A U.S. Treasury audit revealed IRS is not in compliance with federal law on the fraud-plagued Earned Income Tax Credit. (Snip: U.S. Treasury)The Senate Judiciary Committee, during consideration of  S.744, the Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act,  took a vote on Monday, approving tax welfare payments for amnestied aliens. Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) chairs the committee; he is one of the most liberal members of Congress.

Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) advocated for keeping the Earned Income Tax Credit as is.

Unfortunately Democrats' decision on tax welfare opens the door wider for fraud in the EITC.

That credit takes money from income tax payers and gives it to those who work but earn less and likely pay no income taxes although they do pay social security and other payroll taxes that fund mandated programs for each worker.

The Tax Foundation explains how the credit works:

For tax year 2012, the maximum income limit for a single parent with two children was $41,952 with a maximum benefit of $5,236. The program is designed to increase the credit’s value as your income increases, and then gradually phase-out to zero once your income hits a maximum threshold. In fiscal year 2012, the program cost the government about $59 billion and covered 27 million people; one of the largest welfare programs by reach and cost.

What no one can explain is how liberal Democrats work.

Democrats running the Senate know the EITC is plagued by fraud. As a matter of fact, no one can really say exactly how much fraud because reports are based on estimates and statistical analysis. A U.S. Treasury audit issued in April said:

“The IRS estimates that 21 to 25 percent of EITC payments were issued improperly in Fiscal Year 2012. The dollar value of these improper payments was estimated to be between $11.6 billion and $13.6 billion.”

The audit also noted IRS is not complying with federal law designed to rein in fraud:

This is the second consecutive year that the IRS is not in compliance with the IPERA [Improper Payments Elimination and Recovery Act].

Total improper payments ranged from $110.8-132.6 billion from 2003-2012. The dollar amount has been higher every year Obama has been in office although the percentage of improper payments has declined slightly. These figures, of course, depend on the method the report authors decided to use. The bottom line is that no one can pinpoint the total fraud.

Leftwing think tanks claim the credit is too complex and that causes involuntary fraud. There’s slim evidence that’s the case, but those same think tanks admit something should be done about it.

The Treasury Report notes problems with calculating the fraud:

Because of the time it takes to complete the annual NRP, the IRS’s annual estimate is based on data that are approximately three years old. For example, EITC improper payment estimates for Fiscal Year 2012 are based on information from Tax Year 2008 tax returns that were processed in Calendar Year 2009.

Sen. Sessions attempted to amend the bill:

Sen. Jeff Sessions, Alabama Republican, tried to prevent anyone but citizens and green-card holders from being able to claim the Earned Income Tax Credit, which uses the tax code to transfer money to the poor.

Schumer made a flawed argument:

But Sen. Charles E. Schumer, New York Democrat, said that would deny the tax credit not only to legalized immigrants but also refugees, asylum-seekers and other legal workers.

Why does the American taxpayer owe a foreigner who came here voluntarily a cash windfall at tax time, especially in a program where fraud is rampant?

Schumer was at the forefront of the 1986 Amnesty bill passed on a bipartisan basis. Congress lied to the American people and broke the contract implicit in the bill. That lapse helped create issues being debated by the Judiciary Committee today, and it is not reasonable to assume Americans will not be lied to again.

It is reasonable to assume Democrats on the Judiciary Committee intend to nurture fraud at the expense of those who pay income taxes, perhaps in an extension of the pay-for-votes policy the Democrat Party exercises broadly today.

(Analysis by Kay B. Day/May 21, 2013)

The US Report, an independent blog, appreciates readers who have made a contribution to help us meet expenses in order to keep publishing. TUSR is not sponsored by a political party, PAC or other group. If you’d like to contribute, please use the PayPal link in the sidebar. Follow us on Twitter: @TheUS Report.

Judicial Watch posted this on Twitter to announce an investigation into the IRS scandal.Via Twitter, government watchdog Judicial Watch announced it is opening an investigation into the IRS scandal.

JW focuses on FOIA laws to obtain materials relevant to investigations:

"Judicial Watch uses the open records or freedom of information laws and other tools to investigate and uncover misconduct by government officials and litigation to hold to account politicians and public officials who engage in corrupt activities."

