There is ample evidence that the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) investigated "Tea Party", "Patriot", and "9/12 Project" groups with "extreme prejudice" when they applied for 501(c)(4) tax-free status. The excuse for the excessive reviews is because these grassroots groups may potentially engage in overt political activities. Groups with 501(c)(4) tax-free status can also keep their donors secret while political organizations like the Republican and Democratic parties cannot because they're subject to campaign disclosure laws.
The excess IRS scrutiny, especially over concerns about overt political activity, is especially laughable given the 501(c)(4) status granted to another group, Organizing for Action (OFA).
Organizing for Action (OFA) is the latest incarnation of Barack Obama's Organizing for America (OFA) from the 2008 and 2012 Presidential elections. Organizing for America (OFA) was a community organizing project of the Democratic National Committee (DNC). Organizing for Action is a tax-free, 501(c)(4) "social welfare" organization. Does Organizing for Action directly advocate for any politician or political party, which might violate its tax-free status? You decide.
You can find Organizing for Action on the web atwww.barackobama.com. This is the same web address used by President Obama's Organizing for America operation during the 2008 and 2012 election cycles.
Organizing for Action's stated purpose is to "support President Obama."
Organizing for Action uses the familiar, trademark Obama logo to brand its site.
Organizing for Action is a tax-free 501(c)(4) organization meaning that it can keep its donors secret.
The official, authenticated Twitter account for Barack Obama is @BarackObama.
The Twitter page includes the President's photo and name.
The profile summary acknowledges that the @BarackObama Twitter account is "run by Organizing for Action staff."
The Twitter feed often includes links to other content found on the Organize for Action web page.
Again I ask, do you believe that tax-free Organizing for Action will advocate on direct behalf of any politician or political party?
How is Organizing for Action anything different than a tax-free branch of the Democratic Party?
How can the IRS, in good conscience, deny Tea Party groups for up to three years but approve of the President's community organizing group? Need I remind you that the IRS is part of the Treasury Department, which itself is part of the Executive Branch headed by President Barack Obama?
An old joke says that there are three kind of lies.
Lies
Damn lies
Statistics
To that list, I would add data visualizations, especially when seemingly misused to purposely misinform the electorate.
By now, you've likely seen the chart, courtesy of Barak Obama's Organizing for America (OFA), showing the miraculous reduction in job losses after President Obama took office and the Congress passed the $787 billion Stimulus plan.
This visually-striking graphic is such fantastic news that Organizing for American even made a video highlighting the chart.
Something about this jobs chart bothers me. As of February, 2010, unemployment is still stubbornly high. So, how can it be that the Obama Administration seemingly eliminated unemployment? From the chart, it seems that the President halted and reversed unemployment to roughly the same level as December, 2007. I showed this chart to a number of engineering and accounting friends--people accustomed to working with charts and graphs--and they came to similar conclusions based solely on the chart. However, it is not true.
This chart seems designed to purposely deceive. How? The chart shows the monthly change in unemployment, not total unemployment. Of course, the original chart does not indicate this, but I've been able to reproduce the chart using source data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
How is this deceptive? Allow me to illustrate with an example. A man goes out on the town with his girlfriend to celebrate her birthday with dinner and a movie. Over the evening, he makes a number of purchases as shown in the table.
Graphically, the evening's spending per transaction looks like the following chart. At first glance, it appears that this lucky man had a great night on the town with his favorite girl and even turned a small profit. From the chart, one might assume that the man spent some money but then started making money after dinner and ended the evening with more money in his wallet than when he started!
How is this possible? It's not. It's a bit of graphical and presentation trickery. The chart shows the change in the data, not the present state.
The previous table and chart shows the amount of spending per transaction. However, the real effect on the man's wallet is the cumulative spending, as illustrated in the following table and chart.
While the spending per transaction, or the change in spending, is dramatic during the middle of the evening, it tapers off at the end. In fact, because the man found a $5 bill, the evening apparently ends on a high note! However, the cumulative, out-of-pocket expenses for the evening totals nearly $300. In one presentation of the data, the man apparently ends the evening with $5 in his wallet when in reality, he is down $300.
