IRS Official in Charge During Tea Party scandal Now Runs ObamaCare Office.

Status
Not open for further replies.

commedieu

Banned
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politic...-party-targeting-now-runs-health-care-office/


The Internal Revenue Service official in charge of the tax-exempt organizations at the time when the unit targeted tea party groups now runs the IRS office responsible for the health care legislation.
Sarah Hall Ingram served as commissioner of the office responsible for tax-exempt organizations between 2009 and 2012. But Ingram has since left that part of the IRS and is now the director of the IRS’ Affordable Care Act office, the IRS confirmed to ABC News today.

Pctx...

tumblr_m8bk1iwIlu1qbc6a5.gif
 
Shouldn't the Obama administration have realized this and immediately replaced her? Or are they going to double down and say the IRS did nothing wrong? If the President doesn't become more proactive to weed out and extinguish this nonsense (more for political reasons than policy) he'll continue to be perceived more and more as:

ZVf7rSV.jpg
 
Is it even a position he has the power to replace? I thought the President's office only really dealt with the heads of agencies, no power for other employees.
 
Did she have anything to do with an actual scandal, or is a bad thing because of guilt by association?

She was the head of the department, that specifically oversaw reviewing eligibility.

What you do with that information, well, thats up to you. But its a bad look for Obama, regardless if he knew or not.

They did a piss poor job, and were given a job of a lifetime in return.

Again, just a bad look. Ultimately, Obama's administration gave a job to the person responsible for delaying/denying equal rights.... Thats significant.
 
Shouldn't the Obama administration have realized this and immediately replaced her? Or are they going to double down and say the IRS did nothing wrong? If the President doesn't become more proactive to weed out and extinguish this nonsense (more for political reasons than policy) he'll continue to be perceived more and more as:

ZVf7rSV.jpg

it's still possible to not perceive him that way?
 
Shouldn't the Obama administration have realized this and immediately replaced her? Or are they going to double down and say the IRS did nothing wrong? If the President doesn't become more proactive to weed out and extinguish this nonsense (more for political reasons than policy) he'll continue to be perceived more and more as:

ZVf7rSV.jpg

I haven't a slightest clue. My gf and I are googling right now the whole story... we are behind and it just hit today.

- During the campaign the Administration was told about the IRS.

What were they thinking????? This is so abundantly sloppy, I have to wonder if this was a single person that decided to do this to the Tea Party. I love conspiracies, but this one is too crystal clear.

Republicans complained about the IRS not giving them status last year. The investigation proved that the republicans were right.

YOU HIRE THE WOMAN IN CHARGE OF DENYING APPLICANTS TO YOUR FUCKING ADMINISTRATION?

man. This is so thorough, if this is the way Obama goes down, well, it was thorough. A thorough fucking.
 
This information is actually a few days old, and there's a bit more fun to go with it. (Caveat: I don't know the reputation of the Washington Examiner, to which I just linked, and which I quote below. Anyone care to disparage it, or is it a relatively reliable source? Based on the language used in the article I've linked to, I'd guess it's a conservative paper.)

Washington Examiner said:
Sarah Hall Ingram, the IRS executive in charge of the tax exempt division in 2010 when it began targeting conservative Tea Party, evangelical and pro-Israel groups for harassment, got more than $100,000 in bonuses between 2009 and 2012.

...

Ingram received a $7,000 bonus in 2009, according to data obtained by The Washington Examiner from the IRS, then a $34,440 bonus in 2010, $35,400 in 2011 and $26,550 last year, for a total of $103,390. Her annual salary went from $172,500 to $177,000 during the same period.

The 2010, 2011 and 2012 bonuses were awarded during the period when IRS harassment of the conservative groups was most intense. The newspaper obtained the data via a Freedom of Information Act request.

...

Bonuses as large as those awarded to Ingram typically require presidential approval, according to federal personnel regulations.
 
Shouldn't the Obama administration have realized this and immediately replaced her? Or are they going to double down and say the IRS did nothing wrong? If the President doesn't become more proactive to weed out and extinguish this nonsense (more for political reasons than policy) he'll continue to be perceived more and more as:

ZVf7rSV.jpg

What has been seen, cannot be unseen. Damn.
 
This information is actually a few days old, and there's a bit more fun to go with it. (Caveat: I don't know the reputation of the Washington Examiner, to which I just linked, and which I quote below. Anyone care to disparage it, or is it a relatively reliable source? Based on the language used in the article I've linked to, I'd guess it's a conservative paper.)

