Acting Irs Chief Ousted Over Tax Scandal As Obama Vows Change

[chuckd]

>

 

>Two House Dems demand Lerner resignation after using lobbyist to stage modified limited hangout

posted at 4:49 pm on May 17, 2

Edit in: I have no idea what happened here. My post disappeared into the ether called the internet.

Edited May 20, 2013 by chuckd

[Loptr]

Is this the smoking gun?

http://spectator.org/archives/2013/05/20/obama-and-the-irs-the-smoking/

President met with anti-Tea Party IRS union chief the day before agency targeted Tea Party.

March 31, 2010.

According to the White House Visitors Log, provided here in searchable form by U.S. News and World Report, the president of the anti-Tea Party National Treasury Employees Union, Colleen Kelley, visited the White House at 12:30pm that Wednesday noon time of March 31st.

The very next day after her White House meeting with the President, according to the Treasury Department’s Inspector General’s Report, IRS employees — the same employees who belong to the NTEU — set to work in earnest targeting the Tea Party and conservative groups around America. The IG report wrote it up this way:

April 1-2, 2010: The new Acting Manager, Technical Unit, suggested the need for a Sensitive Case Report on the Tea Party cases. The Determinations Unit Program Manager Agreed.

This site is responding very sluggishly. Almost as if it's under a DDOS attack. From the content of the article, I can see why.

[Jingthing]

Is this the smoking gun?

...

Only if the "gun" you are smoking is filled with wacky tabacky.

[chuckd]

Two House Dems demand Lerner resignation after using lobbyist to stage modified limited hangout

posted at 4:49 pm on May 17, 2013 by Ed Morrissey

Whats worse than a high-ranking federal bureaucrat dishonestly setting up a planted question in order to stage a modified limited hangout in order to downplay an explosive scandal coming on quickly? Using a lobbyist to do it:...

...Reps. Joe Crowley (D-Queens) and Sander Levin (D-Mich), top Democrats on the House Ways and Means Committee, on Friday demanded the resignation of Lois Lerner, head of the IRS division overseeing tax-exempt organizations....

http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives/2013/05/17/two-house-dems-demand-lerner-resignation-after-using-lobbyist-to-stage-modified-limited-hangout/

Well of course. She was in charge of that department, not Ingram. Funny how conservatives and tea party went after Ingram instead who has been in Obamacare team since December 2010.

It would seem this article believes Ms. Ingram was in fact actually in charge of the tax exempt department through 2012, which I believe is contrary to your earlier post that she left that department in 2010.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

White House aide: ‘Nothing that suggests’ IRS official at center of scandal ‘did anything wrong’

By Ben Wolfgang-The Washington Times Sunday, May 19, 2013

A besieged White House dug in its heels Sunday and defended figures at the center of the unfolding Internal Revenue Service scandal while reiterating that President Obama knew nothing of the misdeeds inside the agency.

White House senior adviser Dan Pfeiffer, appearing on four Sunday morning political talk shows, offered strong support for Sarah Hall Ingram, who led the agency’s tax-exempt division as it admittedly targeted conservative groups. She recently was promoted to chief of the health care reform office, tasked with implementing “Obamacare.”

...FROM THE ARTICLE...

"Mr. Pfeiffer added that a top-down investigation of the IRS will examine Ms. Ingram’s 2009 to 2012 tenure as head of the tax-exempt division."

Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/may/19/white-house-adviser-nothing-suggests-irs-official-/#ixzz2TnmDFL7e

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Operative words in this article are:

" She recently was promoted to chief of the health care reform office"

...and...

" Ms. Ingram’s 2009 to 2012 tenure as head of the tax-exempt division."

So, how about that annual bonus increase from $7,000 in 2009 to $34,400 in 2010...or is that question too slanderous to ask.

Ingram was assigned to oversee the health care law in December of 2010 and six months before the inspector general's report said her subordinate was notified of the targeting. Everything else is speculaiton and innuendo at this point.

Did her official title change in December of 2010? No.

Did her duties shift from tax exempt to new health care law in December of 2010? Yes.

Did she still retain any duties whatsoever over tax exempt and, in partcular the 501©(4) determinations? So far, there is no evidence confirming this which I would think we be extremely easy to confirm and it appears Lois Lerner was making high level decision in department in mid 2011 when she approved Obama's brother's charity in May 2011.

Did Ingram's bonuses in 2009 and 2010 result from application of the challenged classifcations? The classifications apparently did not arise until 2011 and I have seen no evidence or proof from you that the classifications existed in 2010.

Was Ingram's 2010 bonus comparable to a singing bonus for new assignment and delegation of new responsibilities? Perhaps. Makes more sense than being paid bonus for new appointment than being paid for something that had yet to occur.

When did abuse of 501©(4) become as huge issue? Apparently in 2011 when it was discovered that conservative groups were abusing the classiciation to secretly channel large sums of tax free contirbutions to campaigns in 2010.

Were Ingram's bonuses in 2011 and 2012 related to her new role as overseeing Obamacare or new health care law or were they related to something more nefarious? Makes sense that pay relates to promotion and delgation of new responsibilities under such a massive project. There is no evidence to the contrary. Use of speculation, innuendo and political motivation to tarnish someone's reputation, ruin their career and impact their livelihood is reprehensible.

...and your links supporting all these 'facts' are where?

If Ingram is so innocent of any misdeeds, why is the White House so vociferously defending her? Why don't they come out and tell us she has not been in that Department since 2010?

As far as your nonsensical comments about the conservative use of 501( c)(4) tax exemptions, would you be claiming there are no liberal or "progressive" organizations that have availed themselves of the same opportunity?

That bridge sale won't get very far with this crowd.

