Change the Game

How many House Representatives from your state can you name and what major bills have they played a significant role in proposing or pushing through?

That’s what I thought.

The House of Representatives has become a bloated organization of self-serving bureaucrats that have gerrymandered themselves into near permanent positions of power at $174,000 a year with little to nothing holding them accountable for performance. Bipartisan bickering and indecision have left them virtually incapable of fulfilling their duty to serve the American public. Last night, we received our most recent example. The House failed to pass the balanced budget amendment. We’re a country that’s 15 trillion dollars in debt, partially owned by a foreign power bent on stealing our technology and overcoming our position as the most powerful country in the world, and yet we can’t agree to stop spending more than we earn. Politicians will tell you the reason for this is a desire to save programs that serve the people such as Social Security and Medicaid, but the real reason is much simpler. A balanced budget reduces the power of Congress by limiting what they can spend. The last thing any politician is going to voluntarily vote for is a reduction in their own power.

Our country is much like a corporation, an industry leader suddenly laden with debt and facing competing firms eager to gobble up its market share. What is one of the first things a company in that position must do? It cuts the fat. It reduces overhead, it increases efficiency, and it removes the roadblocks that have caused its stagnation. How does the United States do that? We abolish the House of Representatives. Removing the 435 members of the House would result in a leaner government that is better equipped and more easily held accountable for making the decisions we need to turn our country around.

Our government was built on a system of checks and balances with three branches - Executive, Legislative, and Judicial - each tasked with ensuring the other doesn’t hold too much power. That wouldn’t change. The Senate would remain as our Legislative branch. The House was built to ensure the population is properly served by giving those areas with a larger number of citizens, a larger share of the 435 spots. That wouldn’t need to change either.

Our leaner Congress would include only a Senate, with each state receiving at least two and sometimes three representatives, based on population. Our country has a population of over 312 million. For the sake of easy math, let’s call it 300 million. With 50 states, that means each state would have 6 million people if the population were evenly spread across the country. Since it’s not and we want citizens to be fairly represented, we make a simple rule. Any state with less than the average gets two senators, any state with more than the average gets three senators. As of 2010, that would mean 17 states would have three senators and the remaining 33 would have two, giving us a total Senate of 117. Every decade, we’d adjust accordingly based on the new census, adding new or removing old positions in the next upcoming election cycle.

A Legislative branch consisting of one chamber made up of 117 members could get things done.  It would only take one majority vote of 59 to pass a bill rather than a majority vote of 218 in the House followed by another majority vote of 51 in the current Senate. It would also be easier for voters to track the performance of their elected officials. You’d only have two or three of them. If they don’t have a record of voting for the bills you like… toss them out.

This idea probably sounds extreme to some, but take a few minutes to question why. Does the House truly serve your needs as a citizen of this country or are your taxes serving the whims of those 435 politicians?