The DC establishment power players cheered the passing of No Budget, No Pay this year. So much so that they are now calling for a No Budget, No Pay bill that effects the pay of Obama’s budget staff 1.
Really this would get at the crux of the problem as the President is actually the elected official responsible for proposing a budget; congress is only meant to vote on this budget.
However, this bill is completely insipid even outside of the misrepresented constitutional paradigm central to the bill. Congress members, both Senators and Representatives, who have been in DC for a long time have already lined their pockets. What do they care about missing a few pay checks? But for the new rabble-rousers, sent to spark a change, they may feel the impact of this bill disproportionately – at least in the near term.
Ultimately, all our congressional players will be paid, it is only a matter of when 2.
It is, therefore, only more hype from Washington without tangible results.
While the initial bill seemed likely to prompt Congress to act on their constitutional mandate to pass a budget, it is not likely to have that effect. This bill is actually a misnomer.
The Congress will either be paid their full back pay upon the successful passage of a budget or after the 113th Congress ends. Their money is escrowed for the time being.
Underlying this apparently positive bill is the recurrent theme that Congress is unable to fix any problem it sets about to mitigate. Also, that by trying to enforce one of their constitutional mandates, the Congress is tiptoeing near, but not quite around, their other constitutional condition to not adjust their own pay within the current term 3. (That obligation is outlined in the 27th amendment.)
If Government is the problem, will adding more government solve the problem?