Whatever might they have had in mind?

[alan]

The above question is particularly germane respecting the House passed version of this 1400 page, Omnibus Finance Bill, intended to fund the federal government till October 2005. Particularly interesting is the inclusion, seemingly a secretive inclusion, of a clause or section that allows certain Committee Chairman and or their delegated staffers to view individual federal income tax returns. Remember if you will, that these documents are supposedly held confidential and are not to be bandied about for god knows what reasons.

While the inclusion was seemingly one of those "in the dead of night deals", something accomplished by an unnamed congressional staffer, this one working for Congressman Istok of Oklahoma, one suspects that this particular staffer, whose name has so far not been released, will serve as a convenient sacrifical lamb, a target balloon, at which many can shoot, while covering the posteriors of those really responsible for this outrage. By the way, "outrage" is about the mildest description that I can imagine for this stunt.

Anyhow, while I do hope that congressional offices throughout the country disappear beneath a pile of angry faxes, e-mails and telephone messages, I also realize that given the nature of people in general, that that is not going to happen. Perhaps though, enough people will take the opportunity presented to raise unmitigated hell with their elected things.

E-mail addresses for Members of The Congress can be found at www.house.gov, or if one would rather use the telephone, the following is a toll free number for Capitol Switchboard. 1-800-839-5276. I used it a few minutes ago. The ladies and or gentlemen there will connect callers with any congressional offices they might wish to speak with. A caller is not likely to get to speak with a Member of The Congress, but I rather suspect that a tally of calls is kept, and will be looked at. The rest is, as usual, up to the citizenry.

By the bye, speaking of unnamed congressional staffers, and the wonderful dreams that they might dream, dreams what somehow become obscure clauses or sections of Omnibus Legislation, what might happen were it to be that one of these staffers turned out to be virulently ANTI GUN? It could so be. What sort of obscure, little noticed paragraph might such creatures manage to somehow inject into major, must pass legislation. Now then, that is something to think about, isn't it?

 

[mvpel]

This is old news - there has already been a brawl on the floor of the House about it, and the provisions have been removed.

 

[alan]

mvpel responded with the following:

This is old news - there has already been a brawl on the floor of the House about it, and the provisions have been removed.

He may be 100% correct, however the question appearing at the head of my post remains UNANSWERED, so far as I'm aware, and this strikes me as being one hell of an important question.

Might I also repost the last paragraph of my comments:

By the bye, speaking of unnamed congressional staffers, and the wonderful dreams that they might dream, dreams what somehow become obscure clauses or sections of Omnibus Legislation, what might happen were it to be that one of these staffers turned out to be virulently ANTI GUN? It could so be. What sort of obscure, little noticed paragraph might such creatures manage to somehow inject into major, must pass legislation. Now then, that is something to think about, isn't it?

The so far as I know UNNAMED STAFFER, Mr., Mrs., or Ms. works or worked for Representative Istok of OK, I believe. What remains curious is the following. Are we to accept that some hireling, all by themselves, injected into major legislation, a passage, section or clause that amounts to so great a departure from existing arrangements and law, and that such a change is on the "up and up". I've been wrong before and I could certainly could be wrong here, however I think not.

In any case my original question, which was Whatever might they have had in mind, remains standing there, big as life and twice as ugly. It also remains, so far as I know, unanswered, and that Virginia is the problem.

By the way dear readers, some of whom will likely think that Old Alan is seeing Black Helicopters again, remember the military appropriations bill of a couple of years ago, another large proposal, that contained a most interesting little hooker about how ANY material or specific items that had, at any time, belonged to DOD, and had been subsequently sold to civilians, be subject to reposession and demiliterization? Think about what "demiliterization" would mean regarding the Springfield Rifle(s), the U.S. 1917 Enfield(s), the M-1 Carbine(s), the Garand Rifle(s), and don't forget the 45 ACP pistol(s) you might have purchased through the old DCM, or more recently through the CMP, in the case of rifles.

If you do a little digging in the archives of this site, or several others that address firearms questions, political, legislative as well as technical, you might note that the discussion got somewhat heated. By the way, as I recall, NOBODY ever acknowleged "parentage" of the above mentioned part of this military appropriations bill, and had there not been all manner of hell raised, it likely would have become the law of the land, as in "stroke of a pen, law of the land", this from a Rahm Emmanuel, formerly of The Clinton Administration, now a "congress critter" from the Chicago area.

This too might be "old news", or as some would describe it, history. Personally, I've always found history interesting, and then there is the following, re history and those who do not learn the lessons it has to teach us all. "You either learn from history, or you relive it." The quote is not exact, and I didn't originate it anyway. I believe that it is definately worth remembering though.