Who killed the Whistleblower Bill?

[Centexfarmer]

Who killed the whistle-blower bill?

The Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act — which would have offered expanded protection for federal employees against retaliation for reporting waste, fraud and abuse — had passed unanimously, first in the Senate and then a week later, on Dec. 22, in the House. The White House had made an unrestrained effort to deliver on this campaign pledge. It was supported by more than 400 organizations of all political stripes, with 80 million members. The National Taxpayers Union announced that support for the act would receive the highest priority on its legislative scorecard. Republicans had just changed the political landscape with election victories based on a mantra of cracking down against deficits, fraud, waste and abuse — the point of whistle-blower laws. Congress was poised to give the taxpayers a major legislative Christmas present.

So what happened?

It's amazing to me how Televised media of all stripes miss these types of important informative stories.

The Senate had the chance to finally make right with transparency, and some campaign promises from both parties but some "anonymous Republican senator who personifies how a tyranny of one threatens congressional accountability" killed it.

I'll blame Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell from Kentucky.



Republicans talk a mean game at town hall meetings, and on the campaign trail, but when the rubber meets the road they'll kill something just because they feel like it.

I would think that both parties would want accountability, but apparently in the Senate they're all cattle and no hat.

 

[jackoroe]

Just read the cite. I've never heard of this holding business. It's really sneaky to do at the end of the session because you never have to reveal who you are. That rule needs changing!

 

[Kulindahr]

Someone ought to blow the whistle on him. Then we can all mail him boxes of human excrement, offering them as a more useful alternative than his brain.

 

[Zu-Mendel]

My fantasy is for Reid to publicly condemn this act as one of cowardice before holding the vote again, with the implicit threat of the next Senate action being the the abolishment of anonymous holds.

Unfortunately I don't hold that much faith in Mr. Reid.

 

[Kulindahr]

My fantasy is for Reid to publicly condemn this act as one of cowardice before holding the vote again, with the implicit threat of the next Senate action being the the abolishment of anonymous holds.

Unfortunately I don't hold that much faith in Mr. Reid.

He's got about as much spine as a garden slug.

And about as much charisma.

 

[JB3]

Someone ought to blow the whistle on him. Then we can all mail him boxes of human excrement, offering them as a more useful alternative than his brain.

I doubt it was McConnell. Even though Centex blames him, the senator was anonymous. I would wager that it was one of the older republicans that have been in the senate for a while, but isn't in a leadership position at the moment. (or, maybe even a senator that lost reelection)

Regardless, if the consensus had been reached as the article implies, it shouldn't be long before this comes up again.

 

[Kulindahr]

I doubt it was McConnell. Even though Centex blames him, the senator was anonymous. I would wager that it was one of the older republicans that have been in the senate for a while, but isn't in a leadership position at the moment. (or, maybe even a senator that lost reelection)

Regardless, if the consensus had been reached as the article implies, it shouldn't be long before this comes up again.

I misspoke anyway.

I should have said, "a more useful alternative than his heart".

 

[Críostóir]

The Senate can only change its rules on the first day of a Congress. So if they haven't gotten rid of anonymous holds, it won't happen until at least 2013.

 

[Centexfarmer]

I doubt it was McConnell. Even though Centex blames him, the senator was anonymous. I would wager that it was one of the older republicans that have been in the senate for a while, but isn't in a leadership position at the moment. (or, maybe even a senator that lost reelection)

Regardless, if the consensus had been reached as the article implies, it shouldn't be long before this comes up again.

2012?

2014?

2016?

It was in the bag after TWELVE YEARS OF LEGISLATION.

How much longer?

From the article that I sourced for this thread:

While secret holds have bipartisan roots, it is Republicans who have a long history of using them to defeat whistle-blower protections. Secret Senate Republican holds have killed whistle-blower reform not just in 2010 but in 2004, 2006 and 2008.

The Senate, and I'm referring to both parties, seems to be the only true impediment with their "Senate Rules" to the Democratic process at this point.

And for what?

Political points?

