PDA

View Full Version : Shutdown.. Should all politicians take pay cut/freeze?



garhkal
09-28-2013, 07:32 PM
If the govt shuts down, should there be a law saying those in power have their pay cut (or frozen with NO back pay) as a penalty for failing to perform their job?

Silverback
09-28-2013, 08:00 PM
There should be some law to that the effect, but I just can’t see Congress proposing a bill that would cause a negative outcome for them.

RFScott
09-28-2013, 08:18 PM
Short answer: Absolutely.

Bunch
09-28-2013, 08:32 PM
Why should they? WE voted them in!! We send them to do what exactly they are doing... If you don't like it then next time don't vote for him/her. Maybe there is a lesson to be learned here for voters...

efmbman
09-28-2013, 08:41 PM
There should be some law to that the effect, but I just can’t see Congress proposing a bill that would cause a negative outcome for them.

Not only that, but they are prohibited from doing so by the 27th Amendment:

No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened.

It could be done, but as stated above the change would not take effect until after the next congressional election.


Why should they? WE voted them in!! We send them to do what exactly they are doing... If you don't like it then next time don't vote for him/her. Maybe there is a lesson to be learned here for voters...

Interesting - that is exactly what I have been telling folks as well. The current congress is in place because they won election. It may be a surprise to many people to know how many of those that voted AYE to the Budget Control Act of 2011 were re-elected. That is the legislation that brought us what is know as sequestration.

I am almost to the point of saying that anyone that votes for an incumbent is part of the problem. Almost...

Stalwart
09-28-2013, 09:22 PM
Members of congress and essential members of their staffs will be working if the government shuts down.

That said, it would be a nice symbolic gesture to donate what pay they (members) 'would have lost' to some sort of charity.

cloudFFVII
09-29-2013, 01:35 AM
The congress will get paid, however, their aides/staffers will NOT.

And honestly, it doesn't matter WHO you elect. Until a 3rd party emerges, nothing is going to change. It will be nothing but partisan gridlock.

tiredretiredE7
09-29-2013, 04:37 AM
If the govt shuts down, should there be a law saying those in power have their pay cut (or frozen with NO back pay) as a penalty for failing to perform their job?

There is a small issue all of the AD should know about their paychecks possibly getting delayed. The House passed the President's budget (appropriations) request for funding all of DoD back in June to the Senate which would have removed funding DoD from being an issue in this current mess. The Senate; for some unknown reason, Harry Reid never brought the budget to the floor for a vote. Again, the main person holding back Congressional progress is Harry Reid. There are other 28 other budgets passed by the House that the Senate (Harry Reid) never brought to the floor for a vote.

tiredretiredE7
09-29-2013, 04:41 AM
VA: Extended shutdown could stop disability pay

WTF???

From Air Force Times http://www.militarytimes.com/article/20130928/BENEFITS04/309280012/VA-Extended-shutdown-could-stop-disability-pay

Refer to my previous post regarding this issue. Harry Reid failed to pass the budget to fund DoD which he received from the house in June. Could this be a way for the Democrats to once again hold the troops hostage against the Republicans?

grimreaper
09-29-2013, 05:35 AM
The congress will get paid, however, their aides/staffers will NOT.

And honestly, it doesn't matter WHO you elect. Until a 3rd party emerges, nothing is going to change. It will be nothing but partisan gridlock.

A legitimate third party would be nice, but that doesn't fix the problem. If a third party was finally able to take hold, they would just be sucked in to the DC lobotomy club in a very short time and be no different than the other 2. Instead of just Larry and Curly, you get Moe too.

IMO, the only thing that will stop the insanity is term limits. Once these idiots get elected, their re-election campaigns begin, and even though they don't really represent the positions of their constituencies, people keep sending the same garbage back for another term. Say what you will about the Tea Party, but at least they have put some of these bastards on notice that they can be primaried and defeated. We need more groups like this, regardless of their political leaning, that are willing to challenge the status quo.

grimreaper
09-29-2013, 05:41 AM
If the govt shuts down, should there be a law saying those in power have their pay cut (or frozen with NO back pay) as a penalty for failing to perform their job?

