An attempt by Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, to add language to the omnibus spending bill in Congress to require parental consent for any mental-health screening done to children with federal money has failed.
Well, somebody sure did:
"Hereinafter, notwithstanding any other provision of law governing the disclosure of income tax returns or return information, upon written request of the Chairman of the House or Senate Committee on Appropriations, the Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service shall allow agents designated by such Chairman access to Internal Revenue Service facilities and any tax returns or return information contained therein."
The IRS drafted this language at staff request, in an effort to make it clear that our oversight duties include visiting and inspecting the huge IRS processing centers-but NOT inspecting tax returns.
Then why did the language specifically say tax returns?
"Nobody's privacy was ever jeopardized. Honest mistakes were made, but there's no conspiracy."
What were the "honest mistakes" and what are the NAMES of those who made them?
There is another issue I'd like to hear from Istook on. Why did he not vote on this:
An attempt by Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, to add language to the omnibus spending bill in Congress to require parental consent for any mental-health screening done to children with federal money has failed.
Attempt to stop mandatory mental screening fails
From the link in post #20 on the linked thread above:
"Istook" party="R" state="OK" role="legislator">IstookNot Voting
That is flat out illegal
What is what intended to do was give access without infringing on privacy laws. Basically, the same access granted to any IRS employee, and their oversight congress critters wanted the same.
It is too bad the language was written so badly, because it must be a pain in the ass for them to be granted access for oversight reasons. They will need to meet offsite someplace to do oversight.
I do wonder, how this particular language did not describe it's particular purpose? This is usually done and it was not in this case. Maybe it was meant to be a poison pill.
On the mental health screen, it is never good to alert people that a screen test is about to be given. the answers are then tainted.
Mental health screens are usually incorporated into another test. it is only a series of a few questions.
If the person knows they are being tested, they try to answer the questions with what they think the screener wants to see. It screws up the results and could even end up causing a counselor to interview the test taker because the answers are out of whack for the age group or they do not match up with other questions asked to determine insincerity..
Parents usually sign releases and waivers on a list of things at the beginning of the schools year. I would imagine that the screen will be mentioned along with the physical health permissions for the school.
A school is responsible for the health and safety of every child it has under it's roof. In view of this, I have no reason to be against a simple mental heath screen that I and probably everyone living has had and some more than once.
Being conservative does not mean you need to wear a tinfoil hat. If you don't like your kid getting drug tested or taking a simple mental heath screen, then you put my kids at risk.
Send your kid to private school and see what they do to screen students. These are different times. These times require more attention to detail.
An attempt by Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, to add language to the omnibus spending bill in Congress to require parental consent for any mental-health screening done to children with federal money has failed.