House Republicans seek IRS probe of AARP

[babsbunny]

http://www.couragepac.com/house-republicans-seek-irs-probe-of-aarp/

Posted on March 30, 2011 by Jennifer

By Associated Press business staff The Plain Dealer

WASHINGTON — AARP lobbied for the new health care law and now it stands to profit, Republican lawmakers charged Wednesday as they called for the IRS to investigate whether the powerful interest group representing millions of older Americans should be

Associated Press fileAARP lobbied for the new health care law and now it stands to profit, Republican lawmakers charged Wednesday as they called for the IRS to investigate whether the powerful interest group deserves to keep its federal tax exemption.

stripped of its federal tax exemption.

Three veteran GOP representatives released a report that estimates the seniors lobby could make an additional $1 billion over 10 years on health insurance plans whose sales are expected to pick up under the new law. They also questioned seven-figure compensation for some AARP executives.

“Based on the available evidence, substantial questions remain about whether AARP should maintain its tax-exempt status,” said the report, released by Reps. Wally Herger of California, Charles Boustany of Louisiana and Dave Reichert of Washington.

[Newsjock]

1. Substantial questions remain about whether the U.S. Chamber of Commerce

should maintain its tax-exempt status, said Newsjock.

[RKP5637]

2. And IMO mega-churches should lose tax exemption too, maybe all of them. n/t

[freshwest]

3. Yeah, they're too politicized. Never happen though.

[Curmudgeoness]

4. Maybe? nt

[RKP5637]

9. The ones that get to me are those that are basically corporations masquerading

as churches and with a definite political agenda. Of course, all religions IMO are about politics and mind bending.

[Modern_Matthew]

6. The mega churches, yes. Small churches, no.

I'm not a churchgoer at all (agnostic), but I know that many of the small churches in my area struggle to keep the doors open as it is with the money they take in. The huge churches? Not so much.

[Curmudgeoness]

11. If the tax structure is like other businesses, the small churches

will not have taxes to pay. If all the money that comes in goes back out as expenses, there would be no "profit" or income for them to pay taxes on.

I say that there should be no such thing as tax-exempt anything. All people and businesses and other organizations need the services that are provided by the government (roads, fire, police, etc.) and should have to contribute to these to their ability.

[RKP5637]

14. I think you make some very good points!!! In some of the mega churches it's clear

that some of the items they call expenses allow the upper crust to live as royalty over their flocks.

[Brigid]

5. How dumb can the GOP really be?

Now they've taken on the geezers, whose favorite form of exercise is going to the polls on election day.

[jillan]

7. When am I going to see a headline that says Democrats seek IRS Probe of

Corporations, Churches, Oil Companies??

[cordelia]

8. I'd like to see them probe AMAC - a right wing

competitor to AARP. Not sure what their tax status is, though.

[Dawson Leery]

10. Where are the investigations into

the US Chamber of Commerce?

[kenny blankenship]

12. What's next? Virginity tests for the League of Women Voters and Emily's List?

Do these guys do ANYTHING besides plot revenge against a "GOP Enemies List"? Thanks to them it's getting to be that politics in the US is degenerating into little more than using the power of the state to screw with people you don't like or disagree with. That is a flashing Danger sign.

[sakabatou]

13. Hey Republicans! Where are the jobs?

[howaboutme]

15. Tax free - non-profit should mean totally open books

Every member or contributor and contribution as well as all income, travel, and compensation of top employees should be available as an open book to the public.


Non-profit status should have a down side to those who create them - and total transparency should be required.

[howaboutme]

16. Something happened to the AARP

back in the early 2000 when Novelli came in as CEO and they were able to change the by-laws that stripped the once bottom up state control of the national organization, to a top down CEO directed corporation Up until that point they were unabashedly an advocate organization for seniors and every Congressman recognized their strength as a lobby. They went from a mission of senior advocacy to a compromised commercial entity that supported the Republican Medicare Part D that benefited big PHRMA. Ever since this change they looked at advocacy but through a commercial prism.

Frankly I would like to see the old AARP back that was grass roots run and dues dependent organization that aggressively supported senior issues totally and that divested their commercial interests. I would join again. Their membership has stagnated because of this. There was apparently much anger on DU about AARP back in the Bush years.

I'd like to see all big non-profits under a microscope.

[Curmudgeoness]

18. You make an important point. Put all big non-profits

under a microscope. Attacking AARP is not a smart move unless you are looking at all non-profits.

I was also pissed about the changes in AARP, but I have gone back as a member because there are so few lobbies for older people, and this is better than none. We still have an active local AARP, and I think that is important. And when I read the magazine, they are still advocating for many things that I do believe in. I don't suppose I will ever find an organization that is with me 100% of the time.

[howaboutme]

20. That's kind of the way I feel about it

although I haven't re-joined AARP.

If they were forced to divest the advocacy side from the money side I would agree strongly. They've lost much senior lobbying power over the conflict with members between advocacy and money. My sense is that Wall St, big business and Republicans considered the former AARP a threat because it was an immensely strong lobby. It was more powerful than any lobby. It was like having a union of seniors who vote 90% of the time. Back in 2000 there was a plan to water down that power by changing AARP and creating the conflict with Medicare D.

Those senior issues today such as Medicare and Social Security would be untouchable under the former AARP. Today the Wall St Dems might oppose it too. Wall Street still wants to privatize your Social Security and they will do whatever it takes to get it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=acLW1vFO-2Q

[Curmudgeoness]

21. Privatizing Social Security is one of the stupidest ideas

that they have ever come up with. Well, stupid for the recipients. Brilliant for Wall Street. Think about how it would change the rules and attitudes about Wall Street and business if everyone in the country was invested.

[howaboutme]

22. I think you nailed it.

about the plan is to get Americans to buy into the "social value" of Wall St and to think of themselves as members of the investor class.

The movie "Inside Job" touched on that as the reason that the investment bankers and financiers have become a hugely over paid caste of society. They have been getting it all, while hundreds of millions of hard working Americans have been getting less for doing more.

It started with the advent of IRAs and 401Ks.

[SteveG]

17. I am watching this hearing now

on C-span2. The republicans are clearly engaged in a witch hunt. The behavior of the chairman is appalling.

[Skidmore]

19. I may finally have to join AARP.

I've tossed their membership drive info for several years now. Perhaps now is the time to hook up with them.

[Arkana]

23. Yes, Republicans. Attack seniors, by all means.

They're your last voting demographic.