The Pardu

Archive for February 8th, 2014|Daily archive page

Issa’s Secret Meetings With Treasury Inspector General For Tax Administration

In Darrel Issa, The Daily Kos on February 8, 2014 at 7:58 PM

Re-Blog from The Daily Kos

Immediately after a lackadaisical non-voting public handed the GOP a majority in the US House of Representatives Darrel Issa (R) California made the following announcement.


“I want seven hearings a week, times 40 weeks,” Issa said. November 2010.  

The very nature of the comment was a clear indication of Issa’s intent to use the House Oversight Committee as a personal detective agency to advance GOP Obstruction against President Obama. The nation’s 44th President had been in office a scant year as Issa spoke the comment.  

After witnessing and living through the second most corrupt Administration in US History (Bush/Cheney) we wonder why the GOP strategy to dig for dirt where no dirt exists?  (Most corrupt? No, not Richard Nixon…guess again! Think 1980s and then do a Google search) Interesting enough, almost five years later Issa has come up with no viable charges against the administration. In fact, he stumbled into a couple of embarrassing revelations that pointed at his party.  Fast & Furious started in raw form when Bush was in office and Benghazi has turned into a shallow “rebel-yell” with fingers pointing at Congress and Ambassador Steven’s twice denial of offers of increased Embassy security. 

(NOTE: Despite a failed attempt by 60 Minutes to capitalize on Benghazi and a detailed an credible investigation via the New York Times, we continue to hear Right-wing strategy with Benghazi as a was cry. Lest we forget the IRS Issues some refer to as “Scandal.” 

Issa continues to stumble through the Chair person seat and he resorts to actions not uncommon for a convicted felon

The Daily Kos has published a piece that indicates Isaa continues to operate form the shadows and appears willing to do anything to full his role as GOP Hit-man against President Obama. 


We can’t say Seymour Hersh didn’t warn us. It’s looking like the IRS Inspector General, J. Russell George, a Dubya appointee, is the ultimate stay-behind. In the middle of last year, he was caught meeting exclusively with Issa and his Goposaur gang to drum up phony IRS scandal claims. Well now, he’s been caught doing the exact same thing, but regarding an IRS ‘audit’ of the Affordable Care Act.
Thank goodness for Rep. Elijah Cummings and Rep. Gerald Connelly, who wrote the ‘honorable’ IRS IG a letter, which they cc’ed to Issa, and is posted in full after the jump…
Read more after the break below


