Diary of a Republican Hater

Stop it Harry Reid, You Had Me at 'Disagree'

2013-05-22T17:27:00.001-07:00

Reid is clearly drawing a line in the sand in the face of unprecedented GOP obstruction. Him and Mitch McConnell had a discussion today and-it didn't go well.

"Harry Reid and Mitch McConnell have been slugging it out on the Senate floor today over Reid’s threat to revisit filibuster reform, and the escalating tone suggests this is now very real. Pay close attention to the statement Reid released today about their exchange:

Today, Senator McConnell defended the status quo of gridlock and obstruction in Washington, saying ‘there is no real problem here.’ I could not disagree more. Senator McConnell may choose to ignore it, but the problem of gridlock in Washington is real and it needs to be fixed.

Presidents — be they Republican or Democratic — deserve to have the people working for them that they choose. The Senate’s role is to advise and consent. But Republicans have corrupted the Founders’ intent, creating an unreasonable and unworkable standard whereby the weakest of rationales is often cited as sufficient basis for blocking major nominees. Due to Republican obstruction, the de facto threshold for too many nominees to be confirmed has risen from a simple majority to a supermajority of 60 votes. On judicial nominees, Republicans’ obstruction is equally unprecedented…There is no reason to delay qualified nominees for so long except delay itself, and it is little wonder we have a judicial vacancy crisis in this country.

Despite the agreement we reached in January, Republican obstruction on nominees continues unabated. I want to make the Senate work again – that is my commitment.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2013/05/22/harry-reid-escalates-nuclear-threat/

It's times like these I love Harry Reid. There have been a number of other times, like the time he said he had spoken to someone about Romney at Bain-Harry, my God, he didn't pay any taxes for 10 years. That was a moment of pure gold.

http://diaryofarepublicanhater.blogspot.com/2012_07_01_archive.html

This is another one. What's at stake here is making a credible threat. It's getting to the point now, that the GOP is on notice-filibuster Condray for the Financial Protection Agency and the nuclear option is coming to the Senate where the filibuster as a requirement will be abolished for executive and judicial nominees.

"Lending some weight to this threat, the Huffington Post reports that Reid is delaying the push to confirm Richard Cordray as head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau until July, after immigration reform is done. A Reid aide tells HuffPo that this is about postponing a major war over all of Obama’s nominees until July — which is also Reid’s target to trigger the nuclear option if necessary."

"This — along with Reid’s public statements today — amounts to the sharpest line yet drawn by Reid. The Senate Majority Leader has been striking a delicate balancing act. His challenge has been to slowly escalate the threat level by giving his threats ever more specificity, while simultaneously maintaining an aura of credibility about them. The current threat comes very close to saying that if Republicans obstruct Cordray — and others, such as Gina McCarthy to head the EPA, and Thomas Perez as Labor Secretary — then Reid will push the nuke button."

C'mon GOPers. Make Harry's day.

"At any rate, given today’s public statements from Reid, if the current level of GOP obstructionism continues, it’s hard to see how he has room to not make good on his threat to hit that button."

Essentially the GOP is going to have to backoff on the record level of obstruction at least on nominees or this is a reality.

By the way, from a constitutional, political philosophy standpoint I'm not sure the filibuster is the force for democratic good that It's defenders claim. It seems to me to be from a tradition of anti-democratic rules-like the time when Senators weren't even electted by Americans to even the 3/5 of a person compromise. The main impact has always been to thwart the will of the majority to the expense of the minority. We saw this just recently with gun control.

At IRS Pseudoscandal Hearing Shulman Shines

2013-05-22T16:40:00.003-07:00

Who would guess that a Bushie would steal the show? Shulman was appointed by Bush though it looks like he donated $800 to the 2004 DNC. Whatever. He's about the only person that has impressed me at all in this ~~witch hunt~~ disinterested search for the truth.

Ok, Lois Lerner didn't do too bad. She got the better of Issa-at least according to Rush Limbaugh-in proclaiming her innocence and then taking the fifth. Issa was left sputtering that she can't take the fifth after claiming her innocence.

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/05/rush-limbaugh-darrell-issa-lois-lernrer-irs-hearing-91758.html?hp=r3

I like Shulman's style though. Of course, the very serious media who can't get over the fact that there has been no drop in the President's approval rating-in fact the GOP's numbers are dropping like a stone-is calling him a smirker. That's what they call someone who they're trying to torment but somehow manages to maintain his good humor.

I think the White House-including Jay Carney-could learn from Shulman how to conduct yourself in the face of a ~~witch hunt~~ disinterested search for the truth.

"He was a serial smirker, grinning or furrowing his brow when he thought the questions were going overboard. To Michael Turner (R-Ohio), who asked if he agreed that it “doesn’t represent American values” to target Americans for their political beliefs, Shulman suppressed a laugh: “I do not see those words in the report, Mr. Turner.”

"When asked why he might visit the White House, his first response: “The Easter egg roll, with my kids.”

When John Mica (R-Fla.) asked Shulman whether he had ever given political donations, he looked puzzled, as if it was the dumbest question in the world. (He was appointed by President George W. Bush, but The Washington Post has reported that he gave $500 to the Democratic National Committee in 2004.)

“Have I in the past? To the best of my recollection, I have,” Shulman said — but not in a long time, and not while he was IRS commissioner.

"And when Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) asked if “the American people are supposed to believe that” when Shulman said he never discussed the situation with the White House, Shulman just gave him an icy stare."

Shulman's performance is a welcome breath of fresh air after debacles like these.

http://diaryofarepublicanhater.blogspot.com/2013/05/et-tu-greg-sargent-he-piles-on-lois.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+DiaryOfARepublicanHater+%28Diary+of+a+Republican+Hater%29

Maybe he reads Diary of a Republican Hater-not that we want to impose political views on him, that's the last thing Darrell Issa needs to hear. In tough times like these I have recommended that you read me twice as often.

  http://diaryofarepublicanhater.blogspot.com/2013/05/i-go-there-democrats-should-try-diary.html

Also bone up on Media Matters.

  http://diaryofarepublicanhater.blogspot.com/2013/05/i-go-there-democrats-should-try-diary.html

I'm glad to see that at least someone is giving this ~~witch hunt~~ I mean search for the truth the dignity it deserves.

P.S. You tell me how much respect to treat people who ask questions like this:

  "If Shulman couldn’t keep his attitude in check, though, some committee members couldn’t restrain themselves from some over-the-top comparisons — like the time Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) compared the IRS Cincinnati employees to a dangerous, armed intruder."

“If there’s someone wielding a knife in the parking lot, are you going to wait for the inspector general?” Gowdy asked.

David Glasner: the Fiscal Multiplier Could be More Than Zero

2013-05-22T16:01:00.003-07:00

Wow. This is pretty earth shattering in the econ blogosphere. While Sumner always brushes off the questions of Keynesians like me, it will be interesting how he answers his fellow Market Monetarist, David Glasner.

For the original Sumner piece see here

http://diaryofarepublicanhater.blogspot.com/2013/05/sumner-again-throwing-stones-at.html

Now and again Sumner's shrillness gets to Glasner clearly.

"But now Scott seems to be turning the Lucas Critique on its head by saying that the expectations that result from a particular policy regime — a policy regime that has been subjected to withering criticism by none other than Scott himself – refutes a structural theory (that government spending can increase aggregate spending and income) of how the economy works. I don’t think so. The fact that the Fed has adopted and tenaciously sticks to a perverse reaction function cannot refute a theory in which the Fed’s reaction function is a matter of choice not necessity."

"I agree with Scott that monetary policy is usually the best tool for macroeconomic stabilization. But that doesn’t mean that fiscal policy can never ever promote recovery. Even Ralph Hawtrey, originator of the “Treasury view”that fiscal policy is powerless to affect aggregate spending, acknowledged that, in a credit deadlock, when expectations are so pessimistic that the monetary authority is powerless to increase private spending, deficit spending by the government financed by money creation might be the only way to increase aggregate spending. That, to be sure, is a pathological situation. But, with at least some real interest rates, currently below zero, it is not impossible to suppose that we are, or have been, in something like a Hawtreyan credit deadlock. I don’t say that we are in one, just that it’s possible that we are close enough to being there that we can’t confidently exclude the possibility, if only the Fed would listen to Scott and stop targeting 2% inflation, of a positive fiscal multiplier."

By saying monetary policy is usually the best tool-but that there may be times when fiscal policy would have a rule, Glasner is on the same page as Krugman.

http://uneasymoney.com/2013/05/21/scott-sumner-meet-robert-lucas/#comment-19001

A Hawtreyan credit deadlock sounds kind of like a liquidity trap...

Glasner asks asks a question I often ask Sumner. We'll see if he gives him a better answer than he gives me-it couldn't be a worse one.

"With US NGDP not even increasing at a 4% annual rate, and the US economy far below its pre-2008 trendline of 5% annual NGDP growth, I don’t understand why one wouldn’t welcome the aid of fiscal policy in getting NDGP to increase at a faster rate than it has for the last 5 years. Sure the economy has been expanding despite a sharp turn toward contractionary fiscal policy two years ago. If fiscal stimulus had not been withdrawn so rapidly, can we be sure that the economy would not have grown faster? Under conditions such as these, as Hawtrey himself well understood, the prudent course of action is to err on the side of recklessness."

I've never gotten Sumner's dogmatism on this point, assuming, the real point is that his agenda is to make sure there is never a fiscal intervention into the economy regardless of how bad the economy gets; ie, his dogmatism about the multiplier is ideological rather than scientific.

It will be interesting to see if he answers Glasner-it may be tough not to as they are friends and fellow MMers.

HT: Tom Brown

Et Tu Greg Sargent? He Piles on Lois Lerner

2013-05-22T15:30:00.000-07:00

Now he's joining the chorus of "Lois must go." I don't really get this. Supposedly it's because she pleaded the Fifth in front of Darrell Issa's IRS ~~witch hunt~~ hearings. I'm becoming more and more convinced that the media people just have to join a good chorus. They can't be the one person not throwing stones. They too want to be Serious.

"The big piece of IRS news today is that Lois Lerner, the head of the exempt organizations division — the IRS unit at the center of the scandal involving the targeting of conservative groups — has pleaded the Fifth at today’s hearing:

Lois G. Lerner told the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform in an opening statement that members of the panel have already accused her of providing false information to Congress.

“I have not done anything wrong,” she said. “I have not broken any laws. I have not violated any IRS regulations. And I have not provided false information to this or any other committee.” But on the advice of counsel, she said, she would not answer questions or testify before the committee.

"In a letter to committee chairman Darrell Issa, Lerner’s lawyer claimed she “has no choice” but to plead the Fifth, given that the Justice Department has launched a criminal investigation. But I agree with Josh Marshall: while this may be the right path for Lerner herself, given the circumstances, it also means she must be removed from her position, even if this is bureaucratically difficult."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2013/05/22/lois-lerner-has-to-go/

It's not clear why pleading her Constitutional rights means this. Incidentally she's not the first to do this when testifying in front of Congress: Ollie North himself did this.

"The Treasury Department inspector general’s report found that the IRS used “inappropriate criteria” in targeting Tea Party groups, but found no evidence of partisan motivation in the application of those criteria. Top IRS officials, such as acting IRS commissioner Steven Miller, who has resigned, have reiterated that there was no partisanship at play. Meanwhile, a New York Times investigation suggested that what happened was partly the result of incompetence and confusion in the face of a tide of applications for tax exemptions."

"But there are still key gaps in the story that must be filled concerning how, exactly, these groups were targeted. There is absolutely no evidence that what happened was tied to the Obama administration or 2012 reelection campaign, or any outside Democratic political group. Nor is there any evidence that those who did target the Tea Party groups were doing so out of a desire to influence the election. But as Ezra Klein notes:

But then there’s the offense that everyone agrees did occur: A number of IRS employees developed criteria that was politically biased both in appearance and in effect…Their actions called the fairness of the agency into question and kicked off a national scandal. Even if their intent was pure, they showed bad judgment, more than a bit of incompetence, and perhaps even a touch of insubordination. That is reason enough to fire people, even if the process is difficult.

I don't get where 'insubordination' comes in either-was there someone who told them not to use such criteria beforehand? I have to say I'm tired of all the hue and cry about this. At the end of the day this is even sillier than Benghazi as far as I'm concerned. Nobody was killed. No wealthy Tea Partier lost their tax exemption. While it's true that some had to wait as much as two years, in the mean time guess what they were doing? Not paying any taxes.

Lerner herself is just a scapegoat. She actually was the one who saw a problem with the criteria being used in the Cincinnati office and had them employ new criteria. Honestly it was not such an easy question just what kind of criteria should be used. While supposedly their supposed to use "nonpolitical" criteria that's the whole issue. What exactly constitutes nonpolitical vs. political groups. Now we have the spectre of all kinds of unsavory Tea Party groups coming out and beating their breast-like homophobic groups, etc.

The idea that you shouldn't look at politics seems reasonable but how about the KKK-could they conceivably qualify for 401(c)(4)? If not, then clearly there are limits on considering only "nonpolitical criteria."

In more pile-on news, Darrell Issa claims that Lerner has no constitutional rights.

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/05/darrell-issa-irs-lois-lerner-91755.html?hp=t3_3

I'm sure he believes this but probably doesn't think anyone but his Right wing reactionary friends have any rights. I love how the fact that a Fox news reporter may have been questioned about leaks is a big scandal. The GOP has always demanded that the Obama Administration go after leakers. It turns out that their is an implied Fox News Exception.

