thirty-thousand.org ... 435 can not faithfully represent 300,000,000.

545 PEOPLE by Charlie Reese

545 PEOPLE
By Charlie Reese

Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them.

Have you ever wondered why, if both the Democrats and the Republicans are against deficits, we have deficits?

Have you ever wondered why, if all the politicians are against inflation and high taxes, we have inflation and high taxes?

You and I don’t propose a federal budget. The president does.

You and I don’t have the Constitutional authority to vote on appropriations. The House of Representatives does.

You and I don’t write the tax code, Congress does.

You and I don’t set fiscal policy, Congress does.

You and I don’t control monetary policy, the Federal Reserve Bank does.

One hundred senators, 435 congressmen, one president, and nine Supreme Court justices 545 human beings out of the 300 million are directly, legally, morally, and individually responsible for the domestic problems that plague this country.

I excluded the members of the Federal Reserve Board because that problem was created by the Congress. In 1913, Congress delegated its Constitutional duty to provide a sound currency to a federally chartered, but private, central bank.

I excluded all the special interests and lobbyists for a sound reason. They have no legal authority. They have no ability to coerce a senator, a congressman, or a president to do one cotton-picking thing. I don’t care if they offer a politician $1 million dollars in cash. The politician has the power to accept or reject it. No matter what the lobbyist promises, it is the legislator’s responsibility to determine how he votes.

Those 545 human beings spend much of their energy convincing you that what they did is not their fault. They cooperate in this common con regardless of party.

What separates a politician from a normal human being is an excessive amount of gall. No normal human being would have the gall of a Speaker, who stood up and criticized the President for creating deficits. The president can only propose a budget. He cannot force the Congress to accept it.

The Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, gives sole responsibility to the House of Representatives for originating and approving appropriations and taxes. Who is the speaker of the House? She is the leader of the majority party. She and fellow House members, not the president, can approve any budget they want. If the president vetoes it, they can pass it over his veto if they agree to.

It seems inconceivable to me that a nation of 300 million can not replace 545 people who stand convicted — by present facts — of incompetence and irresponsibility. I can’t think of a single domestic problem that is not traceable directly to those 545 people. When you fully grasp the plain truth that 545 people exercise the power of the federal government, then it must follow that what exists is what they want to exist.

If the tax code is unfair, it’s because they want it unfair.

If the budget is in the red, it’s because they want it in the red.

If the Marines are in IRAQ , it’s because they want them in IRAQ .

If they do not receive social security but are on an elite retirement plan not available to the people, it’s because they want it that way.

There are no insoluble government problems.

Do not let these 545 people shift the blame to bureaucrats, whom they hire and whose jobs they can abolish; to lobbyists, whose gifts and advice they can reject; to regulators, to whom they give the power to regulate and from whom they can take this power. Above all, do not let them con you into the belief that there exists disembodied mystical forces like “the economy,” “inflation,” or “politics” that prevent them from doing what they take an oath to do.

Those 545 people, and they alone, are responsible.

They, and they alone, have the power.

They, and they alone, should be held accountable by the people who are their bosses provided the voters have the gumption to manage their own employees.

We should vote all of them out of office and clean up their mess!

Charlie Reese is a former columnist of the Orlando Sentinel Newspaper.

What you do with this article now that you have read it is up to you, though you appear to have several choices.

1. You can send this to everyone in your address book, and hope they do something about it.

2. You can agree to vote against everyone that is currently in office, knowing that the process will take several years.

3. You can decide to run for office yourself and agree to do the job properly.

4. Lastly, you can sit back and do nothing, or re-elect the current bunch.

http://gulfshoreslife.wordpress.com/2008/08/20/545-people-by-charlie-reese/
 
Last edited:
First thing i think of :

We can't keep 435 under control, how can we even hope to keep 30,000 in line?

Not knocking your idea here, that is just the first thing that comes to mind...
 
First thing i think of :

We can't keep 435 under control, how can we even hope to keep 30,000 in line?

Not knocking your idea here, that is just the first thing that comes to mind...

It would be 10,000 reps, not 30,000. Its 1 rep per 30,000 people. Thats 300 million / 30,000 = 10,000
and You made your point about control exquisitely! How would we control 10,000 reps? We wouldn't and neither could the lobbyists! Thats a good thing! But we could control just one rep.. You would be on a first name basis with your representative, but the lobbyists would not. Get it?? IT would be in OUR favor, but NOT the big money lobbyists. Right now we have 689,000 citizens per rep. Do you know your rep? Does he know you? and Can you call him up just to say hi... and actually get him on the phone? I'm willing to bet that your rep knows many lobbyists by their first names, but NOT yours. Just think about it - we would have close relationships with our reps if we had 1 rep in 30,000. It would not be the other way around - like it is now.

TMike
 
Last edited:
30,000?

Why not 3,000 or 300,000 or 3 million or 30 million, etc.? :rolleyes:

Do you understand the story behind the name of the domain? They aren't proposing 30,000 members of the house. The domain is referring to the original suggestion that there be one representative for every 30,000 citizens.

If you do understand, then OK... just wanna make sure we're on the page here.
 
Do you understand the story behind the name of the domain? They aren't proposing 30,000 members of the house. The domain is referring to the original suggestion that there be one representative for every 30,000 citizens.

If you do understand, then OK... just wanna make sure we're on the page here.
Thanks for the clarification and explanation. :)

However, my PRINCIPLES still remain the same.

Do we REALLY need a perpetual "law factory"?
 
For or against the republic?

Zero is a good number.

I'm interested in restoring the republic -- as envisioned by the Founding Fathers -- and preserving it for my children, and theirs.

If this forum is comprised of people who also wish to preserve and recover the republican form of government, then I'm in the right place. If the focus here is on anarchy, just bitching, or giving up, then I'm clearly in the wrong place.

Those who are interested in learning more, please read the 15 Questions & Answers on Thirty-Thousand.org.

Those of you who would like to know more about the very first amendment inscribed on our Bill of Rights, and why it was never ratified, should read this Townhall.com article.

Thirty-Thousand.org is a non-partisan and non-profit 501(c)(3) organization.
 
How about keeping a stable number of congressmen, but weight their votes according to the the # of people in their constituencies and base the constituencies on actual communities, like counties or something? The only flaw I see is the possibility of congressmen wrangling to get more people into their districts and wrangling for higher pop districts.
 
How about keeping a stable number of congressmen, but weight their votes according to the the # of people in their constituencies and base the constituencies on actual communities, like counties or something?
Besides the fact that would require a major revision to the Constitution (via amendment), my primary objection to that idea is that it does NOT solve this fundamental problem: the Representatives currently have massive fiefdoms which ensure them of 95%+ reelection rates. If every district were only 50,000 people, we would replace 435 oligarchs with 6000 citizen representatives whose jobs would be at risk every two years.
 
I'm interested in restoring the republic -- as envisioned by the Founding Fathers -- and preserving it for my children, and theirs.

If this forum is comprised of people who also wish to preserve and recover the republican form of government, then I'm in the right place. If the focus here is on anarchy, just bitching, or giving up, then I'm clearly in the wrong place.

Those who are interested in learning more, please read the 15 Questions & Answers on Thirty-Thousand.org.

Those of you who would like to know more about the very first amendment inscribed on our Bill of Rights, and why it was never ratified, should read this Townhall.com article.

Thirty-Thousand.org is a non-partisan and non-profit 501(c)(3) organization.
Which of the Founding Fathers have earned your adoration? :)

The Illegality, Immorality, and Violence of All Political Action
http://users.aol.com/xeqtr1/voluntaryist/vopa.html

Index to the Antifederalist Papers
http://www.wepin.com/articles/afp/index.htm
 
Besides the fact that would require a major revision to the Constitution (via amendment), my primary objection to that idea is that it does NOT solve this fundamental problem: the Representatives currently have massive fiefdoms which ensure them of 95%+ reelection rates. If every district were only 50,000 people, we would replace 435 oligarchs with 6000 citizen representatives whose jobs would be at risk every two years.

Some of district could be large, but they would be focused as much as possible around actual community centers, and so could have somewhat greater ability to elect actual representatives of that community.

It is a complicated issue because if you go to far the other way, Congress becomes so large it becomes a fief of its own, and too top-heavy and bureaucratic. That's my concern.

Term limits would also be a good idea for the House.
 
More politicians = more bullshit.

Changing the number won't change anything. You have to change the people.


many of the new congressmen would not be politicians....

with such few people in a district a dedicated few of us can overthrow a sitting congressman very easily and replace them with citizen statesman....thats why this is a great idea....the founders knew this
 
Why do we need more representatives to leech off of public money? Why do we need any representatives? Self determination should be our right. LET THE STATES GO
 
It would be 10,000 reps, not 30,000. Its 1 rep per 30,000 people. Thats 300 million / 30,000 = 10,000
and You made your point about control exquisitely! How would we control 10,000 reps? We wouldn't and neither could the lobbyists! Thats a good thing! But we could control just one rep.. You would be on a first name basis with your representative, but the lobbyists would not. Get it?? IT would be in OUR favor, but NOT the big money lobbyists. Right now we have 689,000 citizens per rep. Do you know your rep? Does he know you? and Can you call him up just to say hi... and actually get him on the phone? I'm willing to bet that your rep knows many lobbyists by their first names, but NOT yours. Just think about it - we would have close relationships with our reps if we had 1 rep in 30,000. It would not be the other way around - like it is now.

TMike

Very nice points here Mike, I think that I am liking the idea much better now...:cool: Hmmm...
 
Back
Top