Sorry don’t trust AI systems, they can be trained on innuendo and interpretations of facts rather than actual facts. Please don’t spam the board with worthless AI text nonsense. Thank you. Put in the actual research like an actually intelligent person. Find the source data and then read the source data, provide links where this data comes from so others can research. The more appropriate question to ask an AI system, should you find yourself intellectually incapable of performing simple human tasks yourself, would be; Where do I find the information about this subject matter? Then do the research yourself. The world has gone insane to believe they can outsource their intellectual capacity to a robot. AI text is polluting and disrupting social messaging boards worldwide. Please stop.
You are referring to the permanent apportionment act.
And yes, revisiting this might be a good idea, it’s far too easy to buy and bribe national representatives these days.
However; big government is bad government. And the way to deal with big bad government, is to stop feeding it’s growth.
I have no pension, no retirement, and no vested anything. I’m a certified residential real estate appraiser whom like tens of thousands of other appraisers is right now being railroaded out of our entire careers by GSE’s, amc (appraisal management comapnies), and corrupt appraisal trade group managers.
Where are the politicians and representation for me and all my professional peers? Suspiciously absent as the bozos on the hill argue for higher pay and more benefits for themselves, always dialing for dollars to buy those seats again.
Have you heard this popular talking point; The housing crisis, the affordability crisis? That’s because the ‘appraisal modernization’ campaign, and the ‘avm final rule’ recently passed, both eliminated full service real estate appraisers, and gave complete control of lending approval tools to lenders own proprietary black box avm (automatic valuation model) systems.
Fraud in mortgage lending has shot up exponentially as a result. Independent appraisers whom protected housing stability through this country have been sidelined by amc’s and gse’s alike, and all the benefit and wealth goes for firesale pennies on the dollar benefit to mega banks and investment corporations. The result for you as a citizen; Higher prices, forever, with no relief. Any reduced mortgage rate will merely result in an acceleration of this affordability crisis. They buried multiple rounds of QE (quantitative easing) in housing and it can’t take anymore. Entire generations of Americans are priced out of the market.
A convention of the states. Please. A very bad idea. How about reigning in the corrupt interests whom racketeer, plunder, and exploit our core systems first. The politicians on the hill, it’s one big political theater show. They don’t correct anything and get paid entirely too much. Policy for sale.
Cite a source, please.
While I understand the sentiment, your suggestion - if implmented - would only make the situation worse. Forcing congressmen to the same benefits as average Americans will assure that most qualified people would refuse the job. I want the best and brightest when I choose a doctor and I’m willing to pay for that privilege. Why wouldn’t I want the best and the brightest in Congress, and why would I expect them to serve without due compensation?
Going from memory here so correct my errors, please.
I believe it was around 1910 that the federal government capped the number of seats in the House of Representatives at 435. I looked up the 1910 census (around 92 million, IIRC). That would mean 1 rep for approx 211.5 thousand Americans (although that ratio depends on conressional district populations). Today with 330 million population, the ratio is 1 repr to approx 758.5 thousand Americans.
Clearly, the influence of individual American citizens has been greatly diluted. The questions: Should that dilution of representation be allowed to continue? If the HoR remains capped at 435 voting members, dilution will only increase as the population increases. Should the number be increase to the 1910 ratio? If so you would have 1560 members of the house, more or less. I defy anyone to herd that many cats.
I agree that congressmen are too remote from the influence of the individual citizen. I want to see that changed to something like one house member per 250,000 citizens, but that is unworkable because it would put nearly 1500 people in congress. If you think we have fools, clowns, reprobates, and greedy bastards in congress now, consider by how many more we would increase that number.
I don’t have answer, but what bothers me most is that it is not an issue at the forefront of our thoughts about the government. There is no ongoing dialogue to consider and suggest changes.
One solution would be to limit what congress can consider and act upon and devolve all other issues to the states to decide. For example, give congress original jurisdiction only for national defense and interstate commerce (and maybe a few other areas, like federal land management and the AG’s office) and allow congress to collect taxes only for those functions. While trimming their remit, give the states the ability to veto what congress passes and the POTUS signs by a simple majority. For example, suppose congress passes a law to allow anyone in the world to live in the US and a POTUS signs it making it law. Then allow the states to convene on the petition of say, 15, states to debate overturning the law on a simple majority of 26 states voting to veto.
