Sunday pops |

Sunday pops

The scandal-riddled Internal Revenue Service did what it does best last week — infuriate taxpayers. It announced that most employees will receive a performance bonus come March 1. Past bonuses have gone to nearly 3,000 IRS workers who violated agency rules and 1,100 of the rewarded “high-performance” employees owed back taxes. Inquiring minds want to know if Lois Lerner will receive a bonus, too. … Speaking of those wonderful IRS high performers, The Washington Examiner reports that the agency potentially shared taxpayer information with the White House, which, of course, would be illegal. The newspaper cites a Treasury Department inspector general’s response to an open-records request by Cause for Action. The Examiner says the revelation suggests “the White House was hip deep in probes of taxpayers, likely including conservative and tea party groups” associated with that IRS scandal. Here’s to Santa Claus bringing the American people a special prosecutor for Christmas. … Budweiser’s decision to shelve its long-running and classic Clydesdale Christmas commercial is a sad commentary on the state of institutional advertising. Once upon a time, Madison Avenue understood that such ads were just as important as those that overtly try to sell something. … Citing sources, the New York Post reports that the uber-successful Sotheby’s auction of Bunny Mellon’s belongings brought in more than $218 million. It also brought an infestation of mice to the famous New York auction house. No word if the mice were sold or, well, you know.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.