EDITORIAL: Paid not to play? Cut off checks during shutdowns

A chorus of voices from across the political spectrum demands that members of Congress forfeit their pay during the current government shutdown, which enters its sixth week. This makes eminent sense as a means of disincentivizing political dysfunction. But perhaps the punishment should go further.

Sen. Lindsey Graham, Republican from South Carolina, has introduced a constitutional amendment to mandate that members of the House and Senate not be compensated during federal government closures. Routine legislation won’t suffice because Article 1, Section 6 of the Constitution stipulates that senators and representatives “shall” receive payment for services, without denoting any exceptions.

“Not only should members of Congress not get paid during shutdowns,” Sen. Graham said in a statement, “but the forfeited salaries should be used to pay down the federal debt. Under this amendment, congressional salaries would be sent back to the U.S. Treasury to make payments on our debt. Shutdowns are foolish exercises — this constitutional amendment would force Congress to start acting responsibly.”

Hear, hear. But many members of Congress — both senators and House members — won’t feel any pain from going without a paycheck for a few weeks. They earn $174,000 a year, not including benefits — congressional leaders make a bit more. Few of these elected representatives were impoverished before they descended upon the Beltway. In addition, plenty of congressional officeholders — including those in Nevada’s delegation — have either refused their checks during the current stalemate or donated their compensation to charity.

This is wise, from both a practical and political standpoint. But Sen. Graham’s amendment might be more effective if it imposed even more severe punishment.

His proposal would codify the sentiment of millions of Americans who understand that they wouldn’t be paid for failing miserably at their jobs of representing their constituents. And who would vote against it? A constitutional amendment must be passed by two-thirds majorities in both legislative chambers and then must be approved by lawmakers in three-quarters of the states. It’s time consuming, to be sure, but this cause is worth the effort.

Yet the proposed amendment would be a stronger disincentive if it docked representatives and senators three — even six — months pay following the end of any shutdown in addition to the compensation lost during the impasse. Who would vote against that, either?

These political dances have become all too common in our hyper-politicized times. Sen. Graham’s amendment, properly enhanced or not, should be pushed forward without delay.