From whistleblowers.orgWashington, DC, March 14, 2007. Today, by a vote of 331 to 94, The House of Representatives passed the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act (H.R. 985). The Enhancement Act is the first major reform of federal whistleblower laws in 18 years, and cures numerous weaknesses in existing legislation. The Enhancement Act will:
- For the first time, provide most federal employees with a right to have their claims heard in federal court;
- Protect most federal employees who expose waste fraud and corruption through their chain of command;
- Provide a new remedy for federal contractors who expose fraud on the taxpayers
I read through the materials regarding this act and we certainly could use it. The part about it that really got me fired up though, was when I looked at the congressional voting record for the Whistleblower's Protection Act.
Not one Democrat voted against this legislation, though the "word on the street" is that Democrats just give money away willy-nilly to people and spend, spend, spend. If that is true, then wouldn't the Democratic party want to limit the amount of whistleblowing regarding waste and corruption?
Every election, the Republicans convince many Christians... well, actually many in white, Christian America that "Republican" and "Christian" are synonymous. Looking at the voting record, I noticed that 1/2 of the voting Republicans congresspeople went against this legislation.
Moment of Introspection
I am a Christian - I love Jesus (not that well, but he still loves me anyway). I want to serve him and do his will down here. If I were in a situation where I was aware of corruption and graft in my government job, would God want me to expose it with the light? The Bible seems to say "Yes"! Would it be un-Christian to want legal protection? If I were to suffer for my good deeds, that is rewarded by the Lord, but should I deliberately shun protection? Did God give us democracy for a reason?
Discussion Question
Can anyone explain why so many Republicans would be opposed to this legislation? The follow-up question, would be, Do you think Jesus would vote for the Whistleblower Protection Act? Can anyone explain why a Christian would be against the Whistleblower Protection Act?
Tawk amongst yourselves.
3 comments:
Matt,
I think it is important to note that since this act deals with national security, it isn't as black and white as it first appears. I would be careful summing it up as
Christian values vs. "un-Christian" views. I do believe that you are right in that this, like a majority of politics, has broken into somewhat of a bi-partisan issue. First off, it is important to understand that this act is a part of the overall "Democratic Accountability Agenda," which many would argue is more about attacking the administration than it is about protecting individuals. This explains the huge Democratic vote.
This is an interesting issue, that's for sure.
The White House laid out its opposition to this act in a "Statement of Administration Policy (http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/legislative/sap/110-1/hr985sap-h.pdf)." Their main argument hinges on the fact that they feel that this act will hinder not only national security programs, but may also jeopardize the security of the people involved in these programs. In their statement the Administration states that the act "would expand, for the first time, whistleblower protections to employees at national security agencies who disclose classified information to Congress. [The Act] would permit an employee to make an individualized determination – without further review and perhaps without all relevant information – to disclose classified information." Currently the President has the authority to control who receives classified information in order to protect national security. The Administration is concerned that this act will hurt National Security coordination if subordinate Executive branch individuals disclose classified material outside of this branch without the President's or one of his designated official's permission. The Administration goes on to say that "in any litigation concerning a whistleblower, if the government invokes the state secrets privilege, [the act] would require that the matter at issue be resolved in favor of the plaintiff. This essentially would require the agency to choose between protecting national security information in court or conceding lawsuits."
Personally, I agree that the current system favors the government, but within good reason. Of course, this is a lot easier to swallow with a man of faith in the office. I don't like that this act has been supported with examples like Walter Reed Hospital, where there is a significant chain of command in place. This thing, to me, is being spun - hard. It isn't as simple as "Johnny hit me with a stick by the swingset." I digress …
So, I'd say that some of those who voted against this act are playing partisan politics in that they want to support the Administration (their party). Many, including those I just mentioned, probably agree with the concerns listed by the Administration's statement. In terms of a "Christian Party," there isn't one in the purest sense of it all. I think that some of the Christian alignment with the right is due to the larger issues, such as abortion, adult stem-cell research, and same-sex marriages.
Just some thoughts ...
Love the new blog, Matt. It's going on our blogroll.
To be honest, I'm not totally out of the loop here in Costa Rica, but I'm not as up-to-date as I used to be on politics. I know that Bush and most of the GOP are in the toilet in terms of approval ratings. But I do not know the in's and out's of the legislation you're talking about.
I'm guessing that if this vote took place when Bush's approval rating was above 50 percent, the result would be a lot different. In other words, the Democrats have no fear in standing up to the Bush Administration (and why would they?) and Republicans are trying their best to distance from Bush (for self preservation reasons).
I think that Bryan raises a good point as to why many Republicans voted against the bill. Obviously, most of the country is not behind Bush's agenda for Iraq or the War on Terrorism. The people are tired of hearing "It's for national security." Right or wrong, they're not buying it. So, this bill sails through with no problem.
But to the question of what's the "Christian" stand on this issue, I really cannot say. You can make legitimate arguments on either side. Therefore, I don't see it as a "What Would Jesus Do" vote. Personally, I think whistleblowing in the Pentegon, in the CIA, etc. is already way out of hand. Criminal, in fact. So I can tell you that my "first blush" reaction on this issue is to side with the losing team. I could be totally off on that (like I said, I haven't really kept up on this issue), but that's how I see it.
Anyway, to respond to the title of this Blog - and what future topics are likely to come up here - does Republican equal Christian? No, it doesn't. And it bothers me that Republicans say this, preach this, and assume this. I think it's a huge reason they took a beating at the polls last time, to be honest. The Republican Party took conservative Christians for granted. And they didn't show up on November 2nd to rubber stamp failed policies.
But I love the Blog, the topics, and the forum for debate. Looking forward to future discussions.
That's my two cents.
Thanks for showing up with some good info, guys. Having someone come in w/ some military experience and another w/ actual political knowledge :) rounds out the conversation.
Just so it's known, I am a very "conservative" voter and actually do vote Republican much of the time. I have been dismayed at some of the odd contrasts in the party though and was particularly dissapointed at the Republican party's "silent" marketing of themselves as the "Christian party" .
Look forward to hearing more from you guys whenever you have time, and I have a half-informed opinion ;)
Post a Comment