Kawak
  • Kawak
  • Herf-A-Holic Topic Starter
14 years ago


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."
wheelrite
14 years ago
Why do you hate America ?
Mrs.Tank
14 years ago
You can add the golden parachute costs too... those slots not filled won't have the annual salary for life...


Man, I gotta get a job like that.
z6joker9
14 years ago
Okay I'm all about reducing the size of the government, but 7.5 of your 8 billion in savings are just cuts to pork projects. Cutting staff doesn't mean there will be a cut to this kind of spending.
frankj1
14 years ago
not so sure corporations should be the ideal structure to emulate for government.

We all have our thoughts on what government is supposed to be accomplishing and where it should be limited, but being a for-profit organization is not in the platform of any party.

The second sentence is off the top of my head, but has there ever been a viable party advocating a profit seeking government? I mean, other than the bonuses going to upper management as cited in the opening of the op?
dubleuhb
14 years ago
Never gonna happen, who is going to vote themselves out of a job?
JadeRose
14 years ago

Never gonna happen, who is going to vote themselves out of a job?

dubleuhb wrote:






Any poor person who votes Republican.
wheelrite
14 years ago

Any poor person who votes Republican.

JadeRose wrote:



poor people don't vote,,

ya big old queer..[ram27bat]
DrMaddVibe
14 years ago

Any poor person who votes Republican.

JadeRose wrote:




Who are all the people lining up to pay 45k to spend a minute with the President?

Please...your slip is showing.

The whole Dems are for the little guy and Rep are for the rich should've been dispelled when you found out the unions vote into the 90% for dems...even after NAFTA legislation was signed into law! Talk about screwing yourself. Now the Kenyan King has what, 2 auto companies with the UAW (6 seats on the BOD) in firm control and deeply still in debt with their retirement funds.

Corruption doesn't know party from party. It's a human thing and we as an electorate body keep voting in trash that doesn't represent US!

JadeRose
14 years ago

Who are all the people lining up to pay 45k to spend a minute with the President?

Please...your slip is showing.

The whole Dems are for the little guy and Rep are for the rich should've been dispelled when you found out the unions vote into the 90% for dems...even after NAFTA legislation was signed into law! Talk about screwing yourself. Now the Kenyan King has what, 2 auto companies with the UAW (6 seats on the BOD) in firm control and deeply still in debt with their retirement funds.

Corruption doesn't know party from party. It's a human thing and we as an electorate body keep voting in trash that doesn't represent US!

DrMaddVibe wrote:




Without even bothering to read this....I still know one thing.......You're wrong and Van Halen still sucks.

😝
DrMaddVibe
14 years ago
Obama's DNC speech could move to Bank of America stadium

Report: Democrats struggle with raising cash

President Barack Obama's re-election campaign is considering moving the final day of the Democratic National Convention to Bank of America Stadium to sell more skyboxes to wealthy donors, three Democrats involved in the fundraising told Bloomberg News.

The 74,000-seat home of the Carolina Panthers also would have room for the convention to sell more floor passes close to the stage. Planners are struggling to meet a $36.6 million fundraising goal, according to the Democrats, who spoke on condition of anonymity because they weren't authorized to discuss the matter.

Other Democrats involved deny fundraising problems.

In a Tuesday night statement, convention CEO Steve Kerrigan said: "Decisions about convention planning are driven by engaging more people in the process, not by money."

Also Tuesday, some Democrats told the Observer that they hope Obama gives his acceptance speech at the stadium so that more people can see it in person.

Obama advisers are aware of the political downside of the president delivering his nationally televised acceptance in a stadium named for a bank that considered imposing a fee that he said would have "mistreated" customers, sources told Bloomberg. That would be outweighed, they said, by the chance to lure more big-dollar contributors to cover the convention's costs.


http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2012/01/11/2915251/obama-may-move-dnc-speech-to-bofa.html#storylink=cpy#storylink=cpy 


Ya just can't make the stuff up!
jpotts
14 years ago

Any poor person who votes Republican.

JadeRose wrote:




Lots of poor people in Detroit. They all vote Democrat. The same goes for the people in Flint.

Lots of unemployment too.

Lots of crime.

No hope for economic prosperity...at all.

How anyone these days can vote Democrat and claim they have a conscience or a soul is well beyond me.
JadeRose
14 years ago

Lots of poor people in Detroit. They all vote Democrat. The same goes for the people in Flint.

Lots of unemployment too.

Lots of crime.

No hope for economic prosperity...at all.

