Dems Vow to Act on Tax Return Provision (Dems will block its removal?)

[Democat]

Democrats said Tuesday they will block quick congressional withdrawal of a provision that would give more lawmakers access to income tax returns because majority Republicans won't first promise to stop rushing bills through Congress.

Members of both parties say they object to the tax provision, calling it an infringement of taxpayers' privacy. But it has been caught up in a larger fight over Congress' habit of passing massive bills with lightning speed, giving lawmakers little time to learn precisely what they are voting on.

"This extraordinary invasion of privacy did not have the majority support of either chamber," House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said in announcing her plans to block House passage on Wednesday. "It was a 'Saturday night massacre' on Americans' privacy made possible only by the Republicans' willingness to abuse the rules of the people's House."

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20041123/ap_on_go_co/tax_return_disclosure

This seems like a strange stand to take? They are going to block the quick removal of a provision that everyone hates to make a point? Shouldn't they demand its quick removal instead? I guess they are trying to bring attention to it be not letting Republicans remove it quickly, but that seems odd when everyone agrees that the provision needs to be removed immediatly.

It's strange the things that Democrats choose to stand and fight on.

[whalerider55]

1. I guess

they just can't find anything else to fight for...
certainly not enfranchisement

grrrrr

whalerider55

[unblock]

2. ah, the strange ways of congress

as they say, there are two things that, if you love, you should never see them being made: sausage and legislation.


there are many parliamentary tricks and tactics that are used in making law, and, in a broader sense, in making politics. one of the classics is attaching a universally hated amendment in order to kill a larger bill that you don't want to oppose directly. or the reverse, attaching an amendment proclaiming support for mom and apple pie to a piece of unpopular legislation that you want to ram through, which forces the opponents to either back down or to also oppose mom and apple pie.

most of these tricks are easier to pull off if you're in the majority and control the committees. but there are a few tricks available to both sides.

in this case, the majority either screwed up, or got caught, and the democrats don't want to let them off easy. basically, the republicans have egg on their face, and the democrats are doing what they can to keep the republicans from simply wiping it off and moving on.

[T Bone]

3. Shine a Light on it ? Light Up what these fuckers are doing?

That's my take on Pelosi's move here.
Light it UP ! So America can see exactly what they (GOP) are doing to our privacy rights.

The question then may become, ok, what else have these fuckers RUSHED through that no one has been able to catch ?

Republicans are practicing Blitzkreig Legislation, often literally in the dark of the night to strip us of more and more of our privacy and legal protections FROM a tyrannical government.

[54anickel]

5. That was my take on it. The last thing the repugs want is this facist

move getting anymore press. They thought it was a done deal, swept under the rug. Now the light is back on both the tax return issue and the shady dealings of Congress rushing through thousand page bills.

I think it's a good move. They need to ignore the partisan attack label the Repugs keep trying to pin on them and keep the lights on.

[Journeyman]

8. That's the way I view the Dems tactics. . .

hold it up to the light of public derision. If they let this get quickly but quietly removed, there'll be no chance for public outrage.

[ginnyinWI]

15. All the Dems need to do is tell the truth!

All we need to do is point out the other side's actual behavior. They are the ones who need to fabricate stuff out of whole cloth. Go Nancy Pelosi! (She's my hero.)

[FloridaPat]

4. Something wierd here. I heard one congressman on Sunday say

that they would pass the bill but tell everyone it's to be ignored. And then it would be rescinded later. Just like the gift to the drug companies a few back. They passed it with the understanding that when the new term started they would get back to it. I think we're still waiting for them to get back to it.

Liars all of them.

[juliagoolia]

6. Secret Gop Deals a congressional trend, bypassing debate

http://www.aiada.org/article.asp?id=24260

Oct. 3--WASHINGTON -- Dismayed that the technology company Accenture had located its headquarters in Bermuda, thereby avoiding paying hundreds of millions of dollars in US taxes, the House Appropriations Committee voted 35-17 this summer to strip the firm of a $10 billion Homeland Security contract.
It was a rare moment of bipartisan agreement and an important victory for those who decry corporate tax loopholes. But it didn't last long. The Rules Committee, the all-powerful gatekeeper of the Republican leadership, prevented the measure from reaching the House floor. In a further show of its power to pick and choose what the full House can vote on, the Rules Committee allowed the House to vote on a ban on future Homeland Security contracts to overseas companies -- but let the $10 billion flow to Accenture, which spent $2 million last year lobbying the government.

