Well now, lets just look at your proposal.
Section ONE,
What do you mean by "chosen"? If you mean "elected" to office, Art. 1 Sect. 2 of the Constitutions mandates, that members of the House of Representatives are elected by the PEOPLE of the States every 2 years. And, the number of congresspersons per state, depends on the number of congressional districts in each state. Total of 435 representatives.
The U.S. Congress consists of two houses, the House of Representatives and the Senate. Each state elects two senators, while seats in the House of Representatives are apportioned by state according to population, with each state receiving a minimum of one representative. After each decennial
www.britannica.com
Section TWO,
The number of Senators per state, and their terms, are mandated by Article 1 Sect. 3 of our Constitution. WHY do we need 6 Senators instead of 2? Their terms are already 6 years. Madison reasoned that a 6 year term for Senators would make the government more stable. 300 Senators wouldn't!!!
Section THREE,
Article 1 Sect. 7 and Sect. 8 states,
"“No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of
Appropriations made by
Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time. Congress defines the contours of federal power. This requirement of legislative appropriation before public funds are spent is at the foundation of our constitutional order.
Congress clearly has the power to specify, "the objects, amounts, and timing of federal spending, even if there were no Appropriations Clause". If Congress could not limit the Executive Branch(President) from withdrawing funds from the Treasury, then the constitutional grants of power that allows Congress to raise taxes, borrow money(Article 1, Section 9) would be meaningless. And, the Executive Branch could effectively compel taxing and borrowing by spending at will. Do you really want an Authoritarian government, with a megalomaniac in charge of its money?
Also, you couldn't get a two-thirds majority vote in both houses on anything. Effectively giving the Executive Branch complete control over the nation's money. So, you are saying, that the President can tell Congress to give him money, and Congress must say YES SIR! Oh, sorry, they could submit their amendments and suggestions for the President to consider! If he wants to at all. Boy, talk about screwing with the balance of power, and our checks and balances system.
Section FOUR,
Forcing Congress to pass any appropriation bill for the Executive Branch, under the threat of treasury to stop paying their salaries, benefits, and allowances?? Really? This would be a "high misdemeanor' offense, and constitutionally illegal. What if the other two branches also decided to do this? Insane!! Did you even think this through?
Section FIVE,
Don't understand.
Section SIX,
The President already has the right to veto any bill. But congress can also over-ride the President's veto. I guess in you proposal, congress must only appease and mollify the the wishes of the President.
Thank God the framers of the Constitution wanted 3 separate, but equal branches of government. All, with equal powers, and equal checks and balances. Not this Authoritarian, Dictatorial Oligarchy, that would give the biggest crook in history, unlimited access to our nation's wealth.