"The Proposal"

[Warph]

"The Proposal"

When a company falls on difficult times, one of the things that seems to happen is they reduce their staff and workers.  The remaining workers must find ways to continue to do a good job or risk that their job would be eliminated as well.

Wall street, and the media normally congratulate the CEO for making this type of "tough decision", and his board of directors gives him a big bonus.

Our government should not be immune from similar risks.

Therefore:
Reduce the House of Representatives from the current 435 members to 218 members.

Reduce Senate members from 100 to 50 (one per State).  Then, reduce their staff by 25%.

Accomplish this over the next 8 years (two steps/two elections) and of course this would require some redistricting.

Some Yearly Monetary Gains Include:
$44,108,400 for elimination of base pay for congress. (267 members X $165,200 pay/member/ yr.)

$97,175,000 for elimination of their staff. (estimate $1.3 Million in staff per each member of the House, and $3 Million in staff per each member of the Senate every year)

$240,294 for the reduction in remaining staff by 25%.

$7,500,000,000 reduction in pork barrel ear-marks each year. (those members whose jobs are gone. Current estimates for total government pork earmarks are at $15 Billion/yr ).

The remaining representatives would need to work smarter and improveefficiencies. It might even be in their best interests to work together for the good of our country!

We may also expect that smaller committees might lead to a more efficient resolution of issues as well. It might even be easier to keep track of what your representative is doing.

Congress has more tools available to do their jobs than it had back in 1911 when the current number of representatives was established. (telephone, computers, cell phones to name a few)

Note:
Congress did not hesitate to head home when it was a holiday, when the nation needed a real fix to the economic problems.  Also, we had 3 senators that were not doing their jobs for the 18+ months (on the campaign trail) and still they all have accepted full pay.  These facts alone support a reduction in senators & congress.

Summary of opportunity:
$ 44,108,400   reduction of congress members.
$282,100, 000 for elimination of the reduced house member staff.
$150,000,000  for elimination of reduced senate member staff.
$59,675,000    for 25% reduction of staff for remaining house members.
$37,500,000    for 25% reduction of staff for remaining senate members..
$7,500,000,000 reduction in pork added to bills by the reduction of congress members.
$8,073,383,400 per year, estimated total savings. (that's 8-BILLION just to start!)

Big business does these types of cuts all the time.

If Congresspersons were required to serve 20, 25 or 30 years (like everyone else) in order to collect retirement benefits, tax payers could save a HUGE bundle.

[Warph]

I dunno, I thought it was a good idea.  Something has got to be done with these goofballs in the House and Senate.  We vote them in office but, THEY ARE NOT LISTENING TO US!  How crazy is this?

[Anmar]

I dunno, I thought it was a good idea.  Something has got to be done with these goofballs in the House and Senate.  We vote them in office but, THEY ARE NOT LISTENING TO US!  How crazy is this?

oh i didn't reply because i thought it was a joke.  Yes something has to be done, but starting to change the numbers of representatives and senators is a major constitutional issue.  Also, although most congressman don't read the bills and don't do much work, the staffers do.  I don't think eliminating the peope who actually do the work is a good idea.

What needs to be done is a way needs to be found to eliminate congressmen getting rich from their positions of power.  Don't let politicians sign book deals, work for lobbying firms, or taking on high paying speaking tours.  Sure they can earn a living, but make sure they put in an honest days work like the rest of us.

[srkruzich]

The average congressman and senator makes 1 mil a year outside of his paycheck if you include the freebies like haircuts, meals transportation ect.   May be we ought to tax them on their freebies!

[dnalexander]

Jo or somebody else posted this a few days before you did Warph and nobody commented on it. Then today I saw where you commented on your own post and I was going to tease you about talking to yourself. I think it illustrates a good point. It reminded me of a trip I took a couple years ago to Oregon for some software training. In Oregon their state congress is only a part time job. They seem to do as well as anyone in passing laws and doing state business. It made me wonder if maybe that would work in California and the federal government. That certainly seems as if it would lower the cost of government.

Anmar, I disagree with you on banning them from doing book deals and doing speaking deals on their own time. That is capitalism.

David