No wages for Congress

Performance wasn't the intent

You’re damned if you do and damned if you don’t. If we force congress to work for free until a deal is struck- that may increase the odds the deal will be the one that gets them on track the fastest- and may not be best. Likewise it is harder to repeal “bad” policies than to pass them, a reason policy makers have to be cautious. They are also setting precedents that future decisions and arbitration’s. Additionally- most members of Congress make substantial income from sources other than their salaries. Much of the corruption in politics is motivated by the fact that most politicians are business people who have their own financial portfolios and their backers, and lastly constituents to tend. Cutting off their salary is more like a boss telling you you won’t get OT pay- it sucks but isn’t going to break you. If we don’t do something though, as we have seen- they won’t do their jobs. Representatives of the people who largely aren’t accountable beyond elections- which generally aren’t..

... won on merit as much as on marketing.

Actually, these shutdowns have only recently started (past 40 years). Before that the issue never existed because Congress actually did it's job and drafted a long-term budget, not these one year band-aids that have become the new normal.

It is a recent creation. Oddly- some might say coincidentally- the appearance of these shit downs coincides with the approximate time frame that massive deregulation in the name of free market capitalism began to appear- which also coincides oddly with an unprecedented in the modern developed world wealth gap and consolidation of most of the worlds wealth.... oddly.... it overlaps the tax cuts made in the highest income brackets.... also of note and odd.... before that- we built massive public works and most of our decaying infrastructure was erected, and since then, such projects have stagnated and said infrastructure has decayed.... its almost as if there is some odd link between all these things. As though.... the inevitable eventualities of a system which facilitated and encourages corruption and self serving behavior over civics and a sense of communal investment would be increasingly bold politicians who know they can push the boundaries further and further and get away with it..

I'm actually not going to dispute that. Unchecked capitalism is a goddamn nightmare. It just so happens that all known alternatives are actually worse. Because capitalism can generate wealth, but is almost incapable of spreading it and sharing it. This is why it needs to be constantly restrained and reformed. There's actually a really good video I saw on this topic, I will throw a link down below, it points out the major flaws in the system we have today, and goes into historical examples of republics and how they are thus far the most effective system to prevent tyranny, but they are not eternal.
So yeah, the system is degenerating much quicker right now, but there really is no better option that to try to reform it while staying far far away from the known bad options.
Here's the link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qlGokgO3mYQ

I’m no gawd damn communist and Bernie Sanders was a sweet old nut job who would run the greatest local ice cream shop kids ever knew- but I do t want him running my country. Capitalism does beat the other alternatives the same way a Douglas DC5 beats a plasma drive faster than light space cruiser. One of those two things actually exists in a functional way if clunky- the other only exists as a theory or maybe in some distant and alien future- and outside a lab isn’t feasible. Well guided ethical capitalism has the potential to be the greatest system the world has ever known. It also doesn’t exist. Tell people to “go make money” and not tell them they have to do it ethically and cybernetically- and more than likely the winner won’t be the “best” but the “worst” attributes and examples of humanity- somewhat defeating the noble intentions of high minded capitalism vs just letting people murder each other for money.

If there is no new budget approved; then all but certain things “freeze.” If you run a transportation department, you could still theoretically write checks- but what happens if last year you had $4 million dollars for new equipment, so you figure you’ll order $3 million and be safe- then the budget is finally announced and you find out this year you only had $2 million or there was a freeze on new equipment? You’re starting the year millions in the hole and will have to take it from other funds you might NEED to operate. So effectively when a budget isn’t approved no bills get paid regardless- which means that you can issue “I O U’s” but people don’t have to take them- especially knowing that when the budget is final you might not be able to pay those back.

So you get a “shut down” where organizations have to operate on whatever funds they have or can generate themselves, any surpluses or reserves- and have no idea when a budget will be made. Congress gets very mild penalties for not approving a budget, and there’s a chance that unpopularity from the results of the delayed budget might hurt their re election, but largely there isn’t major consequence for them. They technically “work for free” many hours... but a congressperson usually gets paid very little relative to their wealth which mostly comes from investments in private enterprise- in other words they tend to be rich and not actually “need” the paycheck at all anyway- so it’s more a matter of principal of getting paid for work than a serious blow to their ability to live. A hundred grand or so a year, so a hit of $10-40k in earning cuts back your spending but when you make a half million or more a year... well... you won’t starve or likely lose the house.

Finally, there’s a game of “chicken” being played (A game of chicken is basically where two people are headed straight for each other and one has to move or they’ll both collide. The one that moves is the “chicken,” but if neither one will budge....) So the assumption by at least one party is that the other one won’t let it go to the “worst case” and if you get close enough, hold out right up to the last moment before disaster, they’ll move and you get what you want. So many budget makers figured they’d do that. Pressure their opponents into giving up by using the threat of a shut down.

So it’s akin to holding a ransom to get someone to agree to something they normally wouldn’t. “Well gee- I know you don’t want this gun bill to get funded, but if you don’t, nothing will get funded including your bill...” in this case though there wasn’t enough people willing to be the “chicken” and give up on what they believe in so we went over the edge.

On the one hand it’s disgusting. They’re using people’s lives as poker chips. People suffered, lost work or jobs, had credit problems. Couldn’t access services etc. on the other hand, put in their shoes and having a direct impact on what the government spends money on- would you be willing to abandon what you believe is right on a critical issue, just to avoid a shut down? For the most part all concerned at their cores when we strip away the political games were trying to do what they felt was right. Trying to stop “waste” or block funding to things they felt were harmful.

Some of the key issues being fought over were things like healthcare and education and military spending. Many weren’t willing to approve a budget that didn’t provide adequate funds for education, that didn’t provide healthcare for US citizens. The US gets a lot of flack for not having “universal healthcare,” for underpaying teachers etc. But it isn’t that the US doesn’t try. You can tell how strongly we feel about these issues because people on both sides were willing to allow the government to basically “shut down” rather than just give up on them. So it’s complicated but funkmaster sums it up well.

>_>/