Found this interesting but much to simple for our Government especially Congress . It would take many years of committees , study groups , would cost more than we would save to implement it.
Not to menton the minorities and special interest groups that would be affected .
By the time the dust settled and the "bleeding hearts "society got finished it would be Government as usual .
I should have ran for President , I belong to a "special interest " group , it is called a tax payer .
















Subject: Fw: GREAT IDEA




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.

I feel our government should not be immune from similar risks. I therefore am recommending the following cuts to be implemented by the next president elect.



Reduce the House of Representatives from the current 435 members to 218 members and Senate members from 100 to 50. Also reduce remaining staff by 25%. Accomplish this over the next 8 years. (two steps / two elections)



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 Mil in staff per each member of the House, and $3 Mil 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 who's 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 jump on a train for home this week 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.

Big business does these types of cuts all the time.

Gee, did the right wingers just think up this stunning bit of calculation, or have you guys been secretly sending these messages to the Bush Administration for the last 8 years?

The great one the shiny one the one whose feet dont touch the ground when he walks . Or so the lib err alls would have us believe is going to put 600 000 more federal employees on the payroll. Do you suppose they will be like his choice for head of the treasury and not pay their taxes. Of course not they will be democrats.

Big business does these types of cuts all the time.

HAS nothing to do with right (wing as you call it) or the left.

but it has everything to do with the last 30 years and i think that has alot to do with your can't do nothing wrong partys.

there all for ME and *uck the people when they can.

and i love it when they smile at you when they vote there self a cost of living raise while they set in judgment and freely give away billions knowing the American people are aginist it.

if you really think that the last 8 years is the reason we are in this shape then (and i'm not taking up for the Bush or the Repub's)you have a short between your head and your keyboard.
regestered Indenpendet and *og *amn proud of it.

our law makers need to take there certificates off the wall. after all they have made enough money with them. they have noting in common with the working people.

But Jack coming from a common man with your superior intelect.as we have the same Nam dirt on our boots i say this with Resepct Sir.

JMHOP.
JEFFRO

We are going to have government, Jeffro, one way or another. I doubt that you would believe it, but I don't have any particular love for political parties. But I am a pragmatic fellow - I don't think that there is any chance in hell of getting rid of them in my lifetime. So we might as well try to pick the folks that we think will cause us the least harm.

And yes, I absolutely do believe that the last 8 years are largely the reason that we are in the shape that we are in. The nearly total deregulation of the financial/banking industry - which used to have pretty good safeguards - put the corporations in charge of our economy and led directly to the deep recession and maybe depression that we are rapidly sinking into.

And Bush and Cheney's lack of respect for the Constitution and the Rule of Law have shoved us a lot closer to the line of becoming a police state.

We cannot stop corruption, Jeffro - nobody on this planet ever has been able to do that. But we have to try to slow it down, to limit it. And the way that you do that is by trying to select folks who seem the most likely to defend the Constitution and uphold the rule of law.