Welp, if their story is accurate, and time will show. This is just getting better and better.

And I thought the hearings and Obama's words were live today?
 
Because she didn't authorize the investigations of Tea party groups?

The last I heard of the scandal, only a few low-level employees in the Cleveland IRS office were involved...

Well.. you could read things.. that say that she was the head of the department. Meaning that the buck stops with her. Meaning that she should be fired.. There are emails about targeting specific words and groups. You can't distance the head of the department. Even if she was unaware, sorry, you're out of a job, and you just potentially took a president down with ya.

This is the person that you give a job to. And as all the information suggests, the administration was well aware. Back in 2010(it seems) still googling.
 
I just hope this helps show, if even in a minute way, that all politicians, with so few exceptions you could count them on one hand, are corrupt and/or incompetent.

To say nothing of the egregious drone program...
 
Well.. you could read things.. that say that she was the head of the department. Meaning that the buck stops with her. Meaning that she should be fired.. There are emails about targeting specific words and groups. You can't distance the head of the department. Even if she was unaware, sorry, you're out of a job, and you just potentially took a president down with ya.

Regardless of the specifics of this situation, that's a meaningless sentiment taken as an idealistic law. By that metric Obama really does deserve full responsibility for anything and everything that's gone wrong in his government that he theoretically "had knowledge of", including Benghazi.

With that said, I'd look at replacing her now that this has come to light.
 
I like how the guy retiring in a few weeks was basically forced out so Obama would look tough while the person in charge during it all just gets Pay Bonuses and moved to anew department
 
Let's just say hypothetically, if there is a case that can be made for Obama's impeachment and it happens, this country is gonna dive into the depths of hell.
 
Judging from today's reaction on the Sunday shows the administration's plan going forward is denial and hoping to let time fix it. It's a dangerous strategy that could backfire massively in a midterm they were hoping to have real momentum in.

I think to look impartial they almost have to let an independent investigator have a go at this. Having their justice department investigate is only going to further the calls of conspiracy.
 
Let's just say hypothetically, if there is a case that can be made for Obama's impeachment and it happens, this country is gonna dive into the depths of hell.

There are far better reasons to impeach Obama than this IRS stuff (or Benghazi), but Republicans agree with him on those things and the Democrats would never impeach their own president.
 
Watching this unfold has been fascinating. Its a scandal yes. Its bad, yes, and it deserves to be investigated and dealt with. That said, as far as scandals go, its positivily tame.
Nobody died.
Billions of taxpayer dollars weren't wasted.
No-one was really hurt (unless you believe as a result of scrutiny a group that would have recieved the status did not, and I would love to read the details of that)

What I'm seeing so far is symptomatic of a media so desperate for anything to cover, any kind of scandel to grab attention, that something that is bad is being played up as something that is horrible.
 
Regardless of the specifics of this situation, that's a meaningless sentiment taken as an idealistic law. By that metric Obama really does deserve full responsibility for anything and everything that's gone wrong in his government that he theoretically "had knowledge of", including Benghazi.

With that said, I'd look at replacing her now that this has come to light.

No, we don't really have to do a slippery slope with what I said.. I'm specifically saying the reasons for your own conclusion. Reasons which include the IRS cheating citizens out of their rights. There was an audit, her name came up, shes hired for a job. Yes, She needs to be replaced, and Obama, is ultimately responsible for his administrations choices. This isn't coming from some republican, I'm an Obama supporter. But right is right.

The president, is always responsible for picking people to run their administration. Its the job. And yes, egg is on Obamas face, partially, over benghazi. But, republicans denied the funding for extra security. Full responsibility over people dying? Its not that crystal clear.

Full responsibility in hiring this person to your administration, and not vetting a person in charge of ObamaCare. Not looking into their previous line of work and ongoing investigation/audit? Yes, there is quite a sizable chunk of responsibility.

If this bonuses situation turns out to be true, its just more fuel on top of an already well burning fire.

edit;

And I'm really leaning towards perception of ultimate responsibility Techno.. for what its worth.

edit;

Hopefully people will see a trend developing with the IRS. They witheld information from congress, are running around stealing medical records and cell phones. I do think that the IRS's recent actions, are pretty despicable and unprecedented. - - But if Obama has more of a role in it, dude needs to bounce.
 
Is it even a position he has the power to replace? I thought the President's office only really dealt with the heads of agencies, no power for other employees.

