More news and views from Ukraine and bloggers following the action.

News: Looks like a first-step compromise has been reached that could result in a new run-off by mid-December, if Yuschenko has his way. But lots of legal twists and turns, to say nothing of behind the scenes maneuvering by Kuchma, still to come.

Today's events include:

• Verkhovna Rada, Ukraine's parliament turned out Yanukovych's government in a vote of no-confidence. Kuchma could veto parliament's move, which then would require a 2/3 vote, rather than the thin margin obtained today. He has indicated, however, he will accept the vote, and so has 60 days to install a new government. That is, of course, assuming he's still President, since his term has just expired.
• Some analysts have assumed Kuchma is likely to name parliament speaker Volodymyr Lytvyn to head a caretaker government. Other analysts have opined that Kuchma would turn to the former head of the National Bank and head of Yanukovych's election campaign, Serhiy Tyhypko, who only gave up those posts this weekend.
• There's a general agreement that in some fashion or another there will be more voting. There are, however, several scenarios possible, and the Ukrainian Supreme Court's treatment of the cases before it (which may or may not include Yanukovych's last moment filing of complaints of fraud as well) may determine which scenario is implemented.
• The candidates and Kuchma have agreed that, prior to whatever voting next takes place, Parliament will adopt a set of reforms to the voting process, about which there seems to be a fairly wide consensus.
• All parties are stressing the importance of Ukrainian territorial integrity. Although regional barons in the east have backed off threats to split away, there is apparently a planned referendum in the Donbass region for early January to consider greater autonomy within a federation. That's a development to be watched closely.
• Yuschenko agreed that his supporters would call off their blockade of government offices, but has not withdrawn them from the streets entirely.
• AP is the only wire service so far with fairly full reports of Yushchenko's comments to the crowd after the talks. He indicated a revote of the second round could be set for as early as Dec 19.

  "Our ranks mustn't shrink," Yushchenko told tens of thousands of his supporters who gathered on Kiev's central Independence Square for the 11th straight night since the election commission declared his rival the winner in a vote he says was stolen. "We mustn't leave until we have a revote date firmly set."
  
  Hours after the deal was signed, throngs of Yushchenko's supporters continued to besiege the Cabinet and the presidential administration buildings, while thousands clad in his orange campaign colors crammed the central square under fireworks and listened to rock bands in a raucous celebration.
  
  Yushchenko said he expected the Supreme Court to deliver a ruling Thursday on his campaign's appeal to invalidate the runoff result — based on claims of widespread violations across Yanukovych's eastern and southern strongholds.

• The compromise was reached with the mediation of international representatives -- not only the European group (EU's Solana, plus the Presidents of Poland and Lithuania and the Secy Gen of the OSCE) but also, according to Interfax, Russian Duma Speaker Boris Gryzlov, who arrived in Kyiv along with Russia's ambassador to Ukraine, Victor Chernmyrdin. Solana had delayed a scheduled trip to Moscow to participate in the talks, and would be discussing Ukraine in Moscow on Thursday. He has repeatedly emphasized that the situation should not affect EU-Russian relations.

Clearly, the devil's in the details, and many Yuschenko supporters fear he may have compromised too much, as reflected in entries in Foreign Notes and Le Sabot Postmoderne.

Moscow Times has a front page article on Kuchma's likely next moves -- first and foremost to ditch Yanukovych it seems. Kuchma has been pressing for a full rerun of the election, starting with the first round. A full re-run, which has been rejected by Yuschenko, would allow Kuchma and his allies to substitute another candidate for Yahukovych, and delay the process as well. By March, probably the earliest a full new election could be organized, Yuschenko's orange crowds will be off the street. Peter Lavalle's analysis, described in our earlier post, is well worth reviewing in this context. He seems to have got it spot on.

Another serious concern arguing for calming things down and getting the crowds off the streets -- apparently shared by all sides -- is the economic impact of the ongoing work stoppages. Also, there are ongoing worries about the financial system and the country's exchange rate. Authorities have said they have plenty of reserves. But as for the local banks, Moscow Times reports:

Ukrainians across the country continued a run on banks, fearing that a financial crisis will follow the political crisis. Dozens of depositors crowded outside Kiev banks hoping to withdraw their savings. The panic has been fueled by a Central Bank order limiting depositors to $1,000.

