"The Proposal" - IT ALL ADDS UP!
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 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 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 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.
DelMarVa's Premier Source for News, Opinion, Analysis, and Human Interest Contact Publisher Joe Albero at alberobutzo@wmconnect.com or 410-430-5349
8 comments:
Too bad you need the actual members of Congress and the Senate to pass this bill....not a bad idea Sunny, I don't even care if the math is right, getting rid of half the bums in the House and Senate sounds like a great idea to me!!!!
Who's stupid idea is this. If we don't have this government system, who will run the government
It will never happen, Remember this is the same congress that voted themselves a pay raise some months ago while crucifying the BIG ones for not doing enough
400 and counting on the DOW.
One Senator per state is the height of ridiculousness. That works for smallish East Coast states, but do you realize how large the Midwest and West Coast states are, not just in square mileage but population? California needs more than its two Senators already.
Has anyone googled a list of government agencies? If you ever do, be ready to scroll for a very long time. There are agencies to oversee agencies that oversee more agencies! This is why the tax base is so high. Congress and the senate need to work on cutting this garbage out of the country instead of creating more.
Also too bad you need this same congress to pass "term limit" legislation.
Whether or not it's good for the country is absolutely meaningless.
It ain't never gonna happen!
Nice to think about, of course it is unconstitutional to reduce the number of representatives. That aside, I do think we could work on term limits, and capping their salaries.
I would be part of any national movement to cut their salaries,and limited their terms (the president is limited) slash their staffs, and have some accountabllity. Lets not have the pot calling the kettle black. We need accountability all around.It is a good time to clean the system. Of course it seems overwhelming, well, so is the economic mess we are in, and it is partially their fault, the same ones that are demanding transparency are the ones who have been allowing all this greed and pay offs for years. Why do you think they are so hesitant to tell these folks on Wall Street and the Banks that they have to been accountable? Because they themselves are in the soup..and they know it. So, term limits will help we cannot spend the next 100 years trying to get the corruption out of the congress, just limit their salaries, and limit the time they can be there, that will work.
Post a Comment