PDA

View Full Version : Republican Power Abuse begins



Gayle in MD
11-21-2004, 10:45 AM
The appropriations bill held up by republican efforts to include sneaky last minute (3,000page) clauses which would allow any House or Senate Aid to access our personal income taxes, and also to begin to chip away at Roe V. Wade, and the rights of women is available for all to read on the Washington Post Web site.

Evangelicals and other leaders from the Religeous right have been very visable on news programs the week, touting their expectations of payback from Bush and the republican leaders to legislate their wishes to overturn Roe V. Wade, among other religeous based objections.

Women who wish to protect Roe V. Wade should make every effort to Join The National Organization For Women, and get involved in protecting womens rights, fair wages, and other womens rights issues traditionally attacked by the religeous right.

Gayle in Md.

wolfdancer
11-21-2004, 11:48 AM
Gayle, the problem with religion, is that everyone wants to impose their own brand, and beliefs, on everybody else. I'd also have to add that after seeing video of the new 3D sonnagram...I'd rather see more "prevention" then abortion, but I respect a woman's right to choose. There's too many teen pregnancies, that severely limit the young lady's chances to attain her goals.

highsea
11-21-2004, 12:21 PM
Gayle, I don't see how Roe can be overturned. Right now, the court is pro-Roe 5-4 or 6-3, depending how you see Justice Kennedy. Rehnquist will most likely be replaced, but he is anti-Roe, so a conservative replacement will not shift the balance. If Bush elevates Scalia to Chief Justice and replaces Scalia's slot with Gonzales, he gains nothing because Gonzales is pro-Roe. In fact, he loses one slot, because we would be trading Rehnquist for Gonzales in the balance.

This means that O'Connor and Stevens would both have to retire also, and be replaced by conservative justices. Not very likely, imo. Souter and Kennedy are not going anywhere, and neither is Ginsburg or Breyer. As it stands, the only justices who are solidly anti-Roe are Rehnquist, Thomas, and Scalia.

Stevens is the oldest justice, and probably the next to retire, but a conservative replacement for him would leave the court with the same balance it has now, assuming that Gonzales were to be confirmed.

So how will Bush stack the court?

Gayle in MD
11-21-2004, 01:17 PM
I agree completely. Why can't organized religeon think what they wish and leave the rest of us alone? I wish you could have heard the man I heard. He was from the Southern Babtist Convention, I think his name was Richard Land. in so many words, he was saying, we gave him our vote, now we expect him to find ways to give us our due, stop abortion. Alothough not his words exactly, truly close. Thomas Jefferson warned us in the Statute of Religeous Freedon about "Blind faith in religeous leaders"

As I have said, I myself could never have an abortion. But, I have known personally others for whom it was the only way. I do not think it is for anyone to judge what a woman does with her own body.

Gayle in Md.

Gayle in MD
11-21-2004, 01:31 PM
As I understand it, the thrust will be to take the decision on abortion out of Judicial hands and into the hands of republican electees.
You really should go to the Washington Post website and read the story. Also the National Organization For Women is chock full of documented information.

Between this efort (On Abortion) and the last minute somewhat hidden tax clause, which would have given any Congressional or Senate Aid the right to delve into anyone's taxes, at will, and with no risk of retribution, I venture this will be a very very rocky four years, to say the least.
While what they tried to do on the abortion does not sound bad at first thought, when you think how it would affect women in rural areas, with few doctors or hospitals to go to, and also the younger women in need of birth control, and abortion information, well, while I've been expecting this all along, even I did not expect to see it begin so swiftly.

Certainly shows the resolve and urgency of the republicans to make good their insinuated promises to the evangelical, christian right IMO

BTW, did you hear Greenspans concerns regarding the trade deficit?
Gayle in Md.

eg8r
11-22-2004, 06:34 AM
[ QUOTE ]
and the last minute somewhat hidden tax clause, which would have given any Congressional or Senate Aid the right to delve into anyone's taxes, at will, and with no risk of retribution, <hr /></blockquote> CNN states that this would allow only 2 committee chairmen to view the records. Did you read the actual bill and come to the conclusion that it allows "any Congressional or Senate Aid " the ability to see the data? I have not read the provision myself, so I am going on the information from CNN.

If you read it online, can you provide a link to it? This is wrong, I don't think anyone should be allowed to go in and see it.

eg8r

eg8r
11-22-2004, 06:38 AM
[ QUOTE ]
I agree completely. Why can't organized religeon think what they wish and leave the rest of us alone? <hr /></blockquote> They like to pick on you. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

eg8r

Gayle in MD
11-22-2004, 07:26 AM
Ed,
the information I reading was in yesterdays Washington Post. You can probably access it on their web site. Also, there were statements made by Rep. Nancy Belosi, and another representative about how the loopholes could allow any senate aid to get into the records. That part I think I heard on either CNN Fox or MSNBC, I can't remember which one since I am always flipping back and forth, lol.

I'll check to see if I still have yesterdays paper too.

Gayle in Md.

SnakebyteXX
11-22-2004, 07:41 AM
Tax provision in bill faces ax after outcry

A tax provision in a spending bill that would allow Appropriations Committee members to examine Americans' tax returns will be deleted after many protested it was an invasion of privacy.

BY DAVID E. ROSENBAUM

New York Times Service


WASHINGTON - Democratic leaders and senators from both parties expressed outrage on Sunday about an obscure provision in the mammoth end-of-session spending bill that would allow Appropriations Committee chairmen and their assistants to examine Americans' income tax returns.

Republican leaders said there was never any intention to invade the privacy of taxpayers and promised that the provision would be deleted from the bill in a special session on Wednesday before the omnibus spending measure, which cleared Congress on Saturday night, was sent to President Bush for his signature.

Rep. Ernest Istook, R-Okla., who was responsible for the insertion of the tax provision in the 3,000-page, $388 billion legislation that provides funding for most of the government, issued a statement Sunday saying that the language had actually been drafted by the Internal Revenue Service and that ''nobody's privacy was ever jeopardized.'' Istook is chairman of the Appropriations subcommittee with authority over the IRS budget.

REAL PURPOSE

John D. Scofield, spokesman for the House Appropriations Committee, said in an interview that the purpose of the provision was to allow investigators for the top lawmakers responsible for IRS funding 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 tax returns, he said.

Scofield said the authority would be similar to that allowed to 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 IRS.

Rep. Nancy Pelosi of California, the Democratic leader, said Sunday that what she called ''this taxpayer persecution provision'' amounted to an abuse of power by the Republican majority and ``should be of grave to concern to all Americans that their privacy could be invaded.''

In answer to a question about the provision on CBS' Face the Nation, Sen. Bill Frist of Tennessee, the Republican leader, said, ``Nobody's going to defend this.''

Other senators made similar statements on various television interview programs. For instance, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., said on NBC's Meet the Press that the insertion of the provision without senators' fully understanding it showed how ``the system is broken.''

On CNN's Late Edition, Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas, said: ``Something happened clearly in the dark of night. The Senate was totally amazed.''

`SERIOUS SITUATION'

When senators discovered the language on Saturday, they unanimously adopted a resolution saying the provision ''shall have no effect.'' Sen. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, the chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, said he had been unaware of the tax provision and called it ``a serious situation.''

The speaker of the House, Dennis Hastert of Illinois, promised to convene a pro-forma session of the House on Wednesday to adopt the Senate resolution negating the provision.

Scofield, the spokesman for the House committee, called the entire matter ''a tempest in a teapot'' and said Istook and his colleagues had no objection to the removal of the authority.

''If they want to take it out, fine,'' Scofield said.

Link (http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/nation/10242645.htm?1c)