Obama 2007 Bill NOT IDENTICAL to Chaffetz Bill to Fire Federal Tax Cheats

Maggie's Notebook ^ | 7-31-12 | Maggie@MaggiesNotebook

[maggiesnotebook]

Maybe I'm not reading legislation thoroughly, but I think I am. Does anyone seriously think Obama would sponsor legislation to fire federal workers for non-payment of income taxes? Fox Business says Obama sponsored a bill in 2007 "identical" to that of yesterday's bill from Rep. Jason Chaffetz to do just that. Chaffetz wants federal employees fired if they haven't paid their taxes, and he wants no one hired who has delinquent taxes. Obama's 2007 legislation, which died in committee in a Democratically controlled Senate, called only for barring tax-evading contractors and those receiving grants. Big difference. The rest of the story is that today, federal workers owe taxpayers $1B+ in unpaid taxes -  100,000 workers, chronic tax cheaters. One hundred thousand workers with unpaid taxes remains the consistent number each year since 2004.

Why do these cheaters still have a job? Answer: they're union workers. The large majority are Democrats.

Fox Business News (see the chart of delinquents here):

Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) has today introduced the new bill, which would fire federal employees and outlaw the hiring of federal employees or contractors with seriously delinquent tax debts. The congressman has already attempted to get similar bills passed -- then Senator Barack Obama sponsored an identical companion bill, S. 2519, in 2007...

Here's the pertinent text of both bills, with links to the originals. Did I get it wrong? Do you see anything in Obama's bill about firing anyone but contractors and those receiving grants?

Text of Obama's S. 2519:

To prohibit the awarding of a contract or grant in excess of the simplified acquisition threshold unless the prospective contractor or grantee certifies in writing to the agency awarding the contract or grant that the contractor or grantee has no seriously delinquent tax debts, and for other purposes...

It is the policy of the United States Government that no Government contracts or grants should be awarded to individuals or companies with seriously delinquent Federal tax debts... etc., etc.,

Chaffetz H.R. 828:

H.R. 828 would prohibit individuals who have “seriously delinquent” tax debts from being eligible for federal employment in the executive and legislative branch.  The bill would define “seriously tax delinquent” as an outstanding federal tax debt for which a notice of lien has been publicly filed.  The bill would exempt employees who are working to settle tax liabilities by excluding federal tax debts being paid in accordance with an installment agreement, offer of compromise, or wage garnishment; for which a due process hearing or request for relief from joint and several liability is requested or pending; or for which relief has been granted.

The bill would prescribe a process for conducting the tax reviews necessary to identify individuals who are seriously tax delinquent that is based on the July 29, 1977, Treasury Department Order granting the IRS Commissioner authority to undertake tax checks.  H.R. 828 would require that agencies identify individuals ineligible for employment by requiring applicants to certify they are not seriously tax delinquent.  The bill would then require agencies periodically conduct reviews of public records for liens.  If a lien is discovered, the individual submits a form to the agency authorizing the Secretary of the Treasury to disclose to the agency head information on whether or not the individual has a seriously delinquent tax debt.  Tax information disclosed to the agency head is confidential.

H.R. 828 would require the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), in consultation with the Internal Revenue Service, to establish regulations to implement the bill.  The regulations would give the individual 60 days to demonstrate their debt meets one of the exemptions, provide due process rights, and allow for a financial hardship exemption.  OPM would be required to report annually to Congress on the number of financial hardship exemptions granted.

More from Fox Business:

Chaffetz notes that, in a way, this tax evasion is a form of double-dipping, because taxpayers provide the funds that generate the paychecks, and then the workers don’t return any of those funds as taxpayers themselves.

Only in the government do we need legislation to create common sense.

The article says that among federal workers only IRS workers can be fired for not paying income taxes - but there is no compliance, and IRS workers are also getting away with cheating the people they serve and who pay their salaries:

The new bill [Chaffetz] will attempt to mandate tax compliance as a prerequisite for receiving a federal contract. In 2008, The Federal Acquisition Regulation was altered, forcing contractors to certify to the federal government that they do not have a delinquent federal tax debt.

Notice the word "attempt." Apparently the 2008 Federal Acquisition Regulation legislation did not "force contractors" to 'certify.' It failed. It is ignored. We pay someone to oversee it anyway. Someone has the responsibility, and that person receives a paycheck.

The proper protest is for everyone to stop paying taxes until huge numbers of our problems are resolved - until food stamps are handled properly, until immigration laws are strictly enforced, until our tax monies stop funding abortions both here and abroad, until Medicare and Medicaid fraud are stopped, until we stop all Social Security checks to dead people, until budgets are submitted and passed, and until ALL SPENDING IS AUTHORIZED AND APPROPRIATED. Then, we can take care of our veterans medical needs, continuously...forever...for as long as we have promised to do so, and get this country back on track (yes, I know I left out hundreds of other obscene wrongs that need to be righted). Thanks to Death by 1000 Papercuts for the graphic and Creators Syndicate

[Mr. K]

1) it is hard to fire govt employees - this would give him a reason

2) he would not HAVE TO fire anyone

3) it would not be surprising if a number of democrap donors retained their jobs while known Republicans lost theirs

4) once the ranks are cleared of known sympathizers they can spend and spend and spend on liberal companies and democrap donors and supporters like there is no tomorrow (and there wont be)