The proposal??
A friend forwarded this to me today ---- perhaps you've seen it ---
When a company falls on difficult times, one of the things that seem 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.
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 had 3 senators that were not doing their jobs for the 18+ months (on the campaign trail) and still they all have accepted 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
$7,500,000,000 reduction in pork added to bills by the reduction of congress
$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. IF you are happy with how Congress spends our taxes, delete this message. Otherwise, I assume you know what to do.
---------------------
Here was my response:
Hahahaha. This is an interesting proposal. I only laugh because I've seen up close and personal the political process --- and this would never happen. Corporations have bought and paid for these guys... while taxpayers might save 8 billion --- without Congress the corporations would lose trillions so it ain't gonna happen, baby. Who else would go into the hole (budget deficit) to make sure businesses don't lose profits? Although, I do like the idea of this sort of uprising! Lol.
I appreciate your willing to share this idea. It's radical. It's thinking out of the box. It's food for thought. Glad you're questioning how our government works!!!
Welcome to Civics 101 - How the U.S. Government has been taken over, bought and paid for by the Military/Congressional/Corporation (Oil, Insurance, Pharmaceutical) Complex.
The original proposal for a Dept. of Peace in 2001 called for about $8 billion in spending. So that totally would have made me happy if we could put the savings to effective programs back in our own communities which would inspire sustainable growth, economic justice, working together, etc.
PENTAGON SPENDING (about 57% of our budget)
Where did we get the amount $8 billion? It was equal to 2% of Pentagon spending for 2001 (now that amount would be $14-18 billion.) Which means the Pentagon's annual budget (which has never passed an independent audit, mind you and can't account for trillions of dollars of spending) is $900,000,000+. $900 BILLION. Where does the Pentagon spend their money? While some goes to our military personnel, the bulk of it goes to equipment (and now other services), ie government contractors, i.e. corporations. Big corporations. The kind that make weapons. And the some of the "other services" include corporations that have mercenary guns-for-hire that are ready to do dirty work here in the United States if folks get really interested in making real changes and cutting government revenues. How else would they get paid?
An example of this type of corporation would be a local company that makes, operates, and maintains the unmanned drone aircraft that keep killing people in Pakistan. Well, someone I know happens to work for this company. And he can attest that every day those same drones are flying over our cities --- way way way high so no one can see. =) That's fun, right? I would rather pay for a new playground.
MEDICARE AND SOCIAL SECURITY (which typically is almost the other half of our budget)
These are budget items called entitlements, mandatory outlays -- meaning we find the money to provide this to whoever qualifies (and the costs are rising as more baby boomers hit retirement) --- is the other huge chunk of taxpayer money.
However, Social Security which is actually Social Security Insurance is actually paid for with separate taxes --- individual contributions and employer contributions. Self-employed people pay both part for themselves. So, in truth, that's a different bucket of money - separate from all our other taxes -- and it is to be invested in government bonds with a conservative/moderate growth --- ya know, like insurance premiums. So when it's time to pay out --- there's money there, and there's probably enough to cover inflation.
One of the reasons why there's a big ol' fuss about it being insolvent -- is because over the last 30 years -- the corporations/congress have stolen the money from the bucket and used it to increase their profits -- leaving the bucket empty and to be filled with other taxes. Or as some propose, not at all. "Let them eat bread." Cost of living increases have been debated and sometimes denied in recent years -- so the stories of seniors eating pet food is not so off. In San Bernardino, seniors were our largest group of folks that seriously could not afford $10 a month in dues. Many have prescriptions that they cannot afford to fill, making them too sick to find a part-time job (if there was actual work to be had) to supplement their income. And, oftentimes they are sick because they have worked an entire lifetime in jobs and/or industries that made them sick --- unsafe working conditions, exposure to toxins, etc. But these businesses have paid big money to not be liable for any of that --- or have to fix it so their workers would stop getting sick.
As for Medicare -- corporations, again, have their hand in this bucket. Their paid staff (lobbyists and congress) have made it illegal for Medicare (and our Veterans Hospitals) to negotiate with pharmaceuticals for bulk discounts -- which is why they make more profit$ in the United States than in other countries for the same drugs. Also, as we know from the ongoing debate --- health care costs are out of control. Would it surprise you to know that health insurance and pharmaceutical corporations were the MOST PROFITABLE corporations in the world until a few years ago? Now they're number two -- with oil companies taking over the number one spot.
