Recently, the US House of Representatives passed a measure called the “No Budget, No Pay Act of 2013.” The underlying concept is simple: members of Congress will not receive a paycheck until a comprehensive budget passes. The bill also extends the debt ceiling for another three months.
Rep. Jim Cooper (D-Tenn) originally proposed the idea last year and was supported heavily by groups such as No Labels, a non-partisan organization consisting of “Democrats, Republicans and independents dedicated to the politics of problem-solving.” Now, the bill has passed the House and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has indicated it will pass the Senate. Tweet
“I am pleased that Speaker Boehner and his House colleagues have decided to change course, and pass a bill that defuses yet another fight over the debt ceiling,” Sen. Reid remarked.
“No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of the Representatives shall have intervened.”
The key word, “varying,” creates dispute.
Because Congress cannot effectively increase (or in this case, possibly decrease) salaries until the start of the next term in 2014, the bill cannot prevent pay. The bill sidesteps this, though, by not actually cutting payments. Instead, salaries will be withheld in an escrow fund until the last day of Congress.
Members will receive their salaries once a budget passes, with no deductions whatsoever. However, should Congress fail to pass a budget at all, members will still receive the money stowed away in the escrow fund — all $348,000 ($174k per year) of it — on the last day of session.
With respect to the debt ceiling, the bill extends it by three months. While this allows more time for compromise, it does not guarantee a mitigation of the hostile political atmosphere plaguing Washington. Tweet
Unless the nation witnesses the same bi-partisan cooperation that was seen with “No Budget, No Pay Act” during the debt ceiling debates, the country will only relive the debt-debacle debates that lowered the credit rating in 2011. Still, the fact that a bi-partisan agreement occurred signals a potential change in political tension on Capitol Hill.
Join the discussion Please be relevant and respectful.
I've been pointing this out for quite awhile now and have received considerable flack from people that can't read. The 14th Amendment doesn't say you can't change Congress' pay....unless the Republican House feels like it..It says quite clearly that you cannot 'vary' their pay. The definition of vary includes :
Change from one condition, form, or state to another.
and synonyms are : change - alter - differ - diversify - shift - modify
It is clear that the 14th Amendment says in plain English that you cannot modify in any way how Congress is paid. If Congressmen receive a monthly pay check, then paying them at the end of their session is a modification of their pay. Ask yourself how you would interpret the same action if your weekly paycheck was now due and payable only once a year? Another question might be, if a Congressman now cannot meet his duties because he doesn't have the cash to attend Congress, does that help our Country? Would he be entitled to compensation if he had to take out loans to participate and feed his family?
Furthermore, this act in and of itself might be used in the future to punish Congressmen for other actions that a minority in control doesn't like. Do we really want a portion of Congress controlling the pay of any Congressman for whatever purpose?
This is a very stupid and dangerous idea.