sisboombaa

We now have 50 senators and 435 house representatives plus their aids, clerical help, offices, and the expense accounts for all personnel and offices, office equipment, etc. This could add up to over 2 million dollars per legislator per year. This does not take into account the future expenses for benefits such as retirements, health insurance, etc.

Do you suppose we would function better at half the price if we cut the number of legislators in half? Am I the only tax paying citizen to ask this question? What are your thoughts?

bggamers Loc: georgia

My personal opinion and we all know about those the ones we have sit on their butts and do nothing when they stand the lobbyist are stuffing money in their pockets. The only thing they seem to move to when inspired is sit ins and saying no.They all need to go home or be kicked out of the country

sisboombaa

Sorry, I meant 100 senators.

Bevos

That's what I was thinking. Cut them in HALF and drop about 2/3 of their Aides and about 90% of the ABC Orgs. Some of those ABCs have 3 and 4 Org.s that have the SAME PURPOSE!!! SUPPOSEDLY!! I don't think MANY of them actually do their job!!! Just get pd to sit on their butts!!!

And it is 100 Senators!

deltareb

50 Senators and 100 House Reps. Pay your office staff out of your salary. Now watch the clerical workers number drop. Oh, one more thing. Term limits.

Bevos

They SHOULD be paying them out of their OWN SALARIES anyway!!! That's the way a business works!!! Which most of them know NOTHING about!!! THANK GOD we got TRUMP!!!

Homestead

The problem is, that as you cut down the number of House members, you make those left much more powerful.

The number of House members is not about money, it is about representation.

If you want to save money, cut their salaries and benefits, as Ben Franklin said, government jobs should be reluctantly taken and gladly given up. If a government job becomes a source of wealth, the people will suffer no end of misery. Those that seek public office for personal gain will push aside those that are civic minded and it is the civic minded you want to attract.

The idea behind the house was to have one representative for every 30,000 people. That's what gave the citizen his voice and stopped any particular representative from getting too powerful.

But they recognized that as the country grew, it would be impractical to allow the House to get too big, as it would be too unwieldy. So after the minimum number of representatives were met, the Constitution allowed congress to determine where to limit the number.

What you need to understand is that the representative, that represents you, should come from your area, so that you know who he is, by reputation, so that his voice reflects the voice of you and your neighbourhood.

If you limit the number of representatives, then your voice gets drowned out as he represents multiple neighbourhoods.

If you cut the number down severely, then your v****g for someone you know nothing about and he knows nothing about you or your neighbourhood.

As you limit the number of representatives, it becomes much easier to buy them by special interests.
You no longer have anyone else to turn to to fight any decisions they make.

It is about representation.

Representation is just one of the costs of a free self governing people.

Freedom ain't free, it never was and will never be free.

deltareb

Unfortunately, "my" representative knows nothing about my neighborhood OR me, nor does he care. Since his first term many years ago he has made a LOT of money. Waaaaay more than his guvment pay. His only concern is "his" people's. He remains in office simply by what he looks like. Dumd as a creosote fence post and laughing all the way to the bank. I would dare say the only reason most politition keep running for office is nothing but for the money, and power. Pitiful bunch.

Homestead

which is the reason you need more representatives not less.

And their salaries need to be cut.

S. Maturin

We would not need to even consider your question IF the congress was composed of Americans who will have the moral fiber to honor that Oath of Office each took.

There should be a citizen's body of true Americans who review obvious aberrations committed by those who are in congress and refuse to honor that oath.
That citizen's group should then be given the authority to bring those members before a public panel and answer for their misdeeds.
Whack jobs like that congressman (D) who thought the island would turn over and sink were we to place more troops on it should be censored.. forbidden to v**e on any meaningful legislation which effects the welfare of the nation and its citizens. Let his home state people hunt for a critter with a brain.

nwtk2007 Loc: Texas

We hardly need any of THIS congress. But in t***h, if we did away with lobbying and initiated term limits, much of this silliness would go away.

deltareb

Truer words were never spoken. At some point something has GOT to change. Unfortunately, where I live, all that will get elected will be of the Ilk that are in office now. Dumb leading along the dumber. (And becoming millionaires).

sisboombaa

Wow, I didn't expect the amount of, and diversity of, the responses received. My number one frustration is the fact that most v**ers do not take time to study the candidates before they v**e. I can only v**e for one representative and two senators which leaves the other 434 representatives and 98 senators out of my reach. I have not been too happy with a lot of the choices made by other v**ers. It leaves me with a feeling of sorrow and helplessness. It breaks my heart to see a beautiful country and constitution go down the drain.

nwtk2007 Loc: Texas

Mine too! And in the name of what?

S. Maturin

What are the chances you will v**e for the incumbent? Returning the same self-serving, miserable creatures to the 'house of nobility' is one of our largest threats.