No Pay, No Problem: Why Congress Doesn’t Need Our Money

Written by Tim Price

This week, as part of a compromise to ward off a debt ceiling showdown and potential default, the House approved the No Budget, No Pay Act, which would withhold lawmakersí paychecks starting April 15 unless they pass a budget. If you havenít been keeping up with GOP talking points, this is the latest attempt to pressure Senate Democrats into producing a budget resolution, which they havenít done in the last four years for various inane parliamentary reasons. But whatever you think of its intent, itís an empty gesture and one that highlights the troubling disconnect between average Americans and their elected officials.

Despite its gimmicky origins, No Budget, No Pay has a certain intuitive appeal. As centrist commentator John Avlon writes, ďIf you don’t get the job done at work, you won’t get paid.Ē Sure, you or I would probably just get fired, but we donít have gerrymandering to save us. Still, why should we reward Harry Reid and his crew for shirking their responsibilities while House Republicans have been keeping their noses to the grindstone and dutifully passing Paul Ryanís Ayn Rand fan fiction?

For one thing, itís unconstitutional. Not ďunconstitutionalĒ in the wingnut sense that cutting the crusts off your sandwich is unconstitutional if thereís a photo of Barack Obama doing it, but unconstitutional in the sense that the 27th Amendment specifically prohibits Congress from mucking around with its own pay unless thereís an intervening election. To get around this little detail, the act is designed so that the membersí checks get deposited into an escrow account until a) they pass a budget or b) the term ends in 2014, at which point they get paid in full either way. In other words, itís less of a threat to their livelihood and more of an experiment in delayed gratification.

But a more significant problem is that most legislators probably couldnít care less if their pay was withheld indefinitely. As of 2011, the average estimated wealth of members of Congress was $6.5 million in the House and $13.9 million in the Senate. And unlike many of their constituents, they havenít exactly been struggling through lean times recently. While average American households saw their median net worth drop 39 percent from 2007 to 2010, lawmakersí rose 5 percent during the same period. Thatís not to say that every member of Congress is set for life; some are deep in debt like true red-blooded Americans. But threats to withhold pay are ineffective when most of our representatives have enough money in their rainy day funds to last them through monsoon season. And if worst comes to worst, they can always exit through the revolving door and join a few corporate boards to replenish their bank accounts.

This points to a larger problem with our political system, which is just how far removed our policymakers are from the lives and concerns of ordinary Americans. In a 2005 study, Princeton political scientist Larry Bartels found that:

[S]enators appear to be considerably more responsive to the opinions of affluent constituents than to the opinions of middle-class constituents, while the opinions of constituents in the bottom third of the income distribution have no apparent statistical effect on their senatorsí roll call votes.

Read that again: if youíre a low-income voter, you and your policy preferences might as well not exist as far as your senators are concerned. While Bartels doesnít provide a definitive explanation for these findings, he notes that ďthe fact that senators are themselves affluent, and in many cases extremely wealthy, hardly seems irrelevant.Ē Being rich frames the way our elected officials see the world, shapes their social circles, and determines their legislative priorities. In that sense, wealth is the incubator that hatches Washingtonís deficit hawks.

Of course, wealth alone doesnít determine a personís politics. FDR was no pauper, but he fought for the common good and was labeled a class traitor for his efforts. But noblesse oblige isnít what it used to be, and todayís well-heeled lawmakers seem more interested in scoring political points than addressing mass unemployment and soaring inequality. No Budget, No Pay wonít do anything to change that, and any consensus budget that it did produce would undoubtedly be laden with more unnecessary cuts to domestic spending and the social safety net. Itís a fair point that lawmakers shouldnít get paid for a job theyíre not doing, but theyíre so insulated from reality that no amount of negative reinforcement short of voting them out of office is likely to have a significant impact. And until that happens, we donít need more gimmicks to make them fall in line and pass an austerity budget. What we could use is a lot more traitors.

This post was originally published by the Roosevelt Institute.


Related Stories:

The Worst Moments of the 112th Congress

5 Questions Still Unanswered by Fiscal Cliff Deal

Did the White House Even Try to Prosecute Wall Street Execs?



Fred Hoekstra
Fred Hoekstra4 years ago

Thank you Roosevelt Institute, for Sharing this!

Lori Ann Hone
Lori Hone5 years ago


Lin M
Lin M5 years ago

Seems you can't hurt the richer people because really there's no penelty if they get get this money later on. If they were us we wouldn't get it back, it'd just be lost to us. They shouldn't be able to still get the money, it should just be lost to them. Like regular people. We put them on a throne, making them special. It is time they lived like the rest of us. No work, no pay, not now or later.

Berty Jardine
Berty Jardine5 years ago

They sould not get any tax payer money! These people live like kings, while we strruggle to get a job. Cut their pay NOW!

Marie W.
Marie W5 years ago

At least raise the issue.

Marianne B.
Marianne B5 years ago

What a joke...Wish they lived like us Seniors that have to wait a month for a pittance of a Social Security check. Then they would know how to "budget".

Lynn C.
Lynn C5 years ago

Well of course! They have the money to pay for the elections and the votes that will insure their continued affluence. It's not difficult to see that!

Diana Bair
Diana Bair5 years ago

Then they don't NEED to work!!!!!!!!, oh sorry they are NOT working!!!!!!!, THEY ARE GETTING.......PAID And NOT doing their....JOBS. RIGHT!!!!!!!. If we did that.....we would get..........FIRED, Still we let them get by. and do they CARE about not getting....PAID, For one thing they are so rich, it will NOT hurt....THEM!!!!!. So we the americian people are up that creek....without a .....PADDLE....until their states..STOP...THEM. OHIO,,,etc,,,. FIRST TO GO SHOULD BE......BOEHNER....the BONEHEAD next ryan. THEN ON DOWN THE LINE.....RIGHT?????. Dians.

Wesley Struebing
Wesley Struebing5 years ago

Marilyn L, did you read the article? It is a gesture - full of sound and fury - and signifying NOTHING. It is UNCONSTITUTIONAL to dock Congress' pay except in VERY special circumstances - no matter what the action (or inaction), and failing to pass a budget is NOT one of them. Even the poll question is a just allows us to vent our spleens.

Vicky P.
Vicky P5 years ago

Just in a few words the answer to this is; they are paid off by lobbyists to do their bidding and no matter what party you vote for, it's going to happen.