Is there an obligation for government representatives (our representatives in government) to be ethical & moral?
Right!
people would provide. However, if you ask your representative to the
Senate or the House, you will likely receive a different answer. Same
thing if you ask an elected official like a governor or the President.
They won't completely deny it, but they will use other words to
describe the rules governing their actions. But before we really get
going here, let's set some ground rules - this is a non-partisan
conversation - primarily because I do not believe any party has a
monopoly on ethics / morals, or that any party is more ethical or moral
than any other. So, since this subject can be emotive, let's keep the
specific party out of it so that we can focus on the behavior and the
drivers of those behaviors. Thank you!
The most recent headlines that have us question the ethics & morals of
our representatives are the practices currently pervasive and bound in
the processes for how the House of Representatives operates - namely
EARMARKS. And how one of our representatives was caught and pleaded
guilty, rather than go through the pain of a trial, to using the
earmark process to solicit bribes. And this was more than a hushed
tone discussion behind closed doors, this guy was so blatant to have
written a menu of contract dollars in millions that would be delivered
for specific bribe amounts. His going rate was $50k for every $1
million in contracts up to $17 million, then the bribe amount would go
down to $25k for every additional $1 million in contract! But it
didn't stop there. He actually went shopping for antiques with the
vendor, and the vendor would write the cheque for whatever he wanted.
The vendor purchased the representatives home for $800k more than
market value, and also gave the representative additional funds to pay
the tax bill on the capital gain.
When the vendor sold the representative a used Rolls Royce for less
than half what it was worth, even the Congressman's staff pleaded with
him to please make up the $8k to $10k difference so the bill of sale
would not appear so out of whack to the DMV. After thinking about it,
he refused. Another staffer, after coming across damning evidence of
bribery, demanded the Congressman resign or they would go to the
authorities. The Congressman refused and actually left the staffer on
the payroll. As far as we know, no staff member went to the
authorities with their evidence.
How could a Congressman get away with this kind of blatant behavior for
what we now know was more than 6 years? And almost more important, why
would anyone, especially a Congressman think that he could get away
with soliciting and receiving bribes while making very little effort to
disguise what was going on?
Earmarks and how the use of earmarks have increased over 600% (I think
this number is correct) during the past 6 years is part of the reason
why. Earmarks make it very easy to insert legislation, in the form of
a rider to a piece of legislation that almost always is approved.
(Legislation like various Pentagon appropriation bills are always
approved). And since these earmarks are mainly added to the
legislation after it has been debated, the earmarks are never discussed
and never removed from the legislation. Don't forget that since almost
every Congressperson uses earmarks that if you attack one, you are
opening yourself to have your earmarks removed. That violates the
unwritten rules of etiquette that also govern how Congress operates.
In any event, after legislation exits committee, the only way to change
it is to vote against the entire bill. There is no way to modify any
part of the legislation at that point. Cute rules, aren't they?
Hmmm. Unwritten rules that allow favors to be delivered to friendly
vendors. But what about ethics and morals? What happened to ethics
and morals as good "unwritten rules" to govern the behavior of how
people operate, even people representing constituents in Congress?
So, all representatives use earmarks, so it must be OK. To be honest,
there are a few legislators that use earmarks in a slightly different
manner, the ones they insert seem to be less self serving than the
others. I am talking about earmarks that provide a new hospital to a
community that otherwise would not be able to pay for one. And then
there are earmarks to build important infrastructure like water
purification, sewage treatment plants, even bridges to facilitate
commerce in a region. Yes, these examples seem less self serving, but
they also divert tax money to communities for purposes that otherwise
could not justify receiving tax money from the Federal Government. So
while we can consider these diversions to be acceptable since the
Congress person receive no compensation for them (perhaps more votes in
the next election), it remains a diversion of tax dollars at the sole
discretion of a single Congressperson with no other approval,
oversight, etc. Simply having a seat on a Congressional committee that
creates or refines & approves legislation (especially those
Congressional committee's over "appropriations") are all it takes to
add an earmark or rider to the legislation. Oh, they also need to
ensure that a majority of other members of the committee will not
object to the earmark/rider. Again, this is where the "unwritten
rules" come into play - sometimes this may become partisan, but
typically earmarks/riders of the type we are discussing do not become
partisan, rather, you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours.
Let's face it - in the United States it has become so expensive to run
for office that the system favors by a wide margin, the incumbent.
Earmarks are one of the reasons why. They can favor a particular
industry or company that in turn can choose to contribute to a
reelection campaign. And it is just easier to solicit campaign
contributions if you are the incumbent who can point to how they helped
improve life in the region they represent. I do want to be very clear
here - I do not believe that most, or even many Congress people
consciously cross what I would call an ethical line - because most of
what I've discussed is not illegal. I do however strongly believe that
many Congress people may not consider the ethics of earmarks because it
is such an entrenched process in how Congress operates.
The other change in the past 6 years are how Congress monitors and
investigates itself. In fact, just for the record, I have always
questioned any organization that is self governing, monitoring and
investigating. It is too easy to cross or blur those ethical and moral
lines when you are part of a collective, club, or professional
certifying organization. Much like our system of laws functions with
an uninvolved third party, the judiciary, to try our citizens when
accused of a crime - a third party always increases the chances
considerably that people will accurately be held to a set of behavioral
standards. However, I also believe that if people were better educated
and better and stronger ethical & moral standards by their family,
fewer laws that dictate specific behavior would be required.
