I dont know if it add's up , but something to think about
This is quite interesting. I didn't try to verify any of the numbers (seems ok) but it's the proposal I like.
"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 need to 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 and Senate members from 100 to 50 (one per State). Also reduce remaining 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 the above people's 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 worksmarter and would need to improveefficiencies.It might even be intheir 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 have 3 senators thathave not been doing their jobs for the past 18+ months (on thecampaign trail) and still they all have been accepting full pay. These facts alone support a reduction in senators & congress.
Summary ofopportunity:
$ 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.
$8,073,383,400per year, estimated total savings. (that's 8-BILLION just to start!)
Big business does thesetypes 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 there is no telling how much we would save. Now they get full retirement after serving onlyONEterm.
__________________ "Our constitution protects aliens, drunks and U.S. Senators." - Will Rogers
Pound the drum and raise the flag!!! This is the crap that the general public either refuse to see or are ignorant of. We are being governed by people who have no idea of what it is like to raise a family of four on $30K or less a year. We are their employers not the other way around. We hire them and we can fire them. When the law makers start getting fat off of the people they were hired to serve there's a flaw in the system!(step off soapbox here)
Two term limits. No retirement. They can earn that on their regular job.
Ideally, I would like to see two senators and two representatives from each state with their salaries set by the State they represent. Any salary changes would have to be approved by a majority of the voters of the State.
__________________ America: Love it and protect it or leave it In God I Trust
I support Arizona
Last edited by Windwalker; 03-12-2009 at 10:15 AM.
Funny how Senators and Congressmen can stand up and say they're against Govt run healthcare for the people of the United States yet they themselves have the best Govt run health care ever. The same goes for Social Security. They, who would deny Americans Social Security, have a retirement plan that their employers(We, the People) never had a chance to vote on or approve. Fire them all!
$8 billion? That's hardly a drop in the bucket. The remaining congressmen would just work smarter and harder and each would introduce twice as many pork pies and the spending would only go up.
I would like to see this as a goal for congress:
To repeal EVERY federal law passed since 1950. ALL of them. I'd actually like to see them repeal every federal law back to at least 1929, but you have to start somewhere.
Yep, reminds me of that song Travis Tritt recorded. Theres a verse where he sings about "The Rich Man's out there dancing while the poor Man's paying the Band ". P.S. Windwalker , Im with ya 100%. I had to work 30 F--king years to draw the little retirement I get...BUT..I can be Proud of the fact that I EARNED IT HONESTLEY !!
__________________ "Our constitution protects aliens, drunks and U.S. Senators." - Will Rogers
This crap happens in both houses, on both sides of the aisle. We the people will never see change until we have TRUE TRANSPARENCY. They create their own wiggle room and we the people pay the tab. They ARE NOT currently accountable to us- their employers.
TWO TO THE CHEST, ONE TO THE HEAD