Such a change would have the effect of reducing political power and distributing it over a much larger number of people in government which would make it much more difficult to pass draconian measures due to influence from bad actors of any kind. It would make holding congressional seats less attractive to those who seek its power. It also would put a check and balance on congress that might - only ‘might’ - cause them to reflect back on the states they represent and the opinions and choices of the citizens therein.
But . . . and this will make you head explode . . . why should we continue to have 50 states with such disproportionate populations who have equal influence in the Senate and would have such disproportionate influence under the scheme described above? Why not redraw state boundaries based on population? Should Delaware and Rhode Island have as many senators as California and Texas?
You’re absolutely right that the core issue here is the dilution of democratic representation. When the House of Representatives was capped at 435 members in 1929 (based on the 1910 census), the U.S. population was around 123 million. Today, with more than 330 million citizens, each representative now speaks for nearly four times as many people. That isn’t just a mathematical change—it’s a democratic one. The average citizen’s ability to influence legislation, gain access to their representative, or even feel politically seen has been greatly diminished.
That’s a real and growing problem. Your proposed ratio of 1 representative per 250,000 citizens would be far closer to the democratic spirit of the original House, and it would likely enhance responsiveness and accountability.
Yes, expanding the House to 1,300 or 1,500 members sounds daunting—but it’s not as unworkable as it first seems.
Other nations have far larger legislative bodies proportional to their population. The UK’s House of Commons has 650 members for about 68 million people. Germany’s Bundestag fluctuates but often exceeds 700 for a population of 83 million. India’s Lok Sabha serves over 1.4 billion with 545 members. What these nations demonstrate is that a larger legislative body can function—particularly if structured with modern technology, improved rules of order, and meaningful committee delegation.
You’re also right to highlight the unpopularity and invisibility of this issue in our national discourse. Most Americans probably have no idea that this 435-member cap isn’t a constitutional provision but a statutory one, which Congress could change tomorrow. But they feel the consequences: politicians who don’t listen, who can’t be reached, and who seem more focused on national posturing than local concerns.
Where I would gently diverge from your line of thought is in the conclusion that we should fix this problem by radically shrinking the federal government’s authority and giving states a veto power over national laws. That might redistribute influence, but it also opens the door to deep fragmentation and inequality. States are not all equally equipped—legally, economically, or administratively—to handle modern governance on their own. Many rights and protections we take for granted today—from civil rights to labor laws to environmental protections—originated federally precisely because states were failing to act fairly or consistently.
You’re right to be concerned that Congress has taken on too much. But empowering states to veto federal legislation—or redrawing state lines based on population—could potentially entrench existing inequalities or worsen national gridlock. There’s also the risk that such reforms, while well-intentioned, would simply shift the same power dynamics to a different scale rather than fix them.
Instead, a more direct and attainable fix would be to:
- Increase the size of the House (gradually or proportionally) to re-balance representation;
- Modernize legislative operations with technology to make a larger House functional and efficient;
- Improve proportional electoral systems, like ranked-choice voting or multi-member districts, to reduce polarization and better reflect voter preferences;
- Introduce term limits or anti-gerrymandering reforms to discourage entrenched incumbency.
On the Senate: yes, it is structurally anti-democratic. Giving Wyoming and California the same number of senators is absurd on its face. But changing that would require a constitutional amendment, and probably a national identity crisis. It’s a much harder nut to crack.
In short: you’re absolutely right that Congress has become too remote and unresponsive. You’re right that the size of the House is part of the problem. And you’re right that this isn’t a national conversation—though it should be. But rather than dismantling or fracturing the federal government, a better path may lie in restoring the core principles of democratic representation within it.
Let’s make Congress look more like America—not less.
Thank you! Thank you! Thank you!
Thank you for engaging this issue rationally and honestly, honoring our history and our future. You have earned my respect. I will attach a link below to a blog written by James Heaney (whom I do not know personally) with a fuller discussion on this topic. It’s a worthwhile read, even if you wind up disagreeing with him in part.
The balance of the larger House (to represent the people) and the smaller Senate (to represent the States, as it was originally designed) worked. Smaller states didn’t get run over, and larger states were properly represented. This was broken when the districts outgrew the 50,000 people limit. By the time we even got to the 1910s and 1920s, we were in trouble in a way that was felt, but not understood.
My favorite part of your response is that you identified that this isn’t a widespread discussion. It’s an invisible but pervasive problem. I will be satisfied if, after years of work, we get to the point where when I ask people about this issue, they’ve heard of it, they’ve thought about it, and they have a opinion based on some facts, even if I disagree with them about how we ought to proceed.
Also, I’d be honored if you stopped by my YouTube channel and commented anything you like on a short video.
