Can someone explain to me this "No budget, No pay" bill that the House

[BlueIndyBlue]

is debating now? Thanks in advance.

[handmade34]

1. ...

[Buns_of_Fire]

11. Might as well do this crap instead of working on a budget, I guess.

Gee, wish I got paid just for showing up two or three days (or however many I felt like) a week.

[Hard Assets]

2. Ask these GOP idiots to start with the DOD.

Apparently they cannot get a full accounting or audit from the Department of Defense at least until 2017, according to GAO.

Until then, the DoD budget should be at 1% of the total budget effective immediately, and the other funds (and future funds) are diverted from the DoD to other immediate needs, including education, employment, infrastructure and mental health (ALL GOP Senate/House should be examined for sanity)

Let the DoD hold a bake sale to buy a bomber or two.

[Fight2Win]

6. yes, the Department of Defense will get no more money until they account for what they spent

That is the way the real world works (for the rest of us).

They are going to have to come down to reality, they are not above us, they work for us.

We are not the pentagon's sugar daddy.

WE work. they tax and spend it all as they wish with no accountability.

We put a meager amount away for our retirement, and they want that too, to pay for their unaccountable spending!

Seems like we are living under Aristocracy, not Democracy.

Is there an 'off with their heads' smiley?

[RB TexLa]

3. A waste of time. Unconstitutional under the 27th amendment

[Redfairen]

4. They know that. It's all about the grandstanding.

They're taking a position which is unconstitutional but would probably be politically popular.

[former9thward]

5. The Senate won't pass the bill but it is not unconstitutional.

The 27th amendment says salaries can't be changed until the next congress. It doesn't say anything about the schedule of payment of those salaries. No one has a constitutional right to be paid on a specific schedule.

[RB TexLa]

7. You might want to reread it. It does not say "changed," it says "No law, varying"

Tying the timing of congressional pay to legislative performance is a varying of their pay.


No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened.

[former9thward]

8. "Varying" means changing the compensation up or down.

If this went to court the court would look at comments by the representatives and senators made on the floor of congress while the amendment was being debated to determine the meaning of "varying". I would bet the rent no one commented on the schedule of payment in terms of that word.

[RB TexLa]

9. It's not the schedule of payments. They aren't debating a bill to chose biweekly or semimonthly

paychecks.

They are varying the basis for congressional pay. The bill would require legislative actions to be completed for members to receive their pay. That is a variance of their pay.

The debate from over 200 years ago is not the only pool from which a court has to draw it's information from.

[leftyohiolib]

10. wow how very convenient - just like everyone at their job -