Hofacre’s handling of those cases, she said, was highly influenced by Carter Hull, an IRS lawyer in Washington.I wanted to see how the NYT covered this story. Using the NYT's own search engine, I got zero hits for "Carter Hull" and only one for "Elizabeth Hofacre," a May 17th article, "Confusion and Staff Troubles Rife at I.R.S. Office in Ohio." Obviously, the May 17th article is telling the story of the low-level people screwing up, and not even out of a political agenda:
Hofacre said that she integrated questions from Hull into her follow-ups with Tea Party groups, and that Hull had to approve the letters seeking more information that she sent out to those organizations. That process, she said, was both unusual and “demeaning.”
The specialists, hunched over laptops on the office’s fourth floor, rarely discussed politics, one former supervisor said. Low-level employees in what many in the I.R.S. consider a backwater, they processed thousands of applications a year, mostly from charities like private schools or hospitals.Has the NYT ever explored any alternative version of the events? I use the search "I.R.S." in the time period of the last 7 days, and get some reports on the spending on conferences, a piece about a poll on what Americans think ("Americans were divided over whether blame for the scrutiny of conservative groups should extend to the Obama administration..."), and some things about GOP strategy ("While some in the G.O.P. aim to scar the Obama administration... "Some Republicans See I.R.S. Troubles as Means to a Big Goal: Tax Overhaul"). I'm not finding anything that varies from the original story of the confused, overworked staffers.
For months, the Tea Party cases sat on the desk of a lone specialist, who used “political sounding” criteria — words like “patriots,” “we the people” — as a way to search efficiently through the flood of applications for groups that might not qualify for exemptions, according to the I.R.S. inspector general. “Triage,” the agency’s acting chief described it.
Here's the June 6th article showing the results of a NYT/CBS poll: "I.R.S. Targeting of Conservatives Wrong, Most Say in Poll."
But the public is divided along party lines when assigning the blame for the scrutiny of the Tea Party and other conservative groups. Over all, 4 in 10 (including two-thirds of Democrats) think the I.R.S. acted on its own in investigating the conservative groups while slightly more (including 7 in 10 Republicans) say the Obama administration was involved. Those following the scandal closely and Tea Party supporters were significantly more likely than those who were not to say that the scrutiny was politically motivated.What if they were following the scandal closely in the New York Times? Is that even possible?!
Posts
43 comments:
Nice piece of work, Althouse. The weasels.
They've become experts at the sin of omission.
Was the NYT even following the scandal closely? Yes, they were/are. You can't do damage control otherwise.
The NYT was the journalistic home of Walter Duranty. There's another answer to the same question.
What's with the construction of this line?
"Over all, 4 in 10 (including two-thirds of Democrats) think the I.R.S. acted on its own in investigating the conservative groups while slightly more (including 7 in 10 Republicans) say the Obama administration was involved."
They can't say anything straight if it looks bad for their side, which is another form of the sin of omission. (Why do they take sides on the news pages anyway?)
Notice the twisting. The smaller result is presented first (because it supports their defense of Obama) while the primary result of the poll (the Obama administration is at fault) is only mentioned afterwards in passing with the vaguest of language ("slightly more").
I worked for the IRS 20 years. It's impossible to go rogue at the lower levels. Impossible.
Ah, yes, the crusading New York Times, the adults at the table, as someone put it.
They'll stick up for the victims of civil rights abuse.
As long as they think those victims are the Choom Gang.
The NYT is following it very closely. That's why they're not reporting it. They have too much invested in Democrats and Barack.
Independent thought and using education and experience is not to be tolerate in the new order of things. Once it was tolerated, but impeded advancement. Now it is forbidden. Even giving public notice to law breaking is not allowed...the recent *new* whistle-blower guidance by this administration is intended to intimidate whistlers and permit punishment ad hoc as necessary. When I find the link needed I'll post it.
This administration has a reverse whack-a-mole strategy. Bits and pieces of information surface due to ineptitude and clumsiness but nothing emerges whole, so the administration only admits to what is already obvious and answers no questions in depth. It is like whack-a-mole where every time you swing at a mole, it disappears before you can whack it....but a new one pops up elsewhere.
