House Republicans moved to reduce Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg’s salary to $1, as lawmakers debate spending bills ahead of the government funding deadline next week. The salary cut for B…

House Republicans moved to reduce Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg’s salary to $1, as lawmakers debate spending bills ahead of the government funding deadline next week.

The salary cut for Buttigieg was put forth by Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) and adopted by voice vote as an amendment to the 2024 Transpiration and Housing and Urban Development spending bill.

“Pete Buttigieg doesn’t do his job. It’s all about fake photo ops and taxpayer-funded private jet trip to accept LGBTQ awards for him,” Green posted on X, the platform formerly known as Twitter. “I’m happy my amendment passed, but he doesn’t deserve a single penny.”

The underlying bill needs to be approved by the full House and is unlikely to be approved by the Senate.

  • PizzasDontWearCapes@sh.itjust.works
    43·
    1 year ago

    Counter with an amendment that also reduces Greene and co’s salary to $1

    Or to make a stronger point, make it 50% of their current salary so their supporters know how much money they make

    • dhork@lemmy.worldEnglish
      18·
      1 year ago

      Sadly, this isn’t possible, because Congressmen have their salaries guaranteed in the Constitution, and the people who oppose her positions have actually read it and take its limitations on their power seriously.

      • logicbomb@lemmy.world
        11·
        1 year ago

        It’s not sad in general. It’s a good thing to pay our Congresspersons, because the alternative is that only rich people can afford to be Congresspeople.

      • SheDiceToday@eslemmy.es
        3·
        1 year ago

        But taxes aren’t constrained…so make an amendment to tax representatives from northern Georgia at 90% of their pay. Or something. You can’t target individual people, per the constitution, but that should be ‘general’ enough to get around it, aye?

        • dhork@lemmy.worldEnglish
          2·
          1 year ago

          No, but the Constitution does specify that they must be paid. And the 27th amendment says their pay is fixed for the term, and any legislation to change their salary can’t go into effect until after the next Federal election.

          • Doc Avid Mornington@midwest.socialEnglish
            1·
            1 year ago

            Ah yeah, I forgot about the 27th amendment, good point. So the worst they could theoretically do is cut her pay drastically, starting in 2025, assuming she still has her seat. But it’s all just posturing, nothing stops Congress from considering and voting on a bill that isn’t constitutional, and neither version of the bill will pass.