>> Senator Cornyn and the NRSC told him not to.
As a conservative from Texas, Cornyn is a huge disappointment to me.
Nowhere is this more evident than in his role as NRSC chair.
Cornyn would champion and fund Hugo Chavez if he had an (R) by his name (and was a rich guy or gal who would play well in the Senate backroom club sandbox).
Real conservative like Larry Elder, with good ideas and name recognition, grassroots support, but no deep pockets? Fuhgettaboudit.
Why does California need two Senators? Isn;t Feinstein dumb enough for both of them? Here is an alternative:
The Proposal” - IT ALL ADDS UP!
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 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.
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/memb! er/ 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 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, tax payers
could save a bundle.
Now they get full retirement after serving only ONE term.