[F430murci]

I don't buy into the Union theory at all as makes no sense to go to Union instead of technical unit directly. Union deals with labor issues and pay issues. This more likely corresponds to new health care law and use of IRS employees. That being said, I do have quesitons about some of the entries in this time line which would call what I have read into question.

Nevertheless, this stuff should be real easy to figure out who was involved, who knew what and who did what since it relates to interviews, emails and very specific findings.

Timelines arts on Page 31 and is a pretty easy read. You conspiracy guys figure it out. I really gotta get to work . . . Sucks having to work for a living . . .

http://www.treasury.gov/tigta/auditreports/2013reports/201310053fr.pdf

Edited May 20, 2013 by F430murci

[Publicus]

chuckd Posted Today, 14:44

I am supposing you find nothing suspicious or questionable about a federal employee receiving a 500% increase in her annual bonus the same year her department starts questioning conservative applications for tax exempt status?

I am further supposing you don't know this simple fact:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Awards in excess of $10,000 per individual must be approved by the Office of Personnel Management. AWARDS IN EXCESS OF $25,000 REQUIRE PRESIDENTIAL APPROVAL. (Caps added)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.opm.gov/p...egal-citations/

__________________________________________________________________________________________________My reply is as follows:

There you go again.

If you know anything about the U.S. Government's Senior Executive Service (SES), established by Prez Carter and Congress in 1978, you would know that the maximum bonus an SES officer can receive is 20% of base salary, not to exceed the total pay compensation of EX1 $199,700 or EX2 $230,700 per annum, which ever applies (based on 2012 EX salary schedules). EX1 pay is connected to the General Schedule top level pay of a GS-15 Civil Service employee, EX2 is anchored in the salary of the vice president of the U.S.

Thus, In the instance of Sarah Hall Ingram, your percentage of 500% means nothing - it comes from numbers floating out in the air. I don't know Ms Ingram's base salary and neither do you (enuff research and time, you or I could find out - so go to it tiger). SES compensation incentives and/or rewards are predicated on the applicable base salary, not on the amount of bonus from year to year. (I'm trying to be 100% accurate while keeping this stuff basic and simple to read.)

However, a small group of exceptional career senior executives of the SES are awarded a Presidential Rank Award each year. Presidential Rank Awards have two categories: Distinguished Rank, which awards recipients 35% of their annual base pay, and Meritorious Rank, which awards recipients 20% of their annual base pay. Up to 1% of SES senior executives can be Distinguished Rank recipients in a given year, and up to 5% can be Meritorious Rank recipients per year. Prez Bush and Congress established this addition to the SES system in 2004. Thus, each year the President signs off on several dozen of these particular fiduciary incentive awards.

I don't know the particulars of the one-time only bonus Sarah Hall Ingram received and neither do you. A one-time bonus occurs once for a given year, or not at all. One year a bonus can be small, another year no bonus, yet another year the bonus can be a greater amount. All bonuses are predicated on base salary or, for a tiny group, can consists of a Presidential Rank Award as discussed in the previous paragraph.

I do know from experience that an SES executive such as Ms Ingram had to have one (or more) accomplished and thoroughly documented innovation, idea, invention, or special act of service that improved the functioning of the federal department, agency or commission of which she is an integral part. If the special achievement can be applied throughout the federal government, so much the better for everyone. (Last year I had a flash of brilliance, the years preceding last year, I had not.)

Advancement in the SES is predicated on documented successes and one's attitude toward administration policy or policies. Bureaucratic non cooperation with any given administration is unprofessional and seriously harms one's career. More in character concerning both the Civil Service or the SES, enthusiastic professional cooperation is of course both expected and well received.

This is true in respect to any elected administration. Prez Reagan for example advanced a certain kind of general/admiral at the Pentagon; Prez Clinton advanced very different kinds of top brass - in either event, however, competence was never an issue. Gen Colin Powell, Gen Alexander Haig for instance were known as "political" generals, whereas Gen "Stormin'" Norman Schwarzkopf and Gen Tommy Franks were known as general's generals.

I am speaking technically and realistically in respect to the SES and the professional government service. You are speaking with an agenda, an agenda that is wide open for all to see.

Edited May 20, 2013 by Publicus

[Baloo22]

What the average American doesn't seem to understand is that the rest of the world is looking on at this, and howling with laughter! The cradle of democracy! Yeah right!

Actually, the United States is providing an excellent example of representative government. When a section of government oversteps it's authority, we have others that are stepping up, investigating, and bringing the issue out into the open. In this case, our House of Representatives is providing the check and balance that our government is designed to have. It is also a good lesson of the value of a free press. This is the case even with the initial reluctance of the various "lap-dog" media outlets to report on these issues.

[JLCrab]

It must be a long time since anybody cared this much about anything that happened in Cincinnati.

[Publicus]

This comprehensive and detailed article in the Los Angeles Times gives what I recognize as the accurate and most plausible account of how the Cincinnati IRS office, and two or three other IRS field offices, became increasingly distanced from Washington over a period of recent years, going back to at least 2004. Because I used to work in (civil) law enforcement for the feds, breaking my back to close the required 100 cases a year, I recognize the problems identified in the piece and the disconnect between a U.S.Government field office from the headquarters office in Washington.

Evil is not at work in all of this, at any level. Rather, the nature of the beast we call government and government bureaucracy is at work in every respect within the IRS.

Here's one key excerpt from the LA Times' excellent work of journalism:

"In years past, the office had spent little time worrying about so-called social welfare organizations formed under section 501©4 of the tax code, instead focusing more attention on charity groups.

"But that changed in 2010, after the Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United. Political operatives stepped up their use of social welfare groups as vehicles to spend hundreds of millions to shape the outcome of elections — all of it from hidden sources. Social welfare organizations are not required to reveal their donors, unlike political committees.

"To qualify, however, such groups cannot have politics as their "primary purpose." But the rules don't say how much political activity is too much. That fraught issue was left in the hands of agents with mostly accounting backgrounds who were ill-suited to deal with questions of politics and the 1st Amendment."