Meanwhile I see that Sargent does get it right that this whole When did Obama know about the scandal is absurd. Still, Jay Carney is coming out and saying that the White House deserves criticism on how it has released information on the IRS pseudoscandal.

"The White House could have done a better job at providing an accurate timeline of when and to what extent it became aware of an investigation into improper Internal Revenue Service conduct that targeted conservative groups during the run-up to the 2012 election, press secretary Jay Carney conceded Wednesday."

"There's been some legitimatize criticisms of how we're handling this," Carney told reporters at his daily briefing.

"Faced with mounting criticism over its shifting timeline and incomplete answers about which senior administration officials were aware of an impending inspector general report in April, Carney admitted that information he previously provided required a "correction" on Monday.

"You're good at your jobs and you're smart," Carney told reporters, "but we can't anticipate every question."

"Sometimes we don't have the answers and sometimes we need to go back and get them," he added.

http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/white-house-concedes-legitimate-criticisms-exist-with-its?ref=fpb

If the Administration doesn't intend to get roiled by the GOP and their media henchmen I think Carney conceded too much. As Sargent and others have pointed out, this whole game of what did he know and when did he know it? is foolish. Yet by agreeing with the criticism, Carney is implicitly saying that this game is legitimate.

For that matter, as Elizabeth Drew says, it was probably a mistake for the White House to have opened a criminal probe in the first place: we don't know that anything criminal was done.

If the facts we later learn suggests this ten do so. But doing so before we even investigate suggests a rush to judgment.

"Obama, anxious not to be seen defending everybody’s punching bag, the IRS, quickly ceded ground on what could be perfectly defensible actions. He may come to regret taking what seemed a trigger-happy decision to order a criminal investigation of the Internal Revenue Service, a sure way to drag people who may have—may have—simply made errors of judgment through a long and expensivelegal process that is likely also to keep the agency from examining the validity of the application for tax-free status of any group with powerful allies. If, following the Citizens United decision, there is a sudden doubling of the number of new organizations with similar names and missions, and these organizations apply for tax exempt status—and also the right to hide the names of their donors—might it not make sense to use a search engine to find them? This what the just-fired sacrificial acting IRS commissioner, testifying before a congressional committee on Friday, termed a “grouping” of the cases that had already been almost universally condemned as “targeting,” which he insisted it wasn’t. But this simple explanation wouldn’t do, didn’t warrant the term “outrage” routinely conferred on the IRS case. Could it just possibly be that the Tea Party and their allies see a great benefit in making a stink over this? How better to freeze the IRS examinations of these groups??

http://www.nybooks.com/blogs/nyrblog/2013/may/18/why-obama-is-not-nixon/

Lerner seems to be one of the few here who seems to get what it means to defend yourself.

Do We Really Have to Say Obama is no Nixon

2013-05-22T13:49:00.000-07:00

You talk about a degraded public debate. That we have to waste any time on such inane questions tells you all you need to know about the state of pubic debate in our country today. Suffice it to say that the connection is only there in the eyes of deluded Tea Partiers who desperately want to believe it. Anyone who knows anything about history and the Nixon Administration-like John Dean, Nixon's chief counsel for instance-knows perfectly well there's no similarity.

Why do we keep hearing about the comparison? Part of it is what Elizabeth Drew says-the GOP has always wanted payback for Nixon. In the 90s we heard that Clinton was the worst since Nixon. Now we hear that Obama is just like Nixon. Why do we never hear that Obama is just like Clinton then?

"Compared to Watergate, on the basis of everything we know about what are the current “scandals” amount to a piffle. Watergate was a Constitutional crisis. It was about a pattern of behavior on the part of the president of the United States abusing power to carry out his personal vendettas. It was about whether the president was accountable to the other branches of the government; it was about whether the Congress could summon the courage to hold accountable a president who held himself above the law. It was about a president and his aides who were out of control in their efforts to punish the president’s “enemies.”

http://www.nybooks.com/blogs/nyrblog/2013/may/18/why-obama-is-not-nixon/

I like that-the current scandalfest does indeed amount to piffle. I mean the story of Tea Party groups having to wait a little longer to get 401(c)(4) status-while continuing to pay zero tax-is piffle. It's nothing but Republican piffle aided by media piffle from the Very Serious People.

Speaking of the IRS we have been hearing a lot lately about the idea that the President is "just a bystander" in his Administration because he was "kept in the dark" about the IRS investigation into the story of the Tea Partiers having to wait for official 401(c)(4) status.

Actually, it's not a question of being a bystander but it does underscore the fact that the President is not Nixon, not anything close. The trouble with Nixon was that he was totally involved with the day to day running of the IRS. He actively pushed the to target those he deemed his "enemies." Check out this piece by Robert F. Kennedy

"President Richard Nixon was aware that the IRS had audited him in 1961 and 1962 and presumed those audits were politically motivated by the Kennedy White House. When, early in his Administration, Nixon learned that his friends and political allies John Wayne and Rev. Billy Graham had endured recent audits by his own IRS, Nixon boiled over. He ordered White House Chief of Staff Bob Haldeman, "Get the word out, down to the IRS that I want them to conduct field audits on those who are our opponents." Perhaps recalling the Kennedy era audits, Nixon ordered that its investigator begin with my Uncle's, John F. Kennedy's, former campaign manager and White House aide, then Democratic Committee Chairman, Lawrence O'Brien."

"Nixon's minions had the IRS set up a special internal arm "the Activist Organization Committee" in July of 1969 to audit an "enemies list" provided by Nixon. My uncle Senator Ted Kennedy was at the top of that list along with a small army of well-known journalists. The IRS later renamed its political audit squad "Special Services" or "SS" to keep its mission secret. The SS targeted over 1,000 liberal groups for audits and 4,000 individuals. The SS staff managed their files in a soundproof cell in the IRS basement."

  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-f-kennedy-jr/obama-nixon-watergate_b_3305611.html

So as far as the audits are concerned, what put Nixon over the edge was when his allies got audited. None of this has anything to do with the President, however, what it does bring to mind if Peggy Noonan's bizarre sense of entitlement-if someone is in the party and donated to Mitt Romney somehow they must be guaranteed not to be audited. No one else has this guarantee but she feels that its a travesty that ta rich man who spend $1 million dollars in donations to groups that supported Mitt Romney got audited.

    "The Journal's Kim Strassel reported an Idaho businessman named Frank VanderSloot, who'd donated more than a million dollars to groups supporting Mitt Romney. He found himself last June, for the first time in 30 years, the target of IRS auditors. His wife and his business were also soon audited. Hal Scherz, a Georgia physician, also came to the government's attention. He told ABC News: "It is odd that nothing changed on my tax return and I was never audited until I publicly criticized ObamaCare."

http://diaryofarepublicanhater.blogspot.com/2013/05/after-reading-peggy-noonan-today-maybe.html

Aha. As we know correlation proves beyond a shadow of a doubt causation. The answer is simple: anyone who spends millions of dollars on Mitt Romney must never be audited. In Noonan's strange premise she sounds more like Nixon in his rationale-who felt outrage that his friend was audited while he was in the White House.

Scandals Really Hurt Democrats in 2014-or Do They?

2013-05-22T12:05:00.000-07:00

The conventional wisdom certainly is that this is going to hurt the Dems come 2014. On the fact this might seem quite likely; though I could point out that if facts mattered-which in scandals they don't-there's no reason they should hurt Democrats at all.

I mean none of these things have anything to do inherently with the Democratic party or the President himself either, for that matter. The assumption that the American people will blame the President-and since he's not running, blame will fall on his party-is an assumption that the people are kind of dense. This has at times been a very successful bet though not so much in the 2012 election.

Still this belief seems to be more than just about logic.It's more or less an article of faith. I mean the polls don't show any of this hurting the President or the Dems-in fact it seems to be hurting the GOP. Still, these are just facts to the scandal loving media who are certain this is the most important thing under the sun. The American people are deeply concerned about this even though the polls don't really show this.

While national polls haven’t shown a shift in the public’s opinion of President Barack Obama’s performance, recent controversies have, in my view, significantly changed the political landscape.

And changes in the landscape have led the Rothenberg Political Report to change its Senate ratings.

http://blogs.rollcall.com/rothenblog/senate-ratings-changes-the-political-environment-turns-on-democrats/?pos=epol

See what I mean? The polls don't show anything of the kind but "in his view" this is a game changer and the Dems are in big trouble. Even Nate Silver seems to think that somehow this has to be a big deal and must be hurting the President-even though the polls don't show anything of the kind.

Look at how Silver explains Obama doing fine in the polls-today Gallup showed him with a 50% approval rating with 44% disapproving.

"There are a lot of theories as to why Mr. Obama’s approval ratings have been unchanged in the wake of these controversies, which some news accounts and many of Mr. Obama’s opponents are describing as scandals. But these analyses may proceed from the wrong premise if they assume that the stories have had no impact. It could be that the controversies are, in fact, putting some downward pressure on Mr. Obama’s approval ratings — but that the losses are offset by improved voter attitudes about the economy."

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/05/21/is-the-economy-saving-obamas-approval-ratings/

Got that? The scandals haven't hurt Obama because they have. It's just that the economy is disguising it. The one thing apparently Silver can't entertain is that maybe the impact is much less than he and his scandal loving friends in the media think it must have.

Bear in mind that we've been living with the scandal mongering for the last 10 days-this started exactly on Friday May 10. Silver wants us to believe that the decent economy-which has been the story of the first 5 months of the year only started having an impact after 5 months on the same day the media decided that all that matters is GOP fueled anti Obama scandals? This all hit the day Obama's approval rating was supposed to spike but didn't because of the IRS fake scandal-if you think Benghazi is a fake scandal you;re right but in that case it was at least real tragedy where 4 people died as opposed to the IRS where nobody actually got hurt at all-that kept it exactly where it had been for the last 4 months but only media seers like Silver know this?

Here's my theory of what's going on with the scandals. Clinton's numbers never got hurt by GOP scandals either. I remember the time well and here's what I remember: the more the GOP and media flagged the issue and beat it to death the higher Clinton's approval rating went.

By the week of the miserably politically motivated impeachment vote-as Elizabeth Drew rightly argues, this disingenuous action has greatly cheapened the meaning of impeachment-his approval was at 81%.

In fact, I think there's a lot to the idea that this will help the Dems not hurt them. I mean the GOP is just checking out. It thinks mongering the scandals will somehow cure the fact that they are an intellectually and morally bankrupt party with nothing to offer except obstruction, gridlock and politically motivated witch hunts like this. I think the idea of the Dems letting them own this is a very good one.

http://diaryofarepublicanhater.blogspot.com/2013/05/could-scandals-be-best-thing-that.html

Sumner Again Throwing Stones at 'Keynesian Multiplier'

2013-05-21T10:23:00.002-07:00

As often as he declares it dead, one gets that he's not as confident as he likes to claim. He claims this is the 213th example that the fiscal multiplier is zero:

"From today’s news:

The marked improvement in the labor market since the U.S. central bank began its third round of quantitative easing, or QE3, has added an edge to calls by some policy hawks to dial down the stimulus. The roughly 50 percent jump in monthly job creation since the program began has even won renewed support from centrists, raising at least some chance the Fed could ratchet back its buying as early as next month.

I hope I don’t have to do any more of these. The fiscal multiplier theory is as dead as John Cleese’s parrot. The growth in jobs didn’t slow with fiscal austerity, it sped up! And the Fed is saying that any job improvement due to fiscal stimulus will be offset with tighter money. They talk like the multiplier is zero, and their actions produce a zero multiplier. Has there ever been a more decisive refutation of a major economic theory?

http://www.themoneyillusion.com/?p=21225

So the multiplier is dead because some Fed hawks are talking about cutting back on QE3? This is the Fed, at any particular time there will be hawks urging the Fed to pull back. Does this really cinch the argument? In the comments I point out that the Fed seems to believe there is a fiscal multiplier:

"I guess Boston Fed Chief Eric Rosengren didn’t get the memo as he talks like it’s still alive:

“This morning, Eric Rosengren, chief executive of the Boston Federal Reserve, cautioned lawmakers against further fiscal retrenchment, lest they slow the recovery. As he said at the Global Interdependence Center’s Central Banking Conference in Italy: “Given the economic realities I would urge policymakers to consider scenarios where some elements of fiscal rebalancing take effect only after the economy has more fully improved.”

http://diaryofarepublicanhater.blogspot.com/2013/05/post-scandal-gop-seems-less-interested.html

Of course, Sumner doesn't bother to answer this point. He settles for needling anonymous 'Keynesians.'

"I see Keynesians saying that 2.5% RGDP growth was what they expected the austerity to produce. Would they have admitted defeat if growth had been 0.5%? Would they have said “Our model was wrong, we predicted 2.5% RGDP growth, and we got 0.5%?”

I doubt it."

This has been Sumner's latest canard: since GDP didn't drop to .5% it shows there is no multiplier. Actually there are economists who say that without the sequester we'd see 4% GDP this year.

"Whatever the data ultimately show for April, economists like Diane Swonk, chief economist for Mesirow Financial in Chicago, say the economy would be showing much more momentum if it were not for the combination of higher payroll taxes that went into effect in January, as well as the process of automatic spending cuts known as sequestration that began to bite last month."

