PDA

View Full Version : Congress needs to be at least 20x bigger




RandRevolution
02-08-2013, 08:09 AM
When it first started out one congressman represented 30 thousand Americans now one represents about 700 thousand. Bigger congress does not mean bigger government, it actually means smaller government because bigger congress = more decentralized decision making = smaller government. Same deal with the senate if they're going to be democratically elected.

tod evans
02-08-2013, 08:20 AM
I'd be okay with that so long as they all split the current salary and give up the tax-payer funded health-care and retirement program..

Oh-yeah, they'd have to split all operating costs too..

TonySutton
02-08-2013, 08:26 AM
Being from a region where my representative is 2 counties away in a decent size city but who is also supposed to be representing us small town folks an hours drive away, I am in favor of actually being represented for once in my life!

OH-9

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/members/OH/9

Take a look at my district and see what utter crap it is.

CT4Liberty
02-08-2013, 08:26 AM
I remember another thread about America being Too Big to Succeed, which brought up this very topic.

Personally, I think 10,000 members of Congress wouldnt work and the better idea is to break up the US into smaller, more manageable regions that are self governed. You can start with the same Constitution... keep it under 500 members of Congress (so essentially split it up into at least 4 regions) and go from there.

pcosmar
02-08-2013, 08:34 AM
I remember another thread about America being Too Big to Succeed, which brought up this very topic.

Personally, I think 10,000 members of Congress wouldnt work and the better idea is to break up the US into smaller, more manageable regions that are self governed. You can start with the same Constitution... keep it under 500 members of Congress (so essentially split it up into at least 4 regions) and go from there.

How about breaking it up into say,, 50 states.

And remove all salaries from all elected positions. Pay by (limited) donation by those that vote for them, and watched closely for any bribery.
Any caught taking bribes would be removed from office and forbidden from ever serving again.

Origanalist
02-08-2013, 08:38 AM
How about breaking it up into say,, 50 states.

And remove all salaries from all elected positions. Pay by (limited) donation by those that vote for them, and watched closely for any bribery.
Any caught taking bribes would be removed from office and forbidden from ever serving again.

I like that idea.

acptulsa
02-08-2013, 08:40 AM
How about breaking it up into say,, 50 states.

This.

I don't mind that congresscritters are paid. I just want to see an amendment that says, if the Supreme Court rules a law unconstitutional, everyone in Congress that voted for it is instantly removed from office. And if the court unanimously rules the law unconstitutional, everyone who voted for it is jailed. Ninth and Tenth Amendments for the win!

TomtheTinker
02-08-2013, 08:40 AM
+rep bomb...I think this should be a platform position of the liberty movement.

CT4Liberty
02-08-2013, 08:43 AM
How about breaking it up into say,, 50 states.

And remove all salaries from all elected positions. Pay by (limited) donation by those that vote for them, and watched closely for any bribery.
Any caught taking bribes would be removed from office and forbidden from ever serving again.

Even better...

TomtheTinker
02-08-2013, 09:01 AM
having close to 10000 reps and term limits would do the trick as far as limiting the the impact of corruption. Although laws punishing corruption are needed...I wouldn't mind reps getting paid a modest salary.

BAllen
02-08-2013, 09:43 AM
I remember another thread about America being Too Big to Succeed, which brought up this very topic.

Personally, I think 10,000 members of Congress wouldnt work and the better idea is to break up the US into smaller, more manageable regions that are self governed. You can start with the same Constitution... keep it under 500 members of Congress (so essentially split it up into at least 4 regions) and go from there.

Just shrink the Federal Government to those powers authorized in the Constitution, and turn the rest of it over to the states.

kathy88
02-08-2013, 09:48 AM
Being from a region where my representative is 2 counties away in a decent size city but who is also supposed to be representing us small town folks an hours drive away, I am in favor of actually being represented for once in my life!

OH-9

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/members/OH/9



Take a look at my district and see what utter crap it is.


I'm in the same boat. PA-5. Look at this monster
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/members/PA

Tax the Fed
02-08-2013, 09:56 AM
Just shrink the Federal Government to those powers authorized in the Constitution, and turn the rest of it over to the states.

OP must have meant 20x smaller

BlackJack
02-08-2013, 09:59 AM
How about breaking it up into say,, 50 states.

