GOP to Planned Parenthood: Hand over records

[mhaze]

PP is audited regularly and passes all the time.

What is the justification for the charade of yet another special audit? Why aren't the regular audits good enough? (Please don't guess, but give concrete reasons.)

I've commented on this in my prior posts and don't see any reason to repeat them.

 

[Drachasor]

I've commented on this in my prior posts and don't see any reason to repeat them.

You didn't give any reason to think the regular auditing would have been insufficient. You just said that was your concern. What is that concern based on?

 

[mhaze]

Isn't the whole idea that we can direct how federal dollars are spent for any group with a significant mix of income sources and a wide variety of services provided kind of nonsensical? If Congress found any discrepancy, it would only prove that Planned Parenthood's bookkeepers suck.

Creating elaborate accounting games and then hoping for a misstep seems rather Byzantine to me.

What happens with a government contractor if their bookkeepers suck is that they get heavy fines, their contracts may be cancelled or they are put on probation sort of, and watched carefully for compliance.

"Bookkeepers Suck" is one type of a lack of quality control. There are of course many others for example in the delivery of the contracted services, in accuracy, in timeliness, in degree of customer service.

PP has no constitutional or common law right to government money.

None whatsoever.

 

[mumblethrax]

What happens with a government contractor if their bookkeepers suck is that they get heavy fines, their contracts may be cancelled or they are put on probation sort of, and watched carefully for compliance.

Yes, you've successfully defended the idea that Planned Parenthood shouldn't hire incompetent bookkeepers. What you haven't done is to answer my question about government placing arbitrary demands on Planned Parenthood's accountants. You haven't explained what this restriction can actually hope to accomplish, beyond tripping up a ****** accountant. You also haven't squared this behavior with the GOP's conception of itself as the party of "small government."

 

[Spindrift]

I've commented on this in my prior posts and don't see any reason to repeat them.

You didn't give anything specific that would justify it. The track record of PP is exemplary. What new evidence has appeared that would give probable cause that PP is not following the rules when everything up to this point has shown that they are?

 

[johnny karate]

Should? I said nothing about should happen. What I said pertains to what does happen, and what likely will happen. Wishing the world were a better place than it is will not make it so.

So just a shrug of the shoulders from you then? Fair enough. We're all entitled to our opinions.

I just hope for your sake that if your rights and freedoms are someday threatened by extremists, the rest of us don't just shrug our shoulders and walk away.

 

[mhaze]

Yes, you've successfully defended the idea that Planned Parenthood shouldn't hire incompetent bookkeepers. What you haven't done is to answer my question about government placing arbitrary demands on Planned Parenthood's accountants. You haven't explained what this restriction can actually hope to accomplish, beyond tripping up a ****** accountant. You also haven't squared this behavior with the GOP's conception of itself as the party of "small government."

Obviously you've never had to deal with EEOC compliance audits, EPA inspectors, ADA compliance or any of a number of government ragulattory agencies.

Maybe because i have no amount of what might seem to be "arbitrary demands" would surprise me.

....You also haven't squared this behavior with the GOP's conception of itself as the party of "small government."

Neither do I need to, and neither is there a necessary ambiguity.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

I have no problem with establishing the facts.

Must. Resist. Temptation.

 

[johnny karate]

You didn't give any reason to think the regular auditing would have been insufficient. You just said that was your concern. What is that concern based on?

You didn't give anything specific that would justify it. The track record of PP is exemplary. What new evidence has appeared that would give probable cause that PP is not following the rules when everything up to this point has shown that they are?

Clearly, you two haven't been paying attention to what mhaze has been saying:

First, there are many varieties of "audit", and the previous historical ones may not have got to the root of this issue.

Is that not getting through to you?

The previous historical ones may not have got to the root of the issue.

If that isn't a call for immediate and drastic action, I don't know what is.

 

[Ziggurat]

So just a shrug of the shoulders from you then? Fair enough. We're all entitled to our opinions.

I just hope for your sake that if your rights and freedoms are someday threatened by extremists, the rest of us don't just shrug our shoulders and walk away.

