anyone higher up the chain of command. This is called "compartmentalization" and is a very sophisticated technique used in managing large organizations;
9) If any secret emails were to be discovered on an unwiped server, using a fake name but coming from the computer of Valerie Jarrett, it doesn't prove anything; Republicans are constantly hacking into the computers of upstanding Democrats. After all, look what happened to Anthony Weiner;
10) "What the IRS may have done may have been poor judgment but was NOT illegal!" -- Nancy Pelosi, former Speaker of the House;
11) Even if it turns out Ms. Jarrett knew about the alleged IRS "heightened scrutiny," it doesn't mean she told the president, because compartmentalization;
12) You people are all raaacists!
13) "If the president does it, that makes it legal."
14) "I am not a crook."
posted by SF at
1:13 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home