Nichols & May "$65 Funeral"

3:26 PM, MAY 17 2013

The Real IRS Scandal That No One Is Talking About

by Kurt Eichenwald    

I’m not all that outraged that the I.R.S. held up applications by Tea Party groups for tax-exempt status. I’m outraged that any of them—or their liberal counterparts—qualify for that status at all.

Unfortunately, given the way this I.R.S. scandal slid so easily into ideological definitions, I fear that few non-politicos are recognizing the real disgrace here: that the federal government—Congress, the White House, the tax agency, and the Supreme Court—has created a situation where blatantly political organizations are able to legally break the law by pretending they’re something that they’re not.

The key to this obscene state of affairs is an entity known as a 501(c)(4), named for the section of the tax code that created it. Supposedly, these are civic associations or organizations devoted to social welfare, which can operate tax-free, but whose donors aren't allowed to deduct their contributions. Fair enough.

But then comes the loopholes that politicos have used to drive not only a truck through the intention of the law but a whole fleet. Unlike a wholly charitable organization, a 501(c)(4) can engage in political activities, so long as it is not its primary purpose. In other words, I could form an organization that spends 49.99999 percent of its time, energy, and money on politics and still be deemed tax exempt. In other words, you, me—every American citizen—can be providing a tax subsidy to groups that (theoretically) are spending almost half of their money on politics. It’s worse than that. Under the law, a 501(c)(4) can spend an unlimited amount of money on lobbying, so long as it is related to its “primary purpose.” So, in truth, an organization can be fully political under any rational interpretation of the meaning of that word, yet be deemed not to be primarily political under the law.

The floodgates for this disgusting arrangement were largely opened—like almost all things that have perverted modern American democracy—from the Supreme Court’s 2010 decision in Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission. This is the case where the Supreme Court ruled that corporations, associations, and labor unions have the right to invest unlimited amounts of money in political campaigns under the specious idea that they held the same rights to free speech that individuals do. In other words, that those entities with cash—that don’t even have the right to cast a ballot—get to be heard more on political issues than individual voters do. While they can’t give money to specific candidates, they can do whatever they want to support them so long as they act independently.

Some commentators and politicos—almost all Republicans—hailed the decision as a victory for free speech, one that would improve the system. “There will certainly be campaign abuses, as there are now, and many will not be happy with the court’s ruling,” Ed Rollins, a longtime G.O.P. political consultant, said at the time. “But the full disclosure law lets you know who is doing what and that’s a good thing.”

Yah, right. Add in the 501(c)(4) rules, and you don’t get to know what anyone is doing. Citizens United specified that 501(c)(4)s could make expenditures in political races, so long as they meet the “primary purpose” standard. And while these organizations have to disclose the money they spent, they don’t have to say anything about who donated it. So, if Joe the Multibillionaire wants to have greater say in the direction of our political system than any other individual, he could legally launder $500 million through a 501(c)(4), which then spends $249.999 million on political races, and another couple of hundred million on lobbying, grass-roots organizing, etc.

If you don’t see the abuse set in motion here, let’s take a look at a hypothetical 501(c)(4). I form an organization dedicated to, say, advocating for public support of Obamacare (yes, I picked an example I hope will rile up conservatives, to get them to understand how outrageous this is).

My organization is a 501(c)(4), since, under the law, I am able to self-designate its tax status.Truthfully, I never have to file for I.R.S. approval; the fact that I have decided that my group qualifies under the rule is enough. There is the danger that the overworked and understaffed tax agency might later choose to closely review my organization—one of untold thousands out there—and rule that it was, in fact, not qualified as a 501(c)(4), which might require it to pay back taxes. But more important, my group would have to disclose the names of all of its contributors, when hiding those identities is the main point of most of these political 501c4's. And so, I might decide to go ahead and file for approval, particularly if I’m close to—or over—the line “limiting” political activity.

My application could say that my primary purpose is to educate the public about the benefits of comprehensive government health-care programs. If I spend 49 percent of my time and money directly in support of candidates who back Obamacare, I’m fine. If I spend the rest of my money on lobbying, organizing grass-roots groups, and “educating” them about the importance of Obamacare, I’m right on the line, but still could be approved. (And remember, I don’t have to seek I.R.S. approval in the first place before I stop paying taxes.) In other words, I have formed a group that exists solely for political purposes, both for supporting individual candidates and lobbying, both direct and grass roots. It’s fine for me to form such an organization, but why the hell should it be getting tax subsidies through exempt status?

