Skip to main content

Just got an email (from Repubs):

Moments ago, the House took a stand: if the Senate doesn’t pass a budget, then Members of Congress won’t get paid.

It’s simple: No Budget, No Pay.

Have not read the bill so don't know all the crap in there, but want to discuss the concept.

The Repubs want to say "no budget, no pay" - is this for both houses or only the Senate?

The sponsor claims:

members of the U.S. Senate and House do not get paid until they pass a budget.
If for both houses, I say - bring it on. I can't see the people like Doug Lamborn (CO - CD5) going without a pay check. So, my thought is the house republicans blink first. Once again, we get the Blazing Saddles scenario - I think this is a loser for the Rs.

Thoughts?

Poll

Who blinks first

33%4 votes
66%8 votes

| 12 votes | Vote | Results

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (4+ / 0-)

    Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it - Samuel Clemens

    by tjlord on Wed Jan 23, 2013 at 12:06:46 PM PST

  •  Sorry, these guys are all millionaires or close (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Andrew F Cockburn, cazcee

    to it.  This is grandstanding -- lots of noise that won't really affect anyone.  They aren't in there for a paycheck, nice as it might be to get one.  They aren't going to be risking a mortgage, a car payment, or the utilities if they don't do their jobs.  

    Embarrassing, maybe?  But they can turn it into big political hay -- "I stood by my principles even when it cost me my salary..."  without ever mentioning that they don't live on their salaries like we do.

    No, I think for every day they refuse to pass a budget, the majority party loses one committee membership to the minority party -- up to and including any committee chairs.  Because this is what they're in there for:  power.  Control.  Influence.  How many seats do you think they'll be willing to give up for their "principles?"  I would bet they'll come to some kind of consensus real fast.

    History should teach humility and prudence, but America doesn't seem to learn. I've never seen a virgin who loses her innocence so often. -- Gordon Wood

    by stormicats on Wed Jan 23, 2013 at 12:19:08 PM PST

    •  One question - if the Senate passes a budget (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Andrew F Cockburn

      and the House refuses it, which "majority" loses a committee membership.

      Your proposal sounds like forcing the Senate Dems to agree to the House budget is the only way to avoid losing seats. Since the House must start the budget process, Senate can't pass a budget. If it goes to conference and they don't agree, who loses memberships and chairs? Don't think that will work.

      FYI, in 2010, per the Washington Post here, one Senator (D) and 29 Reps (17 D, 12 R) had negative net worths.

      Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it - Samuel Clemens

      by tjlord on Wed Jan 23, 2013 at 12:26:46 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Correction, the buget must.................. (0+ / 0-)

        be in a bill that originates in the House. It can be totally written by the Senate and placed into any house passed bill that has had all its language stripped out. For the time being all deals are going to be cut between the POTUS, Senate Dems and Senate Rethugs.

        The House is terminally broken and will be bypassed except for final approval. Once a deal is cut in the Senate the bill will be returned to the House to be passed by mostly Dems and a hand full of Rethugs.

        The mass of men lead lives of quiet desperation--HDT

        by cazcee on Wed Jan 23, 2013 at 02:39:47 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  The fact that we paid them for the years 2011 (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    tjlord, Andrew F Cockburn, zhimbo

    and 2012, at $174,000 minimum a pop, for working a third of the time and doing nearly nothing rubs me the wrong way.  I think this is a good idea, but it won't happen.  I think it's covered under the constitution, and that it can't be done, actually.

    "They love the founding fathers so much they will destroy everything they created and remake it in Rush Limbaughs image." MinistryofTruth, 9/29/11

    by AnnieR on Wed Jan 23, 2013 at 12:21:34 PM PST

  •  The whole thing is a blink. (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    tjlord, Andrew F Cockburn, cazcee, zhimbo

    The GOP got nothin'.
    And their corporate sponsors made it clear to House "leadership", that a debt ceiling crisis was bad for bidnez.
    And that would be bad for campaign donations.
    So they dropped all the substantive demands and went with a totally bullsh!t "symbolic" stand which the corporate media is obligingly glorifying for them as some kind of statement of principle (and a political gotcha).
    It actually is a lesson in principles: they cannot, under the Constitution, change the rate of pay, up or down, on their own session of Congress. They could change the next Congress's pay, but that doesn't have the punitive impact.
    And just a few days ago, Congressional Republicans went through their Reading The (edited) Constitution charade, wasting seven hours of their first week in session.
    They seem to have sort of missed the part about their duties and such.
    So this stunt should backfire on them, since the amendment they put blatantly contradicts their devotion to the founding documents.
    Not one media mouthpiece is calling them on it.
    One good outcome:
    This is the third breach of the Hastert rule in a row, I believe that is as formal a repeal as you can get for an unwritten rule.

    If I ran this circus, things would be DIFFERENT!

    by CwV on Wed Jan 23, 2013 at 12:38:00 PM PST

  •  It's blatently unconstitutional. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Andrew F Cockburn, MGross, zhimbo

    Therefore it's a bad idea.

    •  antoo - I agree I don't think it's constitutional (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      antooo

      for members of Congress although we have such a rule here in California and it is legal under our state Constitution. I think it's a great rule here in California however, the state Controller ruled that the legislature can pass budget fiction and it counts, so it has lost its teeth.

      I wish there was a way to force the Congress to pass a budget, approved by both the House and Senate, and I love the idea of suspending pay while no budget is in place with no catchup provisions. However, as noted above, I don't think that under the US Constitution it is allowed.

      "let's talk about that"

      by VClib on Wed Jan 23, 2013 at 01:03:09 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  It's Unconstitutional Pointless Grandstanding nt (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    zhimbo

    On the Internet, nobody knows if you're a dog... but everybody knows if you're a jackass.

    by stevemb on Wed Jan 23, 2013 at 12:56:04 PM PST

  •  I think it is a terrible idea. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    inclusiveheart, zhimbo

    Not everyone in Congress is independently wealthy (although most are). This sort of thing would ensure that we never again elect someone who wasn't.

    Also, not everyone is at fault if they don't work effectively. There are many hard-working, responsible members who should not be punished because of the clowns.

  •  It's a bad idea. (0+ / 0-)

    Who is going to have more outside funding and under the table payments?  Those with the most outside support will win.  This would just empower the plutocrats.  The last thing this country needs is giving more power to rich conservative oligarchs.

    "The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt." Bertrand Russell

    by Thutmose V on Wed Jan 23, 2013 at 02:43:28 PM PST

  •  It'd be SOOOO hard to get a bank (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    zhimbo

    to lend one the money based on the iron-clad commitment of payment in January, wouldn't it?

    Of course that assumes one would do business above the table ... the under-the-table possibilities are infinite, no?

    Stupid idea.

    Too late for the simple life, too early for android love slaves - Savio

    by Clem Yeobright on Wed Jan 23, 2013 at 03:37:17 PM PST

  •  Not good, no bad, just stupid. (0+ / 0-)

    it ain't no pay. It ain't no benefits til ya work. It ain't "no pension."

    It's deferred compensation.

    Thump! Bang. Whack-boing. It's dub!

    by dadadata on Wed Jan 23, 2013 at 05:15:09 PM PST

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site