Rights? What rights? The right of PP to do what they want? They willingly gave that up when they took federal funding. So what rights, exactly, should I be getting upset about? I'm not getting upset because so far I don't see any rights being violated at all here.

 

[mumblethrax]

Maybe because i have no amount of what might seem to be "arbitrary demands" would surprise me.

I'm unclear on why what would or would not surprise you is relevant to my observation.

Neither do I need to, and neither is there a necessary ambiguity.

Oh, you don't need to. You can just let my characterization of the GOP's actions as Byzantine stand if you like.

But expounding on topics that aren't in contention doesn't get us anywhere.

 

[johnny karate]

Rights? What rights? The right of PP to do what they want? They willingly gave that up when they took federal funding. So what rights, exactly, should I be getting upset about? I'm not getting upset because so far I don't see any rights being violated at all here.

How about the right to privacy for the patients of Planned Parenthood of which you so are so callously dismissive?

 

[Drachasor]

Is that not getting through to you?

The previous historical ones may not have got to the root of the issue.

If that isn't a call for immediate and drastic action, I don't know what is.

I was actually referring to that in particular, for what it is worth.

 

[mhaze]

You didn't give any reason to think the regular auditing would have been insufficient. You just said that was your concern. What is that concern based on?

The simple fact that not only are there various "levels" of audit, but there are different focuses of audits. These are laid out in print in detail. It's not at all clear that the specific issue that the Congressmen are concerned with was (A) covered in a formal audit of a prior period (B) covered in an audit of a formal period with the degree of authentication desired (C) covered in an audit of the current period of concern (D) is to be covered in the upcoming routine audit of the current period.

In general, the routine audits of someone getting government money would not address the specific question "Are you using government money unlawfully for X". Or that would be one issue out of perhaps fifty. There would be a standard list that was followed. Show the invoices, show the payments. Verify by calling a supplier that the invoice is real and that the payment did occur. On and on and on.

Looking at the actual issues on the Internet...

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...hes-probe-planned-parenthood/?test=latestnews

In a move Democrats decried as "unfair and unjustified," Rep. Cliff Stearns, R-Fla., earlier this month wrote to Planned Parenthood informing them that the House Energy and Commerce Committee was looking at the group's "institutional practices and policies."
Stearns, chairman of the committee's oversight panel, said in a statement that federal funding indirectly helps Planned Parenthood pay for abortions despite legal restrictions. Leaving no doubt about his intentions, he said that funding "should be evaluated" along with other expenses to reduce the deficit.



"Although Planned Parenthood is barred from using federal funds to perform abortions, these funds are fungible and allow the group to use funds from other sources ostensibly for abortions," Stearns said in a statement. "Since the Planned Parenthood Foundation of America receives about $1 million a day in taxpayer funds, I sent a letter to the group's president requesting documents and information as we look at the organization's use of federal dollars and its compliance with various laws."


Stearns also cited what he called the group's "extensive record of violating state sexual assault and child abuse reporting laws, and of encouraging young girls to lie about their ages to circumvent state reporting laws."


The line was an apparent reference to a series of sting operations conducted by anti-abortion group Live Action. The group has released videos which appear to show, in some cases, Planned Parenthood employees offering advice to people posing as sex traffickers.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...ned-parenthood/?test=latestnews#ixzz1ZHdJC0Yq
​

​

 

[Drachasor]

The simple fact that not only are there various "levels" of audit, but there are different focuses of audits. These are laid out in print in detail. It's not at all clear that the specific issue that the Congressmen are concerned with was (A) covered in a formal audit of a prior period (B) covered in an audit of a formal period with the degree of authentication desired (C) covered in an audit of the current period of concern (D) is to be covered in the upcoming routine audit of the current period.

In general, the routine audits of someone getting government money would not address the specific question "Are you using government money unlawfully for X". Or that would be one issue out of perhaps fifty. There would be a standard list that was followed. Show the invoices, show the payments. Verify by calling a supplier that the invoice is real and that the payment did occur. On and on and on.

