Full List of Democrats Who Voted Against Paying US Military During Shutdown

[Valletta]

Senators John Fetterman of Pennsylvania, Jon Ossoff of Georgia, and Rafael Warnock of Georgia voted to pass the reappropriations bill, making them the sole holdouts among Senate Democrats to vote in favor of it.

Full list of Democrats who voted against paying US Military during shutdown

The Republicans rejected an alternative bill from Democrats that would have paid more federal workers.

www.newsweek.com

Their base is going to have to bring more pressure on them.

 

[iluvatar5150]

Gotta love disingenuous headlines. From the article:

The majority of Democrats voted against reappropriating funds to pay U.S. military personnel and essential workers on Thursday, in a key vote that could mark a turning point in the standoff between the two parties as the federal government shutdown continues.

The vote failed 54-45, preventing the bill from reaching the threshold to pass the "Shutdown Fairness Act." This followed Republicans blocking a bill proposed by Democrats that would have paid all federal workers, members of the military, and federal contractors while also blocking President Donald Trump from attempting mass layoffs during the shutdown.​

 

[RDKirk]

Military pay is an annual Congressional appropriation. Without the Congressional appropriation bill being passed each year, there is literally no money made available for it.

However, there are certain governmental bills that are perpetually appropriated or appropriated for multiple years. What the Democrats voted against was the President shifting funds by his own cognizance from one Congressional appropriation to another. That essentially makes a mockery of the concept of Congress "holding the purse strings."

It basically means that after the IRS (an Executive agency) has collected the national taxes, the president can spend them on anything he wants without permission of Congress or even consultation with Congress.

Edit added: Back in 1988, in order to meet the Graham-Ruddman balanced budget requirements, on the last day of FY 1988 the DoD actually skipped our paycheck. They literally did not give us the Sep 30 last paycheck of FY 1988. Instead, they moved the mid-month paycheck of FY 1989 up to Oct 1.

The DoD consistently said, "Oh, we just moved that paycheck back one day." Yes, that was a sleight of hand trick, but I was keeping my budget on my computer, and my computer said, "You missed a paycheck this year, buddy. For real."

I was angry with the DoD for more than a decade until I retired...and my final active duty paycheck reflected that missed amount (no interest, of course).

But my point is: There is no money for military pay except what the Congress appropriated for that year.

 

[Valletta]

Gotta love disingenuous headlines. From the article:

​

The majority of Democrats voted against reappropriating funds to pay U.S. military personnel and essential workers on Thursday, in a key vote that could mark a turning point in the standoff between the two parties as the federal government shutdown continues.​

​

The vote failed 54-45, preventing the bill from reaching the threshold to pass the "Shutdown Fairness Act." This followed Republicans blocking a bill proposed by Democrats that would have paid all federal workers, members of the military, and federal contractors while also blocking President Donald Trump from attempting mass layoffs during the shutdown.​

The Republicans announced well in advance they were going to put it to a vote. Another stunt by the Democrats, just like their border bill (after holding up the legitimate bill passed in the House) which would have made the border situation even worse. The Democrats had a chance to vote to fund the military, the list of those who voted against paying the military is now a matter of record.

 

[Ellesmere]

The Republicans announced well in advance they were going to put it to a vote. Another stunt by the Democrats, just like their border bill (after holding up the legitimate bill passed in the House) which would have made the border situation even worse. The Democrats had a chance to vote to fund the military, the list of those who voted against paying the military is now a matter of record.her government

1) Members of the US military may not be receiving a paycheck but those living on base or engaged in active duty around the world still have their food and shelter costs met by the federal government!

2) Network news is showing long lines of federal government employees literally waiting for hours to receive food from the "SUPPLEMENTAL NUTRITION ASSISTANCE Program" (SNAP)!

3) The SNAP program was intended to meet the needs of Americans living at or below the poverty line - this includes a disproportionate number of children, seniors and those with physical/mental disabilities!
- 45% of SNAP households have children
- 37% of SNAP households have seniors
- 44% of SNAP households have a person with a disability

4) At present, approximately 42 million American are dependent on SNAP - the Trump Administration', in its infinite wisdom, introduced its "BIG BEAUTIFUL BILL,," making this food program much more difficult to access in order to justify a 20% budget cut in funding that translates into a reduction of $186 billion through to 2034!

5) The net result is that 22.3 million families will lose part or all of their SNAP benefits - the Urban Institute estimates that 5.3 million of those families will lose an average of $146 in food support per month despite the rapid increases in prices due to inflation!

