"Senator Debbie Stabenow supports bill to stop lawmaker pay if government shuts down"

The article reporting the Senator's support for this bill, written by Jeff Cranson of the Grand Rapids Press and published on 3/1/11, made this observation:

"The bill, introduced last week by Sens. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., and Bob Casey, D-Penn., would also stop pay if the government cannot pay its bills because the debt ceiling is not raised."

Sorry, but raising the debt ceiling is not an option. The unfettered ability of Congress to raise the debt ceiling is what got us into this financial mess in the first place, to the point where we can't afford the interest on our outstanding debts and nations are beginning to turn away from the dollar as the world's reserve currency -- something that will absolutely devastate our economy, just as it did the economy of Great Britain when the world turned away from the pound sterling. Cutting is going to hurt; failing to cut is going to kill us. 

In fact, I would go the other way. Unless congress finds a way to fund the government, cut spending, and LOWER the debt ceiling, they shouldn't be paid. And by the way, the better part of a trillion dollars in TARP funds (somewhere around $800 billion) is still supposedly setting unused. It isn't much in the greater scheme of things, but paying those funds back would at least be a start toward lowering our debt ceiling. The longer those funds set in that account unappropriated, the more likely it is that they will slowly disappear in the same way money from social security disappeared, and there will be nothing to show for it.

It all boils down to the words from the movie, The American President: "Americans can no longer afford to pretend that they live in a great society." More precisely, legislators can no longer afford to pretend that they live in a great society. We can no longer afford to raise the debt ceiling to underwrite the operations of the UN, every other troubled country in the world, inequitable fields of trade, and pay for multiplied billions of dollars of entitlements here at home. It simply cannot be done. And since Congress has been unable to police itself and its spending, we need to take the same approach to Congress as any responsible parent would to a child who spends recklessly -- by taking away the credit card and forcing them to ask permission before creating any new spending powers.

The template to accomplish this is provided for us in the Preamble of the Bill of Rights.

The Bill of Rights was demanded by the States to keep the federal government, created by the acts of each sovereign state as they ratified the Constitution, in check, to prevent it from assuming unfettered powers. In the words of Jefferson, "...to bind down those whom we are obliged to trust with power: that our Constitution has accordingly fixed the limits to which, and no further, our confidence may go....In questions of powers, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution."

The first two paragraphs of the Preamble of the Bill of Rights provide a template by which A) the federal government may obtain additional authority, or B) such authority may be restrained, but to do so in such a way as to "...bind [it] down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution":

"THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution

RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution..."

This bit of parliamentary procedure has been left out of most studies of American government, but they are critical to our understanding of the relationship that is supposed to exist between the states and the federal government.

First, a need for additional authority, or the need to restrain authority, is recognized ("THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added..."). While the needs addressed in the Preamble were identified by the states, they could just as easily have been identified by Congress.

In response to the identified need, legislation appropriate to address it is formulated, debated, and vote upon by the Congress. Since it applies directly to resulting federal authority, a two-thirds majority in both houses is required for passage ("...in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring...").

Once the legislation has been formulated, debated, and passed by congress, IT IS THEN SENT TO THE STATES FOR THEIR RATIFICATION ("...the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States..."). Note that the states have the right to approve or reject any or all of the provisions contained in the proposed legislation ("...all or any of which Articles..."). Since the proposed legislation would have the effect of expanding or restraining federal authority, a THREE-QUARTERS SUPERMAJORITY OF STATE LEGISLATURES MUST APPROVE THE LEGISLATION FOR IT TO BE PASSED ("...when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures...")!!!

This is the template that was utilized to create and empower the federal government in the first place, and this is the template that must once again be employed if we are to bring our federal government back into accountability to the states, and more importantly, the citizens it supposedly represents.  If this approach could be utilized two hundred years ago to set up the government, considering the archaic methods of transmitting the proposed legislation to the individual states that were at their disposal, we can certainly employ it today with even more effectiveness.