S.388 would stop pay to congress if shutdown occurs

• Thread Bomber

  

  Finally, a voice of reason from a Democrat? yes. A woman? yes. A citizen of Michigan???? Hell yes!
  
  This passed the senate by unanimous consent March 1st and would stop the pay of Senators, Congress People and the POTUS if they fail to pass an appropriations bill and the government shuts down for linger than a 24 hr. period.
  

  [Lawmakers need to be held accountable and should feel the impact of a government shutdown just like many other Americans will. A shutdown could disrupt Social Security checks, veterans' benefits, hold up exports and cost private sector jobs, and will stop paychecks for hundreds of thousands of people. It's only fair that Members of Congress' paychecks be stopped too.
  /QUOTE]
  

  Currently, Members of Congress and the President are treated differently from millions of other Federal Employees because they are paid through mandatory spending required by law (2 U.S.C. 31 and 3 U.S.C 102) rather than through the annual appropriations process.
  

  Makes sense to me. Why should you get paid if you are not doing your job?
  
  Boehner don't have the balls to put this on the floor.
  
  http://stabenow.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=268
  
  
  The best part is, if they lose it, they lose it forever as the bill specifies no retroactive pay.
  
  Text if bill

• Thread Bomber

  

  
  
  
  
  
  
  Bump the bitch
• CenterBHSFan

  

  Without reading the bill and just going by your summary, I don't have a problem with it.
• FatHobbit

  

  Sounds like a good idea to me.
• O-Trap

  

  Not only do I not have a problem with it, I love it.
• tsst_fballfan

  

  Sounds good. But the reality is that it is merely another political gesture. A good many of our esteemed in DC are millionaires and undoubtedly would feel little or no affect. :shrugs:
• O-Trap

  

  tsst_fballfan;707658 wrote:Sounds good. But the reality is that it is merely another political gesture. A good many of our esteemed in DC are millionaires and undoubtedly would feel little or no affect. :shrugs:

  I don't see this as something we're doing in order to "force" them to do their jobs. I'm simply suggesting that if they AREN'T doing their jobs (which we're paying them to do), then we don't have to pay them for that time.
  
  If I take a day off without any paid time off, my employer doesn't have to pay me for that day.
  
  Same should apply for them.
• Thread Bomber

  

  I would go as far as give them a bonus if they could balance the budget. Hell give em all a million dollars.
  
  
  And if they create a surplus Give em another. I bet we would,t see all the bullshit shoved into these bills as rides then.
• O-Trap

  

  Thread Bomber;707704 wrote:I would go as far as give them a bonus if they could balance the budget. Hell give em all a million dollars.
  
  
  And if they create a surplus Give em another. I bet we would,t see all the bullshit shoved into these bills as rides then.

  
  Technically, if they "balance" the budget, that technically means to make it run at breakeven. If it runs at breakeven, but we then give them millions ... we'll have an unbalanced budget again.
• tsst_fballfan

  

  O-Trap;707673 wrote:I don't see this as something we're doing in order to "force" them to do their jobs. I'm simply suggesting that if they AREN'T doing their jobs (which we're paying them to do), then we don't have to pay them for that time.
  
  If I take a day off without any paid time off, my employer doesn't have to pay me for that day.
  
  Same should apply for them.

  That I can very much agree with!
• Thread Bomber

  

  O-Trap;707715 wrote:Technically, if they "balance" the budget, that technically means to make it run at breakeven. If it runs at breakeven, but we then give them millions ... we'll have an unbalanced budget again.

  The Thread bomber version of BS.388 would provide that the budget would have to be balanced including bonuses,bailouts , acts of war or terrorism and natural didasters.
  
  Fuck you Brownie, you did a horrible job
• I Wear Pants

  O-Trap;707619 wrote:Not only do I not have a problem with it, I love it.

  
  This.
• I Wear Pants

  O-Trap;707715 wrote:Technically, if they "balance" the budget, that technically means to make it run at breakeven. If it runs at breakeven, but we then give them millions ... we'll have an unbalanced budget again.

  Couple hundred million dollars < whatever number we have now.
• O-Trap

  

  Thread Bomber;707826 wrote:The Thread bomber version of BS.388 would provide that the budget would have to be balanced including bonuses,bailouts , acts of war or terrorism and natural didasters.
  
  Fuck you Brownie, you did a horrible job

  LOL!
  

  I Wear Pants;707912 wrote:Couple hundred million dollars < whatever number we have now.

  Agreed. However ...
  
  Doing that every single year = ending up in the same boat = economicfail
• bigkahuna

  It always makes me laugh when something with the government is going on, or right now the public sector salary issues... the legislators never consider touching their salaries, packages, perks....
  
  I seriously wonder how much money we'd raise if Franking and things of that nature were stopped.