The New Proposal

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 onlyONE term.

ethan wrote:Hogwash. That proposal is baseless speculation. I don't think there is any reason to believe fewer legislators would lead to greater efficiency or to a reduction in pork spending. With fewer members of the House and Senate, each individual's power increases, which gives any single member more leverage to block legislation. Furthermore, by cutting the number of Senators and Representatives, each one would be expanding their constituency. The legislators would just have a broader base to get pork for. I think it is far more likely that each congress member would just seek more pork for an expanded constituency. Congress knows how much money the government has given out in the past, so there is no reason for them to suddenly feel the need to decrease spending at the risk of angering the people who elected them.

carter wrote:I just don't like that most (if not most than a quater) have criminal records. It seems like a prerequisite that they are in trouble with the law at some point in their careers.

ethan wrote:Here's what I got with just a few seconds searching:
http://www.ontheissues.org/AskMe/spousal_abuse.htm

Looking at the second batch of numbers as you scroll down...if you don't include the 117 for bankruptcy and the 71 for bad credit (neither are illegal, just show questionable judgement) but do include everything else, it comes to 34% of congress. I didn't put in the effort to try and break it down to alleged, accused, arrested, and convicted, which could change the figure dramatically.

Either way, I agree with Drago that our legislators aren't exactly model citizens. I'm a little surprised that Ollie advocates paying them less, because if I remember correctly you're on the conservative side, and that position flies in the face of conventional market beliefs.