Bill Overview
Title: No Pay for Congressional Recklessness Act
Description: This bill withholds congressional salaries and restricts the use of federal funds for travel by Members of Congress and executive branch employees while a continuing resolution (CR) is in effect. For the 118th Congress and subsequent Congresses, the bill also reduces congressional salaries by 1% for each day that a CR is in effect.
Sponsors: Rep. Norman, Ralph [R-SC-5]
Target Audience
Population: Members of Congress and executive branch employees
Estimated Size: 1500
- The primary individuals directly affected by the bill will be Members of Congress, as the bill proposes withholding their salaries during a continuing resolution and reducing salaries by 1% for each day a CR is active
- Executive branch employees are affected as federal funds for their travel are restricted while a CR is in effect
- The bill impacts all members of the 118th Congress and future Congresses who experience a continuing resolution period
Reasoning
- The policy primarily impacts lawmakers and high-ranking government officials whose salaries and work travel might face restrictions.
- The common U.S. citizen, while generally unaffected directly, might experience indirect implications based on governmental responses shaped by Congressional pressures due to the policy.
- I included individuals who represent both policymakers and individuals indirectly affected but still within society, like a government contractor or a citizen interested in political integrity.
Simulated Interviews
Congressman (Washington, D.C.)
Age: 54 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 1/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I support the intent of this policy as it holds us accountable for ensuring the government runs smoothly.
- The salary cut is a wake-up call; however, it could cause financial strain for some members depending on personal situations.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 9 |
Executive Branch Official (Maryland)
Age: 48 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The travel restriction poses challenges for my work as in-person oversight is critical.
- I understand the need for fiscal accountability, but exceptions for essential duties should be considered.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Congressional Staff (Texas)
Age: 32 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- While I’m not directly affected by the salary cut, it might affect our office’s morale and productivity.
- I believe the policy is a step towards ensuring legislative diligence.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Federal Contractor (California)
Age: 40 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy doesn’t directly affect me financially but extends CRs which are stressful for our projects.
- An indirect benefit is perhaps more decisive budget resolutions reducing future CRs.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Retired (Florida)
Age: 65 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm pleased that there are measures holding Congress accountable, finally linking performance to compensation.
- I hope this will lead to faster budget resolutions and better government functioning.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Senator (New York)
Age: 58 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 1/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy introduces robust accountability, which I support.
- The financial penalty is harsh but should motivate faster resolutions.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 10 | 9 |
Executive Branch Worker (Illinois)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Federal travel restrictions might hinder our cooperative capabilities with other agencies.
- The intent of financial prudence is appreciated, but operational challenges remain.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Teacher (Michigan)
Age: 38 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Glad to see accountability measures for Congress—the policy is a step in the right direction.
- Hope it translates into more stable budgets so education funding is less affected.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Aspiring Politician (New Jersey)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- As someone who wishes to enter politics, I'm encouraged by policies ensuring accountability.
- The policy might deter fiscal irresponsibility and encourage faster resolutions.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Journalist (Ohio)
Age: 31 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy will generate important discussions and hopefully lead to more responsible governance.
- I expect increased transparency and quicker budget resolutions.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $10000000 (Low: $5000000, High: $15000000)
Year 2: $10000000 (Low: $5000000, High: $15000000)
Year 3: $10000000 (Low: $5000000, High: $15000000)
Year 5: $10000000 (Low: $5000000, High: $15000000)
Year 10: $10000000 (Low: $5000000, High: $15000000)
Year 100: $0 (Low: $-10000000, High: $10000000)
Key Considerations
- The unpredictability in the number and duration of continuing resolutions influences cost and savings estimates.
- Implementation details of travel restrictions and salary reductions may vary, affecting administrative costs.
- Potential political and public responsiveness to salary reductions and spending restrictions on travel during continuing resolutions.