As for this idea ----- "When a company falls on difficult times, one of the things that seem 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. "
Well, this whole thing and the "tough decision" actually sounds a little ironic and sarcastic. I do believe tough decisions are made in small businesses, and folks with a conscience, about letting staff go. However, as noted, the CEO's get congratulated, Wall Street and the board of directors rejoice because of money saved (ie more profits!). So, they tightened their belts -- on the backs of the people who do the work. Hooray for the owners of our government (corporations, CEOs, big business and investors). Tragic for the other 99% of us. So that kind of doesn't justify us shrinking our Congress --- which, ideally, are REPRESENTATIVES for the people. It does mean we fire the bums and hire people who will do the right thing for us (ie we gotta vote and we gotta vote for the right people and we gotta question them often, if they're doing the right thing).
By the way ---- $165,200 a year ---- that's like a Mary Kay National -- she might even make little bit more, right? Technically the constituency of each congressman is roughly 600,000 people. Even with a staff of 25, and cell phones, email, etc. --- could ONE National inform, assist, and represent 600,000 consultants?? That's the entire Mary Kay consultant base.
And their salary --- It's a lot --- but it isn't enough to make someone have a NET WORTH of tens and hundreds of MILLIONS. So ask yourself how our Congressman are getting so rich? Including your NEW congressman, Rep. Mary Bono-Mack and your old congressman, Rep. David Dreier (who's been there for almost 30 years). They're not very powerful, per se, but they go along with the party line well enough. Thank the corporations who need their votes to increase their profits.
You want to change government spending --- change the guys who decide how the money's spent. Take money out of elections. Make sure the people who are in office know who their boss really is --- and let them know we're not gonna pay them a ton of money so don't take the job if you want a lot of money.
IF you are happy with how Congress spends our taxes, delete this message. Otherwise,I DON'T assume you know what to do cuz really most people don't --- so figure out where you want to start, and I'll do what I can to help. LOL.
P.S. Per our campaign's latest PEACE OF THE PIE budget sheet --- we're asking for 1% of the federal budget for a Department of Peace (which is still the same as about 2% of the Defense budget since theirs is over half the entire budget -- but it's less confusing to folks because they think we want to take it away from the Defense budget -- and that makes them feel less safe. [she said, ironically]).
And I didn't even touch on the Justice Department --- and local state governments --- and the money we're spending on prisons. Now that we've made the prison system profitable -- turned over to corporations --- we've increase prison expenditures (and arrested and jailed more people) so they can make money too.
When a company falls on difficult times, one of the things that seem 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.
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 had 3 senators that were not doing their jobs for the 18+ months (on the campaign trail) and still they all have accepted 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
$7,500,000,000 reduction in pork added to bills by the reduction of congress
$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. IF you are happy with how Congress spends our taxes, delete this message. Otherwise, I assume you know what to do.
---------------------
Here was my response:
Hahahaha. This is an interesting proposal. I only laugh because I've seen up close and personal the political process --- and this would never happen. Corporations have bought and paid for these guys... while taxpayers might save 8 billion --- without Congress the corporations would lose trillions so it ain't gonna happen, baby. Who else would go into the hole (budget deficit) to make sure businesses don't lose profits? Although, I do like the idea of this sort of uprising! Lol.
I appreciate your willing to share this idea. It's radical. It's thinking out of the box. It's food for thought. Glad you're questioning how our government works!!!
Welcome to Civics 101 - How the U.S. Government has been taken over, bought and paid for by the Military/Congressional/Corporation (Oil, Insurance, Pharmaceutical) Complex.
The original proposal for a Dept. of Peace in 2001 called for about $8 billion in spending. So that totally would have made me happy if we could put the savings to effective programs back in our own communities which would inspire sustainable growth, economic justice, working together, etc.
PENTAGON SPENDING (about 57% of our budget)
Where did we get the amount $8 billion? It was equal to 2% of Pentagon spending for 2001 (now that amount would be $14-18 billion.) Which means the Pentagon's annual budget (which has never passed an independent audit, mind you and can't account for trillions of dollars of spending) is $900,000,000+. $900 BILLION. Where does the Pentagon spend their money? While some goes to our military personnel, the bulk of it goes to equipment (and now other services), ie government contractors, i.e. corporations. Big corporations. The kind that make weapons. And the some of the "other services" include corporations that have mercenary guns-for-hire that are ready to do dirty work here in the United States if folks get really interested in making real changes and cutting government revenues. How else would they get paid?
An example of this type of corporation would be a local company that makes, operates, and maintains the unmanned drone aircraft that keep killing people in Pakistan. Well, someone I know happens to work for this company. And he can attest that every day those same drones are flying over our cities --- way way way high so no one can see. =) That's fun, right? I would rather pay for a new playground.
