Still trying to make a scandal out of the IRS doing its job

Conservatives think they still might make a scandal out of allegded unfair scrutiny of Tea Party groups that apply for tax exempt status.   The zombi-revival stems from the revelation that, well, yes, the IRS did also target progressive groups BUT at a lower rate.

Here are the facts (with thanks to an article in Salon):

1.  The job of this particular office of the IRS was to evaluate applications by groups for tax exempt status.   It was their job to give extra scrutiny to those who seemed likely to be primarily for political purposes, which made them ineligible for tax exempt status.   They could do some political advocacy, but the main purpose had to be for some social benefit.

2.  During the May 2010 to May 2012 period under question, the IRS was flooded with applications following the rise of the Tea Party and in the wake of the Citizens United decision.   The office was not staffed sufficiently to allow heightened scrutiny of every application, and they had no formal guidelines for selecting ones to audit further.  They needed some sort of triage plan.

3.  Some bureaucrat in the department made a list with key words in names of organizations that would be more likely to pick up inappropriate applications.    The word "progressive" had apparently been used from an earlier time, supposedly from a time of surging progressive groups' applications.

4.  During this 2 year period, there were 96 applications with "Tea Party," "Patriot," or "9/12" in the title;  and 100% of them were processed as potential political groups.   In the same time frame, there were 20 with "progressive" in the title;  and 30% of those got the extra scrutiny.   Thus the latest claim of unfair scrutiny.

5.  But look at the ultimate results:  the only one that was actually denied tax-exempt status was a progressive group.   And many in the conservative group did actually engage in political activity -- apparently not more than allowed in the guidelines but at least enough to merit extra scrutiny.

So where is the unfairness?   Where is the abusive tactic?    

Where is the scandal?

Ralph