Downsizing - Fire Soetoro and ALL DEMOCRATS

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."


Also, if Congress persons were required to serve 20, 25 or 30 years (like everyone else) in order to collect retirement benefits, taxpayers could save a bundle.


IF you are happy with how Washington spends our taxes, delete this message.
Otherwise, it's time to "downsize" Congress

Health Care Savings: The New CBO Report

What happened to the savings Obama, Pelosi, and Reid promised us would come with the enactment of the Health Care Legislation?

On Tuesday the Congressional Budget Office “revised” its earlier estimates and announced that instead of a savings there would be a doubling of certain estimated costs from the legislation. The CBO report stated that the rise in discretionary spending (which is required by the annual Congressional authorization needed for the bill) over the first ten years would exceed $115 billion. Two months ago this figure was set at $55 billion based on faulty assumption set forth by Reid, Pelosi, and the Obama Administration.

Rep. Lewis (R., CA) asked for the information before the House voted on the measure and in February wrote to Pelosi asking for the vote to be postponed because “[L]arge sums of discretionary spending in both the House and Senate versions of the health care reform bills have not yet been included in estimates by the CBO, rendering it impossible to make informed decisions regarding the outcome of this legislation.” Pelosi’s response was to push through the bills as fast as possible before all of the facts could get out.

Some of the increased cost estimates in the May report included extensions of existing spending authorizations not included in the March report, future discretionary spending for initially mandatory grants required by the legislation, increased administrative expenses for the Internal Revenue Service and Department of Health and Human Services, as well as grants and other programs contained in the health care bill.

One can only wonder what new revelations will come out – and when – to show the actual cost of this massive legislation.

So much for the most transparent and open Congress that Pelosi promised the U.S. If Pelosi were a spokesperson for a Corporation she would have been charged with false advertising and misrepresentation for the comments she made to get the bill passed.

Written by Jim, a Real Conservative