“What’s the biggest drag on the economy? The government,” Ms. Swonk said. “If the government simply did no harm, we could be at escape velocity.”

"Without the impact of federal cuts and higher taxes, Ms. Swonk estimates, annual economic growth would be close to 4 percent, above the 2.5 percent pace she is expecting in 2013."

http://diaryofarepublicanhater.blogspot.com/2013/05/sumners-continues-to-spike-ball-on.html

As to the fiscal multiplier, I just finished Krugman's End This Depression Now. It's very good. Krugman deserves credit for being a public servant in the truest sense of the word. It's true that it's again probably a little atheoretical. He calls himself a "sort of New Keynesian" which suggests that he knows the NK model is somewhat inadequate but has nothing to replace it with. We do need theory as well.

I do think that Krugman maybe underestimates the public a little-there is considerably more economic semi-literacy at least among the public than 5 years ago. I even give Sumner some credit for bringing the issue of monetary policy to lay people. However, Sumner is also rather misleading a lot of the time.

As to Keynesianism, as Krugman always says, it's never been tried. It was rather shocking to read that the only real "natural experiments" we have for fiscal stimulus are in response to wars or natural disasters. Trying to find the multiplier is mostly about shifting through numbers amassed during wars.

Scandals Underscore that the Future of the GOP is Bleak

2013-05-21T09:47:00.003-07:00

About a month ago, with the opening of his Presidential Library, George W. Bush assured his party that 'you will exist in the future.'

After the election we heard a lot of talk about GOP soul searching and that they were promising to learn from the debacle. Not much that has happened since is very encouraging in this regard. They have spent the whole year obstructing and have taken a victory lap over the sequester that hardly seems like something to brag bout.

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2013/05/20/2038001/schools-sequestration-impact-aid/

Paul Ryan has sort of spilled the beans on the method behind the GOP's madness:

"The American Prospect has a lengthy, detailed profile of Senator Patty Murray, digging into her role in encouraging women to run for the Senate and her behind the scenes budget sparring with Paul Ryan. This concession from Ryan is key:

What Murray is not saying publicly: It’s not in the GOP’s interest to end the budget impasse. Crisis governance—debt-ceiling threats, shutdowns—allows Republicans to claim a new scalp every few months. Ryan acknowledges as much. “I think a lot of members think that we have very few leverage devices in the minority and must use the ones we’ve got for good policy,” he says. “It’s simple, I think.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2013/05/21/the-morning-plum-the-oklahoma-tornado-is-a-horrible-tragedy-bring-the-politics/

Now they've graduated from obstruction to scandals and investigations. It's striking how similar the Obama term has been to the Clinton term; the reason is that the GOP has a very limited playbook. When they go here, it shows there's nothing left in the tank.

There's little sign in the polls thus far that this is working for the GOP. It motivates their base but then they were motivated in 1998 as well.

"Only 33 percent say the GOP is focused on things that are important to them, while 60 percent say the GOP is not. Meanwhile, 51 percent say Obama is focused on things that are important to them. And the public is split, 45-44, on whether the GOP’s criticism of Benghazi represents “political posturing.” Whatever the public thinks of the scandals, they haven’t changed the fact that Obama’s numbers are significantly better than those of the GOP."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2013/05/21/the-morning-plum-the-oklahoma-tornado-is-a-horrible-tragedy-bring-the-politics/

This too, is just like the 90s. It's doubtful that this will raise the GOP's approval rating. It likely will mean the opposite. As for Obama's, his approval remains strong and likely will increase if this goes on as Clinton's did in the 90s.

Tom Coburn's Employ's a Sumnerian Argument Against Relief For Oklahoma

2013-05-21T08:43:00.000-07:00

He's insisting for an offset of any aid to the Oklahoma victims with spending cuts elsewhere. Greg Sargent argues that it's not wrong to employ political arguments in the middle of a tragedy. I'm not sure I agree with that.

"According to the latest count, some 51 people died as the result of a tornado that has devastated a suburb of Oklahoma City, and as many as 40 more deaths may have taken place. As often happens in these cases, an argument has already erupted over who is or isn’t “politicizing” the natural disaster."

"This claim is being directed in both directions. For instance, Oklahoma Senator Tom Coburn has already announced that he believes any federal aid to victims of the disaster should be paid for with spending cuts elsewhere. Roll Call writes this up as if Coburn is rushing to inject politics into the tragedy:

The tornado damage near Oklahoma City is still being assessed and the death toll is expected to rise, but already Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., says he will insist that any federal disaster aid be paid for with cuts elsewhere. [...]

Coburn added…that it is too early to guess at a damage toll but that he knows for certain he will fight to make sure disaster funding that the federal government contributes is paid for. It’s a position he has taken repeatedly during his career when Congress debates emergency funding for disaster aid.

"Meanwhile, some on the right are suggesting that anyone who criticizes Coburn’s position is also “politicizing” the disaster. The other Senator from Oklahoma, James Inhofe, is a longtime climate “skeptic,” and some have already pointed to this in the context of the tornado, which is also being criticized as “politicizing” it. Conservative writer Conn Carroll, for instance, takes issue with Politico’s Glenn Thrush (full disclosure: Thrush is a friend of mine) for Tweeting this:

I’m a douche low-life scumbag jackhole ghoul for noting Coburn already wants offsets to fed aid and Inhofe is climate change denier.

"Carroll also points out that the Huffington Post has been pushing Coburn’s office to clarify his position. “Left wastes no time politicizing the Oklahoma tragedy,” reads Carroll’s headline.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2013/05/21/the-morning-plum-the-oklahoma-tornado-is-a-horrible-tragedy-bring-the-politics/

I do think basic human empathy dictates that maybe you try and wait until the bodies are cold-or we even know how many they are before you start announcing that you may not pay for it-unless Democrats agree to equivalent spending elsewhere. Do I object to all political arguments during a tragedy? I don't know. Maybe this shows that there's eomething wrong with Coburn's whole arugment in the best of times.

Here's the President's words of empathy and promise to action:

"President Obama pledged Tuesday that his administration and the nation will help Oklahoma recover and rebuild after what he called "one of the most destructive tornadoes in history."

"Speaking from the White House, Obama told those affected by the destruction that while they "face a long road ahead," Americans will be by their side. "You will not travel that path alone. Your country will travel with you, fueled by our faith in the almighty and our faith in one another," he said.

"We're a nation that stands with our fellow citizens as long as it takes," he said, before mentioning a string of recent disasters -- some weather, one terrorism -- that have weighed heavily on the country. "We have seen that spirit in Joplin, in Tuscaloosa. We saw that spirit in Boston, in Breezy Point. And that's what the people of Oklahoma are going to need from us right now."

http://www.politico.com/politico44/?hp=44

Which reaction you prefer I guess you can ask yourself. Would Sargent think it appropriate for Obama to have gotten "political" in his speech? Just like Sumner says the fiscal multiplier is zero, Senator Coburn insists the disaster relief multiplier is also zero.

http://www.themoneyillusion.com/?p=21225

Either way Coburn is determined that we lose as is Sumner.

Dysfunctional Democracy? Yep, That's U.S.

2013-05-21T08:06:00.002-07:00

Pun intended. E.J. Dionne talks about our dysfunctional democracy today. He does acknowledge that it's not really better anywhere else these days. During the George W. Bush days we liberals would look to Western Europe. However, Europe today is not worth envying under the miserable Euro straitjacket.

In the U.S. the trouble is Congressional gridlock. E.J. wonders if are system of government is conducive to democracy.

"We know American politics are dysfunctional. But after a week of scandal obsessionduring which the nation’s capital and the media virtually ignored the problems most voters care about — jobs, incomes, growth, opportunity, education — it’s worth asking if there is something especially flawed about our democracy."

"Our circumstances certainly have their own particular disabilities: a radicalization of conservative politics, over-the-top mistrust of President Obama on the right, high-tech gerrymandering in the House and a Senate snarled by non-constitutional super-majority requirements."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ej-dionne-political-dysfunctions-spells-trouble-for-democracies/2013/05/19/757fedba-bf28-11e2-97d4-a479289a31f9_story.html?hpid=z4

The trouble in Europe is that the democratic process has been eclipsed by Eurocrats in Brussels. Economically, we handled are crisis-though are handling of it was far from optimum. Now we have the scandal mongering knocking real problems to the back pages. Yesterday Greg Sargent was concerned about the coverage of the IRS scandal. He felt that there was too much time spent on the unimportant question of what Obama knew and when he knew it-or when this or that person in the Treasury Department or the White House knew it.

I fear that the title of Sargent's piece Separating What Matters From What Doesn't in the Scandal Coverage misses the point. This presumes that the media really is making a good faith effort to figure out what really happened and to help us find a real solution. That's not what this is about at all. Unfortunately I can't see any basis to believe in the good faith of the press here much more than the GOP itself.

The press is basically following the GOP's lead here and it's concern is how close they can put this thing to Obama, If you think there are any other questions of interest for the GOP beyond what will benefit the party politically, you're dreaming. There was another terrible Politico piece that did nothing but ruminate and wallow in this miserable waste of national time.

Among other thins it savages Lois Lerner for they way she revealed this-through a planted question. I don't know if that was the best way to do it either, but I'm must so sick of the demonization. They're going to have her as the worst person since Jeffrey Dahmer soon. She's obviously a dedicated civil servant trying to do her best. However, there's a desire to see heads roll. Scapegoats are needed.

On the question of What did Obama know and when did he know it?!! Steve Benen rightly points out that this question has been blown way out of proportion to its importance. In fact, what we know suggests that the system worked. The IRS did what it was supposed to do, the Inspector General did what he was supposed to do. There's this absurd spin that Obama somehow "failed to lead" in this. Yet, we don't want the President leading the IRS on a day to day basis and it's good that he hasn't been directly involved. If he had been that would be criticized too, anyway.

With friends like these who needs enemies? Do you notice the truth of what Eric Clapton said in that song of his Nobody knows you when you're down and out? Even Obama's supposed friends seem to want to kick him in the teeth. Listen to Lanny Davis, a former special counsel to President Bill Clinton who guided the administration through a series of second-term campaign finance scandals.

"Davis said the White House still has a chance to get in front of the story by responding in an even-handed way to all congressional scrutiny, including searching its email servers for any messages between Washington and Obama’s reelection campaign. “God willing,” Davis said, there will be no messages.

“The White House needs to be forthcoming with emails to dispute any inference they were knowledgeable,” he said.

That is actually awful advice. If the Administration follows this they will be playing the impossible game of trying to prove a negative. Are we now supposed to have Darrell Issa trolling through every White House email over the last 3 years to make sure there's no reference to the IRS scandal and if there is shout to the Heavens? It seems that this is what Davis is suggesting. Is this the kind of advice he gave Clinton in the 90s?

At the end of the day this is a silly question. Nobody seems to remember that Darrell Issa himself received notice from the IG last year. Why is the fact that he knew not a scandal?

"So, about a year ago, in response to complaints, the IRS decided to investigate the process through which groups applied for tax-exempt status. In July 2012, the agency's Inspector General got to work, initiating an investigation. The IG's office did its due diligence, without interference from the White House or anyone else, and wrapped up its audit last month."

"At that point, a variety of top officials, including senior folks at the White House, were made aware of the broad outlines of the IG's findings, which apparently is pretty routine -- IG offices in other agencies alert the White House to the release of upcoming reports, too."

"I'm not altogether sure why this is important, or even interesting. When it comes to potential areas of political controversy, there are a series of obvious questions: did the White House interfere with the IG investigation? Did the White House publicly comment on the IG investigation in order to influence its outcome? Was there any reason to notify the White House of the probe earlier?"

"As best as I can tell, the answer to all of these questions, at least given the available information, is "no." So, I'm left to wonder once more why this is a major development."

http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2013/05/20/18380257-april-2013-not-april-2012?lite

It's a major development because the GOP is in another political fishing expedition where the facts don't matter. By the way, all this hue and cry ignores how the Inspector General (IG) actually operates.

"In light of news that White House advisers knew weeks ago that the IRS inspector general’s report was coming, but didn’t tell Obama, this piece by a former inspector general is a much needed reality check on how this stuff actually works:

In those rare cases when information about the audit or investigation goes beyond the agency in the executive branch, it would be unprecedented in my experience for anyone outside the agency to become involved in the customary back and forth between the IG and the agency, much less to intervene with the IG before his work is complete.

"Imagine the outcry if the White House had said something publicly about the report before it was completed! It’s a bit surprising to see normally savvy Beltway folks pretending this latest round of news is somehow a big deal."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2013/05/21/the-morning-plum-the-oklahoma-tornado-is-a-horrible-tragedy-bring-the-politics/

Recall what Upton Sinclair said about a man having a hard time understanding something when it's his job not to understand it.

I agree we're a dysfunctional democracy but our Beltway media is highly complicit in this fact.

Could the Scandals Be the Best Thing That Happened to Democrats?!

2013-05-20T21:57:00.002-07:00

Ok, that's a rather extreme case of playing Devil's Advocate I admit. Still, I am wondering if this could seriously backfire on the GOP.

While it's true that GOP leaders have warned not to overreach, there's some evidence already that this good advice is as usual falling on deaf ears.

