Here is another interesting list. I like lists. If these were your employees, what would you do?

Accused of domestic violence--29,
Arrested for shop lifting--8,
Arrested for DWI, 2008--84,
Arrested on drug charges--14,
Declared bankruptcy, at least twice--117,
Accused of fraud--7,
Arrested for bad checks--19,
Felony conviction--3,
Currently under lawsuits--21,
Bad credit, no credit--71,

These are all members of the US Congress. I'm a firm believer in term limits. If 2 terms is good enough for the POTUS, it's good enough for these assholes.

Just watched an Obama press conference. He said the deficit for this year, by OMB calculations will be $1.2 trillion. He also said, because of new spending programs, we can expect deficits for many years to come, to be in excess of $1.0 trillion/year. As a few have said before here, with the nitwits in government on both sides, "We are well, and truly fucked".  

My last place of employment, with 22 employees had 3 arrested within a year.  Stupid stuff mostly, but still...geez.

The good news is that they were a fun bunch, lol.

This will curtail their ability to steal from the people.

Next Hugh Hefner, this about the best job anyone can have. No responsibility, no accountability.

I have mixed feeling about term limits.

However, it has a terrible drawback in that government is so complex legislators cannot get up to speed quickly on any subject.  As a result, they have to rely on people who are willing to take the time to try to convince them of the merits of a position.

In all practical scenarios, that represents lobbyists, as the only ones who can go to the legislature and explain.  Of course, it does not hurt that the bigger the interest, the nicer the business lunch.

Prison guards in CA have a conference every year in Hawaii.  Legislators are invited to come and meet people and give a speech.  Of course, they get free first class air fare and no one would go without their spouse and kids.

My organization is very small, but has a lobbyist on the state level, and term limits have been very good to us because every few years there is a blank slate to be educated.

On the other hand, looking at the current group, as detailed in your statistics, does want to make me get rid of lunch in a quick and violent way.

-- Modified on 1/7/2009 1:36:41 PM

The 3 felony convictions did not list the offenses. Sex crimes? Could be......but most of the sex those bozos have is done in the House of Representatives coat closets. Say, did Larry Craig and Barney Frank ever hook up? That would make a good story for an enterprising young reporter.

C'mon now, may be a few but the rest never gets it. Think about it this way, with term limit, they won't be able to get up to speed to bilk citizens either, a good thing. May be will get people who are really into public service and are up to speed.

I honestly think that term limits are a cop out and a lazy way of culling the herd. If the American people would shift themselves off their lazy asses long enough to actually pay attention to what our leaders, their own representatives in particular are doing, we would have no need for term limits. The good ones would get re-elected, and the sleazy ones would get shown the door. Thinking we need term limits is just a white flag of surrender, admitting that we Americans as a whole are too stupid or too lazy to know who we are voting for. Oh wait, I keep forgetting. We elected Obama. The ship has sailed on the whole concept of "we are too stupid to know who we are voting for".

Sorry just had to throw that last part in

Yes, but the double edge to this is - when you DO find a good one - and they DO exist - you only get to keep him/her around for a few years. Then you have to try and come up with another honest guy to fill his place.

I'm a native of Kansas, and our governor is term limited. Our current Governor is Kathless Sebelius, who I deeply respect and admire. She has done a fantastic job. Prior to her was Bill Graves, who left office with something like a 120% approval rating. I might be exaggerating a tad, but only just a bit. We've gotten truly lucky to elect two very talented governors in a row, but if I'd had my 'druthers, I'd have kept re-electing Graves until he tottered off to the retirement home. We got lucky with Sebelius, but she is now on her second term, and who knows what we'll get in the next election. Perhaps another truly talented individual? I doubt it.

scare off the ones that are simply power hungry.

Your key words "shift themselves off their lazy asses long enough to actually pay attention", qualify the need for term limmits. Both you and I know that they will stay on those lazy asses as long as their local politicians keep bringing earmark money to feed them with. Look at how long Richard Byrd, (D-WV), has been in office, and how much of the taxpayers money has gone to WV. If ever anyone needed to be removed from the political landscape, it is him. BTW, I'm still waiting to see some of the change Obama promised. Looks to me like it's 'Bill Clinton' round #3 in progress. Any of Obama appointees' names sound familiar to you? I also think the ship and crew is still at anchor in the Potomac. They are waiting for his $800 billion stimulus plan to grow legs so they can raise the anchor.

Well, I totally agree that the notion of getting the average citizen to pull his head out of his butt once in a while IS wishful thinking. No question about it, that is NEVER going to happen. I still don't like term limits though. Your point about politicians keeping their seat secure because they "bring home the bacon" is well taken too. Giving the President line-item veto authority would go a long way to fix that problem though. If only wishing made it so....

PS. I also know that a line item veto isn't the silver bullet some might think it is. It would give the President far more authority and power than he/she really needs. A line item veto would turn the President into a political "Godfather" making it easy to veto items benefiting his enemies, while ignoring items benefiting his friends. Even still, it would solve alot of our spending problems.

Yeah. you have a point. The morons will never get up to speed.

I hate to agree with it, because it means options suck.  But if that's life....

We do agree on the line item veto. It is a double edged sword that the Congress will never allow the President to have. What's more likely to happen if Obama's 'transparency' theme actually is put into play, is that we will know who, what for, and how much pork, the assholes try to hide in legislation that is totally inconsequential to their agenda. Take the $7.0 billion in TARP money for example. The total is actually around $8.6 billion after all the earmarks got stuck into it, and by whom? We don't know, in most cases.

They already did once. In 1996, Republicans passed it into law, signed by Clinton. It was immediately challenged by none other than WVa Senator Robert 'Sheets' Byrd. Ultimately struck down by SCOTUS.

My Bad. I meant to say the current Congress. Should have been more specific. Byrd? You mean the "Grand Puubah of the KKKnuckle Heads"? Why am I not surprised?