Page 1 of 1

Code of Ethics for Government Service

Posted: Wed Sep 29, 2010 8:11 pm
by Satya
Code of Ethics for U.S. Government Service
Adopted July 11, 1958

Resolved by the House of Representatives {the Senate concurring}, That it is the sense of the Congress that the following Code of Ethics should be adhered to by all Government employees, including officeholders.

Any person in Government service should:

1. Put loyalty to the highest moral principals and to country above loyalty to Government persons, party, or department.

2. Uphold the Constitution, laws, and legal regulations of the United States and of all governments therein and never be a party to their evasion.

3. Give a full day's labor for a full day's pay; giving to the performance of his duties his earnest effort and best thought.

4. Seek to find and employ more efficient and economical ways of getting tasks accomplished.

5. Never discriminate unfairly by the dispensing of special favors or privileges to anyone, whether for remuneration or not; and never accept for himself or his family, favors or benefits under circumstances which might be construed by reasonable persons as influencing the performance of his governmental duties.

6. Make no private promises of any kind binding upon the duties of office, since a Government employee has no private word which can be binding on public duty.

7. Engage in no business with the Government, either directly or indirectly which is inconsistent with the conscientious performance of his governmental duties.

8. Never use any information coming to him confidentially in the performance of governmental duties as a means for making private profit.

9. Expose corruption wherever discovered.

10. Uphold these principles, ever conscious that public office is a public trust.

[Source: U.S. House of Representatives Ethics Committee]
http://usgovinfo.about.com/blethics.htm

Posted: Wed Sep 29, 2010 8:20 pm
by Rei
Gesundheit?

Posted: Wed Sep 29, 2010 8:26 pm
by Satya
U.S. election upcoming; bombarded by a media-blitz of campaign ads, outlandish accusations flung from one candidate at the other, outrageous partisanship, corruption, unkeepable promises... it's just another bi-annual sad circus.

Posted: Wed Sep 29, 2010 9:46 pm
by fawkes
Voting now is more like "Which Govenor/Senator/Presidential candidate is the lesser of two evils?"

Posted: Wed Sep 29, 2010 11:03 pm
by Rei
I really don't get you guys and your love of frequent elections. I'm just holding out for a full term here so that I don't have to think about it for a few more years (I think?).

Posted: Wed Sep 29, 2010 11:10 pm
by Eaquae Legit
I really don't get you guys and your love of frequent elections. I'm just holding out for a full term here so that I don't have to think about it for a few more years (I think?).
I wish I could say that the element of surprise kept some of the spark in our relationship with our government, but it's really more about delaying as long as possible between month-and-a-half election blitzes, because they're such a pain in the butt.

Posted: Wed Sep 29, 2010 11:33 pm
by Janus%TheDoorman
The point of the frequent elections was to give the people the chance to throw out an obviously ineffective, corrupt, or otherwise incompetent official. This has not worked as well as one might hope :roll: , but no need to make the problem worse by lengthening the terms. And it's only the Representatives that are re-elected so frequently. The President is effectively 8 years, 4 in a pinch, and Senators are 6 years each, and Congressmen are unimportant enough that unless there's been a grave error, most people won't bother going out to vote.

And, of course, there's the money. Election-season ad campaigns and other expenses are not insignificant parts of the economy in some places - Jon Corzine spent some $60M of his own money to get his Senate seat a few years ago.

Posted: Thu Sep 30, 2010 12:28 am
by Rei
I didn't use to want to post-pone voting as long as possible, but that spree of rapid elections we had a few years back basically put me off of them for a long time. Even now I'm not sure who I would vote for because the Liberals still don't have an even remotely decent leader, but the Conservative leader (good ol' Harper) isn't exactly exciting either.

Posted: Thu Sep 30, 2010 6:44 am
by Satya
Well unfortunately our Governor, Senator and Representative area all up for re-election and two are incumbent Democrats. Which means you've got a triple-wave of anti-incumbent sentiment and neo-Republican challengers flush with cash from a party confident in victory and awash in public antipathy towards their current leaders.

I hate Republicans. I hate Democrats. I have submitted to the equation of selecting the lesser of two evils, in this case, all 3 Democrats. Sen Russ Feingold is a decent person, in fact, he was the only vote against the Patriot Act of 2001 - the only guy with the balls enough to say "no." He was also the only vote against the 96 anti-terrorism bill and he was the only Democrat to vote against Robert Byrd’s $15 billion homeland security package in 2001. He's also made it a practice to hold listening sessions in all 72 Wisconsin counties every year, speaking for five minutes and then taking all questions. All in all, he's one of the few politicians I can actually use the word "trust" in speaking of, and will vote for him without reticence.