We have Rand Paul making absurd claims that there's some 'secret document' that shows Obama was behind the IRS Tea Party issue-he ordered it. His "proof" is 'this is what someone told me.'

http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/rand-paul-claims-damning-irs-memo-exists?ref=fpa

We have lots of GOPers already on the record for that "I" word-impeachment.

http://blogs.rollcall.com/rothenblog/will-republicans-screw-up-again-some-are-already-overreaching/

Seems to me that there are two theories of the scandals.

One is that it helps the GOP and hurts the Dems. This is the obvious, conventional wisdom. Yet the other side of the coin is that history isn't kind to scandal mongering as a campaign weapon.

At a minimum it's a double edged sword-ie, it can be used against you as easy as your opponent if they gain even momentary control of it. There are a growing number of Democrats that think this may prove to be the case.

"Dems have taken a two-pronged approach to today’s scandals: Dem officials and candidates quickly denounce it when there is clearly merit there — as many of them did when the IRS news hit — then quickly pivot to denouncing Republicans for refusing to focus on jobs and other immediate voter concerns."

“If you’re worried about this affecting Democratic prospects in 2014 you have missed
the fundamental frustration that voters have with the Republican congress,” DCCC deputy executive director Jesse Ferguson said in an interview this afternoon. “Voters are tired of Congress not focusing on the things that are important to them — whether that’s strengthening the middle class, fixing the budget, reducing gun violence, or passing immigration reform.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2013/05/20/dems-betting-heavily-on-gop-scandal-overreach-in-2014/

When you think about it, this makes a lot of sense. I mean I'm certainly pretty frustrated that this nonsense has taken over the front page while the pain of the sequester, jobs, immigration reform, and gun control have been relegated to the back pages. Maybe most Americans feel the same way. That's what happened in 1998 and nothing makes me think that the GOP has learned anything at all since then. I mean history shows that scandal mongering doesn't necessarily help your chances but might actually be counterproductive as they certainly were in 1998.

Then we see that Obama's approval rating hasn't dropped at all but has held steady the last week.

http://diaryofarepublicanhater.blogspot.com/2013/05/when-scandal-dust-clears-gop-is-still.html

Some more polling tonight looks good for the Dems-and quite bad for the GOP:

"A new CNN poll finds that the percentage who regard the GOP unfavorably has jumpedfive points since March, to 59 percent. And 58 percent say Obama is a strong leader."

"CNN’s polling director claims the new leadership finding suggests the public may be ”responding favorably to Obama’s stern reaction in recent days and hints that, far from catching blame for the latest controversies, Obama may actually be benefiting from them in some ways.” Also: 58 percent say Obama is “honest and trustworthy,” which also would seem to suggest the scandals are not having the effect the GOP hoped for."

* In a reference to CNN’s findings, the nonpartisan Cook Political Report Tweets:

Full results of latest CNN poll should make Republicans think about their behavior. GOP fav/unfav 35/59. Dem 52/43

" Of course, now that big majorities of Republicans are persuaded we’re looking at Watergate-level presidential wrongdoing, the scandal-mongering will have to continue at its current pitch."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2013/05/20/happy-hour-roundup-108/

In many ways this is a very nice narrative to work: the GOP doesn't care about jobs or the needs of the country but just their scandal games trying to harm the President for partisan gain. You could argue that this is an easier target than going issues against issues. In that case the Dems have the more popular issues and win; however, they now have their more popular issues against a GOP that isn't concerned with issues at all-other than using the IRS scandal as a new argument against ObamaCare.

Baucus Joins GOP in Witch Hunt

2013-05-20T21:24:00.001-07:00

Many liberals have argued we need a serious investigation into what happened in the IRS Ohio office with the claim that Tea Party groups were targeted. In theory this is right, however, the question is whether this investigation would be an honest attempt at providing oversight or a partisan witch hunt with an open-ended fishing expedition.

This letter, co-signed by Max Baucus suggests quite clearly it will be a partisan witch hunt that many timid Dems will join.

"The top Democrat and Republican on the Senate Finance Committee teamed up Monday to write a letter demanding documents from the IRS as part of an investigation into its targeting of conservative-leaning groups for additional scrutiny."

"The letter from Sens. Max Baucus (D-MT) and Orrin Hatch (R-UT) to acting (and outgoing) IRS commissioner Steven Miller included 41 separate requests for documentation surrounding the IRS' internal actions that led to the controversy."

"
"These actions by the IRS appear to be a clear breach of the public's trust," the senators wrote. "Targeting groups based on their political views is not only inappropriate but it is also intolerable."

The senators pointedly asked if the targeting was "influenced or prompted in any way by political pressure" from Congress or other elected officials -- or the White House."

"Provide documents relation to communications between any and all IRS employees and any and all White House employees including, but not limited to, the President, regarding the targeting," the letter read.

"They gave the agency a deadline of May 31 to provide the information."

  http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/baucus-hatch-demand-internal-irs-documents-in-targeting?ref=fpb

Tea Party groups claim that they were asked many irrelevant questions in determining their eligibility for 401(c)(4) status. Yet this letter takes a totally irrelevant turn in getting answers. It all centers on trying to draw tendentious links that everyone agrees, there is no proof of between the IRS scandal and the White House. It's all about the tired game of 'What did Obama know about the IRS scandal that just happened to target his political opponents and when did he know it?'

  http://diaryofarepublicanhater.blogspot.com/2013/05/the-when-did-obama-know-about-irs-game.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+DiaryOfARepublicanHater+%28Diary+of+a+Republican+Hater%29

  http://diaryofarepublicanhater.blogspot.com/2013/05/the-presidents-first-big-mistake-on-irs.html

In trying to get at the truth this starts off in totally the wrong direction. It hardly gives us confidence that this will be an honest nonpartisan investigation. Obama himself started this off wrong by calling for a criminal investigation into the matter-though there is no evidence of criminal wrong doing either.

Yep. It's a witch hunt. It's got nothing to do with the truth but simply is about hampering the President. The GOP has not done a single thing in the public good in 5 years and it was pretty sillly that even some liberals believe in this investigation they are starting now.

Post-Scandal GOP Seems Less Interested Than Ever in Grand Bargain

2013-05-20T10:32:00.001-07:00

Jamelle Bouie notes that the Repub real target was never lower deficits at all but lower spending. Of course, just as the point of their new obsession with scandals is not about truth and oversight but just to hobble the President politically and as a bonus, maybe hobbling Hillary in 2016-assuming she runs, and the conventional wisdom assumes that she will.

What's notable about the last week is how little we've heard about the deficit-that has come down a lot and is continuing to shrink. Similarly we heard nothing about the drop in healthcare costs-recall that a large part of the impetus for the supposed need for Medicare "reform" was the rising cost of healthcare. Well it's not rising anymore, it's actually falling. Yet where is the coverage of this? Give Nancy Pelosi credit for being one of the few to point this out.

http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/pelosi-credits-obamacare-for-lowering-deficit-health-costs

Another point that got no attention last week is that the sequester is really taking a bite: we now have over 800,000 federal workers in furlough.

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-defense-furlough-most-civilians-20130514,0,5299264.story

These furloughs are in the Department of Defense as well which is one of the few government agencies the GOP claims to appreciate. Of course,nothing this morally and intellectually bankrupt party says can be taken at face value

With the scandal feeding frenzy they have moved on. As Bouie points out, with all the deficit reduction already done, there really isn't much of a need for a GB these days anyway:

"This morning, Reuters noted that the odds of a “grand bargain” on taxes and spending between Democratic and Republican lawmakers are rapidly diminishing — because the deficit is falling. “A sudden improvement in the outlook for the government deficit over the next decade has alleviated some of the pressure on lawmakers to act,” Reuters observed. Likewise, Washington’s obsession with scandals — and the GOP’s attempt to wring political advantage from them — has taken the focus off of debt and spending.

But there’s something else that makes a “grand bargain” on the deficit unnecessary — the fact that Obama and Congress have already taken three major actions to deal with the deficit."

"The 2011 Budget Control Act slashed spending by $1 trillion over the next ten years, including a cut to Medicare provider payments. The fiscal cliff deal, passed at the beginning of this year, included a tax increase for income over $450,000, raising $617 billion in new revenue from 2013 to 2022. It also included a hike in the estate tax, a permanent fix for the Alternative Minimum Tax, and additional unemployment benefits. And the sequester — which is the result of the Budget Control Act — involves large cuts of nearly $90 billion for nearly every year between 2014 and 2022."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2013/05/20/gops-goal-isnt-deficit-reduction-its-gutting-the-safety-net/

As Bouie suggests, in a sense, one can say mission accomplished.

"Compare all of this to the “grand bargain” proposed by President Obama in his negotiations over the debt ceiling two years ago. The proposed deal — which was ultimately killed by conservative House Republicans — included Medicare provider cuts, $800 billion in new revenue, and discretionary spending cuts of $1.2 trillion over the next ten years."

"In other words, the “grand bargain” Republicans rejected two years ago was ultimately passed in several installments beginning in 2011, and ending this January. Not only has Congress accomplished its goals with regards to deficit reduction — the Congressional Budget Office projects a $642 billion budget deficit for fiscal year 2013, down $200 billion from its projection at the beginning of the year — but Congress and the White House have achieved the impossible and cut a grand bargain that will affect federal spending for the next decade. Indeed, put in those terms, it’s something of a real accomplishment."

As Boule says, this just underscores that the GOP never gave a fig about deficit reduction anyway.

Still, those aren't the best terms to put it in. The sequester has been a real meat cleaver to the economy that we hardly needed right now-and there are real human costs to the furloughts and cutbacks to programs for the poor and middle class. There were much better ways to cut $1.2 trillion dollars in deficit reduction than the sequester-better yet, there should have been less focus on deficit reduction in the first place in the middle of a recession.

Here was a piece by Bouie last week with a quote from the Boston Fed:

"This morning, Eric Rosengren, chief executive of the Boston Federal Reserve, cautioned lawmakers against further fiscal retrenchment, lest they slow the recovery. As he said at the Global Interdependence Center’s Central Banking Conference in Italy: “Given the economic realities I would urge policymakers to consider scenarios where some elements of fiscal rebalancing take effect only after the economy has more fully improved.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2013/05/16/congress-has-tackled-the-deficit-at-the-cost-of-the-economy/

As Bouie says, this deficit reduction has come at the expense of the economy:

"But this rapid deficit reduction is far less of a boon for most Americans, who have to live in an economy that’s been largely stalled by Congressional inaction. At 7.5 percent, unemployment is still too high, and there’s little sign of rapid improvement. According to most projections, joblessness won’t reach pre-recession levels for another three years."

"Congress’ push for deficit reduction has a lot to do with this. As noted in the New York Times last week: “The nation’s unemployment rate would probably be nearly a point lower, roughly 6.5 percent, and economic growth almost two points higher this year if Washington had not cut spending and raised taxes as it has since 2011.”

So should one celebrate the scandals as distracting lawmakers from further deficit reduction? There are those who make this case that Social Security is now safe.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2013/05/14/why-washington-scandal-mania-may-save-medicare-and-social-security/

I disagree with this however as I think it was safe anyway-I don't see chained CPI in the cards anyway.

The trouble is that the sequester is a very blunt instrument of deficit reduction and we really do need it replaced with something better-there isn't much that would be worse. Again, though, we're dealing with an opposition that does nothing in good faith.

The When Did Obama Know About the IRS Game

2013-05-20T09:07:00.001-07:00

On the one hand there's no proof that the President had anything to do with the questions about the IRS handling of Tea Party 401(c)(4) applications. The polls show Americans don't think there is:

"Among overall Americans, 61 percent say what Obama has said about the matter is mostly or completely true, versus only 35 percent who say it’s mostly or completely false. Among Republicans, 68 percent say what Obama has claimed is false, and among conservatives, 56 percent say this. But independents believe what Obama has said is true by 58-36, and moderates believe this by 71-25."

"Meanwhile, among overall Americans, 55 percent say the IRS acted on its own in targeting conservative groups, while only 37 percent say the White House ordered it. Among Republicans, 62 percent say the White House ordered it, and among conservatives, 54 percent believe this. But independents believe the IRS acted on its own by 53-36, and moderates believe this by 65-29."

http://diaryofarepublicanhater.blogspot.com/2013/05/robert-gibbs-doesnt-read-maureen-dowd.html

Republicans for their part also admit there's no proof that the President was involved:

"On Meet the Press yesterday, Mitch McConnell and GOP Rep. Dave Camp, the leader of the House probe of the IRS story, made key concessions. Asked whether evidence existed that Obama directed the scrutiny of conservative groups, McConnell said: “I don’t think we know what the facts are.” And Camp said: “We don’t have anything to say that the president knew about this.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2013/05/20/the-morning-plum-presidential-scandals-only-in-the-minds-of-republicans/

Sargent does add that the investigation should go on:

"However, the investigation into the IRS story will continue, as well it should."

If it's a real investigation and not a partisan fishing expedition maybe. As Sargent also notes, the big preoccupation for the GOP going forward is going to be about 'What did the President know and when did he know it' and 'When did the White House-or any senior person in the White House-know and when did they know it?

A lot of talk about the White House's chief lawyer being made aware of this first in April. GOPers are going to make a hue and cry about what senior persons in the Administration knew of this prior to last November's election. All of this ignores that Darrell Issa was himself made aware of it prior to that.

