Governmental Ethics (no spam)

[fable]

Let's start with this.

[Tamerlane]

If the members do have a "Conflict of interests", then what happens under US law. Are they forced to relinquish their business ties or step down from their political posts? I'm primarily thinking of Cheney and his relationship with the oil industry with that question.

[Waverly]

No surprises here. It's the obvious, ridiculous next step on the lobbying continium: the lobbiest gets himself appointed policy maker.

It's been happening for years, even in industry (and it isn't unique to the US).

[fable]

What amazes me though, @Waverly, is how many US citizens are completely unaware of this happening; or when it does, how it compromises the integrity of government.

[Nightmare]

Paul Martin, who is head of the race to succeed Jean Chretien in Canada's liberal party, was CEO of a shipping company...he's been forced to relinquish control of the company as he makes his bid for being the next PM. I'm interested to see though if he really cuts all ties...

[Gruntboy]

Integrity of the goverment? Your speaking as if governments had integrity to begin with fable. Perhaps on paper, but IRL doesn't the system ensure that people with interests are the ones with power and influence to get elected. Once elected, they will serve those interests.

To me, the issue is less with severing interests after the fact - its appointing or electing officials with no interests to begin with.

BTW, quelle surprise, a defence issue. Couldn't have picked agricuture could we?

[fable]

Quote:

Originally posted by Gruntboy Integrity of the goverment? Your speaking as if governments had integrity to begin with fable. Perhaps on paper, but IRL doesn't the system ensure that people with interests are the ones with power and influence to get elected. Once elected, they will serve those interests.

If the question had been whether governments serve their own interest, @Grunt, I never would have started this thread. Of course, that's the case. The efforts of organizations like the Center for Public Integrity are dedicated towards making this information as public as possible, so that informed people in a supposedly open political system can note this and find legal ways to counter governmental corruption. Besides, knowledge doesn't hurt.

BTW, quelle surprise, a defence issue. Couldn't have picked agricuture could we?

Sure could have--if the Bush administration was spending hundreds of of billions of dollars on agricultural contracts. But they're spending that kind of money on defense contracts, instead. Flies gather about roadkill, and this is the largest roadkill around.

[C Elegans]

Aren't there any laws against this kind of "conflict of interests" in the US? There is in Sweden anyway, although Astafas would know the details much better than I do.

Personally, I think that society should strive for less corruption in the political life, and that people really need to demand from their goverments in terms of openness with information.

A model like the one used by the Swedish FDA is quite good IMO, to be appointed a place in the committe in FDA that decides if a pharmacological substance is efficient and safe enought to register as a medicine and sell as such, you must actually prove that you are have no affiliations to the drug industry. (I know the US FDA does not work that way, but it does here) In a similar manner, I think the members of the Defence board should not be legally allowed to particpate in boards, enter contracts or have other affiliations with the industry as long as they are active as board members.

[InfiniteNature]

As far as I know there aren't many laws that deal with this, and the laws that do have so many loopholes in them .

Oh well one more reason to see that government basically sucks, and the government is ruled by the scum of the country.

[Audace]

Quote:

Originally posted by InfiniteNature As far as I know there aren't many laws that deal with this, and the laws that do have so many loopholes in them .

As long as there aren't any formal ties, conflict of interest or even worse would be very hard to proove.

Quote:

Oh well one more reason to see that government basically sucks, and the government is ruled by the scum of the country.

Of course they do... That's the whole idea behind the Trias Politica and dualism. That would worry me more btw, the lack of dualism(at this time) in the US government.

[Chanak]

Politics, by nature, serves self-interests, and is self-serving. I think history bears witness to that.

The problem finds it's roots elsewhere - much deeper, I think. We're talking about symptoms of a sickness, IMO. One part of the problem: lawyers make the laws. Another part of the problem: deeply entrenched bureaucracy...Government becomes concerned with it's own preservation and growth. It crosses party lines, for back scratching is not a partisan phenomenon. Regulations that address the ills of a sick entity only have the effect that aspirin does for a headache caused by a viral infection. The pain might go away temporarily, but what you really need is a vaccine to effect a cure.

Most of my ideas are probably somewhat radical - okay, they are radical. I'm a believer in the US Constitution, and in a general, sweeping manner, I believe in the eradication of every Governmental organization which does not find a place in the provisions of that document. The ATF, IRS - the "Homeland Security" entities - all need to go. Just the same, I'd like to see more freedom for the States in general - a weaning from Washington's teat, if you will. It was intended to be that way in the first place.

