Do you fully support the current party in control of the government? If not, you have something to hide.
Do you fully support the party that will be in control of the government in five years? If not, you have something to hide.
You think I'm being silly? Six months ago you might have been able to float that argument, but with an openly partisan IRS, go ahead, tell me why that's wrong.
I agree with your message, however was the IRS really being partisan or is it that tea party groups in particular(and those that seek to fund them) are more actively exploiting the "social welfare organization" loophole?
The IRS was being partisan. I consider this fairly well established at this point. The only remaining question is exactly where the idea to be aggressively partisan came from.
Applying correct amounts of scrutiny to one set of people, and abusive amounts of scrutiny to another, is still being partisan. Don't let them hide behind that.
Seriously. It's extraordinarily dangerous to our way of life to try to defend the IRS on this one because, I presume, you don't like the Tea Party. This isn't bad news for Tea Party or conservative groups. This is bad news for anyone subject to IRS jurisdiction. Who's going to be in control of the IRS in four years? (We're a ways out, but certainly decent odds it ain't gonna be someone with a (D) after their name.)
Do you fully support the party that will be in control of the government in five years? If not, you have something to hide.
You think I'm being silly? Six months ago you might have been able to float that argument, but with an openly partisan IRS, go ahead, tell me why that's wrong.