At its worst impoundment defies the will of the people. At its best impoundment stops government spending on activities that are no longer justified (eg. a regulation has been revoked so why keep employing the enforcement arm for that regulation?).
I read somewhere that Trump was thought to be interested in challenging the Supreme Court ruling on the subject as it might be possible that THIS Supreme Court would be willing to go against THAT Supreme Court ruling. So it was worth a good college try.
defies the will of the people.
FR is Not your blog.
Earlier, Noted an interesting point in a morning post.
Congress authorizes spending for a given program or activity but has no power to force spending.
I interpret that to mean that deficit spending is due more to irresponsibility of Congress. No Member is forced to go along with any spending program.
The only way to stop it and the rest of the Insanity is to Abolish the 3rd National Bank, the emission of credit without consequence is what has allowed all of it to happen.
thanks for that. I had to look it up. decent explanation here.
so what’s the alternative ? Pres. Trump vetos everything he doesn’t like funding-wise ?
In the past it was not used to be “fiscally responsible.” But rather, it was punitive.
I think that if Trump is going to try to use it, he needs to have good examples and even then, the opposition will bring him to court.
What should happen is that his Congress should be working with him to rescind appropriations that not only cut spending, but authorize the elimination of those kinds of support and enforcement staffs.
He has two years to get this stuff done. And it’s more likely 18 months. He needs to start off running.
Good enough for Thomas Jefferson then good enough for Trump!
Am I correct that if impounding doesn’t work then plan B is to just submit a low spending budget and have it passed through the reconciliation process.
Seems like impoundment could help in 2025 but the lower budgeting process could only help starting in 2026?
That restricts spending more than Congress has authorized, if I am not mistaken. I do not think it means that the president has to spend all of it. Impoundment is not even mentioned actually.
Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
Title II created the Congressional Budget Office. Title III governs the procedures by which Congress annually adopts a budget resolution, a concurrent resolution that is not signed by the President, which sets fiscal policy for the Congress.
This budget resolution sets limits on revenues and spending that may be enforced in Congress through procedural objections called points of order.
The budget resolution can also specify that a budget reconciliation bill be written, which the Congress will then consider under expedited procedures.
Do you seriously think congress is acting in our interest?
We have had taxation without representation for a very long time.
Congress will have a hard time claiming they passed a budget when they simply don’t. Continuing Resolutions are not budgets.
One way to reduce spending and eliminate government programs is to stop spending and eliminate government programs. If Congress passes a budget that includes funding for the dept of Education for instance, or some dei crappola, or funding to a sanctuary city ...don’t sign it until those items are removed. By all means - let’s have a ‘Government shutdown’ ...then fire all the non-essential employees that get to stay home and are probably paid anyway....
That law was aimed strictly at Richard Nixon, before that it was perfectly acceptable to impound funds. congress would have to repeal that law and right now the Democrats would never support it.
What is needed is a Constitutional Amendment for a line item veto.