BarroMetrics Views: Whistle-Blowers, Obama and the Rule of Law
Whistle-blowers are a necessary part of a free economy, especially where the principal actors are public authorities. From around 2000 to date, the whistle-blowers in the US have been busy e.g. Rick Piltz exposed the Bush Government’s doctoring of the report on climate change (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rick_S._Piltz).
Public authorities, being what they are, take a dim view of whistle-blowers. As a result, they tend to take retaliatory action.
To give Federal whistle-blowers a measure of protection, in 1989, US Congress passed the Whistleblower Protection Act. The Act provides that:
“A federal agency violates the Whistleblower Protection Act if agency authorities take (or threaten to take) retaliatory personnel action against any employee or applicant because of disclosure of information by that employee or applicant. Whistleblowers may file complaints that they believe reasonably evidences a violation of a law, rule or regulation; gross mismanagement; gross waste of funds; an abuse of authority; or a substantial and specific danger to public health or safety”.
In other words, the whistle-blower had recourse to the courts to review the actions of a Federal agency. But this protection may soon prove illusory…..
On Jan 25, by memo, the Obama administration sought to bring an end to this protection. The memo tells the ‘director of national intelligence and the Office of of Personnel Management to establish new mandates that would allow federal agencies to terminate employment of staffers without appeal if their work can be deemed as ‘national security sensitive.’ (see http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/02/28/Obama-Trashes-Whistle-Blower-Protection-For-Federal-Employees).
The problem is that the job description is so vague that just about any job of substance will qualify: “‘positions involving independent responsibility for planning or approving continuity of government operations.’
Interesting that this turn of events was ‘foretold’ by Lord Rees-Mogg and Davidson in “The Great Reckoning” and Blood in the Streets“. The US taking another step down the slippery road that Britain took when it surrendered it world standing? The one saving grace is in the US the press is still at liberty to call attention to the memo. Not so some parts of the world.
(BTW don’t let the headlines to the “The Great Reckoning” (How the World Will Change in the Depression of the 1990s) deter you from reading the books. What the authors failed to foresee was that Clinton would continue the Regan revolution. Not to worry, Bush and Obama have brought their forecasts back on track.