Hultgren: Withhold Congress’ Pay Until Budget Passes
Congressman suggests a way to hold law-makers' feet to the fire.
Photos
Fourteenth District Congressman Randy Hultgren has a different sort of idea: No pay for Congress until a budget is passed.
Hultgren recently re-introduced the Constitutional Congressional Pay Accountability Act for the 113th Congress. Hultgren says he introduced the bill back in 2011, and it fall flat then.
The bill is just five pages—small for Congress—and Hultgren describes it as "straightforward." It would require Congress to pass a budget and all appropriations bills by the beginning of that fiscal year. If the budget doesn’t get passed, members of Congress won’t get paid.
"It holds everyone’s feet to the fire," Hultgren said.
Hultgren says House leadership is supporting the concept and that it is one component of the temporary debt-ceiling extension.
“We have got to stop using last-minute legislating and short-term fixes," Hultgren said. "The worst thing we can do for the economy, and especially for people running small businesses, is to constantly keep them in limbo about what the government is going to do next. But it’s not enough just to pass a budget—we need one that shows fiscal responsibility in both the short and long term, in the form of spending restraint and a Balanced Budget Amendment so that spending beyond our means ceases to be a habit for our nation’s leaders.”
Hultgren’s bill, H.R. 308, is structured in such a way as to avoid complications caused by the 27th Amendment. He has twice voted for a Balanced Budget Amendment requiring the federal government not to spend more than it takes in.
SOURCE: Randy Hultgren press release
Matilda B
1:51 pm on Sunday, January 27, 2013
Smoke and mirrors. They will get paid eventually, it just goes into a holding account. It would be better if Randy supported closing tax loopholes for the wealthy and corporations. He won't though
Southern Lady
3:18 pm on Sunday, January 27, 2013
If the average worker doesn't do their work properly, they're terminated. The same should go for politicians.
Jim Ryan
4:31 pm on Sunday, January 27, 2013
First, the majority of the members of Congress don't need their paychecks to make it - they're more than well cared for by their lobbyist handlers.
Second, where were all of these fiscal conservatives when Medicare Part D was rammed through the congress with no way to pay for it?
Third, where were all of these fiscal conservatives when Congress voted to start a cluster**** in the Middle East with no way to pay for it?
Rudy
7:19 am on Monday, January 28, 2013
Jim so you don't believe our elderly should be able to afford their medicine? You believe they should choose between food and medicine or maybe they should eat dog food so they can afford their prescriptions! Sounds like a good plan your all heart! Randy is at least trying unlike that do nothing Obamacare passing fool Foster. How are we paying for that ??? At least part D was for the elderly! Obamacare, Section 8, and the Link card ENABLED Dems to pay for votes using small business and the middle classes taxes. Can you say Unsustainable Worst state in the Union!
Southern Lady
6:17 pm on Sunday, January 27, 2013
First, the majority of the members of Congress don't need their paychecks to make it - they're more than well cared for by their lobbyist handlers.
HOW FORTUNATE FOR THEM. I HAVE NO SUCH SAFETY NET.
Second, where were all of these fiscal conservatives when Medicare Part D was rammed through the congress with no way to pay for it?
INDEED, WHERE WERE THEY?
Third, where were all of these fiscal conservatives when Congress voted to start a cluster**** in the Middle East with no way to pay for it? HISTORY. WHAT ARE YOU DOING ABOUT THIS ISSUE NOW?
Jim Ryan
3:05 pm on Monday, January 28, 2013
What am I doing about it now? I'm trying to help put into office pragmatic people who don't have saber-rattling at the top of their foreign policy views. We have lost over 6,500 service members, injured over 30,000 more and spent nearly $1.5 trillion (and still counting) with a return on investment of zero. Spend that same amount judiciously on our own citizens and you're guaranteed much greater benefit to our country.
Mike
8:13 am on Monday, January 28, 2013
At least Randy is doing something positive; possibly a show but could be for real.
If all our Congressmen were really interested in doing positives for U.S. citizens
they would take a REAL CLOSE look at the 28th Amendment.
AND a real close look at repealing the 16th amendment replacing the income tax with a comsumption based flat tax. www.fairtaxnation.org
Jim Ryan
3:13 pm on Monday, January 28, 2013
Mike - Why would any politician, especially in today's lucrative environment for 'contributions', support a constitutional amendment that would put them out of business? When they look to do things that are positive, it's usually those things that are positively good for them. While the Fair Tax looks good on paper, it's hardly fair, would automatically raise prices on goods by 30%, would bloat our government with another agency just to cut monthly checks for rebates and has its roots in a Scientology-derived scheme known as the National Retail Sales Tax. Not sure about others, but I've had more than enough of the tin-foil hat crowd.
John Walsh
8:18 am on Monday, January 28, 2013
Typical useless neo-populist junk from Randy Hultgren. The constitution won't let him or Congress do what he proposes. Is this the kind of representation we deserve? Of course it is, until you learn how to terminate Randy Hultgren, by voting him out of office in 2014. In the meantime, we're stuck with him.
Rudy
11:23 am on Monday, January 28, 2013
At least he is one the surface trying to be responsible with our trust andtax dollars. Who do you propose we vote for? Another Useless Democrat like Blago or how about Jesse Jackson Jr. now there's good old fashion democratic machine candidatesfor you!
Rich Hayhurst
2:24 pm on Monday, January 28, 2013
"The constitution won't let him or Congress do what he proposes."
Mr. Walsh, can you elaborate on that comment.
Thanks,
Rich
Matilda B
12:04 pm on Monday, January 28, 2013
Rudy, I am not sure you understand the Affordable Healthcare Act. I'm in the business, so to speak and I think that the Dems are protecting the elderly far more than the Republicans. I'm not sure what you are seeing that makes you think that the Healthcare Act will have a negative impact on the ability to pay for medications. I see better care coming
Jim Ryan
3:14 pm on Monday, January 28, 2013
Rudy - I absolutely believe that the elderly should be able to afford their medicine - just think how much more affordable it could have been if the legislation had not been written by the drug industry and pushed through by its many beneficiaries in congress. Do you remember the 'no price negotiation' portion of the bill that ensured that billions of dollars went to the drug industry and not to the wallets of the elderly? I also haven't been able to find the Dems ability to buy votes, unless it's in the section regarding death panels.
Matilda B
1:05 pm on Wednesday, January 30, 2013
Rich, the constitution does not allow us to not pay our legislature, so all that would happen is they hold back the money and pay them one lump sum at the end of the year. Randy knows this. He hopes we are too stupid to realize that. It is a public relations ploy that really means nothing. And Jim Ryan is correct that many in Congress are wealthy enough to not need the money. There was an article I was reading yesterday regarding that. I forget if it was Huffington Post but may have been