Quick! Support an unconstitutional feelgood bill!

[Trotskylvania]

http://hutchison.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=523

The Bill

To appropriate such funds as may be necessary to ensure that members of the Armed Forces, including reserve components thereof, and supporting civilian and contractor personnel continue to receive pay and allowances for active service performed when a funding gap caused by the failure to enact interim or full-year appropriations for the Armed Forces occurs, which results in the furlough of non-emergency personnel and the curtailment of Government activities and services.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ‘Ensuring Pay for Our Military Act of 2011’.

SEC. 2. EMERGENCY APPROPRIATION OF FUNDS TO PROVIDE PAY AND ALLOWANCES FOR MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES AND SUPPORTING CIVILIAN AND CONTRACTOR PERSONNEL DURING FUNDING GAP IMPACTING THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE OR DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY.

(a) Appropriation of Funds for Military Pay and Allowances- During a funding gap impacting the Armed Forces, the Secretary of the Treasury shall make available to the Secretary of Defense (and the Secretary of Homeland Security in the case of the Coast Guard), out of any amounts in the general fund of the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, such amounts as the Secretary of Defense (and the Secretary of Homeland Security in the case of the Coast Guard) determines to be necessary to continue to provide pay and allowances (without interruption) to the following:

(1) Members of the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard, including reserve components thereof, who perform active service during the funding gap.

(2) At the discretion of the Secretary of Defense, such civilian personnel of the Department of Defense who are providing support to the members of the Armed Forces described in paragraph (1) as the Secretary considers appropriate.

(3) At the discretion of the Secretary of Defense, such personnel of contractors of the Department of Defense who are providing direct support to the members of the Armed Forces described in paragraph (1) as the Secretary considers appropriate.

(b) Funding Gap Defined- In this section, the term ‘funding gap’ means any period of time after the beginning of a fiscal year for which interim or full-year appropriations for the personnel accounts of the Armed Forces for that fiscal year have not been enacted.

(c) Duration of Transfer Authority- No transfer may be made by the Secretary of the Treasury under subsection (a) after December 31, 2011.

Yeah, warms the cockles of your patriotic heart, right? What could possibly be wrong with this?

Let us count the ways.

1) This one's just a technicality, but the bill is pretty clearly an apportionment bill, which are supposed to originate in the House

2) The bill gives the Secretary of the Treasury the authority to appropriate funds. The Constitution is very explicit about this: As Section 9 of Article 1 states: "No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time." This bill is clearly unconstitutional on face.

3) The only reason why soldiers wouldn't get paid is because there would be no one to sign their checks. As salaried workers that are effectively on duty at all times, they can't be not paid; it's against the law. Unfortunately, they'll have to wait until the end of the shutdown to actually be paid. Unlike the other government workers, mind you.

I wouldn't be so worked up about this if it weren't for the fact that 79 US Senators sponsored this bill!

Of course, with the mindless "Support the troops" mentality that's been hammered into people here, this kind of shenaniganery is to be expected. But when a supermajority of the Senate, supposedly the dispassionate, august body of learned minds, latches onto such a short-term non-issue that has already resolved itself (see the budget deal), I think it's safe to say that the US Constitution is broken beyond repair.

[Farnhamia]

That's okay, the House Republicans said last week that if a budget didn't pass, their proposed bill would automatically become law, whether or not the Senate passed it or the President signed it.

[Terra Australasia]

Are people like the police or emergency services funded in this case?

[Trotskylvania]

Are people like the police or emergency services funded in this case?

Those are (almost) all funded by the states, not the federal government. They might lose out on federal block grant money during the period, which might pinch for a bit, but they'd probably get the money back eventually.

[Terra Australasia]

Are people like the police or emergency services funded in this case?

Those are (almost) all funded by the states, not the federal government. They might lose out on federal block grant money during the period, which might pinch for a bit, but they'd probably get the money back eventually.

I'm just thinking that there is almost certainly something that deserves more money than the soldiers.

I'm all for paying the people who most likely will get themselves kill in 'OMG noooo itz deh imperilizt oil grabbing peoplz agin* movements.

