Las Vegas Sun

April 26, 2015

Currently: 57° — Complete forecast | Log in | Create an account


No teeth in ‘No Budget No Pay’ law means business as usual for Congress

Sun coverage

Passing a one-year version of Sen. Dean Heller’s “No Budget, No Pay” Act last week was supposed to be Congress’ stern warning to itself to end what has become customary, semi-annual hysteria over the possibility of a government shutdown.

The prescription seemed quite simple: produce a budget for next year or, quite literally, pay the consequences.

But so far, things aren’t off to a particularly promising start.

President Barack Obama missed his customary deadline to submit a budget request on Feb. 4. He plans to send it to Congress after Tuesday’s State of the Union address — but the extra time still likely will delay the Democrats’ draft.

House lawmakers spent Wednesday passing a bill that insists Obama’s budget erase the deficit within 10 years — something no budget proposal, Republican or Democrat, has yet achieved.

Click to enlarge photo

Speaker of the House John Boehner, R-Ohio, talks to reporters after a long closed-door meeting on a strategy to deal with a potential debt crisis, at the Capitol in Washington, Tuesday, Jan. 22, 2013.

And the two leaders of Congress, House Speaker John Boehner and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, spent the balance of the week volleying over whether lawmakers should offset the pending automatic budget cuts — worth $109 billion, or about 3 percent of the annual budget — a little at a time, or at all.

That’s not exactly comforting when Congress is staring down two budget deadlines — one on March 31 and another on April 15.

Click to enlarge photo

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) looks out the window of his home in Searchlight, Nev. Thursday, January 17, 2013.

But the “No Budget, No Pay” bill was never designed to solve Congress’ budgeting problem — just make it seem like there was a solution.

“No Budget, No Pay” set out to make Congress do one important thing that hasn’t happened for at least four years: pass a budget through the official, step-by-step procedure that’s on the books so the country doesn’t keep coming to the brink of bankruptcy.

Heller’s bill boiled down to two main parts: House and Senate lawmakers would have to pass a concurrent budget resolution to define projected revenue intake, planned spending outlays and detailed, category-by-category principles for the appropriators to follow later. Then, lawmakers would have to pass all 12 appropriations bills before the start of the fiscal year.

Miss those deadlines or shirk on the requirements and lawmakers in both houses of Congress would put part or all of their annual salaries — $174,000 for rank-and-file lawmakers, $193,500 for party leaders (including Reid) and $223,500 for the speaker of the House — in jeopardy.

“If they miss the deadline for any of these items, then their pay is withheld,” Heller spokeswoman Chandler Smith said. “Sound fiscal policies start with passing a budget and then passing all spending bills on time.”

Click to enlarge photo

Sen. Dean Heller talks with guests at at the Nevada Development Authority's annual luncheon Friday, Dec. 7, 2012.

At the time, Heller’s colleagues couldn’t agree on what to make of it. Sen. Joe Lieberman called it “a scream ... that has to be heard.” Harry Reid called it “stupid.” Few signed on.

House lawmakers redrafted “No Budget, No Pay” to fit as a component piece in a bill to suspend the national debt limit until mid-May, and they made three important changes: First, the threat of losing pay only applies to fiscal 2014 instead of being a permanent change.

Second, lawmakers only have to meet the April 15 deadline for passing a budget resolution to secure their pay — there is no penalty for failing to appropriate that money afterwards.

Third: Though House and Senate lawmakers both still have to pass a budget resolution framework, the two houses of Congress don’t actually have to agree on what they each pass.

And the bonus provision: They never actually lose their pay — it is held in escrow until the budget is completed or, failing that, the 113th Congress ends, at which point they get the back pay in a lump sum.

“I think probably the most consequential change is that this applies to the budget resolution but not to the appropriations bills,” said William Galston, a budget expert with the Brookings Institution. Galston helped launch the nonpartisan advocacy group No Labels, which backed Heller’s “No Budget, No Pay” bill early on.

Omitting the appropriations process from the requirements that lawmakers fulfill to be paid leaves little incentive to keep the process out of the backroom negotiations that have come to define budgeting.

Since fiscal 2010, Congress has funded the country through a series of continuing resolutions — most of which were hammered out between Reid, Boehner and other leaders — instead of put through the full appropriations process. Democrats have defended this type of budgeting as perfectly serviceable, but Republicans — and Galston — have complained that it is a sign of the Senate shirking its duty.

Galston said the watered-down version of “No Budget, No Pay” that passed Congress was a meaningful step forward for being “the first time Congress has taken on itself the principle of personal responsibility.”

But while agreeing to that principle may inspire lawmakers to learn the legislative dance of adopting a budget framework, it will not force them to agree on budget parameters in practice.