Views: Lots of first-rate reporting and analysis around the blogosphere. Crooked Timber (John Quiggin) and Fist Full of Euros publish another lengthy eyewitness report from Tarik Amar. Le Sabot Postmoderne has first-hand accounts and some great photos, including the fireworks shown above, taken in Kyiv as the crowd celebrated the Rada's no-confidence vote for Yanukovych's government.

For further discussion of the complex ways the electorate may split in the Ukraine, see Notes From Kiev and Orange Ukraine. Orange Ukraine has two interesting posts covering both the Ukrainian and Russian angles, first re Yuschenko and then re Yanukovych.

Another very interesting discussion of the Russian angle is at Fist Full of Euros, where Tobias Schwartz looks at Russia and the broader issues of the CIS with a longer-term perspective.

---

[Further views 12:45AM EST 12-2-04] Via Le Sabot Postmoderne, who writes: "Proof that cretinism knows no ideology -- an attack on the democracy movement from an elitist Tory-conservative perspective!"

---

Photos: Fireworks celebrating the downfall of Yanukovych in parliament, Le Sabot Postmoderne, Dec 1 2004.
Parliamentary deputies celebrating the non-confidence vote, Gleb Garanich, Reuters, Dec 1 2004.

[UPDATE 9:50PM EST 12-1-04] So sorry, lost track around No. 7 and forgot to add No. 9. The Kurds have decided to get together and field their own slate. Massud Barzani (Kurdistan Democratic Party) and Jalal Talabani (Patriotic Union of Kurdistan) held a joint press conference to announce they would be fielding a joint list, not only for the national elections but for the regional parliament to be elected the same day.

---

Just when you thought you knew who was taking what positions on the preparation for elections -- or even whether or when to hold them:

1. As of yesterday, a group of 38 Shiite political parties, the Shiite Political Council, have withdrawn from discussing a unified slate with Al Sistani's representatives, on the grounds the candidate list being proposed would be dominated by religious extremists.

"We don't want to be an extension of Iran inside Iraq," said Hussein al-Mousawi, spokesman for the Shiite Political Council. "We found out that the top 10 names in the list are extremist Shiite Islamists who believe in the rule of religious clerics."

The Shiite Political Council includes Chalibi's Iraqi National Congress as well as Hezbollah, neither exactly at the top of the Iranian enemies list. The group intends to appeal to Sistani,

"...because we believe that the ayatollah is looking for an assembly that represents all Iraqis and is not dominated by extremists," [al-Mousawi] added.

[ed. update -- since this is the second time in two days I've seen reference to Sistani as hooked up with radicals or extremists, and had never heard that before, my tin foil would normally be starting to flutter a bit; however, this reference is linked with Chalibi, and the other is quite anti-Chalibi, so if there's a discrediting campaign, it may be coming from somewhere else]

2. Making no reference at all to the purported defection of the Shiite Political Council, the nuclear scientist heading up Sistani's 6-man candidate list selection committee, Hussain al-Shahristani, has said they're close to agreement on a unified list of candidates.

Leading Shi'ite groups, including the two main Shi'ite political parties -- Dawa and the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq -- as well as the movement led by radical cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, are in talks on joining together on a single slate to ensure the Shi'ite vote is not split.

[al-Shahristani] said the list would not be exclusively Shi'ite but would also include representatives of other groups.

"It will be a national list, with representatives from a wide variety of communities, not just the Shia," Shahristani, a former nuclear scientist who was jailed under Saddam, told Reuters. "We hope the list will be acceptable to the majority of Iraqis, not just the Shi'ite community."

3. Several days ago, the losing Sunni candidate for Iraqi President, Adnan Pachachi, led the group of Sunni parties calling for a delay in national elections. Now the winning Sunni candidate, President Ghazi al-Yawar, is rejecting the calls for delay.

We must go ahead with elections, from a legal and a moral point of view," Yawar told a news conference in Baghdad.

Iraq's interim constitution, endorsed by the United Nations, says elections must be held by the end of January to select a transitional assembly which will pick a new cabinet and oversee the drafting of a permanent constitution.

"These elections have been planned for eight months," Yawar said. "It's my personal view they should go ahead on time."

4. Allawi was in Jordan, getting backing for January elections, and trying to cast doubt that other Sunni countries support the Iraqi Sunni calls for delays.    more »

The SCOTUS opinion from yesterday, capping consumer truth-in-lending liability, is getting attention for more than the large majority that cut off incentives for plaintiffs and their lawyers to use litigation to enforce the law. Seems a message may have been sent about one of the prospective nominees for the high court. Per WashPost:

The lopsided result was a rebuke of sorts for the author of the 4th Circuit's opinion, Judge J. Michael Luttig, a likely contender to be nominated by President Bush for the next open seat on the Supreme Court.