6) SNAP was never budgeted to meet the needs of federal government workers who are gainfully employed but currently not receiving a paycheck - this food program has exhausted its budget and is scheduled to close on November 1st unless Congress enacts legislation to provide additional funding!

7) The Republicans were well aware that their Democrat counterparts would refuse to support legislation that would only issue paychecks to select group(s) and not all federal government employees - they deliberately chose to exclude the majority and then accuse congressional Democrats of failing to support the nation's military!

8) The real question is why Republicans would arbitrarily divide federal employees into groups of "WINNERS"and "LOSERS" - given that all are deserving of receiving their paychecks in a timely manner and none, through no fault of their own, should be subjected to spending hours in long lines for a government sponsored food program intended for the nation's poorest citizens.

Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Trump’s Administration: SNAP Benefits Slated to be Cut Off on November 1

1.9 million Illinoisans will lose food assistance on November 1 if the Trump administration and Congressional Republicans do not reopen federal government

idhs.prezly.com

 

[iluvatar5150]

The Republicans announced well in advance they were going to put it to a vote. Another stunt by the Democrats, just like their border bill (after holding up the legitimate bill passed in the House) which would have made the border situation even worse. The Democrats had a chance to vote to fund the military, the list of those who voted against paying the military is now a matter of record.

The Republicans had a chance to vote to fund the military with the Dem bill. I guess they don't like paying our servicemembers, either.

 

[bèlla]

8) The real question is why Republicans would arbitrarily divide federal employees into groups of "WINNERS"and "LOSERS" - given that all are deserving of receiving their paychecks in a timely manner and none, through no fault of their own, should be subjected to spending hours in long lines for a government sponsored food program intended for the nation's poorest citizens.

That image reminds me of a video I saw last year (in July) depicting a line of cars waiting to be served by a food bank. They spoke to many people waiting and it was several hours long (continues around the bend).

As for your question. I’ve been poking around on the Heritage Foundation’s website and going through the policy proposals. Some of them were included in the Project 2025 Mandate but many weren’t. There’s seven initiatives for federal personnel. I’ve read through a few and the consensus is the same. There’s too many employees who make too much and their retirement benefits are overly generous. Reductions are underway.

This is a screenshot from the Project 2025 Tracker of personnel initiatives. The second includes additional changes they’ve planned.

~bella

 

[Valletta]

View attachment 372051




1) Members of the US military may not be receiving a paycheck but those living on base or engaged in active duty around the world still have their food and shelter costs met by the federal government!

2) Network news is showing long lines of federal government employees literally waiting for hours to receive food from the "SUPPLEMENTAL NUTRITION ASSISTANCE Program" (SNAP)!

3) The SNAP program was intended to meet the needs of Americans living at or below the poverty line - this includes a disproportionate number of children, seniors and those with physical/mental disabilities!
- 45% of SNAP households have children
- 37% of SNAP households have seniors
- 44% of SNAP households have a person with a disability

4) At present, approximately 42 million American are dependent on SNAP - the Trump Administration', in its infinite wisdom, introduced its "BIG BEAUTIFUL BILL,," making this food program much more difficult to access in order to justify a 20% budget cut in funding that translates into a reduction of $186 billion through to 2034!

5) The net result is that 22.3 million families will lose part or all of their SNAP benefits - the Urban Institute estimates that 5.3 million of those families will lose an average of $146 in food support per month despite the rapid increases in prices due to inflation!

6) SNAP was never budgeted to meet the needs of federal government workers who are gainfully employed but currently not receiving a paycheck - this food program has exhausted its budget and is scheduled to close on November 1st unless Congress enacts legislation to provide additional funding!

7) The Republicans were well aware that their Democrat counterparts would refuse to support legislation that would only issue paychecks to select group(s) and not all federal government employees - they deliberately chose to exclude the majority and then accuse congressional Democrats of failing to support the nation's military!

8) The real question is why Republicans would arbitrarily divide federal employees into groups of "WINNERS"and "LOSERS" - given that all are deserving of receiving their paychecks in a timely manner and none, through no fault of their own, should be subjected to spending hours in long lines for a government sponsored food program intended for the nation's poorest citizens.

Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Trump’s Administration: SNAP Benefits Slated to be Cut Off on November 1

1.9 million Illinoisans will lose food assistance on November 1 if the Trump administration and Congressional Republicans do not reopen federal government

idhs.prezly.com

None of those items are valid excuses for Democrats not voting to fund the military. They know the suffering they are causing.