Agreed.


And remove all salaries from all elected positions. Pay by (limited) donation by those that vote for them, and watched closely for any bribery.
Any caught taking bribes would be removed from office and forbidden from ever serving again.

Disagree. I think they should have a set salary although it should be much lower than what they're being paid now. Maybe 60-80k?

tod evans
02-08-2013, 10:07 AM
Disagree. I think they should have a set salary although it should be much lower than what they're being paid now. Maybe 60-80k?

Really?

Have you, or has anyone you even know of received $60k worth of representation in your life time?

BlackJack
02-08-2013, 10:23 AM
Really?

Have you, or has anyone you even know of received $60k worth of representation in your life time?

My mother won $200k in Vegas 10 years ago.

What's wrong with Congressmen having a set salary? It is an important governmental role. I do think in a more libertarian world, they should receive some compensation for their hard work. The current Congress is corrupt, and it's members are being paid too much. I'm not some anarchist who just wants to destroy government. It just need to be severely limited.

TomtheTinker
02-08-2013, 10:26 AM
So somebody starts a thread about restoring the house to its correct size which is an improbable but worth while goal. Instead of having a conversation about the pros, cons and challenges of such a goal, we move on to the politically impossible and logistically unrealistic idea of dividing 50 regions. Don't we already have state governments...the system we have would work f it was followed. If the feds followed the constitution and the states fulfilled their obligations we essentially already would have 50 self governed areas. Having more rep would Increase representation on federal level which would in turn limit the ability of the fed government increasing its powers.

Tax the Fed
02-08-2013, 10:28 AM
. . . we move on to the politically impossible and logistically unrealistic idea of dividing 50 regions.
... already would have 50 self governed areas.

Anti-Federalism . . . an idea of the founding fathers that should be part of the Rand Paul 2016 platform imho

Divide it up into 50 or 10 seperate distinct taxing authorities.
0 percent federal tax . . . ok maybe 5 percent . . . pay your taxes to the state instead of to Washington DC bullsheeters.

That would be sweet and right with John Adams and John Jay Patriots alike.

Philhelm
02-08-2013, 10:31 AM
I think everyone in Congress should have to perform their duties over a trap door and with nooses around their necks. Then, at each of their desks would be a button for every other Congressman which would release their trap doors. Controversial bills would cease immediately.

tod evans
02-08-2013, 10:44 AM
My mother won $200k in Vegas 10 years ago.

What's wrong with Congressmen having a set salary? It is an important governmental role. I do think in a more libertarian world, they should receive some compensation for their hard work. The current Congress is corrupt, and it's members are being paid too much. I'm not some anarchist who just wants to destroy government. It just need to be severely limited.


How about adopting Ron Paul's idea of only accepting the median income as salary?

I can't see paying corrupt blowhards more than Ron Paul offered to work for as president...

Tax the Fed
02-08-2013, 11:18 AM
. . . adopting Ron Paul's idea of only accepting the median income as salary?



Certainly would encourage the POTUS to stimulate the economy enough to raise the median income, as it would be his (or her someday) salary as well.

Philhelm
02-08-2013, 11:20 AM
How about adopting Ron Paul's idea of only accepting the median income as salary?

I can't see paying corrupt blowhards more than Ron Paul offered to work for as president...

They would probably significantly raise the minimum wage and then wonder why the median income dropped (and unemployment rose).

heavenlyboy34
02-08-2013, 11:29 AM
This went over like a lead balloon when I started this conversation. Interesting how things change in relatively few months.

heavenlyboy34
02-08-2013, 11:34 AM
So somebody starts a thread about restoring the house to its correct size which is an improbable but worth while goal. Instead of having a conversation about the pros, cons and challenges of such a goal, we move on to the politically impossible and logistically unrealistic idea of dividing 50 regions. Don't we already have state governments...the system we have would work f it was followed. If the feds followed the constitution and the states fulfilled their obligations we essentially already would have 50 self governed areas. Having more rep would Increase representation on federal level which would in turn limit the ability of the fed government increasing its powers.

Yeah, but it never has and never will be followed. I'd say you're the one being unrealistic. Smashing the FedGov into many local pieces or giving adequate representation (as the OP mention) is as close as minarchists are ever going to get to liberty.