Imagine a game board with about 10,000 holes like a prairie dog town...so many critters popping up you no longer can where they are or where you are. It is the ultimate fruition of the Clinton's parsing of what *is* is....nothing *is* unless the administration says it is.
The mole you wish to whack is not there, it has moved, it isn't a mole, it is an eagle, or a walrus, you are confused, you are making a mountain out of said mole hill, ....get it?
Sorry for the run on crap this morning...I have a headache. Also, it isn't really here, it is over there.
They're reporting the polls they take of the opinions on the stories they're reporting (and not reporting in this case) rather than reporting on the story itself, as if it is the opinion of the perception of the situation that matters and not the situation itself.
I had the teevee on for five minutes and was presented with opinion polls on two sites, CNN and C-SPAN as if opinion of their low-ass information voters is the only thing that actually matters. OOPS! Make that three polls. I just switched the channel, Jesus Christ, FOUR polls, about ten commandments this time on some bizarre channel. We don't get news anymore, just other peoples' opinions.
And I don't respect other peoples' opinions. So that's a bummer.
Independent thought and reporting along with due diligence will return to the NYT when a Republican administration is once again in the White House. If that ever happens again.
I think that ultimately we ought to be looking at the NTEU. I suspect that they are the folks who provided the connection between the WH and the operation staffers, if there was one. The Shulman visits are not the source of the initial concept, though he might have provided some heads up on the emerging story/cover-up.
"All the news that fits"
Pete said...
I worked for the IRS 20 years. It's impossible to go rogue at the lower levels. Impossible.
Based upon my experience, both as a "Fed" working with the IRS and as a penalty "target" of the IRS, I have to agree with you on this statement.
What really pisses me off with the *low level* narratives by the excuse makers is that they n-e-v-e-r identify just what level is low level specifically. They want you to think it means the janitors or something.
Flat flipping fact is this: No One at civil service levels below GS-14 sets any kind of policy. P-e-r-i-o-d. Even GS-15's are on very thin ice if they try to set policy, and then they can only apply it to their immediate local territory.
Next, no one, no one what-so-ever, at SES level is a *low level* operator. Lois Lerner was NOT low level. Lois Lerner is the foil...how much is still being talked about regarding Sarah Hall Ingram ... IIRC she was Lerner's boss and an IRS Commissioner.
Low level my shiny backside.
"Over all, 4 in 10 (including two-thirds of Democrats) think the I.R.S. acted on its own in investigating the conservative groups while slightly more (including 7 in 10 Republicans)..."
Slightly more? How many more? Why not just give the number?
Independent thought and reporting along with due diligence will return to the NYT when a Republican administration is once again in the White House. If that ever happens again.
This is of course the flaw in the logic that Prof. Althouse used to justify her vote for Obama.
If I understand correctly, she felt that there was a bias problem which prevented the left from seeing the need for robust surveillance for the purpose of national defense.
OK, so it's true that we are now seeing liberals freak out as they've recognized that one of their own is doing this even more vigorously than his R predecessor,
So, The Plan worked!
What's that? We had to endure 5 years of abuses that were ignored, denied, or cheered on by the liberal press before we got to this stage? And that same press, even while turning on Obama for violation of THEIR civil liberties, will continue to ignore those other abuses and violations?
Oopsie, a little unintended consequence of The Plan.
There's your problem with the NYT, according to the new public editor: It's just so darned balanced and so reticent about manipulating reader opinion. And — this is the funny part — new media is pressuring the NYT to get with it and tell us who to believe. Hint: It's the Democrats
And when reporting the news fails, why, don't report it at all.
The NYTs succeeded in helping voters to know what to believe, by painting a biased picture of what went on. In fact, it looks like the story is not even be truthful.
Looking forward to the NYTs retracting this story. Or maybe they won't, because then the people who want the NYTs to tell them what to "believe" won't be able to "believe" the NYTs anymore.
We had to elect the democrats to find out what was in them.
What does an unprofitable former news empire care about the IRS? They've got no profits to send them, anyway.
NHI---No Humans Involved---Nothing to see here, move on.
If it hurts Obama--and discriminates against the unwashed clinging to their guns, religion, and applications for 501(c)(4) status, the NYT just doesn't see it.
