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 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 > 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 there is no telling how much we would > save. Now they get full retirement after serving > only ONE term. > |
|
|
| Sounds good to me. If I can survive w/o a job I'm sure they can. Get rid of them!!!!!! |
Didn't find exactly what you're looking for? Search again here:
Custom Search
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|