How the IRS spun out of control

Little guidance from Washington and a flood of new nonprofits left the Cincinnati office overwhelmed

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-irs-conservatives-20130519,0,2790588,full.story[/url]

Nonetheless the Justice Department has initiated a criminal probe of this matter, which means we all can shut up and wait to find the real facts. Now no one is immune, to include Justice Department investigators. Unfortunately however that won't stop the political conspiracy types, the ones who demand a special counsel/prosecutor. So I'll continue to watch the Republicans in Washington in their circular firing squad as the rest of us keep passing them more ammunition.

Edit: I think my editing set this post straight, but it's hard to know until I click "Submit Modified Post And Take Your Chances"

Edited May 20, 2013 by Publicus

[snarky66]

So according the the Marxist over 50% of those polled believe Obama is telling the truth about the IRS scandal.

Did any of you see the prez taking questions?

Question 1 (paraphrase) Did anyone in the White House know about the targeting?

mister obama began to suffer what looked like a grand mal seizure. I do not know how he remained standing.

He began to stutter hem haw & began to act like a man who had just swallowed a chicken bone. When he finally composed himself he said (paraphrase) Let me be sure I answer the question you asked (a plant who forgot the script?) I never saw/read the IG report until it was released.

Incredible dodge.

Now 50% of the public may believe mister obama is telling the truth. I believe he answered a question which was never asked.

badoink adoink ropeadope incoherence.

I'll embed the video if I can find it.

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/cb-Nei8rDznVzVO/obama_i_didnt_know_about_irs_report/

Edited May 20, 2013 by snarky66

[JDGRUEN]

EXCERPT of weblink below ...

March 31, 2010.

According to the White House Visitors Log, provided here in searchable form by U.S. News and World Report, the president of the anti-Tea Party National Treasury Employees Union, Colleen Kelley, visited the White House at 12:30pm that Wednesday noon

time of March 31st.

The White House lists the IRS union leader’s visit this way: Kelley, Colleen Potus 03/31/2010 12:30 In White House language, “POTUS” stands for “President of the United States.” The very next day after her White House meeting with the President, according to the Treasury Department’s Inspector General’s Report, IRS employees — the same employees who belong to the NTEU — set to work in earnest targeting the Tea Party and conservative groups around America.The IG report wrote it up this way:

“April 1-2, 2010: The new Acting Manager, Technical Unit, suggested the need for a Sensitive Case Report on the Tea Party cases. The Determinations Unit Program Manager Agreed.” n short: the very day after the president of the quite publicly anti-Tea Party labor union — the union for IRS employees — met with President Obama, the manager of the IRS “Determinations Unit Program agreed” to open a “Sensitive Case report on the Tea party cases.” As stated by the IG report. Read more via The American Spectator...

http://redflagnews.com/headlines/bombshell-obama-met-with-irs-union-leader-day-before-they-targeted-conservatives

Haha, I really have to laugh at your cites and what you read.

Nevertheless, interesting, but I cannot envision why he would go to Union leader for something like this. Makes more sense he would be talking to Union leader about using IRS staff for new health care laws. I would be much more impressed if he met with Ingram, Miller, Shuler et al.

Seriously grasping at straws now. A bit like 911 conspiracy evidence. Jeez, I gotta retire from this whatever it is and get some work done. You guys go save the world from the evil empire, our oprressive leader and his group of thugs. . . . Haha, I just hope all of this scandel stuff does not mess up the market any time soon.

I understand - any source you cite is pristine perfect totally objective ... and of course if anyone who disagrees with you cites any source - any source at all - then that source is automatically suspect... because you are the arbiter of truth. No matter - it is to be expected when dealing with obama zombie zealots ... there is only one truth and that is your god obama... everything else is dirt under the feet of the true believers. I suggest a grasp on reality would be a good place for your to begin your search for the truth about the obama IRS scandals and the other current scandals not to mention his track record. The truth will come out on this important IRS scandal as some on the left are already becoming aware ... but dare you read those accounts... The leftist obama adherent news media is beginning to break down (i.e. AP) and when they break totally you will be left clutching your sacred obama prayer cloth while the rest of the country moves on to reality.

[Publicus]

So according the the Marxist over 50% of those polled believe Obama is telling the truth about the IRS scandal.

Did any of you see the prez taking questions?

Question 1 (paraphrase) Did anyone in the White House know about the targeting?

mister obama began to suffer what looked like a grand mal seizure. I do not know how he remained standing.

He began to stutter hem haw & began to act like a man who had just swallowed a chicken bone. When he finally composed himself he said (paraphrase) Let me be sure I answer the question you asked (a plant who forgot the script?) I never saw/read the IG report until it was released.

Incredible dodge.

Now 50% of the public may believe mister obama is telling the truth. I believe he answered a question which was never asked.

badoink adoink ropeadope incoherence.

I'll embed the video if I can find it.

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/cb-Nei8rDznVzVO/obama_i_didnt_know_about_irs_report/

"[A]ccording to the Marxist"?

Your opening line above lost me, sorry to say.

Also your 50% figure isn't on the mark. I reproduce the relevant section from the CNN/ORC poll as reported Saturday by the Washington Post:

"More than seven in 10 Americans said the IRS actions were unacceptable; 55 percent said they believe the agency acted on it own, while 37 percent said it acted under the order of White House officials. The White House has said Obama did not learn of the episode until he read about it in news reports.

"The good news for Obama is that 61 percent said they believe that what the president said about the IRS matter is mostly or completely true."

Sixty-one percent is 11 points higher than you state. That's a lot of Americans that you missed who believe Prez Obama's statements in the IRS issue are "mostly or completely true."

