Jonathan points out the logical fallacy underlying Scheiber’s piece for The New Republic. There are (at least) two other problems with the piece: another logical fallacy, and a factual mistake. The second paragraph begins, “As The New York Times reported this past weekend, the IRS division that oversees tax-exempt groups was chronically understaffed and overwhelmed even before a surge in applications from political groups in 2010.”

If the IRS division was “understaffed and overwhelmed,” then why did it make so much extra work for itself by asking for thousands of pages of information from conservative groups? If the division was truly “understaffed and overwhelmed,” it seems like the more likely outcome would be groups’ slipping through the cracks.

Moreover, as The Atlantic has reported, there was no surge in applications for 501(c)(4)s. There might have been an increase in the number of applications from political groups, but Scheiber claims that the IRS division was “understaffed and overwhelmed.” Maybe it was, but not because there were so many more applications. It shouldn’t matter what type of groups were applying to tax-exempt status. Either the workload went up, or it didn’t.