Do you support the Stop STUPIDITY Act?

[Nous]

Do you support the Stop STUPIDITY Act, or a similar bill?

This bill would keep the government running in the case of a lapse in funding by automatically renewing government funding at the same levels as the previous fiscal year, with adjustments for inflation. The Stop STUPIDITY (Shutdowns Transferring Unnecessary Pain and Inflicting Damage In The Coming Years) Act would fund all aspects of the government except for the legislative branch and the Executive Office of the President – effectively forcing Congress and the White House to come to the negotiating table without putting at risk the economy or hurting the American public.

“The Stop STUPIDITY Act takes the aggressive but necessary step of forcing the President and Congress to do the jobs they were elected to do,” said Sen. Warner. “It is disturbing that the daily lives of hundreds of thousands of workers are at the mercy of dysfunction in Washington. Workers, business owners and tax payers are currently paying the price of D.C. gridlock and my legislation will put an end to that.”​

Warner Introduces Legislation To End Future Government Shutdowns

Republicans have introduced a similar bill:
Senate Dem introduces 'Stop Stupidity' act to end government shutdowns

If you do not support such a law to prevent government shutdowns, please explain why.

 

[Quetzal]

There is a problem.

...would fund all aspects of the government except for the legislative branch and the Executive Office of the President – effectively forcing Congress and the White House to come to the negotiating table without putting at risk the economy or hurting the American public.

In the heart of what this is trying to do, I get it. But this can be dangerous. It allows more financially security members of Congress to leverage their wealth against junior members who might not be able to afford it. "Do what we say or we will drag this out until you have no money, good luck!" Need to be careful here.

Also... how far did they have to reach to make that acronym?

 

[esmith]

Only the stupid name of the bill. Seems there are those that should act like adults vice the children they are.

 

[Polymath257]

Do you support the Stop STUPIDITY Act, or a similar bill?

This bill would keep the government running in the case of a lapse in funding by automatically renewing government funding at the same levels as the previous fiscal year, with adjustments for inflation. The Stop STUPIDITY (Shutdowns Transferring Unnecessary Pain and Inflicting Damage In The Coming Years) Act would fund all aspects of the government except for the legislative branch and the Executive Office of the President – effectively forcing Congress and the White House to come to the negotiating table without putting at risk the economy or hurting the American public.

“The Stop STUPIDITY Act takes the aggressive but necessary step of forcing the President and Congress to do the jobs they were elected to do,” said Sen. Warner. “It is disturbing that the daily lives of hundreds of thousands of workers are at the mercy of dysfunction in Washington. Workers, business owners and tax payers are currently paying the price of D.C. gridlock and my legislation will put an end to that.”​

Warner Introduces Legislation To End Future Government Shutdowns

Republicans have introduced a similar bill:
Senate Dem introduces 'Stop Stupidity' act to end government shutdowns

If you do not support such a law to prevent government shutdowns, please explain why.

The main issue I see is a constitutional one. The Constitution guarantees members of Congress and the President 'compensation' and specifically states that the compensation for the President shall not change during the time in office.

 

[Revoltingest]

Intelligent behavior cannot be legislated.
Callous stupidity would once again emerge in the unintended consequences.

Who is to say that the shutdown's duration isn't exactly what most wanted?
We saw both sides of the aisle advocate that their champions hold out
until victory.

 

[fantome profane]

I think it would be a good idea to make it harder to shutdown the government. In many cases where employees were forced to continue to work with out pay it seems that the only thing that got shut down was payroll, If a department is deemed essential, so should payroll for that department. If they can pay Congress during the shutdown, they can pay TSA, and the FBI etc.

 

[columbus]

In the heart of what this is trying to do, I get it. But this can be dangerous. It allows more financially security members of Congress to leverage their wealth against junior members who might not be able to afford it. "Do what we say or we will drag this out until you have no money, good luck!" Need to be careful here.

That isn't how it appears to me, although I am very aware of the Law of Unintended Consequences.
I cannot believe that anybody at that level are living paycheck to paycheck.
But their staff probably does, to a much greater degree. So, it will be the people immediately surrounding them, that they depend upon, who will be feeling the bite. That will hit closer to home than some forest ranger in Idaho.

Basically, I really like the concept. I totally support it, although I doubt that all the important details have been thoroughly explored.
Tom

 

[Quetzal]

I cannot believe that anybody at that level are living paycheck to paycheck.

I think it applies to members in their first term. Depending on their background.

 

[Revoltingest]

There is a problem.

