« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

FRONT PAGE CONTRIBUTOR

“No Budget, No Pay” bill passes the House.

Basically, what’s going to happen is this: if the bill passes in the Senate then both the House and Senate will be under the gun to pass a budget in their respective chambers by April 15th. If the Senate does not – and let’s be honest; it’s the Senate that’s the problem – then the Senate doesn’t get paid until they do. The House Republican caucus was generally behind this bill (it’s linked to a three-month extension of the debt ceiling, which is the only reason why it might not have been); Senate Democrats are still kind of mumbling about it for the moment.

As to the vote itself… the House GOP forced enough Democrats to vote for it to allow for, simultaneously: the coveted ‘bipartisan’ label; AND to allow the hardline House Republican deficit hawks the luxury of voting their conscience on a ‘clean’ debt ceiling raise, no matter how high. The Democrats really, really wanted to make this a party-line vote, but when push came to shove they didn’t quite dare to try to force their marginal-district House Members into line. In other words: tactically speaking, the GOP won this one, fair and square.Incidentally, this morning I was in on a conference call with Policy Committee Chair James Lankford of Oklahoma regarding this bill. His major points, from my perspective:

  • This bill does not actually violate the 27th Amendment, on the grounds that it’s merely putting the Members’ pay in escrow until the budget is passed.
  • When asked about whether the Senate would pass this bill, Rep. Lankford noted that the bill is very simple and straightforward (only five pages long); it’s a clean debt ceiling extension in exchange for a budget passed by the Senate – and that the White House had already indicated that they would not impede this particular legislation. Implied in the call was if the Senate decides that it doesn’t want to extend the debt ceiling if it means also doing something that they’re Constitutionally mandated to do, that’s not exactly Rep. Lankford’s responsibility.
  • Rep. Lankford also made it clear at several separate points that he was not discussing what the final budget was going to look like, and that Senator Schumer or anybody else in the Senate was perfectly free to propose and pass whatever budget that they cared to propose. What the House cares about right now is getting a budget out of the Senate: the phrase “baby steps” was used, which may be even more insulting because it is so perfectly accurate.

So we’ll see what the Senate does now.

Moe Lane (crosspost)

*I know: it’s annoying that we have to trade a short-term extension of the debt ceiling in exchange for getting the Democrats to do their jobs. Always having to be the adults in the room gets old, fast. But that’s the way things go, these days.

COMMENTS

  • kentucky

    I take it from Jay Carney’s statement that the President is not going to sign the bill, but will allow it to become law by waiting out the ten day period. How common is this?

  • Viet71

    Disagree as to Amendment XXVII, because of the time-value of money. But we’ll find out — maybe.

  • MoeLane

    I believe that it’s common enough to not be particularly noteworthy.

  • carolina

    I think the most important outcome of this approach will be to FORCE the Senate to engage in “regular order”.

    This will ALLOW the House to use “regular order” and get Boehner out of the TRAP of trying to negotiate with BO and his WH henchmen.
    The dem Senate has been disgustingly passive-agressive with their refusal to pass a budget. NOW they will (hopefully) go on the record with their tax and spend, spend, spend policies. This will be very helpful for the GOP in the coming 2014 Senate elections. Better yet, it will force (allow?) some of the Senate dems to assist the GOP in getting spending under control.
    We already have House dems with record votes against raising the debt ceiling, in contrast with their previous pontifications.

    Good job House GOP!

  • 6eorge Jetson

    While I think that the bill violates the 27th amendment, there is a remedy for that in the courts.
    .
    Trap set.

  • Kyle-MI

    It doesn’t matter much whether it violates the 27th amendment or not. First, it is good politics. Blocking pay because the Senate won’t do its job resonates with the public. Second, it would take time to work its way through the courts anyway. The pressure is the same either way. And for those of you aghast that I would advocate ignoring the Constitution, this situation was not why the 27th amendment was passed in the first place. Also, there is a reasonable chance the courts would rule in favor of this bill anyway.

  • The_Gadfly

    It’s a very, very fine legal point, but I just discussed this with my moderate roommate and she concurs that it isn’t a decrease in pay because you are legally receiving the compensation, you just don’t have use of it. Same as if you have a judgement against a landlord for repairs to a residence and the money goes into escrow until they make the repairs.

    Now, if you get really clever, the law specifies that the fine for failure to pass a budget is equal to their yearly salary, which conveniently is held in the escrow at the end of their term. Granted Congress usually exempts themselves from such things, but they don’t HAVE to.