1) There have been some crazy theories going around so let's look at what is actual law.
2) Congress has a two-step program for spending money. Technically, the President doesn't spend anything.
3) First, there is the "Authorization" process. The House, then the Senate . . .
3) contd: . . . AUTHORIZE every department and agency to spend up to a certain amount of money. Think of this as giving your kid permission to spend the money in his piggy bank.
4) The APPROPRIATIONS process then actually allocates how much of that authorized $ can be spent.
5) So, you "authorize" your kid to spend $10 . . . but there is nothing in the piggy bank to spend. Then you put in $5 that you have "appropriated." He still can only spend $5, because that's all that has been appropriated.
6) Departments turn in their budgets yearly.
6) contd. Typically, Congress does what's called "baseline budgeting," wherein they assume a department starts with LAST year's budget #s, and Congress works up from there. (another reason for constant deficits).
7) "Zero-based" budgeting would require a dept be reviewed . . .
7) contd. . . . annually with new hearings. Actually, as much as we hate "baseline," it would be almost impossible to run any government of any size on "zero." But a five-year zeroing out would be reasonable.
8) So, DoD gets its budget:
8) contd. You have $xm for tanks, $ym for planes, $zm for pay.
DoD CANNOT willy-nilly just "move" money from tanks to planes. That hasn't been AUTHORIZED.
9) You say to your kid, "Sure, spend $5 on a movie ticket." But you didn't authorize spending $5 on candy.
10) Sometimes, authorization/appropriation is conditional upon meeting conditions set by Congress. Don't meet the conditions? Don't get the money.
11) This COULD be the basis for, if Congress had a spine the basis to deny virtually ALL federal funding to "sanctuary cities."
12) It has been the basis on which the feds get involved in ALL education: don't accept our rules on transgenders? No $$.
13) Anyway, the point is, Trump CANNOT simply "take" money from DoD and apply it to the Wall. The Army Corps of Engineers is funded, and they have
13) contd. already submitted their list of projects/payroll for which money is authorized. If ANY of that is spent any other way, Congress simply would not APPROPRIATE any further of the AUTHORIZED money til Army CoE straightened up.
14) Further, Richard Nixon thought he had a way to contain spending on what he thought was extravagant stuff in 1973. He "impounded" the AUTHORIZED and APPROPRIATED money, but wouldn't spend it.
it sat there.
15) Nixon cited Truman, Ike, JFK, and Johnson, all of whom impounded funds. However, in each case they did so on the basis of "economy and efficiency." Nixon impounded money on grounds that in the future it would raise taxes.
Likely, but not provable.
16) Further, it was subsequently concluded by courts that the illegal acts by Truman, Ike, JFK, and LBJ were not precedent for another illegal act.
17) In other words, just cuz Zero "got away with it" once or twice doesn't make it legal precedent.
18) Nor would it make it likely Trump, with a semi-hostile congress, could get away with it.
19) There is no Constitutional wiggle room for Trump to arbitrarily build the wall.
20) Actually, that's a good thing. If an when it's built, it will be on firm Constitutional and legal foundation as well as on its physical foundation.,
21) And remember, the Founders took all these precautions to empower the LEGISLATURE to control all spending.
22) We have ourselves, the voters, to blame for the legislature that has taken full advantage of its Constitutional powers.
23) Not until we have people in there who genuinely think like us will we have change.
https://twitter.com/LarrySchweikart/status/977319120965287937
Oh well.
I heard the omnibus prevents Trump from building any of the walls reviewed in the past month.
I want to see the language.
Could Trump have some other designs, not yet reviewed?
Could Trump build the wall five feet higher and call it a different design?
Etc
RATS, my last ping was referencing something that is well debated:
see #963 and #963
RATS, my last ping was referencing something that is well debated:
see #961 and #963
Appropriations subcommittees (there is one appropriations committee in each house which sets the total appropriation for the year and then divies that up among the various subcommittees (defense, energy and water, commerce etc;) who then work out the detailed appropriations. But there are not a lot of appropriators and it is a lot of work and not a lot of time.
Oversight, writing laws establishing and regulating the various departments and agencies, creation of programs, etc. is done by the authorizing committees and their subcommittees, e.g. armed services committee and its subcommittees such as strategic forces, seapower, personnel, etc.
For instance the UCMJ and its amendments are done through the authorizing committees. DOJ oversight is done by the justice committee. Spending for DOJ is set through the appropriation subcommittee for comers,justice, science and related agencies.
Hearings for presidential nominees are held through the various authorizing committees.
I wondered if it was true or not. LOL....so much for a little hope.