At present the group said, JW “has filed more than 150 lawsuits against federal, state, and local agencies and officials across the country seeking to promote transparency, integrity, and accountability in government and fidelity to the rule of law.”

JW has also investigated the Benghazi attacks and the administration’s various responses as well as the cost of amnesty for illegal aliens.

JW said in a press release, “These IRS abuses are one more example of how the Obama administration is off the rails and out of control.” [boldface added]

You can stay informed about the investigation by following JW on Twitter: @JudicialWatch.

(Filed by Kay B. Day/May 20, 2013)

The US Report, an independent blog, appreciates readers who have made a contribution to help us meet expenses in order to keep publishing. TUSR is not sponsored by a political party, PAC or other group. If you’d like to contribute, please use the PayPal link in the sidebar. Follow us on Twitter: @TheUS Report.

Wikileaks is a publisher. (Snip: Wikileaks home page)I still remember the scathing look a friend gave me when I told her Julian Assange shouldn’t be on the run from just about every law enforcement agency in the world.

I tried to explain it. I didn’t like what Assange did, especially the leaks that could endanger our troops.

I didn’t care a whit about the diplomats embarrassed by numerous cables showing that highly paid federal employees are often total idiots.

What I did care about was free expression. Assange is a publisher. He publishes what is offered. Case closed.

I even mentioned in my column that I believed sex crimes allegations against Assange were “very shaky.”

Now news has broken abroad—it hasn’t reached U.S. media apparently—suggesting Assange was framed. And he claims he has government documents from the UK’s intelligence agency to prove it.

Segue to today’s America.

Our president is finally facing criticism over his policy on the First Amendment. From singling out news organizations and even conservative pundits to assailing an unknown filmmaker for the attacks on the Special Mission Compound in Benghazi, President Barack Obama and his fellow Democrats are no fans of the First. Dems have never gotten over the repeal of the Fairness Doctrine and even talked about resurrecting it in 2009.

After all, the Fairness Doctrine was a great friend to Democrats throughout history; so was media. Otherwise, Franklin D. Roosevelt’s physical afflictions (and his mistress) wouldn’t have been kept from the public, and John F. Kennedy’s womanizing, drug use, disastrous decisions on the Bay of Pigs and his White House tapes would have made Richard Nixon a smaller scandal.

Media ignored Fast and Furious, ridiculous Rules of Engagement and persecution of our soldiers, the bizarre classification of a terrorist act at Ft. Hood as "workplace violence", Solyndra, the refusal of a presidential candidate to release his college records. Media ignored Camp Bastion, Benghazi and the president’s refusal to respect or enforce worthy U.S. laws on immigration purely in the interest of vote pandering. Media ignored the president’s leakers when information on SEAL Team 6 was disclosed, including information from Vice President Joe Biden.

Like so many other blind partisans, media ignored all the transgressions of a central government run by Chicago tactics until the chickens came home to roost on the Associated Press’ head—should we call the investigations of AP reporters and Fox News’ James Rosen ‘Media-Gate’?

All I can say again is Free Julian Assange because his predicament foretold exactly what is happening right now in our country.

If you really believe in the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights, you can’t just defend your friends or positions you agree with. That is the lesson of Assange and it’s one both parties should take to heart.

(Commentary by Kay B. Day/May 20, 2013)

The US Report, an independent blog, appreciates readers who have made a contribution to help us meet expenses in order to keep publishing. TUSR is not sponsored by a political party, PAC or other group. If you’d like to contribute, please use the PayPal link in the sidebar. Follow us on Twitter: @TheUS Report.

Snip of IRS Form 13909. The agency encourages people to file complaints about tax exempt groups. It would be interesting to view some of the forms the agency has received. (Snip/IRS)There’s nothing new in a Facebook member posting partisan political messages. Such messages are often full of misinformation or outright lies, but until recently, the First Amendment protected freedom of expression.

Having read a great deal about the persecution of conservative groups at the hand of the Obama administration and IRS, I think it’s time to ask ourselves if we should use a handy form the Internal Revenue Service has online. That form enables a citizen to report a nonprofit group suspected of breaking rules for tax exempt status.

Apparently some rabid leftwingers decided to use the form as much as possible, evidenced by one Democrat’s post on a page for a group called The Mississippi Liberty Group.

