Gay Patriot Header Image

On the March 2010 meeting between Obama & the IRS Union Chief

Earlier today, I caught Jim Hoft’s report on ties between the National Treasury Employees Union (NTEU, which represents, among others, employees of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS)) and the Democratic Party.  Jim links us to the NTEU’s release just following the 2012 election where its president Colleen M. Kelley congratulated Obama on his reelection and noted the efforts her government employee union made on behalf of that Democrat.

Commenting on a report that President Obama met with Miss Kelley “the day before agency targeted Tea Party“, Ace wonders, as should we all, about the strange coincidence and considers the meaning of the meeting. He surmises how events might have unfolded in circumstances similar to this one, with a hypothetical President Tee meeting with the head of Union N which had supported him politically:

It would seem that President Tee could choose to go outside the normal chain of command to issue an illegal order by simply telling the head of Union N to inform the union members she leads to pursue the policy, rather than issuing a formal order to the head of the IRS.

 Ace spins out an interesting scenario which, given what we know about Chicago politics, does not seem that far-fetched.  That said, I’m with Ace who disagrees with the authors of the report he linked; “I don’t think this meeting is a smoking gun,” but I do think it is significant and news outlets should report it.

And journalists should be asking Jay Carney, in his next press briefing, to tell us what transpired in that meeting.  And they should ask the president as well.  Reporters should be doing what they can to learn what passed between the president and the union boss in March 2010.

UPDATE:  Maybe there is nothing to that meeting.  But, the time is indeed curious.

RELATED:  Over on the National Review’s home page, Andrew Stiles has a good piece on Miss Kelley’s union:

The IRS may be “an independent enforcement agency with only two political appointees,” in the words of White House press secretary Jay Carney, but its employees are represented by a powerful, deeply partisan union whose boss has publicly disparaged the Tea Party and criticized the Republican party for having ties to it.

UP-UPDATE: Doug Powers has more.



  1. The IRS office couldn’t have started this operation with only a few hours notice, that much is clear. The policy decisions would have had to have been made much earlier, criteria drawn up, questionnaires created, etc. But it is plausible that the operation was mentioned in the meeting to get final political buy off on it.

    Comment by crosspatch — May 20, 2013 @ 9:12 pm - May 20, 2013

  2. The National Treasury Employment Union (NTEU) website asks members to “oppose legislation H.R. 1780 to push federal employees out of the FEHBP and into the insurance exchanges established under the Affordable Care Act.”

    A sizable conflict of interest arises when unionized employees on the government payroll (paid by the taxpayers) organize to influence the legislative process to benefit themselves in ways that the non government employed taxpayer himself is can not benefit.

    The unionized Treasury employees are literally vested in supporting the political entities which deliver rewards to them. While each employee is a free agent in his political support, it is clear the NTEU under its President Collen Kelley is pro-Obama and opposed to many of the principles of the TEA Party.

    According to The American Spectator the NTEU has 150,000 members and endorsed Obama in 2008 and 2012 gave hundreds of thousands of dollars in 2010 and 2012 election cycles to “anti-Tea Party candidates.” I have not checked those claims, but government unions in general are neither Republican leaning or pro-small government.

    The basic question is pragmatic in nature: Can one assume with strong confidence that a unionized government worker automatically places non-partisan principle above personal benefit? Impartiality is the process of objectivity in which prejudice/bias for or against and interest is not involved.

    The skeptic has a great deal of reason to doubt that the overwhelming focus on the Tea-Party by the IRS was not politically motivated.

    Comment by heliotrope — May 20, 2013 @ 9:34 pm - May 20, 2013

  3. “Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?” –Henry II of England. (ca. 1170)

    Misunderstood exasperation–or plausible deniability?

    Comment by Ted B. (Charging Rhino) — May 21, 2013 @ 3:16 am - May 21, 2013

  4. Definitely could have been a nod nod wink wink discussion, would love to see the transcripts of any and all discussions between the White House and members of the IRS. At a minimum!

    Comment by Texann — May 21, 2013 @ 9:41 am - May 21, 2013

  5. Interesting that the Obama Regime has made sure that Sara Hall Ingram has not been reprimanded or touched at all in this scandal… even though she was in charge of the division that did the targeting.

    My belief is that they don’t dare fire her, because if she started talking, it would be over for them.

    Comment by V the K — May 21, 2013 @ 12:01 pm - May 21, 2013

  6. My belief is that they don’t dare fire her, because if she started talking, it would be over for them.

    Well, VtheK, as Author Unknown said: “If you’ve got them by the balls, their hearts and minds will follow — “

    Comment by heliotrope — May 21, 2013 @ 1:19 pm - May 21, 2013

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.