The 37% who believe (wrongly) the IRS acted under orders from the White House constitute the conservative hard core among the general population. They/You don't believe anything even neutral about Barack Obama. It's all ad hominem. Four and a half years of it.

The CNN/ORC poll, released last Friday, found Prez Obama's approval rating had increased to 53%, which is two points higher than it was last month. You cannot separate the majority of the American people from Prez Obama. It just can't be done even though the right never stops trying.

Can't be done.

[JDGRUEN]

So according the the Marxist over 50% of those polled believe Obama is telling the truth about the IRS scandal.

Did any of you see the prez taking questions?

Question 1 (paraphrase) Did anyone in the White House know about the targeting?

mister obama began to suffer what looked like a grand mal seizure. I do not know how he remained standing.

He began to stutter hem haw & began to act like a man who had just swallowed a chicken bone. When he finally composed himself he said (paraphrase) Let me be sure I answer the question you asked (a plant who forgot the script?) I never saw/read the IG report until it was released.

Incredible dodge.

Now 50% of the public may believe mister obama is telling the truth. I believe he answered a question which was never asked.

badoink adoink ropeadope incoherence.

I'll embed the video if I can find it.

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/cb-Nei8rDznVzVO/obama_i_didnt_know_about_irs_report/

"[A]ccording to the Marxist"?

Your opening line above lost me, sorry to say.

Also your 50% figure isn't on the mark. I reproduce the relevant section from the CNN/ORC poll as reported Saturday by the Washington Post:

"More than seven in 10 Americans said the IRS actions were unacceptable; 55 percent said they believe the agency acted on it own, while 37 percent said it acted under the order of White House officials. The White House has said Obama did not learn of the episode until he read about it in news reports.

"The good news for Obama is that 61 percent said they believe that what the president said about the IRS matter is mostly or completely true."

Sixty-one percent is 11 points higher than you state. That's a lot of Americans that you missed who believe Prez Obama's statements in the IRS issue are "mostly or completely true."

The 37% who believe (wrongly) the IRS acted under orders from the White House constitute the conservative hard core among the general population. They/You don't believe anything even neutral about Barack Obama. It's all ad hominem. Four and a half years of it.

The CNN/ORC poll, released last Friday, found Prez Obama's approval rating had increased to 53%, which is two points higher than it was last month. You cannot separate the majority of the American people from Prez Obama. It just can't be done even though the right never stops trying.

Can't be done.

No surprised - the obama fan club is filled with LOW INFORMATION VOTERS who do not have a clue and will say anything in response to a slanted poll...

[Ulysses G.]

Really, who cares if some stupid anti tax patriots got harassed a bit or had their ruling letting them avoid taxes delayed a little bit.

The American people - even many ethical democrats.

Edited May 21, 2013 by Ulysses G.

[snarky66]

When obama evades a question it is carefully planned out. He knows he are aware of his serial lying.

Which is why the House committees have to subpoena these rats swear them in & depose them.

Sadly the leadership from the top claims " not to know" I guess from now on youth will learn to get to the top you have to cheat & lie.

Once America goes down under libs there will be no place for refugees to go.

The dross the deadbeats & the illegals will be voting themselves stuff.

Eat the rich never sounded better.

[Publicus]

When obama evades a question it is carefully planned out. He knows he are aware of his serial lying.

Which is why the House committees have to subpoena these rats swear them in & depose them.

Sadly the leadership from the top claims " not to know" I guess from now on youth will learn to get to the top you have to cheat & lie.

Once America goes down under libs there will be no place for refugees to go.

The dross the deadbeats & the illegals will be voting themselves stuff.

Eat the rich never sounded better.

It was predictable that you people would take yourselves into water that's over your head.

Your House committees are going to take some worthless scrap of paper and say it's definite proof the whole of your political baloney is true, that it was a plot, a conspiracy, a coverup, and you will look even worse to the American people than you were as "birthers." Because no matter how you slice it, it's still baloney.

An even majority of Americans are ignoring the House Republicans now. But when you do shoot yourselves in the head, everyone will take notice.

You guys and the House are going down a seriously self-destructive path. You can't stop yourselves. It's compulsive - obsessive compulsive. Always this ad hominem against Prez Barack Hussein Obama. Four and a half years of it.

The voters are going to have to serve the Republicans in Congress an eviction notice in the November 2014 Congressional elections.

So do keep up the good work, thx.

[Publicus]

*Deleted posted edited out*

Don't worry lefty the checks & balances are still working.

Not scraps of paper but miscreants in the dock telling who gave the orders. This gets more Nixonian by the minute.

For example does anyone think the justice dept is capable of investigating malfeasance by barack & his acolytes?

Only an idiot. holder is maxi incompetent & a serial liar to boot.

Ad hominem, ad hominem, ad hominem.

Boring.

You can't separate the majority of Americans from Prez Obama. You've tried everything for four and a half years. You just can't do it.

Edited May 21, 2013 by Scott

[qdinthailand]

Any claims that the Obama Admin dodges and evades the truth, is simply saying the obvious.

In fact, name a president in our lifetimes (lets say since WW2) that hasn't done the same. The Bush/Cheney regime was a prime example of evading. "I don't recall!" was their usual line. The politically motivated firing/hiring of District Attorneys which no one seemed to remember anything about? But "national security" was another dodge - can't talk about that! Or how about that secret energy task force, featuring Bush's once good friend Ken Lay of Enron fame.

How about Reagan not recalling his Iran-Contra affair! (what!? he couldn't remember how we supported insurgent "rebel" armies fighting in Honduras, Nicaragua, Guatemala, El Salvador?

C'mon, they all do it, so no need to state the obvious. Our Governments lie to us all the time. They only want to tell us what they want to, avoid telling us what they don't, and then lie about it when we find out. Doesn't matter Democrat vs. Republican, conservative vs. liberal - the government leaders freaking lie.

