I think it's time to let Congress feel our election fury this
November. As reflected in the latest Rasmussen Reports, "Just 9 percent (of
Americans) say Congress is doing a good or excellent job." It is the first
single-digit approval rating for Congress in Rasmussen's history, and it
makes Bush's 30 percent approval rating seem like a stat to boast. The study
went on to explain: "Just 12 percent of voters think Congress has passed any
legislation to improve life in this country over the past six months. That
number has ranged from 11 percent to 13 percent throughout 2008."
Even The Associated Press reported last week, in the story
"Congress mostly going through the motions for now," that "some fights of
the 110th Congress have lost their oomph in the waning months before the
November elections, with both parties content to run out the clock on messy
matters."
If members of Congress are not relevant or improving Americans'
lives, why do we elect and re-elect them into office?!
If you ever have heard the saying "too many cooks in the
kitchen," then you know how I feel about Congress. We have more
representatives than we need and even many more than the Constitution
requires. What many might not realize is that there is nothing ultimately
sacred about the present number of people we have in the House of
Representatives. Actually, the proper number of representatives from each
state has been debated since our Founders' time. The Constitution endeavors
to assure fairness and equity by requiring each state to have at least one
representative, two senators and representation in the Electoral College.
(At the other extreme, it states, "The number of Representatives shall not
exceed one for every thirty Thousand.") So why not go with the fewest number
allowed? It seems to me that in our day, in both House and Senate, fewer
representatives by area would be more reasonable and effective than more
representatives by population.
The current numbers in the House are stacked in discriminatory
ways. For example, California has a large liberal voice with its 53
representatives. How fair is that for smaller, more conservative states that
have between one and five representatives in the House? I believe just as we
have one governor per state, we should consider reducing Congress to one
representative and two senators per state (the minimum the Constitution
requires). If one representative works for Alaska, Delaware, Montana, North
Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont and Wyoming, why can't it work for the rest of
the states? Here's a movie we all can star in: "Honey, I Shrunk the
Congress!"