Luttig, a conservative who has long argued that judges should adhere strictly to the text of statutes so as not to usurp the legislative function, had refused to look at legislative history or other factors in interpreting the revised language of the Truth in Lending Act.

But Ginsburg garnered six votes for an opinion that included the sentence, "Statutory construction is a 'holistic endeavor.' "

Refused to look at legistlative history? Yowser!

So that's why we haven't heard much lately about Guiliani for Attorney General or the recently vacated Homeland Security post.

News: Le Sabot Postmoderne does a round-up of today's developments, which involved a lot of to-and-fro of different quasi-offers, rejected out of hand by Yushchenko:

Yushchenko has broken off negotiations with Kuchma and Yanukovych. Their position was, "Make a deal based on an unenforceable promise that we'll make you a strong Prime Minister under President Yanukovych, and then disperse the protesters." Thankfully, Yushchenko was born in the morning, but not THIS morning.

Kuchma/Yanukovych's other bargaining position is to call for entirely new elections. They've made noises that both Yanukovych and Yushchenko wouldn't be allowed to run, but instead new candidates would be fielded. This would conveniently let them dump their currently radioactive Donetsk thug, while robbing the Opposition of their wildly popular candidate. You can start to see why Yushchenko stopped negotiating.

Other news of the day:

• The Supreme Court continued to hear the voting fraud cases for a second day.
  
• Javier Solana and Polish President Aleksandr Kwasniewski will be meeting with the rival candidates on Wednesday, together with OSCE Secy Gen Jan Kubis.
  
• Fears of a geographic splintering of Ukraine eased with some backing down by local officials who had spoken of autonomy moves in some eastern regions.
  
• Some analysts see the new elections/delay scenarios fitting Kuchma's agenda -- put off relinquishing power as long as possible but get rid of Yanukovych as prime minister in the meantime.

New source to check out if you want to follow development closely, in addition to previous links: HotLine news service, frequent updates that seem to track closely with eventual international wire service reports (Russian, Ukrainian, English)

Views: Two very interesting pieces, giving a broader set of perspectives and agendas than can be found in most coverage. It's not just about democracy, fair elections and rule of law, it's not just about people power, it's not just about east-west history of the Ukraine, or oligarchs and economic interests, or Russia vs the West. It's all of the above and then some.

First, from the blog The Russian Dilettante, on how an ordinary voter in Donetsk might view the goings on. Shorter: There's a compelling logic to "Sure they're thugs and thieves, but they're our thugs and thieves."

It's amazing that the border between Yuschenko- and Yanukovich-supporting regions can be traced to the politics and demographics of the 17th and 18th century and the first half of the 19th. I've tried to reconstruct -- speculatively -- a Donesk voter's point of view:

1. Our region and its neighbors produce most of this nation's GDP -- let's just say wealth. Granted, our oligarchs syphon off most of this wealth but some trickles down to us, too.
2. The good people in the streets of Kiev want to break the oligarchs' monopoly on power. We wouldn't mind that, too. But we don't trust their leaders.
3. Their leaders are oligarchs from other parts of Ukraine who aren't satisfied with what they've got. When they grab assets from our local oligarchs, we'll be even worse off.
4. Also, when those new oligarchs from the West come to power, they'll spend the tax money -- and most of that comes from us -- on their cronies.
5. They'll try to Halycize Ukraine; we Easterners will become second-class citizens. Our kids will have a problem getting into Kyiv universities.
6. So you see, it's not about democracy, it's just us against them.
7. We'd rather become autonomous and deal with our oligarchs ourselves.

From this angle, there's no argument over values; it's Us vs Them. (Alas, I'm not quite impartial to this simple dichotomy, either.) The best I can say now is that I am hoping Ukraine becomes a federation, which would reflect its geographically-distributed cultural diversity. Let the people of the East take on their oligarchs without fear that outsiders will step in to grab the spoils.

For daily analysis that's both indepth and big-picture, covering things both Russian and Ukrainian, Untimely Thoughts by Peter Lavalle is a must-read. He writes on Russia for a variety of news organizations, especially UPI and papers like Moscow Times. His website his articles as well as analytical pieces, interviews, and occasional items from other analysts. With the intense coverage of Ukraine recently, his UPI stuff has been daily. Today's article outlines the possible gamble Kuchma may be taking with a call for further elections, and how it could play out on a number of levels:

[...]
Depending on the Supreme Court's findings, a third round of voting appears likely. But how the third round is characterized will be key. Will the court find the runoff vote invalid, or the will it go further and deem both rounds invalid? Kuchma and his supporters are angling for the latter.

