We need a gov shut down law

[vlyons]

A law that says if Congress and POTUS fail to fund the Congress, all congressmen, senators, and POTUS will not get paid. And if a shut down lasts longer than 2 weeks, they all get fined $50,000 or more. I can dream, can't I?

[Proud Liberal Dem]

1. There's got to be some disincentive to keep doing it

OTOH this is basically what you get when you elect a lot of people whom don't believe that government does anything good (other than maybe the military) and actively seek to "blow it up" every five seconds. Maybe voters should stop doing this?

[fleur-de-lisa]

2. I would add that they are not allowed to leave DC and must continue to negotiate

until they come up with a solution. MANDATORY ATTENDANCE AT PUBLIC HEARINGS!

[onenote]

3. How would this work?

Would members who vote for a funding bill but it loses be cut off from being paid and/or fined. Would the president be subject to this if no bill ever reaches his or her desk? What if a bill passed but it’s vetoed and the veto isn’t overridden? Who would have been punished under this approach during the Clinton era shutdown?

[Amishman]

5. You'd have to fine everyone

Because of situations with multiple competing bills.

An alternative would.be requiring full year bills, no stop gaps. If the government is shut down for more than a week, an automatic extension of current funding levels goes into effect and new elections are held a few weeks later. The new elected officials are forced in session and present until a funding bill is passed.

[vlyons]

4. Punish all of them

They can always pass a continuing resolution.

[WeekiWater]

6. I do not want to give them incentive to cave on horrid funding bills.

It's a highly unethical proposal.

[Just a Weirdo]

7. I would like the President personally responsible for the shutdown

As in tying all of his assets to the IOU's owed for the unnecessary shutdown.

Rump already owes America at least $100 billion, and his assets should be seized.

[Liberty Belle]

8. Yes and no Secret Service protection for private social functions or personal travel

of the president or his family.

[better]

9. That is a guaranteed recipe for an unprecedented national security disaster.

Just imagine if Republicans had been able to deprive the Obamas of SS protection by shutting down the government.
We absolutely must not ever allow anything this reckless.

This is a prime example of why we must not support policy without thoroughly considering the possible ramifications.

[Just a Weirdo]

22. Nope, Trump does not deserve SS protection

If deplorables love him so much why is he afraid to meet the public?
I want Trump arrested and placed in a public stockade outside the Capitol for eveyone to freely kick his rearend for at least 48 hours. After that, hell quit and take everyone down.

[better]

23. We have to be wiser than this.

We have to think beyond our mutual disdain for Trump, and consider just how completely devastating a policy like this could very easily and realistically become, on a global scale, and in the very near future. Let's examine a hypothetical situation.

Say a Democrat wins the Presidency in 2020, but Republicans manage to keep the Senate. They shut down the government. A hostile actor seizes the opportunity of Secret Service protection being halted and kidnaps a member of the President's family. We should all be able to understand exactly why that is a completely unacceptable risk to allow ourselves to self-impose.

I'm all for doing something serious to discourage shutting down the government, but suspending Secret Service protection is an unfathomably stupid and dangerous idea. We must be smarter than this.

[Peace06]

26. Shutdowns

Don't you think withholding their pay during a shutdown would provide incentive? After all, Congress and president are government employees and should pay the price along with the rest of us.

[better]

29. The idea of suspending Congressional/Presidential pay during a shutdown isn't what I oppose.

It's only the idea of revoking secret service protection of the President and his family when the government is shut down to which I am objecting. As much as I enjoy the thought of Trump getting the ass-kicking he so rightly deserves, there's too great a risk of the revocation of SS protection during a shutdown allowing a President to be blackmailed, both by hostile foreign powers and an opposition Congress.

[Laffy Kat]

10. Great idea but it'll never happen. nt

[maxsolomon]

11. we need lots of laws

but we're not going to get them.

"snap out of it!" -cher

[elmac]

12. government shutdowns are a rather new phenomenon, gov funding BS started by repugs

its all smoke and mirrors, let them play their games, they can only play it for so long until it turns around and bites them in the ass.

[EffieBlack]

13. Great sitting at the end of the bar talking point, but how would this work exactly? we

Would the Members who do everything in their power to avoid the shutdown, including voting for a CR, be subject to the penalty? What if both houses vote overwhelmly for the CR but the president vetoes it and there are enough votes to override it? Would all of the members instant pay and be forced to pay a fine, regardless their culpability?

Would you be okay with Members without lots of disposable income, especially younger members like like AOC and Sharice Davids, being forced to choose their paychecks and cough up $50k even if the CR is not their fault? Would you be okay with losing all kinds of new people who would refuse to run for Congress because they can't afford to get socked with this kind of financial hardships in the event a shutdown completely out of their control occurs?

As I said, it sounds good in the "Congresscritters all suck" abstract conversation, but when we start talking about real people and situations, it doesn't make so much sense.

[ProudLib72]

25. I opined on this last week, and I believe the solution is to only fine

the majority party. $10K per day of a shutdown.

Yes, I realize what happens when take control of the House next week. And I do agree with you that certain members will find the fines to be unbearable. Maybe a sliding scale?

[Stonepounder]

14. How about modifying the qualifications for who can run for US Rep, Sen, and POTUS.

Put a ceiling on a candidate's net worth. Currently almost all of our elected officials are millionaires (or even billionaires). They don't have a freaking clue about how 95% of the population lives. Most of them wouldn't even notice if they didn't get their Govt salary. tRump though you had to show ID to buy groceries, so when do you think the last time he actually walked into a grocery store?

