[Lawmakers need to be held accountable and should feel the impact of a government shutdown just like many other Americans will. A shutdown could disrupt Social Security checks, veterans' benefits, hold up exports and cost private sector jobs, and will stop paychecks for hundreds of thousands of people. It's only fair that Members of Congress' paychecks be stopped too.
/QUOTE]

Currently, Members of Congress and the President are treated differently from millions of other Federal Employees because they are paid through mandatory spending required by law (2 U.S.C. 31 and 3 U.S.C 102) rather than through the annual appropriations process.

Makes sense to me. Why should you get paid if you are not doing your job?

Boehner don't have the balls to put this on the floor.

http://stabenow.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=268


The best part is, if they lose it, they lose it forever as the bill specifies no retroactive pay.

Text if bill

tsst_fballfan;707658 wrote:Sounds good. But the reality is that it is merely another political gesture. A good many of our esteemed in DC are millionaires and undoubtedly would feel little or no affect. :shrugs:

Thread Bomber;707704 wrote:I would go as far as give them a bonus if they could balance the budget. Hell give em all a million dollars.


And if they create a surplus Give em another. I bet we would,t see all the bullshit shoved into these bills as rides then.

O-Trap;707673 wrote:I don't see this as something we're doing in order to "force" them to do their jobs. I'm simply suggesting that if they AREN'T doing their jobs (which we're paying them to do), then we don't have to pay them for that time.

If I take a day off without any paid time off, my employer doesn't have to pay me for that day.

Same should apply for them.

O-Trap;707715 wrote:Technically, if they "balance" the budget, that technically means to make it run at breakeven. If it runs at breakeven, but we then give them millions ... we'll have an unbalanced budget again.

O-Trap;707619 wrote:Not only do I not have a problem with it, I love it.

O-Trap;707715 wrote:Technically, if they "balance" the budget, that technically means to make it run at breakeven. If it runs at breakeven, but we then give them millions ... we'll have an unbalanced budget again.

Thread Bomber;707826 wrote:The Thread bomber version of BS.388 would provide that the budget would have to be balanced including bonuses,bailouts , acts of war or terrorism and natural didasters.

Fuck you Brownie, you did a horrible job

I Wear Pants;707912 wrote:Couple hundred million dollars < whatever number we have now.