No Budget No Pay Act

[Ibanez]

Have you guys been following this? This passed in the HoR and I just heard that the Senate has approved it as well. Now it just waits for Obamas signature. What are your thoughts?

[ASUG8]

Long overdue. I don't know how we've allowed them to get by without a budget for so long, and it shows.

[houndawg]

They need to give back some salary and benefits too, like the rest of us.

[HI54UNI]

While I like the general idea because I think they are all a bunch of douchebags I think it is bad policy. I'm sure some of our elected officials are not wealthy and approval of a budget is beyond their individual control. Now they will get no pay. Just one more reason that Congress becomes a club for the wealthy.

It may also be illegal under the 27th amendment.

[houndawg]

While I like the general idea because I think they are all a bunch of douchebags I think it is bad policy. I'm sure some of our elected officials are not wealthy and approval of a budget is beyond their individual control. Now they will get no pay. Just one more reason that Congress becomes a club for the wealthy.

It may also be illegal under the 27th amendment.

Still no reason they can't give back some salary and bennies like everybody else.

[HI54UNI]

While I like the general idea because I think they are all a bunch of douchebags I think it is bad policy. I'm sure some of our elected officials are not wealthy and approval of a budget is beyond their individual control. Now they will get no pay. Just one more reason that Congress becomes a club for the wealthy.

It may also be illegal under the 27th amendment.

Still no reason they can't give back some salary and bennies like everybody else.

I don't disagree because we all agree they aren't doing their job. I just don't think it is the way to do it. It's our job is to take care of it via the ballot box and we aren't doing that so we are all guilty.

[BDKJMU]

I think they should pass a "No balanced Budget, No Pay Act."

[houndawg]

Still no reason they can't give back some salary and bennies like everybody else.

I don't disagree because we all agree they aren't doing their job. I just don't think it is the way to do it. It's our job is to take care of it via the ballot box and we aren't doing that so we are all guilty.

I don't mean that they should give back because they are incompetent. I mean their pay and benefits should be reduced just like Boeings engineers and techs, for example; Congressional positions don't justify that kind of compensation. Anybody can do what they do.

[HI54UNI]

I don't disagree because we all agree they aren't doing their job. I just don't think it is the way to do it. It's our job is to take care of it via the ballot box and we aren't doing that so we are all guilty.

I don't mean that they should give back because they are incompetent. I mean their pay and benefits should be reduced just like Boeings engineers and techs, for example; Congressional positions don't justify that kind of compensation. Anybody can do what they do.

Gotcha. Can't disagree.

[DSUrocks07]

I don't mean that they should give back because they are incompetent. I mean their pay and benefits should be reduced just like Boeings engineers and techs, for example; Congressional positions don't justify that kind of compensation. Anybody can do what they do.

Gotcha. Can't disagree.

Because when you really think about it, the amount of money that goes into the campaigns FOR the positions 99.9% of the time outweigh the actual financial benefit of the position itself. Should be treated more like a paid internship IMO, since the majority of former legislators become paid shrills...I mean, lobbyists.

[GannonFan]

I don't disagree because we all agree they aren't doing their job. I just don't think it is the way to do it. It's our job is to take care of it via the ballot box and we aren't doing that so we are all guilty.

I don't mean that they should give back because they are incompetent. I mean their pay and benefits should be reduced just like Boeings engineers and techs, for example; Congressional positions don't justify that kind of compensation. Anybody can do what they do.

So it's already hard enough to attract decent, qualified people to fill these jobs (seriously, how many people have you run into that say their dream is to one day serve in an elected office) and the way you want to change that is to cut their pay and benefits? I think we can all agree that we would like to get that money back, however, what you're talking about is pretty much symbolic (just the paperwork alone to get this done would cost more than the money we'd save) and at the end of the day you may have even less people wanting to run for office, thereby paring the field down even smaller than it is. Hard to see that as a good thing.

[ASUG8]

Members of Congress will get paid — members earn $174,000 per year, or $348,000 per term — regardless of whether they pass a budget. They just might not get their paychecks right away.
The first thing that has to happen is that both the House and the Senate need to each pass a budget. This is easy for the House, which has already passed the Paul Ryan budget and is working on an updated version now. The onus, as intended, is on the Senate to produce their own budget.
Next, select Senators and Representatives start negotiating, with the goal of reconciling the two plans into a mutually-agreed upon conference report, which must then be passed by both chambers.
This is called a concurrent resolution, and sets the levels of appropriation bills for the budgetary year. It's not a law for the President to sign, just a negotiated, binding agreement over what appropriations bills will eventually be sent to the President.

If this occurs prior to April 15, then everybody will get their regular paychecks.
If Congress doesn't agree to a concurrent resolution on the 2014 budget by April 15, the payroll administrators of the House and Senate will deposit all paychecks into an escrow account.
If Congress agrees on the concurrent resolution sometime after April 16, members get the lump sum payment of all their paychecks put into escrow after the budget deadline.
If Congress doesn't agree to the concurrent resolution at any point during the 113th Congress, then members will not get paid until the last day of the Congress, in late 2014 or early 2015. At that point, each member will get the rest of their $348,000 in a lump sum.

http://www.businessinsider.com/senate-d ... pay-2013-1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Ivytalk]

I don't mean that they should give back because they are incompetent. I mean their pay and benefits should be reduced just like Boeings engineers and techs, for example; Congressional positions don't justify that kind of compensation. Anybody can do what they do.

So it's already hard enough to attract decent, qualified people to fill these jobs (seriously, how many people have you run into that say their dream is to one day serve in an elected office) and the way you want to change that is to cut their pay and benefits? I think we can all agree that we would like to get that money back, however, what you're talking about is pretty much symbolic (just the paperwork alone to get this done would cost more than the money we'd save) and at the end of the day you may have even less people wanting to run for office, thereby paring the field down even smaller than it is. Hard to see that as a good thing.

Are you kidding me, GF? If you think that the field of "decent, qualified people" to run for Congress is too small, I have a cattle ranch in Alaska I can sell you. Of course the bill is symbolic. That's all that gets passed nowadays. You take things way too seriously.

[GannonFan]

The other thing too about this legislation - sure, it sounds great, but at the end of the day, if at the end of the session they still haven't passed a budget, they all get paid anyway. This bill just means that if they don't pass the budget they don't get paid every pay period, but they will still get all the compensation they are slated to get at the end of the session in a lump sum even if they fail.

[93henfan]

Col H and I are staring down the barrel of 20% pay cuts from mid-March through Sep if these jackasses don't get the ball rolling to avoid sequestration.

By ROBERT BURNS
National Security Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) - A top Pentagon official says that if Congress does not come up with a way to avoid mandatory budget cuts by March 1, hundreds of thousands of Pentagon civilian employees will face furloughs and reduced paychecks by April.

Deputy Defense Secretary Ashton Carter told a small group of reporters Friday that the furloughed employees would lose one day of work per week for the remainder of the budget year, which ends in September.

The automatic budget cuts, known as sequestration, would force a 9 percent cut to all defense programs.

"This is painful to us," Carter said

The Pentagon has about 800,000 civilian employees; they have not yet been officially notified of furloughs. Carter said the furloughs would be expected to save $5 billion.

Carter said the Pentagon already is eliminating all 46,000 of its temporary civilian workers in anticipation of budget cuts. In earlier broad guidance issued to DoD components, Pentagon leaders told the services to consider cutting temp workers to save costs. The services were also granted the authority to freeze civilian hiring and cut maintenance spending.

The services must deliver their specific cost-cutting plans to DoD leaders by Feb. 1

http://www.federalnewsradio.com/394/320 ... uestration

[SDHornet]

The other thing too about this legislation - sure, it sounds great, but at the end of the day, if at the end of the session they still haven't passed a budget, they all get paid anyway. This bill just means that if they don't pass the budget they don't get paid every pay period, but they will still get all the compensation they are slated to get at the end of the session in a lump sum even if they fail.

Yup. Meaningless piece of legislation to go with all the other meaningless pieces of legislation these guys are pumping out. A great use of time given all the other important things that needs to get done (gun legislation, global warming legislation, football protection legislation, ban on icy roads legislation, knife and pointy objects legislation, etc).

[Ibanez]

Col H and I are staring down the barrel of 20% pay cuts from mid-March through Sep if these jackasses don't get the ball rolling to avoid sequestration.

By ROBERT BURNS
National Security Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) - A top Pentagon official says that if Congress does not come up with a way to avoid mandatory budget cuts by March 1, hundreds of thousands of Pentagon civilian employees will face furloughs and reduced paychecks by April.

Deputy Defense Secretary Ashton Carter told a small group of reporters Friday that the furloughed employees would lose one day of work per week for the remainder of the budget year, which ends in September.

The automatic budget cuts, known as sequestration, would force a 9 percent cut to all defense programs.

"This is painful to us," Carter said

The Pentagon has about 800,000 civilian employees; they have not yet been officially notified of furloughs. Carter said the furloughs would be expected to save $5 billion.

Carter said the Pentagon already is eliminating all 46,000 of its temporary civilian workers in anticipation of budget cuts. In earlier broad guidance issued to DoD components, Pentagon leaders told the services to consider cutting temp workers to save costs. The services were also granted the authority to freeze civilian hiring and cut maintenance spending.

The services must deliver their specific cost-cutting plans to DoD leaders by Feb. 1

http://www.federalnewsradio.com/394/320 ... uestration

Yeah, that'll suck. Meanwhile, as Program Support, we've been doing budget drills that are now including the cuts and risk associated to losing contractor support.

[GannonFan]

The other thing too about this legislation - sure, it sounds great, but at the end of the day, if at the end of the session they still haven't passed a budget, they all get paid anyway. This bill just means that if they don't pass the budget they don't get paid every pay period, but they will still get all the compensation they are slated to get at the end of the session in a lump sum even if they fail.

Yup. Meaningless piece of legislation to go with all the other meaningless pieces of legislation these guys are pumping out. A great use of time given all the other important things that needs to get done (gun legislation, global warming legislation, football protection legislation, ban on icy roads legislation, knife and pointy objects legislation, etc).

If it actually did something other than generate a nice headline it would be useful. However, the fact that they can go a whole year, not pass a budget, and still get paid in full at the end makes this bill nothing other than a PR ploy. But it sounds great without looking at the details!

[houndawg]

I don't mean that they should give back because they are incompetent. I mean their pay and benefits should be reduced just like Boeings engineers and techs, for example; Congressional positions don't justify that kind of compensation. Anybody can do what they do.

So it's already hard enough to attract decent, qualified people to fill these jobs (seriously, how many people have you run into that say their dream is to one day serve in an elected office) and the way you want to change that is to cut their pay and benefits? I think we can all agree that we would like to get that money back, however, what you're talking about is pretty much symbolic (just the paperwork alone to get this done would cost more than the money we'd save) and at the end of the day you may have even less people wanting to run for office, thereby paring the field down even smaller than it is. Hard to see that as a good thing.

They aren't there there for the salary, GF, they're there to get their snouts in the trough. The Cadillac wages/benefits are just walking around money. Chump change.