Got this in an email from a friend today, yea, it's a chain deal and no documentation. It sounds good to me!!
------------------------------------------
\"The Proposal\" - IT ALL ADDS UP!
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 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, tax payers could save a bundle.
Now they get full retirement after serving only ONE term.
A Proposal By Unknown
Moderators: Tunnelcat, Jeff250
-
Will Robinson
- DBB Grand Master
- Posts: 10136
- Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2000 3:01 am
How about we make it a law that members of congress and the President can only earn the average income of their constituents. They can only own property equal to the average constituent. They can only have the average health benefits, pension, dental, etc.
To be elected you have to give away any excess wealth, downsize your home, car etc to match the average.
You have to work at least the average number of hours as your constituents and vacation no more than the average as well.
You want more? Make the lives of your constituents more prosperous.
I know a lot of average people who will gladly take the job and do a much better job than the average congressman!
To be elected you have to give away any excess wealth, downsize your home, car etc to match the average.
You have to work at least the average number of hours as your constituents and vacation no more than the average as well.
You want more? Make the lives of your constituents more prosperous.
I know a lot of average people who will gladly take the job and do a much better job than the average congressman!
-
SilverFJ
- DBB Cowboy
- Posts: 2043
- Joined: Wed Jul 28, 1999 2:01 am
- Location: Missoula, Montana
- Contact:
Will's absolutely correct.
Doctors in Cuba get the same bread rations as ditch diggers. While this may not lead to the most doctors the ones that do care about their profession deal with it any way because they want to do good.
There are more than enough honestly righteous people out there who would do a good job just to do a good job. That would weed out the moneygrubbers.
Look at Obama's hands, the hardest thing that man's ever done was lift a pencil. We need a regular blue-collar guy in there for once.
Doctors in Cuba get the same bread rations as ditch diggers. While this may not lead to the most doctors the ones that do care about their profession deal with it any way because they want to do good.
There are more than enough honestly righteous people out there who would do a good job just to do a good job. That would weed out the moneygrubbers.
Look at Obama's hands, the hardest thing that man's ever done was lift a pencil. We need a regular blue-collar guy in there for once.
-
Will Robinson
- DBB Grand Master
- Posts: 10136
- Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2000 3:01 am
Re:
But they have proven that doesn't work. Just look at the income, both salary and behind the scenes, that congress and Presidents earn, then look at the quality of the men and it is obvious they can't possibly argue that we've been hiring the best we can get for that sum of money!Spidey wrote:Duh…you need to pay big bucks to get quality people.
Re:
And how about the new Treasury Secretary. Brightest guy in America who also happens to be a tax cheat. First speech he gives and the stock market tanks even worse than it was.Spidey wrote:Duh…you need to pay big bucks to get quality people.
I say more the ever we need term limits on every Senator and Congressman. Let them serve two terms and then they get out. Something about "serving" as a senator for 40+ years is obscene.
When \"serving\" becomes a \"career\", that's just not good.
The fact that there are \"Political Science\" courses taught should tell you something. A person that wants to serve needs NO career education (in politics).
The fact that there are \"Political Science\" courses taught should tell you something. A person that wants to serve needs NO career education (in politics).
It's never good to wake up in the shrubs naked, you either got way too drunk, or your azz is a werewolf.
-
Will Robinson
- DBB Grand Master
- Posts: 10136
- Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2000 3:01 am
Re:
"That" earmark money shouldn't have ever been confiscated in the first place!Spaceboy wrote:That earmark money would just go to other members...
If the governments budget, which is fueled 100% by tax revenue, is so flush that it can afford to fund the necessary programs and frivolous, wasteful programs created as earmark spending by individual congressman simply to buy votes then please don't assume the money must be spent in that way!
How about assume the wasteful spending shouldn't make it's way into the budget in the first place!!!
By accepting the earmarks you accept the same kind of management from government that private management engaged in to help put our economy in the sewer.