Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sioux Nation -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: No Mo Mo who wrote (160502)	2/12/2009 3:09:59 PM
From: SiouxPal	Respond to of 362346

Yep.

To: No Mo Mo who wrote (160502)	2/12/2009 3:12:15 PM
From: SiouxPal	Respond to of 362346

"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 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..

To: No Mo Mo who wrote (160502)	2/12/2009 11:54:43 PM
From: SiouxPal	Respond to of 362346

Obama Will Need All of His 'Out-of-The-Box' Thinking to Tackle Israel by Anne Penketh Never mind the global economic downturn: the Holy Land will be the real test of whether Barack Obama can actually walk on water. The omens do not look good for the Middle East peace process. Benjamin Netanyahu, the man most likely to lead an Israeli coalition government, is joined at the hip with the American neo-conservatives. An Obama adviser recognised that the election result posed a "challenge" for the president. The question is how much pressure Mr Obama will be prepared to put on the next Israeli government to achieve his stated goal of a Jewish state and Palestinian state living side by side. His special envoy for Afghanistan and Pakistan, Richard Holbrooke, has said he had "never seen anything like the mess we have inherited". If applied to Middle East, that is an understatement. The Bush administration shared the Israeli government's view that the (Arab) moderates should be bolstered and the extremists shunned, a policy that encouraged the civil war between Fatah and Hamas which culminated in the ousting of the Fatah faction from Gaza. Israel's most recent onslaught on Gaza failed to stop the rockets targeting Israeli civilians, the Palestinian factions are at each others' throats, Israeli illegal settlement building continues and obstructions across the West Bank still constrain attempts to forge a Palestinian economy. Mr Obama's Middle East envoy, George Mitchell, nevertheless appears undaunted and is preparing for a second trip to the region. Mr Obama took the region by surprise by appointing him at the outset of his presidency, and identified the conflict as a diplomatic priority. But what kind of peace negotiations does he envisage? Would talks be continued between Palestinians and Israelis, or would it be a broader peace involving Syria and Lebanon, and possibly Iran? On his first trip to the region, Mr Mitchell stuck to diplomatic convention. But Mr Obama has shown that he is capable of "out-of-the-box" thinking. A senior Arab diplomat said hopes are running high in the Middle East that Mr Obama will succeed. But the same diplomat predicted Mr Mitchell would throw in the towel after six months in the job. Published on Thursday, February 12, 2009 by The Independent/UK