Rubio calls for IRS commissioner to resign.

Newtons Bit said:
Did you reply to the wrong person? This is totally non-sequitur to the post you are replying to.
Click to expand...
No it's not.

Newtons Bit said:
I hear that the guy running the ATF doesn't even work 40 hours a week as the acting Director. What a lazy bum.

RandFan said:
Will no one explain why we can't have a Director instead of an acting Director and only using that fact as a punch line? C'mon. What's the deal? If it's no big deal then appoint a Director. That's the elephant in the room. And BTW, calling all politicians scum isn't an answer either. This is a calculated move. To what end?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
The guy running the ATF isn't the director. The GOP won't appoint a director which requires a part time manager. That's A.) Idiotic. B.) Political.

No non-sequitur.
 
eeyore1954 said:
Why are you so sure that he "didn't think he was talking about someone who held a position lower than Commissioner".
Click to expand...

Because Rubio's words were:

"t is clear the IRS cannot operate with even a shred of the American people's confidence under the current leadership. I strongly urge that you and President Obama demand the IRS Commissioner's resignation, effectively immediately. No government agency that has behaved in such a manner can possibly instill any faith and respect from the American public."
Click to expand...


And again, not only is there no evidence that the Commissioner in office at the time ordered or condoned the practice of using these terms as flags, there is also no evidence yet that anyone did so for malicious reasons (to harass political opponents or whatever). There is certainly no evidence that Miller did anything wrong or illegal.

Maybe it's just my own standards, but before I called for someone's resignation, I'd have to have evidence of all of that, and then make sure people knew who I was talking about by using his name.

And I think the only people who don't have a shred of confidence in the IRS are those who never did and never will, regardless of who is the Commissioner.
 
It would do Obama well to fire some high-ranking officials dealing with this and the AP wiretap fiasco. It would show that he is not beyong criticism and when heads need to role he roles them.

Unlike Bush.
 
JoeTheJuggler said:
Because Rubio's words were:



And again, not only is there no evidence that the Commissioner in office at the time ordered or condoned the practice of using these terms as flags, there is also no evidence yet that anyone did so for malicious reasons (to harass political opponents or whatever). There is certainly no evidence that Miller did anything wrong or illegal.
Click to expand...

I think the timeline I quoted before showed that Miller did not handle the situation correctly.


Maybe it's just my own standards, but before I called for someone's resignation, I'd have to have evidence of all of that, and then make sure people knew who I was talking about by using his name.
Click to expand...
The only problem I see was that he did not say acting commissioner. The timeline shows that Miller was involved in this for a long time. He was the person who sent two responses to GOP letters which do not acknowledge that the IRS had inappropriately targeted tea party groups or asked improper questions about their contributors.
He knew about this for over a year but never came forward with what had been done.
It seems very likely he meant the acting commissioner as his spokesperson says.

Quote:
April 19, 2010: The Sensitive Case Report is shared with two executives in Washington, DC, one of whom is Lois Lerner and the other her immediate subordinate.

June 29, 2011: The Director of EO in Washington, DC, Lois Lerner, is briefed that the criteria being used by employees includes “Tea Party,” “Patriots,” “9/12 Project,” “Government Spending,” “Government Debt,” “Taxes,” “make America a better place to live,” and cases with statements that criticize how the country is being run.


March 23 – 27, 2012: Steven Miller, Deputy Commissioner for Services and Enforcement, asks his Senior Technical Advisor to look into what was going on in the Cincinnati office regarding Tea Party applications.

April 26, 2012: Steven Miller Deputy Commissioner for Services and Enforcement sends response to March 14th GOP letter. The letter does not acknowledge that the IRS had inappropriately targeted tea party groups or asked improper questions about their contributors.

May 3, 2012: Steven Miller Deputy Commissioner for Services and Enforcement is briefed that these conservative groups had been targeted by the IRS.

September 11, 2012: Steven Miller Deputy Commissioner for Services and Enforcement sends response to June 18th GOP letter. The letter does not acknowledge that the IRS had inappropriately targeted tea party groups or asked improper questions about their contributors.
Click to expand...

And I think the only people who don't have a shred of confidence in the IRS are those who never did and never will, regardless of who is the Commissioner.
Click to expand...
The public in general does not have much faith in the IRS. Since the days I worked there back in the late 70's taxpayers without itemized deductions could send there w-2's attached to a 1040 and request the IRS to calculate there returns. Rest assured only a very small percentage did this. They would prefer to pay a preparer than trust the IRS.
 
eeyore1954 said:
The public in general does not have much faith in the IRS. Since the days I worked there back in the late 70's taxpayers without itemized deductions could send there w-2's attached to a 1040 and request the IRS to calculate there returns. Rest assured only a very small percentage did this. They would prefer to pay a preparer than trust the IRS.
Click to expand...

Confidence in the IRS as an agency isn't the same as saying you'd want them to figure your taxes for you. But many people do let them calculate parts of their return for them. (They sent me a letter last year saying I might qualify for the EIC even though I had no children. I signed the letter letting them calculate it for me, and they sent me something like $70 that I wasn't expecting and wouldn't have claimed on my own.)

Again, before I publicly call for someone's resignation, I'd want to know there was wrongdoing and that the person I was asking to quit was the person responsible for it. I've yet to see evidence of either of these two things.
 