[Scott]

An off-topic, inflammatory post and replies have been deleted.

Please stay on topic and keep it civil.

[geriatrickid]

What the average American doesn't seem to understand is that the rest of the world is looking on at this, and howling with laughter! The cradle of democracy! Yeah right!

Actually, the United States is providing an excellent example of representative government. When a section of government oversteps it's authority, we have others that are stepping up, investigating, and bringing the issue out into the open. In this case, our House of Representatives is providing the check and balance that our government is designed to have. It is also a good lesson of the value of a free press. This is the case even with the initial reluctance of the various "lap-dog" media outlets to report on these issues.

It was the lapdog media that broke the story.

Yes it is a good thing for their to be oversight. However, when it becomes driven by a political vendetta, then its purpose becomes perverted. There was an era when the Congress had reputable honourable people that put country before politics. Sadly, it is a bygone era.

[Ulysses G.]

Your House committees are going to take some worthless scrap of paper and say it's definite proof the whole of your political baloney is true, that it was a plot, a conspiracy, a coverup

Don't worry, any proof will only point to the little guys.

Plausible deniability is a term coined by the CIA during the Kennedy administration to describe the withholding of information from senior officials in order to protect them from repercussions in the event that illegal or unpopular activities by the CIA became public knowledge.

The term most often refers to the denial of blame in (formal or informal) chains of command, where senior figures assign responsibility to the lower ranks, and records of instructions given do not exist or are inaccessible, meaning independent confirmation of responsibility for the action is nearly impossible. In the case that illegal or otherwise disreputable and unpopular activities become public, high-ranking officials may deny any awareness of such act or any connection to the agents used to carry out such acts. The lack of evidence to the contrary ostensibly makes the denial plausible, that is, credible. The term typically implies forethought, such as intentionally setting up the conditions to plausibly avoid responsibility for one's (future) actions or knowledge. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plausible_deniability

[chuckd]

chuckd Posted Today, 14:44

I am supposing you find nothing suspicious or questionable about a federal employee receiving a 500% increase in her annual bonus the same year her department starts questioning conservative applications for tax exempt status?

I am further supposing you don't know this simple fact:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Awards in excess of $10,000 per individual must be approved by the Office of Personnel Management. AWARDS IN EXCESS OF $25,000 REQUIRE PRESIDENTIAL APPROVAL. (Caps added)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.opm.gov/p...egal-citations/

__________________________________________________________________________________________________My reply is as follows:

There you go again.

If you know anything about the U.S. Government's Senior Executive Service (SES), established by Prez Carter and Congress in 1978, you would know that the maximum bonus an SES officer can receive is 20% of base salary, not to exceed the total pay compensation of EX1 $199,700 or EX2 $230,700 per annum, which ever applies (based on 2012 EX salary schedules). EX1 pay is connected to the General Schedule top level pay of a GS-15 Civil Service employee, EX2 is anchored in the salary of the vice president of the U.S.

Thus, In the instance of Sarah Hall Ingram, your percentage of 500% means nothing - it comes from numbers floating out in the air. I don't know Ms Ingram's base salary and neither do you (enuff research and time, you or I could find out - so go to it tiger). SES compensation incentives and/or rewards are predicated on the applicable base salary, not on the amount of bonus from year to year. (I'm trying to be 100% accurate while keeping this stuff basic and simple to read.)

However, a small group of exceptional career senior executives of the SES are awarded a Presidential Rank Award each year. Presidential Rank Awards have two categories: Distinguished Rank, which awards recipients 35% of their annual base pay, and Meritorious Rank, which awards recipients 20% of their annual base pay. Up to 1% of SES senior executives can be Distinguished Rank recipients in a given year, and up to 5% can be Meritorious Rank recipients per year. Prez Bush and Congress established this addition to the SES system in 2004. Thus, each year the President signs off on several dozen of these particular fiduciary incentive awards.

I don't know the particulars of the one-time only bonus Sarah Hall Ingram received and neither do you. A one-time bonus occurs once for a given year, or not at all. One year a bonus can be small, another year no bonus, yet another year the bonus can be a greater amount. All bonuses are predicated on base salary or, for a tiny group, can consists of a Presidential Rank Award as discussed in the previous paragraph.

I do know from experience that an SES executive such as Ms Ingram had to have one (or more) accomplished and thoroughly documented innovation, idea, invention, or special act of service that improved the functioning of the federal department, agency or commission of which she is an integral part. If the special achievement can be applied throughout the federal government, so much the better for everyone. (Last year I had a flash of brilliance, the years preceding last year, I had not.)

Advancement in the SES is predicated on documented successes and one's attitude toward administration policy or policies. Bureaucratic non cooperation with any given administration is unprofessional and seriously harms one's career. More in character concerning both the Civil Service or the SES, enthusiastic professional cooperation is of course both expected and well received.

This is true in respect to any elected administration. Prez Reagan for example advanced a certain kind of general/admiral at the Pentagon; Prez Clinton advanced very different kinds of top brass - in either event, however, competence was never an issue. Gen Colin Powell, Gen Alexander Haig for instance were known as "political" generals, whereas Gen "Stormin'" Norman Schwarzkopf and Gen Tommy Franks were known as general's generals.

I am speaking technically and realistically in respect to the SES and the professional government service. You are speaking with an agenda, an agenda that is wide open for all to see.

Thank you for your well thought out post. However you are wrong. let me address your errors.

1. You say nobody knows her salary during the time in question (i.e. 2009-2012). I posted her annual salary figures as reported by the press in my post number 187 on this thread, providing a link in support, on the same post.

Permit me to re-post the quoted link on her annual salary..."Her annual salary went from $172,500 to $177,000 during the same period."

2. You go on to say nobody is permitted to get more than 20% of their annual base salary in an annual bonus. Assuming the article is correct, and it has not been disputed by anybody, let's assume her salary was at the low point in 2009 and remained static until it went up the last year. If her annual salary was $172,500 in 2010 then a 20% bonus would be a grand total of $34,500. Voila, she received a bonus in 2010 in the amount of $34,440, which amounts to a bonus of 19.9651% or her annual salary. Not quite 20% but, as they say, close enough for government work.

She received $$35,400 in 2011 so she must have received a raise in her annual salary for that year.

3. My statement about the 500% increase went farther back in this conversation to link 187 when it was noted her bonus in 2009 was merely $7,000. Assuming her salary that year was in the $170,000 range, it would seem 2009 was not a good year for her since she received a bonus only in the 4% range. She made up for in it 2010 and beyond in her new office when her bonus amount jumped from $7,000 in 2009 to $34.400 in 2010. In other words...her bonus went up by (nearly) 500%. I never claimed a federal employee could get a bonus amount to 500% of their annual salary.

You were correct in at least one area. I was wrong in the claim her bonus jumped 500% from 2009 to 2010. Using my handy Casio calculator, I find it was only a 491% increase. My apologies for the confusion.

Here is the link (again): http://washingtonexaminer.com/irs-tax-exemptionobamacare-exec-got-100390-in-bonuses/article/2529899

[Publicus]

chuckd Posted Today, 14:44

I am supposing you find nothing suspicious or questionable about a federal employee receiving a 500% increase in her annual bonus the same year her department starts questioning conservative applications for tax exempt status?

I am further supposing you don't know this simple fact:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Awards in excess of $10,000 per individual must be approved by the Office of Personnel Management. AWARDS IN EXCESS OF $25,000 REQUIRE PRESIDENTIAL APPROVAL. (Caps added)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.opm.gov/p...egal-citations/

__________________________________________________________________________________________________My reply is as follows:

There you go again.

If you know anything about the U.S. Government's Senior Executive Service (SES), established by Prez Carter and Congress in 1978, you would know that the maximum bonus an SES officer can receive is 20% of base salary, not to exceed the total pay compensation of EX1 $199,700 or EX2 $230,700 per annum, which ever applies (based on 2012 EX salary schedules). EX1 pay is connected to the General Schedule top level pay of a GS-15 Civil Service employee, EX2 is anchored in the salary of the vice president of the U.S.

Thus, In the instance of Sarah Hall Ingram, your percentage of 500% means nothing - it comes from numbers floating out in the air. I don't know Ms Ingram's base salary and neither do you (enuff research and time, you or I could find out - so go to it tiger). SES compensation incentives and/or rewards are predicated on the applicable base salary, not on the amount of bonus from year to year. (I'm trying to be 100% accurate while keeping this stuff basic and simple to read.)

However, a small group of exceptional career senior executives of the SES are awarded a Presidential Rank Award each year. Presidential Rank Awards have two categories: Distinguished Rank, which awards recipients 35% of their annual base pay, and Meritorious Rank, which awards recipients 20% of their annual base pay. Up to 1% of SES senior executives can be Distinguished Rank recipients in a given year, and up to 5% can be Meritorious Rank recipients per year. Prez Bush and Congress established this addition to the SES system in 2004. Thus, each year the President signs off on several dozen of these particular fiduciary incentive awards.

I don't know the particulars of the one-time only bonus Sarah Hall Ingram received and neither do you. A one-time bonus occurs once for a given year, or not at all. One year a bonus can be small, another year no bonus, yet another year the bonus can be a greater amount. All bonuses are predicated on base salary or, for a tiny group, can consists of a Presidential Rank Award as discussed in the previous paragraph.

I do know from experience that an SES executive such as Ms Ingram had to have one (or more) accomplished and thoroughly documented innovation, idea, invention, or special act of service that improved the functioning of the federal department, agency or commission of which she is an integral part. If the special achievement can be applied throughout the federal government, so much the better for everyone. (Last year I had a flash of brilliance, the years preceding last year, I had not.)

Advancement in the SES is predicated on documented successes and one's attitude toward administration policy or policies. Bureaucratic non cooperation with any given administration is unprofessional and seriously harms one's career. More in character concerning both the Civil Service or the SES, enthusiastic professional cooperation is of course both expected and well received.

This is true in respect to any elected administration. Prez Reagan for example advanced a certain kind of general/admiral at the Pentagon; Prez Clinton advanced very different kinds of top brass - in either event, however, competence was never an issue. Gen Colin Powell, Gen Alexander Haig for instance were known as "political" generals, whereas Gen "Stormin'" Norman Schwarzkopf and Gen Tommy Franks were known as general's generals.

I am speaking technically and realistically in respect to the SES and the professional government service. You are speaking with an agenda, an agenda that is wide open for all to see.

Thank you for your well thought out post. However you are wrong. let me address your errors.

1. You say nobody knows her salary during the time in question (i.e. 2009-2012). I posted her annual salary figures as reported by the press in my post number 187 on this thread, providing a link in support, on the same post.

Permit me to re-post the quoted link on her annual salary..."Her annual salary went from $172,500 to $177,000 during the same period."

2. You go on to say nobody is permitted to get more than 20% of their annual base salary in an annual bonus. Assuming the article is correct, and it has not been disputed by anybody, let's assume her salary was at the low point in 2009 and remained static until it went up the last year. If her annual salary was $172,500 in 2010 then a 20% bonus would be a grand total of $34,500. Voila, she received a bonus in 2010 in the amount of $34,440, which amounts to a bonus of 19.9651% or her annual salary. Not quite 20% but, as they say, close enough for government work.

She received $$35,400 in 2011 so she must have received a raise in her annual salary for that year.