Posted: Thu Sep 30, 2010 9:32 am
by daPyr0x
Stewart for President in 2024!!!

I'm really strongly considering heading down to DC for the big rally, just to see for myself that people like you (Satya) still exist in some quantity in the U.S. and are finally wising up to the bullshit politics that govern the country.

Posted: Thu Sep 30, 2010 9:50 am
by jotabe
I feel uncomfortable when i read about holding politicians to certain moral standards. It could pay better to set up a legislation that treated them as recidivist criminals.

You can't hope to have democratically elected "rulers" who are morally different than the common of the people. As people are morally bankrupt, so will be the officers they elect.

Of course, the other alternative is having unelected rulers who are much more morally perverse or corrupt than the common citizens.

Posted: Thu Sep 30, 2010 10:59 am
by daPyr0x
You can't hope to have democratically elected "rulers" who are morally different than the common of the people.

As people are morally bankrupt, so will be the officers they elect.
So, all people are morally bankrupt, which means that anybody elected in to power is also morally bankrupt, meaning we're caught in a never ending circle of lawbreaking?

I'm pretty sure most people would agree that holding everyone to the same legal standards would be appropriate, and really nothing in Satya's list is really any different from the laws "commoners" are expected to live by; thus everyone's being held to the same standard per the law. The issue is not the levels of "morality" expected, but rather the enforcement or lack thereof.

Posted: Thu Sep 30, 2010 3:00 pm
by jotabe
So, all people are morally bankrupt, which means that anybody elected in to power is also morally bankrupt, meaning we're caught in a never ending circle of lawbreaking?

I'm pretty sure most people would agree that holding everyone to the same legal standards would be appropriate, and really nothing in Satya's list is really any different from the laws "commoners" are expected to live by; thus everyone's being held to the same standard per the law. The issue is not the levels of "morality" expected, but rather the enforcement or lack thereof.
Not all people, really. But a good majority indulges in small acts of corruption: trying to whittle down a bit of taxes, jumping lines, crossing when the streetlight is red, returning bought items for a refund when you really have no right to, not returning the money when they give you too much change...
They seem small, but how small are they, relatively to the small amount of power we handle? Because to govt officers, their acts of corruption are small too, compared to the power they wield. It only looks large to us. Precisely because their "small" acts of corruption are so large in absolute terms, they should have harsher penalties.

In the end, it is "us" who have to police and enforce the levels of morality of our politicians. But if we are corrupt, what means do we have to enforce it?
I really don't know. Maybe we could change the laws, so people in office be denied even the principle of presumption of innocence. But what politician in their right mind would push that?

I tend to think that corruption is the actual lesser evil. We should look for politicians that put in practice policies that work and improve our prosperity and wellbeing, instead of chosing them due to their individual honesty or their political ideas.
But isn't that what we are doing already?

What's my point? Old people don't bother making points :lol:

Posted: Fri Oct 01, 2010 12:13 pm
by daPyr0x
It's around when I see someone likening jaywalking or using tax law to minimize your costs to governmental corruption that I write off the rest of the response as being trolled. This is not "small" in anybody's book. This is a situation that will affect not only the US, but the entire world, for the entirety of our children's lives and then some. Not a small decision. I mean, we could enforce our own investigations...oh wait, no we can't.

Posted: Fri Oct 01, 2010 12:30 pm
by jotabe
likening jaywalking or using tax law to minimize your costs to governmental corruption
It's about "zero tolerance". If you let something, anything, go through a very small hole, the hole will just get bigger.

You can write me off as a troll, though.

Re: Code of Ethics for Government Service

Posted: Fri Oct 08, 2010 2:04 pm
by Psudo
2. Uphold the Constitution, laws, and legal regulations of the United States and of all governments therein and never be a party to their evasion.
So, no knowingly circumventing immigration laws or the military "don't ask don't tell" policy, or aiding others to do the same. Yeah, that'll happen.

The problem is the confusion between law and morality. Common people don't second-guess laws, and politicians never met a law they couldn't justify breaking with rhetoric about the greater good. The reverse would be better.

Posted: Fri Oct 08, 2010 5:38 pm
by Gellert Grindelwald
FOR THE GREATER GOOD!

Posted: Fri Oct 08, 2010 9:28 pm
by Rei
The greater good.

Posted: Fri Oct 08, 2010 9:48 pm
by Eaquae Legit
The greater good.

Posted: Fri Oct 08, 2010 9:49 pm
by Mommy Brontosaurus
The greater good.

Posted: Fri Oct 08, 2010 10:15 pm
by Eaquea Legit
The greater good.

Posted: Fri Oct 08, 2010 10:23 pm
by Eaquae Legit
I wish I could figure out a way to put all that in one post, more like a common chant.