Alright, my first "x vs y" hangout thread. The Jew Don Boney thread is so important to me. And at larger level, it is a whole new thread. That is: the issue of Local government being dismissed by Federal government and the voters as well. This is not about the Jew Don Boney's "scandal". I want to focus this thread on why another council member would even call it such. To summarize...a council member (on a urban Houston council seat) charges travel expenses to his office budget. The travel is for attending the Democratic Convention. Another council member (Orlando Sanchez--an at-large seat) cries "tax dollars spent on non-city business by a council member who sits on a non-partisan elected seat." Let me put this in a new light. Orlando's argument that sounds like a scandal is, to me, one of the greatest problems with our political system. The Local, State and Federal govt's simply don't communicate enough, and we as voters don't even care about our Local govt's enough to give them budgets in which to do so. The most important politician in my life is Jew Don Boney, my District council member. Second to that is the School Superintendent of HISD. Far removed from my concerns and the ability to do something about them is my President. Now, we have no problems giving our Federal congressmen travel budgets to return home and meet with local and state representatives to learn about their platforms and initiatvies. That is not official federal business, is it? Yet, Orlando, here, is trying to tell me my Local representative can't participate in meetings regarding ratification of a political platform that will drive Federal and State politics, because it is not official city business. That is utter hogwash!!! And a complete dismissal of the importance of local government. Office travel budgets of our city council should include the right to go to state and federal conventions that are important to local constituencies. Meetings to detail federal or state political platforms should be attended by local govt. Orlando Sanchez is misguided and narrow-minded on this issue. Orlando, go find yourself a constituency and quit pontificating from your at-large Republication-bought chair that only addresses white flight politics. [This message has been edited by heypartner (edited August 18, 2000).]
The federal reps would need to stay in contact with the locals because they represent US in washington not locally. So it seems logical that they would require budget money to give them the ability to do so. The local reps represent us locally. There is no reason for a local rep to goto the convection unless it is on their own time and their own money. People locally are concerned about local problems not the ratification of a national political platform. My tax dollars do not need to goto some local person who wants to goto the parties at a convention. This goes for Republican and Democrate reps. ------------------ Houston Rockets Forever!! In Rudy We Trust [This message has been edited by Dennis2112 (edited August 18, 2000).]
I understand your point Dennis, except for you saying conventions are only about parties. I mean, hell, all lobbying is pretty much only about parties. damn...that is politics still. Financially speaking, this amounted to $4,500 for Boney and two staff, to spend time talking to other elected officials from throughout the US. Dennis, the problem with politics IMO is the Federal govts budget are way to powerful compared to our fore-father's wishes that the State and Local govt retain spending power. How can we not allow budgets for Local representatives to voice our opinions whenever possible at Federal-levels. And how do you really state that Federal govt belongs at local arenas, but not vice-versa. Most of my votes are local. I want that voice represented federally whenever federal mandates/laws effect me personally and my city. Until the federal govt reduces their influence on local and family issues like education, I want my state/local reps representing me along-side my two federal congressmen who got my vote. Your attitude shows lack of interest in giving your voice more power. [This message has been edited by heypartner (edited August 18, 2000).]
I agree but my problems are with using my tax dollars to hob-knob with other people who are not going to help locally. Conventions are a waste of time because the primaries already choose the person who will represent the respective parties. Federal reps represent my vote in federal issues and the local reps represent my vote on local issues. They are not connected but when they are in conflict, local issues should come first. Politics in general is a big waste of tax dollars when it is used improperly. ------------------ Houston Rockets Forever!! In Rudy We Trust
Bobby, The case isn't about Boney in this thread. It is about whether you think it is important for your closest representative to go to a political function that is used to ratify platforms that drive politics. I have the ability to influence my local representative with my vote more than any other person representing me. I want that person to get the chance to talk to other politicians at the State and Federal level. What cheaper way for him to do this than to go to the party conventions when everyone is in one place. $4,500K is well worth it to me. Question is; If the City decides to put it to a vote whether each travel budget can have $4,500 to spend once every 4 years for spending a week with politicians from all over the nation, would you vote YES or NO on that. This is silly. I want my council member to speak to council members in other cities to brainstorm on initiatives that are important to me and then take them to the federal conventions and demand they be placed on the party platforms. That is voice in action. And that allows me to run government from local to federal. Which is the way it should be run. Federal should simply be a revenue collector (cause they can do it more efficiently) and a disburser of funds to the states...then a watchdog over unlawful spending. In my revolution, spending moves closer to my votes...then there isn't this big federal convention on TV anymore, because lobbiest will always go where the appropriations are and the media dogs are bound to follow the lobbiest. My council member, Mayor, county officials and state representatives who I can vote for, outnumber my federal votes by huge margin. If spending is closer to our votes, we have more say! It is as simple as that. Until that reform of govt happens, I want all my local and state elected officials yelling at the federals to stop spending our money, and move it closer to my votes. There is no doubt the federal govt should cease education initiatives right now, and let us handle it locally. If I want more teachers than Drug War soldiers, I should be able to allocate that money that way. How can we stress the importance of Local govt if we bicker about a council member going to a convention and billing his office budget a measely $4,500. Christ. Local govt gets no respect. Isn't there anyone here that considers your plethora of local votes more important than your measely 3 federal votes. Then treat them with more importance, and let them travel to political events to speak for you! [This message has been edited by heypartner (edited August 19, 2000).]
Dennis, how do you know they won't help locally? ------------------ "I'll drop kick those f*ckin' dogs if they come anywhere near me." visit www.swirve.com
"Boney reimburses City" - Houston Chronicle, 8/19/00. Case closed. ------------------ "Who Wants To Be A Rocket?" - and probably a millionaire as well. The off-season will be interesting!
heypartner -- I understand your concerns, and in many ways I totally agree. I'm all for more local control. If this argument were being heard maybe 25 years ago, I would agree with you probably. The problem is, today's conventions are nothing more than love fests. The platform is already written and the candidate simply goes through the motions of being nominated at these conventions. Other than the parties and events with the lobbyists, that's pretty much all that's left of what used to be interesting political events. Today, it's merely an infomercial for each party. In no way could Jew Don Boney have gone to this convention and made life better for Houstonians. The platform is set, as is the nominee. This is merely a party to celebrate that. It's kinda sad because political conventions used to be worthwhile political events. But the introduction of the televison cameras changed that. Now any arguing at a political convention is something the media focuses on and immediately starts talking about all the division in the party. They try so hard to find any conflict at all at these conventions, and there's simply not any. ------------------
I did not mean to imply that they would not help but it is not their job. The Feds represent us and our issues that can be dealt with federally. The local reps deal with local issues locally. Communication is important but there has to be a limit on spending. ------------------ Houston Rockets Forever!! In Rudy We Trust
Dennis, The Constitution NEVER intended the Feds to spend this much money, or control this many issues and make this many laws. They are way outta of line. According to the Constitution, they have stolen state issue after state issue away from our local voice, to now become much of the stuff you call federal issues. Only the State and Local govts, working in unison, can get them back in line. And that begins with us telling our State and Local reps to voice that at the Federal conventions and any other federal platform. If you want to control spending as you say, you will see that our measly local budgets can barely keep roofs on our schools...and I mean that literally. With your logic, the only Local issues are those that can't be handled Federally. That is so backwards. I say, the only Federal issues, are those that cannot possibly be handled State/Locally. Think about the difference between Sheriffs jurisdiction and FBI jurisdiction if you need a precedent. Read the Constitution, if you need another precedent.
