Posted on 11/21/2004 5:21:35 PM PST by ConservativeMan55
FLASH: Rep. Istook, R-Okla. was responsible for the insertion of the provision... Developing...
-- Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist said Sunday that "accountability will be carried out" against whoever slipped a provision into an omnibus spending bill that would have allowed two committee chairmen to view the tax returns of any American.
Istook now denies his remarks, but Kochendorfer stands by his statement.
Strange stuff... (But there were a lot of strange things related to the OKC bombing...)
As far as I'm concerned, "the jury's still out" on Istook.
Leaders of the House Ways and Means Committee can already do this (look at returns)?
"The provision, written by the IRS, was intended to give top appropriators the same oversight authority now afforded to leaders of the House Ways and Means Committee, Scofield said."
found at: http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/printstory.mpl/nation/2911481
Nov. 21, 2004, 3:22PM
Spending measure OK minus provision
Senators express concern over an attachment allowing for an IRS inquiry; NASA gets boost
By GEBE MARTINEZ
SNIP
"It's not my fault," said Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, as he pounded his lectern with his fist in frustration with the last-minute snag that threatened to derail the bill.
"It's a terrible way to do business," Stevens said, agreeing with other Republicans who said they were surprised by the income tax return language and had no intention of snooping on U.S. taxpayers.
"We would never use that. We did not seek this authority. We are as appalled (as Democrats)," Stevens said.
Senate Democrats who inadvertently discovered the income tax wording blamed House members for what they said was a "breathtaking arrogance of power."
"This arrogant provision is open to enormous abuse and takes us back to some of the worst days of American government," said Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif.
House leadership aides said the controversy was a knee-jerk reaction to a misunderstanding of the provision, which was inserted by Rep. Ernest Istook, R-Okla., whose House Appropriations subcommittee oversees the IRS.
"It was not any surprise," said John Scofield, spokesman for the House Appropriations Committee.
"The Senate was in the room when it was negotiated."
The provision, written by the IRS, was intended to give top appropriators the same oversight authority now afforded to leaders of the House Ways and Means Committee, Scofield said.
He added that in two instances, the House Appropriations Committee was denied access to IRS facilities even though the panel oversees spending.
SNIP
bttt
Is Istook the Ron Artest of congress?
No.
He's got an (R) next to his name.
If this situation were turned around..and Democrats had inserted this into the bill, they would be crying foul over how it was found out.
bttt
Must be. I never heard of either one until today.
"What was his goal?"
my guess - he probably didn't read it. Probably some sneaky lobbyist persuaded someone on his staff to insert it. Just a guess though. Will be interesting to see how it shakes out. If Istook came up with it on his own he will get burned.
LOL!
He'll plead ignorance tomorrow at a Capitol Hill press, the rest of the Republicans on the hill behind him smiling for the media, will fall for that, then we'll be left to wonder "What the F%$*#"
So if Mrs. Clinton gets the committee chairmanship, she and her aides would have such power.
Istook, chairman of the House Appropriations transportation subcommittee, said in a statement Sunday that the Internal Revenue Service drafted the language, which would not have allowed any inspections of tax returns.
Huh? Then why are we having this discussion?
"Nobody's privacy was ever jeopardized," the statement said.
That is certainly true but only because the provision got axed, correct?
I completely agree with you. And OT, I'm doing a little better today, thanks for asking. I was pretty weak the past two days--emotionally and physically. Baby steps. Thanks again.
Was he angry upon finding out that such a provision was in the bill, or was he involved somehow in trying to sneak it through?
bttt
Here's praying brighter days are ahead. :) Babysteps is all it takes.
It's Sunday night and Drudge has a radio program about to air....
You can set wour watch by it.
Lets wait and see if this was really a non-issue that grew legs.
There were all sorts of attempts to derail the omnibus bill, and this may have been a syntax or error of some kind, and not anything as ridiculous as it sounds.
They get into these language arguments all the time and in a bill this big there must be dozens.
I cannot imagine why someone would blatantly require this type of authority and it may have been taken out of context for effect.
The fact is, that putting this in the bill for any reason does not make it legal.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.