Of course there SHOULD be a law, but there won't be because it's the very same douchebags that would be the ones to vote on it.

And let's say this was a law already...who's going to enforce it? As we all know, laws are only meant to be followed by us common folk. If they don't like a law, they just ignore it.

garhkal
09-29-2013, 06:00 AM
There should be some law to that the effect, but I just can’t see Congress proposing a bill that would cause a negative outcome for them.

Then the law should be nominated and passed BY the people.. Simple as that!


IMO, the only thing that will stop the insanity is term limits. Once these idiots get elected, their re-election campaigns begin, and even though they don't really represent the positions of their constituencies, people keep sending the same garbage back for another term. Say what you will about the Tea Party, but at least they have put some of these bastards on notice that they can be primaried and defeated. We need more groups like this, regardless of their political leaning, that are willing to challenge the status quo.

Well put. Not only should there be term limits, but during their stay in office, they should NOT be paid. IIRC back in the old days it was considered a "SERVICE" to be a member of the senate or in the house of reps..
Perhaps we should get back to that.

efmbman
09-29-2013, 12:21 PM
We should not have to impose term limits to protect us from ourselves. There will be a chance that there is a sound candidate that is doing great things for his people, yet is unable to continue the great work because of term limits. In addition, once the focus is off re-election because someone is unable to run again, what incentive would s/he have to do anything at all other than cash the paychecks?

Rainmaker
09-29-2013, 04:27 PM
A legitimate third party would be nice, but that doesn't fix the problem. If a third party was finally able to take hold, they would just be sucked in to the DC lobotomy club in a very short time and be no different than the other 2. Instead of just Larry and Curly, you get Moe too.

IMO, the only thing that will stop the insanity is term limits. Once these idiots get elected, their re-election campaigns begin, and even though they don't really represent the positions of their constituencies, people keep sending the same garbage back for another term. Say what you will about the Tea Party, but at least they have put some of these bastards on notice that they can be primaried and defeated. We need more groups like this, regardless of their political leaning, that are willing to challenge the status quo.

Term limits or a third party won't help. In 2013 America bribery is legal if you call it a campaign contribution. The Tea Party and Occupy movements were both in response to the same thing. The greatest transfer of wealth in history from from the people to banking executives with the Bank bailouts. The money was supposed to be used to stabilize the economy and create jobs.

But, it was used instead to subsidize giant international corporations run by terrible businessmen, using third world slave labor to maximize profits for these shitty companies shareholders. This lets the con men CEOs and fat cat bankers take giant non taxable bonuses and buy themselves even more favors.

We don't have a free-market. We have crony capitalism, which is about as far away from a free market as you can get. Any third party movement will be destroyed by the so- called independent mainstream media, which has prostituted itself to these big money interests, who own them.

American Politics, like pro wrestling is fun to watch and argue about. They may ad-lib a little. But, mostly it's all scripted Bullshit. All this govt. shutdown drama is nothing more than Kabuki theater designed to distract the people from this generational theft that took place and continues to take place every month to the tune of $85 Billion a month. $4 Billion in food stamp cuts, or a $1.8 Billion in furlough savings doesn't make a difference (except to the pawns getting cut). There will be no default because wall street would collapse and that's all these crooks care about. If it ever implodes, the oligarchs can just take their billions and move to one of those cool new ghost cities in China.

efmbman
09-29-2013, 05:50 PM
Those CEOs are in much the same situation as the politicians. A CEO must perform or s/he is out on the street and they lose the wealth, power and the trappings that come with it. There is a reason a CEO will do everything possible to maximize profits and increase shareholder value. Third world slave labor is a by-product. The name of the game is, and always will be, money + wealth = power.

garhkal
09-29-2013, 06:39 PM
In addition, once the focus is off re-election because someone is unable to run again, what incentive would s/he have to do anything at all other than cash the paychecks?

I have heard some say that's why the first term of a 2 termer president is where he wants to do as much possible for the 'good of the nation' cause during the 2nd, he can't be re-elected, and therefore cares not to 'follow the people's will.