So that one party can't put a feather in their hat on a political promise?

The American public, and our best interests aren't being served IMHO.

 

[rareboy]

Simply shameful.

I only first heard of holding when it came out that the US hadn't paid up on its pledge of aid to Haiti because of the use of this legislative device.

I expect more and more use of this by both official peoples' parties representatives over the next few years.

I have to say though, that at first I thought someone had murdered a guy called 'Whistleblower Bill' when I read the thread title.

 

[Jack Springer]

From what I understand by doing more research, it's believed that a Republican Senator did this. However, there is no proof it was a Republican Senator -- it's just an opinion.

That should have been pointed out in the article.

Journalists need to be more exact and honest in their reporting.

 

[justapixel]

2012?

2014?

2016?

It was in the bag after TWELVE YEARS OF LEGISLATION.

How much longer?

From the article that I sourced for this thread:



The Senate, and I'm referring to both parties, seems to be the only true impediment with their "Senate Rules" to the Democratic process at this point.

And for what?

Political points?

So that one party can't put a feather in their hat on a political promise?

The American public, and our best interests aren't being served IMHO.

Please, you are making me laugh with your drivel.

If the Democrats wanted to pass this bill, they would.

If they passed Obamacare that nobody wanted, they could pass this.

Stop making excuses for your party.

 

[Centexfarmer]

Please, you are making me laugh with your drivel.

If the Democrats wanted to pass this bill, they would.

If they passed Obamacare that nobody wanted, they could pass this.

Stop making excuses for your party.

Care to comment on the article?

It's obvious that you didn't even bother to read it.

 

[Kulindahr]

Please, you are making me laugh with your drivel.

If the Democrats wanted to pass this bill, they would.

If they passed Obamacare that nobody wanted, they could pass this.

Stop making excuses for your party.

justapixel, ignorance is a hat best worn in the quiet of one's own home.

One senator did this -- ONE. The Democrats could have sixty-nine senators, and this would be just as dead.

Whoever it was is a cowardly, corruption-loving cretin. Thus my guess is a senator who didn't get re-elected.

 

[Kulindahr]

I have a new rule for putting holds on bills:

put a small perch in the corner of the Senate chambers, just big enough for two feet. Above it put a dunce cap. If a senator wants to put a hold on a bill, he has to get up on the perch, pull down the dunce cap, and wait to be recognized. Then he has to recite:

I'm a politician, hear me out!
I'm grabbing this bill and won't let it out!


>to the tune of the children's song "I'm A Little Teapot"

 

[Jack Springer]

I'm a little confused about something.

It is anonymous, but not completely?

How is it known that it was a GOP? And after 6 days, the article said the accountable has to identify themself. As such, would there not have to be a real concern/reason for the hold?

I don't know the US Senate rules Mitch, but I believe their rules continue from one Congress to another - so the rule is nothing new.

From what I've read on other web sites - they suspect that the person that put the hold on the bill was a Republican.

It appears the Senate needs to change it's rules. I'm all for laws to protect whistle blowers.

 

[Stardreamer]

The Senate rules are set at the beginning of the session. It is usually common to simply vote to continue to use the rules from the last session and takes a considerable effort to vote no because it then becomes an open floor debate on the new rules. Last I heard there was a major effort to vote no this time because there was a clear consensus to reform the filibuster rules. I have not heard how that vote came out.

 

[Kulindahr]

IIRC there's a way to change the rules in the middle of a session. But there's a problem with it: it's subject to filibuster.

 

[Kulindahr]

a little off-topic


if you believe Julian Assange/Wiki leaks is a Whistleblower (many do)

then who is 'killing' him?

Is his name Bill?

 

[JB3]

I'm a little confused about something.

It is anonymous, but not completely?

How is it known that it was a GOP? And after 6 days, the article said the accountable has to identify themself. As such, would there not have to be a real concern/reason for the hold?

I believe that the only identifier when the hold is placed is the party.

Usually, the fact that they would be identified would be enough to keep any superfluous holds from happening, but because this happened at the end of the session it didn't.