From the New York Times today:

Management Flaws at I.R.S. Cited in Tea Party Scrutiny

WASHINGTON — An inspector general’s report issued Tuesday blamed ineffective Internal Revenue Service management in the failure to stop employees from singling out conservative groups for added scrutiny. Congressional aides, meanwhile, sought to determine whether the Obama administration’s knowledge of the effort extended beyond the I.R.S.
. . .
Mismanagement at the agency allowed “inappropriate criteria” for the singling out of conservative groups to be developed and stay in place for more than 18 months, starting in 2010, the report said. That resulted in “substantial delays” for groups applying for tax-exempt status, either as 501(c)(4) or 501(c)(3) organizations, and it allowed unnecessary and intrusive information like donor lists to be gathered. I.R.S. officials told the inspector general that all donor information received was later destroyed.
. . .
And Steven Miller, now the acting I.R.S. commissioner, was aware of the matter in March 2012, a month before he told Republican senators there was no special treatment for conservative applicants for tax exemption.
Click to expand...

So there you go.
 
On the other hand, the NYT article also says:

The inspector general did seem to back up the Obama administration’s portrayal of a roguelike operation in Cincinnati flouting the wishes of senior I.R.S. officials in Washington.

After being briefed on the screening criteria in June 2011, which included a search of case files for criticism of how the country was being run, Ms. Lerner immediately ordered them to be expanded to encompass applicants that would not necessarily be conservative. But in January 2012, the Cincinnati team had again changed the criteria “without executive approval because they believed the July 2011 criteria were too broad,” the report said.
Click to expand...
 
JoeTheJuggler said:
Confidence in the IRS as an agency isn't the same as saying you'd want them to figure your taxes for you. But many people do let them calculate parts of their return for them. (They sent me a letter last year saying I might qualify for the EIC even though I had no children. I signed the letter letting them calculate it for me, and they sent me something like $70 that I wasn't expecting and wouldn't have claimed on my own.)

Again, before I publicly call for someone's resignation, I'd want to know there was wrongdoing and that the person I was asking to quit was the person responsible for it. I've yet to see evidence of either of these two things.
Click to expand...

I would not call for a resignation without evidence either but the fact that he knew for over a year and apparently said nothing is not good. And since he was the one who wrote the letters responding to the GOP make me believe Rubio meant him.
 
Acting IRS Head Resigns Amid Scandal

WASHINGTON—The head of the Internal Revenue Service resigned Wednesday as the fallout widened from the agency's treatment of tea-party groups.

President Barack Obama made the announcement from the White House, saying Treasury Secretary Jacob Lew had requested and accepted the resignation of the IRS acting commissioner, Steven Miller.
Click to expand...
 
Puppycow said:
Acting IRS Head Resigns Amid Scandal

WASHINGTON—The head of the Internal Revenue Service resigned Wednesday as the fallout widened from the agency's treatment of tea-party groups.

President Barack Obama made the announcement from the White House, saying Treasury Secretary Jacob Lew had requested and accepted the resignation of the IRS acting commissioner, Steven Miller.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Well, let's give Rubio his political due. He asked for the head of the IRS to resign and that has happened. Not sure how important it is but I'm happy to acknowledge that fact.
 
RandFan said:
Well, let's give Rubio his political due. He asked for the head of the IRS to resign and that has happened. Not sure how important it is but I'm happy to acknowledge that fact.
Click to expand...

I would hope he wasn't ask to resign just because some politician called for it.
 
eeyore1954 said:
I would hope he wasn't ask to resign just because some politician called for it.
Click to expand...
Well, let's look at this. How many Conservative groups were denied status? How many of those groups were potentially political and perhaps not deserving of a 401(c)?

There are two concepts in Tort Law known as harm and malice. In order to receive compensatory damages there must be harm. In order to receive punitive damages there needs to be malice (yes I know none of this event is a Tort but work with me a moment). Absent malice and harm I see no reason whatsoever to fire Miller other than political reasons. None. As I understand Bush appointed both Shulman and Miller. As Shulman said, mistakes were made but they were not partisan. Demanding that Shulman step down, IMO, is purely political but a smart move in the end by the Obama admin to ask him to leave.

Yeah, I would hope that politics were not the singular reason but there is zero evidence for me to believe that in the end this is anything but politics.
 
Last edited:
triforcharity said:
Wait, can I suggest Clinton for the position?


Anyway, I understand the sentiment expressed by Rubio. People need to be held accountable.
Click to expand...

True!!! And I would love to see the major conservatives arrested, tried and convicted for the evil they have done to this country and a very large number of it's citizens. That would finally show them being responsibly accountable.
 
RandFan said:
Well, let's look at this. How many Conservative groups were denied status?
Click to expand...
You honestly believe they had to be denied status in order for there to have been harm done to them?

How many of those groups were potentially political and perhaps not deserving of a 401(c)?
Click to expand...
All of them are potentially political but yet none were denied status. They were just singled out for much greater scrutiny.

There are two concepts in Tort Law known as harm and malice. In order to receive compensatory damages there must be harm. In order to receive punitive damages there needs to be malice (yes I know none of this event is a Tort but work with me a moment).
Click to expand...
There may or may not have been malice. The people who did it say no but it was also denied for a year that it was being done.

Absent malice and harm I see no reason whatsoever to fire Miller other than political reasons. None.
Click to expand...
You don't see other reasons for firing someone. I don't think his particular actions have to rise to the level of malice or harm in order for him to be removed from his job. What about the apparent fact that he knew or should have known about what was going on when he wrote the letters that did not acknowledge what had happened.


As I understand Bush appointed both Shulman and Miller. As Shulman said, mistakes were made but they were not partisan. Demanding that Shulman step down, IMO, is purely political but a smart move in the end by the Obama admin to ask him to leave.
Click to expand...
No one demanded that Schulman step down and who care who he was appointed by.

Yeah, I would hope that politics were not the singular reason but there is zero evidence for me to believe that in the end this is anything but politics.
Click to expand...
One of the directors jobs is public relations and someone failed drastically on that part.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom