If lawmakers can't agree on a spending bill before midnight today, a couple million federal workers won't be getting paychecks on time. Troops fighting in Afghanistan won't be paid on time either. Some 800,000 workers likely to be furloughed aren't guaranteed back pay. BUT...someone is still getting paid--Members of Congress and President Obama. Rank-and-file members of the House get paid $174,000 a year. And Obama is paid $400,000 a year.
The salaries paid to lawmakers and the president are financed through mandatory appropriations. And that part of the budget won't be affected by the shutdown.
The failure of lawmakers to change the status quo has led some members of Congress to pledge their salaries to charity or give the money back to the Treasury. Now, more than twenty members have signed a letter circulated by Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia that asks members to forgo their pay. "I can't imagine that the president, vice president or any member of Congress -- Republican or Democrat -- thinks they should get paid when the government has shut down," Manchin writes in the letter.
6 comments:
It is a negative message to the people that the Congress still got paid while thousands of people are not guaranteed their payment. However, we cannot just refuse to pay the Congress. After all, it is part of the incentives for the Congress to lead the country well; you cannot expect them to face the challenges of the economy and make good decisions while they are not financially supported. They are very important for the country, especially at this time. And this should be made clear to the people.
The Congress, nevertheless, should come up with a suitable policy, such as take away part of the payment for the Congress to pay the federal workers. And although it is sad, during this time the lawmakers have to narrow down their staff to very "essential" employees.
This is a hot topic of political debate at the time, so im not going to stir any waters. But if you look at this from an objective perspective, why don't both sides just settle on the median price for spending? The Republicans want 60 billion in cuts and the Democrats want 40 billion, so settle on 50 and its done. The shut-down wont last for long, because the people not getting paid are the ones arguing! Funny how that works, it is more of a political formality of "We dont agree so lets throw a fit".
I agree that it is a negative message that the members of congress are still getting paid. While I understand what you're saying about maintaining the incentive for them to do their job well I feel like it would be more fair for no government employees to be getting paid right now until this is settled.
I disagree that it is necessary to pay Congress in order to get them to work effectively and in our best interests. It is the basics of the democratic system that if public officials arent doing their job then they wont win another term. It is a privilege to be voted into Congress and it is a privilege that they get paid because they were voted in. How can they vote to shut down the government (costing thousands of people their hard earned dollars) and still expect to be paid? If I were a soldier in Afghanistan and I didnt get paid because a suit in Washington voted not too I would be very unhappy. Do you think Congress wants thousands of trained soldiers pissed off at them? I would think not. That is a bit extreme but it gets the point across they cant get paid.
If we were not to pay congress during a shutdown they may be more inclined work harder to get this bill passed, after all they would want to get paid too. And I do agree that the easy thing to do is to agree on the average of the two proposals, I am not sure how easy this would be, nor if it would cause repercussions in the future. IE: one side lowballing and the other highballing to get their desired amount passed.
The news came out yesterday and the bill was passed. In the end, both parties have to work together to come up with a solution for the Congress. However, the bill came with major cuts in spending and the government seem to have to less money to put in the economy.
Post a Comment