Would it be useful to demand that complaints filed during a certain time period be made public?

IRS form 13909 is online, readily available to all.

Should conservatives use it and return the favor?

Should we begin to monitor leftist groups like La Raza more closely? After all La Raza is not only a tax exempt organization, the group has received millions in taxpayer funding from both Republicans and Democrats although the Dems ramped it up considerably.

Remember President Barack Obama issued a special “ethics waiver,” according to Judicial Watch, when he hired La Raza’s senior vice president to work for the administration. Once the La Raza VP was on board, JW said the government funding more than doubled. Is any group more political than La Raza?

Did IRS ever go after ACORN’s tax exempt certification?

How about the PTA? After all, the PTA issued a national news release supporting the president’s claims about the sequester he actually conceived. The PTA, of course, blamed Congress. Those of us with intact brains knew the PTA meant House Republicans because Senate Dems were also blaming Republicans.

IRS wants us to complain, evidenced by a message at the government agency’s website:

Go ahead and complain. The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) is all ears–particularly about complaints alleging any abuse of the tax-exempt status granted to a non-profit organization.

Is what’s good for the donkey good for the elephant?

(Commentary by Kay B. Day/May 20, 2013)

Help indie blogs fight leftwing search engines by sharing and commenting on our articles. We can make a difference. Follow us on Twitter @TheUSReport.

Major media finally figured out the Obama administration doesn’t really qualify for sainthood just yet, and Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) photo from U.S. Senatestories are popping about the White House collaborating with the president of the National Treasury Employees Union.

The American Spectator reported the union chief’s visit occurred just before the Internal Revenue Service began targeting tea party groups and other conservative organizations.

Targeting these groups, however, wasn’t just a tactic used by federal employees’ unions. Joining appointees in the persecution was Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) who proved himself an eager beaver in persecuting conservative groups.

In November, 2011, Democrats shut down a Capitol Hill gathering of conservatives focusing on cutting government spending. Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) was responsible for the shutdown because he chaired the Senate Rules Committee that made the decision to silence those voices. The meeting had been arranged by Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) and Mike Lee (R-Utah).

In March, 2011, Schumer had likened tea party supporters to the “extreme” element of the Republican Party.

In March, 2012, Schumer put out a press release from his Senate website. That release indicated he and other Democrats wanted IRS to go after conservative groups:

“A group of seven Senate Democrats urged the Internal Revenue Service on Monday to impose a strict cap on the amount of political spending by tax-exempt, nonprofit groups.

The senators said the lack of clarity in the IRS rules has allowed political groups to improperly claim 501(c)4 status and may even be allowing donors to these groups to wrongly claim tax deductions for their contributions. The senators promised legislation if the IRS failed to act to fix these problems.’”

Leading Dem senators joined Schumer in targeting these organizations:

“The letter was signed by Senators Charles E. Schumer, Michael Bennet, Sheldon Whitehouse, Jeff Merkley, Tom Udall, Jeanne Shaheen and Al Franken. It follows an earlier letter, sent to the IRS by the same of group of senators last month, that also urged the IRS to better enforce rules pertaining to 501(c)4 organizations.”

Bear in mind Democrats have an abundance of unions, community organizing groups like the former ACORN and the activists at Moveon.org. And if Dems were really concerned about tax deductions for groups vested in politics, they could look directly at their friends at Media Matters.

The targeting of the Tea Party was a top down strategy, especially after the 2010 elections that showed American voters weren’t quite as stupid as the left believed.

Schumer was simply carrying out across the board policy, however. Our president had already dubbed a sizable portion of the electorate as “enemies” who needed to be punished.

President Barack Obama set the tone when he pandered to hispanic voters via Univision in October, 2010. Obama said:

If Latinos sit out the election instead of saying, ‘We’re going to punish our enemies and we’re going to reward our friends who stand with us on issues that are important to us,’ if they don’t see that kind of upsurge in voting in this election, then I think it’s going to be harder.”

Those of us who want a smaller, more efficient government and reduced debt and less intrusions on freedom are dubbed “enemies” of the state and that label came from the White House.