Ok, I was off on my estimates. I’ll copy and paste what’s real.
Here’s an overview of the current pension arrangements for members of Congress, Vice Presidents, and Presidents:
Members of Congress:
- Pension Eligibility: Members are eligible for a pension after completing at least five years of service.
- Retirement Plans: They are typically covered under the Federal Employees Retirement System (FERS), which includes Social Security, a basic annuity based on years of service and salary, and the Thrift Savings Plan. Members elected before 1984 may be under the older Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS).
- Pension Calculation: The pension amount depends on years of service and the average of the highest three years of salary.
- Maximum Pension: By law, the starting amount of a Member’s retirement annuity cannot exceed 80% of their final salary.
- Example: A member of Congress earning $174,000 per year could potentially receive a pension of up to $139,200 annually, depending on their years of service.
Vice Presidents:
- No Automatic Pension: Vice Presidents do not receive an automatic pension specifically for their role as Vice President.
- Pension Based on Senate Service: They are eligible for a pension based on their service as President of the Senate, which is calculated similarly to that of a Member of Congress and depends on the number of years served in public office.
- Example: Joe Biden’s pension, based on his years of service in the Senate and as Vice President (President of the Senate), was estimated at $166,374. Mike Pence’s state and federal pensions combine to approximately $85,000 annually.
Presidents:
- Pension Amount: Former Presidents receive a taxable lifetime pension equal to the pay of a Cabinet Secretary.
- Current Rate: As of 2024, this amount is $246,400 annually. This amount is adjusted annually.
- Start Date: The pension begins immediately after they leave office.
- Additional Benefits: Former Presidents also receive other benefits, including office allowances, staff support, and travel expenses.
- Spousal Pension: Widows of former Presidents are eligible for a $20,000 yearly pension.
Important Notes:
- Biden’s Situation: President Joe Biden is eligible to collect a pension from both his time in Congress (including his Vice Presidency) and his presidency.
- Biden will receive annually approximately $413,000
Thank you for sharing your thoughts with such candor and respect. I genuinely appreciate how you frame this issue not just as a constitutional technicality, but as a deeply moral and democratic one. Your recognition that the conversation about House expansion is both “invisible and pervasive” is exactly what makes this such a profound threat to representative government — it festers silently, undermining the very promise of a republic built of, by, and for the people.
James Heaney’s piece, “Expand the House, You Cowards,” is bracingly honest and historically grounded — and he’s right to use strong language. The stagnation of House representation since 1911 is not merely an oversight; it’s a quiet betrayal of democratic equity. When the ratio of constituents to representative balloons from the original 30,000–50,000 to now over 750,000 per seat, what we’re witnessing isn’t just inefficiency — it’s a dilution of the very principle of political voice. It’s de facto disenfranchisement, especially for minority communities, urban populations, and growing states.
The original balance struck by the Framers — a large, dynamic House for the people and a smaller, steady Senate for the states — was elegant, intentional, and democratic. But we’ve let it calcify. We’ve broken the machine by freezing it in place while the nation grew by hundreds of millions. Today, Montana and Wyoming voters wield disproportionate power, while Californians and Texans drown in representation gaps. That is not compromise. That is injustice by inertia.
This is not a niche policy reform. It’s a frontline battle for political equality — and frankly, political survival. Without proportional representation, populism festers, apathy deepens, and trust in democracy itself evaporates. Expanding the House is not just a matter of arithmetic; it’s a moral imperative. It’s about restoring the sacred contract that each voice matters, that each vote counts equally.
And you’re absolutely right: awareness is the first battlefield. Before there can be pressure, legislation, or amendment — there must be conversation. There must be people who have heard of this issue, who have thought about it, and who have formed opinions grounded in history and principle. Even disagreement becomes productive if it is informed.
So I thank you in return — for lighting the signal fire, for elevating this dialogue, and for demanding better. And yes, I’ll absolutely stop by your channel. Keep making noise. Keep asking uncomfortable questions. Keep reminding this country what a functioning republic is supposed to look like.
We must expand the House. Not tomorrow. Not someday. Now.
What a remarkably well written response!
It is cogent, clear, concise and speaks admirably to the very problem.
The only way I can think of to improve your post is for it to contain suggestions for how to solve the problem.
It’s one thing to identify a problem and call for its solution but to do so without posing a solution is almost cowardice in its omission.
If Heaney’s proposal of capping representation for every 30,000 Americans there would be 11,000 members of the HoR. Do you - or anyone - honestly think that such could possibly work? Worse yet, imagine what havoc 11,000 fools who have the hubris to put themselves above their peers could wreak!!!