"GOP Rep. Darrell Issa, a leader of House GOP probes, says: “Exactly who in the administration knew what about the IRS targeting is one of the key outstanding questions.” All of this will be aired out at hearings this week, and the key GOP goal is to push the targeting of conservative groups as close to Obama as possible."

"Of course, as Steve Benen notes, the Treasury Department says it sent a letter to Issa himself last year alerting him that Treasury’s inspector general was looking at the IRS charges."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2013/05/20/the-morning-plum-presidential-scandals-only-in-the-minds-of-republicans/

This kind of breaks the whole narrative that the White House or at least the Treasury Department engaged in a conspiracy to hide information from Congress.

"Over the past few days, one of the areas of interest in the IRS controversy is which officials knew about the Inspector General's investigation and when. The idea, apparently, is to identify who was aware of the potential problems at the agency before the controversy rose to the public's attention."

"And why would that matter? In a political context, the point is to understand who, outside of the IRS, was aware of problems within the tax agency, with Obama administration critics suggesting greater awareness translates into a broader controversy."

"With that in mind, we learned Friday that some officials at the Treasury Department were aware of the Inspector General's probe last year, which proves, well, not much. Officials being made aware of an IG investigation is routine; what matters is what the IG discovers. Indeed, it's a good thing when officials higher up the food chain take a hands-off attitude -- rather than intervene during an investigation -- and wait for the findings."

"But wait, Obama's critics say, this is incomplete. What about notifying Congress? If the administration knew an IG investigation was underway, why not make lawmakers aware of this, at the time, as part of routine oversight? In this case, the administration did notify Congress last year.

The Treasury inspector general for tax administration also sent a letter to Rep. Darrell Issa in July 2012 saying it would audit the agency.

"This is not at all convenient for those eager to characterize this as a conspiracy. Last July, in the middle of the presidential election, the administration told House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) about an investigation into the IRS's potential mishandling of applications for tax-exempt status."

"And what did Issa do when he learned about this? Not a thing -- he decided to wait for the IG's report itself."

"In other words, when it comes to presenting a defense, the White House has an apparent ally in Darrell Issa, ostensibly one of the president's fiercest critics."

http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2013/05/20/18374386-the-who-knew-what-when-game-and-the-irs-controversy

So there really is no issue here either. Of course this won't stop the GOP with Issa at the head flagging a dead horse-when do the facts get in the way of a good "narrative?"

What could really be less Nixonian? The complaint that the Administration wasn't involved enough-was 'just a bystander' according to Dana Milbank-misses the point. You don't want the President involved too closely with the IRS-that was the real Nixon problem. On the other hand the Treasury did make Congress aware so that talking point is also wrong.

"And when the IG report did come out last week, it too deflated conspiracy theorists' hopes -- there was no conspiracy; there was no White House pressure; there were no Nixonian tactics."

"There can be no doubt that the IRS was a clumsy, messy bureaucracy that struggled badly to deal with excessive paperwork and ambiguous tax laws, but those looking for a genuine political scandal will likely continue to be disappointed."

Robert Gibbs Doesn't Read Maureen Dowd Anymore

2013-05-20T08:25:00.000-07:00

Gibbs really knew where to hit her where it hurts:

"Former White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said Monday he stopped reading acerbic New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd because “it’s largely the same column for the last, like, eight years.”

“I don’t normally read Maureen,” Gibbs said on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe.”

“Oh, yes, you do,” host Mika Brzezinski responded.

“I don’t largely because it’s sort of largely the same column for the last, like, eight years,” Gibbs said.

Dowd’s column on Sunday unfavorably compared President Barack Obama’s handling of the IRS scandal to how Bill and Hillary Clinton have handled scandals in their political lives.

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/05/robert-gibbs-maureen-dowd-91608.html#ixzz2TqUdg2qO

She deserves this and so does her friends in the Beltway media. They have such an overweening sense of their own importance. They like to think they can bring down a President.

http://diaryofarepublicanhater.blogspot.com/2013/05/the-beltway-media-very-sadistic-people.html

Yet the polls after a week of a feeding frenzy over the fake scandals haven't moved at all.

http://www.gallup.com/home.aspx

http://www.politico.com/blogs/politico-live/2013/05/obama-approval-rating-holding-steady-164302.html?hp=r1

What if they all wrote and talked about a scandal and nobody cared?

"The IRS scandal: Among overall Americans, 61 percent say what Obama has said about the matter is mostly or completely true, versus only 35 percent who say it’s mostly or completely false. Among Republicans, 68 percent say what Obama has claimed is false, and among conservatives, 56 percent say this. But independents believe what Obama has said is true by 58-36, and moderates believe this by 71-25."

"The Benghazi story: Among overall Americans, 50 percent believe early statements about the attacks by Obama officials reflected what the administration believed at the time, while 44 percent believe they intentionally misled. Among Republicans, 76 percent believe they intentionally misled, and among conservatives, 65 percent believe this. But moderates believe the statements reflected the administration’s beliefs by 60-35. (Among independents this isn’t as pronounced, but still, a plurality sides with the White House, 47-44.)"

"These two stories are presidential scandals only in the minds of majorities of Republicans. This helps explain why Obama’s approval is holding."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2013/05/20/the-morning-plum-presidential-scandals-only-in-the-minds-of-republicans/

This is really nothing new, the inability of the media to convince the public of its "narrative." The same thing happened in the 90s with Clinton.

"With some exceptions, the Washington Establishment is outraged by the president's behavior in the Monica Lewinsky scandal. The polls show that a majority of Americans do not share that outrage. Around the nation, people are disgusted but want to move on; in Washington, despite Clinton's gains with the budget and the Mideast peace talks, people want some formal acknowledgment that the president's behavior has been unacceptable. They want this, they say, not just for the sake of the community, but for the sake of the country and the presidency as well."

"In addition to the polls and surveys, this disconnect between the Washington Establishment and the rest of the country is evident on TV and radio talk shows and in interviews and conversations with more than 100 Washingtonians for this article. The din about the scandal has subsided in the news as politicians and journalists fan out across the country before tomorrow's elections. But in Washington, interest remains high."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/quinn110298.htm

Just like Dowd deserves Gibbs' diss the media as a whole deserve to be dissed, first of all, Jonathan Karl's pathetic attempt to claim that nothing significant has changed in his Benghazi piece-that got all the scandal mongering going in the first place.

"Statement from ABC News’ Jonathan Karl: “I regret that one email was quoted incorrectly and I regret that it’s become a distraction from the story, which still entirely stands. I should have been clearer about the attribution. We updated our story immediately when new information became available.”

http://editors.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2013/05/the_latest_turn_of_the_screw.php?ref=fpblg

Yes, just one email which just so happened to be the entire big revelation. When you realize that this email was doctored by GOP Congressional aides, what's left of the story? If Dowd deserves it, Karl really, really deserves it.

The President's First Big Mistake on IRS Scandal

2013-05-20T07:59:00.000-07:00

As Elizabeth Drew argues he may have unwittingly boxed himself in already.

"Obama, anxious not to be seen defending everybody’s punching bag, the IRS, quickly ceded ground on what could be perfectly defensible actions. He may come to regret taking what seemed a trigger-happy decision to order a criminal investigation of the Internal Revenue Service, a sure way to drag people who may have—may have—simply made errors of judgment through a long and expensivelegal process that is likely also to keep the agency from examining the validity of the application for tax-free status of any group with powerful allies. If, following the Citizens United decision, there is a sudden doubling of the number of new organizations with similar names and missions, and these organizations apply for tax exempt status—and also the right to hide the names of their donors—might it not make sense to use a search engine to find them? This what the just-fired sacrificial acting IRS commissioner, testifying before a congressional committee on Friday, termed a “grouping” of the cases that had already been almost universally condemned as “targeting,” which he insisted it wasn’t. But this simple explanation wouldn’t do, didn’t warrant the term “outrage” routinely conferred on the IRS case. Could it just possibly be that the Tea Party and their allies see a great benefit in making a stink over this? How better to freeze the IRS examinations of these groups?"

  http://www.nybooks.com/blogs/nyrblog/2013/may/18/why-obama-is-not-nixon/

That we have to say we actually have to waste time saying that Obama is not Nixon shows you how degraded public discourse has gotten over the last week-thanks, by the way, to a false story by John Karl that he has yet to be honest about. I know the IRS story was there in any case but Karl's story really gave us the narrative of a scandal ridden Administration and it's proven entirely baseless but the narrative has remained.

  http://editors.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2013/05/the_latest_turn_of_the_screw.php?ref=fpblg

As to the idea that the Tea Party and friends could be making a big stink of this just to benefit themselves well listen to this read meat that's being served up for Tea Party crowds in the aftermath.

  “By being here today, every one of you has just signed up for an audit by the I.R.S.,” Gov. Bobby Jindal of Louisiana, a potential 2016 presidential candidate, said in a keynote speech. “You are officially now on the White House enemies list.”

"State Senator Mark Obenshain, who won the party’s nomination for state attorney general, drew a burst of applause by issuing a personal challenge to the administration. “President Obama, the next time your rogue I.R.S. targets the Virginia Tea Party, you’re going to have to deal with me.”

"One of seven candidates competing for lieutenant governor, a retired Army colonel named Scott Lingamfelter, who was introduced by Allen B. West, a former congressman from Florida and a Tea Party favorite, wove military themes through a blistering attack on federal overreach."

“This assault of theirs on the Tea Party and the assault of the Justice Department on our liberties must stop,” Mr. Lingamfelter said as a supporter waved a “Don’t Tread on Me” flag large enough to lead a cavalry charge. He added, “I will stand on the banks of the Potomac and say, ‘Not another step!’ ”

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/20/us/politics/virginia-gop-pleases-crowd-with-barbs-about-irs.html?hp&_r=0

Yeah, big words. Of course, the reality is that in the last 13 months we've seen an explosion in 401(c)(4) exemptions given to Tea Party groups following a hectoring letter by David Camp. The likely effect of all this-not least the criminal investigation- is to have a further chilling effect on low-level IRS agents doing their jobs.

http://diaryofarepublicanhater.blogspot.com/2013/05/in-last-year-irs-has-approved-tea-party.html

What this will likely lead to is a further privileging of Tea Party applications for tax exempt status.

In light of this one has to agree with Zogby-it's really hard to believe the Republicans are operating in good faith here and an honest desire for truth in the public interest. He made this comment about their Benghazi fixation but it applies to the IRS case where you already have people trying to with no evidence link it to the President.

"Even if I wanted to ascribe the best of intentions to the Republicans who are pushing the Benghazi story, I find it difficult to do so. If they were truly concerned about "lies" that were told by government officials, the failure of an Administration to protect American lives, and the need for responsible government officials to be transparent and accountable for their actions, the place for Congress to begin would be with the Iraq war or with the Bush Administration's systematic use of torture, rendition, and other practices that violate our own and international laws."

"But, of course, this entire enterprise of "getting to the bottom of Benghazi" has nothing to do with truth, lives, or accountability. The Obama Administration's release of interagency communications, if anything, establishes nothing more than the somewhat banal practice of language vetting that, while annoying at times, has become rather standard practice."

"No, in the end, this is not about truth or governance. It is, in fact, nothing more than a continuation of the five year long effort to weaken and distract the president, in order to gain advantage over Democrats, and, in this instance, to wage a preemptive strike against former Secretary of State Hilary Clinton's presidential aspirations (should she have any)."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-zogby/a-bad-week-but-not-that-b_b_3298686.html?utm_hp_ref=politics

That's all any of this is about-hamper the President and now as an added bonus maybe hamper Hillary for 2016-assuming she's running. Getting at the truth is not the point. Scandals are not about truth. At least in Benghazi, there was a genuine tragedy. The IRS case is about some well-heeled Tea Party groups having to wait a little extra time for tax exempt status-and in the mean time they still didn't have to pay any taxes. The way it works is that you can right away declare yourself tax exempt and not pay but later on you apply for official status. Even in cases which the IRS made a group wait 2 years, they weren't paying any taxes in the mean time anyway.

http://diaryofarepublicanhater.blogspot.com/2013/05/the-irs-pseudoscandal-at-least-in.html

The President may regret that opening of a criminal investigation so fast-how do we know anything criminal happened? It actually seems unlikely that it did. George Miller-the first sacrificial lamb for Republican bloodlust-argued on Friday that nothing illegal was done. Yet GOPers can always just point to the fact that the President himself has said it did-impicilty anyway by beginning a criminal investigation.

His Administration must understand that this is just about politics. The Republicans are intellectually and morally bankrupt and hope that these phony scandals will save them in the short term-they prefer not to even think about the long term as it's too hard.

White House Senior Adviser got it right on Sunday:

"While acknowledging there is a “very real problem at the IRS,” Pfeiffer also blasted the GOP as attempting to make it a partisan issue to “try to drag Washington into a swamp of partisan fishing expeditions, trumped-up hearings and false allegations.”

“We’ve seen this playbook from the Republicans before,” Pfeiffer said on NBC's “Meet the Press.” “What they want to do when they’re lacking a positive agenda is try to drag Washington into a swamp of partisan fishing expeditions, trumped-up hearings and false allegations. We’re not going to let that happen. The president’s got business to do for the American people.”

