It is not unusual today to find the language of religion mixed up with the language of politics. The Republican Party's platform mentions God no less than 12 times, and Republicans have condemned Democrats for not mentioning God in theirs. Many Republican politicians do not hesitate to proclaim their Christian faith as a great motivator of their policies. So we have a right to expect that those policies will reflect godly values and honor the founder of the religion its adherents proclaim.

Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan insist that their tax proposals would not burden the middle class. However, the figures do not support this claim. According to the nonpartisan Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center (Aug. 1, 2012), "A revenue-neutral individual income tax change that incorporates the features Gov. Romney has proposed ... would provide large tax cuts to high-income households, and increase the tax burdens on middle- and/or lower-income taxpayers."

The great transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich, resulting from our recent financial crisis, will continue.

In addition to more tax advantages for the wealthy at the expense of others, the Republican plan will further shred the social safety net by virtually dismantling Medicaid. It will shrink the program drastically, replacing the current system with block grants to the states. To make up for the shortfall, families who are already struggling will be charged part of the cost of their elderly loved ones' care.

Medicare, too, would change beyond recognition. People would receive a fixed amount from the government to purchase their own plan. Called "premium support," this is really a euphemism for "voucher." These Medicare vouchers will not keep pace with rising health care costs, which traditionally outrun inflation. Medicare as we know it will come to an end. And once again, the burden will fall on the poor and middle class.

How do they justify this? Paul Ryan actually refers to his faith. In an interview with the Christian Broadcasting Network (April 10, 2012) Ryan stated: "A person's faith is central to how they conduct themselves in public and in private. ... To me, the principle of subsidiarity, which is really federalism, meaning government closest to the people governs best."

Ryan found a nice word to theologize his economics. The principle of "subsidiarity" was formalized in 1891 by Pope Leo XIII, who in all likelihood never intended it to supersede the Gospel, or to justify a reverse-Robin Hood economics of taking from the poor to give to the rich. But Ryan sees dismantling the safety net for disadvantaged people as actually helping them, by teaching them "independence." His "preferential option for the poor" means, in practice, cutting their benefits.

These positions are gaining popular support largely because they play on people's fears and resentment. "If I am doing poorly in this economy," one may be tempted to think, "it's because there are so many lazy people who consume my tax dollars without giving anything back."

But many of those who would suffer under Romney/Ryan economics are hard-working and do have jobs. I think of my friend who works long hours at a simple retail job that does not pay what her efforts deserve, and that gives her no health coverage. There are many like her. They work much harder than many who would judge them, including people who live off their investment income and don't work at all. Yet under Romney/Ryan the latter would pay even lower taxes, while the rest would suffer more.

And many others, including older people on fixed incomes; people with severe disabilities (mental, physical, or both) who need government assistance; people who are homeless not by choice but due to mental illness; and people with dementia whose family members may give up their own lives and livelihoods to support them, cannot simply go out and get a job. Many are unskilled and unemployable. Age and disability discrimination are rampant, even though we deny it. Yet in spite of this we seem to have a new Republican Gospel: when Jesus said (Matthew 25:36) "I was naked and you gave me clothing, I was sick and you took care of me" he was encouraging dependence. Better he should have said, "I was naked, I was sick, and you told me to get a job."

This is the politics of resentment, of stigmatizing the poor as parasites who deserve to lose their benefits. In an offhand moment, Romney said it all: These are people "who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it." This resentment is self-justifying: "I have mine, and if you don't have yours, it's your own fault. So lower my taxes."

Those who practice this resentment seem not to mind that in the richest nation on Earth, millions of people go without health care. "Are there no emergency rooms?" they ask, much as old Scrooge asked "Are there no workhouses?" But emergency rooms only stabilize you until you can receive some other form of care - which you won't if you lack insurance. If you have a chronic, degenerative disease, you are on your own. This inequality is criminal, but it is so easy to justify by playing on resentment.

This is the opposite of what Jesus stood for. So those who try to turn him into their political partisan may find themselves in for a shock. When we focus on what Jesus actually taught, we may be quite surprised that he does not share our party affiliation.

Charles Gourgey is a licensed creative arts therapist and author of Judeochristianity: The Meaning and Discovery of Faith (available at Amazon.com), which explores what faith can mean if we restore Jesus's teachings to their rightful place of central importance.

$1.7 billion project now the single largest capital investment in Iowa history

(SIOUX CITY) - The Iowa Economic Development Authority (IEDA) Board held a special, telephonic meeting to take action to award direct financial assistance and tax credits to CF Industries, Inc., for an expansion of its existing fertilizer manufacturing operation in Woodbury County.

