all congressmen should be audited yearly and have montly drug tests

[blu]

will go a long way in keeping the assholes in line

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Wouldn't bother me at all.

 

[Truthmatters]

hey if poor people have to get drug tested to get a few dollars of food stampos than these people should be drug tested to keep spending our money dont you think?

 

[Care4all]

executives in general, are never drug tested in the private sector, I seriously doubt they would be in the public service sector either....(our elected officials being the executives)

only the subordinates are subjected to drug tests.

privileged vs non-privileged .....congress will be no different....

it just won't happen in my opinion

care

 

[Wry Catcher]

will go a long way in keeping the assholes in line

You forgot, each vote must be followed up by a lie detector test, taken under oath. Perjury will thin the ranks rather quickly and restore integrity to our system of government.

 

[The T]

So contact yer Congresscritter and ask them to craft such an amendment...easy...yes?

 

[California Girl]

executives in general, are never drug tested in the private sector, I seriously doubt they would be in the public service sector either....(our elected officials being the executives)

only the subordinates are subjected to drug tests.

privileged vs non-privileged .....congress will be no different....

it just won't happen in my opinion

care

The private sector is, generally, not funded by taxpayers. When it is our money, it is our responsibility to ensure that these people meet the standards required for our public employees.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

will go a long way in keeping the assholes in line

That’s what elections are for.

That the voters don’t use them wisely doesn’t justify nitwit schemes noted in the OP and advocated by some subscribers of this thread.

 

[The T]

executives in general, are never drug tested in the private sector, I seriously doubt they would be in the public service sector either....(our elected officials being the executives)

only the subordinates are subjected to drug tests.

privileged vs non-privileged .....congress will be no different....

it just won't happen in my opinion

care

The private sector is, generally, not funded by taxpayers. When it is our money, it is our responsibility to ensure that these people meet the standards required for our public employees.

Interesting how they always point to the private sector while ignoring those that they elect...(Meaning THEY are paying them)?

The private sector does quite well on it's own self-policing...

 

[boedicca]

Wouldn't bother me at all.

It would bother me. This is the same mentality used to treat law-abiding citizens as criminals during TSA checks at airports.

Members of Congress already have to file financial disclosures and are subject to well-documented ethics rules. The problem is that they are not properly enforced.

What we need is to get rid of Congress exempting themselves from the laws they impose on the rest of us (insider trading for example)...and for there to be real penalties for violations.

 

[Sarah G]

I can't agree with this one. Put the money you'd spend on these things into oversight with pacs and other corrupt practices. Get congress more organized, they waste too much time and they're not in session enough.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Wouldn't bother me at all.

It would bother me. This is the same mentality used to treat law-abiding citizens as criminals during TSA checks at airports.

Members of Congress already have to file financial disclosures and are subject to well-documented ethics rules. The problem is that they are not properly enforced.

What we need is to get rid of Congress exempting themselves from the laws they impose on the rest of us (insider trading for example)...and for their to be real penalties for violations.

That's a good point, boedicca. I think you're last statement would alleviate the need for testing elected officials.

 

[Care4all]

executives in general, are never drug tested in the private sector, I seriously doubt they would be in the public service sector either....(our elected officials being the executives)

only the subordinates are subjected to drug tests.

privileged vs non-privileged .....congress will be no different....

it just won't happen in my opinion

care

The private sector is, generally, not funded by taxpayers. When it is our money, it is our responsibility to ensure that these people meet the standards required for our public employees.

about 12% of all workers, private and public combined workers, are drug tested.....as example...4% of accountants in the private sector are drug tested, 2 % of lawyers are drug tested, very few in the Military are routinely drug tested..... it really varies by occupation and the hazards involved, or if you are handling money....

I have been against random or scheduled work place drug tests....in the private and public sector from day 1. I have always viewed them as an invasion of privacy.... if the employee is showing signs of not doing their job then said employee should be writen up then fired, for not doing their job or for not meeting job requirements....all the performing employees should not be subjected to the silly tests, when they ARE doing their job....doing what they are paid to do.

 

[Rat in the Hat]

I can't agree with this one. Put the money you'd spend on these things into oversight with pacs and other corrupt practices. Get congress more organized, they waste too much time and they're not in session enough.

