Interesting proposal about Government

silver

Member
May 16, 2006
242
0
"The Proposal"
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.

Our government should not be immune from similar risks.

Therefore: Reduce the House of Representatives from the current 435 members to 218 members and Senate members from 100 to 50 (one per State). Also reduce 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.)

$97,175,000 for elimination of the above people's 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 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 head home 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. (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 there is no telling how much we would save. Now they get full retirement after serving only ONE term.

IF you are happy how the Congress spends our taxes, then just delete this message. IF you are NOT at all happy, then I assume you know what to do.
 

IndyMX

Crash Test Dummy
~SPONSOR~
Jul 18, 2006
5,548
2
Amo, IN
How about term limiting them to 1 single term, and cutting the pay to a flat $10,000 per year. Then amend the constitution to not allow congress or vote themselves a pay raise.

And eliminate the retirement package all together.

With a single term, there would be no reason for them to pile on the pork, they only do that now to make the voters want to reelect them to additional terms.

Set a limit on how many staffers they can have, or make the staffers in both houses permanent employees of congress.

I'm not going to try to run the numbers in my scenario, but I'd be shocked if it wasn't close to what you propose.
 

Yam7M

Mi. Trail Riders
Member
Jun 3, 2008
1,416
25
That sounds like a darn good start....but our current administration is only concerned about growing government and convincing the people that they can't live without more government intervention/loans/bail-outs/involvement/etc. The media is sold on it too, so they push it down the cool-aid drinkers throats, knowing full well their out there nodding their heads and chanting "change" and blame it on so-and-so; while the rest of us jump up and down trying to stop the cows from falling off the cliff.

I also think they should make any governement aid program require monthly drug tests in order to get your 'check'. Unemployement, food stamps, disability, all of it. If you can't pass a drug test, the govt isn't going to give you a check. This would employ a whole new (or larger) industry that would be needed to create drug testing facilities. These new workers would enjoy gainful employment......meanwhile we'd save a ton of money not paying for people's recreational drugs.

Then lets mandate a branch of the Army to hunt down illegal aliens and get 'em the hell out of our country. They cost us billions annually (hospitalization; jails; govt "programs"; etc).

Finally, build the darn wall across our borders. This melting pot thing has gone to far.
 

IndyMX

Crash Test Dummy
~SPONSOR~
Jul 18, 2006
5,548
2
Amo, IN

The drug testing idea wouldn't work.. It's far too easy to cheat that. Plus the people who administer that system have no incentive to keep the system free of drug users.

The real change has to happen at the top levels.
 

Yam7M

Mi. Trail Riders
Member
Jun 3, 2008
1,416
25
I politely disagree. There is enough technology out there today that this can be done. It should be done by private companies that have benchmarks and constant and consistent testing. There are enough people that get in trouble for sports violations (on the Olympic and Pro level) who have the $$ to bribe their way out of it.....but some jack ass sitting on his couch doesn't have the where-with-all to get away with it. The dopers think they can fool the system, but they are just high.

Further, the idiots that are abusing this system aren't all that bright........and even if we only catch 50% of them (I think it would be much higher than that), we're still saving one hell of a lot of cash.

Start small, then go for the top. It'd be nice to do it from the top down, and I'm all for it. It just seems that our country isn't about to do that. At least, not yet. After 4 years of this admin....maybe we can get someone in there who won't try to socialize everything.....if it's not too late.
 
May 10, 2007
957
0
look at the converse of this though.

you save all that money but if those people arent getting paid then that money isnt going into the economy. and thus causing more businesses to collapse
 

Yam7M

Mi. Trail Riders
Member
Jun 3, 2008
1,416
25
flyingfuzzball said:
look at the converse of this though.

you save all that money but if those people arent getting paid then that money isnt going into the economy. and thus causing more businesses to collapse

I don't consider the drug trade the economy. They'd be better off getting a darn job. Like cleaning themselves up and getting certified to be a technician in a drug testing facility? Now they're employed and contributing the the economy instead of hitin' the pipe. And if we got rid of the illegals, there'd be more jobs out there too. Either way, the $$ isn't going towards getting someone high.
 

silver

Member
May 16, 2006
242
0
Yes we do have way to much Gov. and I agree they want us to believe we need more to operate.I feel we need less and don't get me started on the full pension after just one term. :bang: Our counrty is being run by some of the dumbest people around.Most don't run anymore for the chance to do good for our country its all about the money and power.Get rid of half of them and make them get real jobs and pay taxes like the rest of us poor folks.Does anyone know what % of people in our country who work for the Gov. from townships on up I heard the number a few yrs ago and it was quite high but can't remember.Change needs to start at the top.Maybe the new President should have canceled the 140 million dollar party in his honor .Don't worry it was just tax payer money and there's no end to that just ask any congressman.
 

SNDMN2

Member
Jul 18, 2003
343
0
Reduce government? They just added a congressional vote via the great state of D.C. huh?

Remember this. Its not that there is not enough money as the leaders ask you to believe its because they have always had more than they need.

If you only have 1$ its tough to be in a financial bind.
Give a guy 100$ when he only needs 1$ and he"ll most likely find a way to spend it.
 

Yam7M

Mi. Trail Riders
Member
Jun 3, 2008
1,416
25
silver said:
Maybe the new President should have canceled the 140 million dollar party in his honor .Don't worry it was just tax payer money and there's no end to that just ask any congressman.