The Port Neal project will add new state-of-the-art ammonia and granular urea production units to meet customer demand.  The project will supplement existing production of ammonia and urea ammonia nitrate (UAN).

The project will have a total capital investment of $1.7 billion and will create 100 new jobs with a qualifying wage of $20.12.

"This is another great announcement for Iowa, and we are proud that CF Industries has chosen us for its $1.7 billion expansion," said Governor Terry E. Branstad. "Our state is clearly well-positioned to take advantage of the growing domestic fertilizer industry.  Not only does that mean significant investment that will continue to grow our economy, but also the creation of high-paying jobs for Iowans."

Today, the IEDA Board awarded the project $1.5 million in direct assistance and tax credits in the total amount of $22 million.  The tax credit award is made up of $13 million in sales tax refunds paid during construction and $9 million in investment tax credits (ITC).  The board will also consider future amendments to the award to allocate an additional $12 million in ITC in each of the next four fiscal years (FY13-FY16) for a potential total ITC award of $57 million.

"It is so rewarding to watch existing companies continue to make investments in Iowa.  With today's announcement that a company with current operations in Iowa will make a capital investment of nearly $2 billion, it is obvious that we are on the right track to reaching our goals of creating jobs and increasing wealth for Iowans," said Lt. Governor Kim Reynolds.  "Just since January 2011, the IEDA has projects under contract that will result in $5.23 billion of capital investment in our state."

CF Industries is a global leader in fertilizer manufacturing and distribution, the second largest nitrogen fertilizer producer in the world and the third largest phosphate fertilizer producer among public companies. CF Industries owns and operates world-scale nitrogen and phosphate plants and serves agricultural and industrial customers through its best-in-class distribution system.

"CF Industries is proud of its long history of serving Iowa farmers and we are pleased to increase our manufacturing presence in Iowa in a major way," commented Stephen R. Wilson, chairman and chief executive officer, CF Industries Holdings, Inc.

In 2010, CF Industries acquired Terra Industries Inc., positioning the company as a nitrogen bellwether in the global fertilizer industry and the premier nitrogen and phosphate fertilizer manufacturer in North America.  In addition to its Port Neal facility, the company operates terminals at Spencer and Garner.

###

Grassley said that the Justice Department has an abysmal record when it comes to rectifying FBI whistleblower cases.

The letter from Grassley to Holder comes after an October 10 directive from the President that is intended to protect whistleblowers with national security clearances against retaliation.  The directive requires a review within 180 days from the Attorney General in consultation with the Special Counsel and FBI employees.  The letter questions the potential conflict of interest created by having the Attorney General review the department's performance.

"There is no logical reason to empower people who have such a horrendous record on whistleblowers with the responsibility to determine whether the current process helps FBI whistleblowers," Grassley said. "The Attorney General and his Deputy have already allowed cases to languish for far too long.  One case has been sitting at the Justice Department for more than 10 years, with no end in sight.  That's unacceptable."

Grassley is a strong supporter of whistleblower protections.  He is an original cosponsor of the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act which bolsters the 1989 Whistleblower Protection Act after it had been weakened by rulings of the Merit Systems Protection Board and the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals.  An amended version of this bill passed the House of Representatives on September 28, and may be considered by the Senate after the election.  Grassley had co-authored the 1989 law with Senator Carl Levin for government employees who stand up and speak out against fraud, waste and mismanagement.  He also pushed then-Attorney General Janet Reno and President Bill Clinton to implement whistleblower protections for FBI employees that were authorized by Congress, but never implemented.  As a result of Grassley's work, President Clinton issued a presidential memorandum in 1997 ordering the Attorney General to create a whistleblower adjudication and appeals process.

Grassley also authored the 1986 update of the False Claims Act with qui tam provisions to empower private citizens who had information about fraudulent activity by government contractors to bring wrongdoing forward and sue in the name of the government.  To date, these whistleblower provisions have recovered more than $30 billion for taxpayers that otherwise would be lost to fraud.

In 2009, Grassley and Senator Patrick Leahy won passage of the Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act which made the most significant improvements to the False Claims Act since 1986.  The law restores the scope and applicability of the False Claims Act where it had been limited by court decisions.  This effort also revised criminal laws to help prosecute mortgage fraud, securities fraud, and complex financial crimes that led to the 2008 financial crisis.

