Awsome Idea.

[Qman]

I like this idea!!!

Awsome Idea. Makes perfect sense to me...

An interesting idea! The only problem I see is that they would have to vote on it!

"It is ok for the other guy' but not for me"!

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 the board of directors gives upper corporate management big bonuses..

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 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.)

$437,100,000 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)

$108,350,000 for the reduction in remaining staff by 25%.

$7,500,000,000reduction in pork barrel earmarks 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 does not hesitate to head home for extended weekends, holidays and recesses, when what the nation needs is a real fix for economic problems.. Also, we had 3 senators who were not doing their jobs for the 18+ months (on the campaign trail) and still they all accepted full pay. Minnesota survived very well with only one senator for the first half of this year. These facts alone support a reduction in senators and 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.

$70,850,000 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.

$8,084,558,400 per year, estimated total savings. (That's 8-BILLION just to start!)

Corporate America does these types of cuts all the time.

There's even a name for it.

"Downsizing."

------------------------------

Also, if Congresspersons were required to serve 20, 25 or 30 years (like everyone else) in order to collect retirement benefits, taxpayers could save a bundle.

Now they get full retirement after serving only ONE term.

----------------------------------------

IF you are happy with how Washington spends our taxes, delete this message.

Otherwise, it's time to "downsize" Congress.

[speculatorsRIDE]

Qman, I would vote for this. American citizens have been dealing with downsizing and outsourcing. No reason our politicians shouldn't be able to deal with it as well.

[StevieH]

Now this I could go for!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[hoosier1470]

I like it! Great plan! You going to run for polictal office? Lol'..we need someone that can use their head in Washington!

[jbbdolphins]

Qman, I like it...also included should be the hiring of personal planes for use and a cap on vacations. Liquor should only be bought for public functions. Thanks for the suggestion..let's make it public!

[Qman]

I like it! Great plan! You going to run for polictal office? Lol'..we need someone that can use their head in Washington!

Right now I am not sure, but after the RV I do plan on promoting a few good ones.

[MCME]

'We could save a lot more if we get rid of the Pres. and all his Czars. Just tell them " You're fired."

McMike

[Tiffany23]

I've taken graduate classes on political science and have come to the conclusion that there is one very simple solution...term limits. Congressman 4 years, and the Prez and Senate 6 years. That way they don't have to bend to the whim of PAC and special interest groups...they can run on a platform and not have to waiver from it when money is thrown at them. Also, I like the idea of limited retirement pay. They can earn their $ by selling books or giving speeches.

Sadly, this probably won't happen as the PAC/special interest groups have a strangle hold on those in power and they won't vote for limiting their own power (i.e every president in modern histroy has attempted to get the line item veto with no success). But...the teaparty has had some success...so the jury's out.

Just my

[aquaman907]

Here is another idea. Institute a draft for legislators. They are locally drafted in their area. They serve for one term of 2 years on rotation. This reduces the constant corruption that occurs due to the high cost of staging an election campaign, the constant election drivial that is just slightly vailed lies to buy votes. The person drafted gets paid what they currently make with a cost of living allowance or residence provided. Health benefits are provided. No retirement provided other than adding to any current plan which may be in effect by the person drafted.

This will allow Americans to be the ones who interact with the people who represent them.

Also if you have a legal degree or are a practicing lawyer you are rejected as a legislator as being unfit to serve!

Maybe the media will have to make its income because it actually writes real news stories instead of politically motivated stories that support a political agenda. Cut the income to the media because they are no longer the receivers of the money which the elections generate. They must do

reporting which people think is accurate and are interested in reading. Or more likely we can safe the resources they consume and just read it on our

electronic media.

[billy goat]

I've taken graduate classes on political science and have come to the conclusion that there is one very simple solution...term limits. Congressman 4 years, and the Prez and Senate 6 years. That way they don't have to bend to the whim of PAC and special interest groups...they can run on a platform and not have to waiver from it when money is thrown at them. Also, I like the idea of limited retirement pay. They can earn their $ by selling books or giving speeches.

Sadly, this probably won't happen as the PAC/special interest groups have a strangle hold on those in power and they won't vote for limiting their own power (i.e every president in modern histroy has attempted to get the line item veto with no success). But...the teaparty has had some success...so the jury's out.

Just my

Term limits? Are you out of your mind? Term limits should be regulated at the ballot box and not legislated. Mexican government in hobbled by term limits and just look at the result - rampant crime and social repression from poor representation.

[Tiffany23]

Am I out of my mind? I get that alot, so maybe I am.

But the voices in my head say that wasn't very nice way to say you disagree and now they are looking forward to meeting up with you. Bahhhhhaaa

[Roadrunner]

+1 Tiff on both comments. I wish I could have given you +2 on the second one.

Roadrunner

[LAWRENCEOFDINARIA]

Am I out of my mind? I get that alot, so maybe I am.

But the voices in my head say that wasn't very nice way to say you disagree and now they are looking forward to meeting up with you. Bahhhhhaaa

+1 more

[billy goat]

Am I out of my mind? I get that alot, so maybe I am.

But the voices in my head say that wasn't very nice way to say you disagree and now they are looking forward to meeting up with you. Bahhhhhaaa

Sorry for my perceived boldness - but 'term limit' implies yet another excuse for citizens to acquiesce in the political process. Why should we have to rely on a codified fixed term to address corruptness or inept behavior? Representation is replete with powerful and very capable individuals who have honorably served their constituencies. Do we throw them out like stinky old shoes? We need to show discontent by voting.