By: Mary Mostert, Analyst, Original Sources (www.originalsources.com)
March 20, 2000
Those of you who have been reading my analyses for awhile undoubtedly have noted that I often have a real problem with the lack of research that goes into much of your daily news. Since most of the dominant media tends towards the liberal persuasion, generally they are the target of my analyses. However, the dismal reporting habits of the media today are not limited merely to liberals. Conservatives quite often have similar problems.
In general when reporters or editors are criticized for their writing they tend to take one of two approaches: If they are powerful and well-entrenched, they simply ignore the criticism, confident that nothing any mere critic or reader might think has any weight. If they are not so powerful, they tend to cloak themselves in victim status when rebuked. And, of course, there is sort of an unwritten rule in the media that one liberal does not criticize another and one conservative does not criticize another.
Since I don't really consider myself in either category, quite often I find myself out on a limb all by myself, as was the case in the early days of NATO's bombing of Yugoslavia. And, such is the case in the recent release of a report on Investigations of Allegations Relating to Internal Revenue Service Handling of Tax-Exempt Organization matters. The report was prepared at the Request of Chairman William V. Roth, Jr., Vice Chairman Bill Archer, Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan and Congressman Charles B. Rangel and prepared by the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation in Congress.
The basic facts of the 167 page report, (at: http://www.house.gov/jct/s-3-00.pdf ) written at the end of extensive investigation by the Joint Committee on Taxation were the following findings:
* The Joint Committee staff found no credible evidence that tax-exempt organizations were selected for examination based on the views espoused by the organizations or individuals related to the organization.
* The Joint Committee staff found no credible evidence that the IRS altered the manner in which an examination was conducted based on the views espoused by the organization or individuals related to the organization.
* The Joint Committee staff found no credible evidence of intervention by Clinton Administration oficials in the selection of (or the failure to select) tax-exempt organizations for examination.
In reading the report, I also found an interesting situation which I did not see reported anywhere. Certain cases "involving high-profile tax-exempt organizations and individuals received more internal review and scrutiny by the IRS" but, rather than finding the increased review and scrutiny was indicative of the Clinton Administration trying to destroy the high-profile tax-exempt organizations and individuals, it appeared to be motivated by a desire by IRS agents to avoid "negative media reports relating to IRS actions."
The Report also noted that it was difficult for IRS to actually properly examine Churches who have been involved in "impermissible political campaign activity" because of safeguards at IRS which make doing it very difficult.
Perhaps those "safeguards" are the reason why we have never seen an IRS audit of a black church, in Michigan for example, where the pastor preaches a sermon before election day urging his parishioners to go vote for a particular candidate.
As one who used to be audited every two years like clockwork, I can understand the feeling of being picked on. Finally one day, back in the early 1990s, I asked the IRS auditor at the end of still another unfruitful, from IRS's point of view, lengthy audit, "You guys never make an additional penny out of me in these audits you do, and you audit me regularly every two years. Why?"
The auditor said, without hesitation, "Because there is a flag on your name." "Really?" I said, "Why?"
"Because you do your own tax returns," he responded. "We always flag independent business people who do their own taxes. If you want to avoid audits, have an accountant do your taxes."
So, I found, in effect I was "profiled" as a potential incompetent tax-preparer because I did my own taxes. Sort of like being racially profiled in the inner-city because most of the crime is committed by blacks, I was profiled because, according to the auditor, most of the errors, both to the benefit of IRS and to its detriment, were committed by people who do their own taxes.
Now, I suppose I could have claimed that was discrimination and I was being unfairly targeted because I did my own taxes, but, the fact of the matter is that I was in a group that generally made mistakes on their taxes. And why do people who prepare their own taxes make so many mistakes? Because they make their living in other ways than trying to study the stupid IRS tax code as a full-time job. So, rather than write nasty articles about IRS "discrimination," I started letting an accountant do my taxes and, in spite of the nasty things I frequently say about the Clinton Administration, I haven't been audited since. Apparently I missed a golden opportunity to join one of an innumerable number of victim-status groups.
On this issue, the report noted, in many of the cases investigated, the problem was more one of communication than of discrimination. Statements made by IRS employees "indicated that they did not intend the statements to be interpreted as they were by taxpayers." Undoubtedly I could have interpreted my IRS auditor's comments in a negative way and claimed discrimination. But, given the facts, I could understand the action from their point of view and solved the problem instead of whining about it.
I suggest a similar response to others, especially World Net Daily, a right wing Internet publication which has taken the Report as an opportunity to attack the Republican party in general and George W. Bush, the party's undoubted candidate for the presidency, in particular. Jon E. Dougherty wrote over the week-end on this issue:
"Conservatives all across the land are so excited over the prospect that Texas Gov. George W. Bush could actually beat the pants off Vice President Al Gore and the Democrats this November that, apparently, they are more than willing to ignore the obvious criminal duplicity of their own party. "'The most important thing is that a Republican wins the White House this fall,' GOP party flaks tell us at every available opportunity. And, naturally, as conservatives we're just supposed to swallow that without question. 'Party loyalty,' and that sort of thing.
