Black Horse
08-18-2009, 09:21 AM
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 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 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
bundle.
Now they get full retirement after serving only ONE term.
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 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 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
bundle.
Now they get full retirement after serving only ONE term.