February 4, 2014

The Honorable J. Russell George
Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration
U.S. Department of the Treasury
City Center Building
1401 H Street, NW, Suite 469
Washington, D.C. 20005
Dear Mr. Inspector General:
            We are writing to object strongly to your office’s repeated partisan meetings with Chairman Darrell Issa and his staff after intentionally excluding Democratic Committee Members and staff—particularly regarding matters that currently are under active investigation by both your office and this Committee.
            We have been informed that your staff held an in-person meeting with Republican Committee staff in their offices on January 27, 2014.  During this meeting, your staff discussed substantive information about a new audit your office has initiated on data security issues relating to the Affordable Care Act.  Your staff also discussed specific documents relating to this audit that your office has obtained as part of its review.
According to subsequent accounts from your office, Chairman Issa’s staff forbade you from including any Democratic Committee Members or staff in that meeting, and your staff accepted these terms without even informing my office.  Democratic staff became aware of this meeting only after it occurred.
These private, partisan meetings undermine your obligation as an Inspector General to conduct audits and investigations in a balanced and non-partisan manner.  Your actions cause observers to question whether the scope of your new audit on the Affordable Care Act is being inappropriately influenced by Chairman Issa and his staff, similar to the way they influenced the scope of your audit on IRS screening of applicants for tax-exempt status.
In the case of your audit of tax-exempt applicants, we learned only after the fact that your staff held a private meeting and other communications with Chairman Issa’s staff that also excluded Democratic Committee Members and staff.  As in this case, your staff discussed the scope and substance of that active audit with Republican staff without any knowledge or participation of Democratic Members or staff.  You also had official correspondence with Chairman Issa that you failed to provide to any Democratic Committee Members.
            Of course, Chairman Issa’s request for the review of tax-exempt applicants, as well as your office’s work on that audit, has come under severe criticism for focusing only on the treatment of conservative groups and failing to consider similar treatment of progressive groups.  According to press accounts at the time, your Communications Director explained that this flaw was due to specific constraints placed on your office by Chairman Issa:
As for why the report failed to mention that progressive groups, along with tea party groups, had been placed on IRS so-called Be On The Lookout lists for special scrutiny, Karen Kraushaar, the communications director at the treasury inspector general’s office, said investigators had been constrained by their mission statement.  House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) had specifically requested that investigators “narrowly focus on tea party organizations.”  So they did just that, Kraushaar said.
            Notwithstanding these explicit statements, you claimed in testimony before our Committee that your Communications Director was wrong.  You had this exchange with Committee Member Gerry Connolly:
Rep. Connolly:              Mr. George, there have been reports with respect to the scope of your audit or review, including by the spokesperson in your office, that you met with the chairman of this committee and, essentially, he helped limit the scope of the review.
Mr. George:                 That’s incorrect, sir.
Rep. Connolly: That is incorrect?
Mr. George:                The report I did see, but that did not occur.
Rep. Connolly:              So Karen Kraushaar, your spokesperson who quoted—who said, and I quote, that Darrell Issa had specifically requested that investigators, quote, “narrowly focus on Tea Party organizations,” unquote, so they did just that, according to Kraushaar, that is an inaccurate statement?
Mr. George:                 That is correct.
Rep. Connolly:              On what basis would she make such a statement on your behalf to the press?
Mr. George:                 Well, it was not without my authorization, and she misspoke, sir.
We have stated repeatedly that this Committee exercises its greatest authority when we act in a bipartisan manner.  Private meetings with Members of only one political party clearly risk influencing the scope of audits, the questions that are asked, and the ultimate results.  In addition to having the appearance of partisanship and impropriety, they result in information being shared with only half of the Committee.  All Committee Members need access to the same information to conduct a fair and responsible analysis of the facts.
            For these reasons, we now have three requests:
(1)        First, we ask that your office provide the Democratic staff with the same in-person briefing that was provided to Chairman Issa’s staff on January 27, as well as all information your office has shared with the Chairman’s staff on this matter to date.
(2)        In addition, if the Committee continues to insist on a partisan approach that excludes Democrats, we believe it is your responsibility, as an Inspector General charged with conducting non-partisan reviews, to resist these tactics, and we request that you not consent to any terms that deny Members of one political party the opportunity to participate in briefings or meetings relating to your active audits or investigations.
(3)        Finally, because you and your Communications Director have made conflicting publicstatements regarding your audit of tax-exempt applicants, please provide copies of all documents within TIGTA’s possession or control related to any statements made by Ms. Kraushaar in June 2013 relating to the audit of tax-exempt applicants, including all emails or other communications between you, Karen Kraushaar, or any other TIGTA employee.
Thank you for your cooperation with this request.    
Sincerely,
            Elijah E. Cummings                                           Gerald Connolly
            Ranking Member                                               Ranking Member
Subcommittee on Government Operations
cc:        The Honorable Darrell E. Issa, Chairman
(my bold)
Update 1:
Democratic Representatives Connolly and Cartwright have now filed a formal complaint against IG George with the Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency. From The Washington Post:

Two House Democrats on Thursday called for an investigation of a federal auditor who accused the Internal Revenue Service of gross mismanagement and targeting advocacy groups for extra scrutiny based on their names and policy positions.

Reps. Gerry Connolly (D-Va.) and Matt Cartwright (D-Penn.) on Wednesday filed a complaint with a special watchdog council questioning the independence of Treasury Department inspector general J. Russell George.
The congressmen, both of whom serve as top Democrats on House oversight committees, said George produced a “fundamentally flawed performance audit” that was “incomplete” and “outright misleading.” They also alleged that he held briefings with Republican members of the House Oversight Committee without the knowledge of Democrats on the panel.

 http://www.washingtonpost.com/…

Read the entire 22-page complaint here:
http://connolly.house.gov/…

ORIGINALLY POSTED TO ANIMAL NUZ ON FRI FEB 07, 2014 AT 09:39 AM PST.