O.K., now imagine you are an I.R.S. official responsible for reviewing the thousands of applications submitted each year by groups claiming to be 501(c)(4)s. Which do you think deserves special attention to determine possible violations of the political rules? My fictitious group, Patriots for Obamacare? Or the Laurel Garden Club?

And there, in large part, is the “scandal.” Imagine you are one of the handful—and it is literally a handful—of officials in the Determinations Unit in Cincinnati, Ohio, which is responsible for determining whether a purported 501(c)(4) is primarily engaged in political activities. In the aftermath of Citizens United, you are flooded with new applications from groups seeking 501(c)(4) status—in a couple of years, according to the I.R.S. inspector general’s report, the number almost doubles from 1,751 to 3,357. The number of people working to determine if these are primarily political organizations stays about the same. You need to find a way to come up with a means for determining which might be solely political groups masquerading as social-welfare organizations. But Congress, in its infinite wisdom, has given you no easy definitions or standards to determine what does or does not constitute political activity.

Plenty of these new applicants have words like “Tea Party” and “patriot” in their names. In fact, in 2010, most of the new applicants were on the conservative side. So, you make a decision to give scrutiny to groups with names from a political movement as a basis for determining if they are political. (Problem is, the only thing similar on the liberal side is the Occupy movement, and there aren't any organizations with that in their name that are 501(c)(4)s. Maybe the word “progress” or “progressive,” but again, that number appears to be fairly small.)

There’s no denying that the decision to use the name shorthand was an error, because it created the appearance—and I can’t rule out this may have been part of the intent—that roadblocks were being thrown in the way of conservative organizations. But bear one thing in mind—this didn't stop the groups from operating just as they otherwise would have. Moreover, it didn't stop them from self-designating as 501(c)(4)s, if they truly believed that their status was an easy call. All it meant was either their contributor names had to be disclosed or the groups had to take a risk of a negative I.R.S. determination in the future.

We can’t pretend this system isn't being grotesquely abused. Crossroads Grassroots Policy Strategies—a Karl Rove group that is run by a bunch of political experts that has spent millions of dollars on television commercials attacking Democrats in key Senate races—has been judged as a legitimate 501(c)(4). Moveon.org, the liberal advocacy group, has a 501(c)(4) offshoot. But it makes perfect sense that more conservative groups attracted attention—it’s a matter of arithmetic. In 2010, the year the reviews in question began, the majority of new applications were from organizations on the right.) Moreover, records show that conservative 501(c)(4)s were by far spending more money on politics: the top five liberal 501(c)(4)s spent $11.3 million in political expenditures in 2010, less than half of the $26 million spent by the top conservative group. The top five conservative groups spent $63.6 million on politics, six times the amount put out by those top five liberal 501(c)(4)s.

Even some prominent conservatives didn't get the memo about what to call 501(c)(4)s that are supposed to be primarily non-political. For example, there is no doubt that the conservative Heritage Foundation is a legitimate 501(c)(3)—a group that can collect tax-deductible contributions, since it serves almost exclusively an educational purpose. But then Heritage decided to set up a 501(c)(4) called Heritage Action for America, which under the rules is supposed to be primarily not for politics. But go to the organization’s Web page for donations, and take a look at how prominent conservatives describe it. Sean Hannity is quoted as saying, “Heritage Action is the political muscle that turns conservative policy ideas into conservative realities on Capitol Hill.” Margaret Thatcher is quoted saying, “Heritage Action will be a transformational force in American politics.”

Here’s the bottom line for me. This scandal is all about a few people at a Cincinnati office of a Washington agency struggling to apply undefined rules at a period of unprecedented transformation in American politics. Conservatives and liberals will scream and tear out their hair about those poor folks making a mistake.

Then they will proceed with their effort to undermine American democracy by abusing the intent of federal law. And that is the scandal that all of us should really care about.     

Oklahoma On My Mind (Sorry, Georgia)

Oh, where to begin?

Political spin making something out of nothing while failing to recognize truly important problems?

Insects taking over my territory due to a wet and warm spring?

Daily irritations from being around people who refuse to use their craniums?

My nervousness due to being invited onto a 1/2 hour radio show to promote our business?

Too much to do and not enough time to do it?

Nope. None of those things. Not now.


All of the things listed above (and more, believe me, there were more) were instantly melted from my brain and dripped off my shoulders as soon as I saw what happened to Moore.


It never ceases to amaze me how a horrific tragedy puts everything into perspective.

