DarkSteven -> RE: The Cost of No (4/17/2010 4:51:16 AM)
|
WTF? The article has no clue. The basic premise seems to be that the GOP is costing us their salaries if they perform no real work. This is wrong on at least two levels. 1. Their salaries are a sunk cost. It doesn't matter whether they even show up to their jobs - the money's earmarked. The REAL costs are in what they do or do not pass. If the Congress vote to start another ridiculous war, for example, that would dwarf whatever is spent on the Congresspeople. 2. The system of checks and balances as set up is beautiful. While the Founding Fathers likely didn't envision the current hyperpartisan "party, party uber alles" environment, they set up a system in which a No was something serious requiring attention. I hate the rubber stamp Congress that Bush had, and I don't want Obama to get one either. That said, the expenses incurred by the GOP (and presumably by the Dems as well) are ridiculous. I'd love to see them forced to live within a budget.
|
|
|
|