Most Recent Posts

The Senate's "Gang of Eight" on the immigration overhaul legislation became a gang of 68 when all was said and done Thursday.

And that number is important, especially to the senators. Supporters of the immigration bill in the Democratic-controlled Senate have said a strong bipartisan Senate vote for the legislation would put enough pressure on the House to force it to take up comprehensive legislation.

If the Senate couldn't get to 70 votes, the thinking went, nearing that mark could give an immigration overhaul unstoppable momentum in Congress.

"Make no mistake about it. The support this bill has generated here in the Senate will make it impossible to ignore," Democratic Sen. Charles Schumer of New York, the immigration bill's chief sponsor, said before the Senate approved the legislation. "I believe the support this bill will receive today in the Senate will propel it to pass the House and be placed for signature on the president's desk by the end of the year."

Unfortunately for Schumer and other supporters of comprehensive immigration legislation, there's enough recent evidence to suggest that strong bipartisan support for legislation in the Senate doesn't necessarily lead to a similar result in the House.

The farm bill, for instance, recently passed the Senate with 66 votes and was widely expected to pass the House. But it didn't. The legislation failed in a 195-to-234 vote in the House because some Republicans thought it spent too much on nutrition-assistance programs and payments to farmers.

Another recent example: The Marketplace Fairness Act, which would give states the power to collect sales taxes from online retailers just as they do from brick-and-mortar sellers, passed the Senate in May with 69 "yea" votes, including 21 Republicans. But the legislation has languished in the House for lack of enough Republican support.

So Schumer could be whistling past the graveyard of moribund legislation in claiming that the immigration legislation's strong showing in the Senate will give it traction in the the House. That body has repeatedly demonstrated its ability to ignore the Senate's work.

Changing its story. Walking it back. Clarifying.

Whatever you call it, the IRS inspector general now has a different account of what investigators knew about the ideologies of the groups that underwent extra scrutiny as they sought tax-exempt status.

Inspector General J. Russell George explained in a letter released Thursday morning that investigators knew all along "progressives" were listed in documents used by IRS agents to screen applications.

But "we found no indication," he wrote, "that 'Progressives' was a term used to refer cases for scrutiny for political campaign intervention."

The letter, addressed to Rep. Sander Levin, D-Mich., the ranking member on the House Ways and Means Committee, directly contradicts statements made Tuesday to NPR and a number of other media outlets by a spokeswoman for the inspector general.

On Tuesday the spokeswoman said the treatment of progressive groups was outside the scope of the audit requested by House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa, R-Calif.

What changed? We don't know. The letter ends by saying, "Many of these press reports are not accurate." But notably, agency officials aren't claiming they were misquoted.

The audit, released last month, set off a political firestorm by charging that the IRS systematically targeted Tea Party groups, subjecting them to excessively long wait times and unnecessary questioning about their donors and their beliefs.

The spokeswoman told NPR, which called back to verify the accuracy of the quotes, that the inspector general was only asked to look at the targeting of Tea Party groups. The letter now asserts that the scope was much broader. "We reviewed all cases that the IRS identified as potential political cases and did not limit our audit to allegations related to the Tea Party."

At issue are a series of spreadsheets known at the IRS as "Be On the Lookout" notices, or BOLOs. They were used by IRS agents as a guide as they sorted through thousands of applications for tax-exempt status.

While the inspector feneral's audit said the BOLOs targeted Tea Party groups for extra scrutiny, it made no mention of progressive groups. On Monday, Levin's office posted 15 redacted BOLOs, and most of them list "Progressives" as well as "Tea Party."

The BOLO entry for "Progressives," in fact, stated explicitly that in the IRS's view, these groups were overtly political: "Common thread is the word 'progressive.' Activities appear to lean toward a new political party. Activities are partisan and appear as anti-Republican. You see references to 'blue' as being 'progressive.' "

When asked why the audit didn't mention the flagging of progressive groups, on Tuesday the spokeswoman said, "[Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration] was not aware of any BOLOs listing progressive organizations when it conducted its review."

The Thursday letter to Levin says something very different: "The 'Progressives' criteria appeared on a section of the 'Be On The Look Out' (BOLO) spreadsheet labeled 'Historical,' and, unlike the other BOLO entries, did not include instructions on how to refer cases that met the criteria."

Translation: While the Tea Party entry told agents to send all the cases to a specific person who was working those files, the spreadsheet columns where instructions would be listed were blank for the "Progressives" entry.

The letter further muddles what had already become a mess of selective information releases, partisan bomb-throwing and rhetorical hyperbole. But it makes it clear the inspector general believes Tea Party groups did have it worse than progressives. It also makes it clear progressive groups were among those that got added scrutiny as potential political cases.

Partisans on both sides claimed Thursday's letter as vindication. House Republican aides circulated it, saying the letter proves progressives weren't targeted. Meanwhile, Democrats from the House Ways and Means Committee said the omission of progressive groups means the inspector general's audit was fundamentally flawed, and they're asking the committee chairman to call George back to testify.

At a committee hearing this morning, one Democrat pointed out that George was nominated to be inspector general by former President George W. Bush.

I'm So Excited

Director: Pedro Almodvar

Genre: Comedy

Running Time: 90 minutes

Rated R for strong sexual content including crude references and drug use

With: Javier Cmara, Pepa Charro, Lola Dueas

The U.S. suspended some trade benefits to Bangladesh on Thursday, citing unsafe working conditions. But in the near term it appears unlikely to have a major impact on the country's crucial garment industry.

Here's why: Bangladesh was suspended from the Generalized System of Preferences (GSP) program, so U.S. duties will rise on a range of items from tobacco to plastic. But this program doesn't cover garments — Bangladesh's main export to America.

Less than 1 percent of Bangladesh's nearly $5 billion in exports to the U.S. are covered by the GSP, according to The Associated Press.

However, the Obama administration's decision could have two consequences.

As Reuters notes: "Obama's decision would be a repudiation of working conditions in Bangladesh following the collapse of the Rana Plaza garment factory building in April that killed 1,129 people and the Tazreen factory fire in November that killed 112. It also could influence the European Union's decision whether to suspend trade benefits for Bangladesh, which would have far more impact since Bangladesh's clothing and textiles exports receive duty-free treatment there."

The AP reports that congressional leaders have pushed the Bangladeshi government to improve worker safety in the country.

The collapse of the Rana Plaza building has drawn attention to unsafe working conditions.

Our friends at NPR's Planet Money even asked if buying a T-shirt from the country is good or bad for its people.

But as we've reported in the past, some of the changes in Bangladesh are coming from Western retailers who use the country's cheap labor to make fast fashion.

The garment industry has low margins and this creates great pressure to keep wages low — though there have been some efforts to improve conditions.