this post was submitted on 01 Oct 2025
616 points (99.2% liked)

News

36634 readers
2559 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.


Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.


7. No duplicate posts.


If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.


All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Millions of federal workers won't get paid during a government shutdown. But the people who could prevent or end a shutdown — members of Congress — will still receive a paycheck.

That’s because their pay is protected under Article I, Section 6 of the Constitution, which states: “The Senators and Representatives shall receive a Compensation for their Services, to be ascertained by Law, and paid out of the Treasury of the United States.”

The Constitution “says members will be paid,” Rep. Joe Morelle of New York, the top Democrat on the House Administration Committee, explained to reporters Tuesday.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] hildegarde@lemmy.blahaj.zone 83 points 5 months ago (4 children)

This is how it's always worked.

If members of congress were not paid, the richer members could use a shutdown to coerce the poorer members, knowing that they have enough saving to survive the payment stop longer than poorer members. In a government where shutdowns are possible, continuing to pay representatives is necessary.

In a proper country, a shutdown would result in an immediate recall and disbarment of every elected official. But we don't live in a proper country.

Continuing to pay those responsible for the shutdown is a bad thing. Punishing every other government worker for someone else's ineptitude is bad. But on balance not paying congress would probably be just a bit worse.

[–] Steelpan@lemmy.world 36 points 5 months ago (2 children)

In a proper country there are no government shutdowns.

[–] TeamAssimilation@infosec.pub 21 points 5 months ago

A government shutting down is a failed state. That never should happen, and if it happens, safeguards should be implemented ASAP so it can’t happen again.

[–] hildegarde@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

You're right. The US already has the solution under the NLRA. If a union contract cannot be negotiated by the deadline, the old one remains in effect.

A proper government could do that, but I prefer kicking everyone out and starting anew.

[–] ByteJunk@lemmy.world 24 points 5 months ago

This is 100% correct. In most civilised countries, if a yearly budget cannot be approved, the whole cabinet gets disbanded.

Usually this leads to a new president (usually, a PM) getting appointed, but ultimately would lead to new elections.

[–] notarobot@lemmy.zip 2 points 5 months ago

Yeah. If they were not getting paid or it was disbared (non English speaker. It's the first time I've seen that word so it might be wrong), then they would approve any budget, which could be arguably worse

[–] sadfitzy@ttrpg.network -4 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (3 children)

If members of congress were not paid, the richer members could use a shutdown to coerce the poorer members,

Pretty sure all congresspeople get paid at least 6 figures per year.

They can survive their entire term off of just 1 year's salary.

But! They won't be able to waste money like idiots/most people on social media.

Edit: Without fail, the useful idiots come out to bat.

[–] Pieisawesome@lemmy.dbzer0.com 8 points 5 months ago (1 children)

They get paid 174k a year.

They usually end up needing 2 homes, and dozens of flights between their home district an DC.

New congresspeople are typically very poor before they start getting bribes

[–] sadfitzy@ttrpg.network -4 points 5 months ago (2 children)

You can live for over a decade on that amount of money.

Stop being stupid. Please. I know it's hard to ask since you get to fit in with other morons, but try to understand that you are part of the problem when you pretend that congresspeople need that money.

[–] Bronzebeard@lemmy.zip 1 points 5 months ago

Like physically afford food and live in a van? Sure ...

But, come on now. No you can't actually live for a decade at any actual standard when they're basically required to maintain two addresses.

[–] Pieisawesome@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Not in the US with two homes.

[–] sadfitzy@ttrpg.network 1 points 5 months ago

Yes, in the US with 2 homes.

[–] ByteJunk@lemmy.world 3 points 5 months ago

That's not the correct approach, brother. Especially newer congressmen will be dependent on this income to live, and this would make them even more likely to be held hostage by the guys with fat pockets.

The problem here is that the consequences are exclusively shouldered by the people, when in fact it should be the administration who gets punished: if they're unable to compromise on a budget, then they need to get kicked out so that the country doesn't stop.

If there's no way of passing the budget with a new administration, then call for new elections and see how the chips fall.

[–] hildegarde@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 5 months ago

wealth in the context I used it is far more about accumulated wealth and savings rather than income. A junior congressmember hasn't had that salary for long and could be easily coerced by a shutdown very quickly, if congressional pay was cut during a shutdown.