3. My statement about the 500% increase went farther back in this conversation to link 187 when it was noted her bonus in 2009 was merely $7,000. Assuming her salary that year was in the $170,000 range, it would seem 2009 was not a good year for her since she received a bonus only in the 4% range. She made up for in it 2010 and beyond in her new office when her bonus amount jumped from $7,000 in 2009 to $34.400 in 2010. In other words...her bonus went up by (nearly) 500%. I never claimed a federal employee could get a bonus amount to 500% of their annual salary.

You were correct in at least one area. I was wrong in the claim her bonus jumped 500% from 2009 to 2010. Using my handy Casio calculator, I find it was only a 491% increase. My apologies for the confusion.

Here is the link (again): http://washingtonexaminer.com/irs-tax-exemptionobamacare-exec-got-100390-in-bonuses/article/2529899

1) Thx on this point. I've followed the thread topic pretty closely but managed to miss your particular post.

2) You and I say the same thing. There's no difference in your Item #2 and the point I make.

3) Your Item #3 presents, as you wrote it in your original post, the bonus matter as some sort of crime. That is my objection to your presentation of the percentage difference of her bonuses in 2009 and 2010. As I'd pointed out, the president signs off on such bonuses to the tune of several dozen each year. That the president signed her bonus too is not the commission of a crime. Nor is it a quid pro quo.

If you have a spare calculator kindly send it along. Mine got demolished by some Asia Air baggage gorillas during a recent visit to Hong Kong.

[chuckd]

No, I don't mean to represent the bonus matter as a crime.

What I am questioning is why the 491% increased bonus amount from 2009 to 2010, which is when the targeting of conservative groups began.

Somebody in the administration might have thought her job performance in 2010 was 491% better targeting conservatives than in doing her previous job in 2009, whatever that might have been.

Since you don't really know why the President signed off on it in 2010 you can hardly declare emphatically it was not criminal nor a quid pro quo. The timing is suspicious to say the least...and "could" possibly be criminal if the origin of the scandal is traced directly to Obama.

Hopefully the Congressional investigation will resolve this little question for all of us.

Edited May 21, 2013 by chuckd

[Publicus]

No, I don't mean to represent the bonus matter as a crime.

What I am questioning is why the 491% increased bonus amount from 2009 to 2010, which is when the targeting of conservative groups began.

Somebody in the administration might have thought her job performance in 2010 was 491% better targeting conservatives than in doing her previous job in 2009, whatever that might have been.

Since you don't really know why the President signed off on it in 2010 you can hardly declare emphatically it was not criminal nor a quid pro quo. The timing is suspicious to say the least...and "could" possibly be criminal if the origin of the scandal is traced directly to Obama.

Hopefully the Congressional investigation will resolve this little question for all of us.

A lot of things "could," so that at best would be circumstantial, if anything at all. As you present it, it definitely implies guilt or at the least suspicions that only the same old haw haws on the right can see or conjure up. The right has spent four and a half years doing ad hominem attacks against Prez Barack Obama. Four and a half years of embarrassing yourselves with zany stuff such as a birth certificate.

You guys keep SNL's ratings up, so keep up the good work.

It seems however you didn't get the message from the night of the Washington correspondent's dinner, when Prez Obama said he's wiser now, that he's "not the strapping young Muslim socialist I used to be." Ah, yes, it's just as I'd thought - I don't hear you sharing in the wit, humor and laughter.

I'll keep saying, during the past several weeks Prez Obama's approval rating has increased by two percentage points over last month, up now to 53%, so send your R Congressperson an email to encourage s/he to keep up the good work. Keep convening those committees. Keep droning on.

Where are the Senate Republicans? That loopy bunch will drive O's approval rating up to 60%, so bring 'em on too.

[chuckd]

No, I don't mean to represent the bonus matter as a crime.

What I am questioning is why the 491% increased bonus amount from 2009 to 2010, which is when the targeting of conservative groups began.

Somebody in the administration might have thought her job performance in 2010 was 491% better targeting conservatives than in doing her previous job in 2009, whatever that might have been.

Since you don't really know why the President signed off on it in 2010 you can hardly declare emphatically it was not criminal nor a quid pro quo. The timing is suspicious to say the least...and "could" possibly be criminal if the origin of the scandal is traced directly to Obama.

Hopefully the Congressional investigation will resolve this little question for all of us.

A lot of things "could," so that at best would be circumstantial, if anything at all. As you present it, it definitely implies guilt or at the least suspicions that only the same old haw haws on the right can see or conjure up. The right has spent four and a half years doing ad hominem attacks against Prez Barack Obama. Four and a half years of embarrassing yourselves with zany stuff such as a birth certificate.

You guys keep SNL's ratings up, so keep up the good work.

It seems however you didn't get the message from the night of the Washington correspondent's dinner, when Prez Obama said he's wiser now, that he's "not the strapping young Muslim socialist I used to be." Ah, yes, it's just as I'd thought - I don't hear you sharing in the wit, humor and laughter.

I'll keep saying, during the past several weeks Prez Obama's approval rating has increased by two percentage points over last month, up now to 53%, so send your R Congressperson an email to encourage s/he to keep up the good work. Keep convening those committees. Keep droning on.

Where are the Senate Republicans? That loopy bunch will drive O's approval rating up to 60%, so bring 'em on too.

You might want to read your signature again. Labeling posts that disagree with your set of opinions as ad hominem attacks hardly qualifies as a William O. Douglas moment.

[Publicus]

No, I don't mean to represent the bonus matter as a crime.

What I am questioning is why the 491% increased bonus amount from 2009 to 2010, which is when the targeting of conservative groups began.

Somebody in the administration might have thought her job performance in 2010 was 491% better targeting conservatives than in doing her previous job in 2009, whatever that might have been.

Since you don't really know why the President signed off on it in 2010 you can hardly declare emphatically it was not criminal nor a quid pro quo. The timing is suspicious to say the least...and "could" possibly be criminal if the origin of the scandal is traced directly to Obama.

