Re: [RC] Re: Unlimted Congressmen ?

[David R. Block]

Title: "Remember, to a liberal, anyone who makes money in an endeavor frowned upon by liberals is 'greedy' and any person who express

Yes, and it sucks mightily. David "Remember, to a liberal, anyone who makes money in an endeavor frowned upon by liberals is 'greedy' and any person who expresses an idea contrary to basic liberal dogma is preaching 'hate.'  How shallow these people are."—Neal Boortz   On 11/29/2011 10:19 PM, Mike Gonzalez wrote: The unfortunate aspect is that the federal legislative layer is so disconnected that now we'd have to elect special officials just to tell them how normal people live. On Nov 29, 10:57 pm, bil...@aol.com wrote: Actually the idea  --see other e-mail--   is for a new kind  of official. Could be called anything. Seneschal. Major Domo. Neighborhood Chief But "Precinct Leader" sounds better. Nothing to do with Precinct Captains, who are party workers. Who gets the ear of the Representative ?  As things are, he / she  hears out constituents in local town halls, maybe, since some don't do this, or lobbyists, plus favorite cronies and local office holders like mayors. This would give neighborhoods representation by way of an official  office for the purpose, but keeping the number of members of the House within reason. I think we would get a zoo if the number was increased to 1500. But I  get the argument that when there are hundreds of thousands who are  represented only a few selected interests actually are heard. This is not a big priority of mine, however, the subject simply came  up in conversation  and sounded interesting. Billy -------------------------- 11/29/2011 6:40:28 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, david.r.bl...@verizon.net writes: Ironically, the Constitution does not have the  number of congress-critters etched in stone. It lets Congress itself decide.  The current 435 ceiling came into being early last century. It wasn't until  the 1960s that the courts got  involved in making all districts within a  state have the same population. At least for Texas. In 1960, rural Wharton  County with a population of 40,000 had a state representative. Harris County  had 4. "So what?" one might say. Harris County is Houston, 800,000 at  the time. One per 40,000 for Wharton, 1 per 200,000 for Harris. Rich ranchers  ruled the state (like LBJ). Texas currently elects precinct captains  for each party. If no one runs, then the County level party appoints someone.  I take it you would have these run against each other for the "actual"  precinct captain. No? David   _ "Remember,  to a liberal, anyone who makes money in an endeavor frowned upon by liberals  is 'greedy' and any person who expresses an idea contrary to basic liberal  dogma is preaching 'hate.'  How  shallow these people are."— Neal  Boortz On 11/29/2011 1:16 AM,  BIL...@aol.com_ (mailto:bil...@aol.com)  wrote: Mike : I take it that this is a subject that has special interest for  you. Since I'm not quite as bent out of shape about it, my response will be somewhat briefer. Suppose we set the "ideal" ratio of citizens to representatives at  30,000 : 1. Given current population this translates into about 10,000 Congressmen  / women. OK, this is unrealistic, we cut that by half, to 60,000  : 1, that  still is 5,000 representatives. Too large ?  Very well, how about 120,000 : 1.?  That is 2,500 in Congress. Repeat the process, a quarter of a million to _one_ = 1, 250  members. Granted the House of Commons has more MPs that we have  Congressspersons, but have you ever watched Parliament in action ? They show it on  C-Span now and then. What a travesty. Constant shouting, zero decorum on  many occasions, boos, loud noises when someone deigns to speak, and on and  on. I really am not impressed. I will stick to the principle that 500 is an approximate upper limit  for an actually deliberative body. Could be more if they were all Buddhist monks or Catholic bishops, but I don't see this as a likely future for Congress. Using your figures as a rough guide, each Congressman / lady, costs  us about $ 3 million per year, including 18 staffers, franking, office  space, etc, So we increase their number to 1250. That is over 800 new  representatives. The increase comes in at about  $ 2-1/2  billion per year. $ 25 billion over 10 years. $ 50 billion over 20 years. We find all kinds of economies, do some drastic cutting, down by 50  %, and that still would be about  $ 12.5 billion each decade. $ 25 billion for 20 years. All right with you ? And, O yeah, there is that awkward document called the US  Constitution. We forget about it ? Just a detail we don't need to worry about ? Ummm, seems to me that this is a MAJOR issue, anything but a footnote to our considerations. ----- Re : " there is  no business that can be done face to face that can't be done hundreds of  miles away." Only for some functions. I would compare this with telecourses / education. Sure, content  can be imparted via TV,  but missing is ( most ) student interaction, teacher-student "real time" interaction, informal discussions after class, and a lot  of intangibles that are probably unquantifiable but important  nonetheless. Telecourses are a lot better than nothing, but not as good as in-person classes. To me, this is an unarguable fact. Sure, to switch metaphors, you could marry  a  woman via  computer but I doubt if you would say  that in a marriage  "there is no business that can be done face to face that can't be  done hundreds of miles away." Not quite the same thing, but to get  the idea across. Besides, given examples like Herman Cain and Bill  Clinton ( and God only knows how many others ), the comparison has  some merit. I am anything but a technophobe, but technology has serious  limitations. Anyway, no argument that we need a better system of  representation, but what is wrong with adding a new kind of local gvt, consisting  of elected leaders at the precinct level who , by law, are able to meet  1 : 1 with House members on a regular basis ? Not "precinct captains" who are appointed by local party bosses, but elected officials who could be from any party, including "3rd parties." Costs per precinct leader would be a small fraction of that for Representatives in DC. This system also has the advantage of least amount of messing with  the Constitution. Reaction ? Billy ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 11/28/2011 9:26:50 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, _mike.c.gonza...@gmail.com_ (mailto:mike.c.gonza...@gmail.com)   writes: Argument: There are benefits to in-person argument and  discussion. Response: As technology has adjusted to the demands  of interpersonal communication, there is no business that can be done  face to face that can't be done hundreds of miles away. I would respond  that there is no measurable benefit to convening in D.C. outside of  traditional circumstances (SOTU, major speeches,  etc.) Argument: There are size limitations on the effectiveness  of deliberative bodies- likely about  500. Response: The United Kingdom operates with 650 MPs and  744 Lords, one of many stable legislative systems that break that  treshold. Argument: We could not find a way to pay these extra  $1,000-2,000 congressmen without adding to our debt  problem. Response: The salary of a congressman ($174,000) is  just a drop in the bucket compared to their franking privileges, the  district office rental, their up to 18 permanent staff members at up to  $150,000 each, and domestic travel (minimum of $9,700). We can  certainly reform the system and cut costs. We have, as a  proportion, nearly the poorest representation in the entire Western  hemisphere. If America had the same level of representation as Canada,  we would have 2,778 congressional districts. In pure numbers, we're  beaten by Mexico, Cuba, and Brazil.  The New Hampshire House of  Representatives (population 1.3 million) has nearly as many members as  the U.S. House (population 312 million). We can't even get residents of  our capital their own voting representation. Meanwhile, we have a  series of 435 feifdoms headed by a body with a 95% re-election rate.  Strongmen in the Middle East are more likely to be removed from office  than our representatives, even at an 13% approval rate. But,  even through all this, our legislative system is not broken. We're  stable. We don't resort to violence and assassinations to influence  policy. We can still do better,  though. -- Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community <RadicalCentrism@googlegroups.com> Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org