By T.W. Farnam
The Washington Post
U.S. lawmakers won't have their $174,000 salaries affected by across-the-board government spending cuts going into effect this month, but there's little clarity about how the bank accounts of senators and representatives were spared in the sequester.
The spending cuts hit every budget account, with a few exceptions that were written into the law that set up the federal budgeting process more than two decades ago, known as the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Act. Compensation for the president is specifically exempted, but there is no mention of pay for members of Congress.
So how did lawmakers' pay escape the ax? Turns out that's a mystery with conflicting explanations that lead deep into a rabbit hole of federal budgeting arcana.
The Office of Management and Budget, the agency in charge of executive-branch money matters, hasn't said how it determined that lawmakers' salaries would continue to flow from the Treasury unscathed.
The issue of lawmakers' pay has been politically fraught since the founding of the nation. A constitutional amendment limiting Congress' ability to change its own pay was originally passed as part of the Bill of Rights in 1789 but was not ratified until 1992. The 27th Amendment prevents changes in congressional salaries from taking effect until an election has occurred.
Several news outlets, including CNN and Politico, have cited the 27th Amendment as the explanation for why lawmakers' pay has been unscathed. But the 2012 election took place after the sequester was signed into law and before it took effect.
An OMB official said the amendment is not the reason lawmaker salaries are intact, adding only that "they are not subject to sequester and never have been."
The agency's report on the sequester, required by the Sequestration Transparency Act of 2012, lists lawmaker salaries as "exempt," but there's no reason provided — one of the only accounts listed in the report that are exempt without explanation.