Shutdown Politics: Congress Gets Paid — Workers Get Nothing

 

During the last government shutdown, millions of federal workers went without pay while one group in Washington continued collecting theirs without interruption: members of Congress. The very people responsible for the breakdown in governance were the only ones insulated from the consequences of their own inaction.

Now with another shutdown looming as the temporary funding patch nears expiration early next year, it’s clear we are heading toward the same ritual of dysfunction — and once again, the political class will glide through untouched.

During the last shutdown, a few lawmakers suggested that Congress should not receive pay during a closure. It was a rare moment of self-awareness, and for an instant it looked as though leaders might acknowledge the unfairness of being paid while federal workers were not.

But the idea evaporated almost immediately. Members retreated to a familiar constitutional argument: congressional pay cannot be altered mid-term. While technically true, it was also a convenient excuse. Nothing prevented lawmakers from voluntarily refusing pay, delaying the cashing of their checks, or instructing the Treasury to withhold salary until employees received theirs. They simply chose not to take any of those steps.

What Congress Could Have Done — But Didn’t

Even under existing laws, members of Congress had clear, simple ways to demonstrate solidarity with the working class. They could have paused their own pay, deferred it, or donated it. They could have taken any visible step to show that if federal employees were going without, elected officials would share the burden.

Instead, Congress carried on with uninterrupted compensation while millions of workers — people they supervise and rely on — were left to navigate missed rent payments, mounting bills, and weeks of uncertainty. It was another reminder that Washington often operates like a separate, Ruling class, shielded from the hardship it imposes on others.

A Missed Opportunity to Lead

What makes this even more frustrating is how politically shortsighted it was. If a major party had stood together and announced that its members would forgo pay during the shutdown, it would have won an immediate surge of public goodwill. Americans are desperate for signs of fairness and shared sacrifice. A simple gesture of integrity could have delivered exactly that.

But no one took the opportunity. Instead, both parties protected the status quo, reinforcing the perception that Congress is out of touch with the people it serves.

A Reform That Should Be Automatic

The solution is straightforward: no member of Congress should receive pay during a government shutdown. The Constitution may complicate how such a rule is formalized, but nothing stops lawmakers from adopting the principle voluntarily. If they can shut down the government, they should feel the consequences alongside every other federal worker.

You’re not a leader if you don’t lead

Shutdowns are failures of leadership. When leaders fail, they should not be shielded from the effects of those failures. If Congress wants to restore even a thread of trust, it can begin by refusing to pay itself when the government stops paying everyone else.

Until that happens, each shutdown will continue to expose the same uncomfortable truth: in Washington, those who create the crisis remain the only ones guaranteed a paycheck. One word describes it: "Shameful". Stay tuned…

 

A Modern, Cost-Neutral Approach to the Immigration Problem

 

Stop Paying Top Dollar to Deport the Workers We Need

America faces a worsening shortage of unskilled labor in the very industries that keep the country functioning: agriculture, construction, food processing, hospitality, and elder care. Yet the United States continues to spend between $25,000 and $40,000 per person to locate, apprehend, detain, process, feed, house, and ultimately remove many of the same workers filling those jobs. The result is predictable: fewer available workers, higher consumer prices, and deeper strain on essential services.

This is not an immigration strategy. It is an extraordinarily expensive way to make a labor shortage worse.

A modern, cost-neutral solution exists. Instead of spending taxpayer dollars on a removal process that takes months and solves nothing, the government can redirect those same resources to issue swift, lawful work authorization to eligible individuals—people who pass identity and criminal checks and have verified employers ready to hire them in shortage sectors. No new bureaucracy. No added spending. Just a smarter outcome from the process we already run.

If federal agencies have the capacity to fingerprint, background-check, transport, house, and deport someone, they can just as easily fingerprint, background-check, verify an employer, and authorize a person for legal employment—at a fraction of the cost and in far less time.

The reform is simple:

First, create a field-issued, one-year renewable work card. Agents already conduct identity checks, biometric scans, and background screenings. Adding verified employment to that list and issuing a work authorization immediately is both logical and efficient. This avoids long detentions, crowded court dockets, and months-long processing delays.

Second, pair work authorization with real accountability. Require E-Verify, withhold payroll taxes, and enforce prevailing wages. Make the authorization portable so workers are not trapped by exploitative employers. Employers who break the rules lose program access and face penalties. This protects both American workers and authorized migrants from wage abuse and under-the-table employment.

Third, reserve deportation resources for the targets that matter: criminals, fraudsters, individuals with disqualifying offenses, and those who lack legitimate job matches. That is where enforcement dollars produce real public-safety benefit. Removing people who present no threat but fill vital workforce gaps is wasteful and counterproductive.

Critics warn that any legal work channel becomes a “magnet.” But the magnet already exists—it is the jobs themselves. Pretending otherwise does nothing to reduce illegal crossings; it merely pushes workers further into the underground economy, where neither taxes nor labor standards apply. A legal, rapid, enforceable work process channels that demand into a system built on transparency and rule of law.

Others argue that such a policy “rewards breaking the law.” Yet for decades the United States has sent mixed and inconsistent signals through varying enforcement priorities, sanctuary declarations, and political rhetoric. A clear system—identity verified, background cleared, employer validated, taxes withheld, and wages regulated—restores credibility. Those who qualify work legally. Those who do not, do not. That is the core of any functional rule-of-law system.

Congress can enact this tomorrow: a Work Authorization at Encounter card valid for 12 months, renewable, targeted to shortage sectors, tied to W‑2 jobs, subject to strict vetting and employer oversight, and reviewed after two years to measure cost, compliance, and labor-market impact.

It will not be perfect. No system is. But compared to paying $25,000–$40,000 per person to remove workers we desperately need, it is a far better investment. It transforms unauthorized workers into tax-paying contributors with traceable identities. It frees federal agents to focus on genuine threats. And it brings competence to a system long defined by inefficiency and political theater.

If the job exists and the person qualifies, authorize the work and move forward. That’s not generosity. That’s modern, cost-neutral competence.