ponderingtheessence

For those of you who did not see the exchange between Sen. Barbara Boxer and
a General in a Senate hearing, it was one of the most crass and rude
exchanges I’ve ever seen. She asked him a question and he answered with the
term ‘Ma’am’. She told him she was a Senator and to not call her ma’am. Thus
the following letter. Brilliant in it’s substance, so deserving in its
accuracy.
From a Guard Aviator and Captain for Alaska Air Lines. He hits the nail
directly on the head…. Enjoy.

Barbara Boxer; Stand at Attention in Front of Our Armed Forces

You were so right on when you scolded the General on TV for using the term,
“ma’am,” instead of “Senator.” After all, in the military, “ma’am” is a term
of respect when addressing a female of superior rank or position.

The General was totally wrong. You are not a person of superior rank or
position. You are a member of one of the world’s most corrupt organizations,
the U. S. Senate, equaled only by the U. S. House of Representatives.

Congress is a cesspool of liars, thieves, inside traders, traitors, drunks
(one who killed a staffer, yet is still revered), criminals, and other low
level swine who, as individuals (not all, but many), will do anything to
enhance their lives, fortunes and power, all at the expense of the people of
the United States and its Constitution, in order to be continually
re-elected. Many democrats even want American troops killed by releasing
photographs.

How many of you could honestly say, “We pledge our lives, our fortunes and
our sacred honor”? None? One? Two?

Your reaction to the general shows several things. First is your abysmal
ignorance of all things military. Your treatment of the general shows you to
be an elitist of the worst kind. When the general entered the military (as
most of us who served) he wrote the government a blank check, offering his
life to protect your derriere now safely and comfortably ensconced in a 20
thousand dollar leather chair, paid for by the general’s taxes. You repaid
him for this by humiliating him in front of millions.

Second is your puerile character, lack of sophistication, and arrogance,
which borders on the hubristic. This display of brattish behavior shows you
to be a virago, termagant, harridan, nag, scold or shrew, unfit for your
position, regardless of the support of the unwashed, uneducated masses who
have made California into the laughing stock of the nation.

What I am writing, Senator, are the same thoughts countless millions of
Americans have toward Congress, but who lack the energy, ability or time to
convey them. Under the democrats, some don’t even have the 44 cents to buy
the stamp. Regardless of their thoughts, most realize politicians are pretty
much the same, and will vote for the one who will bring home the most bacon,
even if they do consider how corrupt that person is.

Lord Acton (1834 1902) so aptly charged, “Power tends to corrupt and
absolute power corrupts absolutely.” Unbeknownst to you and your colleagues,
Mr. Power has had his way with all of you, and we are all the worse for it.

Finally Senator; I too, have a title. It is “Right Wing Extremist Potential
Terrorist Threat.” It is not of my choosing, but was given to me by your
Secretary of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano… And “ma’am” offended
you?

Cheers!

Jim Hill
16808 - 103rd Avenue Court
East South Hill, WA 98375

The Proposal”

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 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 had 3 senators that were not doing their jobs for the 18+ months (on the campaign trail) and still they all have accepted full pay.  These facts alone support a reduction in senators & congress. (Obama, Clinton and McCain worked their day jobs while campaigning and were not those three they are talking about),

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, 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, delete this message.  Otherwise, I assume you know what to do.