The voiding of both rounds opens the door for Kuchma to finally rid of himself of Yanukovych as prime minister. Kuchma might have intended to fire Yanukovych this week, but Timoshenko's demand that he do so might have interrupted his plans. Kuchma has been given an ultimatum before by political foes while president and did not back down.

With a third vote on the horizon, Kuchma is looking for a suitable candidate to replace Yanukovych. That person appears to be Serhiy Tyhypko. Resigning from his position as head of the National Bank and Yanukovych's campaign manager, Tyhipko is a perfectly placed regime insider who would very much like to take on Yushchenko. Yushchenko dearly would like to run against Yanukovych again, but will have no choice if Yanukovych backs out - something Kuchma can easily arrange.

A Tyhypko candidacy could be very interesting. He is an insider, but can easily spin himself as a centrist, opposed to Yanukovych's separatist leanings and Yushchenko-Timoshenko's "right-wing, nationalist, and street-extremism." Tyhypko could spin himself as a unifier - politically and as an advocate if an indivisible Ukraine.

Additionally, if the Supreme Court suggests another election and legislation is passed toward this end, Kuchma could declare a state of emergency in the name of allowing a "cooling off" period before the extraordinary third round is set. "Cooling off" in this case would mean the end of street demonstrations.

Should this scenario worry Yushchenko? Yes. Yushchenko's coalition of political forces are not as cohesive as most media report. As the last few days have demonstrated, the much more nationalistic Timoshenko often acts an independent political actor beyond Yushchenko's control. Timoshenko and her supporters have polarized Ukraine's political atmosphere just as much as Yanukovych unofficial support of regional separatism.

The international angle of a third election round would also be important. Vladimir Putin would have the opportunity to disentangle himself from the Kremlin's over-zealous support of Yanukovych's candidacy. The West would be forced to distance itself from outward support of Yushchenko.
[...]

As discoshaman of Le Sabot Postmoderne puts it so aptly:

We all agree that the strategic picture here is almost impossible to grasp in its entirety. There are so many unknowable variables, and so many individual agendas coalescing and falling apart simultaneously. It's somewhere in a gray area between complex and chaotic.

[UPDATE 12:30PM EST 11-29-04] Potentially, some very good news. Kuchma has proposed new elections. From Reuters:

Outgoing Ukrainian President Leonid Kuchma, facing mass protests over a disputed presidential election, Monday called for a new poll to help end the crisis tearing the nation apart.

If we really want to preserve peace and consensus and build this just democratic society, of which we speak so much but have failed to carry out in a legal way, let us have new elections," Kuchma said in a statement.

Kuchma, in power for 10 scandal-tainted years and widely accused of mismanaging the economy, said he had no intention of running in a new poll.

He spoke as the Supreme Court sat to try to resolve the election stalemate, though a decision could take days.
[...]

Another positive sign is reports that some of the Ukrainian "oligarchs" may be switching sides, or at least backing off their support of Yanukovych. The English language Kyiv Post is generally viewed as reliable. The internet activist site, Maidan, has a mix of rumor and reliable reports. Volunteer translators are apparently working non-stop to provide English-language versions of as much as they can. Worth visiting simply as a remarkable example of "citizen internet."

Dan Drezner has a good analytical roundup from early this morning, when he was not feeling very upbeat.

---

Want a feel for "as it happens" -- check out Le Sabot Post-Moderne, a passionate Western partisan for Yuschenko's "people power" movement. Lots of photos connected with blow-by-blow what's going on with negotiations, rallies, etc. Although he admits he's so close to the on-the-ground action that it's hard to keep sight of the broader strategic goings-on.

Nonetheless, he has very interesting explanations about how the election was stolen and the Orange movement, not only in Kiev (or Kyiv if you spend more time with Ukrainians than Russians). Especially helpful is the correction, echoed by other bloggers, of the distorting East vs West narrative being imposed by outside commentators. [Map: The Economist, Nov 25 2004 "Europe's New Divisions"] This post from Le Sabot Moderne Saturday rips apart the Guardian. It starts:

Jonathan Steele's hit piece in the Guardian is a sad example of the condescension that so many hold for Ukraine. He insists on spinning this as a West-Russia dispute, as if the Ukrainians themselves have nothing to do with it. If he'd troubled himself to talk to some actual Ukrainians, he'd know that they're viewing this as a fight against a Mafia-esque ruling class which is using its powers to repress dissent, monopolize political power and cannibalize the nation's infrastructure through corrupt "privatization" schemes.