KingNothing
02-08-2013, 11:41 AM
When it first started out one congressman represented 30 thousand Americans now one represents about 700 thousand. Bigger congress does not mean bigger government, it actually means smaller government because bigger congress = more decentralized decision making = smaller government. Same deal with the senate if they're going to be democratically elected.

I imagine the contrary -- bigger congress would mean even more pork stuffed into bills by those in Washington pushing legislation to win support within Congress, and an even greater incentive for congressmen to "bring home the bacon" to their districts due to increased visibility back home.

Tax the Fed
02-08-2013, 11:49 AM
I imagine the contrary -- bigger congress would mean even more pork stuffed into bills by those in Washington pushing legislation to win support within Congress, and an even greater incentive for congressmen to "bring home the bacon" to their districts due to increased visibility back home.

This . . .

It is why it is evident that the founding fathers did make one big effing mistake . . .

People that work in government should be denied the privilege to vote in national elections . . . they will ALWAYS vote for bigger
and bigger and bigger and bigger government.

Now we need an amendment to preserve the nation from its' morass self.

heavenlyboy34
02-08-2013, 11:52 AM
I imagine the contrary -- bigger congress would mean even more pork stuffed into bills by those in Washington pushing legislation to win support within Congress, and an even greater incentive for congressmen to "bring home the bacon" to their districts due to increased visibility back home.
You'd think so, but when this has been done in other places, there's a lot more gridlock and the congresscriminals don't get as much done. Besides, shouldn't supposed constitionalists want the congress to be what the authors of the CONstitution intended it to be?:confused:

RandRevolution
02-08-2013, 12:27 PM
Sure ideally we would just let the states decide everything besides going to war (and congress should be bigger for that purpose) but that's not going to happen anytime soon so this is a better alternative.

ronpaulhawaii
02-08-2013, 12:46 PM
http://www.thirty-thousand.org/

heavenlyboy34
02-08-2013, 01:00 PM
http://www.thirty-thousand.org/ +rep If you could also dig up the last thread on this subject and link to it, it would be appreciated. :)

PaulConventionWV
02-08-2013, 03:03 PM
When it first started out one congressman represented 30 thousand Americans now one represents about 700 thousand. Bigger congress does not mean bigger government, it actually means smaller government because bigger congress = more decentralized decision making = smaller government. Same deal with the senate if they're going to be democratically elected.

That would be very impractical. More government employees means less production in the private sector and higher taxes.

PaulConventionWV
02-08-2013, 03:09 PM
Agreed.



Disagree. I think they should have a set salary although it should be much lower than what they're being paid now. Maybe 60-80k?

I think we probably should have more representatives, but I also think the US is way too big to have a centralized federal government. It's impractical either way. That being said, it seems unfair to expect people to represent simply out of the goodness of their hearts. On the other hand, however, I do not support most taxes and I really don't like the idea of paying congressmen because it does open itself up to corruption. If we were going to pay them, I would probably make it even lower than that, like 30k.

PaulConventionWV
02-08-2013, 03:12 PM
I think everyone in Congress should have to perform their duties over a trap door and with nooses around their necks. Then, at each of their desks would be a button for every other Congressman which would release their trap doors. Controversial bills would cease immediately.

That's a lot of buttons, especially if we are going to have 10,000 reps and 9,999 buttons for each rep.

LibForestPaul
02-08-2013, 03:15 PM
I'm in the same boat. PA-5. Look at this monster
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/members/PA

Harrisburg 3,4,5 districts, all meanderig away to the border?

Occam's Banana
02-08-2013, 03:17 PM
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?398367-Is-America-Too-Big

Is America Too Big?
Is America too big for democracy? Too big for its traditional republican form? What does it mean if the answer is yes? This video series proposes that the source of our biggest social and political problems is our SIZE. Like the, obese, 600 pound man who experiences heart failure, diabetes, and dozens of other ailments, so too does America, only its diseases go by the names Debt, War, Entitlements, Gridlock, and Corruption. Our problems cannot be fixed through any change in ideology or bi-partisan agreement in Congress, because those are not the root of our problems. The source is our size. As America's population increases, the level of representation and control each voter has must inexorably decrease. As power centralizes in a federal government, literally out of the hands of its citizens, conflicts and problems mount. What can be done? Please watch and join the conversation.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RCNd7h0fsdE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RCNd7h0fsdE

Smart3
02-08-2013, 03:25 PM
a 1000-seat government elected by proportional representation, based on the Dutch model would be infinitely better than what we have now. Districts are stupid.

heavenlyboy34
02-08-2013, 03:28 PM
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?398367-Is-America-Too-Big

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RCNd7h0fsdE


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RCNd7h0fsdE
That's the one I was looking for!! ^^ Everyone WATCH it! :)

VoluntaryAmerican
02-08-2013, 03:30 PM
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?398367-Is-America-Too-Big

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RCNd7h0fsdE


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RCNd7h0fsdE

Beat me to it, rep.

heavenlyboy34
02-08-2013, 03:38 PM
I think we probably should have more representatives, but I also think the US is way too big to have a centralized federal government. It's impractical either way. That being said, it seems unfair to expect people to represent simply out of the goodness of their hearts. On the other hand, however, I do not support most taxes and I really don't like the idea of paying congressmen because it does open itself up to corruption. If we were going to pay them, I would probably make it even lower than that, like 30k.

I would prefer lower than that (typical congresscritters are what I consider wealthy anyway). It definitely shouldn't exceed the median income in the private sector. What's the income level for a "working poor" type nowadays? That might be good for congresscritters.

KingNothing
02-08-2013, 03:52 PM
You'd think so, but when this has been done in other places, there's a lot more gridlock and the congresscriminals don't get as much done. Besides, shouldn't supposed constitionalists want the congress to be what the authors of the CONstitution intended it to be?:confused:


I'm a constitionalists only when being so agrees with limited or no government, and maximum liberty.

heavenlyboy34
02-08-2013, 03:54 PM
I'm a constitionalists only when being so agrees with limited or no government, and maximum liberty.
You'd have to rewrite the whole thing to make that happen. ;)

BlackJack
02-08-2013, 11:36 PM
How about adopting Ron Paul's idea of only accepting the median income as salary?

I can't see paying corrupt blowhards more than Ron Paul offered to work for as president...

Who said they have to be corrupt blowhards?

Unfortunately in reality, they are corrupt fucks.

Keith and stuff
02-08-2013, 11:47 PM
Good luck with that. The reason NH has so many is because it's in the Constitution. When problems like this are broken, there doesn't seem to be any way to fix them. Best to not break them in the first place. For example, in NH, the pay is travel and hotel if needed. The reason it is so low is because it's in the Constitution. Sure, it would be nice if there were a couple 1,000 US Reps and they made nothing other than travel and hotel, but it's not going to happen. Not much point in even talking about it, other than to show how terrible things are, IMO.

KrokHead
02-09-2013, 05:08 AM
The only way a 20x bigger congress would work is if it would in effect halt government due to squabbling, but it's just be the same ol' game it already is with the two teams trash talking each other in the press and then going to the same strip clubs together after work laughing about it.

nobody's_hero
02-09-2013, 02:22 PM
The only way a 20x bigger congress would work is if it would in effect halt government due to squabbling, but it's just be the same ol' game it already is with the two teams trash talking each other in the press and then going to the same strip clubs together after work laughing about it.

This. Instead of say, 200 democrats and 235 republicans, you'd have 4,000 democrats and 4,700 republicans.

If you really want government gridlock, ban political parties and see if people can figure out which players are on which teams.

heavenlyboy34
02-09-2013, 02:29 PM
The only way a 20x bigger congress would work is if it would in effect halt government due to squabbling, but it's just be the same ol' game it already is with the two teams trash talking each other in the press and then going to the same strip clubs together after work laughing about it.
So the Constitution doesn't matter if you don't agree with it? (the prescription for representatives/population in this case) Not saying you're necessarily wrong (I haven't done enough research yet to say that), but I thought you were a Constituitonalist-which by definition means demanding every article and clause of it be followed.

abacabb
03-09-2013, 03:26 PM
The only way a 20x bigger congress would work is if it would in effect halt government due to squabbling, but it's just be the same ol' game it already is with the two teams trash talking each other in the press and then going to the same strip clubs together after work laughing about it.

It works:
http://www.njoe.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/galactic-senate.jpg