I think that we should build them a dormitory, available only when congress is in session.
Then cut their staff by 50%, just to start with!
Gatsby wrote:
I think that we should build them a dormitory, available only when congress is in session.
Then cut their staff by 50%, just to start with!
That is an excellent proposal, the same thought popped into my mind. These would be bachelors quarters with the necessary building security. The total cost would be apportioned to each Congressman as Income and he would pay taxes on the free lodging.
Congressional staff ought to be apportioned on the merit system, what legislation has the Congressman introduced or in what capacities has he served would determine his need for staff. This should eliminate the staff of somnolent clingers.
Gatsby wrote:
I think that we should build them a dormitory, available only when congress is in session.
Then cut their staff by 50%, just to start with!
************************************************
Harold Edward Stassen (April 13, 1907 – March 4, 2001) was the 25th Governor of Minnesota. He was a leading candidate for the Republican nomination for President of the United States in 1948 suggested this several years ago along with other common sense ideas.
In the early days of America, congressmen were successful businessmen. They paid for their own housing, no charge to the taxpayer.
So, what's wrong with that concept...??? Let the congressmen pay for their own housing, out of their own pocket. They just wiped out our deductions this year for our road expense ($6700 a year for me). I don't remember hearing that congressmen should be babied and mollycoddled. Let them pay their own GD way just like the rest of us do...……………..
No, their real nerve will be apparent when they do not ask, but simply bury this increase, in another needed bill. It will become entrenched law without any fanfare or exposition.
Interesting article. I wonder if it would be less expensive to build a big hotel or Trump Tower to house Congessmen, for he does bring up some valid points. We should not have only billionaires able to afford to be in congress. They don't hang out with us Plebians and they don't know what our problems are.
But!!! Since they have already built a Christian Cathedral in DC with my tax money, it seems that under the 1st amendment, we could build a pyramid on the mall. Not a real big one. Just big enough for a small area on the flat top for religious ceremonies. Then, when a congressman retired, he should be audited and if he can't explain how he managed to save umpteen million dollars on a salary of $174,000 a year, he should be taken to that pyramid and sacrificed to some Aztec Deity in the traditional manner. I bet that would get them to v****g the interests of their constituents instead of the interests of big donors. Chaffetz must have been an honest Congressman. He apparently didn't get with the program.
greenmountaineer wrote:
Interesting article. I wonder if it would be less expensive to build a big hotel or Trump Tower to house Congessmen, for he does bring up some valid points. We should not have only billionaires able to afford to be in congress. They don't hang out with us Plebians and they don't know what our problems are.
But!!! Since they have already built a Christian Cathedral in DC with my tax money, it seems that under the 1st amendment, we could build a pyramid on the mall. Not a real big one. Just big enough for a small area on the flat top for religious ceremonies. Then, when a congressman retired, he should be audited and if he can't explain how he managed to save umpteen million dollars on a salary of $174,000 a year, he should be taken to that pyramid and sacrificed to some Aztec Deity in the traditional manner. I bet that would get them to v****g the interests of their constituents instead of the interests of big donors. Chaffetz must have been an honest Congressman. He apparently didn't get with the program.
Interesting article. I wonder if it would be les... (
show quote)
Why wait for retirement? Every two years sounds much better to me. Tower versus barracks, difficult choice. The former would make an easier target to wipe out a significant number at one shot but while they were living there they would expect amenities like Concierge services, gyms, swimming pools and all of the luxury hotel trappings. A barracks building would be bare bones, minimal amenities and space allocation, definitely giving the impression that this is very, very temporary.
None of us taxpayers could afford the kind of lodging a hotel type facility would provide and it would just be another example of the servants of the people living like Lords at our expense. Barracks, built like the Jerry-built housing for WWII soldiers is more than good enough. If they find it intolerable they can move to cheaper lodging in Rockland or Gaithersburg and commute to work just as most of us do. Very few of us have the luxury of being able to walk to work.
Sir, I will accept your proposal as a 'Friendly Amendment." I heartily approve and will second it. If there is no further debate, I would suggest to the moderator that we call for the motion.
Americans used to h**e criminals and the homeless, but now every American is a criminal and soon every American will be homeless.
Gatsby wrote:
I think that we should build them a dormitory, available only when congress is in session.
Then cut their staff by 50%, just to start with!
I think that they should be paid room and board and the rest should be mandatory volunteer, that would get rid of most of the swamp
The elites organized a global government by paying off the 200 most unethical leaders in the world.
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.