Bunch
09-29-2013, 07:29 PM
There is a small issue all of the AD should know about their paychecks possibly getting delayed. The House passed the President's budget (appropriations) request for funding all of DoD back in June to the Senate which would have removed funding DoD from being an issue in this current mess. The Senate; for some unknown reason, Harry Reid never brought the budget to the floor for a vote. Again, the main person holding back Congressional progress is Harry Reid. There are other 28 other budgets passed by the House that the Senate (Harry Reid) never brought to the floor for a vote.

Correct me if I'm wrong but BOTH the Senate and House passed budget bills back in March but it was the GOP that refused to go to conference which is why we need a CR...


House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) said Thursday morning that Republicans will not agree to a House-Senate budget conference as long as Democrats insist on pressing for a tax hike in those talks.

"We remain committed to addressing the problems of budget, but will not do so while there is an insistence that a prerequisite is raising taxes," Cantor said on the House floor.

Link to article: http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/house/303907-cantor-no-budget-talks-while-dems-insist-on-tax-hikes

grimreaper
09-30-2013, 12:03 AM
We should not have to impose term limits to protect us from ourselves. There will be a chance that there is a sound candidate that is doing great things for his people, yet is unable to continue the great work because of term limits. In addition, once the focus is off re-election because someone is unable to run again, what incentive would s/he have to do anything at all other than cash the paychecks?

Because "career politician" should not be a career choice. There are plenty of other people out there that can do the job, but will never get the chance because the incumbent has all the connections and all the money. You know just as well as I do that most of these people are re-elected based purely off of name recognition and most voters could not name a single thing that they've done.

efmbman
09-30-2013, 12:27 AM
I have heard some say that's why the first term of a 2 termer president is where he wants to do as much possible for the 'good of the nation' cause during the 2nd, he can't be re-elected, and therefore cares not to 'follow the people's will.

I think the 2nd term has a two-fold mission:
1) set up the guy / gal in your party for success
2) work on the "legacy". How will history judge? Usually, a SCOTUS appointment will do, but Obama has two already (I think). Obama has fallen into one of the most common pitfalls of power. He allowed his ego to get so attached to his position than when he position is threatened he feels his ego is as well. It's business. Political inexperience most likely.


Because "career politician" should not be a career choice. There are plenty of other people out there that can do the job, but will never get the chance because the incumbent has all the connections and all the money. You know just as well as I do that most of these people are re-elected based purely of of name recognition and most voters could not name a single thing that they've done.

I do agree, but I do not agree so much that I feel term limits are the answer. There was a time when grass-roots movements would do the trick. These days, politicians spend much more time convincing you NOT to vote for the other guy instead of convincing you to vote for him/her.

It is very sad that most voters cannot name anything important that an incumbent has accomplished (I agree there as well). It is more so because in this age of Google and everything on the internet it is child's play to discover someones voting record in congress. The uninformed voter is a danger, but laws to enact term limits are a cop-out I think.

Chief Bosun
09-30-2013, 01:04 PM
OK, my two cents as a fed.

1. It is highly unlikely that the pay of our elected officials would be frozen/cut like the majority of the feds have had to deal with for the past few years. That would take a certain amount of intestinal fortitude as the legislation would affect more than a few of them personally starting with the next session of Congress. On an individual level, some Members of Congress have taken their pay during furloughs and donated the same percentage the feds lost back to the Treasury, but collectively I think they are incapable of caring less about the folks that make the government run.

2. I've come to the conclusion they run stunts like this either right after an election or during an off-year as the population tends to have short memories regarding the actions of their elected officials come the election. November 2014, all of this may be forgotten, they'll smile and say "What a good boy/girl I've been, vote for me and I'll set you free" and so forth, we'll as a whole drink the Kool-Aid, and then complain about what we got after the fact.

Is there a good solution to this situation? I doubt it. All the ones I can think of end up tossing the baby out with the bath water.

AJBIGJ
09-30-2013, 02:08 PM
I think the 2nd term has a two-fold mission:
1) set up the guy / gal in your party for success
2) work on the "legacy". How will history judge? Usually, a SCOTUS appointment will do, but Obama has two already (I think). Obama has fallen into one of the most common pitfalls of power. He allowed his ego to get so attached to his position than when he position is threatened he feels his ego is as well. It's business. Political inexperience most likely.