“There is no question that Republicans are trying to make political hay here,” he said.

http://diaryofarepublicanhater.blogspot.com/2013/05/when-scandal-dust-clears-gop-is-still.html

There is some talk that the Dems are worried going into 2014-clearly as the above quotes show, this certainly can be used to fire up the Tea Baggers. Still at the end of the day it's a double edged sword. The Dems can run against the scandal obsessed GOP that doesn't care about the economy just sticking it to the President:

"Politico talks to Dem strategists (some unnamed) who worry that the IRS scandal could damage House candidates in 2014, particularly among independents. The core question is whether Republicans can turn the IRS scandal into a symbol of everything that’s wrong with the Dem embrace of Big Government. The counter-argument:

Democrats do have a plan to fight back. As congressional investigations kick into high gear in the coming weeks, they plan to brand Republicans as obsessed with going after Obama and uninterested in what really matters to everyday Americans — resuscitating the battered economy.

"This is where potential GOP overreach could come in."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2013/05/20/the-morning-plum-presidential-scandals-only-in-the-minds-of-republicans/

Running against the scandal obsessed Republican party sounds like a winner to me. Already they seem to think that this gives them carte blanche to ignore actual policy questions-it's all just one long campaign spot.

On Filibuster Reform Harry Reid Draws Line in the Sand

2013-05-19T13:51:00.000-07:00

The good news is that while Reid made a mistake in accepting watered down filibuster reform he knows this. It's now clear that the GOP can certainly push things too far.

"Reid recently told a group of major donors that he believes he made a mistake in agreeing to watered down filibuster reform earlier this year, the aide says. But Reid doesn’t regret this, because he still believes he did not have the votes to pass more ambitious reform via a simple majority vote, due to continued reluctance among “old bull” type Democrats in the Senate to exercise the nuclear option."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2013/05/17/harry-reid-eyeing-july-for-the-nuclear-option/

What he's looking at now is ending the filibuster for judicial and executive branch nominees.

"Reid is eyeing a change to the rules that would do away with the 60-vote threshold on all judicial and executive branch nominations, the aide says, on the theory that this is a good way to immediately break an important logjam in Washington — without changing the rules when it comes to legislation."

Reid has spoken to the President privately and Obama has told him he has his support if he pushes for the "nuclear option." The line in the sand are several nominees currently on the dock. According to a Reid aide:

"Reid views three upcoming nominees as a key test for whether he will exercise the nuclear option: Richard Cordray to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau; Thomas Perez as secretary of labor; and Gina McCarthy to head the Environmental Protection Agency."

The GOP then would be wise not to go over that line. The wildcard, though, is immigration reform-the worry is that if Reid does this then GOP will walk away from immigration reform. For this reason he has set the target date for the nuclear option for July.

The GOP will try to get away with as much as they can then. They may be smart an not go over the line or not entirely. At the end of the day, Dems don't ideally want to go here anyway.

“You think you’ve got gridlock now?” said Senator Carl Levin, Democrat of Michigan. “You think you’ve got problems now? You will have a huge, huge outpouring of real anger.”

“That means the next Senate,” he added, “if the Republicans control it, you can expect them by majority vote to put through any rules change they want.”

"But the level of frustration among Democrats now has pushed many of them, including Mr. Reid, to believe that the situation has deteriorated so badly that it can be fixed only by doing something they once would have never considered."

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/17/us/politics/obama-appointees-fight-may-change-senate-rules.html?ref=politics

I understand Levin's concerns. Still, there's a really good case that the filibuster is not the democratic institution that it's so often held to be. Supposedly it's about protecting the voice of the minority. However, the filibuster and much of the arcane rules of the Senate go back to the Dixie South and it's attempt to impose it's will on the country though in the minority. Perhaps the filibuster will one day be seen as a relic up there with 3/5 of a person or the poll tax.

I don't mean it's quite equivalent morally to those things but it is inherently a undemocratic practice. Between the filibustered Senate and the gerrymandered House, the minority has more than a voice these days; it effectively controls the agenda. Much like the Slave South once did.

In the Last Year IRS Has Approved Tea Party Groups 400% More Than Liberal Groups

2013-05-19T12:37:00.002-07:00

The GOP's move to the Left has been as sharp as it has been fast.

This is a party that has never thought there was anything wrong with profiling before. For years they have argued that liberal criticism of profiling either Blacks in inner cities or Muslims at airports was just political correctness run amok.

Now all of a sudden they're outraged at the idea that the IRS at least in an Ohio office may have used a profiling method to target groups that abuse tax exempt status. The idea offends their pristine sensibilities. The fact that Tea Party groups have been very aggressive in applying for 401(c)(4) status over the last few years-coinciding with Citizens United which has led to an overall more than doubling of such applications-is no cause for them to receive higher scrutiny.

Meanwhile, just a few weeks ago conservatives were demanding that we profile Muslims in various ways in light of the Boston bombing. However, that was before a conservative group was allegedly the victim of profiling. Now they see it as a mortal crime.

Whatever conservatism is supposed to be about it's never been about the need to have an intellectually consistent and coherent position over time. They are now suddenly even bothered by the DOJ looking at the AP's phone records-and they are demanding that it did just that last year after there was concern that there was a security leak after the CIA successfully foiled a terrorist attack in Yemen.

What this very opportunistic lurch to the Left is likely to do is increase Tea Party groups like the Koch Brothers' ability to abuse the tax exempt laws. In fact, an analysis by Nate Silver suggests this is already happening.

According to the I.R.S. records, 54 organizations were granted 501(c)(4) status since 2010 with “Tea Party,” “patriot” or “9/12″ in their names. Five of those groups were approved in the first three months of 2010. Approvals then slowed considerably, I.R.S. data shows.

"The Indiana Armstrong Patriots was the only Tea Party organization approved during all of 2011, and it was one of just four groups with “Tea Party,” “patriot” or “9/12″ in their names that were approved from April 2010 through April 2012."

"The I.R.S. then approved 45 Tea Party groups in just 11 months, from May 2012 to March 2013. About half of those approvals — 23 — came in June, July and August, the first three full months after the final revision of the search criteria."

"As a point of comparison, we tried to identify liberal groups approved for 501(c)(4) status since 2010. A search for “progress,” “progressive,” “liberal” and “equality” finds 32 groups. (This might not be a representative sample — identifying left-leaning groups is more difficult, as there are is no clearly defined nomenclature on the left equivalent to the Tea Party.) The I.R.S. approved these groups at a fairly steady rate from 2010 through 2012. The I.R.S. approved 13 in 2010, nine in 2011 and 10 in 2012.

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/05/16/i-r-s-approved-dozens-of-tea-party-groups-following-congressional-scrutiny/

This sudden surge in approval coincided with the Republican House putting pressure on the IRS

" Public data from the Internal Revenue Service, which recently acknowledged that agency officials singled out conservative groups for special scrutiny, shows that dozens of Tea Party groups were approved for tax exempt status beginning in May 2012. That was the same month that Representative Dave Camp of Michigan wrote to the I.R.S. asking for information about all “social welfare” groups that had applied for tax-exempt status in 2010 and 2011, to determine whether the I.R.S. was targeting conservative groups."

"The flurry of approvals that came in the next few months was a sharp break from the previous two years, during which the agency approved just a handful of 501(c)(4) applications from Tea Party groups."

So were these Tea Party groups grossly underrepresented prior to Camp's latter or grossly overrepresented after? What do you suppose will be the patterns of future such data?

Isn't it quite inevitable that the IRS will be even more timid in teh future in rejecting Tea Party tax exempt applications after broadsides like this?

“I would hope that this new information about the politicization of the IRS should put the brakes on any sort of disclosure of donors who wish to remain anonymous,” said Charlie Spies, who helps raise money for several conservative organizations and previously led the super political action committee that raised more than $140 million to benefit Mitt Romney’s presidential bid. “We’re now seeing exactly what the risk is for donors to be disclosed.”

At least some tea party groups are unwilling to trust the agency with more enforcement power in the wake of such damaging revelations.

“The IRS’ integrity is shattered,” said Jenny Beth Martin, chairman of the Tea Party Patriots, which was among the largest nonprofit conservative groups the IRS targeted. She said that now, more than ever, donors need freedom to give money anonymously “without fear of retribution” from a politicized IRS. In the meantime, she says her organization’s influence is growing, fueled by anonymous unlimited donations.

http://diaryofarepublicanhater.blogspot.com/2013/05/a-solution-for-irs-scandal.html

Dan Pfieffer, the White House's Senior Adviser got it right today: the White House is going to urge strict and proper oversight of this process at the IRS but resist the attempts by the GOP to make this an open-ended partisan fishing expedition.

http://diaryofarepublicanhater.blogspot.com/2013/05/when-scandal-dust-clears-gop-is-still.html

However, the real oversight for the IRS tax exempt process is not what the GOP action is about. They want to further grease the skids for more Tea Party groups to get 401(c)(4) illegitimately.

How much news coverage have you seen about the fact that since Camp's hectoring letter Tea Party groups have been approved by a 4 to 1 margin over liberal groups? Will this point be acknowledged by the GOP investigation?

A real solution probably means that there should be fewer 401(c)(4) approvals rather than more.

When the Scandal Dust Clears GOP is Still Bankrupt

2013-05-19T10:17:00.001-07:00

As Greg Sargent points out, scandal mongering is no substitute for an actual agenda. The fact is that the GOP is morally and intellectually bankrupt. They were before Scandalgate started they will be when it ends and they are now.

Behind the scenes leading Republicans know this all too well.

"Republicans are furiously trying to spin the administration’s “scandals” into political gold, but it’s unclear whether Americans are taking the bait. As Greg pointed out this morning, anew Gallup poll finds only a slim majority of Americans who are “closely following” the Benghazi and Internal Revenue Service scandals. A large plurality are either not following closely, or not paying attention at all."

"As time progresses and these scandals begin to die down, the odds that Republicans will capture some advantage diminish. Moreover, there’s a chance this scandal fever will backfire and harm the GOP’s standing. Already, Republican officials are warning against scandal overreach, and conservative elites are warning that these controversies — even if they’re substantive — aren’t a substitute for an actual plan to govern. “Democratic scandal does not take the place of a Republican agenda,” writes the National Review, “a purely negative message, however justified, will not produce the governing majority Republicans should be aiming for in the next two elections.”

  http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2013/05/17/scandals-are-no-substitute-for-an-agenda/

At the end of the day, the scandal mongering reveals the basic bankruptcy of today's Republican party. They go this way as they have nothing substantive to offer the country. It can only go on for so long. As of yesterday's Gallup reading, Obama has a 51% job approval rating with 42% disapproving.

  http://www.gallup.com/home.aspx

  http://www.politico.com/blogs/politico-live/2013/05/obama-approval-rating-holding-steady-164302.html?hp=r1

Interest in the scandal is historically low as well. Meanwhile White House Senior Adviser Dan Pfeiffer hit just the right note on Sunday.

"White House senior adviser Dan Pfeiffer said on Sunday “there is no question that Republicans are trying to make political hay” with the IRS targeting of conservative groups."

“There is no question that Republicans are trying to make political hay here,” he said.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/politico-live/2013/05/pfeiffer-gop-trying-to-make-political-hay-with-irs-164311.html?hp=f3

That's exactly the right note to hit. While by all means lets have the needed oversight for the IRS it should not be an open-ended Republican fishing expedition. How much the White House will be able to stay on message is an open question but it's encouraging to see that they understand their objective.

A Solution For the IRS Scandal

2013-05-19T07:28:00.001-07:00

The real worry is that this will be used an excuse to weaken the agency and make it more reluctant to provide proper scrutiny and oversight of political groups seeking 501(c)(4) tax exempt status. No doubt this is something that many conservatives are doing right now-trying to weaken the agency, helped along by timid Dems.

“I would hope that this new information about the politicization of the IRS should put the brakes on any sort of disclosure of donors who wish to remain anonymous,” said Charlie Spies, who helps raise money for several conservative organizations and previously led the super political action committee that raised more than $140 million to benefit Mitt Romney’s presidential bid. “We’re now seeing exactly what the risk is for donors to be disclosed.”

At least some tea party groups are unwilling to trust the agency with more enforcement power in the wake of such damaging revelations.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/irs-probe-ignored-most-influential-groups.php?ref=fpb

Yes that sounds like a pretty convenient "solution." We've already heard a lot about the horror of Tea Party groups having to present their donors. We've heard "horror stories" of people who contributed $1 million dollars to Mitt Romney being-audited. Perhaps anyone from the Tea Party should be exempt from audits in the future as well.

“I would hope that this new information about the politicization of the IRS should put the brakes on any sort of disclosure of donors who wish to remain anonymous,” said Charlie Spies, who helps raise money for several conservative organizations and previously led the super political action committee that raised more than $140 million to benefit Mitt Romney’s presidential bid. “We’re now seeing exactly what the risk is for donors to be disclosed.”

At least some tea party groups are unwilling to trust the agency with more enforcement power in the wake of such damaging revelations.

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2013/05/having-your-application-scrutinized-is.html

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2013/05/todays-persecution-testimony.html

What needs to be done is actually simplification of the whole system. A Washington Post piece suggests ending the 501(c)(4) designation altogether.

"When Obama appeared in the East Room of the White House on Wednesday to announce the resignation of the acting IRS commissioner, he talked about implementing “new checks and new safeguards” and ensuring that “there’s not too much ambiguity surrounding these laws.”

