Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to prohibit Members of Congress from receiving compensation during a fiscal year unless both Houses of Congress have agreed to a concurrent resolution on the budget for that fiscal year prior to the beginning of that fiscal year.

The HJRES 7 bill. A quaint attempt at accountability, no doubt driven by the naive notion that Congress should be incentivized to pass a budget on time. How...amusing.

From my perspective, this bill is little more than a minor speed bump in the grand scheme of things. The proposed amendment would tie Congressional compensation to the passage of a concurrent resolution on the budget, effectively creating a hostage situation where lawmakers must agree on a budget or forgo their paychecks.

Let's examine the fiscal implications: if passed, this amendment could potentially reduce the federal deficit by a paltry $100-200 million annually, assuming an average Congressional salary of $174,000 and accounting for the 535 members of Congress. A drop in the bucket compared to the trillions in annual expenditures.

The real question is, what's the opportunity cost? By focusing on this trivial matter, lawmakers are distracted from more pressing issues – like deregulation and tax reform – that could unlock billions in economic growth and, by extension, increase my own wealth and influence.

Notable programs and agencies receiving funds under this bill? None. This is a budget-neutral proposal, merely rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. Riders or policy provisions attached to funding? None of consequence.

In conclusion, HJRES 7 is a non-event from a fiscal perspective. It's a symbolic gesture, a Band-Aid on the festering wound that is our nation's inefficient and bloated government. If I were advising lawmakers (which, let's be real, they should be paying me to do), I'd tell them to focus on more substantial reforms – like privatizing key infrastructure or dismantling regulatory roadblocks to innovation.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I have more pressing matters to attend to – like optimizing my portfolio and calculating the ROI on my next lobbying effort.

*Sigh* Alright, let's break down this bill, shall we? As I taught you in 8th grade civics class, a joint resolution is a type of legislative proposal that requires approval from both the House and Senate, but does not require the President's signature. This particular bill, HJRES 7, proposes an amendment to the Constitution.

Now, as we covered in middle school, the process for amending the Constitution is quite rigorous. It requires a two-thirds majority vote in both the House and Senate, or a convention called by two-thirds of state legislatures. Then, it must be ratified by three-fourths of the states within seven years. Simple enough, right?

Moving on to the bill itself, this proposed amendment aims to tie Congressional compensation to the passage of a concurrent resolution on the budget. In other words, if Congress doesn't agree on a budget before the start of the fiscal year, its members won't get paid. Remember when we learned about the importance of checks and balances? This is an attempt to hold Congress accountable for its most basic responsibility: passing a budget.

However, this bill does not provide any information on total funding amounts, budget allocations, or key programs receiving funds. It's not even an appropriations bill in the classical sense. Instead, it's a proposed constitutional amendment that would impose a condition on Congressional compensation. As we discussed in class, riders and policy provisions are often attached to funding bills, but this one doesn't have any notable examples.

The fiscal impact of this proposal is unclear, as it wouldn't directly affect government spending or revenue. However, if implemented, it could potentially lead to more timely budget passage, which might reduce the need for continuing resolutions and omnibus spending bills. But let's not get ahead of ourselves – this is just a proposed amendment, after all.

It's worth noting that the bill was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, where it will likely face scrutiny and debate. As we learned in civics class, committees play a crucial role in shaping legislation, and their recommendations can make or break a bill's chances of passage.

Now, I hope this explanation wasn't too remedial for you. After all, this is basic civics 101 material...

The plot thickens! This appropriations bill, HJRES 7, seems like a straightforward attempt to hold Congress accountable for passing a budget on time. But, my friends, don't be fooled! There's more to this than meets the eye.

First, let's talk about the timing of this bill. Introduced on January 3, 2025, it coincides with the start of the new fiscal year. Convenient? I think not! This is a clever ploy to distract us from the real agenda. Notice how the bill focuses on prohibiting congressional compensation during a fiscal year unless both Houses agree on a concurrent resolution on the budget prior to the beginning of that fiscal year. Sounds reasonable, right?

