It only makes sense that a state worker would say “Well, now…let me do a little look-see to make sure that Mr. Joe the Plumber isn’t planning to use his kid’s money to buy this business.” Checking up on him was absolutely appropriate in this case.
I disagree. Someone could go into my house and search it for illegal stuff without me knowing, but that doesn’t mean they aren’t intruding into my life.
I haven’t been following Joe the Plumber quote-for-quote. I don’t give a rat’s ass about the man.
But I can easily see how his public statement, that he had intent to purchase a business that would generate income of $250K, would be investigated. Upon investigation, they [reporters] found he only made $45K or so. I don’t remember the price on the business itself (it turns out his boss wasn’t interested in selling). It doesn’t take an accountant to see that Joe was hardly capable of buying that business unless he had a source of income that he hadn’t disclosed to the IRS — and strangely, he was already in arrears on his taxes. Hence, investigation.
If Joe were investigated as the result of the uniform application of legitimate agency policy, this would be a more difficult question. I don’t want to go too far afield discussing what’s “legitimate”, but, as has been pointed out, this is a policy seemingly designed to prevent the agency in question from being embarrassed. A legitimate policy would be one designed to enable the agency to do its job better; this seems designed to prevent us from discovering that the agency may be failing to do its job well.
I notice, though, that here we have an average citizen exercising an everyday political right, and, as a result, becoming subject to official investigation, and possible enforcement action. I wonder if someone will draw a comparison to warrant enforcement at polling places, or some similar topic, shortly.
Correct me if I’m wrong, here, but in the case under discussion, the government is searching it’s own database for information about Wurzelbacher, no? If so, that hardly seems to be parrallel to breaking into your house to dig through your underwear drawer.
No, that wouldn’t be okay either, but Parthol addressed that one himself: “celebrity” isn’t a protected class.
The estimated income of the company (gross income, BTW) is NOT the same as its net worth. Those are two entirely different things – especially if one is talking about the income that Joe hopes to pull in, as opposed to what it can necessarily or realistically produce.
And even if the business did cost $250,000, Joe doesn’t necessarily need to have $250,000 saved up in order to buy it. That’s what loans, investors, and business partners are for. So while his desire to purchase might raise some questions and eybrows, it would be woefully premature to say that “Joe was hardly capable of buying that business unless he had a source of income that he hadn’t disclosed to the IRS.”
Do cops run a check for outstanding warrants and things like that when they pull you for speeding? I guess probable cause would apply in a situation like that. Showing up in the news is different from a traffic stop, though, and definitely doesn’t look like a situation where probable cause would apply.
It seems like presumption of guilt in the absence of being accused of a crime versus presumption of innocence when being accused of a crime.
ETA: would that be called “fishing?”
JThunder, are you saying that it is unreasonable to question that a guy making $45K is going to buy a business making $250K?
Uh… yeah. :rolleyes:
No, I’m not, which is why I specifically stated that “his desire to purchase might raise some questions and eyebrows.”
What I object to is the specific claim that “Joe was hardly capable of buying that business unless he had a source of income that he hadn’t disclosed to the IRS.” Such a claim goes far beyond merely questioning whether he could purchase such a business, and I think we both know that.
Sure. Michelle Malkin discovers her love for privacy rights in this episode when she screams about “Ohio official who snooped Joe the Plumber’s records is an Obama donor.”
If the database is not public but private, who does it belong to? I think we generally think of “private” anything belonging to someone other than the government. The government has access to it, through proper channels, just as they have access to your house through proper channels. But do they own private information?
Thanks.
The problem I have is that I don’t have any context for Michelle Malkin’s statement. How does it contrast with something she’s said previously?
And who is on the other side doing the opposite? It would be a lot easier to tell who’s being hypocritical if the evidence were being put forward in the thread.
Former child support enforcement worker for Hamilton County, Ohio checking in.
I’ve just skimmed the thread so far, looking for links that’ll answer my question, so I’m just going to post it here.
Is there any indication of what specific “child support computer system” is concerned, here?
When I worked there (which was more than six years ago), we used several systems for support enforcement and payment tracking.
The big one was SETS, the State Enforcement Tracking System. It recorded all kinds of Very Personal Information, and we were absolutely prohibited from accessing any records that were not directly related to our caseload.
I saw workers get fired for accessing friends’ and relatives’ cases as a “favor.” And this in a union shop.
I had a few semi-celebrities in my caseload. I know some pretty salacious details about their foibles. Even though I don’t work there any more, I’d never speak a word about it to anyone.
On the other hand, we got a lot of info from the local family courts. Most of that stuff was public record, including any contempt of court complaints filed by either the CSEA, the prosecutor’s office, or the obligee.
My verdict: If Kelly authorized accessing and publicly releasing Joe the Dumber’s SETS case, then it’s a severe invasion of privacy and she should be fired, assuming the rules haven’t changed since I worked with ODJFS.
If it was just a matter of pulling court records, then no foul.
–black rabbit, Raging Pinko
Well, then we agree. Not knowing any details about Joe’s actual income, the price of the business, or the means at his disposal for purchasing it, I may have overstated the likelihood, but I maintain that a reasonable person would indeed have justification to be suspicious.
Agreed, Fish. Would that be sufficient justification to delve into his records? I’m not convinced, but I wouldn’t blame anyone for merely being suspicious.
Can I get a link to that, please? I’m not challenging you, but it’s a trust but verify situation.
If that’s actually what happened - that a worker said, “Hey, this guy’s in my caseload, he’s in default on his obligations, and here he is claiming he’s about to buy his boss’s business. Better check to see if their are any assets I can seize,” then that’s no problem at all.
We would get all kinds of tips from various sources about obligors’ lottery winnings, disability settlements, bank accounts, insurance payouts, etc. We were obligated to investigate those claims and seize anything we could get our hands on to meet the obligations.
Hell, we sent a list of deadbeats to the IRS and state tax department every year so that they could hold any refunds.
Still, releasing or confirming any of that information to the public, beyond what was required by any court cases, was a GIANT no-no.
“Joe the (Unlicensced) Plumber” was not “investigated”. A check of the computer records was made.
I don’t mean to be snarky, but it surprises me that you are confused when I speak, generically, about ‘privacy rights advocates.’
These guys are usually good for a quote or some background when the media does a story about expanding databases or shrinking privacy, for example. I really am not interested in compiling a Yellow Pages-style list of people that have made privacy their cause celebré; I thought that mentioning the general movement was sufficient to make the point.
As for Malkin, I’m no expert on her, and I readily acknowledge she may be a vigorous fighter for privacy rights. But during the 2000 campaign, she wrote a column defending the prying into Al Gore’s son’s life thus:
Not sure what else you’re looking for here…
Well, considering your history, I figured you were trying to claim something about someone on this board.
Heaven forfend I ask for actual examples of this huge hypocrisy instead of just vague accusations.