« | »

The Anti-Tea Party Union That Controls The IRS

From Jeffrey Lord at the American Spectator:

The Liberal Union Behind the IRS

By Jeffrey Lord | May 16, 2013

Obama, IG Report refuse to touch powerful Treasury Employees Union headed by ex-IRS agent.

The President couldn’t even bring himself to breathe a word of the truth. He could fire some hapless Acting Commissioner, but last night Mr. Obama never came close to discussing that which must never be discussed.

The IRS? It’s about a union: the National Treasury Employees Union. The NTEU. A left-wing union representing 150,000 employees in 31 separate government agencies, including the IRS.

A union that not only endorsed President Obama for election and re-election, but a union whose current president, Colleen Kelly, was a 14-year IRS agent and now is both union president and Obama administration appointee (of which more in a moment).

It’s about 94% of NTEU union contributions going to Democrats in the Senate and House in 2012 — candidates who campaigned as vociferous opponents of the Tea Party.

And the recently released report from the Treasury Inspector General? You will not find a single reference to the NTEU. Whose members are both player and referee in the exploding controversy over the IRS targeting of conservative groups.

Which raises the obvious question: how many NTEU members were involved in the writing of the Inspector General’s report?

Even more to the point, what contact — what coordination — has the Obama White House had with their allies in the NTEU leadership as both the White House and the NTEU race to get on top of a scandal that is rapidly engulfing both?…

Let’s first see how the IRS/NTEU game with the Tea Party and conservatives is played, shall we?

In the 2012 election cycle, the IRS union gave its money this way:

For the U.S. Senate:
Total to Democrats: $156,750
Total to Republicans: $1,000

For the U.S. House:
Total to Democrats: $391,062
Total to Republicans: $23,000

And the candidates on the receiving end of those IRS employee dollars?… They were candidates who were running flat out against the Tea Party, depicting Tea Party-supported candidates as dangerous, extremists, and crazies. Exhibiting exactly the anti-Tea Party antipathy on the campaign trail that has been revealed to be permeating the IRS

Lord goes on to cite how the NTEU heavily backed the Democrat Senate candidates Tammy Baldwin and Joe Donnelly and Claire McCaskill, who all ran viciously anti-Tea Party campaigns.

Similarly, in the House, the NTEU heavily backed Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer. Both of whom ran vehement anti-Tea Party campaigns. But none of this institutional bias was mentioned in the Treasury Department’s Inspector General’s report.

How powerful is the NTEU within the IRS? …

The NTEU, which gave 94% of its campaign money to anti-Tea Party candidates, has the clout within the IRS to demand a say in who can and cannot carry a Blackberry and receive other high tech communications equipment..

If you are working in the IRS, and you are an NTEU member, and you know your union leadership is funneling your union dues to anti-Tea Party candidates, and your union has so much raw power within the IRS that they even control whether you, an IRS employee, can get even such mundane tech gear as a Blackberry — what attitude are you going to display as you review Tea Party applications that must, by law, come in to the IRS for approval?

You already know what to do. And inside the IRS, that’s exactly what was done. The Tea Party, in the vernacular, was screwed. By IRS bureaucrats whose union money is being used to attack the Tea Party. Of course these IRS employees know what to do — most probably without even being asked. There is no need to ask. And if they don’t follow the union program — and want a Blackberry — tough luck…

In other words, everyone at the IRS knows without being told what side of the bread their butter is on.

This article was posted by Steve on Friday, May 17th, 2013. Comments are currently closed.

7 Responses to “The Anti-Tea Party Union That Controls The IRS”

  1. GetBackJack says:

    I strongly object to public employees ‘organizing’ into Unions against the very people who are forced to hand over their hard earned income to see to that we have government both Ordered and constrained by the Constitution.

  2. Noyzmakr says:

    You’ll get no argument here.

    Talk about the fox watching the hen house. ;-(

    • JimA says:

      Did you have a problem with Justice Thomas ruling on ACA while his wife was lobbying against it?

      Or is conflict of interest a pick and choose thing with you?

    • Noyzmakr says:

      No more than you did when Elena Kagan ruled on the ACA.

    • GetBackJack says:

      JimA … you are a racist for singling out Justice Thomas. A deep seated resentment, possibly hatred, for the Black Man in this nation caused you to write this dangerous missive. Obviously you need reeducation and an immediate course in Interracial Relationships since you cannot control yourself.

      We’ll see you at the Camp 8am sharp, Monday morning. Do Not make us have to come get you.

      Morris Dees
      Southern Poverty Law Center

  3. Noyzmakr says:

    On the contrary IWO JimA.

    I commend Justice Thomas on being independent minded enough to not allow his wifes causes to influence his thinking one way or the other.

    You just hate that a black man, who isn’t beholden to the plantation politics of the NAALCP, can make such decisions without input from useful idiots who are still waiting the tables of their “Masas” in the demoncratic party.

    How can it be a good idea to allow marxist unions to wedge themselves into every institution of government? They’ve already proven to be anti-american and anti-democratic. We don’t need liberal facists and progressive marxists anywhere near our government but it looks as though we are too late. People like you elected one as president.

  4. canary says:

    Is it legal for a federal union president paid a salary by a federal union, to get paid by the executive branch at the same time.?

    Is this unpreceded?

    Is there a rule a husband has to share the same politics as his wife?

    I’m so confused by all this.

« Front Page | To Top
« | »