For one thing, budget resolutions can pass purely on a majority vote, meaning that absent disorder in the ranks, Democrats and Republicans won’t have to hammer out a harmonious accord to pass their preferred budget frameworks.

Under a normal budgeting process — and the original bill — the House and Senate’s work would not be complete until their budget resolutions matched. The difficulty of striking that accord is part of why budget resolutions are so elusive.

During the last term, differences between the two houses frequently pitched the country to the brink of crisis.

House and Senate lawmakers came to near blows over the debt ceiling in 2011. They were just as bitterly split over an extension of the payroll tax cut a few months later, a standoff that only ended after senators like Heller and then-Sen. Scott Brown openly called on House Republicans to quit putting up a fight. And who can forget New Year’s Day, when a “fiscal cliff” compromise that found overwhelming, bipartisan support in the Senate almost failed before the House.

Bitter divisions between the House and Senate stretched debates and dealmaking into the eleventh hour.

There is nothing to prevent that from happening again.

But if the final impact of the new law feels a little inconclusive, it’s not really Heller’s fault. He tried — and is trying — for more.

Heller’s original legislation would have made the threat of losing lawmaker salaries permanent. Lawmakers also wouldn’t be eligible for a lump sum payment of retroactive wages at the end of the fiscal year. And it would have made passing a final appropriations bill — in other words, agreement between the House and Senate — a necessary final step to securing lawmakers’ regular paychecks.

That more permanent version — which Heller is still pushing for — might better force lawmakers into a more organized, if not entirely conciliatory, budgeting habit.

Join the Discussion:

Check this out for a full explanation of our conversion to the LiveFyre commenting system and instructions on how to sign up for an account.

Full comments policy

Previous Discussion: 9 comments so far…

Comments are moderated by Las Vegas Sun editors. Our goal is not to limit the discussion, but rather to elevate it. Comments should be relevant and contain no abusive language. Comments that are off-topic, vulgar, profane or include personal attacks will be removed. Full comments policy. Additionally, we now display comments from trusted commenters by default. Those wishing to become a trusted commenter need to verify their identity or sign in with Facebook Connect to tie their Facebook account to their Las Vegas Sun account. For more on this change, read our story about how it works and why we did it.

Only trusted comments are displayed on this page. Untrusted comments have expired from this story.

  1. You didn't expect Congress to vote for actually forfeiting their pay if they don't pass a budget, did you?

  2. Find me a financial institution, investor, lobbyist or PAC which would not be willing to loan or invest in a member of Congress to tide him/her over. Oh wait, they already do. Many members are already quite wealthy. The No Budget/No Pay is simply a PR gimmick, part of the New, Lighter, Fluffier, More Absorbent GOP a la Bobby Jihndal. In addition there are questions as to its constitutionality.

  3. IF they don't work together and PASS a budget, they SHOULD NOT BE PAID.

    These Lawmakers have a lot of nerve to whittle away any reason to not get the job done, and should be FIRED/VOTED OUT forever. It is treasonous, the way they behave, and this behavior should NOT be tolerated.

    Yes, Jim Weber, I expect it. For Pat Hayes: if it takes a "gimmick" as this to get these Lawmakers to work together to pass a budget, then so be it. Goes to show, how corrupt and rotten to the core these career politicians are! Our Founding Fathers were not afforded the luxurious accommodations and preferences as these Lawmakers now enjoy.

    Blessings and Peace,

  4. @Star.....c'mon Star, you know better. "Our Founding Fathers..." of course had every opportunity and privilege available to wealthy, white men as befitted their status in those days.

  5. @ Pat: Did our Founding Fathers get the fat pay checks and benefits that our current Lawmakers get today???

    :) Star

  6. So many of our congressmen are very well to do/millionaires -- congressional salaries do not mean anything to them. It's the power and prestige that drive them.

  7. Doesn't this idea conflict with the 27th Amendment?

    "No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened."

    But then, Congress has never really felt itself bound by the Constitution

  8. @Star....not the fat paychecks although $174 to $223K is actually pretty puny compared to private sector for their level of responsibility. The big bennies?Absolutely...wealthy landowners, many of who owned slaves, indentured servants, etc. The were the big boys ]all boys club, no girls allowed]. The were not only comfortable with wealth and privilege, they expected deference on the part of commoners. For all the historical fiction of the common yoeman in the newly formed United States, the wealthy and powerful ran things then just as they do now.

  9. I guess we should complement Ms. Demirjian for including some facts (however incomplete and disjointed) to give context to the budgeting process. However, the key fact she ignores is that "No Budget No Pay" can never have teeth because it would be unconstitutional. Which makes this perhaps the only pillorying of Congress that it does not deserve. That is quite a feat.