Nope. Never said it had anything to do with the GOP creating an IRS crisis. Next question?Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
Printable View
Nope. Never said it had anything to do with the GOP creating an IRS crisis. Next question?Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
To get any major guidance approved at the IRS, you've got to have about 25 different signatures from officials within the IRS and Treasury. A lot of the people that had been working on this guidance, who were intimately familiar with its contents and the reasons for its very precise drafting, are no longer with the organization. So now you've got a different group of folks in charge who have their own ideas on how the guidance should be drafted. I wouldn't be surprised if it put them more than a year behind.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
No doubt the federal government is a bureaucratic nightmare.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jarvan
Not sure how your first few paragraphs jives with your last. Seems like you took a complete 180 for the sake of trying to sustain the mainstream conservative media's talking point. Either the IRS is a bureaucratic mess and it takes a long time get things produced and approved, especially with significant leadership/management turnover, or they should just be able to pump this out in 5 months. It is one or the other, but not both.
No, I think they jive fine. They should be able to have gotten this done in 4 years. There is no need for the bureaucratic mess.Quote:
Originally Posted by Keller
There was a good line from Contact.. "why build one when you can build two for twice the cost"
When it comes to government tho.. "why have 1 employee do something, when you can have 10 do it in 8x the time."
drum upQuote:
Originally Posted by Keller
a.to call or summon by, or as if by, beating a drum.
b.to obtain or create (customers, trade, interest, etc.) through vigorous effort: They were unableto drum up enthusiasm for the new policies.
c.to concoct; devise: to drum up new methods of dealing with urban crime.
So, you went from its because the GOP drummed up the IRS crisis and the hard working people left the IRS, to it has a lot to do with the elections.. to back because the government isn't ready yet?
Maybe the IRS should stop paying 201 employees to work on union activities and actually work for the IRS instead?
http://dailycaller.com/2013/06/13/fo...nion-business/
In a response to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request from Americans for Limited Government, the Internal Revenue Service revealed this month that 201 of its employees work full-time on union activities.
“A lot of people are not aware that under federal law, a federal agency is allowed to enter into a collective bargaining agreement with a union that has provisions where employees of the agency, in this case the IRS, are allowed to do union work on the taxpayer’s time and get paid for it,” ALG president and Nathan Mehrens explained in an interview with The Daily Caller.
As Office of Personnel Management documents explain, the performance of union duties instead of official government business is allowed, as it is a part of the government’s collective bargaining system.
“‘Official time,’ authorized by 5 U.S.C. 7131, is a core component of the federal government’s carefully crafted collective bargaining system,” OPM explains in its most recent “Official Time Usage in the Federal Government” report. “Official time is time spent by Federal employees performing representational work for a bargaining unit in lieu of their regularly assigned work. It allows unions to satisfy their duty of fair representation to members and non-members alike.”
“In our opinion it is something that shouldn’t be allowed,” Mehrens, a former Department of Labor attorney under President George W. Bush, said.
“It is a subsidy to a private entity to do the private entity’s job,” he added. “Why should we as taxpayers be paying for this? It is not as if taxpayers are paying to subsidize my organization.”
The redacted list of 201 IRS employees, whose names have been blacked out, features only those employees who are entirely engaged in union work. The list does not include employees who spend part of their time on government work and other portions on union work, according to ALG.
The list of 201 employees offers job titles, salary information, and some location information. The job titles appear innocuous and make the work appear to be focused on agency business rather than union business. Titles include “Internal Revenue Agent,” “Revenue Officer,” “Tax Specialist,” “Rev Officer,” “Clerk,” “Contact Representative,” “Case Advocate,” and the like. Some boast six-figure salaries, with the highest paid employee on the list earning $138,092.
Mehrens explained that in many cases employees are hired for a certain job classification but end up doing union work.
“This person was hired to file things,” Mehrens said of one of the employees listed on the documents under the job title “File Clerk.” ”But instead of filing things this person is doing union work. So somebody else presumably has to pick up the slack and handle that. There is not a job classification for ‘union steward’… so they are in these positions and instead of actually doing the work that would fit the job classification they are basically excused from doing that job in order to work on behalf of the union.”
Maybe I'm just stupid but I thought part of the reason for union dues was they used those dues to hire people to do union work full time?
That and also use that money to buy multimillion dollar golf courses and shit.
That and also use that money to buy politicians to get into office and then give them insanely lucrative deals.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
On the golf course thing you may be thinking of our own military. Some crazy amount of our tax dollars go to maintaining multiple golf courses across the country. Not a judgement. Just a fact.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
Yup. I can't believe how many VA hospitals have golf courses. To be fair the golf course at the VA near me looks like they spend 10 dollars a month to maintain though.Quote:
Originally Posted by Back
But no, I'm talking about the UAW owning a piece of land with a golf course on it valued at 34 million dollars that they of course have to keep paying to maintain. Let's not forget their 17 million dollar headquarters, because y'know, big corporations are greedy and evil.