November 21, 2004

THE PRIVACY OF PUBLIC INFORMATION:

GOP embarrassed by tax returns measure: Provision will be repealed before president signs spending bill (AP, November 20, 2004)

Congress passed legislation Saturday giving two committee chairman and their assistants access to income tax returns without regard to privacy protections, but not before red-faced Republicans said the measure was a mistake and would be swiftly repealed.

The Senate unanimously adopted a resolution immediately after passing a 3,300-word spending bill containing the measure, saying the provision "shall have no effect." House leaders promised to pass the resolution next Wednesday.

"We're going to get that done," said John Feehery, a spokesman for House Speaker Dennis Hastert.

The spending bill covering most federal agencies and programs will not be sent to President Bush until the House acts on the resolution repealing the tax returns language.

"There will be no window where this will be law," Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist said. He referred to the provision as the Istook amendment and congressional aides said it was put in the bill at the request of Rep. Ernest Istook Jr., chairman of the House Appropriations Committee's transportation subcommittee.

The provision and the inability of Hastert, R-Illinois., to get the votes he wanted on an intelligence overhaul bill left Republican leaders chagrinned on a day they had intended to be a celebration of their accomplishments.

"This is a serious situation," said Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Ted Stevens, R-Alaska. "Neither of us were aware that this had been inserted in this bill," he said, referring to himself and House Appropriations Committee Chairman Bill Young, R-Florida.


How can information you already provide to the government be said to be protected from government by privacy rights?

MORE:
G.O.P. Says Motive for Tax Clause in Budget Bill Was Misread (DAVID E. ROSENBAUM, 11/22/04, NY Times)

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. [...]

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."

Posted by Orrin Judd at November 21, 2004 2:55 PM
Comments

How can information you already provide to the government be said to be protected from government by privacy rights?

The fact that I send the IRS a return doesn't mean I want some Congressional assistants or the postman or some other random government employee to see it.

Posted by: PapayaSF at November 21, 2004 7:45 PM

Yes, this isn't random.

Posted by: oj at November 21, 2004 8:01 PM

"The gov't" isn't a monolithic entity, it's an amalgamation of agencies and individuals, all of whom should have to prove a "need to know".

If these Committee Chairs need to see anyone's return, let them get a warrant like everybody else.

Posted by: Michael Herdegen at November 21, 2004 9:05 PM

The "MORE:" article is what I expected happened when I read the first posting earlier.

"Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by incompetence". Given the hysterical reaction of self-described civil libertarians and "privacy advocates", it had to be a stupid mistake. (And of course, in their decades of control, the Dems never made such mistakes, ever.)

The real problem is that the gov't is so big that any action is going to have unintended consequences and loopholes waiting to be exploited by people who make a living looking for such advantages.

Posted by: Raoul Ortega at November 22, 2004 12:46 AM

While I doubt if any Congress critter would want to look at my return, they might be interested in a few others.

Teresa, for example. Or Warren Buffet. Or Jon Corzine.

In all likelihood, this was a mistake. But maybe not.

Posted by: jim hamlen at November 22, 2004 10:05 AM

If Istook, a true nanny-stater of the Extreme Right, was involved it was no mistake.

Reason number 902 why we need to eliminate the income tax. Nobody outside our immediate families should have the right to know how much we make.

Posted by: Bart at November 22, 2004 11:55 AM

Bart:

The government obviously knows and anyone else can find out how much you make--they just have to pay a company that assembles such data for the info. You're defending a privacy that does not exist.

Posted by: oj at November 22, 2004 12:29 PM

oj:

Then let them pay.

Why should we allow them to peek at our tax returns for free ?

They can look at mine for $ 59.95.

Posted by: Michael Herdegen at November 22, 2004 8:40 PM

Michael:

They have them already.

Posted by: oj at November 22, 2004 11:34 PM
« PROVE IT: | Main | THEY JUST KNOW THERE'S A STALINGRAD IN THERE SOMEWHERE (via Jim Yates): »