"The solution lies in radical simplification. Let’s get rid of 501(c)(4) status. Encourage nonprofits to forswear political activity and become 501(c)(3)s. If they can’t stomach political chastity, let them become 527s: groups still exempt from taxes but required to disclose their donors."

"Anything short of that will guarantee that we haven’t seen our last “outrageous” IRS scandal."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/an-unthinkable-irs-scandal-more-like-unavoidable/2013/05/17/3f89a1ce-bd84-11e2-89c9-3be8095fe767_story_2.html

An added advantage would be that it would show that the fact that some Tea Party groups were asked to reveal their donor lists is no crime-to the contrary why should any political group not have to do so?

This solution makes too much sense, however, and confers no partisan advantage for the Republican party-which is all this scandal is about.

We're Now Living in the Retro 90s: Whitewater Without the Growth

2013-05-19T06:10:00.000-07:00

It's uncanny how much this last week recalls the 90s and not at all in a good way. In recent years many of us have come to see the 90s as an almost mythical, idyllic time. After all, it was the longest peacetime economic expansion, jobs were very plentiful, and the Internet was a new thing that seemed to offer limitless possibilities.

Few of us remembered this part of the 90s; the endless scandal mongering by President Clinton's political enemies. That's because in hindsight everyone looks back on the 90s as a great time. Liberals like me see it as validation of Clinton's policies-though many at the time thought he was too far on the Right. However, conservatives too have come to look back on it as a kind of Golden Age; they have also come to love Bill Clinton. During the 2012 campaign Romney often tried to claim Clinton for his own. I remember Republican operatives declared the election over the night of Clinton's great DNC Convention speech.

This week, however, we got the other side of the 90s: Whitewater, Ken Starr's open-ended fishing expedition, Monica Lewinsky, impeachment hearings. Who remembers it now but Clinton was impeached. However, the GOP didn't have the votes to actually force him out of office so that was the end of that.

Already we have all the over the top claims of Watergate equivalence. There are no end of conservatives now fulminating that this is the worst thing since Watergate.

http://diaryofarepublicanhater.blogspot.com/2013/05/after-reading-peggy-noonan-today-maybe.html

Much as I'd like to say Noonan is one of a kind, her absurd post yesterday is to use a term Republicans always use when they''re trying to turn a little smoke into a huge fire, "just the tip of the iceberg."

What's interesting though is that she didn't say "the worst thing since Whitewater"-nobody ever says that. Clinton's supposed sins are long since forgotten. Watergate on the other hand is one of the most overused analogies in American politics. Digby reminds us just how bad Watergate-and Nixon-was.

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2013/05/scandal-history-101.html

With Nixon, Watergate-where Nixon's plumbers broke into DNC headquarters-really was just the tip of the iceberg. Nixon had systematically abused his power to target political enemies. President Obama certainly hasn't done anything on those lines. Digby argues that part of the trouble is that the GOP wants to be even the score. However, the can't as Nixon really was that bad, that corrupt, and was one of a kind.

Is there any cause for optimism or are we condemned to totally replay the 90s-Ken Star without the growth? Well remember that ultimately Clinton won. No one remembers all the crazy antics of the GOP witch hunt. Everyone sees Clinton as a hero in retrospect. Republicans too-their narrative is that he wasn't partisan like President Obama!

I do expect Obama to outlast this as Clinton did. In 10 years maybe the GOP will love him too. That may seem unthinkable but no more than in the 90s the idea that Clinton would find favor with them. The real concern is that this totally puts a straitjacket on his agenda that already was up against a GOP brick wall of obstruction.

How much time will be wasted on these fake scandals? This time is time stolen from us. This week there are new signs of the pain the sequester is imposing on the economy. Of course, we're not talking about this but listening to conservatives whine that the Koch Brothers were "intimidated" by the IRS. We get to hear about how the civil liberties of people opposed to gay marriage have been violated.

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2013/05/todays-persecution-testimony.html

What's next? Was the Klan made to wait two years to receive 401(c)(4)? There is a piece in Politico's Playbook-that apparently is what all the big shots in Washington read-that says friends are urging Obama to adopt a Circuit Breaker to deal with Scandalgate. The trouble is that it's already a sign of resignation isn't it? It's almost on the level of appointing an Independent Counsel-something they must resist I believe.

I find the idea that Obama wants his staff to spend no more than 10% of their time on Scandalgate rather sobering too. That's a lot of time stolen from the public! And of course that's the most optimistic scenario. How often is that the one realized? Does this mean that we're going to see the White House spend considerably more than 10% of its time dealing with the scandals?

http://www.politico.com/playbook/

The question is how long the staying power is for this stuff. If scandals were about the truth it wouldn't have any. Benghazi has been decisively debunked. Yet, GOPers have moved the goal posts demanding more unclassified information. So we will waste more time on something that's already been shown every which way to Sunday to be a total red herring.

Still, my premise is that while scandals are not about truth, over time truth does start to nibble around the edges of scandals. In the Clinton years there really were a lot more scandals-mostly trumped up, but from the time Clinton was sworn in there was something in the news every day about some trumped up charge-the number was just dizzying. And let's be honest-Clinton's personal peccadilloes made him a real target. This is America where your career can be ruined for sending a single tweet that's felt to be inappropriate.

Obama is squeaky clean personally and his Administration has not been dogged by the scandals the way Clinton was from day 1. So maybe James Carville will be right. It's obvious that Obama did nothing wrong in the IRS case-though as Darrell Issa says ironically enough, based on his own personal history, 'you can always build a circumstantial case."

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/01/24/110124fa_fact_lizza?currentPage=8

As has been pointed out on the AP phone records furor it's basically a policy issue-one that the GOP has been far on the Right of until now. The headlines at many blogs seem to have calmed down too. So maybe it will blow over. But I won't believe it till I see it.

Michael Kinsley Thinks We Haven't Suffered Enough Pain

2013-05-18T08:50:00.003-07:00

He goes after Krugman.

"In short, I can’t help feeling that the gold bugs are right. No, I’m not stashing gold bars under my bed. But that’s only because I lack the courage of my convictions."

"My fear is not the result of economic analysis. It’s more from the realm of psychology. I mean mine."

"But this cure has been one ice-cream sundae after another. It can’t be that easy, can it? The puritan in me says that there has to be some pain. That’s not to say that there hasn’t been plenty of economic pain. But that pain has come from the recession itself, not the cure."

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/05/18/the-liquidationist-urge/

We often hear Austerians declare that you can't cure the debt problem with more debt. However, Kinsley thinks we can cure the pain problem with more pain. The cure must also hurt according to him.

Mr. Kinsley if you want pain try reading Peggy Noonan.

http://diaryofarepublicanhater.blogspot.com/2013/05/after-reading-peggy-noonan-today-maybe.html

As Krugman says, economics is not a morality play. As opposed to our political process which is a Vaudeville play.

P.S. Krugman wrote a very good piece in the New Yorker for how the case for austerity has crumbled.

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2013/jun/06/how-case-austerity-has-crumbled/

Of course, just in time, Washington has moved on to fake scandals about Obama. In 2009 we talked about jobs and the economy. In 2011 we "pivoted" to-unwarranted-deficit reduction. Now in 2013 we're pivoting to the Whitewater 90s. We get Ken Starr without the jobs and growth.

Yet Kinsley worries we haven't suffered enough yet.

After Reading Peggy Noonan Today Maybe I'll Go With Greg to Canada

2013-05-18T08:30:00.001-07:00

After I take a long, hot shower, As I've said, you have to understand the economy of a scandal. It's not about facts-though lots of "suggestions" and feeble guilt by associations and false correlations. Here's Greg:

"This is even less of a scandal then Benghazi. People did die at Benghazi.

"I'm so fucking sick of these damn rethuglican bullies."

"Zawistowski appeared on Neil Cavuto's show to say that he believed his group was among those targeted by the IRS. He said it took two-and-a-half years for his organization's tax-exempt status to be approved."

"BUT..... it was approved!
AND.... while awaiting approval he got to operate exactly as....... wait for it .... a 501c4 entity.

"The way 501c status works apparently is you just start acting like you are one... send in your documents ... and they will only tell you if you have to STOP. So you dont ask for permission to begin it is the IRS who may eventually tell you to cease and desist. As well, I cant find any indication that when they tell you to stop they actually make you pay back taxes or penalties (Im sure there are egregious examples that can be fined) so its really all a matter of these guys saying "Mommy he looked at me funny!"

http://diaryofarepublicanhater.blogspot.com/2013/05/the-trouble-with-scandals-is-theyre-not.html?showComment=1368874509614#c3165572922335567139

"This is the best line of your post,

"The GOP loves this-their only pleasure is in causing others pain; just look at their jubilation in forcing the sequester, which as of today is responsible for over 8000,000 furloughs for federal workers already"

"And this is why no one should WANT to live an a country governed by these assholes. Many of us will have to unfortunately, people cant just pick up and go where they please, (contrary to what most conservatives think) and we will fight for whats right while we are here."

"Our supposed allies in govt (democrats) are really quite pathetic, save someone like Eliz Warren who is really trying to be a thorn in the side of powerful financial interests, afraid when the bullies say boo!"

"Obama's getting impeached ya know. We are going to have to listen to this unending bullshit while more and more children lose food stamps, more and more families have their houses stolen by banks, more and more teenagers are jailed for pot so the private prison industry can meet their quotas to pay their "stockholders'. This is either a pathetic excuse of a govt for the people or the exact govt a pathetic populace deserves, we are going to find out which."

http://diaryofarepublicanhater.blogspot.com/2013/05/irs-acting-commissioner-steven-miller.html?showComment=1368698952177#c6680712428597502219

I don't think he's getting impeached. This really is a rerun of the Clinton years-in so many ways. He doesn't get impeached-I guess technically Clinton did get impeached but nobody remembers that. Today everyone looks at that GOP jaunt as aborted-even Newt Gingrich

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/17/newt-gingrich-gop-overreach_n_3292962.html?ref=topbar

The difference is that Dems have the Senate. As for this giving the Repugs a 2014 advantage, if this is still going on by then it will be a repeat of 1998 when they lost seats which is unheard of in an off year election for the party that doesn't have the White House. It's also funny that Newt thinks he overreached in 1998 and yet is urging them to do the same thing again.

Still, what about the time and money stolen from the public on this pointless sideshow. None of these groups even lost their tax exempt status as far as we know. Quite honestly, you might well question why that is. Really-why should we be subsidizing these Tea Party groups with their deep pockets?

Yet here is what charlatans like Noonan are worried about: people who personally donated $1 million dollars to Mitt Romney being "targeted." Again, not losing their tax exempt status-ie, they keep our subsidy-but having to wait a little longer to get an official seal of approval.

"The Journal's Kim Strassel reported an Idaho businessman named Frank VanderSloot, who'd donated more than a million dollars to groups supporting Mitt Romney. He found himself last June, for the first time in 30 years, the target of IRS auditors. His wife and his business were also soon audited. Hal Scherz, a Georgia physician, also came to the government's attention. He told ABC News: "It is odd that nothing changed on my tax return and I was never audited until I publicly criticized ObamaCare."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323582904578487460479247792.html

Left at the margins is why should any one person be allowed to donate $1 million dollars to a political candidate. Until Citizen's United, they couldn't. You love how these people play the victim. People get audited all the time. Where's the proof that this was improper in his case? Easy. He opposed President Obama so it must be.

Noonan's piece is retro, right out of the 90s. The 90s bromide always starts with Watergate comparisons-often it devolves to Stalin and Hitler. This is the worst thing since Nixon.

"We are in the midst of the worst Washington scandal since Watergate. The reputation of the Obama White House has, among conservatives, gone from sketchy to sinister, and, among liberals, from unsatisfying to dangerous. No one likes what they're seeing. The Justice Department assault on the Associated Press and the ugly politicization of the Internal Revenue Service have left the administration's credibility deeply, probably irretrievably damaged. They don't look jerky now, they look dirty. The patina of high-mindedness the president enjoyed is gone."

"Something big has shifted. The standing of the administration has changed."

"As always it comes down to trust. Do you trust the president's answers when he's pressed on an uncomfortable story? Do you trust his people to be sober and fair-minded as they go about their work? Do you trust the IRS and the Justice Department? You do not."

Yes, much bigger than Dick Cheney targeting Valerie Plame and deliberately blowing her cover for political payback.

Everything's the worst since Watergate and most of these people had no problem with the original Watergate. Meanwhile in the 90s we we're hearing that Bill Clinton's blowjob was the worst thing since Watergate. In pieces just like this on the very same Wall Street Journal editorial page. I'm sure Noonan wrote her share of those too.

Darrell Issa says this investigation into the IRS is not about the President-that these are different agencies of government.

"But the key Republican lawmaker with jurisdiction on all these matters said that a rerun of the Clinton-era probes won't occur."

“These are all different agencies of government. This administration owns the failures, but not necessarily the direct blame … we’re looking at each individual case so it’s very different than what you view historically as a target where it [was] always about President Clinton. This isn’t about President Obama,” House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) told The Hill.

No one has told Noonan that. It's about the President because everything is about him-Green Lantern Presidential Leadership Theory (GLPLT) says so.

"The president, as usual, acts as if all of this is totally unconnected to him. He's shocked, it's unacceptable, he'll get to the bottom of it. He read about it in the papers, just like you."

"But he is not unconnected, he is not a bystander. This is his administration. Those are his executive agencies. He runs the IRS and the Justice Department."