He really shouldn't be getting involved in the careers of individual mid-level civil servants, but unfortunately he's set a pattern of firing people he probably doesn't have the technical power to fire just because the Republicans don't believe in a president who isn't a dictator. I'd expect this official to get terminated pretty soon as well.
 
We've been there since a black Kenyan socialist was elected dude

lol

Kidding aside, I am kind of serious. If Obama gets impeached because of this, I can see the left go into deep denial that the first black president was impeached. Especially when it would be partly because of the right-wing Citizen United law along with their deep hatred for the Tea Party. Followed by a potential double dip recession or a depression and we could be looking at a very dangerous situation.
 
lol

Kidding aside, I am fairly serious. If Obama gets impeached because of this, I can see the left go in deep denial that the first black president was impeached. Especially when it would be partly because of the right-wing Citizen United law along with their deep hatred for the Tea Party. Double dip recession or great depression 2.0 from lack of confidence. If the left doesn't accept the validity of the impeachment I could see them form another OWS (that won't be non-violent).

Nothing in this post makes any sense.
 
Could the president really get impeached over this?

They impeached the last Democratic president over screwing an intern, so, yeah, the standards for Republican impeachments of Democratic presidents are pretty low.

If you mean could he actually get convicted and removed from office, the answer is not in a million years.
 
They impeached the last Democratic president over screwing an intern, so, yeah, the standards for Republican impeachments of Democratic presidents are pretty low.

If you mean could he actually get convicted and removed from office, the answer is not in a million years.

yepp.. although, I just have a bad feeling that the man may have done something dumb. its a gut feeling.
 
I'm still not sure what's so wrong about IRS targeting organizations born out of anti-tax movement.
Because what they are looking for isn't "Are they paying taxes?

It's not a tax return. It's an application to become a nonprofit. They're looking to see how much political activity the group participates in. Whether you're for or against taxes doesn't logically affect how likely you are to engage in political activity.
 
Could the president really get impeached over this?

Depending on how much further evidence surfaces that indicates the president may have had a part in this, possibly. But remember now, impeachment doesn't necessarily mean "forced out of office."

All it means is that the president faces a legal statement of his charges and a legislative vote that determines conviction.

Now could the president really get convicted and thrown out of office for this? That looks quite unlikely.
 
Because what they are looking for isn't "Are they paying taxes?

It's not a tax return. It's an application to become a nonprofit. They're looking to see how much political activity the group participates in. Whether you're for or against taxes doesn't logically affect how likely you are to engage in political activity.

Yeah, that's why I'm saying. Why is IRS investigating a new crop of politically motivated groups, born out anti-tax movements applying for non-profit status that forbid political activities, so wrong.
 
It's not a tax return. It's an application to become a nonprofit. They're looking to see how much political activity the group participates in. Whether you're for or against taxes doesn't logically affect how likely you are to engage in political activity.

It does affect the likelihood that an entity would falsely claim tax exempt privilege. The belief that speech = money and that corporations are people whose political activities cannot be constitutionally restrained is a conservative one.
 
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/05/irs-defends-agency-obamacare-official

1.
Sarah Hall Ingram retained the title of commissioner, with oversight over tax-exempt groups, but the IRS says she moved to the agency’s Affordable Care Act office full time by the end of 2010, six months after the tax agency began selectively scrutinizing conservative groups.

2.
Despite the agency’s assertion today, however, Ingram maintained her title as commissioner of tax exempt and government entities, using it in testimony she delivered to congress in November 2011 and May 2012.
In late 2011, Ingram indicated that she served in two positions simultaneously.
“My name is Sarah Hall Ingram and I’m commissioner of the Tax Exempt and Government Entities Operating Division at the Internal Revenue Service. And I also serve as the executive lead for the IRS Operational Planning and Implementation of the Tax Law Provisions of the Affordable Care Act of 2010,” she testified before the House Ways and Means Committee Nov. 15, 2011.
And in this May 2012 testimony in the Senate Finance Committee over Indian tribes’ tax-exempt status, Ingram testified in her capacity as commissioner of tax-exempt groups, despite the IRS’s assertion that she was only responsible for the Affordable Care Act after 2010.
According to an inspector general report, a group within the IRS’s Cincinnati office began the practice of scrutinizing tea party applications for 501(c)4 tax-exempt status in July 2010, during Ingram’s tenure over the tax-exempt and government-entities division.
 
yepp.. although, I just have a bad feeling that the man may have done something dumb. its a gut feeling.

Who, Obama? If you're talking about giving orders to kill Americans without due process, of course. If you're talking about anything having to do with the IRS, no.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom