The First Hundred Days of the Obama Administration

[JWBear]

From C-SPAN:

A House Member employs an average of 14 staff; ... House Members may not exceed 18 full-time staff, and 4 part-time.

With 10,000 in Congress, that would potentially equal 180,000 full-time staff alone! We would need to build 8 Pentagons to hold all the Representatives and their staff!

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by JWBear

From C-SPAN:



With 10,000 in Congress, that would potentially equal 180,000 full-time staff alone! We would need to build 8 Pentagons to hold all the Representatives and their staff!

Actually, it would make more sense to use the average count. So "only" 140,000. Not that that's better, just sayin'

[Ghoulish Delight]

It would sure help the unemployment numbers.

[JWBear]

The original 1st article (which didn't pass) of the Bill Of Rights stipulated that congressional representation not exceed 50,000 per representative. At our current population, that would equal 6100 Representatives. Still unworkable IMO.

[Morrigoon]

I guess it didn't pass for a reason then.

[Alex]

Environmental protections are generally an issue with the traditional partisans switch sides on whether "states rights" is an important concept.

I'm ambivalent about allowing states to create their own fuel economy standards.

I definitely think that the CAFE standards should be significantly increased and Washington should stop letting the manufacturers weasel their way out the increases that are coming.

But I don't know that I agree with allowing state standards to rule.

[bewitched]

Isn't the idea that huge states like CA will pass very high CAFE standards which will, in effect, raise standards across the country? It makes more sense financially for car companies to make all of their cars meet the toughest standards rather than to make several different versions of their cars to meet several different CAFE standards.

[Alex]

Yes, that is the idea for people who like the strategy.

I just don't think it is a good idea to allow single states to start creating national policy. Especially when you getting into a realm where states start conflicting (say California requires that by 2018 more than 50% of cars are solar powered while Florida requires that by 2018 more than 50% of cars run on babies).

I'm just not sure really where I draw the line.

[BarTopDancer]

Originally Posted by Alex

I'm just not sure really where I draw the line.

Puppies and kitties. The line is drawn at puppies and kitties.

[bewitched]

Originally Posted by Alex

Yes, that is the idea for people who like the strategy.

I just don't think it is a good idea to allow single states to start creating national policy. Especially when you getting into a realm where states start conflicting (say California requires that by 2018 more than 50% of cars are solar powered while Florida requires that by 2018 more than 50% of cars run on babies).

I'm just not sure really where I draw the line.

It kinda seems like the only way to truly tighten standards, IMO. The US Congress has been paralyzed for decades from making tough decisions largely due to the influence of auto industry lobbyists.

Speaking of, I really hope that any further money doled out to the banks/financial companies and the money going to the auto industry forces them severely restrict their tens of millions of dollars spent on lobbying each year. BoA and Citigroup alone spent $11,400,000 on lobbying in 2007 and $8,750,000 in 2008.