How does apply to Organizing for America's jobs chart?
The original chart shows the number of jobs gained or lost per month, or the monthly change in the jobs number. However, if the unemployment rate remains unchanged at 5%, 50%, or even 100%, the monthly change in unemployment is zero. Actual unemployment is not zero, just the monthly change in unemployment. See the difference? The following chart presents the cumulative job loss over the same time period, using the same data, and more clearly shows that unemployment increased over time and has not returned to December 2007 levels. While it is good news that monthly job losses have slowed (what the Organizing for America chart actually shows), the unemployment situation has not miraculously disappeared (what the Organizing for American chart seems to imply).
There are many ways to distort the visual presentation to reflect a particular political view. For example, here is the same data presented in yet a different manner. In this example, the chart compares cumulative unemployment during the final year of President George W. Bush's presidency and the first year of President Barak Obama's presidency. While the original graph seems to indicate that unemployment improved after President Obama took office, in reality the job market continued hemorrhaging!
Here is a chart of the showing the total number of officially unemployed based on Bureau of Labor Statistics data. The number is even greater than the cumulative chart before as there were over 7.5 million unemployed when the crisis deepened.
To put this into historical perspective, how does the current unemployment trough compare to those from prior recessions, measured in months from the beginning of the recession? The current trough is deeper and it appears will last longer than prior recessions.
The original Organizing for America chart appears to be purposely deceptive. It falsely appears to indicate that the Obama Administration has completely reversed unemployment when clearly, this is not the case. With the nation already split on so many issues, the electorate needs to operate from a truthful set of data without willful distortions. Sure, there can be multiple interpretations of the same data, but those interpretations should clearly indicate what data is presented.
Like many Americans, yes, I'm interested in real, sensible, practical health-care reform--you know, the type that makes sense, reduces costs, and improves care. However, I just have to shake my head when I see the blatant manipulation (they're not technically lies) coming from our so-called "leaders" in Washington.
"In the stage-managed event, questions for Obama came from a live audience selected by the White House and the college, and from Internet questions chosen by the administration's new-media team. Of the seven questions the president answered, four were selected by his staff from videos submitted to the White House Web site or from those responding to a request for 'tweets.' "The president called randomly on three audience members. All turned out to be members of groups with close ties to his administration: the Service Employees International Union, Health Care for America Now, and Organizing for America, which is a part of the Democratic National Committee. White House officials said that was a coincidence."
If this really was "a coincidence," I would suggest that the President buy himself a lottery ticket! His luck is truly phenomenal!
The Serivce Employees International Union (SEIU)? I've heard of them. As reported in the L.A. Times and the Chicago Tribune, didn't the SEIU spend $60 million to elect the President and now have unprecedented access to the White House? The SEIU is also #9 on the list of the largest political contributors to some of our lofty, ethical elected officials (97% from only one political party--you guess which).
I'm not familiar with Health Care for America Now. That sounds like a non-partisan group interested in prudent health-care reforms, right? Let's see what I can find out about them from their web site. http://healthcareforamericanow.org/about-us/members/
Hmm, well let's see. There's ACORN, the AFL-CIO (#31 on the top politcal donors list), American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (#2 on the list), Americans United for Change (hey, isn't their former president, Brad Woodhouse, now the communications director for the Democratic National Commitee (DNC)?). Wow, and I haven't even made it out of the 'A's yet.
Again, I wasn't familiar with the name Organizing for America until I again searched the web. Oh yeah, this was the organization that then-candidate Obama formed when he was seeking the White House. The site helped organize his campaign in different states, mobilize his volunteers, and they maintain huge E-mail list. I scroll down the page. Wait a second, is this site managed by the DNC--the same DNC where Brad Woodhouse now works but used to be with Americans United for Change? Wow, another stunning "coincidence"!
And people thought Richard Nixon was tricky. Apparently President Obama excelled in his previous role as a "community organizer." These groups are well coordinated from the top, but they are also more inbred than some crazy dog breeds.
This so-called "national debate on health care" is a complete SHAM. This is a complete SHAME!!!