In the heart of what this is trying to do, I get it. But this can be dangerous. It allows more financially security members of Congress to leverage their wealth against junior members who might not be able to afford it. "Do what we say or we will drag this out until you have no money, good luck!" Need to be careful here.

Also... how far did they have to reach to make that acronym?

Interesting that you mention this.
It reminds me of an ongoing controversy about some
members who live in their office in order to conserve money.
Ref....
Meet The Lawmakers Who Sleep, Shower, Work — All On Capitol Hill
Some politicians oppose this.
Ref...
Bloomberg - Are you a robot?
Even some Democrats oppose such frugality.
Ref...
Nasty or frugal? Key Democrats out to stop House members from living in offices
Where's their compassion for members who aren't wealthy enuf
to maintain multiple residences, both at home & in spendy DC?

As you'd expect, I like the idea of living in one's office.
It frees up money to spend on the family....& antique engines, of course.

And I agree that if one side saw political benefit in impoverishing
non-wealthy members, it's a tool they'd quickly & effectively employ.

 

[james dixon]

Do you support the Stop STUPIDITY Act, or a similar bill?

I support the act
-

 

[Nous]

There is a problem.

In the heart of what this is trying to do, I get it. But this can be dangerous. It allows more financially security members of Congress to leverage their wealth against junior members who might not be able to afford it. "Do what we say or we will drag this out until you have no money, good luck!" Need to be careful here.

But apparently the poorest members of Congress are significantly better off than the (much more numerous) poorest federal workers.
Is Your Representative One of the 10 Poorest People in Congress?

At least those few non-millionaire Congress members have the opportunity to persuade a few a few co-workers to fund the government, in contrast to the poor federal workers who have been held hostage.

Also... how far did they have to reach to make that acronym?

There must be a machine that cranks out such acronyms.

 

[Nous]

The main issue I see is a constitutional one. The Constitution guarantees members of Congress and the President 'compensation' and specifically states that the compensation for the President shall not change during the time in office.

Good points. The compensation provisions can be avoided by setting everyone's salary at 1¢ during impasses.

And, yes, the Act cannot take effect until 2020.

 

[Polymath257]

Good points. The compensation provisions can be avoided by setting everyone's salary at 1¢ during impasses.

And, yes, the Act cannot take effect until 2020.

Again, the Constitution says the compensation for the President cannot change during the term of office. Decreasing it to one cent would be a decrease.

Now, the Constitution, doesn't appear to say the same about members of Congress.....

 

[columbus]

I am curious.
During Trump's Shut Down, were White House and Congressional staff going without paychecks? If they were, were they required to work anyway?
Tom

 

[Quetzal]

But apparently the poorest members of Congress are significantly better off than the (much more numerous) poorest federal workers.
Is Your Representative One of the 10 Poorest People in Congress?

At least those few non-millionaire Congress members have the opportunity to persuade a few a few co-workers to fund the government, in contrast to the poor federal workers who have been held hostage.

This is a very reasonable position and I believe you are correct regarding your comparison. However, what if we leverage the richest Congress person to the poorest Congress person? I wonder what that comparison would look like. I think it is just as reasonable to assume that someone like McConnell who has been in office since 1985 is much better off than a junior member who was just elected. (You can use any senior member, I just chose McConnell since he has been around so long.) That is the leverage I am afraid of.

The point is that leverage can become a political tool that isn't present right now. However, if this system is implemented where the pay of the lawmakers can be withheld, it will be.

 

[Revoltingest]

Again, the Constitution says the compensation for the President cannot change during the term of office. Decreasing it to one cent would be a decrease.

It also wouldn't have affected him in the least.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Also... how far did they have to reach to make that acronym?

Not far enough, since the acronym doesn't fit what it's supposed to be short for.

"Shutdowns Transferring Unnecessary Pain and Inflicting Damage In The Coming Years" abbreviates to "STUPIDCY," not "STUPIDITY."

 

[youknowme]

I agree with @Quetzal that part would would need to change. People's livelihoods are not political leverage, Congress members should continue to get fully compensated.

 

[Nous]

Again, the Constitution says the compensation for the President cannot change during the term of office. Decreasing it to one cent would be a decrease.

The Constitution includes the proviso that the president shall receive compensation "at stated times". To state that s/he will be paid $[X] per year except during government shutdowns would not be a diminishment of said compensation for his/her services during his/her current term. In the same way, Congress can provide the president greater or lesser travel expenses at stated times.

 

[Shad]

If you do not support such a law to prevent government shutdowns, please explain why.

As this is merely another form of Congress delegating it's responsibility and enables more partisan politics not less. All it does it lessen the damage so politicians can avoid blame for being horrible at their jobs.