"A president sets a mood, a tone. He establishes an atmosphere. If he is arrogant, arrogance spreads. If he is too partisan, too disrespecting of political adversaries, that spreads too. Presidents always undo themselves and then blame it on the third guy in the last row in the sleepy agency across town."

"The IRS scandal has two parts. The first is the obviously deliberate and targeted abuse, harassment and attempted suppression of conservative groups. The second is the auditing of the taxes of political activists."

Right. Americans are audited every day-but wealthy conservative groups should be free of them. If some wealthy Romney donor is audited or made to wait on getting permanent 401(c)(4) status, that's the most heinous thing that's ever happened perhaps on the level of genocide. The 800,000 plus furloughed federal workers? Yawnsville.

Meanwhile no one wonders why we have so many wealthy groups who donate to Republican causes getting 401(c)(4) status at all. Why should we have to subsidize this?

Yet supposedly the idea that they faced any scrutiny at all is the worst thing since Watergate. Actually some things happened that were arguably worse than Watergate-the Bush years which started out with a stolen election that now even Sandra Day O'Conner has second thoughts about.

"And why—in the matters of the Associated Press and Benghazi too—does no one in this administration ever take responsibility? Attorney General Eric Holder doesn't know what happened, exactly who did what. The president speaks in the passive voice. He attempts to act out indignation, but he always seems indignant at only one thing: that he's being questioned at all. That he has to address this. That fate put it on his plate."

Could it be because Benghazi is a fake scandal that has turned up nothing? The only altering of documents it turns out are the Republicans who falsified the talking points emails. Why don't they take responsibility for that? I know facts are boring. Let's make categorical assertions for which there are no facts at all.

"All of these IRS actions took place in the years leading up to the 2012 election. They constitute the use of governmental power to intrude on the privacy and shackle the political freedom of American citizens. The purpose, obviously, was to overwhelm and intimidate—to kill the opposition, question by question and audit by audit."

"It is not even remotely possible that all this was an accident, a mistake. Again, only conservative groups were targeted, not liberal. It is not even remotely possible that only one IRS office was involved."

Yes she bases this dogmatic certainty on what exactly? Not facts. But those don't matter.

She then laughably claims that she doesn't like hyperpartisanship and scandal mongering.

"We all have our biases. Mine is for a federal government that, for all the partisan shootouts on the streets of Washington, is allowed to go about its work. That it not be distracted by scandal, that political disagreement be, in the end, subsumed to the common good. It is a dangerous world: Calculating people wish to do us harm. In this world no draining, unproductive scandals should dominate the government's life. Independent counsels should not often come in and distract the U.S. government from its essential business."

"But that bias does not fit these circumstances."

Could she maybe give us a hint at what circumstances might fit this bias? It didn't fit the 90s either where we also had an independent counsel. And when has the government ever been able to go about its work? Her beloved Republicans have done everything in their power to make this impossible for 5 years.

"What happened at the IRS is the government's essential business. The IRS case deserves and calls out for an independent counsel, fully armed with all that position's powers. Only then will stables that badly need to be cleaned, be cleaned. Everyone involved in this abuse of power should pay a price, because if they don't, the politicization of the IRS will continue—forever. If it is not stopped now, it will never stop. And if it isn't stopped, no one will ever respect or have even minimal faith in the revenue-gathering arm of the U.S. government again."

"And it would be shameful and shallow for any Republican operative or operator to make this scandal into a commercial and turn it into a mere partisan arguing point and part of the game. It's not part of the game. This is not about the usual partisan slugfest. This is about the integrity of our system of government and our ability to trust, which is to say our ability to function."

Of course it is. The GOP does this during every Democratic Administration. Everything ultimately becomes about independent counsels and subpoenas and "the worse thing since Watergate" although of course Republicans supported the original Watergate.

Now the big scoop is that they knew. Since the IRS according to Miller at yesterday's hearing let Treasury figures know about the audit of the IRS in 2012 this is some earth shattering smoking gun.

"The Internal Revenue Service's watchdog told top Treasury officials around June 2012 he was investigating allegations the tax agency had targeted conservative groups, for the first time indicating that Obama administration officials were aware of the explosive matter in the midst of the president's re-election campaign."

"The disclosure to the Treasury general counsel and the deputy secretary was a cursory one, according to J. Russell George, the Treasury inspector general for tax administration. He said he didn't reveal conclusions of the probe, which was in its early stages, and his disclosure came as part of a routine update to Treasury leaders. At the time, Republican lawmakers were complaining publicly about alleged IRS targeting of tea-party groups."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324767004578488833834357540.html?mod=WSJ__MIDDLENexttoWhatsNewsForth

This is thin gruel but will no doubt be gist for much, much more baseless speculation and conclusions of this going all the way up to the top. Let's face it, all Noonan, Issa, and David Camp care about is that it goes all the way to the top. If it doesn't there's no payoff for them.

It doesn't help that Democrats like Carl Levin are making a huballo that Congress wasn't made aware of this in 2012. The only wiggle room that leaves is for the White House to argue that Treasury never told them. So at best this will lead to demands that heads roll at Treasury.

If only Dems would stop agreeing with the GOP about how awful this is. In truth we had between Citizen's United and a rash of new Tea Party applications for tax exempt status that needed to be scrutinized. Maybe the method chosen was not optimum, but this is hardly earth shattering and has nothing to do with the White House.

In truth we shouldn't have so many tax exempt groups as the NYTimes says.

"NEWS that employees at the Internal Revenue Service targeted groups with “Tea Party” or “patriot” in their name for special scrutiny has raised pious alarms among some lawmakers and editorial writers."

"Yes, the I.R.S. may have been worse than clumsy in considering an avalanche of applications for nonprofit status under the tax code, and that deserves scrutiny whether or not the agency’s employees were spurred by partisan motives. After all, some of these “tea party” groups are most likely not innocent nonprofit organizations devoted to the cultural significance of hot beverages — or to other, more civic, virtues. Rather, they and others are groups that may be illegally spending a majority of their resources on political activity while manipulating the tax code to hide their donors and evade taxes (the unwritten rule being that no more than 49 percent of a group’s resources can be used for political purposes)."

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/16/opinion/the-real-irs-scandal.html?hp&_r=0

That is the real scandal and when do you suppose Congress is going to get around to speaking to that problem? What this is really about is the IRS was knocked off balance by all the big money that was suddenly unshackled by Citizen's United and the Tea Party groups in particular all came to cash in at once.

Again, though, in a scandal the facts don't matter. Making them matter is the key.

The IRS Pseudoscandal: At Least in Benghazi Four People Died

2013-05-18T05:29:00.000-07:00

Thank you Greg for making that point. I fully agree with you that this is really intolerable to have to go through this again. History really does it repeat itself-as Marx and Hegel said-the second time as farce. Of course, this was a farce the first time.

http://diaryofarepublicanhater.blogspot.com/2013/05/the-trouble-with-scandals-is-theyre-not.html?showComment=1368874509614#c3165572922335567139

It's funny. I remember in recent years the 90s as a great time-as the economy was great and there were so many jobs. However, now I'm remembering the downside of the 90s. We had to listen to these Republican bullies with the complicity of the media. See this is what the Right wing media exists for. They know perfectly well that they're a big joke. But once the got the Beltway media to bite the apple,, then they've hit the sweet spot.

http://diaryofarepublicanhater.blogspot.com/2013/05/the-beltway-media-very-sadistic-people.html

I can't blame Greg's frustration. Even Huffington Post seems to be catching this Beltway disease some.

http://diaryofarepublicanhater.blogspot.com/2013/05/thank-god-for-media-matters.html

All I can tell you is that I'm here and as long as the media fails to do it's job and let's this sit on the front pages-knocking all the furloughs of the sequester sit on the back-I'm going to keep knocking them down. At least I have some kind of microphone now unlike the 90s.

And Media Matters is here now too. We libs have got to fight back. The biggest laugh is the VSP telling us that Clinton got leadership unlike Obama. Recall what they said about Clinton. It's no different form what they say about Obama. They praise Clinton mainly to hurt Obama.

"With some exceptions, the Washington Establishment is outraged by the president's behavior in the Monica Lewinsky scandal. The polls show that a majority of Americans do not share that outrage. Around the nation, people are disgusted but want to move on; in Washington, despite Clinton's gains with the budget and the Mideast peace talks, people want some formal acknowledgment that the president's behavior has been unacceptable. They want this, they say, not just for the sake of the community, but for the sake of the country and the presidency as well."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/quinn110298.htm

This above link is a very interesting read-don't attempt it on an empty stomach though. The pretensions of the Beltway press are truly laughable as well as both pathological and pathetic.

I've also come across this new website about the Beltway press that I can't put down. It's very gossipy but it tells you lots of stuff you didn't know.

http://www.mediabistro.com/fishbowldc/

It's all about know your enemy and as long as these feeble-brains-I agree with Bachman it is the lamestream media-attack my President for no good reason they have my unmitigating wrath.

To all you liberal bloggers-this is not a dress rehearsal. You are firemen and this is a fire. If you stay back playing dominoes what good are you?

Thank God For Media Matters

2013-05-17T22:32:00.000-07:00

At times like this we really need it. This week has shown if nothing else that history really does repeat itself-or as Marx said, it repeats itself as farce. Well the Clinton baiting was a farce and so is the Obama baiting.

Maybe absurd things come in twos. I don't know. What I can tell you is I really hate the Beltway media right now. I mean I feel like I could chew nails-provided these nails were the Beltway media. I notice that even pretty good journalists are coming down with this strange disease during these scandalfests. Christ Matthews started an absurd rant where he psychoanalyzed the President as 'only liking giving speeches' but having no appetite for any of the real parts of governing.

Say what you will about Matthews but at the end of the day, he's like any other Beltway insider-a totally unprincipled lemming. We've often heard the Green Latternists-a la Maureen Dowd-complain that unlike Clinton, Obama doesn't know how to lead. Yet, Dowd and Matthews treated Clinton just as miserably as they are now treating Obama.

Even Huffintgton Post just wrote such a bad piece you'd think it was written by Politico's Mike Allen.

"The administration is on the defensive for a trio of issues that are threatening to derail the president's second-term agenda. In addition to the IRS case, President Barack Obama and other officials are being pressed about last September's terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya, that killed the U.S. ambassador and three other Americans, and the government's seizure of Associated Press telephone records as part of a leaks investigation."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/17/irs-probe_n_3295076.html#postComment

Just like all of the VSP's work, this gives a false impression. You;d never know reading it that, Benghazi is completely stillborn as a scandal, that there's nothing there. In fact, the only wrongdoing we've discovered so far is the Republicans who gave ABC's John Karl false information.

I'm guessing there won't be a hearing into that anytime soon. However, Media Matters points out that John Karl could show some integrity of his own and tell us who the source was that gave him false information-as Dave Camp would say 'not misleading information, but lying.'

"Another key question is whether Karl should reveal the source who misled him. While journalists take seriously the vow to not reveal the identity of confidential sources in exchange for the information that those sources provide, it's not unheard of for journalists to reveal source identities if it's proven that that person badly misled a reporter or passed along bogus information. Some observers think that's what happened in the case of the Benghazi talking points."

"The answer here is that Karl pretty clearly got burned by his source," wrote Talking Points Memo editor, Josh Marshall.

"Reporters enter into an agreement and give anonymity to sources in exchange for information, and specifically, in exchange for reliable information. But when sources pass along provably false misinformation, and particularly when they do it a plainly partisan fashion, the nature of that agreement changes and under some newsroom interpretations, reporters are no longer bound to keep secret the name of the unreliable source. In fact, it's sometimes argued reporters are obligated to 'burn' their source in the name of disclosing attempts at misinformation."

"Some journalists adhere to a code where the pledge of anonymity is broken if the source lies," noted the New York Times' then-managing editor, Jill Abramson, in 2009.

"This newsroom ethics issue was raised prominently during the Valerie Plame leak investigation under the Bush administration. While the White House was sparring with anti-war critics, such as Valerie Plame's husband, Joe Wilson, who accused the administration of manipulating intelligence, conservative columnist Robert Novak wrote a column pushing back against Wilson. Citing "two senior administration officials," Novak named Wilson's wife and identified her as a CIA "operative on weapons of mass destruction.'' Outing an undercover CIA employee is against the law and Novak's column sparked a criminal investigation to determine who had provided him with that information."

"At the time, the New York Times' public editor, Geneva Overholser, noted that journalists ought to speak out against ethical lapses by their sources. She advised the following [emphasis added]:

In this case, then, journalists should call upon Mr. Novak to acknowledge his abuse of confidentiality and reveal his sources himself -- thereby keeping the control of confidentiality in journalistic hands rather than in those of the legal system.

"Should Karl follow the same advice?"

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/05/16/should-jonathan-karl-reveal-his-benghazi-email/194099

During dismal times like these, where we are repeating the 90s, MM is a vital resource-and sanctuary-from the media filter of the VSP. The beauty of it is that while this is a great reminder that the 90s weren't quite as idyllic as many of us remember-and we went through it-MM was basically midwifed from the putrid world of Whitewater, Monica Lewinsky, and Ken Starr.

They are the kinds of fire department we need for precisely this kind of inferno-GOP led feeding frenzies.

P.S. It goes without saying that Diary is also a vital resource in times like this-or even times not at all like this... But I digress.