In addition, Grassley authored the 2006 overhaul of the IRS whistleblower program to fight major tax fraud.

Here's a copy of the text of the letter.  A signed version of the letter can be found here.

November 1, 2012

Via Electronic Transmission

The Honorable Eric H. Holder

Attorney General

U.S. Department of Justice

950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.

Washington, DC  20530

Dear Attorney General Holder:

I write today regarding the recent Presidential Policy Directive, PPD-19 (herein Directive), entitled "Protecting Whistleblower with Access to Classified Information" that was issued by the President on October 10, 2012.[1] This Directive is intended to protect whistleblowers with national security clearances against retaliation.  Section E of the Directive requires you, in consultation with the Special Counsel and employees of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), to provide a report to the President assessing the effectiveness of the regulations that protect FBI whistleblowers.  While I welcome the Directive and the effort to provide some level of whistleblower protection to government employees in the Intelligence Community, I am deeply concerned about the current state of these protections for FBI employees and the Justice Department's role in adjudicating retaliation claims brought forward by FBI whistleblowers.

As you are aware, Section 2303 of Title 5 defines prohibited personnel practices in the FBI, and Part 27 of Title 28 of the Code of Federal Regulations lays out the process for investigating and adjudicating claims of retaliation filed by FBI employees.  This process was created following a Presidential Memorandum issued by President Clinton in 1997.[2] These regulations detail an investigatory phase conducted by the FBI's Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) or the Department of Justice's Office of the Inspector General (OIG), an adjudicatory phase conducted by the Office of Attorney Recruitment and Management (OARM), and an appeal phase conducted by the Deputy Attorney General.  The regulations also proscribe timelines for each phase of the process to ensure that cases do not linger without a resolution.  Unfortunately, as history has shown, the Department has been woeful in meeting these timelines.

Specifically, I remain concerned about the treatment of two FBI whistleblowers whose cases have languished for years at the Department, namely, the cases of Jane Turner and Robert Kobus.  In 2002, Special Agent Turner exposed misconduct by FBI agents when she revealed that they removed "souvenirs" from New York's Ground Zero, the site of the 9-11 terrorist attacks.  A decade later, and after a federal jury has ruled in her favor finding discrimination on the part of the FBI, Agent Turner's case has been continually stalled with appeals and is still open?most recently after Deputy Attorney General Cole remanded the case for additional proceedings before OARM.  Mr. Kobus's case has also faced unwarranted delays.  Kobus blew the whistle on timecard fraud in the FBI in 2007 and the OIG found that the FBI retaliated against him for his actions.  Despite the unequivocal findings of the OIG, Kobus' case remains unresolved after five years.  Simply put, the delays in both of these cases call into question the Department's ability, and willingness, to follow through on FBI whistleblower cases in a fair and timely fashion.

The Directive requires you to complete the review of the FBI whistleblower process within 180 days.  Given the lengthy delays in retaliation cases that are still pending before the Department, and given the role that the Deputy Attorney General has played in these cases, I have serious misgivings about the ability of the Department to fairly review the FBI whistleblower process and to do so within the 180 day timeframe.

The Directive's requirement that the review involve the Special Counsel and FBI employees?which should, at the very least, include those who currently have whistleblower complaints pending before OARM?creates the possibility of a conflict of interest in reviewing the Department's performance.  Accordingly, I ask that you delegate this review to the Department's Inspector General.  The OIG would offer a more objective and accountable analysis of the regulations prescribed in the Directive. Further, it would allow you to continue to focus resources on closing these cases that continue to languish before the Department, instead of devoting resources to this review.

I strongly support whistleblower protections and will continue to work hard to see that all FBI employees who reveal fraud, waste, and wrongdoing receive fair and equitable treatment at the FBI and within the Department.  This Directive, if implemented properly, could provide temporary relief for whistleblowers within the Intelligence Community.  However, the Department has a lot to prove to FBI employees, the Congress, and the American people that whistleblowers will be treated fairly.  As a first step toward this, I encourage you to strongly consider my request to designate the OIG to conduct the review of FBI whistleblower protections as outlined in the President's Directive.

Sincerely,

Charles E. Grassley

Ranking Member

Cc:       The Honorable Michael E. Horowitz, Inspector General, U.S. Department of Justice

The Honorable Patrick Leahy, Chairman

[2] Memorandum on Delegation of Responsibilities Concerning FBI Employees Under the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, 62 Fed. Reg. 23,123 (April 14, 1997), available at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-1997-04-28/pdf/97-10984.pdf.