What Dougherty forgot to mention, of course, was that George W. Bush also immediately commented on that report. In another section the report accuses Gore staffers to trying to obtain information from the IRS about an unnamed labor union. Bush said the 1997 episode shows the need for ``a fresh start'' at the White House. The committee's chief of staff, Lindy Paull, said the Gore staffers were seeking confidential ``taxpayer information'' that is protected by law. According to the committee's report and supporting IRS documents, the then-counsel to the vice president, Kumiki Gibson, and another staffer in Gore's office, Joe Eyer, both called the IRS on Jan. 28, 1997 ``and in violation of written White House policies . . . attempted to secure taxpayer return information.'' Paull said the calls were made in connection with an impending IRS decision about whether certain workers could be classified as independent contractors or employees for tax purposes.
Dougherty went on to say in his commentary:
"But to be honest here, I don't see much "reform" or even "opposition" coming from Republican ranks these days. The latest GOP cave-in absolving the Clinton administration and the Internal Revenue Service of any culpability in launching a series of politically motivated "assault" audits against conservative activist groups critical of Clinton's lawlessness is a perfect example."If you didn't see the story last week, I'm speaking about the cop out of Rep. Bill Archer, R-Texas where, in the House Joint Committee on Taxation's oft delayed final report he claimed that there was "no credible evidence" that Clinton sicced the IRS on his political enemies, including this netpaper's founding organization, the Western Journalism Center."
This netpaper's founding organization, the Western Journalism Center? Do we detect some anger here that one's own ox is being gored? (no pun intended.) I believe we do. World Net Daily's financial backer is Western Journalism Center and Western Journalism Center is a non-profit organization whose purpose is to "train" journalists to write. They almost invariably write from a Right Wing perspective, therefore, in Western Journalism's view, an IRS audit of their books was an attack on their editorial position. When they were audited, I, and I am sure many others, promptly got fund-raising letters claiming that IRS was trying to put them out of business because they had criticized the Clintons and the money poured in.
I confess I was not, however, one of the ones sending a check. I'm also writing a daily net-newspaper on www.originalsources.com and I pay taxes on money, if any, that I receive. I totally financed the creation of my net-newspaper, and the money I used I paid taxes on. World Net Daily, we learn, did not pay taxes on the money they received.
Now, I've known for years that the fastest way to make money in almost any enterprise is to get tax exempt status. Then, you can pay yourself a nice salary with the money that you would have paid out in taxes if your enterprise paid local, state and federal taxes. And, obviously, it is legal. However, I don't think it's right. Frankly, I'd like to see IRS question more non-profit organizations and Churches that are set up as money making businesses and can compete with tax-paying businesses. What we have learned from that Report is that investigating non-profit groups for violating the law is hard for IRS to do because of regulation and fear of bad press. I can just imagine what would happen, for example, if IRS investigated those black churches in Michigan who were telling their Democrat parishioners how to vote in the Republican Primary in the hopes of keeping George W. Bush from being selected by the Republicans.
Doughterty wound-up his tirade with an incredible attack on both Rep. Bill Archer and George W. Bush:
Led by Archer, (who lives in the same state as GOP presidential hopeful George W. Bush, by the way) this committee made its determination in spite of the facts. Despite solid, documentable and tangible evidence that the White House ordered a politically motivated IRS audit at least once (again, against WND's Western Journalism Center), committee Republicans still found "no credible evidence" that such audits really happened.... "Maybe the core Republican Party platform is still a valid alternative to democratic socialism for conservatives in this country, but I'll tell you something -- the current crop of GOP lawmakers is not the answer to a free and prosperous America for the future. "These guys are just as compromised, just as dirty, just as weak, and just as liable to break the law as the next Democrat is (then lie about it). It's time we got rid of them too, instead of continuing to believe our only enemies, as conservatives, are those with a "D" behind their name."
So, exactly where IS this "solid, documentable and tangible evidence that the White House ordered a politically motivated IRS audit at least one (again, against WND's Western Journalism Center.)?" Why was it not presented in the article? Obviously the Committee not only had Western Journalism Center's information, but they concluded it was not a credible source to prove that their audit was politically motivated. I haven't seen the material presented by Western Journalism Center, but I do know that just because they are critics of the Clinton administration and were audited is not proof that the two are connected. I am a critic of the Clinton administration and I have not been audited since setting up www.originalsources.com. Of course, I do pay taxes and I do have my tax return prepared by an accountant.
What really concerns me about Doughtery's commentary, however, is not the tax issue, but what I consider really bad journalism. If this is what Western Journalism Center is teaching its participants, I have a problem with what they are doing, as a tax-exempt organization. In his piece, because he doesn't like the decision made by the Joint Committee on Taxation, Dougherty has attempted to trash George W. Bush and, apparently because Bill Archer is also a Texan, has tried to trash Archer as well. He has called them "just as dirty, just as weak, and just as liable to break the law" as the next Democrat, and "then lie about it."
And, what have they done? They have signed a report created by a bi-partisan staff which could not prove that Western Journalism's audit was politically motivated. Doughtery's kind of journalism, whether on the right or on the left, is both dangerous and dishonest. If enough people believe it, it leads to anarchy.
Let's be honest about this, World Net Daily. If there is no political conspiracy against you, it's going to affect the contributions to your cause, isn't it? Tell me how that is different from the Left Wing papers who write drivel in order to sell their papers? When you don't tell the truth, you just are not credible, whether writing with a left or a right slant on the issues.
To comment, mmostert@originalsources.com
To Subscribe to the Reagan Monitor, the newsletter that gives you news FACTS you can USE to make your life, and the world, better go to:
Start Your Subscription