 

[RDKirk]

None of those items are valid excuses for Democrats not voting to fund the military. They know the suffering they are causing.

There was never a proposal to "fund the military."

The proposal was to allow the president to draw funds from wherever he wanted in opposition to Congress' Constitutional power to direct funding, not to "fund the military."

 

[iluvatar5150]

That image reminds me of a video I saw last year (in July) depicting a line of cars waiting to be served by a food bank. They spoke to many people waiting and it was several hours long (continues around the bend).

View attachment 372063

As for your question. I’ve been poking around on the Heritage Foundation’s website and going through the policy proposals. Some of them were included in the Project 2025 Mandate but many weren’t. There’s seven initiatives for federal personnel. I’ve read through a few and the consensus is the same. There’s too many employees who make too much and their retirement benefits are overly generous. Reductions are underway.

This is a screenshot from the Project 2025 Tracker of personnel initiatives. The second includes additional changes they’ve planned.

~bella

View attachment 372065
View attachment 372066

I don't have any insight into federal pension plans, and there are definitely some inefficiencies around hiring and firing, but anybody who thinks federal employees make too high a salary for what their jobs entail has a few screws loose. They're generally somewhat under market rates, but highly skilled and specialized roles are often way under. Top lawyers, for example, are off by an order of magnitude. The US AG makes about as much as a first-year lawyer at a Big Law firm.

 

[RDKirk]

I don't have any insight into federal pension plans, and there are definitely some inefficiencies around hiring and firing, but anybody who thinks federal employees make too high a salary for what their jobs entail has a few screws loose. They're generally somewhat under market rates, but highly skilled and specialized roles are often way under. Top lawyers, for example, are off by an order of magnitude. The US AG makes about as much as a first-year lawyer at a Big Law firm.

Up until the latter 90s, a four-star general made only $60,000 a year. Actually, their pay capped at $60,000 at two stars...the three- and four-star generals were just in it for the laughs. In 1999, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000 increased the pay cap for general officers from Executive Schedule Level V to Level III, effectively raising the maximum pay for these positions.

As of 2025, a U.S. military general (O-10) $225,698.40 annually. They also get relatively modest benefits "in kind," such as on-base housing (because they have to be immediately available) and military medical care. Lots of civilian executives make more than that with a lot more benefits.

 

[bèlla]

I don't have any insight into federal pension plans, and there are definitely some inefficiencies around hiring and firing, but anybody who thinks federal employees make too high a salary for what their jobs entail has a few screws loose. They're generally somewhat under market rates, but highly skilled and specialized roles are often way under. Top lawyers, for example, are off by an order of magnitude. The US AG makes about as much as a first-year lawyer at a Big Law firm.

I’ll post what they said below.

Federal Personnel Reform: Tie Pay Increases to Truly Market-Based and Performance-Based Measures

In 2021, the U.S. employed 2.17 million federal employees with average salaries of $91,600. Bringing salary increases in line with market-based and performance-based pay systems would save $426 million in FY 2023 and $30.904 billion during the FY 2023–FY 2032 period.

The federal government’s pay structure, which relies on a prescribed formula instead of performance, results in an inflated pay system that encourages mediocrity and fails to reward excellence. Heritage Foundation experts have estimated that the wages received by federal employees are 22 percent higher than those of similar workers in the private sector.

Federal employees’ higher pay comes in large part from receiving two essentially automatic pay increases: annual cost-of-living-adjustments and so-called performance-based step increases, whereby 99.9 percent of federal employees receive raises. Congress should reduce the pay differential between steps 1 and 10 of the general schedule scale from 30 percent to 20 percent and tie step increases to true performance-based measures instead of tenure alone. Part of the savings should go toward higher performance-based budgets to help attract and retain talented employees. Combined, these changes should lead to a 5 percent reduction in federal pay levels.

……

Federal Personnel Reform: Bring Retirement Benefits in Line with the Private Sector

Transitioning to more competitive retirement benefits and giving federal employees options of defined benefit and defined contribution retirement plans would generate $51.999 billion in accrual-based savings in FY 2023 and $236.541 billion in during the FY 2023–FY 2032 period.

The overall compensation received by federal employees is significantly higher than that of their private sector counterparts. The biggest source of this compensation premium—which Heritage Foundation experts estimate is between 30 percent and 40 percent of total compensation—is excessive retirement benefits. Federal employees receive up to 18.2 percent of their pay in retirement benefit—between 11.1 percent and 13.2 percent in a defined-benefit pension and up to 5 percent in a 401(k). Among private sector employees who receive retirement contributions from their employers, the average contribution is between 3 percent and 5 percent.

Congress should bring federal benefits in line with the private sector by shifting all new hires and those with less than five years of service to an exclusively thrift savings plan (TSP) with higher employer contributions. Employees with between five and 20 years of service should have the option to switch to an exclusively thrift savings plan retirement system, freeze their already-accrued Federal Employees Retirement System (FERS) benefits, and receive higher TSP contributions or maintain their current retirement benefits with FERS plan reforms (such as higher employee contributions).

~bella

 

[iluvatar5150]

Up until the latter 90s, a four-star general made only $60,000 a year. Actually, their pay capped at $60,000 at two stars...the three- and four-star generals were just in it for the laughs. In 1999, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000 increased the pay cap for general officers from Executive Schedule Level V to Level III, effectively raising the maximum pay for these positions.

As of 2025, a U.S. military general (O-10) $225,698.40 annually. They also get relatively modest benefits "in kind," such as on-base housing (because they have to be immediately available) and military medical care. Lots of civilian executives make more than that with a lot more benefits.

Oh yikes. I didn't know they were that low that recently.

And even though it's better now, that's still basically middle-manager pay in the private sector. For the amount of resources an O-10 manages, a comparable private sector exec probably makes 10x that.

I’ll post what they said below.

Federal Personnel Reform: Tie Pay Increases to Truly Market-Based and Performance-Based Measures

In 2021, the U.S. employed 2.17 million federal employees with average salaries of $91,600. Bringing salary increases in line with market-based and performance-based pay systems would save $426 million in FY 2023 and $30.904 billion during the FY 2023–FY 2032 period.

The federal government’s pay structure, which relies on a prescribed formula instead of performance, results in an inflated pay system that encourages mediocrity and fails to reward excellence. Heritage Foundation experts have estimated that the wages received by federal employees are 22 percent higher than those of similar workers in the private sector.

Federal employees’ higher pay comes in large part from receiving two essentially automatic pay increases: annual cost-of-living-adjustments and so-called performance-based step increases, whereby 99.9 percent of federal employees receive raises. Congress should reduce the pay differential between steps 1 and 10 of the general schedule scale from 30 percent to 20 percent and tie step increases to true performance-based measures instead of tenure alone. Part of the savings should go toward higher performance-based budgets to help attract and retain talented employees. Combined, these changes should lead to a 5 percent reduction in federal pay levels.

I'm looking at their supposed evidence and it's... nonsense.

Starting here:

Of course, these averages mask large differences in pay across occupations and skill levels. Many federal employees in highly skilled occupations receive market wages. However, semi-skilled federal workers earn substantially more than they would in the private sector. Congress should not cut federal pay across the board—this would unfairly penalize the federal workers who earn market wages.

Instead, Congress should implement a pay-for-performance system with pay bands based on market signals of labor demand, expand the contracting of federal work to private companies, reduce the generosity of federal benefits, and end the near-absolute job security for underperforming federal workers. Doing so would not solve the country’s fiscal problems, but would be a solid—and fair—step toward a more responsible fiscal policy. The federal government should not overtax the general public to provide significantly above-average pay and benefits to those who work in the civil service.​

So, even taking them at their word, they're going after the lower-earners, of course. It's not the big wigs making too much; it's the low level admin or custodian making $60k in a HCOL city instead of $45k. Because our government employees should be scraping by.

Then there's this:

In the private sector, it is productivity that determines workers’ pay.[2] Businesses that pay wages below the associated level of productivity lose quality employees to competitors paying higher wages. Businesses that pay workers more than their productivity lose customers to competitors with lower prices because of lower costs.[3] Broadly speaking, under normal economic conditions, workers in the private sector earn what their productivity merits.​

This is so laughably naive, this guy ought to have his keyboard slapped off his desk. Anybody who's gotten any sort of glimpse into how comp is structured knows this is just blatantly untrue. It's based as much on executive whimsy as anything.

 

[bèlla]

So, even taking them at their word, they're going after the lower-earners, of course. It's not the big wigs making too much; it's the low level admin or custodian making $60k in a HCOL city instead of $45k. Because our government employees should be scraping by.

Yes! Most of their proposals are cuts or eliminating programs that benefit low and middle class citizens across the board. No one is spared. They didn‘t include the ones for social security, disability and veterans in the mandate. But I posted them yesterday.

This is so laughably naive, this guy ought to have his keyboard slapped off his desk. Anybody who's gotten any sort of glimpse into how comp is structured knows this is just blatantly untrue. It's based as much on executive whimsy as anything.

The man who oversaw it is in the White House with Trump. That’s why he’s the grim reaper in the video he posted a couple of weeks ago. They told you who he was last year and reminded us when he was confirmed.

Senate confirms Project 2025 architect Russell Vought to lead powerful White House budget office

~bella

 

[Aryeh Jay]

The Republicans had a chance to vote to fund the military with the Dem bill. I guess they don't like paying our servicemembers, either.

No, the Republicans don't want to have to support a bill forced on them by the unreasonable Democrats when they control the government. They would rather force the Democrats to support the better, true American bill.

 

[CRAZY_CAT_WOMAN]

If Trump and the Republicans politicians cared about the poor and middle class. There wouldn't be a shutdown. There's a lot of people that depend on Obama care in Red State and Blue States. The Republicans need to step up. And stop sucking up to Trump. Trump is robbing Americans big time. We lost huge in the soybeans account to Argentina. Because of Trump ridiculous Tariffs games with China. Then Trump wants to bail out Argentina with our money. Trump giving other countries money to detain illegals. It would be cheaper to let the good hard working illegals to work in America. With all the money Trump is waiting. There's no good reason to get rid of programs for the farmers, the people that work hard, the homeless , the heath care worker's, people that work in hospitals need people to have these programs. So the hospital's don't have to shut down. Because people can't afford to go to the hospital.

 

[RDKirk]

If Trump and the Republicans politicians cared about the poor and middle class. There wouldn't be a shutdown. There's a lot of people that depend on Obama care in Red State and Blue States. The Republicans need to step up. And stop sucking up to Trump. Trump is robbing Americans big time. We lost huge in the soybeans account to Argentina. Because of Trump ridiculous Tariffs games with China. Then Trump wants to bail out Argentina with our money. Trump giving other countries money to detain illegals. It would be cheaper to let the good hard working illegals to work in America. With all the money Trump is waiting. There's no good reason to get rid of programs for the farmers, the people that work hard, the homeless , the heath care worker's, people that work in hospitals need people to have these programs. So the hospital's don't have to shut down. Because people can't afford to go to the hospital.

Being in Texas, we hear about the cattle industry, which right now is in turmoil over Trump's plan to expand Argentina's share of the US beef industry from 5% to 25% of the total market. Most Texas cattlemen are, of course, Trump supporters, but this move will kill many of them.

Trump says he's doing it to reduce the cost of beef to the consumer, and that the US beef producers should be happy that during his administration, the beef market has been improving. But, in fact, the market had taken a fragile upturn long before he took office. Their real problem right now is the consolation of the beef packing industry (their immediate buyers) which today consists of only four companies. That's a non-competitive situation that Trump policies have been acerbating...and now comes Trump propelling Argentina into the market.

 

[Aryeh Jay]

Being in Texas, we hear about the cattle industry, which right now is in turmoil over Trump's plan to expand Argentina's share of the US beef industry from 5% to 25% of the total market. Most Texas cattlemen are, of course, Trump supporters, but this move will kill many of them.

Trump says he's doing it to reduce the cost of beef to the consumer, and that the US beef producers should be happy that during his administration, the beef market has been improving. But, in fact, the market had taken a fragile upturn long before he took office. Their real problem right now is the consolation of the beef packing industry (their immediate buyers) which today consists of only four companies. That's a non-competitive situation that Trump policies have been acerbating...and now comes Trump propelling Argentina into the market.

They voted for it.

 

[bèlla]

If Trump and the Republicans politicians cared about the poor and middle class. There wouldn't be a shutdown.

No one who genuinely cared about the poor would pass the policies they do on capitol hill. It’s not about red or blue and both are equally at fault. Welfare isn’t charitable. When you want a person to ascend you provide the tools they need to do so. We move at different paces and a generous government would account for it in their policies.

America wasn’t designed for that. It’s survivor on steroids. This is our reality.

Congress Live Net Worth Tracker

~bella

 

[RDKirk]

America wasn’t designed for that. It’s survivor on steroids. This is our reality.

Most places in the world were settled because they were good places to live in one way or another.

All but one of the original American colonies was settled to earn a profit for investors.