rosa
Full Member
Starting 5-Founding Member
Posts: 185
|
Post by rosa on May 18, 2009 13:22:41 GMT -7
I was wrong. Three very important words to remember and to be able to acknowledge. Morals and ethics are refined over time, my position on a specific issue may change under closer examination and respectful challenge by others (constituents) - not on all things, but in grey areas. So yes you can change a position without violating an ethical principle okay, this is still murky for me. I'm having trouble making the distinction between a political philosophy and the "moral" dilemma when the two intersect can you tie this into the example currently being debated, in a more "practical" way, maybe?
|
|
|
Post by Tim Collins on May 18, 2009 14:03:40 GMT -7
Snill If the person in government who is making a moral or ethical call on a action or issues based on the apprehension that they voters will dislike their position and then waves their ethical and moral codes for the will of the voters than that's being subjective.No way around it. OK I think the most direct way to answer this is to follow the money. Scenario: I am the elected representative. Before me is a budget bill, the typical monstrosity that these bills tend to end up. Within this bill is are two provisions Provision one is to provide funds to a support a foreign government that is engaged in actions (such as torture and detainment of their own citizens). My ethics says we cannot give this government a dime. Provision two provides funding for expanded funding for schools to upgrade their facilities for disabled children. A spending request that I fought for, enlisted support for and finally got enough votes to get it into the budget bill. There is no option to vote against the foreign funding and for the special ed funding. I can only vote for or against the whole bill. I know that my one vote of no will not stop the bill from passing, but that vote will be used against me in an election campaign - "he voted against the children". Do I vote yes just to save the $ for special ed, and ignore the $ for the bad foreign government? In my mind I vote No and have registered a vote of conscious - against the bad foreign government, yet my special ed fund goes through as well. Now if my vote will stop the entire bill, what do I do? I still vote no. Because to not do so would be unethical as it gives support to funding the foreign government and its immoral policies. *********** to your specific point: "waves their ethical and moral codes for the will of the voters than that's being subjective" I would say that is more than subjective, that is unethical and shows a lack of ethics. Theoretically an elected official, given our drawn out campaign process should have revealed their core beliefs during the election. The people who voted for them should have some understaning of what he/she believes on issues and how he/she arrived at these beliefs. We get upset when it appears someone acts as you just pointed out and rightly so.
|
|
|
Post by flash on May 18, 2009 14:27:20 GMT -7
Snill For me, that bill wouldn't be passing with my vote.Reelection or no reelection! Thomas the Flash
|
|
rosa
Full Member
Starting 5-Founding Member
Posts: 185
|
Post by rosa on May 18, 2009 14:52:03 GMT -7
I've yet to see or read about a bill that doesn't have riders on it, snil...
|
|
rosa
Full Member
Starting 5-Founding Member
Posts: 185
|
Post by rosa on May 21, 2009 12:45:04 GMT -7
I've been watching this situation with interest for a few years now. The local news is reporting that Joe Pickett has backed off of the rider he included re: TXDOT...so, here we have it. A rep claiming, as he is quoted here anyway, that sometimes fighting for what he thinks is "right" isn't worth it. My question here is: should he have not seen it through to the end, given he felt strongly enough to have placed the rider in to begin with?
from the El Paso Times
State Rep. Joe Pickett backs off on transit bill By Brandi Grissom / Austin Bureau Posted: 05/21/2009 12:00:00 AM MDT
AUSTIN -- State Rep. Joe Pickett on Wednesday said he would withdraw an amend ment to a transit bill that would have allowed the El Paso City Council to replace the regional mobility authority. "It's just not worth trying to fight sometimes the forces of evil," Pickett said. "So I'm taking the judo approach and going with the flow."
Pickett, chairman of the House Transportation Committee, reignited a political fight over the Camino Real Regional Mobility Authority last week with a measure he quietly added to a large transportation bill. His amendment would have allowed the city to eliminate the authority and replace it with members of the City Council.
El Paso officials, who had not been told about his amendment, said they were surprised and disappointed.
The mobility authority has been a point of dissension among El Paso politicians since discussion about its creation started in 2005.
Pickett and other opponents view the mobility authority as an extension of the Texas Department of Transportation with the goal of forcing cities to build toll roads.
Proponents, including state Sen. Eliot Shapleigh, D-El Paso, and El Paso Mayor John Cook, say the authority gives the city more options to pay for road projects and to complete them more quickly.
Cook, Camino Real Regional Mobility Authority Chairman Harold Hahn and Michael Miles, chairman of the Borderland Mobility Coalition, all sent letters this week to state Sen. John Carona, R-Dallas, chairman of the Senate Transportation and Homeland Security Committee, asking him to remove Pickett's amendment from the bill.
They said it could jeopardize transportation projects and inject too much politics into decisions on road funding.
The statement above: "too much politics into decisions on road funding"? You just can't make this stuff up! ;D
Carona said Pickett had not told him whether he wanted to remove the amendment. He said he would leave that decision to El Paso legislators.
"I simply want to do what's best for El Paso," Carona said. "And I want to stay out of the internal arguments that seem to exist among various members of their own delegation."
Pickett said he was not trying to destroy the mobility authority, which he has opposed. He simply wanted to give the city another option.
He said Hahn went "berzerkoid" and others did not understand or lied about what he was trying to accomplish. But he agreed to take the measure out of the bill rather than continue the fight.
"They all took it wrong," he said.
House and Senate lawmakers must still complete negotiations on the large transportation bills, which would restructure the Texas Department of Transportation.
Brandi Grissom may be reached at bgrissom@elpasotimes.com; 512-479-6606.
|
|