Looking at the actual issues on the Internet

So in other words you have nothing other than baseless assertions. You have no idea what audits have been done, so you are just claiming more audits are good? You cite blatant partisan attacks as justification for this? Seriously?

 

[Ziggurat]

How about the right to privacy for the patients of Planned Parenthood of which you so are so callously dismissive?

At this point, I don't find that criticism particularly credible. It sounds like the sort of thing people panic about but doesn't actually happen.

 

[Alferd_Packer]

Yes the investigation could be abused in a partisian manner.

At issue is whether American taxpayers are unwittingly underwriting elective abortions, in violation of federal law. Absolutely not, says Planned Parenthood. But congressional Republicans are not so sure.

That bolded statement has long been in dispute. I have no problem with establishing the facts.

In dispute by who? You?

Or people with ulterior motives to shut down PP?

First, there are many varieties of "audit", and the previous historical ones may not have got to the root of this issue. For example, funds may be commingled. Then the use of federal funds for an illegal use couldn't be proved from an audit that accepted that accounting convention without simply apportioning on a percentage basis.

Other materials may have been shielded on the basis of patient confidentiality or other ruses.

I'm okay with the audit, but would much prefer it to be done by GAO, not Congress...don't they have other things they are supposed to be worrying about?

Speculation on your part is not proof of anything.

And, as I pointed out, patient confidentiality is NOT a “ruse.” It is a viable and legitmate issue. Too bad for you.

Nonsense. Let them look into it and see what they find. A single problem would not have brought down Acorn, rather it was an endemic set of problems that caused bipartisian consensus votes against Acorn.

You seem to think that something that's controversial can't stand examination under the light of day. I strongly disagree with that.

None of those far right arguments are about PP being an organization that does abortions and receives federal money. They are all about PP getting federal money and doing abortions with it. That should be an open and shut issue when the books are opened.

Of course I suspect what they've done is comingled facilities, staff and procedures to obfuscate understanding. But that doesn't fly. No more than in an engineering lab with some commmercial, and some government work on cost reimbursement basis (Fixed fee is different). The audit establishes what amount of building cost, salaries, overhead was for the government work.

Seriously. There are all kinds of ways PP could be subverting (breaking) the law and if they are not, the religious right doesn't have a leg to stand on in this issue.

I know in this area it's extremely easy for a girl to walk into PP and get an abortion. I have no clue how one would figure out whether that was partly subsidized by federal money from the consumer point of view.

PP is audited regularly and passes all the time.

What is the justification for the charade of yet another special audit? Why aren't the regular audits good enough? (Please don't guess, but give concrete reasons.)

I've commented on this in my prior posts and don't see any reason to repeat them.

No you did not.

You provided a vauge accusation and various rationalizations and speculations, but you most definitely did not answer the question. Let me repeat it:

What is the justification for the charade of yet another special audit? Why aren't the regular audits good enough? (Please don't guess, but give concrete reasons.).

What evidence to you have to support your claims regarding the inadequacy of the previous audits?

Speculation doesn’t cut it.

 

[mhaze]

....You provided a vauge accusation and various rationalizations and speculations, but you most definitely did not answer the question. Let me repeat it:

What is the justification for the charade of yet another special audit? Why aren't the regular audits good enough? (Please don't guess, but give concrete reasons.).

What evidence to you have to support your claims regarding the inadequacy of the previous audits?

Speculation doesn’t cut it.

????

Part of the committee's requests are FOR THE RECORDS OF THE AUDITS. I suppose they will review them and see if there is reason to go further or not.

The transcripts of the proceedings will be online, and I'm sure the video will be on youtube.

And by the way, I don't feel any compulsion to respond to demands from you. If you don't like my comments, don't converse with me. I'll bring specific facts in when I choose, as can anyone.

 

[thaiboxerken]

It's amazing that Conservatives are against regulations...unless it's for abortion.

 

[BenBurch]

Must. Resist. Temptation.

Not worth the yellow card.