#61270 Jan 2, 2013
I got this as an email from a friend. The concept sounds good, so I thought I'd pass it along.
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 the board of directors gives upper corporate management big bonuses.
Our government should not be immune from similar risks.
Therefore, it is proposed:
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 remaining staff by 25%.
Accomplish this over the next 8 years
(two steps/two elections). 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.)
$437,100,000 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.)
$108,350,000 for the reduction in remaining staff by 25%.
$7,500,000,000 reduction in pork barrel earmarks each year.(Those members whose jobs are gone.)
Current estimates for total government pork earmarks are at
The remaining representatives would need to work smarter and improve efficiencies.
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.)
Congress does not hesitate to head home for extended weekends, holidays and recesses, when what the nation needs is a real fix for economic problems. Also, we had 3 senators who were not doing their jobs for their 18+ months on the campaign trail and still they all accepted full pay. Minnesota survived very well with only one senator for the first half of this year. These facts alone support a reduction in senators and 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.
$70,850,000 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.
$8,084,558,400 PER YEAR, estimated total savings.
(That's 8-BILLION just to start!)
Corporate America does these types of cuts all the time.
There's even a name for it.
Also, if Congresspersons were required to serve 20, 25 or 30 years (like everyone else) in order to collect retirement benefits, taxpayers could save a bundle.
Now they get full retirement after serving only ONE term.
Something to think about huh?
#61273 Jan 2, 2013
I had a similar thought last night while they were hashing this out because of a similar situation on a local level. We have so many commissioners that they can't agree on anything, and it seems the same is true in congress. That is quite a savings and very tempting since not many of them seem to be earning their salary these days. I guess the down side is the loss of jobs on down the line just adds to the unemployment rolls.
And I totally agree that they should have to work 25 to 30 years like the rest of us to get a lifetime retirement! Unfortunately, some of them I hate that we are stuck with them for that length of time…
#61274 Jan 2, 2013
Sorry cornbread, but NO, it's not really anything to think about.
First of all, what "3 Senators" is it talking about on the Campaign Trail...the only one I know was Paul Ryan.
Second of all, how on earth would 50 Senators represent 369 Million People? Granted, they don't do a very good job of it now, but one Senator for a State the size of California???
As far as the Congressmen in the House, I've never fully understood how they arrive at that number for each State or how they determine the districts they are to represent, since they seem to be able to change that , at will, with redistricting. It's supposed to be determined by the Population in a specific area, but like I said, that doesn't go along with the "redistricting" to win a Political advantage, so it's become "Greek" to me.
Plus, there are so many other "Perks" that members of Congress (both Houses) enjoy , that costs more in total than anything that was mentioned, but...it's the Members of congress that would have to vote to cut some or all of them out...and they will NOT do that!
So, somebody with very little knowledge of Gov't. spent alot of time thinking up these things, that either CANNOT be done for practical reasons and we would be worse off, if they were, or...WILL NOT be done because the Only Ones that can do them, are the ONLY Ones that will be affected affected by them...and therefore, that just will NOT EVER happen!
I've said it before and I'll say it again because the Tea Party Members in particular, simply can NOT understand it or comprehend it...the Federal Gov't. IS NOT run like a Corporation! A Corporation is not responsible for the Lives of 369 million People, if they no longer work for it...the Federal Gov't. is...as defined by our Constitution!
Comparing the way a Corporation is run and the way our Federal is run, is like comparing a Toy Car to an Abrams Tank...there is no legitimate comparison, PERIOD!
#61275 Jan 2, 2013
It will never happen Sassy,that is true enough.
A man can dream can't he?
#61276 Jan 2, 2013
As far as Senators on the campaign trail, Scott Brown comes to mind. Paul Ryan is Congress.
#61277 Jan 2, 2013
Well your dumbass lying Prez said no tax increase for middle income families and guess what he did. What to vote for a lying POS like him. you are a dumbass for voting for that jackass
#61278 Jan 2, 2013
After thinking some on your query...
It would be possible to have a 1 Senator representation in most states.
Local community aldermen speak with people from their districts. They take those problems, ideas, and such, to City governments. They listen to their constituents proposals. Then, a representative of those local governments reports to the Higher ups in each State. Issues are debated. Then those results are presented to a Senator, who then takes it to Washington to be heard and debated. And so on, and so forth.
The chain of command.
Technically, it is feasible.
Personally.. I always thought that is the way government was suppose to work anyway.
I could give Calif. 3 and Texas 2 Senators .:)
Don't take me to seriously tonight . I'm in a good mood :P
#61279 Jan 2, 2013
Where I live, the City Aldermen are assigned to Depts. in the City Gov't. and that is what they deal with and oversee. If it is not their Dept., such as the Water Dept., they will refer all complaints to the Alderman who is assigned to the City Water Dept., as an example.
So, each Municipality even in the same State, must have the option of setting up their Local Gov't. as they see fit.