I do agree, but I do not agree so much that I feel term limits are the answer. There was a time when grass-roots movements would do the trick. These days, politicians spend much more time convincing you NOT to vote for the other guy instead of convincing you to vote for him/her.

It is very sad that most voters cannot name anything important that an incumbent has accomplished (I agree there as well). It is more so because in this age of Google and everything on the internet it is child's play to discover someones voting record in congress. The uninformed voter is a danger, but laws to enact term limits are a cop-out I think.

Agreed with all above, I will add however, that the politicians who gain enough facetime with the American public to get slandered are in a sense the lucky ones. If the media of at least one side is not at least covering a candidate enough to slander them they effectively do not exist in the eyes of the American public. Third party/grassroot candidates rarely if ever get invited to the debates in the first place because on average 90% or more of the voting population has never heard of them. I know people can get tired of mentioning Ron Paul in 2012 being the "13th Floor of the Republican Party", although his name seems to have been conspicuously omitted. Similarly, Robert Sarvis, the Libertarian candidate for governor in Virginia, has not been invited to debates even though his polling has been upwards of 10%. We live in a world where the Anthony Weiners of the world stand a better shot at their desired political office than a third party, because the infamy in itself helps get people elected or at least discussed frequently enough to be a contender.

efmbman
09-30-2013, 02:19 PM
I agree, well said. The media is a huge factor in public opinion... scarey since they are not regulated.

AJBIGJ
09-30-2013, 04:12 PM
I agree, well said. The media is a huge factor in public opinion... scarey since they are not regulated.

To be fair, they're regulated plenty, both by the FCC and market forces in general. That's about as much regulation as I think it can handle without shoving the First Amendment down the cliff in the process. The only problem in the latter circumstance is we the people determine what sells, and we pay for entertainment, not factual information. The internet is the only medium where a person can realistically find unbiased factual information, and a person has to really look for it to find even that, filtering out the plethora of the both subtle and obvious misleading information that is in near proximity. I give our current President credit in the fact that he is clearly savvy in working with the majority of the media to spin the misinformed "entertainment" in a manner which portrays him in a positive light, and I'm certain that has more than a little to do with the political biases of the punditry, and probably a bit of cronyism to boot in that the media gets certain nontangible and tangible benefits from this arrangement as well.

The only regulation that can realistically work is to operate the TV remote, and that's probably an unrealistic expectation. People, whether they agree or disagree with the content, seem to get drawn into the intrigue that politics drives into our lives, and the politicians see that and they feed us what we desire, controversy, especially during election seasons. It gets them re-elected. It's an ugly little self-licking ice cream cone unfortunately. The only way I see it becoming undone is if/when the internet renders televised media obsolete and the viewership drops accordingly, we've seen some of that already, all the news networks ratings have dropped quite substantially since the elections, but it isn't as clear which dynamics are driving it. The lack of viewers may be attributed to dissatisfaction or it may be attributed to the fact that it is not a Federal election year. The politicians will always be happy to lend a hand, never letting a crisis go to waste and forever overdramatizing their position on the issue related to the crisis, much like the pundits, hence we get Trayvon vs. Zimmerman types of discussions. I would wax surprise at the development if it was a new development in politics. It isn't however, anyone who reads up on Cicero during the Roman Republic can attest to that.

The grassroots movements have a long, uphill swim to ever hope to stand a chance against the establishment. Chances are, as long as they're busy fighting eachother, that will never emerge.

Pullinteeth
09-30-2013, 08:46 PM
If the govt shuts down, should there be a law saying those in power have their pay cut (or frozen with NO back pay) as a penalty for failing to perform their job?

I would say no. Tell me, when is the last time that you saw the budget submitted in April like it is supposed to be? By law, the Pres has to submit a budget to Congress no later than the first Monday in February so they can have it done in April. But since they make the laws, there is no law requiring them to have their budget done EVER.... Instead it is used for leverage. They wait until the last week of Sept to even SUBMIT the fucking thing then bitch to the press about the other party and guess what? It works. The party with the best PR wins even though ever fucking one of them is to blame because the goddamn thing was due six months ago.

With that said, they should still get paid but they shouldn't get paid until the fucking thing is done.

