Will other Congresscritters follow?
Let’s hope so.
A classy move on her part.
Eh, I’d rather they do something substantial and solve the actual problem rather then dicking around with meaningless symbolic gestures. The Head Start program’s troubles have nothing to do with Tammy Duckworth’s salary.
Political grandstanding. A congresscritter is not going to miss 8.4 % of her salary.
Eh, to be fair, I don’t think the Duckworths are particularly loaded. She makes 170k and IIRC, her husband is an army officer and presumably makes less then that. They’re hardly going to be reduced to begging on the streets, but I imagine ~$15,000 is a non-trivial sacrifice on their part.
My problem is that trivial or not, its a meaningless sacrifice. The problems of gov’t dysfunction that created the Sequester don’t have anything to do with Congressional salaries. Giving up part of her salary isn’t going to make life any easier for people hurt by the Sequester, or do anything to help resolve it.
Why didn’t she take a 20% cut like other federal workers?
Congress is Constitutionally barred from cutting (or raising) its own salary.
They can do it for the next congress, right?
I’m thinking any future sequestration deal needs to include a massive cut to Congress’s salary and budgets. We obviously can’t go for Colbert’s solution, of threatening to open the cage of an ebola monkey in chambers, but we should look for something that makes them take it seriously.
It’s a nice gesture by Duckworth and I won’t complain about her making it, but let’s not pretend it’s any more than it is. We need these crises to end more than we need gestures.
There needs to never be a sequestration bill again. It was a bad idea that completely failed at every stage, and Congress did not respond to the threat it posed. The only good thing you can say about it is that things are so bad that at the time it didn’t seem worse than anything else.
Aye, this is one seriously classy, civic-minded lady.
Indeed–but apparently there was something like a sequestration back in the mid eighties, and they didn’t learn their lesson that time, either.
In general I’m in favor of ebola monkeys running loose in congress. It’s a flaw of our political system that, as popular as I’m certain this measure would be, we have no way as a people to enact it.
Plus it may be worth noting that this is her first term in that office, having been sworn in two months ago.
I agree that I wish they would fix this instead, but since we can’t have that right now, at least she’s doing what is intended to be a public shaming of colleagues.
Agreed. But she decided to:
“take a voluntary 8.4 percent pay cut by returning a portion of her monthly salary to the U.S. Treasury”
But why 8.4% and not 20% like other Federal Workers?
Dunno, ask her? I assume it was for the reason given in the linked article, that it matches program cut proportions and highlights that it’s not just salaries (since lots of people froth about “overpaid” government workers) but also important services that are affected.
Aren’t these crisis a useful tool for the President? He appears to revel in them. We’ll survive particularly if the cuts are properly imposed.
Not so much. Congress sets its own salary. The only restriction of any kind is the 27th Amendment.
:rolleyes:
Was using that word ever clever?
How about we put them on minimum wage until a budget is passed?