My house is standing. My place of employment is standing. My family and my hounds are all safe and sound.

That feeling - at that very moment - is something I constantly have to remind myself to hold dear.

I never want to take for granted all of the boring, mundane, same-old-same-old, day-in-and-day-out joys of life.


Life is too precious and too short.

This Date In History - "Hello Dolly!"

On May 9, 1964 "Hello Dolly!" became the top pop record in the U.S. This milestone got Louis Armstrong put on the Billboard music chart in the top spot. This was the first time in his 41 year music career to be in the number one spot. 

Here is a live all Louis version:

And here is the soundtrack from the movie with Barbra Streisand and Louis Armstrong together:

Psychic (Dis)Ability

Please, if you believe in psychics STOP!

Berry’s Mom was told daughter was dead. Thanks, Sylvia. You were so &*%#^ helpful. (UPDATED)

May 6, 2013

By idoubtit

Missing teens Amanda Berry, Gina Dejesus and Michelle Knight have been found. This is incredible news for their families who have been living a nightmare all these years.

BREAKING: Amanda Berry, Michelle Knight, she and Gina DeJesus – CBS 5 – KPHO.

A woman claiming to be Amanda Berry called Cleveland Police Monday afternoon.

She also told the 911 dispatcher that Gina DeJesus is with her. A third missing woman, 32-year old Michelle Knight, was in the home with Berry and DeJesus. It’s believed Knight disappeared when she was 20.

It appears this is true and quite AMAZING news.

Cleveland police dispatch: Missing teens Amanda Berry and Gina DeJesus found alive.

Berry was last seen in 2003 when she was called her sister to say she was getting a ride home from work at the Burger King on West 110th Street and Lorain Avenue. She was set to turn 17 the day after her disappearance.

Ten years ago, guess who predicted Amanda Berry was dead…

Amanda Berry’s mother asks Psychic Sylvia Browne ‘Is she out there’ | wkyc.com.

Amanda Berry’s mother traveled to New York to tell her story to Psychic Sylvia Browne on the Montel Williams Show. The show was a shot at getting her daughter’s picture before the eyes of millions of Americans. “On April 21st 2003, 16-year-old Amanda Berry left her part-time job never to be seen again,” the show began. With that, TV viewers across America now know a girl from Cleveland is missing. But Amanda Berry’s mom wanted more than her daughter’s picture on national TV. She wants answers. “Can you tell me…Is she out there?” Berry’s mother Louwana Miller asked. “I hate when they’re in the water,” Browne said. “She’s not alive honey.” It was bad news from the world-renowned psychic. It’s what Miller didn’t want to hear. “So you don’t think I’ll ever see her again,” Miller said. “Yeah in Heaven on the other side,” Browne responded. “I’m sorry.”

Yep, Amanda’s Mom thought her child was dead. She died of heart failure in 2006.

We have seen many MANY, WAY TOO MANY stories of psychics being wrong or at least distracting and unhelpful for solving cases. Sylvia is all those and more. For all that is good and decent in the world – NEVER trust a psychic. DO not waste your time, your effort and your hopes.

Here is a transcript from the show.

Up to this point, her prediction that Shawn Hornbeck was dead was her biggest blunder.

STOP Sylvia Browne

Psychic Defective: Sylvia Browne’s History of Failure – CSI.

UPDATE: (8-May-2013) This epic fail has been major news. The backlash appears to be quite harsh on social media. After reportedly receiving a barrage of negative comments on her Facebook page, the page is now closed. Hmm. She has not made a public comment though her publicist says we can’t expect her to be 100% correct. She is correct as good as chance. And this is another MAJOR ERROR. That list is growing.

Is this the end for Sylvia Browne? She is 76 and not in the best of health. Her heyday was in the Larry King and Montel Williams days. Both are gone and no one seems to want an unpopular psychic on their show. I sure hope her career is over. She’s done way WAY too much harm and made millions from it.

Morchella Mania

Hello. My name is Hermit Ladee and I'm a morchellaholic. It's been 2 days since my last foray into the woods.

I thought I had it beat. I really did. The dreams about finding mushrooms had ceased. I looked for days without any luck. I just KNEW the season was over. And I was glad. I am tired of hunting. I'm tired of ticks, snakes, briers and a throbbing knee. I had made up my mind that I would do NO MORE hunting.

