In 1933, at the height of the Depression, Congress cut salaries, including their own. It’s been 87 years and finally someone, an Arizona Democrat named Ann Kirkpatrick, is proposing a 5 percent pay cut. She is doing this even though the Congress’ favorite economic theory, Keynesianism, says spending is good, and the way out of debt is more debt. Apparently Kilpatrick isn’t buying the theory anymore. Good for her!

One of the reasons members of Congress give for paying themselves nearly $200,000 salaries is the fact that they have to live in Washington D.C., where the cost of living is so expensive. This is also their excuse for having a special second-home tax exemption for themselves. When Congress increased federal salaries in the early 90’s, they sold their own huge jump in pay as “ethics reform.” Career politicians decided to give up real work and depend solely on their salaries. The argument for this? “We have to avoid conflicts of interest.”

The truth is, both parties want members to be dependent on their salaries. This gives party leadership more leverage over their members. It also increases the clout to special interest groups and prevents normal working Americans, doctors, business owners, carpenters and research scientists, from running for Congress as citizen-legislators planning to return to normal life one day. The rule guarantees a Congress of professional “lifetime” politicians.

Why do interest groups have so much clout? Campaign finance laws, another favorite “incumbent protection” scheme pushed by Republicans and Democrats alike, makes raising money so difficult, that the members are either dependent on the interests to get them re-elected or are at least in need of friendly interest groups to protect them if the unfriendly ones target them for removal. Interest groups in Washington are like opposing armies with congressional seats as prizes to be captured.

As we learn from reading the Federalist Papers, written and published anonymously by three Founding Fathers to explain the Constitution to their fellow citizens, the Congress of the United States is not functioning as the framers planned. Here are some common sense suggestions for the “tea party” revolution about to descend on Washington next January.

Every new Congress makes its own rules —here are some I will be working on to make Congress more available to the constituents and less to the lobbyists:

1. Bring back the citizen Congress. Change Rule 20 that requires all votes to be cast on the floor of Congress and let them vote from their offices, even offices in their districts. This would be permissive, not mandatory, but it will allow members to spend more time in the district, increasing their visibility and access to constituents (and vice versa) while decreasing their access to lobbyists (and vice versa);

2. Let them do real work, make speeches, and stay current in their professions. But cut their congressional pay and second home exemptions, so that more of them will want to make their district offices their home offices — and surround themselves with people from the district, not from the belt-way.

3. Cut their pensions — pensions are like bribes that employers use to keep people working for them. We don’t want to encourage lazy, burned out, or corrupt members on our payroll.

4. Cut their health-care package. Why should they (and their families and staffs) get health insurance that is better than ours? We’re the employers, after all. Public service is supposed to be intrinsically rewarding — again, no bribes should be needed.

American government is fat and greedy. Pay cuts and downsizings would do more good in the public sector than in the private — because government decisions have gotten us in our current economic mess.

When the “tea party” candidates become office holders, they need to spend their “100 day honeymoon” making the kinds of changes that will bring the Congress closer to the people.

We need change in Washington, conservative change. That’s why I’m running.