CBO’s estimate of the deficit for this year is about $200 billion below the estimate that it produced in February 2013, mostly as a result of higher-than-expected revenues and an increase in payments to the Treasury by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. For the 2014–2023 period, CBO now projects a cumulative deficit that is $618 billion less than it projected in February. That reduction results mostly from lower projections of spending for Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and interest on the public debt.

pacino wrote:down down the deficit goes, where it stops, nobody knows (except these guys):

CBO’s estimate of the deficit for this year is about $200 billion below the estimate that it produced in February 2013, mostly as a result of higher-than-expected revenues and an increase in payments to the Treasury by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. For the 2014–2023 period, CBO now projects a cumulative deficit that is $618 billion less than it projected in February. That reduction results mostly from lower projections of spending for Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and interest on the public debt.

Phan In Phlorida wrote:The IRS threatened to revoke the tax-exempt status of All Saints Episcopal (Pasadena CA) over an anti-Iraq War sermon the Sunday before the 2004 election, while conservative churches across the country were helping to mobilize voters for Bush without a peep from the IRS.

In 2004, the IRS went after the NAACP after its chairman criticized President Bush for being the first sitting president since Herbert Hoover not to address the organization.

In 2003, Public Interest Watch (a watch group that one year received 97% of its funding from Exxon Mobile) got the IRS to investigate and threaten to revoke the tax-exempt status of Greenpeace after Greenpeace had labeled Exxon Mobil the "No. 1 climate criminal."

People who didn't get rankled by this bullshit then have no right to get their panties in a bunch now and not have their indignation labeled partisan. It "ain't right", no matter which side does it, but to accept one and be infuriated by the other is the height of hypocrisy.

pacino wrote:if you wanna read the IRS audit

To determine if organizations other than those specifically identified in the inappropriate criteria were processed by the team of specialists, we reviewed the names on all applications identified as potential political cases.
Figure 4 shows that approximately one-third of the applications identified for processing by the team of specialists included Tea Party, Patriots, or 9/12 in their names, while the remainder did not. According to the Director, Rulings and Agreements, the fact that the team of specialists worked applications that did not involve the Tea Party, Patriots,or 9/12 groups demonstrated that the IRS was not politically biased in its identification of applications for processing by the team of specialists.

While the team of specialists reviewed applications from a variety of organizations, we determined during our reviews of statistical samples of I.R.C. § 501(c)(4) tax-exempt applications that all cases with Tea Party, Patriots, or 9/12 in their names were forwarded to the team of specialists.

[I]nappropriate criteria remained in place for more than 18 months. Determinations Unit employees also did not consider the public perception of using politically sensitive criteria when identifying these cases.Lastly, the criteria developed showed a lack of knowledge in the Determinations Unit of what activities are allowed by I.R.C. § 501(c)(3) and I.R.C. § 501(c)(4) organizations.

TenuredVulture wrote:If you really believe in free market economics, you probably shouldn't support the North Carolina or Texas Republican Party. Probably other states too.

Werthless wrote:

pacino wrote:if you wanna read the IRS audit

I read the audit, and I don't understand why you posted this picture. Is this to suggest that the impact was small?

They admit that there were 4 criteria they used to trigger these political audits. From your link, these were:
1. “Tea Party,” “Patriots” or “9/12 Project” is referenced in the case file
2. Issues include government spending, government debt or taxes
3. Education of the public by advocacy/lobbying to “make America a better place to live”
4. Statement in the case file criticize how the country is being run

Your graph points to the Director's argument, not the auditor's finding. From your link, a description of the picture you posted.

To determine if organizations other than those specifically identified in the inappropriate criteria were processed by the team of specialists, we reviewed the names on all applications identified as potential political cases.
Figure 4 shows that approximately one-third of the applications identified for processing by the team of specialists included Tea Party, Patriots, or 9/12 in their names, while the remainder did not. According to the Director, Rulings and Agreements, the fact that the team of specialists worked applications that did not involve the Tea Party, Patriots,or 9/12 groups demonstrated that the IRS was not politically biased in its identification of applications for processing by the team of specialists.

That's not evidence of lack of bias; that just means that 1/4 of the triggers were name based, and 3/4 of the triggers were due to the other 3 criteria.

The fact that 96 of the 96 organizations with Tea Party, 9/12, or Patriots were audited, independent of their adherence to the specifications of section 501(c)(4), is clear evidence of bias. From your link:

While the team of specialists reviewed applications from a variety of organizations, we determined during our reviews of statistical samples of I.R.C. § 501(c)(4) tax-exempt applications that all cases with Tea Party, Patriots, or 9/12 in their names were forwarded to the team of specialists.

Other juicy parts of your link:

[I]nappropriate criteria remained in place for more than 18 months. Determinations Unit employees also did not consider the public perception of using politically sensitive criteria when identifying these cases.Lastly, the criteria developed showed a lack of knowledge in the Determinations Unit of what activities are allowed by I.R.C. § 501(c)(3) and I.R.C. § 501(c)(4) organizations.

They didn't change the criteria appropriately when initially told to, they didn't consider whether the public would think what they were doing could blow up in their face and damage the credibility of the organization, and they didnt even know the law that they were tasked with enforcing.

It makes you really want to fight against their furloughs, doesn't it?

Kelly O'Donnell ‏@KellyO
AG Holder says he did not inform WH he recused himself in @AP case, did not do so in writing and cannot say when he did so.

Media Matters for America, a group that monitors the country’s conservative media for distortions and inaccuracies, fell in for criticism today over the Justice Department’s secret subpoena of the Associated Press’s phone records. As articulated by the Daily Caller:

Media Matters has weighed in on the news that the Justice Department secretly seized extensive phone records from the Associated Press, and the left-wing advocacy group is siding with the government

....

So, Media Matters for America, what do you have to say about this? After we put that question to the watchdog group, we got this statement saying, in effect: That’s not us. From David Brock, Chair of Media Matters for America and Media Matters Action Network:

Media Matters for America monitors, analyzes, and corrects conservative misinformation in the media and was not involved with the production of the document focusing on the DOJs investigation. That document was issued by “Message Matters,” a project of the Media Matters Action Network, which posts, through a different editorial process and to a different website, a wide range of potential messaging products for progressive talkers to win public debates with conservatives.

As a media watchdog organization, Media Matters for America recognizes that a free press is necessary for quality journalism and essential to our democracy. A healthy news media is what we fight for every day. Yesterday, 52 news organizations signed a letter to the Department of Justice expressing concerns that the DOJ’s broad subpoena of Associated Press reporters’ phone records runs counter to First Amendment principles and injures the practice of journalism. We stand with those news organizations and share their concerns.

jerseyhoya wrote:

Kelly O'Donnell ‏@KellyO
AG Holder says he did not inform WH he recused himself in @AP case, did not do so in writing and cannot say when he did so.

Wtf. He didn't recuse himself in writing and doesn't know when he recused himself?