Let’s reduce the House

Published 9:58 am Thursday, February 5, 2009

Occasionally … No. I mean … Once in a while … No. That’s not correct either … Frequently people complain my column is not stimulating.

The publisher rejected my idea to introduce “Smell-o-reading” to the Thursday column, such as they do with those “Scratch-and-Sniff” samples in magazines.

Oddly enough, he said it does smell.

Email newsletter signup

Anyway, this week’s column will be stimulating, because it’s all about saving money by reducing government spending on themselves.

Thanks to a concerned reader from Dexter, there is a lot to think about.

To wit: When a company falls on difficult times, one of the things that seems to happen is they reduce their staff and workers.

Wall Street and the media normally congratulate the CEO for making this type of “tough decision” and boards of directors give the CEO a big bonus.

I feel our government should not be immune from similar risks. Therefore I am recommending the following cuts be implemented by the new President:

Reduce the House of Representatives from the current 435 members to 218 members and Senate members from 100 to 50 (one per state. Minnesota is doing this right now). Also reduce remaining staff by 25 percent.  Accomplish this over the next eight 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 per member per year.)

$97,175,000 for elimination of the politicians’ staffs. (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 percent.

$7,500,000,000 reduction in pork barrel earmarks each year. (Those members whose jobs are gone. Current estimates for total government pork earmarks are at $15 billion per year)

The remaining representatives would need to work smarter and would need to improve efficiencies.  It might even be in their best interests to work together.

We may also expect that smaller committees might lead to a more efficient resolution of issues as well.

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 percent reduction of staff for remaining House members.

$37,500,000 for 25 percent 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.

Thank you, Dexter reader. I hope you’re not one of those McNeilus plant workers who lost their jobs. I just wish President Obama subscribed to the Herald and read this.

Breaking stimulation news: The Development Corporation of Austin will soon announce a new industry is coming to Austin and will employ 500 people.

It will be the manufacturer of devices for automobiles that prevent the elderly from driving under 12 miles per hour.

Watch the Herald for more details!