Quantcast

THE DOWNSIZING PROPOSAL

CHUCK 2011/10/16 20:54:41
You!
Add Photos & Videos
THE DOWNSIZING 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%.

$7,500,000,000
reduction
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 improveefficiencies.. 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.
Add a comment above

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • Ken 2011/10/16 23:47:37
    BOTH THE ABOVE..
    Ken
    +1
    We need to modernize, this would be a start and with 50% less spenders it will be an outstanding help.
  • CHUCK 2011/10/16 20:55:23
    BOTH THE ABOVE..
    CHUCK

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

News & Politics

2014/04/19 22:47:26

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals