Steven for Congress

Moving to the new domain

2010-01-09T01:05:00.002-05:00

Thanks for your interest! We have now moved to http://www.votersforstevenedwards.org

Budgeting for an enlarged House of Representatives

2010-01-01T16:05:00.006-05:00

Budgeting for an enlarged House of Representatives

In this paper we will explore several proposals appropriating the necessary funds to enable enlargement of the US House of Representatives to an expandable membership of approximately 3500 Representative. This estimated size reflects an estimated US Population of 308 Million with one Representative per 100,000 citizens. I've tried to keep this proposal as simple as possible due to the overwhelming nature of the budgeting process.

One of the first questions asked is "How are we going to pay for more congressmen". Anytime someone talks about growing any aspect of government the question always comes up as to how to pay for it. Daniel Patrick Moynihan once said "Everyone is entitled to his own opinion but not his own facts". When it comes to the finding the money to pay for adding members to the US House of Representatives, the fact is that the government already takes in more than enough to be able to afford adding 3000 or so new Representatives.

Each of these proposals has advantages and limitations, While adopting of only one of these proposals may be sufficient to fund an expanded house, we must seek to adopt a mixture of all of them, as well as others, as a matter of prudence and fiscal discipline. I welcome your input to improve upon these existing proposals or add additional funding proposals.

Proposal #1 Cut the house members individual budgets

Determining Congresses share of the budget is a complex process, that allocates additional disbursements depending on the committee served and various other factors. For the purposes of this proposal we will be using estimated expenses that represent an average of all House members.

In 2007, factoring in all of the services provided to congress, the average estimated expense per House member was 3.1 million dollars resulting in a total expense of of 1.35 billion dollars. Assuming that number is still close to being valid, expanding the membership with the current proposal to seven times it's existing size would mean supporting each member on $442,857.14.

As of 2009 the individual member of the US House of Representatives is paid an annual salary of $174,000 including annual cost of living adjustments, health care benefits and a wide assortment of fringe benefit. If we round up the estimated reduction of member expense after enlarging the House to to $450,000 and subtract that members salary of $174,000 it leaves us with an average allocation of $276,000. For more information regarding the usage of 2007 budget numbers see Note #1 below.

As popular as this would be with the citizens of the US. This measure would not be effective due to the average not taking in to account the various factors, including staff, offices, travel expense, etc.

Proposal #2 Allocate a percentage of recovered wasteful spending to congressional budgets. Provide incentive bonuses directed towards the elimination of other forms of waste.

In the private sector it is quite common to reward extraordinary performance. Within the framework of existing committee structures and budget process, revenue for funding an expanded congress can be obtained for the creation of an award system whereby each committee and it's' membership receives an annual performance bonus relative to the waste reduction. Waste being defined as wasted money, and wasted resources measured by the simplification, revision and reduction of existing law. For constructionist context, see: James Madison's notes on the constitutional convention: proposal for body of revision.

It was estimated that the 2007 expense of all legislative branch activities was 4.8 billion dollars. Given cost of living adjustments and normal government expansion since 2007, I believe it is save to assume Congress as a whole costs the country 5 billion dollars a year to operate. However the US House portion of this allocated to it's members in 2007 was estimated at 1.35 billion dollars. By enlarging the house membership from 435 to 3500 members, the expense of the House would rise to approximately 9.5 billion. Rounding up for inflation, cost of living, other government expense, etc I believe it is safe to say an enlarged congress would cost approximately 15 billion dollars a year to operate.

Waste is pervasive in our government, even among it's most primary function, National Defense. On Sept. 10 2001, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld gave a speech at the pentagon where he spoke about the problems facing the military of the nation. "the adversary's closer to home. It's the Pentagon bureaucracy," he said. "In fact, it could be said it's a matter of life and death," and Rumsfeld stated: "According to some estimates we cannot track $2.3 trillion in transactions." Rumsfeld promised change but the following day the occurrence of the Sept. 11th attacks took the attention off of the existing problem of waste as the focus shifted to redesigning and redeploying the military to counter the new threat.

The total Federal expenditures for 2007 were $2.73 trillion of which the required $15 billion dollars represents 2.054794520547945%. By aggressively targeting waste and recovering 3% of the total Federal expense, sufficient funds can be reallocated for reapportionment.

I believe this method would be effective in the elimination of much governmental waste through the rewarding of performance enhancement to governance. The issue of sustainability is a valid fear due to continual downward pressure that would be exerted on the budgeting process. Any Performance Bonus System must include caps on awards to avoid the pressure to excessively cut costs for strictly personal gain by House members and their staffs.

Proposal #3 Reduce Executive branch agency regulatory authority and reallocate a portion of the recovered funds to Congressional Committees for disbursement

Most of the Federal Departments and their alphabet soup of government agencies exist in the Executive branch are not mentioned in the Constitution. The Congress which creates these agencies via enabling acts, often grants sweeping regulatory authority the the Executive branch, to make or amend rather than simply enforce regulations. An enlarged house membership would allow for enlargement of the existing committee structure to better oversee creation, amending and repel these often obscure regulations. For constructionist context, see: James Madison's notes on the constitutional convention: proposal for body of revision.

This proposal is the hardest to calculate because the rate of return is so variable depending on the agency in question, it's funding and what percentage of the total budget it represents. Reallocation of the authority and funding to congress, which it has given to certain Executive Branch agencies to create their own 'law' via regulations allowed though various enabling acts, represents a nearly incalculable source of funding. By shifting various staff and funding to the Legislative branch to support the expanded oversight process the cost to the total federal budget should would be deficit neutral.

Conclusion: Many sources of funding exist for expanding proper representation required by reapportionment. A combination of these proposals and others can provide all of the funding required.

Note #1

Due to the convoluted nature of determining any aspect of the federal budget, combined with supplemental appropriations bills for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the economic downturn starting in 2008, supplemental economic stimulus spending and plummeting tax receipts, calculation of any aspect of the Congress and the Houses share of the current and proposed budgets is guesswork at best. I have therefore elected to use the budget and revenue data from 2007 to provide estimates of real and projected expenses.

List of Resources

- Office of Management and Budget (OMB) http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/

- Congressional Budget Office (CBO) http://www.cbo.gov

- Joint Committee on Taxation http://www.jct.gov

- Department of Treasury www.ustreas.gov

- House Budget Committee http://budget.house.gov

- Listing of disbursements by US House Members http://disbursements.house.gov/

- Consult the Proposed Federal Budget Fiscal 2010 for a list of Executive Departments and agency funding.

Popular Sovereignty

2009-12-28T23:41:00.000-05:00

Reapportionment of United States House of Representatives is the reestablishment of Popular Sovereignty in the United States of America.

Popular Sovereignty can be summarized as follows (emphasis mine):

Popular sovereignty or the sovereignty of the people is the belief that the legitimacy of the state is created by the will or consent of its people, who are the source of every political power... Popular sovereignty expresses a concept and does not necessarily reflect or describe a political reality. It is often contrasted with the concept of parliamentary sovereignty. Benjamin Franklin expressed the concept when he wrote, "In free governments the rulers are the servants and the people (are) their superiors and sovereigns."

Some have argued that we've never truly had Popular Sovereignty in the United States. It has been said that historically, our governance has been a case of illusion, as elected politicians have always tended to draw from the upper classes. One can point to the wealthy landowners of the American Revolution, the Militaristic Mercantile interests of the Civil war, or the current Corrupted Jurist Political class to draw such a conclusion.

Regardless of the conclusions one could draw from history, it is clear from the writings of our Founding Fathers and the system of government they gave to us, that Popular Sovereignty was the goal, if not the state of being. That being said, it is my belief that Popular Sovereignty does not reflect or describe the the current political system in which we live.

You will have to excuse me briefly as I address constitutional concepts and ideals, they do not necessarily reflect the current political reality, but they reflect my interpretation of original intent.

Our government was designed as a system of checks and balances with the express purpose of serving the most number of people while preserving the most liberty. Each part of it reflects a compromise of one class and people. The powers of the Federal Government are limited, checked by the Constitution, while the powers of the State governments are infinite and only limited by natural law and the rights of man. The interest of the various state governments are preserved on one body, The Senate, while the interests of the people are represented in another, The US House of Representatives. Lastly a weak Executive Office was created to enforce the limited law that was created and to maintain command and control of National Defense.

John Adams wrote to Thomas Jefferson of a 'Natural Aristocracy of Man' and it's place in our constitution as opposed to a hereditary aristocracy common in European countries. He believed that the best of men would be elected to serve the interests of the common good in the House of Representatives, while the Senate would act as a check to this populist interest. This 'Natural Aristocracy' was to be a voice of populism that would act as a check to the Aristocratic tendencies of the Senate.

By limitation of it's membership, The Congress has abdicated it's responsibility as a representative body

By limiting the membership in the House of Representatives, the Congress has determined that our natural right of representation is inflationary. With each passing moment since the passing of Public Law 62-5 of 1911 and the Reapportionment Act of 1929 our representation, the very reason this country was founded, is valued less and less. By slowly diluting our collective voices, the congress has poisoned the tree of liberty.

By limitation of it's membership, the Congress has abdicated it's legislative authority

Time and again, our elective tyranny, for I know of nothing else to call it, has proven, they care nothing for the Republic or their constituency. Year after year, we hear the same promises, as the parties and partisans debate the so called issues of the day. They stroke transitory passions among the populace, just enough to keep themselves in power, while never addressing the issues they claim to be working to change. Across the political spectrum we see the same tactics employed, be it debating issues like abortion, tax reform, race relations, universal health-care, environmental issues, foreign affairs, and so on.

We have seen example after example of our so-called representative body fail to respect the will of the people and the rule of law:

- We have seen the congress fail to establish and maintain uniform regulation leading to market instability and the creation of institutions deemed 'too big to fail'

- We have seen the congress favor balling out failed banking institutions while allowing others to fail, in violation of the principles of equal application of the law

- We have seen the congress abdicate of it's constitutional responsibility to coin and regulate money in favor of the the unaccountable Federal Reserve system.

- We have seen the congress abdicate it's legislative authority in favor of the creation of executive agencies, which create regulatory law by departmental fiat

- We have seen time and again, the US House of Representatives, care more about the interests of the lobbyists in Washington DC than the constituency in their home districts.

Without a proper representative body, made up of informed citizens, we will continue to see legislation that empowers the Executive 'regulation' that carries the force of law.

By Limitation of it's membership, The Congress has created an unnatural aristocracy

Without a proper representative body with committees made up of the common people, we will continue to find ourselves living in a system of laws only understandable by seasoned jurists and favoring a select few.

Restoration of our Representative Republic requires a tempered approach

We must return to original intent or as close as reasonable. When the constitution was first ratified, each representative had a constituency of approximately 35,000 as opposed to the current 700,000 constituents. The only solution is to say 'Sorry Mr. Representative, there is just not enough of YOU to go around'.

I favor an incremental approach and believe one representative per 100,000 is a feasible number. The goal is to insure that congress is no longer able abdicate it's legislative and oversight authority in favor of executive departmental fiat. If one one representative per 100,000 constituents proves not to be enough then I favor a return of one to 35,000.

We have to say in one clear voice, 'We demand proper representation. We demand one representative per 100,000 citizens". It is not possible or practical to expect proper representation from one person for 700,000 constituents.

We hear the calling of the same message, 'throw the bums out', 'if we only had term limits' yet, removal of one cell of cancer does not kill the tumor, the cancer rarely decides to go away on it's own. The body is too small to favor proper representation and favors an unnatural aristocracy. It's time to say 435 is not enough and will never be enough.

The Platform

2009-12-28T12:52:00.000-05:00

My campaign consists of a simple platform with a singular plank. Reapportioning the United States House of Representatives.

The political body that is supposed to represent us, the US House of Representatives is no longer serving it's constitutional designed purpose. John Adams believed the purpose of the house was to represent popular interests to combat the natural aristocracy that would be represented in the Senate.

Our voice has been lost. The people have spoken out time and time again, overwhelmingly to limit bad decisions by government. We see examples of it almost daily, be it the TARP program, the so-called healthcare overhaul, certain foreign affairs and the so-called war on drugs.

This problem can be traced back to Public Law 62-5 of 1911 and the Reapportionment Act of 1929 when the Number of US House Representatives was fixed at 435. Prior to this, the house upheld it's constitutional duty to add representatives as needed as part of the redistricting process. This is a travesty akin to the 3/5th's compromise. Taxation without adequate representation is no better than taxation without representation.

To regain our voice, we must increase the number of seats in the house to better reflect original intent. Currently each of the 435 members represents an avarage of over 700,000 citizens. I believe trying to raise the number to reflect the original approtionment of one representative per 33,000 would be impractical. With a population of over 300 Million this would result in the house having over 9000 members. Instead I propose increasing the number of representatives to 3000 or 3500 which would give each member a constituency of 100,000 to 125,000 citizens. This number should be viewed as a seven fold increase in freedom and a seven fold reduction in corruption.

It has been said that there is something along the lines of 34,000 lobbyists in Washington which at 435 members of the house works out to about 80 per congressman. If there were suddenly 2000 more members of the US house, the corrupting influence would be reduced by seven fold.

I think it's time that we teach the body politic what Adams spoke about. The lesser house exists to represent the people while the upper house exists to represent the upper class. I know class warfare is a word that is thrown around derisively but the fact is that class warfare is a natural part of our constitution. If the lower house was a proper reflection of the population at large rather than the lobbying interests, the lobbyist proxy in the senate would not have the power it currently has to buy some of the votes we've seen.