Charter Member of the Sub-Media

November 22, 2004

A Problem With the System « Politics As Usual »

The thing that bothers me most about this underhanded and sneaky attempt to violate reasonable privacy standards is that it will be blamed on Republicans as somehow revealing the 'true nature' of the GOP...despite the fact that it seems as if it was Rebublicans who found it and stopped it, Republicans who are issuing the strongest denouncements, Republicans who are vowing punishment for the people involved, and Republicans who are speaking out about how the system that allowed this sort of crap to happen is broken and needs to be fixed.
Heck, this sort of "The Government has more rights than you do" crap is far more typical of Democrats in the first place. But even The Ace of Spades seems willing to tar all Republicans with the brush of blame.

More:

...the language had actually been drafted by the Internal Revenue Service and that "nobody's privacy was ever jeopardized." [...]

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.

I'm not sure how plausible that explanation is. We'll see how the investigation sorts out. If they are truthful and accurate in their explanation (a problematic question with politicians, to be sure), then it sounds like they were trying to correct a problem in a clumsy fashion using wording that "allowed" more than it "required". That should be easy to determine.

This makes one interesting point more clear: I guess one of the differences between Democrat and Republican voters is that Democrat voters tend to trust their elected officials without suspicion and assume Republican officials are the spawn of Satan; whereas Republican voters seem to assume that the whole bunch is a pit of vipers that needs to be watched closely, except some of the snakes are trainable enough to be useful at times.

Posted by Nathan at 05:34 AM | Comments (4)
Comments

Democrats found it, and the language was drafted by and for Republicans. It is true that prominent Republicans have expressed outrage, but the people responsible for the language (Republicans) have dismissed even their colleagues by characterizing the entire thing as "a tempest in a teacup."

Posted by: susie at November 24, 2004 10:11 PM

You'll forgive me if I don't accept your version of the events as bearing anything more than a passing resemblance to the actual facts.

Posted by: Nathan at November 24, 2004 10:35 PM

From CNN:

"Istook's deputy chief of staff, Micah Leydorf, told CNN Sunday that neither she nor Istook had actually seen the provision and that it was added to the spending bill at the full committee level by House Appropriations Committee Chairman Bill Young and House Financial Services Committee Chairman Bill Thomas, a California Republican."

While it may be true that Istook had nothing to do with this snafu, his representatives pin responsibility for it on other Republicans. If the only info I could find on the situation was some liberal or Democrat blaming Republicans, I wouldn't have bothered to post, for lack of information, but when a Republican is blaming Republicans? I don't know . . .

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/11/22/tax.provision/

Posted by: susie at November 26, 2004 12:29 AM

Serial posting to say:

Who cares anyway? Apparently the problem is fixed.

Gosh, I really need to stop serial posting.
:)

Posted by: susie at November 26, 2004 12:31 AM
Post a comment









Remember personal info?