Sunday, November 21, 2004
Nixon's Ghost
This morning we awaken to a story that looks like inside baseball, and because it happened on a Saturday night leading up to a holiday week, it's unlikely to get much play beyond the community of wonks, but it's huge. DailyKos and Josh Marshall have the best summaries (the Kos post starts by talking about Iraq and Vietnam, but keep reading). Short version: During debate on the $388 billion appropriations bill in the Senate yesterday and last night, Oklahoma Senator Ernest Istook inserted a provision that would permit the chairs of the House and Senate Appropriations Committees, or any agents they chose to designate, the right to pull any American's tax return and review it for any reason they chose, with no privacy or disclosure rules applying.
You might want to go back and read that sentence again.
We were lucky that Democrats caught the provision, because these spending bills are phone-book sized; and we're also lucky that the Democrats chose to raise hell, given that they don't always. In the end, the provision was yanked, and the Repugs are blaming staffers and other minions for a screwup, but it's clear from reading the reports that somebody up Repug leadership foodchain had to approve the insertion of the provision, and knew precisely what it was.
The obvious question to ask is why. Well, with Repugs taking out after Ronnie Earle, the Austin, Texas, district attorney who's about to indict Tom DeLay, the ability to use Earle's tax returns against him would be mighty helpful. But it's also clear that there are many, many, other ways to screw opponents by using their tax returns. Iowa Senator Charles Grassley, a Republican, said the provision reminded him of the bad old Nixon days, when taxpayer information was routinely used against political enemies. Although Senator Istook hasn't explained himself yet, why else would the provision have been added, if not to give the majority a weapon for political guerilla warfare on the minority?
If Nixon's ghost ever walks the halls of Congress, I promise you it was walking last night.
I highly recommend a post at Orcinus, which went up even before the Istook shenanigans of last night, about the coming assaults on the right to privacy. Bush's judicial appointments, the "strict constructionists" beloved by those who believe everything wrong with the country is due to "activist judges," will generally look askance at the concept of a right to privacy. They believe that since it's not explicitly stated in the Constitution, it doesn't exist. And once you throw away the right to privacy, it's easy to start hacking away at gay rights, abortion, birth control, and all the other big targets of the right. What we're talking about is nothing less than the end of the concept of individual freedom--and it's coming, if liberals don't think of a way to talk about it in terms that everybody can understand. Dave Neiwart suggests we start talking explicitly about the right to privacy, and the umpteen ways the curbing of it can lead to consequences Americans (even many red-blooded red-state Americans) wouldn't want. Some of the commenters to his post have extremely good ideas: One suggests that Democrats, instead of framing the issue in roundabout constructions like, "Americans have the right to know if George W. Bush believes in a Constitutional right to privacy," they ought to just come out and say Repugs don't believe in it, period. There's certainly enough evidence to support the claim, and if the Repugs want to come out and say "Oh yes we do," then we can put some pressure on them to prove it. Another suggests proposing a Constitutional amendment guaranteeing the right to privacy, which would put Repugs in the uncomfortable position of having to argue against it. That's entertainment.
It hasn't been three weeks since the election, but only someone not paying attention would disagree that the brakes are off and the train is a runaway. We can try to grab the wheel, but we'd also best brace for impact.
Recommended Reading: I don't believe in Hell, but on the odd chance there is one, I'll be there--and because he is responsible for this, so will George W. Bush.
This morning we awaken to a story that looks like inside baseball, and because it happened on a Saturday night leading up to a holiday week, it's unlikely to get much play beyond the community of wonks, but it's huge. DailyKos and Josh Marshall have the best summaries (the Kos post starts by talking about Iraq and Vietnam, but keep reading). Short version: During debate on the $388 billion appropriations bill in the Senate yesterday and last night, Oklahoma Senator Ernest Istook inserted a provision that would permit the chairs of the House and Senate Appropriations Committees, or any agents they chose to designate, the right to pull any American's tax return and review it for any reason they chose, with no privacy or disclosure rules applying.
You might want to go back and read that sentence again.
We were lucky that Democrats caught the provision, because these spending bills are phone-book sized; and we're also lucky that the Democrats chose to raise hell, given that they don't always. In the end, the provision was yanked, and the Repugs are blaming staffers and other minions for a screwup, but it's clear from reading the reports that somebody up Repug leadership foodchain had to approve the insertion of the provision, and knew precisely what it was.
The obvious question to ask is why. Well, with Repugs taking out after Ronnie Earle, the Austin, Texas, district attorney who's about to indict Tom DeLay, the ability to use Earle's tax returns against him would be mighty helpful. But it's also clear that there are many, many, other ways to screw opponents by using their tax returns. Iowa Senator Charles Grassley, a Republican, said the provision reminded him of the bad old Nixon days, when taxpayer information was routinely used against political enemies. Although Senator Istook hasn't explained himself yet, why else would the provision have been added, if not to give the majority a weapon for political guerilla warfare on the minority?
If Nixon's ghost ever walks the halls of Congress, I promise you it was walking last night.
I highly recommend a post at Orcinus, which went up even before the Istook shenanigans of last night, about the coming assaults on the right to privacy. Bush's judicial appointments, the "strict constructionists" beloved by those who believe everything wrong with the country is due to "activist judges," will generally look askance at the concept of a right to privacy. They believe that since it's not explicitly stated in the Constitution, it doesn't exist. And once you throw away the right to privacy, it's easy to start hacking away at gay rights, abortion, birth control, and all the other big targets of the right. What we're talking about is nothing less than the end of the concept of individual freedom--and it's coming, if liberals don't think of a way to talk about it in terms that everybody can understand. Dave Neiwart suggests we start talking explicitly about the right to privacy, and the umpteen ways the curbing of it can lead to consequences Americans (even many red-blooded red-state Americans) wouldn't want. Some of the commenters to his post have extremely good ideas: One suggests that Democrats, instead of framing the issue in roundabout constructions like, "Americans have the right to know if George W. Bush believes in a Constitutional right to privacy," they ought to just come out and say Repugs don't believe in it, period. There's certainly enough evidence to support the claim, and if the Repugs want to come out and say "Oh yes we do," then we can put some pressure on them to prove it. Another suggests proposing a Constitutional amendment guaranteeing the right to privacy, which would put Repugs in the uncomfortable position of having to argue against it. That's entertainment.
It hasn't been three weeks since the election, but only someone not paying attention would disagree that the brakes are off and the train is a runaway. We can try to grab the wheel, but we'd also best brace for impact.
Recommended Reading: I don't believe in Hell, but on the odd chance there is one, I'll be there--and because he is responsible for this, so will George W. Bush.
