Non-Essential?

Most Americans are not directly affected by the partial federal government shut down of nonessential services.  But several hundred thousand federal workers are--they aren't getting paid.  One might argue (I would argue!) that much of what the federal government does is nonessential, that's it's far too big and bloated.  But I would also argue that federal workers should not be compelled to work if they aren't getting paid.  No pay, no work

Some might counter, "Well, they'll get back pay when the shutdown is over."  Nah, that doesn't work. Try this at the grocery store.  "Hey, I'm a federal government worker and I haven't been paid.  How about if you give me my food today and I'll pay when I get my back pay?"  Yeah, right......  (I remember joking, but only somewhat, twenty or more years ago, about this.  "Hey, I'm a teacher and we haven't had a raise in three or four years.  Can I buy my food at the prices from three or four years ago?")

I have no idea if anyone has suggested this, but it certainly makes sense to me.  Since members of Congress provide nonessential services, let's not pay them.  I read where the Coast Guard might not receive paychecks this week.  I can't imagine, other than members of Congress and maybe lobbyists, anyone thinking that those Senators and Congressmen/women are more essential than members of the Coast Guard.  If they want to keep playing their games, make them pay for it.

For that matter, why doesn't one of the Senators or Congressmen suggest that he/she and his/her colleagues forgo their pay during the shutdown?  What a principled statement that would make for, say, Bernie Sanders, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez from NY (a champion of the people!), or even that newly-elected foul-mouthed Detroit Congresswoman, Rashida Tlaib (another champion of the people!) to refuse to accept pay.  Nah, I don't think that would happen either.  As usual, they are all talk

Since I brought up Tlaib, why haven't any members of the House suggested formal censure or reprimand for her foul-mouthed reference to the President?  (And remember, I am no fan of Trump.)  It certainly is within the authority of the House.  As expected, many Republicans spoke out against Tlaib; so did a number of Democrats.  As usual, talk is cheap.

Censure or reprimand would send a message, a principled message.  (Perhaps, like a principled stance to forgo pay, I expect far too much from members of Congress.)  Tlaib's words might well be considered "hate speech," right?  Draw the line.  "Incivility stops here and now!"

Censure or reprimand would also take courage and integrity.  Nah, it won't happen.