How anyone these days can vote Democrat and claim they have a conscience or a soul is well beyond me.

jpotts wrote:




HA!! See what happens when you stir the punch bowl? A turd floats to the surface!! Hi Pottsy!!
tweoijfoi
14 years ago
Actually, we need to go in the OPPOSITE direction. You want to solve the problem of people with too much power by condensing that power into the fewer people?

Think about this... when the constitution was signed in 1787, there were only about 4 million people living here at the time.

They created a government with 435 representatives and 100 senators.

We now have a population of about 300 million... about 75 times the number of people,
but the same number of congressmen. That essentially means that, even disregarding the
growth of the power of congress, each individual there has 75 times more power.

Imagine if we had 1000 senators and 4350 reprensatives. That'd still be far proportionally less per capita
than when the constitution was signed, but how much harder would it be for special interests and lobbists
to personally influence that many people?

We need to spread the power out, not combine it into a fewer number of corrupt politicians.
DrMaddVibe
14 years ago

Actually, we need to go in the OPPOSITE direction. You want to solve the problem of people with too much power by condensing that power into the fewer people?

Think about this... when the constitution was signed in 1787, there were only about 4 million people living here at the time.

They created a government with 435 representatives and 100 senators.

We now have a population of about 300 million... about 75 times the number of people,
but the same number of congressmen. That essentially means that, even disregarding the
growth of the power of congress, each individual there has 75 times more power.

Imagine if we had 1000 senators and 4350 reprensatives. That'd still be far proportionally less per capita
than when the constitution was signed, but how much harder would it be for special interests and lobbists
to personally influence that many people?

We need to spread the power out, not combine it into a fewer number of corrupt politicians.

tweoijfoi wrote:




So...we should start shooting more people? Where's Dexter when you need him? REALLY need him?
wheelrite
14 years ago

Actually, we need to go in the OPPOSITE direction. You want to solve the problem of people with too much power by condensing that power into the fewer people?

Think about this... when the constitution was signed in 1787, there were only about 4 million people living here at the time.

They created a government with 435 representatives and 100 senators.

We now have a population of about 300 million... about 75 times the number of people,
but the same number of congressmen. That essentially means that, even disregarding the
growth of the power of congress, each individual there has 75 times more power.

Imagine if we had 1000 senators and 4350 reprensatives. That'd still be far proportionally less per capita
than when the constitution was signed, but how much harder would it be for special interests and lobbists
to personally influence that many people?

We need to spread the power out, not combine it into a fewer number of corrupt politicians.

tweoijfoi wrote:



not a bad idea..🇨🇮
tweoijfoi
14 years ago
More politicians, and term limits. That's what we need.

If you have to bribe 10x more people to get the job done, and they will be replaced in 2 or 3 terms, there will be less room for special interests. And there will be less temptation (and less time) to become corrupt.

We need more regular joes and less millionaire, life-time politicians in congress.
DrMaddVibe
14 years ago

More politicians, and term limits. That's what we need.

If you have to bribe 10x more people to get the job done, and they will be replaced in 2 or 3 terms, there will be less room for special interests. And there will be less temptation (and less time) to become corrupt.

We need more regular joes and less millionaire, life-time politicians in congress.

tweoijfoi wrote:




:-k


I like it.


Just get the house and senate to pass this and the President to sign it and by Jove...we just might have a law!
tweoijfoi
14 years ago

:-k


I like it.


Just get the house and senate to pass this and the President to sign it and by Jove...we just might have a law!

DrMaddVibe wrote:



Yeah haha, that's the problem. It'd be like asking a CEO who recieved multi-million dollar bonuses to take a pay cut. It's UNAMERICAN!
FuzzNJ
14 years ago

Actually, we need to go in the OPPOSITE direction. You want to solve the problem of people with too much power by condensing that power into the fewer people?

Think about this... when the constitution was signed in 1787, there were only about 4 million people living here at the time.

They created a government with 435 representatives and 100 senators.

We now have a population of about 300 million... about 75 times the number of people,
but the same number of congressmen. That essentially means that, even disregarding the
growth of the power of congress, each individual there has 75 times more power.

Imagine if we had 1000 senators and 4350 reprensatives. That'd still be far proportionally less per capita
than when the constitution was signed, but how much harder would it be for special interests and lobbists
to personally influence that many people?

We need to spread the power out, not combine it into a fewer number of corrupt politicians.

tweoijfoi wrote:



Wow, someone needs a freakin' civics lesson.
Users browsing this topic