These oligarchs sound like just the sort of people a nice Lefty like Steele would be against. But I guess it's just more fun to poke a stick at the United States.

In an incredibly Orwellian moment, he dings the US for "provocatively" financing exit polls. Let's get this straight, the oligarch government was financing rigged polls to help justify their theft of the election. Yet it's the WEST who is trying to use exit polls to perform a coup? What a jackal.
[...]

Another blogger from Kyiv, Tulipgirl has a rich collection of Ukrainian activist details as well as a good variety of other links to blogs, sites and photo collections. Especially recommended is a just-created "blog of the revolution," Orange Ukraine, by a former Peace Corps volunteer who lives in Kyiv with his Ukrainian-born wife.

---

[UPDATE 8:30PM EST 11-28-04] For those of you who just can't get enough Ukraine. A lengthy background piece -- giving a good deal more on who's who and the various events leading up to the current situation -- can be found on John Quiggin's personal blog, via Dan Hardie, by Tarik Amar, "who, Dan says, is doing a PhD on Soviet history and speaks Ukranian, German and Russian, among other languages, and knows the place very well."

---

Other bloggers following developments closely are Fist Full of Euros and Daniel Drezner, who has a running news roundup. Drezner catches this interesting bit from the Kyiv Post:

Roman Olearchyk's analysis in the Kyiv Post suggests that elites in the eastern parts of the country would take steps beyond autonomy to protect their interests:

The business tycoons in eastern Ukraine that supported Yanukovych appear to be taking extreme measures to protect their interests, which include lucrative assets in Donetsk, Lugansk, Kharkiv and Luhansk. Government officials and legislators in these oblasts have in the past two days demanded the formation of an autonomous eastern-southern Ukrainian republic and are threatening to split their oblasts away from Ukraine altogether.
[...]

Similar story in MosNews.com [Map: MosNews.com, Nov 26 2004 "Pro-Russian Eastern Ukraine Threatens to Secede if Yushchenko Wins"].

And in further apparent confirmation, this just in from AFP: Yuschenko calls for prosecuting "separatist governors," while Yanukovych is off with Moscow's Mayor, Yury Luzhkov, visiting the Russian-speaking regions. "After a short meeting [in Lugansk] they were due to head to Severodonetsk to attend a meeting of 3,500 local officials from 17 regions that was expected to discuss holding a referendum on autonomy."   more »

[UPDATE 10:30PM EST 11-30-04] John Robb has translated the Afghan terror/drug conundrum into his "Global Guerrillas"-speak.

---

From AdamSmithee, a first-rate source of interesting observations on development economics:

Moral Conundrum

Afghanistan has managed to drag a fair number of people out of absolute poverty in the past two years, with some effect on a range of health indicators. One huge reason is a rebounding opium crop, which may have accounted for as much as 60% of Afghanistan's economic output in 2003. As Brad DeLong points out, if you don't buy Third World products, their makers just have to go off and do something less rewarding. In the case of Afghanistan, that's likely to throw people back into absolute poverty, and that in turn means higher mortality. Heroin addiction is terrible. But death is surely worse. Given that, how hard should we pursuing opium growers in the country?

Well it may not be how we ought to be proceeding, but it seems the way we'll claim we're proceeding is to fight the "war on drugs" as the great scourage of a free and democratic Afghanistan. Via the FT, from a press conference Nov 18 2004:

Britain, the lead nation in the anti-narcotics drive in Afghanistan, admitted that there was a risk of the opium boom re-creating the conditions that the “war against terror” was supposed to eliminate.

Bill Rammell, the British foreign office minister responsible, said Afghanistan was a “narco-economy” and that the west needed to take urgent action.

“We have always held the view that if you have a narco-economy, those are the very conditions in which terrorism breeds,” he told a press conference in Brussels.

On Wednesday the US announced an $800m plan to fight Afghanistan's ballooning opium industry a big increase in spending that reflects growing concern about the threat of the drugs trade to the fragile country.

But the UN report made it clear that such a move could further destabilise the country.

The UN's drugs and crime office suggested that the lucrative poppy crop is one of the few things keeping the lawless country from falling further into anarchy and poverty.

“Narcotics are the main engine of economic growth and the strongest bond between previously quarrelsome people,” it said. The crop is now grown in all 32 Afghan provinces.