The problem is not so much the ratio of representation - although I admit it has become execrable - but is that congress has far too much power.
I’ve posed a solution - offered it up for examination and discussion - that would limit congressional power and dilute the effects of actions it takes while returning most powers to the states.
We cannot solve a problem until we can define it accurately. While I might agree to some expansion of seats in congress - maybe - I cannot agree that the representation ratio is the problem. It is not. The power allocated to congress is the problem that must be addressed yet no one here wants to discuss it . . . not even to call me out for a bad idea.
This subject should be removed from this thread that was started to expose and discuss federal retirement benefits for elected officials. It deserves a thread of its own.
Getting back to the subject of the costs of COTUS, POTUS and SCOTUS, and more specifically the retirement benefits, I posed the following to ChatGPT (which might or might not give trustworthy information; it’s up to you to decide and research further):
Blockquote
Do people who serve in the federal government as elected officials earn retirement benefits for all positions held, stacked as it were for service? For example, joe biden spent almost 50 years in the senate and 4 years as VPOTUS and 4 years as POTUS. Does he earn retirement benefits for all 3 positions stacked on upon the other?
Blockquote
ChatGPT said:
Yes, elected officials in the federal government can earn retirement benefits for multiple positions, but they do not “stack” full pensions from each position in a way that results in three full retirements. Instead, federal retirement benefits are governed by specific laws that depend on the type of service, length of service, and the retirement system in place when the official served.
Let’s break down the situation using Joe Biden as a real-world example:
1. U.S. Senate Retirement (36 years)
- Biden served from 1973 to 2009.
- He was covered first by the Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS) and later by FERS (Federal Employees Retirement System) after it was created in 1987.
- Congressional pensions under FERS are capped: A member cannot receive more than 80% of their highest three years’ average salary, regardless of total years served.
- His long tenure in the Senate qualifies him for a substantial federal pension under FERS.
2. Vice President Retirement (8 years total)
- The Vice President’s retirement is not separate — they are also covered under FERS if they have previous federal service.
- Because Biden had already accrued decades of Senate service, his VP years add time to his FERS record, possibly increasing the pension (up to the cap).
- No special VP-only pension exists apart from their status as a federal employee under FERS.
3. President Retirement (4+ years)
- Former Presidents receive a separate pension under the Former Presidents Act (FPA), currently $241,000/year (as of 2025).
- This pension is independent of FERS or CSRS and includes:
- A personal staff allowance
- Office expenses
- Secret Service protection
- Travel allowances in some cases
Summary
Biden does receive retirement benefits for each type of service, but not in a stacked or cumulative manner like three separate full pensions. Instead:
- He gets one federal pension based on total years of congressional/VP service (under FERS or CSRS), capped at 80% of high-3 salary.
- He gets a second, separate pension as a former President under the Former Presidents Act.
So yes — multiple benefits do apply, but within the limits of federal retirement law.
Let me know if you’d like a breakdown of the formulas or example pension estimates!
You said:
How much do you estimate biden draws?
ChatGPT said:
Here’s an educated estimate of how much Joe Biden likely draws annually in federal retirement benefits, based on publicly available laws and salary histories:
1. U.S. Senate + VP Pension (FERS)
Biden served:
- 36 years in the Senate
- 8 years as Vice President
That’s 44 years of federal service under FERS (Federal Employees Retirement System).
FERS Pension Formula (for Congress)
1.7% × high-3 average salary × first 20 years
1.0% × high-3 average salary × years beyond 20
Assume a “high-3” salary average of around $230,000 (typical for Vice President and late-career Senate):
text
Copy code
= (1.7% × 230,000 × 20) + (1.0% × 230,000 × 24)
= (0.017 × 230,000 × 20) + (0.01 × 230,000 × 24)
= 78,200 + 55,200
= $133,400/year
But there’s a cap: No more than 80% of high-3 salary can be paid under FERS.
80% of $230,000 = $184,000 (max FERS pension)
So Biden’s federal pension (Senate + VP) is likely around:
$130,000–$140,000/year
2. Presidential Pension (Former Presidents Act)
All former U.S. Presidents receive:
- $241,000/year (2025 rate)
- Office staff budget
- Secret Service protection
- Travel benefits (limited)
$241,000/year (separate from FERS)
Estimated Total Annual Retirement Pay
| Source | Amount (approx.) |
|---|---|
| FERS (Senate + VP) | $130,000–$140,000 |
| Presidential Pension | $241,000 |
| Estimated Total | $371,000–$381,000/year |
Notes:
- This does not include book deals, speaking fees, or other private income.
