- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
Millions of federal workers won’t get paid during a government shutdown. But the people who could prevent or end a shutdown — members of Congress — will still receive a paycheck.
That’s because their pay is protected under Article I, Section 6 of the Constitution, which states: “The Senators and Representatives shall receive a Compensation for their Services, to be ascertained by Law, and paid out of the Treasury of the United States.”
The Constitution “says members will be paid,” Rep. Joe Morelle of New York, the top Democrat on the House Administration Committee, explained to reporters Tuesday.
This is how it’s always worked.
If members of congress were not paid, the richer members could use a shutdown to coerce the poorer members, knowing that they have enough saving to survive the payment stop longer than poorer members. In a government where shutdowns are possible, continuing to pay representatives is necessary.
In a proper country, a shutdown would result in an immediate recall and disbarment of every elected official. But we don’t live in a proper country.
Continuing to pay those responsible for the shutdown is a bad thing. Punishing every other government worker for someone else’s ineptitude is bad. But on balance not paying congress would probably be just a bit worse.
In a proper country there are no government shutdowns.
You’re right. The US already has the solution under the NLRA. If a union contract cannot be negotiated by the deadline, the old one remains in effect.
A proper government could do that, but I prefer kicking everyone out and starting anew.
A government shutting down is a failed state. That never should happen, and if it happens, safeguards should be implemented ASAP so it can’t happen again.
This is 100% correct. In most civilised countries, if a yearly budget cannot be approved, the whole cabinet gets disbanded.
Usually this leads to a new president (usually, a PM) getting appointed, but ultimately would lead to new elections.
Yeah. If they were not getting paid or it was disbared (non English speaker. It’s the first time I’ve seen that word so it might be wrong), then they would approve any budget, which could be arguably worse
Pretty sure all congresspeople get paid at least 6 figures per year.
They can survive their entire term off of just 1 year’s salary.
But! They won’t be able to waste money like idiots/most people on social media.
Edit: Without fail, the useful idiots come out to bat.
wealth in the context I used it is far more about accumulated wealth and savings rather than income. A junior congressmember hasn’t had that salary for long and could be easily coerced by a shutdown very quickly, if congressional pay was cut during a shutdown.
They get paid 174k a year.
They usually end up needing 2 homes, and dozens of flights between their home district an DC.
New congresspeople are typically very poor before they start getting bribes
You can live for over a decade on that amount of money.
Stop being stupid. Please. I know it’s hard to ask since you get to fit in with other morons, but try to understand that you are part of the problem when you pretend that congresspeople need that money.
Like physically afford food and live in a van? Sure …
But, come on now. No you can’t actually live for a decade at any actual standard when they’re basically required to maintain two addresses.
Not in the US with two homes.
Yes, in the US with 2 homes.
That’s not the correct approach, brother. Especially newer congressmen will be dependent on this income to live, and this would make them even more likely to be held hostage by the guys with fat pockets.
The problem here is that the consequences are exclusively shouldered by the people, when in fact it should be the administration who gets punished: if they’re unable to compromise on a budget, then they need to get kicked out so that the country doesn’t stop.
If there’s no way of passing the budget with a new administration, then call for new elections and see how the chips fall.