Also, referring to the "3 Senators for CA. and 2 Senators for Texas"...what happens if there is a mass Exodus of Residents from CA to TX? Then, CA would be Over-Represented and TX would be Under-Represented for, at least, the remainder of the Senators Terms...and maybe longer, if the fluctation in the number of Residents in the different States was not known or calculated...and that cost money to keep doing over and over consistently.
The System we have isn't perfect, but it seems to me that it is the best we can do, for the money and Equal Representation Fairness, and I'm sure we would have changed it all before now, if anybody could have thought of a legitimate way to make it better, keeping the Representation Fairness and Cost, in mind.
#61280 Jan 2, 2013
No, for the Average American, Taxes were NOT raised...the Temporary Tax BREAKS that were put in place to help the People, because of the Recession, were just allowed to expire! And that was one of the Concessions that had to be made by the Democrats, to get the Republicans to reach a Deal to save the Country's Economy, overall.
Read the Links that I've posted for the last 2 Days, at least, and you will understand what was done and why. There are many of them, that I've posted, to explain it all!
If you really want to understand it all, then you have to make an effort to find out and clicking on a SAFE Link and reading it, takes very little effort...when it affects your Life and your Income.
Since: Mar 10
#61281 Jan 2, 2013
However, if they followed the corporate model, the savings from "downsizing" the labor element would simply go back to the executives.
#61282 Jan 2, 2013
I don't agree that it is the best we can do. But it is what it is, and not likely to change in my lifetime.
<change of subject>
I find it hard to swallow that we can send Trillions of dollars to nations all over the world. Adding to the American taxpayers woes.
While we ignore the basic needs of our own.
Heartless, was the Republicans side step on Sandy relief. It is unconscionable!
I would be willing to bet we have a new Speaker of the House come tomorrow.
#61283 Jan 2, 2013
RS, It's best not to reply to anything coming out of Jackson TN.
#61284 Jan 2, 2013
Thanks for reminding me, Dunlapian, I had forgotten...and you are right.
#61285 Jan 2, 2013
The government is not run like a corporation the government is run BY the corporation.
#61288 Jan 2, 2013
While I do agree with you overall...I do see the necessity of some of the Foreign Aid, if it keeps us out of War. But, as for the other, Charity should begin at Home and America and her Citizens should come first, IMO, also.
I would welcome a New Speaker, if it wouldn't be Eric Cantor or Paul Ryan...I can't remember which one would be in the running to replace Boehner, but there's not much differnece between the Two of them. One of those Two is about the only one that I can think of that would actually be worse than Boehner.
#61290 Jan 2, 2013
As much as it pains me to say it...I think that you are probably right! At least, it certainly appears that way and it has for many years.
#61293 Jan 2, 2013
You're right, Unreal...I was thinking about the Presidential Campaign. In our State, Corker ran for re-election, and won. As far as the Congressmen, I don't remember many if them because I didn't particularly want any of them. I thought overall, in this Country, it was a very "Poor Crop" to choose from, in the last election.
#61294 Jan 2, 2013
In 1951 Libya was thepores country in the world.
Before NATO invasion the Libyans enjoyed the highest standard of living in Africa,anead of Russia,Brazil and Saudia A.
In Libya homes are considered a human right.
The newly married receive $50,000.00 to buy a home.
Electricity is free for everyone.
Qaddafi vowed to house every Libyan even before his parents.
Health care is free for everyone and of high quality.
Before Qaddafi less then one fifth of people were literate after Qaddafi 85% literacy.
If Libyans cannot find the healthcare or education they need the Libyan govt.funds them to go abroad for what they do need.
All loans are intrest free by law.
If Libtans buy a car the govt.pays 50%
Price of gas $0.14.
#61295 Jan 2, 2013
Have you noticed, in recent times, that when the Country isn't doing so well, nobody that is capable of "fixing it", will run for Office.
Not that long ago, it used to be the very opposite. If the Country wasn't doing so well, quite a few capable Candidates would run for every Office, because they thought they could do better and wanted to try and "fix it".
How times have changed and for the worse, IMO.
Very few People are Idealistic, anymore, and I think that's what we need...more Candidates with an idealist vision for this Country and a desire to make it happen, in all Political Offices, but especially in the Congress...and Selfish Greed is NOT Idealism!
#61296 Jan 2, 2013
So what you are saying is we need to be more like Libya?
Add your comments below
|Greene County Commissioners Are So Embarrassing||10 min||resident||65|
|We must repent as a nation the only way||13 min||Kohlrabi||14|
|Nikki Lohrman||19 min||Bye Felicia||1|
|Who was the best looking people back in the 90s... (Jun '13)||1 hr||Bobby||48|
|Jason Adams||1 hr||Secret Admirer||1|
|wikq football (Oct '13)||1 hr||who cares||37|
|fun thing to do ***Keep a Word~Drop a Word*** (Sep '10)||1 hr||Trunketeer||4,195|
|new sheriff in town made his 1st big change.||6 hr||www police_gov||41|
|south greene football||12 hr||CampCreeper||70|
Find what you want!
Search Greeneville Forum Now