all congressmen should be audited yearly and have montly drug tests

[Rat in the Hat]

Maybe if they had to find a way to make their yearly office budgets stretch out to 52 weeks, they would understand the struggles we have to go through.

 

[Wry Catcher]

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...

You're really an idiot. "The private sector does quite well in it's own self-policing" maybe one of your dumbest comments to date (and given your propensity for dumb comments, that says something).

How well did the private sector police WorldCom and Enron, to name only a few?

Consider (no, not you The T, I'm speaking to those not willfully ignorant) how well the private sector will police itself if the anti-government, anti-regulation crowd gets there way?

 

[Polk]

You guys do realize that members of Congress (and certain other government officials) are required to disclose their financial information on an annual basis, right?

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

will go a long way in keeping the assholes in line

You know what else helps with that?

Elections.

 

[snjmom]

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.

Considering that damn near every person in the US receives benefit from taxpayers, we should just test the nation.

 

[boedicca]

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?

Oh God No! We should have a part time Congress. There is no reason for it to meet more than a few weeks per year to put together a budget. If there are emergency issues, such as a war, a special session could be called.

 

[Baruch Menachem]

I agree with Care for all that drug tests are asinine.


but I feel if the law exists, it exists for everyone. If you aren't ready to go to the cup yourself, you can't require that anyone else do it either.

As for Polk's point, the financial disclosure forms obscure more than they tell. They should include lists of securities purchased, owned and sold. Being a congresscritter means every single law you write will include a conflict of interest, and it is only fair they tell us about them

You work in a securities firm, you are absolutely required to submit that information on a monthly basis.

 

[Rat in the Hat]

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?

Oh God No! We should have a part time Congress. There is no reason for it to meet more than a few weeks per year to put together a budget. If there are emergency issues, such as a war, a special session could be called.

Then they should be paid like all the other part time workers in this country.

Minimum wage for only the hours worked, and no benefits.

Again, let them see how it feels out in the real world.

 

[Too Tall]

will go a long way in keeping the assholes in line

It sure would have caused the last serving Kennedy to retire a lot sooner than he did.

 

[Too Tall]

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.

I may have to commit Hari Kari, but I am in agreement with you on this.

 

[uscitizen]

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

This is reality folks.
Just like Rush doctor shopping and such for pain pills vs avg joe doing the same thing.

 

[Too Tall]

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.

ALL of the employees in a company with random drug tests are not subjected to drug tests. Merely a small percentage of the employees are selected for testing on a random basis.

I managed several different off site locations as an Engineer for my California based company. As a member of management I was exempt from drug testing. One day I got a call from the Human Resources Director asking me if I would have a problem going to a certified lab and submitting to a drug test. When I asked him why, he said they had so many people failing the drug test they needed a few they knew would pass to make their quota for the quarter.

True story. What would you do?

 

[Baruch Menachem]

Take the test. If you require others to do it, you are first in line with the cup. That is what leadership is about.