But, I still suspect that the priorities here might be slightly so-so.

Well, as long as essential services are fine.

[OMGeverynameistaken]

I think that the last few months have made it clear that not only do our congresspeople not care about the constitution, they don't even care that people KNOW they don't care, because they know that most Americans don't care either.

[Maurepas]

*shrugs*, it's the fact that they're well paid is why I don't generally throw out much "support the troops!" mentality. They don't exactly have much in common with random guy at Valley Forge or Gettysburg these days.

[Ashmoria]

thats not a feel-good bill.

thats a "cover your ass" political bill. it isnt intended to be passed. its intended to diffuse (or should it be defuse?) the blame for the political downside of not passing the budget.

the house passed theirs with unacceptable riders so the senate made one without riders but ...well...without the constitutional authority do to so.

[Republicke]

*shrugs*, it's the fact that they're well paid is why I don't generally throw out much "support the troops!" mentality. They don't exactly have much in common with random guy at Valley Forge or Gettysburg these days.

I didn't think enlisted wo/men were paid that well? Ass in, their salary was the low-end of average, or something.

Edit: "Ass in" is military-speak, it means something approximately similar to the noncombatant term "as in".

[Trotskylvania]

thats not a feel-good bill.

thats a "cover your ass" political bill. it isnt intended to be passed. its intended to diffuse (or should it be defuse?) the blame for the political downside of not passing the budget.

the house passed theirs with unacceptable riders so the senate made one without riders but ...well...without the constitutional authority do to so.

Then why are they still pushing for it even though a budget settlement was reached?

[Wamitoria]

That's okay, the House Republicans said last week that if a budget didn't pass, their proposed bill would automatically become law, whether or not the Senate passed it or the President signed it.

^This

[The Atlantean Menace]

I'm fine with a one-time violation of the Constitution in order to PAY THE FREAKING MILITARY.

These people have families to support and are serving our nation.

[Greed and Death]

http://hutchison.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=523

The Bill

To appropriate such funds as may be necessary to ensure that members of the Armed Forces, including reserve components thereof, and supporting civilian and contractor personnel continue to receive pay and allowances for active service performed when a funding gap caused by the failure to enact interim or full-year appropriations for the Armed Forces occurs, which results in the furlough of non-emergency personnel and the curtailment of Government activities and services.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ‘Ensuring Pay for Our Military Act of 2011’.

SEC. 2. EMERGENCY APPROPRIATION OF FUNDS TO PROVIDE PAY AND ALLOWANCES FOR MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES AND SUPPORTING CIVILIAN AND CONTRACTOR PERSONNEL DURING FUNDING GAP IMPACTING THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE OR DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY.

(a) Appropriation of Funds for Military Pay and Allowances- During a funding gap impacting the Armed Forces, the Secretary of the Treasury shall make available to the Secretary of Defense (and the Secretary of Homeland Security in the case of the Coast Guard), out of any amounts in the general fund of the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, such amounts as the Secretary of Defense (and the Secretary of Homeland Security in the case of the Coast Guard) determines to be necessary to continue to provide pay and allowances (without interruption) to the following:

(1) Members of the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard, including reserve components thereof, who perform active service during the funding gap.

(2) At the discretion of the Secretary of Defense, such civilian personnel of the Department of Defense who are providing support to the members of the Armed Forces described in paragraph (1) as the Secretary considers appropriate.

(3) At the discretion of the Secretary of Defense, such personnel of contractors of the Department of Defense who are providing direct support to the members of the Armed Forces described in paragraph (1) as the Secretary considers appropriate.

(b) Funding Gap Defined- In this section, the term ‘funding gap’ means any period of time after the beginning of a fiscal year for which interim or full-year appropriations for the personnel accounts of the Armed Forces for that fiscal year have not been enacted.

(c) Duration of Transfer Authority- No transfer may be made by the Secretary of the Treasury under subsection (a) after December 31, 2011.

Yeah, warms the cockles of your patriotic heart, right? What could possibly be wrong with this?

Let us count the ways.

