Increase the # of congressman?

Salty, it sounds like you have a major hatred for our government.

I have no problem with retirement pay. Why punish them for being elected by their constituents?

All of this talk of cutting pay and reducing benefits will only result in the super-duper rich being the only ones able to serve. Now, I know that the vast majority of Congressmen/women are wealthy, but there are still Representatives who end up in Congress out of a less than affluent background. If you cut the pay and benefits so much, they will be unable to serve in Congress. I don't want my representatives worrying about their retirement. I want them worrying about their district's issues.

 

An excellent point, Ed. :thumbs:

I used to support the arbitrary term limits idea but since we have had them on the state level in Arkansas it has not improved our state government.

 

Would I be correct in guessing your potential constituents imposed "term limits" on you of 'zero terms'?
(That is one entirely proper use of "term limits", you do realize, no??)

And may I also take it you did not agree with their choice, here??

It almost sounds as if you favored "term limits" for another, but not for yourself, in this instance.

"Do as I say; and not as 'they' do!"

Ed

 

"Suppose you were an idiot...and suppose you were a member of Congress...but I repeat myself." - Mark Twain

 

I propose we decrease the number of representatives to 100 so they can do less.

I propose we make the senators representatives of the states as they were orignially so they can do less.

I propose we limit the terms of all of them to no more than four years and eliminate their lifetime benefits so they can do less.

I propose that we limit their time in the District of Columbia to not more than three months per year so they can do less.

I propose that no representative or senator can speak on the floor of Congress no more than thirty minutes nor more than thirty times per year so they can say less.

I propose we cut federal revenues and expenses to just 20% of what it is now so it can do less with less.

I propose it be illegal for the federal government to engage in any scam whereby it collects money and redistributes it to the states with strings attached that force compliance to various agendas for which we gave it no inherent power to regulate.

I propose that the volume of federal regulations be limited to not more than 100,000 words in not more than one language so it can require less.

I propose that every piece of legislation be limited to one topic only so it will cover less.

 

I would support the idea of ten thousand representatives, if they were all given the same salary as the representatives of the first congress.

 

James Madison, 220 years ago, in Federalist Paper 55: The Total Number of the House of Representatives:

"Sixty or seventy men may be more properly trusted with a given degree of power than six or seven. But it does not follow that six or seven hundred would be proportionably a better depositary. And if we carry on the supposition to six or seven thousand, the whole reasoning ought to be reversed. The truth is, that in all cases a certain number at least seems to be necessary to secure the benefits of free consultation and discussion, and to guard against too easy a combination for improper purposes; as, on the other hand, the number ought at most to be kept within a certain limit, in order to avoid the confusion and intemperance of a multitude."

"At the expiration of twenty-five years, according to the computed rate of increase, the number of representatives will amount to two hundred, and of fifty years, to four hundred. This is a number which, I presume, will put an end to all fears arising from the smallness of the body."