Afghanistan's opium economy is put at $2.8bn, producing 87 per cent of the world's total supply.

Now don't get me wrong, and I'm sure we're dealing with different time periods here, but $800 million in anti-drug trade efforts is almost one-third of the drug contribution to GDP. Maybe a simple set of cash transfers would do more to get some other economic activity going than trying to stamp out 60% of the economy?

They're at it again! Congress just can't seem to resist sticking their fingers in the foreign policy pie. This time, it's over the International Criminal Court. Granted, not the most sympathetic or easily defended of international endeavors from the US viewpoint. But Congress had already taken a major pot shot at it by conditioning military assistance on agreements to grant immunity to US servicemen.

Now they've buried in the Omnibus spending bill a provision that conditions economic assistance on immunity agreements.

Congress's action may affect U.S. Agency for International Development programs designed to promote peace, combat drug trafficking, and promote democracy and economic reforms in poor countries. For instance, the cuts could jeopardize as much as $250 million to support economic growth and reforms in Jordan, $500,000 to promote democracy and fight drug traffickers in Venezuela, and about $9 million to support free trade and other initiatives with Mexico.

At the behest of the State Department, a provision has been aded for executive waivers for NATO members and other key allies. So the countries most likely to be affected are the small poor ones that aren't strategically important to the US. Likely the ones most in need of the assistance, of course.

[UPDATE 1:30PM EST 11-29-04] Further information on which countries would be affected and the political battle lines within Congress is in a OneWorld.net piece today by Jim Lobe.

Although the opportunities to point out Reasons for Congressional Reform(TM)come fast and furious on a daily basis, from time to time Congress does something that deserves commendation. And so there's a tip of the hat when they do.

The giant spending bill that Congress passed on Saturday eliminated money for developing new nuclear weapons, including one that would be used to destroy underground bunkers. It also deeply cut the Bush administration's request for money for a new factory to make the triggers for nuclear bombs.

One of the projects eliminated was the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator, widely known as the bunker buster; the administration had wanted $27.6 million for the program.

A special commendation to Rep David L. Hobson, chair of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development. In an August speech he said he viewed

...the administration's call for research on the new bombs and the earth penetrator, along with a proposal to shorten the lead time required to resume nuclear testing, as "very provocative and overly aggressive policies that undermine our moral authority to argue that other nations should forgo nuclear weapons.''

"We cannot advocate for nuclear nonproliferation around the globe and pursue more useable nuclear weapons options at home,'' Mr. Hobson said at the symposium, which was sponsored by the Carnegie Endowment.

The Senate was friendlier to the Energy Department's budget request but in a closed negotiating session to reconcile the two measures, Mr. Hobson's position prevailed.

Go, Davey, go!!

Oh, it was a fine day on Capitol Hill. And clearly too much to expect that the session would end without providing at least several handfuls more of compelling reasons for Congressional reform.

The Omnibus budget bill got caught up in a complicated little wrinkle, for all the world to see on CSPAN. Seems someone (turns out a House Republican) unbeknownst to certainly the Democrats and, according to Sen Stevens, unbeknownst to the Senate Republicans as well, tried to slip a little passage in the volumnious text.

It would have given the Chairmen of the House and Senate Appropriations Committees or their "agents" the power to review any American's tax return with no restrictions whatsoever. Josh Marshall has many of the lovely specifics, but here's the core:

Specifically, none of the privacy law restrictions -- or the criminal and civil penalties tied to them -- would apply when the Chair or anybody he or she designates as his or her "agent" looked at your tax return.
[...]
Sen. Stevens of Alaska, Chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, originally blamed the provision on a 'staffer'. But later, according to the AP, Sen. Frist and "congressional aides" said it was inserted at the behest of Rep. Istook [R, Ok., Chair, House Transportation Sub-Committee of Appropriations Committee].
[...]
At the last minute, Senate Democrats caught the language (keep in mind these omnibus bills can be like phone books), protested and the Republicans beat a hasty retreat. Some of it is discussed in this AP article at MSNBC, though they lamely call it a "tax-disclosure gaffe."

The Republicans are acting like it was all an innocent mistake. And it seems clear that there are Republican senators who didn't know anytihng about it and are pissed. But clearly this was no accident, unless provisions have started to write themselves.

The Kossacks had a field day, live blogging the Senate floor appearances of outraged Democrats. The Republicans must be glad they're leaving town for Thanksgiving right about now.