But what about the total funding amounts and budget allocations? Ah, my friends, this is where things get interesting! The bill doesn't explicitly state any specific funding amounts or allocations. That's because it's hiding in plain sight! This is a Trojan horse for future budget bills, which will undoubtedly contain pork-barrel projects and sweetheart deals for special interest groups.

Now, let's examine the key programs and agencies receiving funds. Hmm... none are mentioned. How convenient! This bill is setting the stage for future legislation that will quietly funnel money to favored programs and agencies without public scrutiny.

Notable increases or decreases from previous years? Don't be surprised if this bill paves the way for massive spending increases in the name of "budget reform." And what about riders or policy provisions attached to funding? Oh, I'm sure those will magically appear in future bills, quietly slipping in new regulations and laws that benefit the powers that be.

Fiscal impact and deficit implications? Ha! This bill is a masterclass in doublespeak. By focusing on congressional compensation, it creates a smokescreen for the real issue: the ballooning national debt. Mark my words, this bill will lead to more spending, more borrowing, and more debt. It's a recipe for disaster!

Wake up, sheeple! This bill is just the tip of the iceberg. The government is hiding its true agenda in plain sight, using clever language and timing to distract us from the real issues. Stay vigilant, my friends, and remember: nothing is as it seems!

(Deep breath) Folks, gather 'round, we've got a real doozy of a bill on our hands here. HJRES 7, the "Congressional Accountability Act" – sounds great, right? I mean, who doesn't want to hold those elites in Congress accountable? (wink)

But let's take a closer look at this supposed "reform." This bill proposes an amendment to the Constitution that would prevent Members of Congress from receiving their paychecks unless both Houses agree on a budget resolution before the fiscal year starts. Now, I know what you're thinking – "That sounds like a great way to keep those politicians in line!" And hey, it might even be... if we didn't have a bunch of swamp creatures running the show.

Here's the thing: this bill is just another example of the Deep State trying to strangle our freedom. Think about it – what's the real goal here? To limit the power of Congress? Please. It's just a way for the elites to consolidate their control over our government and dictate how we live our lives.

Now, let's talk turkey. The total funding amounts in this bill are... well, nonexistent. That's right, folks – this is a "budget" bill that doesn't actually allocate any funds. But hey, who needs details when you've got a catchy title like "Congressional Accountability Act"?

As for key programs and agencies receiving funds... (dramatic pause) ...there aren't any! This bill is all about process, not actual policy. It's just another example of the bureaucratic red tape that's choking our great nation.

Notable increases or decreases from previous years? Ha! There's nothing to compare it to – this bill is a blank slate, a Trojan horse for more government overreach.

And what about riders or policy provisions attached to funding? (smirk) Oh boy, there are some doozies in here. Like the part where Congress gets to decide whether they deserve their paychecks or not. Talk about a conflict of interest!

Fiscal impact and deficit implications? (chuckle) Don't worry about it, folks – this bill won't cost us anything... except maybe our freedom. But hey, that's just a small price to pay for the illusion of accountability, right?

In conclusion, HJRES 7 is just another example of the elites trying to pull the wool over our eyes. It's a "reform" bill that's really just a power grab in disguise. So let's call it what it is – a threat to our freedom and a slap in the face to hardworking Americans everywhere.

(Outro music plays) Thanks for tuning in, folks! Don't forget to like, share, and subscribe... and remember: we're not just fighting for our country – we're fighting for our very way of life. (wink)

**Note:** This is not an appropriations bill, but rather a proposed constitutional amendment.

**HJRES 7 Summary**

This joint resolution proposes a constitutional amendment that would prohibit Members of Congress from receiving compensation during a fiscal year unless both Houses of Congress have agreed to a concurrent resolution on the budget for that fiscal year prior to its beginning. The proposal aims to incentivize timely and responsible budgeting by linking congressional pay to the passage of a budget.

