This is quite interesting. I didn't try to verify any
> of the numbers (seem ok) but it's the proposal I like.
> "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 gives him a big
> bonus .
> Our government should not be immune from similar risks.
> Therefore: Reduce the from the
> current 435 members to 218 members and Senate members from
> 100 to 50 (one per State). Also reduce remaining staff by
> Accomplish this over the next 8 years. (two steps / two
> elections) and of course this would require some
> 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 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 would need to 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
> 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)
> 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 &
> Summary of opportunity:
> $ 44,108,400 reduction of congress members.
> $282,100, 000 for elimination of the reduced house member
> $150,000,000 for elimination of reduced senate member
> $59,675,000 for 25% reduction of staff for remaining house
> $37,500,000 for 25% reduction of staff for remaining senate
> $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 there is no telling how much we would save. Now
> they get full retirement after serving only ONE term.