Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by JumpCrisscross 1163 days ago
> legislature try to introduce a bill to prevent using the new agents/funding against lower earners

Money is fungible. This was a messaging bill. If they were serious, they'd create an independently-funded agency within the IRS with the sole mandate of going after high earners.
1 comments
notch898a 1163 days ago
If the bill was a message, so was the response. "Fuck you, we'd rather not be hindered by such promises."

-----------------------------------

RE: below [due to timeout]

>The original bill already passed.

  factcheck:  false.  Original bill passed almost 12 hours later on the same day[0] [1].  The (above) amendment was voted on in the early morning, with the unamended increase passing in the afternoon.
>Congress has more important things to do.

  factcheck:  false.  All 100 senators voted on the floor for a full vote on the amendment.  None found they had something more important to do that would cause them not to cast a vote.
>The executive has stated its position.

  factcheck: True.  Either congress ignored the position, or they followed the privately endorsed position rather than the publicly endorsed one.

  [0] https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_votes/vote1172/vote_117_2_00325.htm

  [1] https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_votes/vote1172/vote_117_2_00296.htm
link
JumpCrisscross 1163 days ago
> so was the response

Not really? The original bill already passed. The executive has stated its position. Congress has more important things to do.

link