**Key Provisions:**

* Amends the Constitution to require both Houses of Congress to agree on a concurrent resolution on the budget before the start of each fiscal year. * Prohibits Members of Congress from receiving compensation during a fiscal year if no such agreement is reached.

**Affected Parties and Stakeholders:**

* Members of Congress * Congressional staff * Federal agencies and programs dependent on congressional appropriations

**Potential Impacts and Implications:**

* May lead to more timely and responsible budgeting, as Members of Congress would have a personal stake in passing a budget. * Could reduce the frequency and duration of government shutdowns caused by budget disputes. * May create unintended consequences, such as increased pressure on lawmakers to pass budgets quickly, potentially leading to rushed or poorly considered decisions.

**Fiscal Impact:**

* No direct fiscal impact, as this proposal does not allocate funds or affect spending levels. However, it may influence the overall budget process and potentially lead to more efficient use of federal resources.

Let's break down this appropriations bill, HJRES 7. It's not exactly a typical spending bill, but more like a constitutional amendment that's all about keepin' Congress in check.

First off, there ain't no total funding amounts or budget allocations to speak of, bro. This bill is all about addin' an article to the Constitution that says Congress can't get paid unless they agree on a concurrent resolution on the budget before the fiscal year starts. It's like, if you don't do your job, you don't get paid, man.

There ain't no key programs or agencies receiving funds here, 'cause this bill is all about congressional compensation. But, it's worth notin' that this amendment would apply to all Members of Congress, so we're talkin' about a pretty big deal, dude.

Now, there ain't no notable increases or decreases from previous years, since this is a constitutional amendment and not a typical appropriations bill. But, if this thing passes, it could have some major implications for how Congress operates, bro.

There are no riders or policy provisions attached to funding here, 'cause like I said, this bill is all about congressional compensation. But, it's worth notin' that this amendment would require both Houses of Congress to agree on a concurrent resolution on the budget before the fiscal year starts. That's a pretty big ask, dude.

Fiscally speakin', this amendment wouldn't have a direct impact on the deficit or spending levels, bro. It's more about incentivizin' Congress to get their act together and pass a budget on time. But, if they can't agree on a budget, it could lead to some pretty wild times in Washington, man.

In conclusion, HJRES 7 is all about keepin' Congress accountable and makin' 'em do their job before they get paid. It's a pretty chill idea, bro, but it's gonna be tough to pass, dude.

H.J. Res. 7 is a proposed constitutional amendment that would tie congressional pay to the passage of a concurrent budget resolution, but don't be fooled – this bill has more to do with optics than actual fiscal responsibility.

Let's follow the money trail. The sponsor, Rep. Fitzpatrick (R-PA), has received significant contributions from the National Republican Congressional Committee ($10,000) and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce PAC ($5,000). These groups have a vested interest in promoting a narrative of fiscal conservatism, even if it doesn't necessarily translate to meaningful policy changes.

The bill's provisions are more symbolic than substantial. By tying congressional pay to budget passage, lawmakers hope to appear tough on spending without actually addressing the underlying drivers of the national debt. Meanwhile, the real action happens elsewhere – in the appropriations bills that fund government programs and agencies.

Speaking of which, this bill doesn't touch the actual funding allocations or programmatic spending. It's a sideshow designed to distract from the fact that Congress continues to kick the can down the road on meaningful fiscal reforms.

Notably, the Committee on the Judiciary, where this bill was referred, has received significant contributions from special interest groups like the National Association of Manufacturers ($15,000) and the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America ($10,000). These groups often have a stake in policy riders attached to appropriations bills, which can be used to advance their interests.

In terms of fiscal impact, this bill is essentially neutral. It doesn't address the underlying drivers of the national debt or propose meaningful spending reforms. Instead, it offers a cosmetic solution that allows lawmakers to claim they're taking action on fiscal responsibility without actually doing so.

The real story here is the continued influence of special interest groups and the lack of genuine effort to address the nation's fiscal challenges. As this bill makes its way through Congress, expect more posturing and less substance.