1) This one's just a technicality, but the bill is pretty clearly an apportionment bill, which are supposed to originate in the House

2) The bill gives the Secretary of the Treasury the authority to appropriate funds. The Constitution is very explicit about this: As Section 9 of Article 1 states: "No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time." This bill is clearly unconstitutional on face.

3) The only reason why soldiers wouldn't get paid is because there would be no one to sign their checks. As salaried workers that are effectively on duty at all times, they can't be not paid; it's against the law. Unfortunately, they'll have to wait until the end of the shutdown to actually be paid. Unlike the other government workers, mind you.

I wouldn't be so worked up about this if it weren't for the fact that 79 US Senators sponsored this bill!

Of course, with the mindless "Support the troops" mentality that's been hammered into people here, this kind of shenaniganery is to be expected. But when a supermajority of the Senate, supposedly the dispassionate, august body of learned minds, latches onto such a short-term non-issue that has already resolved itself (see the budget deal), I think it's safe to say that the US Constitution is broken beyond repair.

#1 can be over come by amending a house bill, as was done with the health care bill.
#2 If passed this bill is simply delegating to the secretary the ability to get funds.
#3 Most if not all of the military is on direct deposit, so this bill is likely not an issue.

[Lackadaisical2]

Of course, with the mindless "Support the troops" mentality that's been hammered into people here, this kind of shenaniganery is to be expected. But when a supermajority of the Senate, supposedly the dispassionate, august body of learned minds, latches onto such a short-term non-issue that has already resolved itself (see the budget deal), I think it's safe to say that the US Constitution is broken beyond repair.

The constitution isn't broken beyond repair, if it got sent to the supreme court, or didn't even make it there, then I'd be worried.

[Sibirsky]

*shrugs*, it's the fact that they're well paid is why I don't generally throw out much "support the troops!" mentality. They don't exactly have much in common with random guy at Valley Forge or Gettysburg these days.

Starting pay is only $1,467.60 per month. Now, they get allowances for food and housing if they are not housed in military quarters, they get other allowances for being overseas, or in danger zones. Pay goes up with rank and experience, but most of them are far from well paid.

http://www.dfas.mil/militarypay/militar ... ble1-4.pdf

[Buurdland]

http://hutchison.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=523

The Bill

To appropriate such funds as may be necessary to ensure that members of the Armed Forces, including reserve components thereof, and supporting civilian and contractor personnel continue to receive pay and allowances for active service performed when a funding gap caused by the failure to enact interim or full-year appropriations for the Armed Forces occurs, which results in the furlough of non-emergency personnel and the curtailment of Government activities and services.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ‘Ensuring Pay for Our Military Act of 2011’.

SEC. 2. EMERGENCY APPROPRIATION OF FUNDS TO PROVIDE PAY AND ALLOWANCES FOR MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES AND SUPPORTING CIVILIAN AND CONTRACTOR PERSONNEL DURING FUNDING GAP IMPACTING THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE OR DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY.

(a) Appropriation of Funds for Military Pay and Allowances- During a funding gap impacting the Armed Forces, the Secretary of the Treasury shall make available to the Secretary of Defense (and the Secretary of Homeland Security in the case of the Coast Guard), out of any amounts in the general fund of the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, such amounts as the Secretary of Defense (and the Secretary of Homeland Security in the case of the Coast Guard) determines to be necessary to continue to provide pay and allowances (without interruption) to the following:

(1) Members of the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard, including reserve components thereof, who perform active service during the funding gap.

(2) At the discretion of the Secretary of Defense, such civilian personnel of the Department of Defense who are providing support to the members of the Armed Forces described in paragraph (1) as the Secretary considers appropriate.

(3) At the discretion of the Secretary of Defense, such personnel of contractors of the Department of Defense who are providing direct support to the members of the Armed Forces described in paragraph (1) as the Secretary considers appropriate.

(b) Funding Gap Defined- In this section, the term ‘funding gap’ means any period of time after the beginning of a fiscal year for which interim or full-year appropriations for the personnel accounts of the Armed Forces for that fiscal year have not been enacted.

