G.O.P. Says Motive for Tax Clause in Budget Bill Was Misread

NY Times ^ | November 22, 2004 | DAVID E. ROSENBAUM

[orangelobster]

WASHINGTON, 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...

[KMC1]

Like democrats have NEVER EVER used private information like tax returns or say FBI files to leverege vengence...

[orangelobster]

It's being taken out. Looks like a tempest in a teapot... Craig Livinstone was better at this sort of thing.

[Technical Editor]

It would have been nice if the NYT included the text of the provision, wouldn't it?

[orangelobster]

"It would have been nice if the NYT included the text of the provision"

It would be better if these guys in the House would read the bills before they sign them. Although I must admit it was a hefty looking bill. Looked like a twenty pounder.

[Republican Wildcat]

It may have been done by Republicans but I don't believe it. If they were trying to protect taxpayers then why did the IRS write the legislation?

Something is very fishy here.

[Republican Wildcat]

(The "it" I don't believe above is the explanation provided)

[newzjunkey]

Who hired Craig Livingstone? Will we ever know?

Hillary, is that you?

[af_vet_rr]

It would be better if these guys in the House would read the bills before they sign them.

Or if they had listened - from the article: the chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, Representative Bill Young, Republican of Florida, had discussed it briefly on the House floor.

They can spin it any way they want, the fact is they are acting like they got caught with their hand in the cookie jar and trying to explain it away as something else.

[af_vet_rr]

(The "it" I don't believe above is the explanation provided)

I don't either. This wasn't done in some kind of vacuum. It was openly mentioned on the floor, it had serious and far-reaching consequences. Strange how, for what is supposed to be the party of Conservatives, Republicans in the House and the Senate aren't acting like it...Maybe we need to boot a bunch of them out in the next election to remind them not to stray.

[Bernard]

"Motive for clause was mis-read"

When a road is paved with good intentions, where does it end up?

[Callahan]

Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

The neo-libs like Sullivan and Marshall have been harping that congressional Repubs would over-reach, drunk with power. Delay & Co. need to step back and take a deep breath.