Agreed Silver. Funny how the media went bezerk over Bush spending 1/2 that for his inaugeration (still too much money of course, but 1/2 of what the golden boy spent) and they spend no time bashing BO for it. "No wasteful spending" says BO?? :coocoo: He's a liar just like the rest of 'em...he just speaks well infront of the teleprompter and gives certain news casters tingles down their legs.
 

tdunn976

Member
Aug 23, 2003
1,047
1
Just Elect Me, please!
I have had my share of rough times and need the forever benefits, I'll even let the illegals vote, just to get in! :nener:
 

tdunn976

Member
Aug 23, 2003
1,047
1
Truthfully, alot of good coments, but none that will actually happen soon. Just limiting staff has been a major problem.
They even get to refurnish the office when they get in.
The benefit package was looked at on the state level last year,but of course never brought out in session. :bang:

Term limits, in my oppinion, do not work. We need people that can work the system to get things accomplished.

In 2010 the House and Senate of Michigan will go through a major change that will cause all sorts of problems.(over 1/2 will be term limited out in the Senate alone). With no experienced law makers in position, a major relearning will have to take place. Thus very little will get done. Although you would think this is a good thing, there will be sure to be bills that need attention that may not have the experience of knowledgible people to get them done.
This will cause alot of extra work for many, including Dick and myself.
 

IndyMX

Crash Test Dummy
~SPONSOR~
Jul 18, 2006
5,548
2
Amo, IN


Elected office was never meant to be a place where people went to "get things done", and there's no reason we need "experienced law makers".

I see it as a good thing that term limits will cause less to "get done" in Washington. They spend way too much time creating legislation that doesn't need to be created.

They should focus on the budget, and the security of our country and let the states take care of the rest.

Maybe if they were getting less done, our kids would be able to ride dirtbikes this summer.
 

KTM Mike

~SPONSOR~
Mi. Trail Riders
Apr 9, 2001
2,086
0
Term limits - they sure sound nice dont they? On the surface at least. But have ANY of you ACTUALLY spent hundreds of hours of your time meeting with members of the legislature (be it state or federal) regarding issues you felt to be very important?

Lets say all dirt bikes were made illegal to ride - you and other like minded people met with key members - had them convinced to see your viewpoint, educated them on the complexities of the issues and they are ready to make some meaningful changes...but...oops...oh so sorry...the people you have been working with were just term limited out - time to start all over again with the newbies who know nothing of the issue..... Ok - anyone who has done this - hold your hand in the air....hmmm..I dont see many hands up. Ok - make it more simple - at your job - you have a co-worker you rely on heavily - it is a technical job, not so easy to learn - has a difficult and steep learning curve, and it is an extremely important job, with significant consequence if mistakes are made. But...just about the time they really get the job figured out, learn where the coffee pot is etc., - wham....there is some new yahoo in the position, not knowing their head from a hole in the ground. How many of you would want all the key managers in the company you work for, all of your bosses, to have just a few years of hands on work experience, and be replaced just when they start to have a clue?

Dont get me wrong - I do think there are cases where enough is enough, and it is time to let someone else have a shot at serving in the legislature. But - I can speak from experience in a former job - short term limits can suck. Hundreds of hours of work, on the part of many people - suddenly down the drain. Your issue just went back to square 1 - time to start all over again. I ran into this on more than one occasion at the state level. Term limits have a down side. They are not a cure all.

(tom - I did see your hand in the air - and thanks)
 

polishsausage

Member
Dec 13, 2008
45
0

Yeah, just look what Carl Levin has been able to accomplish in his many years as a senator!! Now if we can keep Debbie Stabenow in for a few more years!!...... combining that with Granholms eight years, that should really make Michigan fricken fan-f'n-tastic! Amazing things are happening in Michigan!!...simply amazing!...just ask the governor if you dont believe me.
 

tdunn976

Member
Aug 23, 2003
1,047
1
We the People Do have term limits, they call it the voting booth.

Big Government is not a good thing, but what we get to deal with. We need people in position to get things done.
It has taken over 5 years to get the legislature and DNR to NOT think of us ( off road Riders) as eco-terrorists!
Next year we get to start all over again.

Entitlement benefits are only going to be addressed if enough of the people scream loud enough. With the past empathy of the voters and the low turn out at the voting booth, not enough people get involved enough to get this to happen.

Get involved our future depends on it!
 

silver

Member
May 16, 2006
242
0
I find it hard to know my vote makes any difference when one city can and does cancel out all of Northern Mi.I do see the point on term limits from both sides there are good and bad points.We the people should have more say in what goes on in this country sure we get to vote them in .But that is where our part ends as we are just along for the ride after that.A rough ride as of late.Our Gov. spends to much time any money tring to protect us from studid stuff.On that note I'm headed to the garage to LICK my sons pw50 and maybe my daughters xr70 as well. Might even chew on a few lead sinkers. :nener:
 

Yam7M

Mi. Trail Riders
Member
Jun 3, 2008
1,416
25
Can't we just give Canada Detroit? They might take it. They like socialized everything over there, don't they? Then the rest of Michigan would be heard. Then send the libs over there........and then........and then.......
 

Pushin50

Member
Dec 18, 2006
136
0
Oops! Excuse me, I must have stumbled into the wrong forum. I thought I was in a dirt bike forum. Sorry
 

tdunn976

Member
Aug 23, 2003
1,047
1
Please do not get me wrong. I totally agree that real reform is needed, just being realistic. (would love to see the examples of the original post put into effect).
Our part of the process does not end with our vote, it only starts there. Constant contact with the legislature does work, if your not on their mind when they vote, then we haven't done our job either. :blah: :blah:

As most of you know I have been licking lead motorcycle parts for a long time now and my views are off a bit. :whoa:
 
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…