There are people who ought to pay the price for the federal government’s partial shutdown, which shouldn’t fall exclusively on the backs of employees worried about when they might get their next paycheck. These affected people have had no say in the matter whatsoever.

Those who do have a say are in the nation’s legislative branch, as well as the White House. They are the people who have too often landed the nation in this untenable situation, and they have not sacrificed any salaries.

That should change. The ones who decide there is no way forward other than the current standoff should go without pay as well, for as long as it takes to get the federal government doing the people’s business again.

It’s hard to imagine that members of Congress would embrace such a mandate. Rep. John Curtis, R-Utah, at least made the decent gesture of introducing H.R. 26, the “No Work, No Pay Act of 2019,” prohibiting pay for House or Senate members during government shutdowns. This one is now in its third week.

Vice President Mike Pence has accepted a freeze on his scheduled bump in pay. And some, including U.S. Sen. Mazie Hirono, have made arrangements to decline or donate their pay.

But in an ideal world, none of this would be optional. There would, and should, be a built-in disincentive for this kind of negligence — for elected officials as well as their staff, who would surely ramp up the pressure on everyone to come to their senses.

The debate over the wall President Donald Trump has wanted for the southern border since his earliest campaign days has reached an impasse, long ago losing its nexus with reality.

The president has wavered on what he would accept as a border- security program before signing off on the congressional budget deal.

He announced on Monday that he would give a televised address to the nation from the Oval Office tonight on what he terms the crisis at the border. Recently he has argued that under his emergency powers he should be able to direct the $5.7 billion he seeks for the project to the building of a border barrier, without approval from the House or Senate.

But to do that he would have to justify the exercise of that power by explaining the nature of the emergency. There is already pushback from Democrats and challenges from the media on whether, or to what extent, terrorists are a threat at border crossings, rather than at airports or through short-term residents overstaying their visas.

This move almost certainly would draw down a lawsuit, wasting more precious time for the more-than-800,000 employees who are furloughed or working without pay.

For their part, the Democrats are not signaling any willingness to deal on allowances for the barrier Trump more recently has described, with steel slats rather than concrete.

It’s all political posturing now, all about who wins and who loses. For starters, any manner of barrier the president would characterize as a “wall” likely would not fly with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who has termed the border wall an immoral construct.

That’s debatable, but it seems illogical to categorically reject a barrier of a type already in use along parts of the border. If this makes sense in certain areas it should be an option; otherwise there are various technologies that may be more suited in other places.

Unless the focus returns to finding an appropriate solution to the actual security needs of the border region, some 800,000 federal workers will miss their first paycheck by Friday.

Already, employees of the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), deemed essential and compelled to work without pay, have called in sick. Whether done out of anger or to find another job to cover the bills, ongoing sick days on this front represent a true security threat.

And if elected leaders were actually earning their own paychecks, none of this would be happening.