0 votes

How About This, What Do You Think?

"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 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 effici ent 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 hou se 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, estimat ed 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 onlyONE term.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

i like it.

everybody ought to do their part. :)

No. If these cuts were

No. If these cuts were made, big business would have less people to bribe. How about increasing congress to about 7500 like it should be and eliminate all the wasteful spending and foreign wars? The government is not supposed to be a business which is why they are not supposed to do welfare projects or 'create jobs'. Who would build a road better and more efficiently, a private businessman or a politician?

---------------------------------------------
Quick! Look over there!

yeah, yeah, yeah....

what a great idea. omg. i have one even better. let's like have like ... i don't know like 100,000. no, no, no. that's sounds WAY to low. more...definitely more. then business people would have TONS of people to bribe. great plan! they could all sit around and twiddle their thumbs.

EVERYONE should work for the gov't-- at any level. and we could like print all our money. everyone could be paid TONS.

Bob Smith 1234

I agree that government is not a business but to me they are OUR employees and this makes since to cut the size of government and to make peoples voice's stronger with less representation to approach on
differing issues.
Of course I would trust a small businessman to do our roads and overpasses over a government run company.
The bribes would be limited because of the control the people of that given state would have over there representative.

You and I both know that government pensions are ludicrous
and need to be reigned in, what these people get is just as
bad as what those at AIG received in bonuses.

Our good Doctor won't take a dime from the government when he
retires and that needs to be broadcast all over this country.

" I will take REAL money and YOU
can have the change "

"Freedom is a right that can never be won in war,only by each individual "

how about if they get no

how about if they get no staff and they work for minimum wage?

no pensions either. it isn't government's job to be providing retirement to anyone, especially politicians!

I agree

pensions should be totally removed for all who serve in the government
federal,state & local !

" I will take REAL money and YOU
can have the change "

"Freedom is a right that can never be won in war,only by each individual "