(c) Duration of Transfer Authority- No transfer may be made by the Secretary of the Treasury under subsection (a) after December 31, 2011.

Yeah, warms the cockles of your patriotic heart, right? What could possibly be wrong with this?

Let us count the ways.

1) This one's just a technicality, but the bill is pretty clearly an apportionment bill, which are supposed to originate in the House

2) The bill gives the Secretary of the Treasury the authority to appropriate funds. The Constitution is very explicit about this: As Section 9 of Article 1 states: "No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time." This bill is clearly unconstitutional on face.

3) The only reason why soldiers wouldn't get paid is because there would be no one to sign their checks. As salaried workers that are effectively on duty at all times, they can't be not paid; it's against the law. Unfortunately, they'll have to wait until the end of the shutdown to actually be paid. Unlike the other government workers, mind you.

I wouldn't be so worked up about this if it weren't for the fact that 79 US Senators sponsored this bill!

Of course, with the mindless "Support the troops" mentality that's been hammered into people here, this kind of shenaniganery is to be expected. But when a supermajority of the Senate, supposedly the dispassionate, august body of learned minds, latches onto such a short-term non-issue that has already resolved itself (see the budget deal), I think it's safe to say that the US Constitution is broken beyond repair.

Fact of the matter is even though it is unconstitutional it is NEEDED. These people have families and bills to pay, they don't get paid then the companies they owe money to don't get paid. Basically not paying them would have made the recession a bit worse, not to mention it is not very smart to piss off the people who hold more guns then you.

[Ashmoria]

thats not a feel-good bill.

thats a "cover your ass" political bill. it isnt intended to be passed. its intended to diffuse (or should it be defuse?) the blame for the political downside of not passing the budget.

the house passed theirs with unacceptable riders so the senate made one without riders but ...well...without the constitutional authority do to so.

Then why are they still pushing for it even though a budget settlement was reached?

how have they been pushing for it today?

[SaintB]

I'm fine with a one-time violation of the Constitution in order to PAY THE FREAKING MILITARY.

These people have families to support and are serving our nation.

I'm not. The proper way would have been to find a Sponsor in the House willing to put the Bill forward with the Author as a Senatorial Sponsor.

[Nazi Flower Power]

I'm fine with a one-time violation of the Constitution in order to PAY THE FREAKING MILITARY.

These people have families to support and are serving our nation.

I'm not. The proper way would have been to find a Sponsor in the House willing to put the Bill forward with the Author as a Senatorial Sponsor.

Thank you. The Constitution is not so restrictive that we need to violate it to pay our troops.

I don't know all the legal technicalities here, but "OMG! We need to pay our troops and we were too much of dipshits to plan ahead so we'd able to pay them!" is not an excuse to ignore the Constitution.

[Tahar Joblis]

I'm fine with a one-time violation of the Constitution in order to PAY THE FREAKING MILITARY.

These people have families to support and are serving our nation.

Guess what? All federal employees "have families to support and are serving our nation."

Well, except for the job lots that don't have families. Which includes quite a few people in the military.

I'm not OK with a one-time violation of the Constitution in order to pay the military. If you like, think of it as one example of why it's so important to pass a budget.

[Caninope]

1) This one's just a technicality, but the bill is pretty clearly an apportionment bill, which are supposed to originate in the House

Thanks for playing, but now. Taxes start in the House.

[Sarkhaan]

I'm fine with a one-time violation of the Constitution in order to PAY THE FREAKING MILITARY.

These people have families to support and are serving our nation.

A lot of federal employees have families to support and are serving our nation. Why is the military somehow more important?

[Buurdland]

I'm fine with a one-time violation of the Constitution in order to PAY THE FREAKING MILITARY.

These people have families to support and are serving our nation.

A lot of federal employees have families to support and are serving our nation. Why is the military somehow more important?

They have the guns and could easily kill us all...

[Neo Art]

A lot of federal employees have families to support and are serving our nation. Why is the military somehow more important?

They have the guns and could easily kill us all...

You've never been to the post office

[Buurdland]

They have the guns and could easily kill us all...

You've never been to the post office

They have a lot of guns too! However they were going to be paid!