(Analysis by Kay B. Day/May 20, 2013)

The US Report, an independent blog, appreciates readers who have made a contribution to help us meet expenses in order to keep publishing. TUSR is not sponsored by a political party, PAC or other group. If you’d like to contribute, please use the PayPal link in the sidebar. Follow us on Twitter: @TheUS Report.

Photo: CIA World Fact Book/U.S. GovernmentBased on reportage about the Sept. 11, 2012, attacks that left four Americans including the U.S. ambassador dead in Benghazi, it’s fairly obvious most media haven’t waded through the Accountability Review Board report.

Then-Sec. of State Hillary Clinton selected four members of the board.

It’s also obvious media haven’t read President Barack Obama’s Executive Order No. 13597.

Information in the report and the EO directly contradicts claims about what happened in Benghazi and whether the lax security was related to lack of funding. Democrats like Rep. Elijah Cummings (Md.) have repeatedly attempted to blame Republicans because the security in Benghazi was so inept. Cummings is wrong.

Here are six reasons the Benghazi buck stops at The White House[boldface added]:

─The facility under attack was not a consulate. The official title was the Special Mission Compound and the SMC was designated a temporary facility. That designation was a criterion in funding matters. The State Dept. did free up funds for some work at the SMC.

─As a temporary facility, the ARB report said, “[The] SMC was not eligible for OBO-funded security upgrades.” OBO is the Overseas Building Operations Bureau.

─President Barack Obama, however, could have directed funding as he did with Executive Order 13597. For instance, in order to reduce visa interview wait times, State created more than “50 new visa adjudicator positions in China and 60 in Brazil, including 43 hired under State’s innovative Limited Non-career Appointment Program.” In a 9 month period from Oct., 2011, to July, 2012, “State deployed, on temporary duty, 220 consular officers to Brazil…and 48 officers to China.”  For Brazil, that was a 253 percent increase; for China, a 60 percent increase.

─As reported by McClatchy Newspapers (via The Florida Times Union, print edition, May 18, 2013; pg. A-7), the ARB members “worked behind closed doors.” No interviews with key officials were recorded. “No documented transcripts of ARB interviews exist.” That is the reddest flag on the Benghazi pole because absence of source testimony completely clouds transparency. This was also pointed out by witnesses who testified before congressional committees.

─Although President Obama’s state department didn’t commit adequate funding for the security of Americans, the president had a workaround when it came to Libyans. In April, 2011, MSNBC said, “President Barack Obama intends to use his so-called "drawdown authority" to give the opposition, led by the Transitional National Council in Benghazi, up to $25 million in surplus American goods to help protect civilians in rebel-held areas threatened by Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi's forces.” Sec. of State Hillary Clinton recommended Obama use the authority; she said the aid "will be drawn down from items already in government stocks that correspond with the needs that we have heard from the Transitional National Council."

─When Ambassador Chris Stevens arrived in Benghazi on Sept. 10, two temporary duty Assistant Regional Security Officers (ARSOs) from Tripoli were with him. Restrictions dictated the ARSOs' ability to carry arms: “The ARSOs were each armed with their standard issue sidearm pistol; their ‘kits,’ generally consisting of body armor, radio and an M4 rifle, were in their bedroom/sleeping areas, in accord with Special Mission practice…”

Funding was available. Despite the ARB describing Benghazi as a “conflict zone” at the time of the attacks, nothing was done to legitimately secure the SMC. The regional security officers were restricted in the arms they could carry.

The State Dept. led by Clinton and the White House knew the security risks in a war zone the U.S. entered without Congressional approval. All that’s left is for Clinton and Obama to acknowledge their inept management, lack of oversight and political sensitivity ahead of a national election led to the SMC vulnerability in the attacks on 9-11-12.

Obama and Clinton took time to allocate more funding for tourism. Security wasn't on their agenda.

 (Filed by Kay B. Day/May 19, 2013)

The US Report, an independent blog, appreciates readers who have made a contribution to help us meet expenses in order to keep publishing. TUSR is not sponsored by a political party, PAC or other group. If you’d like to contribute, please use the PayPal link in the sidebar. Follow us on Twitter: @TheUS Report.

