Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

WaPo Wants Whistleblower Provision Stripped From $800 Billion Stimulus Package: Tell Senate No!

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
cal04 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-02-09 04:42 PM
Original message
WaPo Wants Whistleblower Provision Stripped From $800 Billion Stimulus Package: Tell Senate No!
Jesselyn Radack
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/2/2/74234/41711/640/691931

There was no whistleblower protection in the Administration’s unprecedented bailout of Wall Street, and last Thursday we learned that Wall Street handed out $18.4 billion in bonuses for the year with the money. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/29/business/29bonus.html?_r=2&ref=todayspaper

Today, the Washington Post has a lead editorial on why Senators should remove the whistleblower provision, which passed unanimously in the House last week, from the $800 billion stimulus package.http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/01/AR2009020101032.html This editorial chooses form over substance.

With regard to whatever the Washington Post thinks is "the way it is supposed to work," how about the taxpayers? We are in the midst of an unprecedented, nearly $2 trillion spending frenzy. That is the wrong time to sacrifice justice for whistleblowers, and accountability for taxpayers, at the altar of the "right way."

Please call your senators, or send them a quick message by clicking on http://www.WhistleblowerAction.org.

As the stimulus bill goes into conference this week, there were warnings of subtle but determined opposition from Senate offices to block key provisions of whistleblower protection. The opposition is no longer subtle. It's loud and unapologetic.

The Post argues that anti-retaliation and classified congressional disclosure rights shouldn’t be extended to FBI and intelligence employees, insisting "that is just plain wrong." This is a red-herring over an anti-leaks measure that controls preexisting broader rights for classified congressional communications, and independent enforcement for preexisting anti-retaliation rights. But the FBI and intelligence agencies like NSA will, and should, be involved with creating a new infrastructure. National security whistleblowers have revealed that their agencies play a role in all Americans' lives. Why shoulld there be an accountability loophole?

Whistleblowers tried to warn of the current economic crisis years ago, but they still don't have a fighting chance for justice when they challenge fraud, waste and abuse. With current so-called "rights," their chances of winning are less than one half of one per cent. Studies consistently conclude that whistleblowers are the most effective weapon that exists against fraud. After the bailout, there is no excuse to spend another $800 billion without locking in accountability.

This reform has been languishing for 10 years, despite eight approvals by relevant committees, and four approvals by Senate or House votes. Three were unanimous. Why isn’t this done? The legislative process has been a broken record of procedural sabotage trumping an overwhelming popular and political mandate. Three times "secret holds" have blocked votes on this anti-secrecy reform.

There was no whistleblower protection in the Administration’s unprecedented bailout of Wall Street--despite promises that it would be added "later"--and now we learn that a sizeable chunk went to pay corporate bonuses.

In 1991, the RTC law following the S&L crisis had "best practice" whistleblower rights for its time. In 2002, the Sarbanes-Oxley law wisely included whistleblower and witness protection as an enforcement cornerstone of that law. Congress since has perfected weaknesses in these pioneer approaches in four subsequent laws, including three since 2006. A whistleblower provision should be included to provide teeth for any financial recovery bills to ensure that this crisis is never repeated.

Secrecy was the breeding ground for this disaster, because it sustained the reckless decisions and corruption that caused it. Now the Administration proposes to give $800 billion--the largest stimulus in history--and the Washington Post doesn't want any accountability for how it is spent: no judicial review; no whistleblower rights; no public acces to records; and waiver of normal government contract rules. Apparently, one financial disaster wasn't enough for the Post.

Thank you for helping us make it this far. We now must tell the Senate to include the same common-sense whistleblower protections in their stimulus spending legislation, which they're planning to vote on early this week. Please contact your Senators at http://www.senate.gov/...!

P.S. You can also send a letter to the editor of the Washington Post at letters@washpost.com, but it's more important to contact your Senators.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-02-09 04:44 PM
Response to Original message
1. The WaPo who "leaks" for a living is arguing against leaks?!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tavalon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-02-09 05:14 PM
Response to Reply #1
5. I'm so glad we still have the little red former labels
Edited on Mon Feb-02-09 05:16 PM by tavalon
I wouldn't have recognized you!

Edited to add: welcome to the club. I never could come up with anything cutesy and at the end of the day, it can be hard to even remember my name. I always use the same username. I've had stalkers and well, I don't want them to have to work TOO hard. :P
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-02-09 05:15 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. (You'd think the bad spelling would be a dead giveaway.)
:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tavalon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-02-09 05:18 PM
Response to Reply #6
7. I'd have figured it out eventually, not because of spelling but style
Certain DUers have certain styles. Ya know?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jackpine Radical Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-02-09 05:19 PM
Response to Reply #5
8. OMG, thanks for pointing that out. I would have missed it too.
It's gonna be rough around here for a while. I hope they run those "formerly known as" tags for about 19 years so I can get it all straight in my head.

Like, I heard Hypno Toad got a new handle but I have no idea what.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-02-09 05:23 PM
Response to Reply #8
9. Jane Austin may be posting a list today.
I wasn't here during the last Amnety so watching how it works is sort of fascinating. :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
annabanana Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-02-09 04:48 PM
Response to Original message
2. We NEED whistleblowers.
If people of good conscience knew that they could tell America what was going on, a lot of questions would be answered a lot quicker.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
catnhatnh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-02-09 04:52 PM
Response to Original message
3. AS much as I hate to paraphase Adolph Hitler.....
"How many divisions has the Washington Post got?".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ichingcarpenter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-02-09 05:03 PM
Response to Original message
4. The WP wouldn't even put who wrote that article
They did on their other editorials. Their arguments
are lame and asks to put it off for a while.

I don't like it when they won't put their name on an editorial
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pleah Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-02-09 05:36 PM
Response to Original message
10. It won't do me any good, mine are Wicker and Cochran.:(
I would but, every time I do I just get a generic stock letter back that says nothing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rucky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-02-09 05:37 PM
Response to Original message
11. The WaPo doesn't want any Pulitzers, I guess.
Whistleblower stories are usually very compelling to newspaper readers - and with no-camera access, almost exclusive to print media.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ichingcarpenter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-02-09 05:46 PM
Response to Reply #11
12. This OP sounds like it was written by the CIA

they do that at times you know.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kaygore Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-03-09 01:16 PM
Response to Original message
13. Thank you for bringing this to my attention
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Dec 26th 2024, 06:06 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC