The GOP wants to snoop in your tax returns, and make them public if they wish

That's ok, they still got that fiscal responsibility thing going for them...

 

Maybe ITN will finally get to see THK's tax returns.

 

The GOP died in 1994 and was replaced by those plant creatures from Invasion of the Body Snatchers.

 

Doublethink is alive and well and living in red states

The GOP is only for less intrusive government for large companies that want to mistreat their workers. For everyone else, they want more intrusive government.

On a related note, isn't it funny how that same people who believe the crap about "Big Government" and who supposedly want a less intrusive government also want the government to enforce their morality and "family values" on everyone else? Somewhere, George Orwell is allowing himself a sardonic little chortle at our expense.

 

Re: Doublethink is alive and well and living in red states

What's the big deal? Bush campaigned on this issue, and the people gave him a mandate to do it.

Thanks again, you red-state clocksuckers.

 

If you read all the way to the end of the article, it says this power already exists. I don't see why anyone wants to make this an open book. Anyone can get this info if they show just cause now.

The practice of inserting last minute garbage and pork into bills that are a cinch to pass is a ridiculous and long-standing practice, as I'm sure many on you know. For the record, this article does not identify who, or which party, put this bit into the bill, contrary to the theme of this thread. But accepting the possibility that it was a Republican, it is the REPUBLICANS who are decrying the inclusion. Watch it get vetoed.

But in the interest of balance, Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D) managed to stick in over $50 MILLION worth of local pork into the budget, for her little group in the SF Bay Area, in exactly the same fashion. Some of the outstanding projects for which this money is targeted include $1 MILLION to plant flowers along Van Ness Avenue so the homeless "druggies" who panhandle there will have a more friendly environment and another $1 MILLION to renovate a rotten 200 year old sailing ship to put alongside Pier 39 so the tourists will have TWO old sailing ships to look at instead of just one. Nice work!

 

My feeling after this last election is, good for her. We here in the blue states pay more in taxes than in the red states, yet we receive less money from the gub'ment. She's only taking what's hers. I say, pork it up, Blue States!

 

According to the Daily Tax Report, the language was added at the last minute, no one knows by how. Senator Conrad (D-SD) believes that an IRS staffer added the language. Congress had directed the IRS to draft language stating that Congressional staffers could visit IRS service centers, and the return language was added to that provision.

The language was deleted by Senate action and House action is expected tomorrow.

The law already allows the tax committees to review tax returns. Accroding to the Daily Tax Report, this is used sparingly. It is technically illegal to even discuss when returns were requested, although it is known that the tax committees reviewed Enron's returns.

Also, if a taxpayer requests a refund above a threshhold amount (such as after an IRS audit), the Joint Committee on Taxation must be informed and approve. Lucent recently was recently given approval for a several hundred million dollar refund, which, IIRC, was do to the carryback of their losses to previous profitable years.

 

I love it when its exposed that these buffoons - both on the left and right - don't read the damn legislation, and don't even know who wrote what. What an indictment of our supposedly representative process.

 

The combination of the size of the budget document (almost 1,700 pages) and the fact that it's always coming up for vote at the last minute before Congress goes on recess, guarantees that no member actually reads the thing before voting on it. There are always provisions slipped in at the end that aren't uncovered for weeks, by which time it's too late. Which of course is the point of trying to slip in shady legislation.

 

Why do you hate america's history? Why do you hate our sailors and the contribution they made to america?

Why don't you go **** off to the Sahara or somewhere else where people hate the ocean as much as you?

 

Why do you assume things that don't exist?

My post was about waste, not about any disrespect for history. I am a history major and still love the subject. But there were numerous other ways to gain funding for this particular effort including a private group that had already raised more than half the amount necessary for this project. It would have been completed by next year. I could have listed another 6-8 "projects" for which Pelosi gained funding that were equally frivolous and irresponsible. All were just another misuse of the practice that all lawmakers use to gain favor with their districts and assure that political favors are repaid, on both sides of the aisle.

 

This is a blurb from my Daily Tax Report e-mail

Conrad is a South Dakota Democrat and he seems to be blaming the IRS.

Pelosi's problem according to the newsletter is that she wants the GOP to stop using the so called "martial law" provsions that allow debate the day a bill is filed, rather than waiting three days. Ironically, the GOP complained about this rule back when the Democrats controlled the House.

 

You pay more taxes to your STATE government. If you want the money back, talk to Arnold, not Congress.

 

WEll since it's Republicans who are crying about this and it looks like it wasn't Republicans who added the language to the bill, I wonder if TCMahoney, Rat Dog and Loney will strike their comments in this thread from the record. Afterall it was Loney who insisted the Rather story was real long after doubts were raised and he was big enough to admit he was wrong there too.

Right Dan?





















Dan?

















hello?

 

I meant what I said: we in the blue states pay more to the feds and get less back. See for yourself: http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2004/09/red_states_feed.html

So my suggestion to Ms. Pelosi and our own Durbin and Obama is to get out the forks, because it's bacon time!

 

Given that, you'd think the Blue states want tax cuts, and the Red states want tax increases. North Dakota has a great return on investment for paying federal taxes. Greater than 100% rate of return in one year.

 

Is this the same provision that Frist called the 'Istook amendment'. That would be Republican Ernest Istook. Of course Frist has since taken back his statement and apologized for any confusion he might have caused.

Istook is on the subcommittee that overseas the IRS, methinks (might wrong). The blame has now turned to staff aides and IRS agents. Would seem pretty simple to find out who was responsible. You gather the staff aides and ask them...Istook seems like just the guy for the job.

 

Actually Arnold is working on it. It is refreshing to have a governor who understands what makes the system work instead of one who is only interested in lining his own pockets. He is constantly working to bring jobs and revenue back to the state after years of a state legislature driving them out with their ridiculous taxes and fees. No wonder the New York Times, that bastion of conservative thought ( ) rated California #50 on the list of states in order of attractiveness to businesses. How blue does that make you feel?

 

We can only hope. Too bad we will never live to see the day. Too many government bureaucrats and accountants will be put out of work if it ever happens.

I remember Stephen Forbes stating back in '98 that a flat rate tax would put 80,000 Federal workers out of work the day it went into effect. (I'm sure there are more now.) At an average aggregate pay rate of $63,000 that would be a savings of just over $5 BILLION per year!! My wife would love a tiny slice of that added to her teaching wage.

 

I haven't read much on the economics of the matter, but if your wife is a teacher, isn't her salary low enough that a flat tax would mean that her taxes go up?

 

Link?

As far as I know, it was a Democrat who pointed this item out. Congressional Republicans have been backtracking ever since. Please note also that Representitive Istook didn't disown the provision until it began to smell.