Snip: American Freedom Law CenterThe city of Dearborn hosts a yearly ‘Arab’ festival and that makes sense. Dearborn has the largest Arab population compared to any other U.S. city and the city is also home to  the largest mosque in the U.S.—adherents are Shia Muslims.

Now a federal judge has squelched First Amendment rights for Christians in Dearborn.

Each year when the Arab festival cranks up, Christians head to the streets to hand out literature and talk to people about their faith.

This practice has riled up city officials concerned about festival attendees throwing rocks and garbage at the Christians.

You’d think someone in Dearborn would enforce the law, but instead, Christians were carted off to jail.

Lawsuits have been won and appealed and so forth, but that didn’t stop a federal judge from ruling against the Christians. Here’s an outrageous excerpt from his unconstitutional opinion:

“The Court finds that the actual demonstration of violence here provided the requisite justification for [the Wayne County sheriffs’] intervention, even if the officials acted as they did because of the effect the speech had on the crowd.”

I’ve written that the First Amendment is not compatible with Islamic doctrine. The judge’s infringement of Christians’ civil rights proves me correct again. Can you even read that passage and remain calm? If you can, you don't deserve to be free.

The judge implies that if people are going to react violently to what you say, then you better gag yourself.

If a group hosts a gathering on public property and the gathering is open to the public, anyone should be able to attend and participate.

This judge, like many other leaders like President Barack Obama, has sacrificed freedom for political correctness. He should be removed from the bench.

It doesn’t matter if a hundred Wiccans wanted to dance around a Maypole and share their faith. The First Amendment is there for all and no judge has the right to squelch it.

Patrick Duggan was one of the worst appointments President Ronald Reagan ever made.

The U.S. Justice Dept. headed by Eric Holder has done nothing to address this outrageous deprivation of civil rights.

(Commentary by Kay B. Day/May 17, 2013)

The US Report has covered incidents in Dearborn; read articles about Christian persecution in our archives. Legacy media ignore these outrages.

The US Report, an independent blog, appreciates readers who have made a contribution to help us meet expenses in order to keep publishing. TUSR is not sponsored by a political party, PAC or other group. If you’d like to contribute, please use the PayPal link in the sidebar. Follow us on Twitter: @TheUS Report.

A. F. Branco's work is popular because he can sum up a position with brush strokes even a low-info voter can understand. (Used with permission: A. F. Branco)

I started seeing works by A. F. Branco on Facebook and was delighted to learn he permits usage of his work with a linkback and credit. Branco says a lot with an image, and I personally think this one is a classic in summing up the latest trifecta of scandals for the Obama administration. Past scandals like Fast and Furious and Solyndra were largely ignored by legacy media. These scandals, however, found legacy media in the crosshairs. Poetic justice of a sort.

Congressional hearing on IRS persecution of conservative groups; outgoing IRS commissioner Steven Miller is at forefront. (Snip: C-SPAN 2)A congressional hearing is underway on Capitol Hill and as usual, it’s a political circus. Republicans want to know why conservative groups have been persecuted by the Internal Revenue Service.

Democrats pointed out some appointees were selected by President George W. Bush, while they omit the fact none of the current accusations have anything to do with Bush. Dems did point out that some “progressive churches” and the NAACP received extra scrutiny during the Bush administration, but it came nowhere close to the current persecution.

Outgoing IRS commissioner Steven Miller doesn’t like the word “targeting” when it comes to IRS practices on granting tax exempt status to groups. IRS wasn’t alone in going after non-Democrats—other federal agencies “targeted” groups as well.

The current federal abuse occurred at numerous levels, not just the IRS, and it happened under President Barack Obama.

Regardless of who sits in the White House, the greater lesson speaks to the misuse of federal power to harm the very people who pay for the federal bureaucracy.

Asked who was responsible for the targeting of the groups, Miller again “took issue” with the word “targeting.” That’s typical federal sophistry. The groups were targeted.

Miller wasn’t about to give up names.

Words like tea party, limited government, the Constitution, patriots and even the Bill of Rights raised eyebrows on the bureaucrats holding the power to grant tax exempt status. Those groups saw their applications sidetracked and delayed as a pivotal General Election approached.

Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.) claimed the problem isn’t partisan, perhaps with an eye on the 2014 elections. Rangel has had tax problems like other Democrats.