Pete makes a short but important comment. There is absolutely no chance, and more importantly, no benefit whatsoever for a low level beaurocrat to go rogue. It just does. Not. Happen. The marching orders came from the higher ups. Plain and simple.
If you had the ability to search the subscriber list of the NYT, you'd probably his name.
Pete makes a short but important comment. There is absolutely no chance, and more importantly, no benefit whatsoever for a low level beaurocrat to go rogue. It just does. Not. Happen. The marching orders came from the higher ups. Plain and simple.
Somewhere near 85% of all Federal Gov't employees are Democrats, according to people that tried to get a handle on it and explain it. It's been that way for a long time. Since the Reagan Administration is was quite clear that some employees tried to undermine Reagan's policies and goals. Now the great minds of the 1960s Anti-War Movement and small "c" crowd have decide to use their minions at ALL THE FEDERAL AGENCIES to finally fulfill their wishlist now that they have gotten into power under a President that has the same goals. Clinton only tolerated them and threw them a bone from time to time. Corporations and Capitalism have been under assault with old rules and regulations being interpreted in a new small "c" way by all levels of administrators. Every agency. Look through all those little news stories since 2008. Look at businesses being put out of business. Look at farmers and ranchers getting fined into the Stone Age for collecting rain water on their property for later use. Civil Service regs stop anyone from changing that 85% number in the short term. We need a new "anti-zealot" law--someone caught bringing political ideology into their job faces immediate dismissal and loss of pension.
OK, so it's true that we are now seeing liberals freak out as they've recognized that one of their own is doing this even more vigorously than his R predecessor
I wish I thought that any significant number of liberals were freaking out. If they didn't have double standards they'd have no standards at all.
But watch, the House is to be briefed on Tuesday. We will see.
The order doesn't have to come from higher ups. The people above them just have to look the other way.
"Pete said...
I worked for the IRS 20 years. It's impossible to go rogue at the lower levels. Impossible."
They wouldn't do it anyway. "The nail that sticks up get s hammered down. Government workers have one goal, protecting their "rice bowl."
Allen, the NYT helped get us into the Iraq War.
Why do you think all the leaks are going to UK papers? You think NYT or any other media here will publish them?
I read that the WaPo had the PRISM stuff for three weeks before publishing, right after the Verizon leak. Coincidentally, I am sure.
So it's all Carter Hull's fault?
No wonder the IRS staff felt overworked -- they might have to spend days on a single letter until they had an iteration that Carter Hull signed off on.
BTW, I see that Carter Hull is retiring. Don't feel bad for him. Democrats take care of their fall guys.
Darrell - I wonder what the percentage of Federal employees who are Democrats might be without including the military. And this Carter Hull fellow - why isn't their a mob of reporters outside of his house even as we speak?
"Slightly more? How many more? Why not just give the number?"
Because then there would be a number you could quote. And spread around. Who is going to quote "slightly more"? It has no intrinsic meaning. Problem solved. But there's no bias in the media.
Ditto on Pete and Ari's thoughts.
The old, pre-electronic return, IRS placed some autonomy in the hands of the people who ran the Service Centers.
Now I'm guessing it's a lot farther up the food chain than that.
The order doesn't have to come from higher ups. The people above them just have to look the other way.
and
They wouldn't do it anyway. "The nail that sticks up get s hammered down. Government workers have one goal, protecting their "rice bowl."
My understanding is that everything is tracked in the IRS, esp. when it comes to low level employees and productivity. And, one of the things that is apparently tracked is pendency of applications for such things as tax exempt status. The excess time being taken to approve these applications most likely was popping up all over the place with their higher level supervisors and with other management types. Of course Lerner took the 5th - she was in a position to have most likely intentionally disregarded notifications of excess pendency for all those Tea Party, etc. groups, and to know, as an attorney, that it was illegal. (A lot of courts really do hold attorneys to a higher level of knowledge when it come to the law).
Diane Feinstein is on ABC waving the flag and talking about the WTC. No wonder the NYT is marching in step. This will be a tough oyster to pry open.
