Replies

The problem is, cutting perks and salaries wont make a bit of a dent in the budget.

Lets say we cut $100,000 of salaries/perks from every Congressman and Senator, and lets say they have 20 staffers, to be liberal (get the biggest number to cut).

535 Congressmen with 20 staffers equals 11,235 employees just in the two chambers. If we cut $100,000 from each of those people, we would cut 1.13 billion dollars which is .032% of the total budget. IT would be symbolic, but fiscally, it would be unimportant.

IT would be symbolic,

You describe it - that's what I meant. That message needs to be sent. In the 'real world' where the money comes from to feed those perks and salaries, perks and good salaries are not given for poor performance.

We are in this mess because of poor performance from both sides. One side the robber (jobs, rights, etc), the other side lack luster performance (RINO'S), doesn't perform tasks assigned - (Constitution).

In the REAL WORLD, they demand a bang for their buck for their 'empire' - in this gov't world - we are paying an a exorbitant price for 'our empire' to be taking down. It's upside down 1000's times over!

So cutting the salaries/perks for 'business' sense is symbolic because we are paying for it anyway. So be it - cut till it bleeds and then we will get candidates who are in it for the love of country and not love of money/power. We need to starve the beasts in more than one area, IMO.

Sidenote: There should be some kind of funds set aside for those who served in the military should they decide to run for office. That is who should get 'perk' money - not the country club elite who stay in the best hotels, drink/eat at our expense. Again, the system is upside down. The proven fighters, who put their life on the line for our Constitution gets the least, the suit/tie dress weak Constitution crowd get the frills. We need one MIGHTY push to flip it over to common sense.