CYBERFX1024
09-30-2013, 09:45 PM
Well both the House and the Senate passed a bill saying that the Military would get paid if there is a shut down. It is now waiting for the President to sign it. So we will see

Stalwart
09-30-2013, 10:08 PM
Well both the House and the Senate passed a bill saying that the Military would get paid if there is a shut down. It is now waiting for the President to sign it. So we will see

You can track the bill on a number of websites. The bill # is H.R. 3210.

It passed both the House and the Senate by unanimous consent.

garhkal
09-30-2013, 10:17 PM
I would say no. Tell me, when is the last time that you saw the budget submitted in April like it is supposed to be? By law, the Pres has to submit a budget to Congress no later than the first Monday in February so they can have it done in April. But since they make the laws, there is no law requiring them to have their budget done EVER.... Instead it is used for leverage. They wait until the last week of Sept to even SUBMIT the fucking thing then bitch to the press about the other party and guess what? It works. The party with the best PR wins even though ever fucking one of them is to blame because the goddamn thing was due six months ago.

With that said, they should still get paid but they shouldn't get paid until the fucking thing is done.

Exactly.. The law already exists that says it Has to be done, but its being ignored. So punish them like anyone else would be, strip their damn pay.

Stalwart
09-30-2013, 10:37 PM
They wait until the last week of Sept to even SUBMIT the fucking thing then bitch to the press about the other party and guess what?

Both bills were passed prior to the submission of the President's budget (May 2013 -- but was due in APR.)

H. Con. Res 25 (FY 2014 Federal Budget) passed the House on March 15th and was rejected by the Senate on March 21, 2013.

S. Con. Res 8 (FY 2014 Federal budget) passed the Senate on March 23, 2013 (first Senate budget since 2009.) This bill essentially replaced the entire budget with a different 'top end' number for approved federal spending (also called a 301 A allocation.)

The difference between the House 301 A and the Senate 301 A allocation is about $184 billion. Currently there is no conference committee scheduled to reconcile the bills into a finalized budget, hence the need for a continuing resolution to continue funding the government.

garhkal
10-01-2013, 06:47 PM
So one side made one budget, the other side rejected it.. then that side made a budget and the first one rejected it..

tiredretiredE7
10-03-2013, 02:17 AM
Correct me if I'm wrong but BOTH the Senate and House passed budget bills back in March but it was the GOP that refused to go to conference which is why we need a CR...

I was specifically referring to a separate bill to fund DoD which ofcourse pays the troops. This bill made it all the way through the Senate process but Harry Reid refused to bring the bill to the Senate floor for a final vote. You are referring a national budget which has not been passed since 2007. The Democrats had complete control of congress from 2009 until 2010 and still did not pass a budget.

garhkal
10-03-2013, 09:16 PM
From what i remember, yes both houses passed separate bills, but neither wanted to negotiate to merge them..

Bunch
10-05-2013, 05:57 AM
From what i remember, yes both houses passed separate bills, but neither wanted to negotiate to merge them..

Sometimes I wonder where some people get their news from or if they just like to pull things out of their asses...


Several Senate Republicans are at odds with their leadership about the decision to delay sending the budget to conference with the House.

“I’m very much in favor of it, and I think we ought to do it right away,” Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) told POLITICO. “And I think for us to after four years of complaining about Harry Reid’s failure to bring up a budget and then we do one and block conference is something that’s incomprehensible.”

Link to article dated 9 May 2013: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/05/some-gop-ers-antsy-to-start-budget-conference-91165.html

Let's have one fact clear. The Tea Party wing was betting on the Senate to not pass a budget so they could had leverage on this CR fight. Unfortunately for them the Senate did pass a budget and the Tea Party house members put pressure on Boehner in order to block going to conference so they could had this fight. Like it or not this was the Tea Party strategy all along.

Bunch
10-05-2013, 06:08 AM
I was specifically referring to a separate bill to fund DoD which ofcourse pays the troops. This bill made it all the way through the Senate process but Harry Reid refused to bring the bill to the Senate floor for a final vote. You are referring a national budget which has not been passed since 2007. The Democrats had complete control of congress from 2009 until 2010 and still did not pass a budget.

Thanks for the clarification...