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.
It doesn't matter if it was one of Istook's staff instead of Istook, personally. This is a disgrace, and Istook should be the one held accountable - especially since Bush is currently promising/pushing major tax reform.
This is as treasonous to the overall cause as are some of the stunts pulled by Arlen, just on a different issue. Remember Istook come next primary season.
LOL. Speaking of babysteps, baby FOOD is what I seem to be able to keep down. Babysteps. The emotional part is harder.... :-(
Speaking of baby food. I was staying with my brother and his 4 college roommates in Phoenix back in 1998, and two of the roommates were hard up for money, so they bought bags and bags of baby food for their grocery stash. I thought it was pretty gross. But, you do what you have to do in situations like that. LOL
"Huh? Then why are we having this discussion?"
I've been wandering around in the Library of Congress website (Thomas) in hopes of finding this amendment to see what it really says. So far...no luck. I've also been unable to find this statement of Istook (released today) that said the IRS drafted it.
I'd like to read the source documents before coming to a conclusion about this. I think that would answer your question one way or another.
AAAAACCCCCHHHHKKKKK!
I don't know a whole lot about Istook, but I thought he was one of the good guys.
Has he had other such lapses?
Someone posted the text of the offending paragraph last evening (I didn't keep the link to that FR thread). It didn't read as so 'innocent' or 'typo' level of error (IIRC).
By DAVID E. ROSENBAUM
Published: November 22, 2004
ASHINGTON, Nov. 21 - Democratic leaders and senators from both parties expressed outrage on Sunday about an obscure provision in the huge end-of-session spending bill that would allow the chairmen of the Appropriations Committees and their staff assistants to examine Americans' income tax returns.
Republican leaders said that their motives had been misread and that there was never any intention to invade the privacy of taxpayers. They promised that the provision would be deleted from the bill in a special session on Wednesday before the spending measure, which cleared Congress on Saturday night, was sent to President Bush for his signature.
Representative Ernest Istook, Republican of Oklahoma, who was responsible for the insertion of the tax provision in the 3,000-page, $388 billion legislation that provides financing for most of the government, issued a statement on Sunday saying that the language had actually been drafted by the Internal Revenue Service and that "nobody's privacy was ever jeopardized." Mr. Istook is chairman of the Appropriations subcommittee that has authority over the I.R.S. budget.
John D. Scofield, the spokesman for the House Appropriations Committee, said that the purpose of the provision was to allow investigators for the top lawmakers responsible for financing the I.R.S. to have access to that agency's offices around the country and tax records so they could examine how the money was being spent. There was never any desire to look at anyone's tax returns, he said.
Mr. Scofield said the only purpose of the provision was to allow investigators to have access to revenue service offices. He said the authority would be similar to that allowed senior members and staff assistants of the House Ways and Means Committee and Senate Finance Committee, the panels with primary jurisdiction over the activities of the revenue service.
Disclosure of information from income tax returns is against the law and subject to severe penalties.
Representative Nancy Pelosi of California, the Democratic leader, said Sunday that what she called "this taxpayer persecution provision" amounted to an abuse of power by the Republican majority and "should be of grave concern to all Americans that their privacy could be invaded."
Questioned about the tax provision on the CBS News program "Face the Nation," Senator Bill Frist of Tennessee, the Republican leader, said, "Nobody's going to defend this."
Other senators made similar statements on various television programs. Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, said on the NBC program "Meet the Press" that the insertion of the provision without senators' fully understanding it showed how "the system is broken."
On "Late Edition" on CNN, Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison, Republican of Texas, said: "Something happened clearly in the dark of night. The Senate was totally amazed."
When senators discovered the language on Saturday, they unanimously adopted a resolution saying the provision "shall have no effect." Senator Ted Stevens, Republican of Alaska, the chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, said he had been unaware of the provision and called it "a serious situation."
The speaker of the House, J. Dennis Hastert, promised that he would convene a pro forma session of the House, with most of the members gone, on Wednesday to adopt the Senate resolution negating the provision.
Mr. Scofield, the spokesman for the House committee, called the entire matter "a tempest in a teapot" and said Mr. Istook and his colleagues had no objection to the removal of the authority.
"We don't really care," Mr. Scofield said Sunday in an interview. "It was an honest attempt to do oversight. If they want to take it out, fine."
Mr. Scofield said he found it strange that senators felt they were taken by surprise. He noted that the chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, Representative Bill Young, Republican of Florida, had discussed it briefly on the House floor, and that the language had been available since Thursday for Senate staff members to read.
I used to disagree with the concept of a line-item veto. However, with crap like this, I may support one with the right provisions.
At least that is what they claim.
In any case, to make that act legal, the IRS laws would have needed to be revised at the same time.
I think it is as they say, "a tempest in a teapot".
You're right. I expect that info will be posted here at some point, if it hasn't already on another thread.
Just based on what little I've seen, Istook seems on the defensive. It was discovered 2 days ago and he stayed silent until his role was discovered. Also, the fact that his office released a statement rather than Istook himself is unhelpful, IMO.
Anyway, this view of this paragraph would have put it in direct confrontation with current law and that was not changed by this bill.
I think is was a error, although a stupid one.
The only thing required to make it legal would be for Congress to pass it and the President to sign it.
If there's a conflict, then doesn't the most recent act of Congress become the supreme law? IOW, this bill would have trumped the IRS rules where they were in conflict.
That is why there was never any danger from this.
If it was inserted under his name, he is responsible for it.
End of story.
It was not germain to IRS code, which is the law of the land, nor was it connected to a privacy right exception regarding tax returns.
It was simply poorly drawn rules for the committee.
If I were a dem, I would have made a big deal out of it as well to embarrass the pubbies, but they really hurt the committee chairman who is retiring and it was pretty vicious.
Istook normally is one of the good guys, but this - especially considering the timing - is indefensible. Further, for any Congressman to blame his staff is ludicrous. How can ANY elected official not be aware of what his name is attached to? This is why Congressmen hold legislative meetings with their legislative team.
Other lapses? I don't know - but this is inexcusable.
If he was a catalyst, and there's no reason to believe he wasn't, I suspect other Republicans were aware of this or involved as well...I refuse to try to justify anyone of any party trying to sneak by anti-American Freedom legislation...He is trying to shift blame to staffers who, in all liklihood, do not write legislation...
There was never any desire to look at anyone's tax returns, he said. Mr. Scofield said
The question is not whether anyone had the desire. The question is, would the law give the committee chairmen and their aides such power. Such as Chairman Hillary and her staff.
the only purpose of the provision was to allow investigators to have access to revenue service offices.
He said tax returns in the prior paragraph but left it out here (or so says the reporter).
Maybe it was just an oversight, but these guys sure sound like kids in the principal's office explaining why they were smoking behind the gym.
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.