It was never meant to be that way, IMO, and for good reason. For example...the majority of the tax laws are so obtuse and convoluted, you have to be a lawyer in the first place to just to navigate through the morass with your sanity intact (and many make their living doing just that...interesting, eh? ). The way the system is engineered, the real brunt is bore by the middle class - more of their true disposable income is devoured every April. Granted, 95% of the taxes are paid for by 5% of the population...something about that just doesn't seem right, either. Some people find it necessary to hide what they have....and others get paid every year by the US Government. In the middle are those who don't have enough to hide, but have too much to get paid for not having enough. So many loopholes and trap doors exist in the system, may I suggest that we take it out behind the woodshed, and put it out of it's misery?

I have noticed that if anything, the government has grown larger over the years, and less efficient as a result. The amount of waste is legendary; corruption is part and parcel of business as usual behind the closed doors of the Greco-Roman inspired buildings in the District of Columbia.

The bottom line: make politics a thankless job - a public service, if you will - and Government an unattractive place for a career.

Vote Libertarian. (okay, this isn't an endorsement of the Libertarian party either, but it doesn't sound too bad to me. )

[fable]

@Chanak, interesting analysis. I question though whether cutting government is the answer to anything--unless, of course, you're speaking about cutting Dubya's new Homeland Security Department, which employs hundreds of thousands of people. There's one way to cut government and please a great many people across the political spectrum, IMO.

But where else does one cut? LBJ's old social aparatus has been gutted and long since dismantled. Turning over educational or health funds to individual states doesn't work; evidence from administrations that have tried this on a limited basis indicates the money gets trapped just as badly at the state level, with the added problem that many states are willing to settle for a lower educational standard than even the Feds. Clinton cut some of the bloat out of defense, but Dubya's put it back in, and more than tripled its size with the return of the Star Wars defense satellite program.

Before we scream about cutting budgets, I think we should carefully ascertain what areas can be cut without damage to the rights, services and security of the nation. And as for ethics: the only way that ethics will be made an issue is if US citizens insist upon it. But if they weren't willing to get up on their hind legs and scream about the Patriot Acts or Homeland Security, I can't see them doing a thing about the ethical behavior of their public "servants."

[Weasel]

Tricky ground...

I for one don't want a person who is quaified in Farm Equipment deciding what the US needs for defence..(The same as I don't want a defence expert deciding for the farm industry...Yes farmer Brown you need a A10 Warthog to get rid of the pest in your field. )


Are these the people the best suited for the job? I have doubts, but I don't want to go down the path of forcing the best not to step forward because of a conflict interest.

[Chanak]

No worries - I'm not a proponent of anarchy. Eradicating the Big Brother apparatus (aka "Homeland Security") will make many people very pleased, yours truly amongst them.

I don't necessarily believe that what's wrong in Government can be blamed on the existence of any sort of programs, per se - rather, I think the cause is a bureacracy that serves itself, keeps growing (it will never shrink itself on its own accord), and is only concerned with staying in power. The manipulation of the voting populace becomes the one of the important means to this end. Interestingly enough, polls - which originally served the purpose of discovering "what are people saying on the street" - serve that purpose rather well. They're usually designed to gain the answers the rather slick pollsters desire, and people are indeed affected by them.

I absolutely believe that citizens need to become more involved in what goes on. They should look beyond the sound bites, "polls", and official party platforms and take a close look at who they are voting for. I believe that more informed voters make better voters, better equipped to elect those that might break the status quo and do something different for a change.

I don't believe in letting berserkers loose in DC, armed with pruning shears and flamethrowers (though the thought sometimes is appealing ). I think it's a gradual process that should be done judiciously, with an eye for eliminating what obviously doesn't work, and needs to go. In my eyes, *ahem and surprise*, enemy #1 is the Internal Revenue Service. The current tax code is such a legalistic nightmare, middle class citizens ought to be appalled and outraged that they need H&R Block to help them sort through the mess every year. An entire industry has developed over the years as a result of what *I* think has been a case of "you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours." Lawyers who make the laws are naturally interested in keeping lawyers who deal with those laws making money. After all, in 2 or 4 years (depending on what body they were elected to), they'll be out there doing the same thing.

Naturally, I propose in it's place the institution of either a flat tax, a Federal sales tax, or perhaps both. Taxing consumption in the US might alone be sufficient as a revenue source for the Federal government - which if you haven't already noticed by now, I eye very suspiciously like my hero, Thomas Jefferson, did.

Fraud and waste is rampant...and I'm not just targeting the Feds here. It happens in the "little Washingtons" too...the State Capitols. Cronyism...pfah.

Our Government needs an enema. Big time.

[fable]

That's an aptly reasoned statement, @Chanak. I can't see anything to object to in it, and plenty to agree with. Unfortunately, I can't see any way to get the average citizen involved in the political process. IMO, the system that allocates a complete win to a candidate with any sort of a majority in an election almost assures an absence of outside political viewpoints gaining entry to the political arena. Other parties, including the Greens and the Libertarians, can snipe from the sidelines in pamphlets; but all the political seats go to the Democrats and the Republicans. Is it any wonder that we can hold election with a turnout of less than 35%?