Hopefully the Congressional investigation will resolve this little question for all of us.

A lot of things "could," so that at best would be circumstantial, if anything at all. As you present it, it definitely implies guilt or at the least suspicions that only the same old haw haws on the right can see or conjure up. The right has spent four and a half years doing ad hominem attacks against Prez Barack Obama. Four and a half years of embarrassing yourselves with zany stuff such as a birth certificate.

You guys keep SNL's ratings up, so keep up the good work.

It seems however you didn't get the message from the night of the Washington correspondent's dinner, when Prez Obama said he's wiser now, that he's "not the strapping young Muslim socialist I used to be." Ah, yes, it's just as I'd thought - I don't hear you sharing in the wit, humor and laughter.

I'll keep saying, during the past several weeks Prez Obama's approval rating has increased by two percentage points over last month, up now to 53%, so send your R Congressperson an email to encourage s/he to keep up the good work. Keep convening those committees. Keep droning on.

Where are the Senate Republicans? That loopy bunch will drive O's approval rating up to 60%, so bring 'em on too.

You might want to read your signature again. Labeling posts that disagree with your set of opinions as ad hominem attacks hardly qualifies as a William O. Douglas moment.

The late Justice Douglas made himself clear about the nature of the attacks that I presently reference against Prez Obama, i.e., that the attacks against Pres Obama are ad hominem. In an interview that would apply today to you guys on the right and to your four and a half years of ad hominem attacks directed toward Prez Barack Hussein Obama, Justice Douglas said,

"So [Justice ] Jackson's motivation must have been ad hominem, it must have been directed to [Justice] Black, I think. His conference discussion was highly personal, and why I just don't know, what was in his --- There was a growing feeling on the part of Jackson that Black was an undesirable judge. Bob Jackson developed this very quickly, this animosity to Black..But it was very evident in almost all our conferences that Bob Jackson thoroughly disliked Hugo Black and was out to try to destroy him. I mean destroy him in the sense of discrediting him. And his words were very acid, very derogatory."

That has been the MO of the right in pursuing Barack Obama relentlessly and with the wildest of self-revealing and self-embarrassing claims and false assertions, false claims and bogus assertions the wingnuts know to be false and bogus. All of the right's knowingly false and malicious claims and assertions which focus on Barack Obama himself have one sole and single purpose and intent, i.e., "to try to destroy him. I mean in the sense of discrediting him." And the MO of the right is to throw at Obama " words [that] were very acid, very derogatory."

Justice Douglas was from Washington state, a latecomer to the Union. Your signature guy, however, J Adams, is from my native state of Massachusetts, known in U.S. history as the "cradle of liberty" because the Revolutionary War began there. So you need to be respectful of the distinguished gentleman whose name you so liberally use, Mr. Adams. One of the ways in which you can be appropriately respectful of him is not to try to play assinine [sic] games with the names and statements of respected persons.

You and I are free to speak in civilized society, and the truth will out.

[Publicus]

The more the U.S. public sees of, and hears from, the Republican party, the lower our collective opinion becomes.

The Republican party brand name is, frankly, sh*t among the body politic of the United States. The present hearings are only increasing and intensifying the public's very low regard of the Republican party in the United States.

Meanwhile, The GOP's Favorability Ratings Have Tanked To Their Lowest Point Ever

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/poll-gop-favorability-rating-obama-irs-tea-party-scandals-2013-5#ixzz2TwckxmPb

In the 2012 election, Willard Mitt Romney got only 47.2% of the popular vote.

Democratic party candidates for the House of Representatives won 1 million more votes nationally than did Republicans. Yet Republicans retained their majority control of the House by electing more members. Here's the scoop on how the minority party, i.e., the Republicns, can lose the national vote for the House of Representatives yet come out of the election with a majority of House seats.

Republicans Can’t Claim Mandate as Democrats Top House National Vote

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-11-16/republicans-can-t-declare-mandate-with-more-democrat-house-votes.html

Democrats failed to regain control of the U.S. House of Representatives even though they won 1 million more votes nationally than Republicans.

Democrats led Republicans by 56 million to 55 million votes nationally, according to unofficial tallies from the Associated Press. It’s the first time since 1996 that one party won more House seats while winning fewer votes, according to data compiled by the House Clerk’s office. The outcome is the product in part of Republican-dominated redrawing of House seat boundaries after the 2010 census and of population shifts.

John Adams would be appalled, and rightly so. Where's the democracy? I'd thought democracy meant the majority rules. The fact is, the nation does not support the Republicans in Congress because the national popular vote in last November's election was won by the Democratic party. Yet the Republicans have majority control of the House. You guys are not legit, and the public does not recognize your majority control of the House. This fact constitutes a very high mountain before you in everything, especially in your ad hominem attacks against Prez Obama, which you so passionately pursue here.

[snarky66]

The part I find hard to believe, bearing in mind the dear leader said "mine will be the most transparent administration in history", is how the Marxists still support this person when he dodges legitimate questions.

When a reporter asks "Did any of the White House staff know about targeting?" your guy, your idol can not find it within himself to answer truthfully.

Yeah man you are so transparent.

We will be so glad when you are gone.

[Loptr]

The plot thickens.

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-top-irs-official-fifth-amendment-20130521,0,6645565.story

Top IRS official will invoke Fifth Amendment

WASHINGTON – A top IRS official in the division that reviews nonprofit groups will invoke the Fifth Amendment and refuse to answer questions before a House committee investigating the agency’s improper screening of conservative nonprofit groups.

Lois Lerner, the head of the exempt organizations division of the IRS, won’t answer questions about what she knew about the improper screening – or why she didn’t reveal it to Congress, according to a letter from her defense lawyer, William W. Taylor 3rd.

Lerner was scheduled to appear before the House Oversight committee Wednesday.