The Inspector General’s report noted:

The Determinations Unit developed and began using criteria to identify potential political cases for review that inappropriately identified specific groups applying for tax-exempt status based on their names or policy positions instead of developing criteria based on tax-exempt laws and Treasury Regulations.

This hearing is one slice of an enormous IRS pie. The agency is in serious need of an in-depth audit at all levels, considering the power the agency has and the vast expansion of power it will have as a result of ObamaCare.

Any federal employee misusing his or her office because of personal politics should be fired and lose any future federal benefits. To do otherwise is to defraud the U.S. taxpayer.

Democrats continue to harp on political activities by tax exempt groups as well as the Citizens United Supreme Court decision, an attempt to score political points rather than to get to the heart of the problem.

Big Labor currently has vast influence on U.S. politics; Democrats never complained until the CU case gave the opposition equal rights.

The Inspector General's report on the IRS persecution is posted online at the House of Representatives.

Outgoing commissioner Miller suffered serious memory lapses during the Friday morning hearing. He consistently told members of the House Ways and Means committee he didn't know who was responsible for the persecution although he and other top officials were paid to run the IRS.

(Analysis by Kay B. Day/May 17, 2013)

The US Report, an independent blog, appreciates readers who have made a contribution to help us meet expenses in order to keep publishing. TUSR is not sponsored by a political party, PAC or other group. If you’d like to contribute, please use the PayPal link in the sidebar. Follow us on Twitter: @TheUS Report.

Screen Snip: Internal Revenue Service/U.S. GovernmentPresident Barack Obama’s point person in overseeing the mammoth ObamaCare bill—at least from the tax aspects—is front and center right now, and she has a checkered past.  Sarah Hall Ingram was in charge of the division that gave conservative tax-exempt wannabes such a hard time.

Ingram got more than $100,000 in taxpayer funded bonuses between 2009-2012. The left of center Washington Post (via The Washington Examiner) said the bureaucrat also got a $47,900 bonus during the administration of President George W. Bush (2004).

Ingram is a poster child for the need for reform of the federal government at all levels. This latest scandal isn’t just about IRS.

We taxpayers are being forced to fund employees who are, if you put it dramatically as the left is wont to do, cutting our throats.

Just imagine decisions Ingram could make on health taxes, considering her apparent disdain for anyone who disagrees with big government spending and taxation.

The US Report has written about the ridiculous perks and salaries many in the federal government receive in an attempt to draw attention to the need for reform:

─Recruitment bonuses, which can run up to 25 percent of a worker’s salary (unless special approval for more is given). [2010]

─Unknown costs for generous pensions and other benefits that continue past retirement. The taxpayer is on the hook for these costs. [2010]

─Federal employees who choose not to comply with tax law. As Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) noted, the yearly amount owed by delinquent federal employees increased, from $599.8 million to a whopping $1.034 billion, from 2004 to 2010. [2013]

Obama has increased the number of federal employees. Disregard all those cute little graphics the left loves to sail around the blogosphere. It’s all in how you parse the numbers.

Democrats will continue to grow federal workers because that voting bloc skews Dem. Obama has certainly grown the federal workforce:

The number of federal employees has risen under President Obama. There were 2,790,000 federal workers in January 2009 when the president took office, and now there are 2,804,000 workers. The fact is that there is no month during President Obama’s term when the federal workforce was smaller than it was in the first month of Mr. Obama’s presidency. The president took over in January 2009. Every month after January 2009 has seen more federal workers than were employed in January 2009. [American Enterprise Institute]

Bear in mind Obama hasn’t gotten around to fully implementing his health tax bill, so there will be thousands (and thousands) more federales by the time that mission is completely launched.

As the number of federal workers increases, personal rights decrease, just as they did when Ingram and her fellow bureaucrats were depriving conservative groups of their civil rights. The only remedy is to cut by attrition and gradual across the board reductions in personnel funding regardless of who is sitting in the White House.

(Analysis by Kay B. Day/May 17, 2013)

The US Report, an independent blog, appreciates readers who have made a contribution to help us meet expenses in order to keep publishing. TUSR is not sponsored by a political party, PAC or other group. If you’d like to contribute, please use the PayPal link in the sidebar. Follow us on Twitter: @TheUS Report.