Think about how many people live paycheck to paycheck and have to keep an eagle-eye on the budget and an unexpected expense causes extreme anxiety. Congresscritters, in the main don't worry about where the next mortgage payments are due on their multiple homes.

And they sure as shit don't think about how a government shutdown affects not only the employees furloughed or working for no pay, but also the people who depend on government employees and federal funds to keep them paid.

So, let's make our Gov't live at the median income and net worth level so they understand how the majority lives.

(As a previous poster said, 'Hey, I can dream can't I?)

[Louis1895]

15. Automatic budget renewal fallback- only solution in my view

I think a budget should be approved by August 1 of the current fiscal year (i.e., August 1 2018) so government agencies know how much they have to spend starting on Day 1 of the new fiscal year (October 1, 2018).

In the event the budget is not renewed by August 1, then the budget would automatically renew at the current year's level (2017-2018). If Congress still wanted to tweak the budget, then they would need to do so by February 1, 2019 for the 2018-2019 fiscal year to take effect on April 1, 2019.

Two shots on the budget, spaced by 6 months. No government shutdowns.

I would also consider splitting the budget in 2 parts and do two-year budgets for each half instead of annual budgets.

[Kablooie]

16. What if a funding bill isn't passed by a deadline the previous bill automatically starts again?

So a shutdown wouldn't be possible.

edit:
Ah. Like he said above. 👆

[OMGWTF]

17. This is Traitor Tot's THIRD Shut-down this Year!

[Mr.Bill]

18. The only thing that will get their attention

is a law that calls for special elections to replace them if the government shuts down.

Stopping their pay or fining them will not work. Most of them would pay to have the job they have.

[onenote]

24. no such law would pass constitutional review

And as a practical matter, its absurd. Explain how your suggestion would be have been applied to the shutdowns in 1995 and 1996.

[Mr.Bill]

27. I didn't say it was doable or practical.

I said it would be the only thing that would get their attention. The point I was making is that financial penalties won't.

[Caliman73]

19. The idea makes sense, but is not feasible.

There are a lot of proposals like this which seek to "hold politicians accountable". As others have said, they sound great but the reality of implementing them in any feasible way would be a nightmare. We have to define the problem more clearly to propose solutions. There have been government "shutdowns" before in 1980, 1981, 1984, and 1986 which amounted to very little. Employees were furloughed or almost furloughed for an afternoon or something like that. In 1990 with the Republicans, who were in the minority lead by Newt Gingrich the government was actually shut down for 3 days, over a weekend, but this was the first shut down of significance. In 1995-1996 with President Clinton in the White House and Gingrich as Speaker, the government shut down 2 times for a total of 27 days. In 2013 Republicans shut the government down over the ACA for 16 days. The government has been shut down 3 times in 2018 over immigration and the Republicans wanting to destroy the ACA. The pattern is that as the Republicans have become more entrenched because of their electoral wins despite fewer and fewer followers, the shut downs over stupid partisan reasons have increased in frequency and intensity. It isn't the politicians are not doing their jobs it is that politicians on one side (the Republicans) are so afraid of their smaller but radicalized base, that they cling to these issues for fear of being replaced.

The reality of what needs to happen is not making more laws that punish politicians for not getting legislation passed. The reality is election reform. While Republicans and Democrats have always battled for different numbers, policies, etc... they had typically operated from a center and occasionally went right or left on policies. Now, the Republicans have gone so far to the right that they operate at the fringe and Democrats (who want to govern for all people) have to move right to even start. So, Election reform looks something like this:

Eliminate Gerrymandering: All representative districts have to be redrawn by neutral bodies. That way it will actually be about policies and turn out rather than safe districts where you can lose by 8% and maintain 64% of the seats in the legislature.

Make elections a civic action not a business venture: Candidates are given a certain number of televised speeches with equal access to prime time viewership, Debates are scheduled during prime viewing hours moderated by neutral, political science or history professionals and PACs are prohibited from running advertisements on television. I know this one if far fetched, but elections need to be about who can articulate the best policies not whose face is on TV the most and who can lie the best.

Make election day a holiday: Encourage civic engagement by making voting easier on working people.

Fully fund secure voting in all districts: This one is self explanatory. It should not be that one district has the best tech for voting and others are shut down, or have old broken equipment.

Government shut downs should be eliminated at the ballot box not by imposing punishments to all for the behavior of a few.

[OneBro]

20. Will benefit wealthy members.

Wealthy members could then threaten it’s income-dependent members with a shut-down to force votes they don’t agree with.

[ancianita]

21. It will never be done because of the 27th Amendment, which protects congressional salaries. Here:

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

May 7, 1992. (Note: Congress submitted the text of this amendment as part of the proposed Bill of Rights on September 27, 1789. The Amendment was not ratified together with the first ten Amendments.)

http://www.ushistory.org/documents/amendments.htm#amend27

[pbmus]

28. How dare they...

We elect them to run our government, they shut it down for political reasons..

[Salviati]

31. I think a better resolution would be to just retool the laws so that the govt by default works...

If you vote for a budget, then the government is authorized to borrow the money to fund it.
If you can't agree on a budget or a funding bill, then in the interim the previous years is used, adjusted for inflation.

Things should default to work, rather than to not work.