On Friday the IRS admitted to targeting conservative groups for extra scrutiny in their applications for tax-exempt status. The agency claimed the practice was initiated by low-level workers and did not result from political bias.

Then over the weekend, it was revealed that the IRS targeted “groups focused on government spending, government debt, taxes, and education on ways to ‘make America a better place to live.’”

Heritage Foundation expert Hans von Spakovsky says that any explanation other than political bias would be hard to believe, because “the only relevant or substantive thing these organizations have in common is that they are all conservative politically.”

In fact, it’s fully permissible for organizations to advance conservative principles, he explains in a separate post:

Whether or not you agree with the Administration’s policies or whether you criticize the expansion of government or its excessive debt are not a consideration under the Revenue Code to qualify for tax-exempt status. Apparently, the IRS finally realized that, because according to The Washington Post, it changed its tactics in May 2012 to focus on “organizations with indicators of significant amounts of political campaign intervention.” Despite that change, dozens of conservative organizations are still waiting to receive their tax exemptions.

So why did the practice go on for so long without interference from the higher-ups? There should be a thorough investigation, von Spakovsky argues:

It’s unclear who in the IRS or elsewhere supported or condoned the wrongful conduct at issue, but it is important for the rule of law and the interests of justice that Congress aggressively pursue its oversight function to get to the bottom of this scandal and, most importantly, who instigated and authorized it.

Do you think targeting conservative groups was political?

The Senate immigration bill contains language that would provide substantial federal funding for special interest groups and expose the government to legal fights — at taxpayers’ expense.

Heritage Foundation expert Hans von Spakovsky explains that in addition to costing American taxpayers, by granting funding to immigrant advocacy groups these provisions “could expose the government to costly litigation going forward.”

The legislation establishes a $50 million grant program for nonprofit organizations to assist applicants for legal residence. “These grants can be used for legal assistance and effectively commit the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to providing grants for lawsuits against itself,” von Spakovsky explains.

In addition to these grants, the proposed bill includes very broad language granting legal services to aliens: Continue Reading »

The Supreme Court this week heard oral arguments in Alabama v. Holder, the constitutional challenge to Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act heard this week in the Supreme Court. Heritage Foundation legal expert Hans von Spakovsky racaps the arguments, gives us background on the case and explains the law’s shaky legal grounding.

Section 5, von Spakovsky explains, is ”an emergency provision passed by Congress in 1965 that was originally supposed to terminate after five years. It was renewed for a fourth time in 2006 for another 25 years.”

Section 5 requires certain covered jurisdictions (nine states and parts of seven others) to get the preapproval of the federal government before they can make any changes in their voting laws. The main provision of the Voting Rights Act, Section 2, which is a nationwide, permanent ban on racial discrimination in voting, is not at issue in the case.

The difference between Section 2 and Section 5, he explains, is that the latter’s restrictions apply only to jurisdictions which “had voter registration or turnout below 50 percent in the 1964, 1968, and 1972 presidential elections.” Continue Reading »

Heritage Foundation experts live-blogged President Obama’s State of the Union address on Tuesday evening. Below are excerpts from their reactions.

A ‘Balanced’ Approach to Deficit Reduction

President Obama called for more “balance” in reducing the deficit, though according to Heritage expert Patrick Knudsen this actually means higher taxes:

With the government drowning in red ink, Obama offers a life preserver made of lead: more spending. He has already pocketed a $618 billion tax increase in the fiscal cliff deal (in addition to $1 trillion in new Obamacare taxes). He needs to accept that true “balance” has two sides—and start cutting spending.

Continue Reading »

Hans von Spakovsky

Liberal efforts to reduce waiting times at the polls are part of a partisan plan to advance their cause at the polls, The Heritage Foundation’s Hans von Spakovsky explains in the Wall Street Journal this weekend.

Von Spakovsky, the subject of the Journal’s “Weekend Interview,” tells the Journal’s James Taranto that the so-called Voter Empowerment Act of 2013 is the latest push: Continue Reading »

Today’s jobs report, the last before next Tuesday’s election, shows that the economy is growing too slowly to reduce unemployment. The unemployment rate rose from September’s 7.8 percent to 7.9 percent, and 171,000 jobs were added to the economy.

The Heritage Foundation’s Amy Payne explains how the administration is playing games with the economy:

The October report partly reversed the mysterious drop in the unemployment rate in the September jobs report… With the jump back up in the unemployment rate in October to nearly 8 percent, we have at least the beginnings of an answer to the mystery.

In addition to possible quirks in the way the government collects information on unemployment, the Administration is playing some more overt games with the economy, holding new regulations and even layoff notices until later in the year.

Continue Reading »

Photo: Flickr/The White House

“The Obama Administration’s disregard for the law has struck again,” The Heritage Foundation’s Hans von Spakovsky and Amy Payne write in today’s Morning Bell. “And this time, it’s encouraging others to violate the law at taxpayer expense.” Continue Reading »

Voter fraud poses a real threat to the integrity of our elections, Heritage Foundation legal expert Hans von Spakovsky told a standing-room-only audience of Heritage members at the President’s Club meeting in Washington.

Two of von Spakovsky’s examples illustrated how election fraud affected everyone in the room:

1. In 2008, election officials in Minnesota determined that Democrat Al Franken had unseated the incumbent, Sen. Norm Coleman, by a margin of just 300 votes. Because of the very small margin, there was a mandatory recount which revealed that 1,100 felons had unlawfully cast ballots for Franken. His victory was sustained.
    
   Why was this Senate race so important? Because Franken was the critical 60th vote in favor of Obamacare. Continue Reading »

Heritage Foundation scholar Ernest Istook hosted several Heritage experts on his program this week.

• Nile Gardiner explained why he was disappointed in President Obama’s UN speech
• Hans von Spakovsky discussed Media Matters’ collusion with the Justice Department
• Bob Moffit explained the need for Medicare reform and its role in the 2012 debates

Other guests included Charles Kesler of the Claremont Institute, who explained the thesis of his new book, I Am the Change: Barack Obama and the Crisis of Liberalism.

Be sure to tune in 9:00 a.m. to noon Eastern Monday through Friday to hear Istook’s take on current events and politics. Find out more about the show, browse show archives, and listen live on istook.com