Parse error: syntax error, unexpected '<' in /opt/bitnami/apache2/htdocs/forums/archive/global.php(117) : eval()'d code on line 1
Cutting back!! [Archive] - StangBangerz Forums

PDA

View Full Version : Cutting back!!



Pops Fun
02-06-2009, 07:43 AM
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 work smarter and would need to 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)

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 that have not been doing their jobs for the past 18+ months (on the campaign trail) and still they all have been accepting 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 Congress persons 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 only ONE term.

IF you are happy how the Congress spends our taxes, then just delete this message. IF you are NOT at all happy, then I assume you know what to do.

306Power
02-06-2009, 07:57 AM
Interesting way of looking at it, very progressive. I think you have a great point there.

DeckerEnt
02-06-2009, 09:27 AM
Great point Steve.
Keith

04 Venom
02-06-2009, 11:32 AM
[QUOTE=Pops Fun;445493]THE Proposal:


$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)

That's being naive don't you think? Reducing members of Congress would not reduce pork. If that was the case, you would think that the 100 members of the Senate would generate less than 25% of the pork compared to the House with 435 members. You would be wrong. The champion purveyors of pork are in the Senate. I hate pork and earmarks as much as anyone else, but there are truly a drop in the bucket (a few decimal places) as a percentage of the federal budget. The 800 lb. gorilla in the budget are the entitlement programs--Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. Those are the hard choices that will have to be made. Neither party has done anything significant to address these issues because they don't want to risk the wrath of the voters. Lets face it, the vast majority of Americans would rather postpone any sacrifice until there are no choices left.

DeckerEnt
02-06-2009, 02:19 PM
I seem to remember sometime less than 8 years ago that someone said we need to fix Social Security now. Nothing ever happened with it. Probably nothing will happed this time either.
Keith

04 Venom
02-06-2009, 03:07 PM
I seem to remember sometime less than 8 years ago that someone said we need to fix Social Security now. Nothing ever happened with it. Probably nothing will happed this time either.
Keith

Exactly my point, Keith :bigthumb. Everyone was up in arms when gas hit $4.00/gallon. People drove slower to conserve gas and bought more fuel efficient cars and now it is back to "normal". When the shit really hits the fan about 10-15 years from now, the body politic will be surprised and wonder why nobody did anything about entitlement spending.

94tchikinv8
02-07-2009, 12:22 AM
While I completely agree that we need to reduce the size of government and bureaucracy, the Constitution says 2 Senators per state, and I believe it also has a limit on the number of constituents a member of the House can represent.

I hope this ridiculous bailout/stimulus/pork barrel bill doesn't pass, but unfortunately it probably will.

-Rob

Pops Fun
02-07-2009, 08:09 AM
Hi
I didn't write this just copy and paste. I know we can't change the constitution. but I just wish MY representatives up there would listen to the people!! the majority of people were against the bank bailout according to the polls I saw, yet they passed it!!! :mad: I wrote my Senator about my concerns about this pork riddled stimulus package and got back a form letter not addressing one thing I mentioned!! Stimulate the economy YES!!

Our representatives have lost touch with reality!! IMHO
Doubling the Dept of Education budget!!

The New York Times (http://topics.nytimes.com/topics/reference/timestopics/subjects/u/united_states_economy/economic_stimulus/index.html)
"The plan would shower the nation’s school districts (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/28/education/28educ.html?ref=politics), child care centers and university campuses with $150 billion in new federal spending, a vast two-year investment that would more than double the Department of Education’s current budget. The proposed emergency expenditures on nearly every realm of education, including school renovation, special education, Head Start and grants to needy college students, would amount to the largest increase in federal aid since Washington began to spend significantly on education after World War II (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/w/world_war_ii_/index.html)."

Maybe they will give me a rebate on my house taxes since homeowners pay for the schools in the area!! Then the people not making there house payments could perhaps make there payments with lower reality taxes!! Fat Chance!!

Pops Fun
02-07-2009, 08:30 AM
Hi
I was watching fox news last night and a Senator was being interviewed, she was asked how they came up with the dollar amounts for each project and she basically said the financial people said we need to stimulate the economy by a trillion dollars so that was our limit!!

I don't see much for home owners in the package isn't that why we are in this mess.... People defaulting on there mortgages. I did see $7,500 for first time home buyers!! What about the people in the house and in trouble!!

Any way enough ranting!!