ALSO REPUBLISHED BY CALIFORNIA POLITICS.

US Politics and Life Blood Money…The Center for Responsive Politics 2012/2014

In 2012 Presidential Race, 2012 Top Contributors, ALAN GRAYSON, House, Kochs, Kochs. Karl Rove, Open Secrets, Presidential Race, Senate, Source of Funds, Tea Party, The Center for Responsive Politics on February 8, 2014 at 6:14 PM



The Center for Responsive Politics informs…… via Open Secrets Dot Org

As I read a blog posting from Alan Grayson regarding his re-election campaign for the US House of Representatives, his comments about Koch brothers spending led to thoughts of 2012. In 2012, campaign contributions reflect Barack Obama’s defeat of Mitt Romney, and contribution from small donors (like me) carried the campaign contribution win.  
Alan Grayson

The Koch Brothers are already spending a fortune running dirty ads in my district attacking me.
Americans for Prosperity intensifies pressure on congressional Democrats by launching another round of TV commercials. Targets this time include …..
All of the special interests want nothing more than to beat us and silence us. The question is, will you let them?
It’s only February, and the Koch Brothers are already up on the air, with hundreds of thousands of dollars in attack ads. They are ….

Yes, it appears the Kochs have targeted Florida, just as they target North Carolina. The people of North Carolina are fighting back and in many cases winning. It is critical that high information people (voters) maintain a knowledge stream and knowledge base for sharing with others. 


The Center for Responsive Politics is one of the very best. Money in politics is a  infectious cancer across our democracy with both political parties reaping the benefit of campaign donations. Karl Rove and Koch brothers (cabal) money did not win the 2012 General Election for Mitt Romney. Small donors outpaced large donors and Obama won handily. 

Dark money in 2013 and 2014 is flowing like a melting iceberg’ a dangerous melting. Money in US politics is a shameful reality, but it is an existential reality that we must deal with it. I often see and track donation to the Left as well as the Right. While, I certainly see democrats reporting donations, a quick review of their voting records (via Open Congress and Gov Track) allows me recognize the majority of Democrats are not legislating as stooges and tools for American corporatist and plutocrats.


The following is a detailed readout of the 2012 General Election “money-trail” results for Obama and Romney. Remember,  the past is a great predictor of future  behavior in human beings, EXCEPT WHEN IT COMES TO POLITICS.

Open Secrets

2012 Presidential Race


Barack Obama (D) 

Mitt Romney (R)
RAISED $715,677,692 $446,135,997
SPENT $683,546,548 $433,281,516
DEBTS $7,223,153 $1,200,000
CASH
(ON HAND)
$5,397,399 $12,921,629

OVERALL
SPENDING
(SEE MORE)
BLUE TEAM
$1,107,114,464
RED TEAM
$1,238,090,807

A detailed  breakdown for real numbers geeks.

Source of Funds

legend
legend
Small Indiv Contrib.
Large Indiv. Contrib.
$233,215,440
$489,660,089
Individual contributions $715,150,163
legend PAC contributions $0
legend Candidate self-financing $5,000
legend Federal Funds $0
legend Other $522,529
legend
legend
Small Indiv. Contrib.
Large Indiv. Contrib.
$79,806,091
$366,336,696
Individual contributions $443,363,010
legend PAC contributions $1,076,496
legend Candidate self-financing $52,500
legend Federal Funds $0
legend Other $1,643,991

Top Contributors

Barack Obama (D)

1 University of California $1,212,245
2 Microsoft Corp $814,645
3 Google Inc $801,770
4 US Government $728,647
5 Harvard University $668,368
Mitt Romney (R)

1 Goldman Sachs $1,033,204
2 Bank of America $1,013,402
3 Morgan Stanley $911,305
4 JPMorgan Chase & Co $834,096
5 Wells Fargo $677,076
NOTE: The organizations themselves did not donate, rather the money came from the organizations’ PACs, their individual members or employees or owners, and those individuals’ immediate families. Organization totals include subsidiaries and affiliates.

