Frist: Tax-returns measure indefensible

[Nbadan]

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- 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.

"I have no earthly idea how it got in there," Frist said on CBS's "Face The Nation." "Nobody is going to defend this."

The language was caught and removed in the Senate on Saturday, but the House will have to approve the fix before the spending bill can be sent to the White House for President Bush's signature.

CNN (http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/11/21/tax.provision/index.html)

A right-wing Senator from Oklahoma, Istook, later claimed to have inserted the provision.

Okay, let's try this one more time.

From the Associated Press on Rep. Istook's statement ...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-462...


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. "Nobody's privacy was ever jeopardized," the statement said.

The actual text Rep. Istook inserted into the bill ...

Hereinafter, notwithstanding any other provision of law governing the disclosure of income tax returns or return information, upon written request of the Chairman of the House or Senate Committee on Appropriations, the Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service shall allow agents designated by such Chairman access to Internal Revenue Service facilities and any tax returns or return information contained therein.

Abuse of power or poor reading comprehension? We report; you decide.

[Nbadan]

I'm a little confused about the current explanation of the origins of the Legislative Provision Formerly Known as Istook (LPFKI).

Sen. Frist originally said (http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2004_11_21.php#004084) it was inserted by Rep. Istook. The Times reported yesterday (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/22/politics/22explain.html?oref=login) that Istook "was responsible for the insertion of the tax provision in the 3,000-page, $388 billion legislation."

And in his statement yesterday Istook appeared to concede this (http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-4629255,00.html), while asserting that the actual language was drafted by personnel from the IRS.

Today, however, Rep. Istook seems to be saying that he had no involvement in the matter whatsoever. From his statement this morning (http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2004_11_21.php#004092) ...

"I want to reiterate what I said on Sunday, namely that this was not my language. I then spent most of the day tracking down what happened.
"I had nothing to do with inserting this language. I never knew what was happening until it was done. Had I known, I would have intervened to omit or to fix this provision.

"I didn't write it; I didn't approve it; I wasn't even consulted. My name shouldn't be associated with it, because I had nothing to do with it, and didn't even know about it until after the bill was done and was filed."



Now, I'm not trying to be nettlesome or willfully dense. But even if we take as granted the basic outlines of the current account (namely, that Appropriations committee staffers wanted some language empowering oversight and folks at IRS wrote it too broadly), something seems missing.

Somone on the committee wanted more oversight power or wanted that power more clearly defined in legislation and asked the IRS for the appropriate language. Was that not Istook or one of his staffers?

In his statement Istook seems to suggest [but murkily] that "appropriations [committee] staff" had the language put in and that he, as chairman of the relevant subcommittee was "bypassed."

If he and his staff had nothing to do with it, who did exactly? And what did they tell the folks at the IRS that they wanted? Because clearly the language is specifically written to allow inspection of tax returns without reference to existing privacy laws.

Is the LPFKI really not tied to Rep. Istook in any way?

And isn't it about time someone talked to whomever at the IRS provided the language?

Talking Points Memo (http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2004_11_21.php#004093)

[Nbadan]

Here are the last two grafs in a piece on the Istook Amendment in Wednesday's Post ...


Doubts remained yesterday over exactly how the controversial tax-return provision -- which allows Appropriations Committee chairmen or their "agents" access to Internal Revenue Service facilities or "any tax returns or return information contained therein" -- got into the omnibus spending bill late last week. House Republicans blamed committee staff aides and the IRS.

Rep. Ernest J. Istook Jr. (R-Okla.), chairman of the Appropriations subcommittee that oversees the IRS, denied any role. Yesterday Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.), who had referred to the proposal as the "Istook amendment" Saturday, issued a statement expressing regret for "any confusion my earlier remarks may have created."

Are we allowed to comment on how ridiculous this is?

Four days later and they can't figure out who put the thing in the bill? Just some aides, but it's not clear which ones or who they worked for, and someone at the IRS and maybe they handwrote a note and dropped it off at Rayburn and somehow it got into the bill.

Really, give me a break. Give all of us a break. This isn't Schrodinger's cat we're talking about. This wasn't the work of subatomic particles. Which aides? At whose direction were they working? And which IRS employee and what were they asked to write? Presumably it shouldn't hard to find out the identity of the IRS employee. Just ask the mystery staffer since that he or she asked them to write it.

Silliness.

tpm (http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/004115.php)

[Yonivore]

I know, I'm ruining the thread but...I just had to comment:

http://img118.exs.cx/img118/536/Nbadanallahtalkingtohimself.gif