I agree with you on this point.

Congress should have to be in session 52 weeks a year, with only federal holidays off, and only 3 weeks per year of vacation per member.

Just like the working stiffs they supposedly "represent".

 

[California Girl]

executives in general, are never drug tested in the private sector, I seriously doubt they would be in the public service sector either....(our elected officials being the executives)

only the subordinates are subjected to drug tests.

privileged vs non-privileged .....congress will be no different....

it just won't happen in my opinion

care

The private sector is, generally, not funded by taxpayers. When it is our money, it is our responsibility to ensure that these people meet the standards required for our public employees.

about 12% of all workers, private and public combined workers, are drug tested.....as example...4% of accountants in the private sector are drug tested, 2 % of lawyers are drug tested, very few in the Military are routinely drug tested..... it really varies by occupation and the hazards involved, or if you are handling money....

I have been against random or scheduled work place drug tests....in the private and public sector from day 1. I have always viewed them as an invasion of privacy.... if the employee is showing signs of not doing their job then said employee should be writen up then fired, for not doing their job or for not meeting job requirements....all the performing employees should not be subjected to the silly tests, when they ARE doing their job....doing what they are paid to do.

I really don't care what the private sector does.... it's not my business. When it's taxpayer's money... it's my business, as a taxpayer. If you're paid by taxpayers, or receive benefits from taxpayers, we have the right to know.

 

[Rat in the Hat]

I can't agree with this one. Put the money you'd spend on these things into oversight with pacs and other corrupt practices. Get congress more organized, they waste too much time and they're not in session enough.

I agree with you on this point.

Congress should have to be in session 52 weeks a year, with only federal holidays off, and only 3 weeks per year of vacation per member.

Just like the working stiffs they supposedly "represent".

Oh, and one last thing.

Why do we expect President Obama to work every day of the year, yet Congress is not held to the same standard?

 

[The T]

I can't agree with this one. Put the money you'd spend on these things into oversight with pacs and other corrupt practices. Get congress more organized, they waste too much time and they're not in session enough.

I agree with you on this point.

Congress should have to be in session 52 weeks a year, with only federal holidays off, and only 3 weeks per year of vacation per member.

Just like the working stiffs they supposedly "represent".

But that comes with a downside? When they legislate? They usually are doing damage...

 

[Baruch Menachem]

executives in general, are never drug tested in the private sector, I seriously doubt they would be in the public service sector either....(our elected officials being the executives)

only the subordinates are subjected to drug tests.

privileged vs non-privileged .....congress will be no different....

it just won't happen in my opinion

care

Which is not to say it shouldn't.

One of the legal maxims that we are loosing is that if laws are good, they apply to all. And leadership requires being in front.

If drug testing is such a good idea, Congress should be first in line with their bottles for testing.

That was one of the many good things about the 1994 congress. They made requirements that no laws could be passed that didn't apply to congress too. I understand that didn't last long. It is still a good idea. Congress as a privileged caste is a new and pernicious idea.

 

[Rat in the Hat]

I can't agree with this one. Put the money you'd spend on these things into oversight with pacs and other corrupt practices. Get congress more organized, they waste too much time and they're not in session enough.

I agree with you on this point.

Congress should have to be in session 52 weeks a year, with only federal holidays off, and only 3 weeks per year of vacation per member.

Just like the working stiffs they supposedly "represent".

But that comes with a downside? When they legislate? They usually are doing damage...

Maybe if they had to face the "rat race" the same as their constituents do, they might understand what we go through on a daily basis.

 

[The T]

I agree with you on this point.

Congress should have to be in session 52 weeks a year, with only federal holidays off, and only 3 weeks per year of vacation per member.

Just like the working stiffs they supposedly "represent".

But that comes with a downside? When they legislate? They usually are doing damage...

Maybe if they had to face the "rat race" the same as their constituents do, they might understand what we go through on a daily basis.

There's something about being 'Inside The Beltway' that requires automatic arrogance and elitism... is it the swamp gas? Something in the water? Constituients NOT holding them to a higher standard?

Hmmm...there's a poll in here somewhere...