MEDICARE AND SOCIAL SECURITY (which typically is almost the other half of our budget)
These are budget items called entitlements, mandatory outlays -- meaning we find the money to provide this to whoever qualifies (and the costs are rising as more baby boomers hit retirement) --- is the other huge chunk of taxpayer money.
However, Social Security which is actually Social Security Insurance is actually paid for with separate taxes --- individual contributions and employer contributions. Self-employed people pay both part for themselves. So, in truth, that's a different bucket of money - separate from all our other taxes -- and it is to be invested in government bonds with a conservative/moderate growth --- ya know, like insurance premiums. So when it's time to pay out --- there's money there, and there's probably enough to cover inflation.
One of the reasons why there's a big ol' fuss about it being insolvent -- is because over the last 30 years -- the corporations/congress have stolen the money from the bucket and used it to increase their profits -- leaving the bucket empty and to be filled with other taxes. Or as some propose, not at all. "Let them eat bread." Cost of living increases have been debated and sometimes denied in recent years -- so the stories of seniors eating pet food is not so off. In San Bernardino, seniors were our largest group of folks that seriously could not afford $10 a month in dues. Many have prescriptions that they cannot afford to fill, making them too sick to find a part-time job (if there was actual work to be had) to supplement their income. And, oftentimes they are sick because they have worked an entire lifetime in jobs and/or industries that made them sick --- unsafe working conditions, exposure to toxins, etc. But these businesses have paid big money to not be liable for any of that --- or have to fix it so their workers would stop getting sick.
As for Medicare -- corporations, again, have their hand in this bucket. Their paid staff (lobbyists and congress) have made it illegal for Medicare (and our Veterans Hospitals) to negotiate with pharmaceuticals for bulk discounts -- which is why they make more profit$ in the United States than in other countries for the same drugs. Also, as we know from the ongoing debate --- health care costs are out of control. Would it surprise you to know that health insurance and pharmaceutical corporations were the MOST PROFITABLE corporations in the world until a few years ago? Now they're number two -- with oil companies taking over the number one spot.
As for this idea ----- "When a company falls on difficult times, one of the things that seem 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. "
Well, this whole thing and the "tough decision" actually sounds a little ironic and sarcastic. I do believe tough decisions are made in small businesses, and folks with a conscience, about letting staff go. However, as noted, the CEO's get congratulated, Wall Street and the board of directors rejoice because of money saved (ie more profits!). So, they tightened their belts -- on the backs of the people who do the work. Hooray for the owners of our government (corporations, CEOs, big business and investors). Tragic for the other 99% of us. So that kind of doesn't justify us shrinking our Congress --- which, ideally, are REPRESENTATIVES for the people. It does mean we fire the bums and hire people who will do the right thing for us (ie we gotta vote and we gotta vote for the right people and we gotta question them often, if they're doing the right thing).
By the way ---- $165,200 a year ---- that's like a Mary Kay National -- she might even make little bit more, right? Technically the constituency of each congressman is roughly 600,000 people. Even with a staff of 25, and cell phones, email, etc. --- could ONE National inform, assist, and represent 600,000 consultants?? That's the entire Mary Kay consultant base.
And their salary --- It's a lot --- but it isn't enough to make someone have a NET WORTH of tens and hundreds of MILLIONS. So ask yourself how our Congressman are getting so rich? Including your NEW congressman, Rep. Mary Bono-Mack and your old congressman, Rep. David Dreier (who's been there for almost 30 years). They're not very powerful, per se, but they go along with the party line well enough. Thank the corporations who need their votes to increase their profits.
You want to change government spending --- change the guys who decide how the money's spent. Take money out of elections. Make sure the people who are in office know who their boss really is --- and let them know we're not gonna pay them a ton of money so don't take the job if you want a lot of money.
IF you are happy with how Congress spends our taxes, delete this message. Otherwise,I DON'T assume you know what to do cuz really most people don't --- so figure out where you want to start, and I'll do what I can to help. LOL.
P.S. Per our campaign's latest PEACE OF THE PIE budget sheet --- we're asking for 1% of the federal budget for a Department of Peace (which is still the same as about 2% of the Defense budget since theirs is over half the entire budget -- but it's less confusing to folks because they think we want to take it away from the Defense budget -- and that makes them feel less safe. [she said, ironically]).
And I didn't even touch on the Justice Department --- and local state governments --- and the money we're spending on prisons. Now that we've made the prison system profitable -- turned over to corporations --- we've increase prison expenditures (and arrested and jailed more people) so they can make money too.
Comments