On Monday I took the hounds out to sniff and dig in the field. That's all I was going to do. Just walking in the field. The hounds made a bee line over to the far corner... next to the woods... next to a mushroom patch. I would not go in there. I'd just walk over to the corner of the field. That's all!

Well, since I was that close... I mean, it's not like there would be any more mushrooms. I'd already picked that patch clean. I'd just go take a quick look, not find anything, then get out.

I tip toed in as carefully as I could, avoiding the prickles and nettles. I gently moved back some knee high greenery and there it was! It was beautiful. Gleaming in the sunlight like a golden statue! It was 6" high and I snipped it and carefully put it in my shirt. I didn't have my mushroom bag with me since I wasn't planning on finding anything.

And then it happened. Well, if this one is up, then there must be more! I waded the nettles, dodged the turtles, leaped over the logs and mucked through the mud for 90 more minutes. And I didn't find one more blessed thing at all.

I should have known. It was just a tease. But a little tease is all it takes when you have Morchella Mania. And this old hermit has got it bad!

National Security

Benghazi Again

By Joe KleinMay 08, 2013

Read more: http://swampland.time.com/2013/05/08/benghazi-again/#ixzz2SiyNrxBo

The Republicans, apparently with nothing better to do, are still chasing their tails over the tragic events in Benghazi on September 11.

Actually, no. That’s not true. They’re chasing their tails over what happened after the tragic events of September 11. They’re mostly concerned that the Obama Administration tried to cover up the fact that this was a terrorist attack by a local militia (translation: local street gang) which aspired toward bad-butt Al Qaeda status. This is a pretty hard sell since, the day after the attack, the President called it an “act of terror.”

It does seem that the Administration’s talking points were massaged a bit after the President’s candor. This may have been attributable to the presidential campaign and the Administration’s desire to low-ball the Al Qaeda threat. If so, this was a venial, not a mortal, sin. It affected not one life. More likely, though, the wording was scrubbed as a result of the nature of the investigation going on at the time–it may have been deemed premature to announce that it was a pre-meditated act of terror. Perhaps the local militia lucked into a situation where they showed up at the consulate and found very little security protection. Hard to say. There were protests all over the middle east that night, ginned up by jihadis using the excuse of a near-unseen anti-Muslim You Tube video.

But let’s say the street gang had been casing the joint in advance. Who’s to blame  for  the lax security? This is the real substance of the case. Could it have been the Secretary of State? Undoubtedly, no. This sort of question is well below her pay grade. Could it have been the person in charge of embassy security issues? More likely, and that person resigned after the subsequent investigations…and even that might have been unfair for two reasons. Security was up to the Ambassador and Chris Stevens was well known for erring on the side of greater public access to U.S. facilities. Or, more plausibly, reason number two…

Could it have been the Republicans who consistently voted against funds for increased embassy security? Hmmm…that makes their current carping seem awfully political, doesn’t it? Again, sins of politics are not mortal. But one does wonder why the Republicans tend to fix on issues like this, which are defined by their absence of substance. (I haven’t noticed the Republicans clamoring to spend more on embassy security–which would be a matter of substance, happily embraced by the Administration.But that would require a budget deal, which would give the President a win.)

In fact, the Republicans are now, according to the Washington Post, back in their standard dilatory mode when it comes to producing a budget agreement because–wait for it–things are going pretty well in the deficit department. With recovery, there are higher tax revenues (up 16%) and lower government payouts for services to the unemployed, and the deficits are melting away. So the Republicans believe that they’ve lost their leverage to reduce government spending.

Reducing government spending–rather than speeding a recovery–was always the Republican intent. The evidence was just too overwhelming that reducing spending in a recession retarded, rather than speeded, a recovery. What the current, intellectually limited GOP really care about is: government spending=wasting money on the poor. Everything else is flummery and encrustation.

The sad thing here is that the Republicans are right, in part, about government spending. It is wasteful. There are far more efficient ways to do Medicare that would produce a better health care system for the elderly. Social Security disability is slouching toward scamdom. The Veterans Administration is a 19th century bureaucratic disaster. Unemployment benefits and food stamps should require some sort of return service from recipients. The list goes on…But rather than address the substance of those problems–problems that Democrats don’t seem very interested in solving–they obsess on the stupid: fixing on more-or-less budget debates, federal dictatorship fantasies and meaningless political ploys like Benghazi.

I suspect they won’t be a viable political party until they begin to focus on substance rather than emptiness.

Read more: http://swampland.time.com/2013/05/08/benghazi-again/#ixzz2SiyFBl4h