the humble scribe

Friday Outlook: Commodities, Global Markets

Johnthebear,

This is a splendid idea, now which are the senators or representatives that will have the cojones to put this to a vote in the senate and in the house.


On Mar 20 09:48 AM johnthebears wrote:

> 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/member/ 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 he 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 per YEAR:
>
> $44,108,400 reduction of congress members.
>
> $282,100,000 for elimination of the reduced house member staff.<br/>
>
> $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!)
>
> That is hope and Change I can believe IN Big Time!
>
> 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.. IF you
> are happy with how Congress spends our taxes keep on doing as we
> are.
>
> I think it is time for real change. In the meantime, my observation
> from all the wonderful charts provided by Mr. Fry suggest long term
> down lines as reflected by the MACD charts on everything, including
> commodities.
>
> Did you notice that Russia is about to default in a major way today?