Back to Congress, the House of Representatives have a committee called
the "House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct" - Homepage @
http://www.house.gov/ethics/ that have published "Ethics Rules" and an
"Ethics Manual" that describe the ethical standards to which Congress
people will be held. The committee have all the powers of an
investigative agency, the right to issue subpoena's, have hearings and
in effect, bring members up on charges. The committee recommend
actions to be taken - such as censure - against an offending member,
that is then voted on by the entire House of Representatives.
The only problem with this system, and in my view - most self governing
systems - is a rule that the only one who can call a meeting of the
Committee, and then begin investigations, hearings, etc., is the
Chairman of the Committee. If the Chairman never calls a meeting, no
hearings are held. This is the one area where you can claim there are
partisan issues, e.g., a reluctance to investigate members of the party
holding a majority of seats, hence the Chairmanship of the so-called
"Ethics Committee", but it won't change my strong belief that both
parties use the ability to investigate itself as a partisan power that
is to be used to advantage. And they do use it to advantage.
So what we have here are a set of "ethical" standards and rules
governing the behavior of members ranging from Financial Disclosure to
accepting Travel gifts, from receiving any gifts to ethics around
campaigning. I haven't researched the number and types of
investigations that have taken place during the past 6 years by the
Ethics Committee, but I know the biggest and most blatant breaking of
ethics rules, the recent bribery admission, took place under the
watchful eye of this committee that was clueless that this was taking
place.
This oversight took place even though the Congress person was openly
acquiring assets that greatly exceeded the income he reported to the
IRS. The under reporting was greater than $2 million. Some of these
acquisitions were very expensive antiques, rugs, etc., that were
displayed in the Congressman's office in the Capital. He sold a home
worth $700,000 for $1.5 million, was able to pay the taxes on the
capital gain in cash, and was able to purchase a new home for over $2.5
million. The mortgage on the new home was paid down by cash payments
to principal leaving only a small mortgage. All this without a raised
eyebrow by the Congressional Ethics Committee.
If not for the local newspaper (Copley News Service) investigation into
why a home sold for $1.5 million was resold for $700,000 only 9 months
after the initial sale took place, it is unlikely that the massive
briberies and solicitations for bribery would ever have been known. A
local Realtor even wrote a letter on behalf of the Congress person
stating that the market experienced a huge decline during the time
period in an attempt to cover up the misdeed by the Congressman. In
fact, the market actually increased substantially during that time
period.
So one conclusion that can be reached is that the Press must retain the
ability to obtain information via the Freedom of Information Act. The
press must also be free to protect their sources. Side panel for a
moment - there is a move in Congress to remove the protection now given
to "whistle blowers", those individuals that risk their position and
livelihood to report a crime such as bribery. It is a reasonable
conclusion that the Congressional Staffer that discovered evidence of
bribery and confronted the Congressman, did not ultimately come forward
because they were afraid of the consequences due to the current trends
against protecting whistle blowers.
Another conclusion is that whistle blowers must be protected and
rewarded for taking the risk and coming forward to report misdeeds by
elected officials. Congressmen are very powerful. They control the
destinies of companies, industries, geographies and people. They have
the power to classify documents making them unavailable for public
oversight and if they increasingly have the power to destroy the
careers of whistle blowers, we will soon have an environment that will
make it easier and harder to catch, Congress people who sell the
government to the highest bidder.
In summary, yes, it is difficult to run for office. It is difficult to
retain a position in office once elected, and it is difficult to do a
good job to which one is elected. However, it goes without saying that
it is a privilege, and an honor that requires one to behave to the
highest ethical standards, not simply those described by the House
Committee on Standards of Official Conduct. And elected
representatives should hold themselves to high moral standards that
include how one represents single constituents and to protect those
least able to protect themselves from powerful government and corporate
interests that may want to take advantage of these Americans.
A good example of the entire Congress falling down on moral standards,
are described in the recently signed legislature regarding
pharmaceuticals via Medicaid. The legislation made it ILLEGAL for
Medicaid to negotiate to obtain the best price for a medicine - which
is precisely how the Veterans Administration has successfully held down
the cost of prescribed medicines to their constituents. Who do you
think benefits from that legislation? The people forced to purchase
their prescribed medicine through Medicaid, or the powerful corporate
interests in the pharmaceutical industry?
Another example is the self serving legislation that allows retiring
elected representatives (like Congress persons and Senators) to convert
the remaining funds in their campaign war chests to PERSONAL ASSETS.
Wow, talk about a golden handshake! I wonder who came up with that
legislation and more importantly, why it didn't receive greater
visibility by the Press? Repealing this legislation would go a long
way to encouraging higher ethics and morals in Congress. I did not
understand why retiring representatives continued to solicit for
contributions even when they no longer intended to run for office,
until I discovered that little known fact. And as you might expect,
Special Interests are the largest contributor to all representatives,
and the cycle continues.
I would be interested in your thoughts on ethics & morals as they
relate to our elected officials. And if you discover anything that I
may have misrepresented in my posting, please post a correction as my
ethics do not allow me to purposefully allow incorrect information
remain on a posting.
Thanks!
Sam Carana
politicians
http://groups.google.com/group/humanities/browse_thread/thread/e266af8214ff8425
But more fundamentally, we should stop supporting a system that appears
prone to corruption, favoratism, nepotism, waste and bureaucracy. Let's
seek more fundamental change and let people make more decisions
themselves, instead of having politicians take the decisions for them.
Let's have more direct democracy!
I've just posted more about this at the Humanities group at:
http://groups.google.com/group/humanities/browse_thread/thread/75248c39d19c42d5
Cheers!
Sam Carana