A modest proposal. Cap the total amount that each member of Congress can

[No Elephants]

on job related activities. (This amount would also be a limit on their total job-related spending, not just taxpayer $$, so richer ones don't get any more of an advantage over poorer ones than they already have.)

The Framers, looking at a 13 colonies with a relatively few colonists, decided on two Senators per state (then all of 26 souls) and a Representative for every so many citizens.

And, those folks, who had to leave their wives and children and businesses and farms to fend for themselves while they rode on horseback or carriage or stage to Washington for the session.

Today, they serving in Congress is more of a cushy, powerful career than a stint of public service.

And there are staffs and buildings and furniture and drapes.

And dining rooms and cafeterias and gyms.

And electric bills and phone bills.

And salaries and health insurance and and pensions.

And expense accounts and foreign travel expenses for "fact-finding" and flights home back and forth to the district.

And interns and pages who need housing.

I don't think we'll ever know the real cost.

A Constitutional amendment finally capped the House at an unwieldly and not too meaningful 435. Now, instead of electing more representatives after each census, we "redistrict," unless the other party is doing it. Then it's gerrymandering.

And it's not as though I am going to have my rep over for Sunday brunch or schmooze him at the grocery store, as the colonists easily might have done. So, when they bloviate about "what the American people really want," they are talking out of their ears.

The whole idea than anyone in Washington is actually representing me has become pretty meaningless, IMO. So, let's at least cap the total expense.

[Enthusiast]

1. Washington is representing the corporations,

mostly the banking/investment industries.

Of course, the number of Senators should be based on the number of constituents. The present day system gives far too much influence to the terminally ignorant residing in red states with low populations. Well, you knew that, I'm sure.

[No Elephants]

2. That was the original idea of the Framers--that less populous states have equal

representation in the Senate, even though they were going to be outvoted in the House. But, there were no political parties then, so they probably did not foreee that the vote would devolve pretty much to party lines.

I wonder what the deal was in the House Of Lords then?