- FERS pensions are subject to income tax.
- The Former Presidents Act pension is also taxable but includes many support perks.
Blockquote
Note that the AI does not offer information about what . . .
- Office staff budget
- Secret Service protection
- Travel benefits (limited)
. . . cost the US taxpayer.
We have 4 living, retired POTUSes: Clinton, shrub, obhozo and the bidet. I am offended by the fact that they receive such largesse at the expense of taxpayers. All have immense personal wealth. Should their retirement benefits be means tested and dependent?
I apologize. You are correct. This is the wrong thread for this conversation… You can see a thread on this topic here.
[Return to Constitutional Apportionment: Repeal the Reapportionment Act of 1929]
Also, I agree that defining the problem accurately is an excellent first step to finding solutions. And thank you for your proposal.
I hear you that Congressional power is too much. Compared to what? In comparison to the original design? I agree. There are many areas of law that ought to have been left to the states which have not. Or in comparison to the other branches? The Constitution made the Legislature the first, the largest, and the most directly responsible to the people.
I’ll reply to your proposal next.
Ahr_Aitch
I need to ask a clarifying question. Would this structural change you’re proposing be done by Constitutional Amendment or by ordinary statute? I think it would have to be via the Amendment process. It’s quite difficult unless there’s a national total panic. It’s designed that way on purpose. Difficult, but not impossible. We do have the Article V Convention of States option. Your proposal could be aired there, and fully debated.
I hear you about the issue of 50 states being unevenly populated, and it is certainly “inefficient.” Remember, people love their states. This isn’t about factory production. They love the creek behind their house that forms part of the county line. In rural areas, they love that their sheriff knows their name, and maybe gives them a courtesy call before he charges a family member. They love the hills that form a natural boundary between them and the next state over. I’ve heard that Texas could technically divide into five states. But would that be better? I want to see ordinary Americans in the US House, and true statesmen appointed by proportional state legislatures in the US Senate.
Honestly, this discussion has restored my hope that smart Americans will find ways to make things work. We will adapt, we will grow in new ways.
Thank you.
First, no apology is needed but is accepted in the spirit intended. My point was only that the topic deserves to stand alone and receive the attention it needs.
As for the context; my intention was to show that congress has appropriated - erroneously and egregiously, IMO - powers that should remain with the states. Further, attention to those matters detracts from, dilutes, and diminishes the work that congress actually does (again, IMO).
As for the power of the legislative compared with the administrative and the judicial, I agree that congress is and of right ought to receive special attention; however it must never be allowed to become supreme or even dominant over the other 2 branches. Checks and balances on the powers of all branches are necessary for so many reasons. In the case of congress, that body has chosen to abdicate its intended responsibility to make law by assigning the power to bureaucracies it creates. It extends that power by attempting to deny the administrative the powers to staff and operate those bureaucracies. These are among the most dishonest acts man can commit. Every vote in congress should be on the record with each congressman’s vote forever attached to his name. The practice of calling for the ‘yeas’ and ‘nays’ should be eliminated. Modern technology makes the need for such obsolete and unnecessary.
Both are egregious, execrable, and erroneous exercises not provided by the constitution (at least not as I read and interpret it). The recent SCOTUS ‘chevron’ ruling addresses the issue but not strongly enough, IMO. I would like to see every ‘rule’ (some might say ‘edict’) promulgated by any government agency require congress to act upon it. No un-elected bureaucrat no matter how appointed or how affirmed in office should be allowed to make law just as no magistrate, judge, or justice should be allowed so to do. I would take this a step further by changing the constitution to prevent the SCOTUS from deciding constitutionality as the final arbiter of issues.
Judicial review (a usurpation by Marshall in Marbury v Madison) has become a form of making law (which was always the inevitable result of the power to interpret). I suggest that in such matters, when SCOTUS declares a law un-constitutional (or constitutionally uncertain or unclear) that the matter should be automatically put before congress with the remit to clarify and remake such laws within a constrained time frame. This is especially important when there is no unanimity or near unanimity in the court or where opinions are divided along politically ideological lines. It is these very instances when the will of the people and their consent to be governed by those decisions is most needed. If or when congress cannot come to a super-majority decision in each chamber, the issue should be put before the people as an amendment to the constitution. Then and only then can we reverse the course of government by the courts with congressional rubber stamping.