When a company falls on difficult times, typically they reduce their staff and workers. Our own government should take the lead of the private sector.
Therefore, I am recommending that our next president elect do some necessary “downsizing.”
After all, we're in the 21st Century and Congress has a lot more tools available with which to do their jobs than it had back in 1911 when the current number of representatives was established. (i.e. telephones, computers, cell phones, copiers, etc.).
What supports a reduction is whenever the Senate and Congress is in session, there's too often only a 50 percent attendance of our elected officials. And also, what has become the “norm” is their absence of 18 months whenever they're on the campaign trail.
And, of course, absent or not ... they continue to accept full pay!
Therefore, by reducing the House of Representatives from the current 435 members to 218 members and Senate members from 100 to 50 (one per state), as well as reducing the remaining staff by 25 percent, taxpayers would save approximately $8 billion.
This could be possible by having two elections over the next eight years. (Of course some redistricting would also be required.)
I arrived at that total savings amount as follows: $44,108,400 for elimination of base pay for Congress members (267 x $165,200 pay/member/year); $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 percent reduction of staff for remaining house members; $38.500,000 for 25 percent reduction of staff for remaining senate members; $7,500,000,000 reduction in pork barrel ear-marks because those members would be gone! (Current estimates for total government pork earmarks are at $15 billion annually.)
We would expect those elected officials remaining in their jobs, to work smarter and more efficiently which - in the long run - would be in their best interests, especially if they crossed the aisle and worked together for the good of our country!
Joyce Hackett Smith-Moore
Moravia
After all, we're in the 21st Century and Congress has a lot more tools available with which to do their jobs than it had back in 1911 when the current number of representatives was established. (i.e. telephones, computers, cell phones, copiers, etc.).
What supports a reduction is whenever the Senate and Congress is in session, there's too often only a 50 percent attendance of our elected officials. And also, what has become the “norm” is their absence of 18 months whenever they're on the campaign trail.
And, of course, absent or not ... they continue to accept full pay!
Therefore, by reducing the House of Representatives from the current 435 members to 218 members and Senate members from 100 to 50 (one per state), as well as reducing the remaining staff by 25 percent, taxpayers would save approximately $8 billion.
This could be possible by having two elections over the next eight years. (Of course some redistricting would also be required.)
I arrived at that total savings amount as follows: $44,108,400 for elimination of base pay for Congress members (267 x $165,200 pay/member/year); $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 percent reduction of staff for remaining house members; $38.500,000 for 25 percent reduction of staff for remaining senate members; $7,500,000,000 reduction in pork barrel ear-marks because those members would be gone! (Current estimates for total government pork earmarks are at $15 billion annually.)
We would expect those elected officials remaining in their jobs, to work smarter and more efficiently which - in the long run - would be in their best interests, especially if they crossed the aisle and worked together for the good of our country!
Joyce Hackett Smith-Moore
Moravia
Citizen
Hot Jobs
New! Off the Menu
The Citizens' Say
Post your comment - click hereThere are No comments posted.