How to save money

[$parechange]

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 need to 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 and Senate members from 100 to 50 (one per
> State). Also reduce remaining 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 the above people's
> 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
> $15 Billion / yr)The remaining representatives would need to
> work smarter and would need to improve efficiencies. It
> might even be in their best interests to work together for
> the good of our country? We may also expect that smaller
> committees might lead to a more efficient resolution of
> issues as well. It might even be easier to keep track of
> what your representative is doing. Congress has more tools
> available to do their jobs than it had back in 1911 when the
> current number of representatives was established.
> (telephone, computers, cell phones to name a few)Note:
> Congress did not hesitate to head home when it was a
> holiday, when the nation needed a real fix to the economic
> problems. Also, we have 3 senators that have not been doing
> their jobs for the past 18+ months (on the campaign trail)
> and still they all have been accepting full pay. These
> facts alone support a reduction in senators & congress.
> Summary of opportunity:$ 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% 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!)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 there is no telling how much we
> would save. Now they get full retirement after serving only
> ONE term. IF you are happy how the Congress spends our
> taxes, then just delete this message. IF you are NOT at all
> happy, then I assume you know what to do.
>