No budget, No pay.... Smoke n Mirrors

[Snaquebite]

It puts their pay in escrow. They will eventually get it.

[SF18C]

Two things...

1) The Congress can't do anything to the pay of THIS Congress...any law or change will effect the next Congress!

2) The current salary (2013) for rank-and-file members of the House and Senate is $174,000 per year. 435 Reps and 100 Senators is about $93 million...not really a dent in $16+ Trillion!

[Ret10Echo]

Symbolic...at best...

But what galls me are the "It violates the Constitution" comments.....

...but the legality of withholding lawmakers’ checks is in doubt. The 27th Amendment states, “No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened.” Members can raise the salary of the next Congress, but they can’t hike (or cut) their own pay.

HEY YOU WORTHLESS TOOLBAGS...

You idiots don't seem to be having a problem trashing through THIS Amendment

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Nothing more than modern day carpetbaggers and snake oil salesmen...

[mark46th]

Their pay is tip money. Their real salary comes from the lobbyists and other sources that we don't hear about...

[Hand]

Originally Posted by Ret10Echo

Symbolic...at best...

But what galls me are the "It violates the Constitution" comments.....

Does a pay raise directly from the Great One count as violating the Constitution?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/1...n_2377714.html

[Ret10Echo]

Originally Posted by Hand

Does a pay raise directly from the Great One count as violating the Constitution?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/1...n_2377714.html

No expert in this area... A little research revealed

5 U.S.C. § 5304a : US Code - Section 5304A: Authority to fix an alternative level of comparability payments

Which states:

(a) If, because of national emergency or serious economic conditions affecting the general welfare, the President should consider the level of comparability payments which would otherwise be payable under section 5304 in any year to be inappropriate, the President shall—
(1) prepare and transmit to Congress, at least 1 month before those comparability payments (disregarding this section) would otherwise become payable, a report describing the alternative level of payments which the President instead intends to provide, including the reasons why such alternative level is considered necessary; and
(2) implement the alternative level of payments beginning on the same date as would otherwise apply, for the year involved, under section 5304.
(b) The requirements set forth in paragraphs (2) and (3), respectively, of section 5303 (b) shall apply with respect to any decision to exercise any authority to fix an alternative level of comparability payments under this section.

Now I leave that to legal counsel to determine if that is/was applicable in this instance...but I do not recall any specific mention in the Constitution about there being Federal Employees.... (Funny that...)

[Hand]

Thank you for taking the time to dig that up QP Ret10Echo!

If, because of national emergency or serious economic conditions affecting the general welfare

I don't quite see how current conditions would necessarily match the preamble as you found above.

While the amount is (I believe) negligible (Ive seen it posted as around 1000 a year), I agree, no budget, no pay, at all.

[Gypsy]

There hasn't been a budget for 4 years, what's the rush?

[Stiletto11]

I think Barry put a budget up twice and the Senate killed it.

[Gypsy]

Originally Posted by Stiletto11

I think Barry put a budget up twice and the Senate killed it.

His fellow Dims wouldn't even vote for it. That is no excuse to operate for 4 years + without one.

[echoes]

Originally Posted by Ret10Echo

Symbolic...at best...

But what galls me are the "It violates the Constitution" comments.....




HEY YOU WORTHLESS TOOLBAGS...

You idiots don't seem to be having a problem trashing through THIS Amendment




Nothing more than modern day carpetbaggers and snake oil salesmen...

Agree and very well siid Sir!!!

Holly

[Airbornelawyer]

Originally Posted by Gypsy

There hasn't been a budget for 4 years, what's the rush?

The Republlicans put forth budgets in each of the years they have controlled the House. Republicans in the Senate forced the votes on the sham Obama budgets, forcing Senate Democrats to go on record against their own President's budget proposal while not putting forth their own. And it is Republicans pushing the current "no budget, no pay" proposal.

Call Congressional Republicans feckless on so many issues when it comes to confronting the President, but on this one, they have been pretty consistently pushing for action. Not a rush here, except that the sense of urgency may be greater now both because the crisis gets a trillion dollars worse each year, and because with Obama's reelection, he apparently feels free to consolidate his big government agenda.

Also keep in mind that by not voting out a budget, Senate Democrats are in fact endorsing Obama's big government agenda, since without a budget, spending levels remain effectively those of the so-called "temporary" emergency spending increases from 2009. Former South Carolina governor Mark Sanford was rightly vilified for other things, but he was absolutely right when he opposed the "stimulus" spending because he knew that the temporary increases would somehow become permanent, with states on the hook for their required matching funds.

[Dusty]

Originally Posted by Airbornelawyer

by not voting out a budget, Senate Democrats are in fact endorsing Obama's big government agenda, since without a budget, spending levels remain effectively those of the so-called "temporary" emergency spending increases from 2009.

Which is why there's no rush.

[Gypsy]

Originally Posted by Airbornelawyer

The Republlicans put forth budgets in each of the years they have controlled the House. Republicans in the Senate forced the votes on the sham Obama budgets, forcing Senate Democrats to go on record against their own President's budget proposal while not putting forth their own. And it is Republicans pushing the current "no budget, no pay" proposal.

Call Congressional Republicans feckless on so many issues when it comes to confronting the President, but on this one, they have been pretty consistently pushing for action. Not a rush here, except that the sense of urgency may be greater now both because the crisis gets a trillion dollars worse each year, and because with Obama's reelection, he apparently feels free to consolidate his big government agenda.

Also keep in mind that by not voting out a budget, Senate Democrats are in fact endorsing Obama's big government agenda, since without a budget, spending levels remain effectively those of the so-called "temporary" emergency spending increases from 2009. Former South Carolina governor Mark Sanford was rightly vilified for other things, but he was absolutely right when he opposed the "stimulus" spending because he knew that the temporary increases would somehow become permanent, with states on the hook for their required matching funds.

Thanks AL, I should have expounded a bit more in my post. I knew of the Republican's efforts and that the Dems wouldn't even pass Obama's budget proposal.