This just might fix Congress

By Jeff Orvis

It seems like at least once or twice a week, some of my Facebook friends are expressing their disgust with how Congress acts (or doesn't act) by suggesting a major change in how our representatives and senators are paid. Seems like they don't think they deserve to be paid four or five times the average American's salary, along with a cushy benefits package, especially with the way they are acting.

When I decide to post a blog, quite often I get an idea and let it roll around in my mind for at least a few hours before putting fingers to keyboard. The following proposal really began as sleep was leaving my mind this morning. Later this morning, it was reported that the Supreme Court ruled that the sky's the limit when it comes to individual donations to federal candidates. This might finally signal the end of input from the common man, as the wealthy few on both ends of the political spectrum open their checkbooks.

Members of Congress, especially when they come home to campaign, like to remind us that they are vying for terms of “public service.” I'll admit that since many of them are suspending their legal or medical practices or leaving corporate offices to spend two or six years shouting at each other in Washington, they are taking a pay cut. There are a few that claim that they are just like us and aren't leaving million dollar homes back in their home states. But as the cost of campaigning escalates, fewer and fewer of our representatives look like the rest of us.

So let's start at the beginning. We've all read about some of the ridiculous amounts of money some candidates are spending to get elected. The Supreme Court's recent ruling seemed to finish opening the financial floodgates. So if the ruling indicates that if you are a billionaire, you have the right to cut a $5 million check to your favorite congressman's campaign, let's limit from the other end. Why not limit the amount of money a candidate can spend, either from donations or his or her own funds, per election? So that way, the campaign enters the home stretch, Daddy Big Bucks' candidate is in trouble and is nearing the spending limit. The campaign would be forced to return that late big donation under the threat of fines or imprisonment.

A lot of folks think the salaries of the members of Congress should be cut. But Washington is an expensive place to live and many of them are paying mortgages on their houses back in their home states. Well, if serving in Congress is really public service, then let's cut those salaries. Part of their compensation would be a place to live in the Washington area. The government could build a nice condo complex and the members would be required to live there. More savings could be realized by limiting the number of government-funded trips home or foreign junkets.

Another obvious waste of resources has been evident this week as the CEO of General Motors has been testifying on why some of her company's vehicles have malfunctioned, apparently causing some traffic accidents and deaths. On important matters such as this, the main person involved usually has to testify at least twice, before one or more House and Senate committees. He or she usually has to repeat the testimony over and over. That way, the congressmen or senators can perform before the TV cameras by asking probing questions and acting dismayed and disgusted.

Let's stop the grandstanding. Congressional committees may have some worth. But why not cut the number of representatives in each hearing and hold joint hearings of senators and congressmen? Cut the number of representatives, cut back on the number of staffers lurking behind their bosses in the hearing room and you would certainly save money.

And while we're at it, let's cut back on the silly scenes we see on C-Span where a single member of Congress is speaking to a virtually empty chamber. There are still employees of the House or Senate who have to sit through these silly speeches so the speaker can read his or her thoughts into the Congressional Record. Make it a rule that no speech may be given unless at least half of the Senate or House is present. A lot of hot air would be saved!

These are just a few thoughts on how we could once again be proud of our Congress. Of course, most of the ideas will never happen, since they would have to be approved by the very folks who would be affected. So chalk this up to one of my favorite mental exercises, “If I Ruled the World.” But rest assured there has to be a better way.

Time to jump down off the soapbox for today and get ready for the Cubs' game tonight. Thanks for reading and for your support and constructive criticism.