Downsizing

shared from a freind...makes sense...

  

Downsize: 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%.   $7,500,000,000 reduction 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 that 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: $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."   ------------------------------   Also, if Congresspersons were required to serve 20, 25 or 30 years (like everyone else) in order to collect retirement benefits, taxpayers could  save a bundle. Now they get full retirement after serving only ONE term.   ----------------------------------------   IF you are happy with how Washington spends our taxes, delete this message.   Otherwise, pass it on to your fiends...hope it catches on. -   it's time to "downsize" Congress.                                                     **************** No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2012.0.1873 / Virus Database: 2101/4632 - Release Date: 11/22/11