The Treasury has measured that the income gap has grown narrower between 2000 and 2003, with Secretary John Snow telling reporters yesterday, "There has been a decline in the inequality." This statement is based on the fact that in 2003, the top 5 percent of Americans earned earned 15.4 percent of the nation's after-tax income in 2003, down from 19 percent in 2000. The bottom 20 percent earned 2.5 percent of all U.S. after-tax income, up from 2.3 percent in 2000. The Treasury data also shows, however, that the gap was larger in 2003 than it was in 1990.

We already know that there's a significant mismatch between PART scores, actual program performance, and budget/management policy decisions. We usually hear of a good program that gets a bad PART score, based on criteria that don't really apply to the program, and then is slated for budget cuts. Don't forget, though, that the White House is notorious for claiming that its budget cuts are based on programs' ineffectiveness -- even when most of the programs slated for cuts haven't actually been assessed by even this worthless tool.

There have been scattered reports the last few days of hushed IRS decision to allow tax preparation companies or individual accountants sell part or all of your personal information from your tax returns to third party entities or marketers. (Your Tax Files For Sale? IRS Says Go For It.) The revelation of this decision has sent consumer advocate and public interest groups running - and rightly so. A joint statement filed by the U.S. Public Interest Research Group (PIRG), the Consumer Federation of America (CFA), and the National Consumer Law Center (NCLC) to the IRS, they remarked:

Public Citizen has filed a federal lawsuit regarding the constitutionality of the budget reconciliation bill. They are seeking to overturn the bill, which was signed into law on Feb. 8 by President Bush, on the grounds that it is unconstitutional because a clerical error resulted in a different version of the bill being signed than what was actually passed. It is possible the courts could rule that the act violates the Constitution -- specifically the bicameral clause -- which requires both chambers to pass identical legislation before it can become law.