Top States

Barack Obama (D)
California $62,759,989
New York $36,982,096
Illinois $17,847,698
Massachusetts $17,315,441
Texas $15,240,394
Mitt Romney (R)

California $41,290,366
Texas $36,364,691
Florida $31,101,749
New York $24,670,565
Virginia $13,901,197

Sector Totals

Barack Obama (D)
transparent

Agribusiness $2,067,055
Communications/ Electronics $20,723,578
Construction $4,172,690
Defense $1,141,130
Energy & Natural Resources $2,410,062
Finance, Insurance & Real Estate $20,431,321
Health $18,914,849
Lawyers & Lobbyists $27,959,192
Transportation $1,378,606
Misc Business $22,598,697
Labor $494,094
Ideological/ Single-Issue $17,276,836
Other $91,795,660
Mitt Romney (R)

Agribusiness $7,409,733
Communications/ Electronics $7,518,745
Construction $9,734,459
Defense $1,365,334
Energy & Natural Resources $9,788,922
Finance, Insurance & Real Estate $58,902,452
Health $18,692,033
Lawyers & Lobbyists $15,791,881
Transportation $5,803,510
Misc Business $29,090,785
Labor $4,250
Ideological/ Single-Issue $10,522,878
Other $72,942,064

Top Industries

Barack Obama (D)

Retired $54,522,578
Lawyers/Law Firms $27,533,147
Education $21,615,820
Health Professionals $10,456,340
Business Services $8,646,106
Mitt Romney (R)

Retired $64,727,865
Securities & Investment $21,525,657
Real Estate $14,895,300
Lawyers/Law Firms $14,285,200
Health Professionals $12,598,997

Spending Related to Presidential Race 

   Blue Team
Candidate Spending $683,546,548
National Party Spending $292,264,802
Outside Spending $131,303,114
Total $1,107,114,464
   Red Team
Candidate Spending $433,281,516
National Party Spending $386,180,565
Outside Spending $418,628,726
Total $1,238,090,807
NOTE: All the numbers on this page are for the 2012 election cycle and based on Federal Election Commission data released electronically on Monday, March 25, 2013.
(“Help! The numbers don’t add up…”)
The Center for Responsive Politics

Our point and central theme of this screed? A look at 2014 shows donations are trending positive for America’s liberals and progressives. But, we have to remain ever-diligent of Koch cabal quick hit contributions that can and will overwhelming consistent donations to progressive politicians (or candidate hopefuls).  We like the analogy “Koch Money Bonzi.” When you have billions and access to the contributions of thousand who have billions (and millions), quick hit Bonzi campaign donations are easy to launch and direct. We are already seeing millions spent on attack advertisements that do influence and away the voting public. 

2014 Overview

House

Financial activity for all House candidates, 2013-2014

Democrats: $172,970,709
Republicans: $230,475,846
Party No. of Cands Total Raised Total Spent Total Cash
on Hand
Total
from PACs
Total
from Indivs
All 862 $403,910,628 $219,595,940 $329,587,398 $148,164,101 $218,690,135
Dems 381 $172,970,709 $96,818,260 $132,252,337 $63,450,122 $98,742,822
Repubs 467 $230,475,846 $122,444,766 $197,192,094 $84,713,979 $119,569,181

Senate

Financial activity for all Senate candidates, 2013-2014

Democrats: $107,006,605
Republicans: $79,826,709
Party No. of Cands Total Raised Total Spent Total Cash
on Hand
Total
from PACs
Total
from Indivs
All 128 $186,909,597 $85,496,603 $152,145,738 $35,852,794 $131,363,320
Dems 37 $107,006,605 $53,182,874 $75,287,945 $20,499,105 $81,874,118
Repubs 87 $79,826,709 $32,247,572 $76,846,596 $15,353,690 $49,462,182
Based on data released by the FEC on 01/23/2014.
To view data for previous cycles, visit our Big Picture section.


The American voter will allow the GOP to hold a firm Tea Party grip on the House of OZ. We simply have to avoid allowing the Kochs to takeover the US Senate. If that doomsday scenario happens, the Kochs will become far politically powerful than the President of the United States. That means doom for anyone who earns less than$150,000 per year, doom for minorities, doom for LGBT people, and doom for gender equity. You can rest assured the US geography will become the land of Industrialists who care nothing about climate control and combustion killing emissions.