Let me elaborate a bit about the type of system that I understand the IRS has, and is common in this sort of government operation. Everything that can be measured, is measured. One thing that is almost invariably measured is pendency for processing almost anything that approaches routine, like the time it takes to close any pending application for tax exempt status. And, to process refunds, to process appeals, etc. The statistics for individual cases are, of course, averaged, and that average pushed up the food chain, to direct supervisors, and apparently in the case of the IRS, to any number of other supervisors. But, what are also pushed up the food chain are the exceptions, and statistics about the exceptions. So, while the averages for processing this sort of application might not have been showing an increase, or much of one (I would expect a small rise, due to the excess time that was being taken with these applications, asking again and again for more information), the exceptions would have been getting worse and worse. The age graph for the exceptions, for the applications that were taking too long, most likely were getting worse and worse. Which, in itself, would be setting off alerts with even more senior management. The purpose of this sort of system is to detect problems, and to make sure that they got resolved quickly. And, most likely, the actual cases generating these exceptions, would inevitably be available to the senior management, either through lower level reports, or the ability to drill down.
Meanwhile, of course, these statistics at the individual and branch level are being seen by their management and utilized for the purpose of raises and promotions (since you can't apparently fire most career civilian federal employees, even the SES employees making, with bonuses, more than Congress). Low level employees doing this on their own would have been whacked down fairly quickly through this process. Their exceptions would be rising dramatically, while their counterparts weren't having the same thing happen to them.
The above is not based on personal experience, because my experience working with the IRS was at the data processing center level, but rather, is based on comments made by IRS employees, and experience with such systems in other government agencies and private companies.
If the goal is to get the MSM to act as watchdogs for the public the solution is to elect republicans.
"If the goal is to get the MSM to act as watchdogs for the public the solution is to elect republicans."
And, according to Ann, if the goal is for the Democrats to take any responsibility for national security you have to elect Democrats.
So there's your choices. You can EITHER have the press be watchdogs over the government while the Democrats simply carp from the sidelines and offer nothing productive OR you can force the responsibility on the Democrats but accept that the "watchdogs" will go AWOL and provide no serious press oversight.
Bruce Hayden said...
Let me elaborate a bit about the type of system that I understand the IRS has, and is common in this sort of government operation. Everything that can be measured, is measured. One thing that is almost invariably measured is pendency for processing almost anything that approaches routine...
Precisely right...in almost all agencies, including the IRS, including wide swaths of the military, based on my experience. They call it "metrics." It will be damn near screen #1 [where we are now, what the problem is, or isn't, etc.] in any periodic staff briefing session.
The senior management will only, and I do mean Only, "ignore" large negative deviations [such as taking longer time frames] if one of two things occur simultaneously:
1. Their own more senior management, SES or above, has directed the cause of the deviation...and approves of it.
2. The cause of such deviation serves the interests of said higher senior authority [appointed by cabinet level] as well as that of the senior [also appointed by the former] rating level.
Non-standard performance in "Metrics" reflects poorly on the senior management as well as the functional personnel. Fact is, it is one of the most common reasons for discharge, one that works fairly quickly, for "cause" in civil service. It is a myth that civil servants can't be fired, but that is not the debate here...so I'll skip it.
No one is going to risk their rice bowl, as some one called it earlier, to go rogue without direction. The totem pole of government management just doesn't permit it.
What some will risk, is to blow the whistle if they perceive what they are asked to do as illegal or suborning illegal actions. They won't break a law to stop law breaking or enable it either. In other words, they take their stewardship guide and/or oath of enlistment seriously.
As for the IRS and how their recently acknowledged training of the civil service grades [establishing what is expected of them]....just why do you think syncopated line dancing is used as a "training" mechanism at a "conference?"
Correction: ...if one of two things... should have been:
...if two things...
Tenured professors and civil service employees have an iron rice bowl. They're allowed, indeed encouraged, to define their political biases as ideals and then to act them out.........As always, the larger scandal will be why this is not a larger scandal. There will be no major motion picture starring Reese Witherspoon as a Tea Party activist whose life becomes barren after some ruthless IRS agent decides to persecute her......The left has successfully performed a sleight of hand on far bigger scandals than this. By the time this is over, the Reese Witherspoon movie will be about a dedicated IRS agent whose life is ruined by a vindictive Tea Party activist. See the story of Alger Hiss.
Good work Althouse.
Aridog, good point on the line dancing. The very first thing you learn to do in the military is march in step. After that, obeying orders without question becomes easier.
Post a Comment