The Accenture episode is emblematic of the way business is conducted in the 108th Congress, where a Republican leadership has sidelined legislation unwanted by the Bush administration, even when a majority of the House seemed ready to approve it, according to lawmakers, lobbyists, and an analysis of House activities. With one party controlling the White House and both chambers of Congress, and having little fear of retaliation by the opposing party, the House leadership is changing the way laws are made in America, favoring secrecy and speed over open debate and negotiation. Longstanding rules and practices are ignored. Committees more often! meet in secret. Members are less able to make changes to legislation on the House floor. Bills come up for votes so quickly that elected officials frequently don't know what's in them. And there is less time to discuss proposed laws before they come up for a vote/ more.............
________________

This is why they are doing it.. attention. They will come around after a debate probably.. but they will point out this stuff read the whole article.

[54anickel]

7. Excellent article, thanks for posting. This quote has my hair standing

on end right now, in light of our current economic situation:

snip>

Representative Jim Leach, an Iowa Republican and a former chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, was stunned and angered this year when he was denied an opportunity to offer an amendment to a banking bill. The measure, designed to deregulate parts of the financial services industry, allowed corporations to provide banking services through an "industrial loan company," but would not subject the corporate holding company to the same oversight imposed on banks.

Leach worried that insufficiently regulated banking activities could lead to costly failures, leaving the government responsible for hundreds of millions of dollars in deposits. He wanted to offer an amendment that would have regulated the holding companies in the same way as banks. But the Republican leaders on the Rules Committee refused to allow his amendment.

"The fix was in," Leach said in an unusual rebuke of his GOP colleagues on the House floor. "The power groups did not want this to happen. In my time in Congress, this is the greatest microcosm evidence of special-interest reasoning that does not even allow debate on this subject in an amendment on the House floor."

[mulethree]

9. glad i read it after dinner

Is this what they mean by people who like sausage or the law shouldn't see how either is made?

I thought there were 3 branches of government but this gives the impression that 9 republicans control the house and are primarily affecting the will of the executive branch. And the house theoretically the most democratic arm of the government.

We need about 50 independent & 3rd party house members just to oppose tyranny altogether instead of this alternating tyranny of the 'two party' system.

[w4rma]

11. Need a mainstream media that isn't trying to line their own pockets with

this BS, more, tho.

[juliagoolia]

14. We sure need some Cspan monitors

to raise holy hell every time the pass or vote a bill that we have not heard a debate on the floor over.

[Gloria]

10. How about the parts affecting women's right to get the

abortion services they need????

[Democat]

12. Instead of fighting for that, whey want to fight not to remove the other?

Strange.

I'm sure that other DUers are correct that this is an attempt to bring attention to the crooked actions of the Republicans. However, seeing Democrats take a stand on not removing a bad provision instead of taking a stand on removing the anti-choice and other bad provisions in the first place is bizarre.

A possible move by the Republicans would be to say, "ok, the Democrats don't want it removed, we'll send the bill through and blame the Democrats for the tax return provision because they wouldn't let us remove it." Then the Republicans could get the provision they wanted and blame the Democrats for it as well.

[buddysmellgood]

13. This has received just enough press and outrage that keeping it in the

public light is a good strategy. The idea of Blitzkrieg legislation got a lot of attention in Mike Moore's film with the Patriot act and this, if handled right, could hurl more egg at the Republicans. That Pelosi could be president if she's not careful.

[jmatthan]

16. Its's the money, stupid

(no offence intended to the author)

There are thousands of life-threatening issues at the moment which will affect the world and not just Americans as

1. Fraudulent election
2. Appointments to CIA Chief, Attorney Gewneral, Secretary of State,
3. War plans against Iran
4. Budget gap
5. Iraqi death toll
6. Valerie Plame Outing

etc., etc.

but all those do not expose the personal pocketbooks of the lawmakers - so why fight for them?

Here are the lawmakers obsessed with being discovered about how money enters their coffers and so they will fight tooth and nail and passion for "justice" on this issue...

As well said, I repeat

It is the....

[DLnyc]

17. I think Democrats would be more successful if they didn't think so damned

much!

This is "too clever by half." Just get rid of the damned provision, THEN make your point!

I get the same feeling about Gore not fighting the stolen election in 2000 and Kerry's early concession. I get the impression that Democrat mucckymucks thought and thought and thought and decided in some tortured way it would be better to not fight and somehow, down the road, gain and advantage since, by losing, the blah blah blah etc. etc. YYYYAAAAAAGGGGGHHHGHGHHHHH!

[sandnsea]

18. Reading comprehension problems?

Argh, what is wrong with this country.

This is what Republicans have been doing for 4 years, giving nobody any time to know what is in these bills, let alone time to inform the public. We all know it.

The reason they're blocking the removal is posted right in front of everybody's face. If they can get the public riled up about the shady way the Republicans are pushing through bills, maybe we can slow some stuff down and have a debate again. Inform people about what these jokers are doing BEFORE they do it. Expose their corruption. Have a chance to fight.

"But it has been caught up in a larger fight over Congress' habit of passing massive bills with lightning speed, giving lawmakers little time to learn precisely what they are voting on."