Impoundment, For Lack Of A Better Word, Is Good

If you’ve never heard the word “impoundment” before, you will – often – next year. And for good reason. Because this battle will determine whether government spending can ever be brought under control.

Last year, President-elect Donald Trump said that “For 200 years under our system of government, it was undisputed that the president had the constitutional power to stop unnecessary spending through what is known as impoundment.”

Since he’s been elected, he’s given every indication that he intends to reclaim this power. Indeed, the success of his “Department of Government Efficiency” run by Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy depends heavily on Trump being able to spend less than Congress appropriates.

This, of course, has the left freaking out. The grumblers say that Trump’s refusing to spend money Congress has authorized would be “unprecedented” and “a devastating power grab” that would “flip the power of the purse” and give Trump “authoritarian control” over the government.

There are just two big problems with these assertions. The first is that presidential impoundment dates back to the very beginnings of the nation. The second is that letting presidents impound funds appears to have been an effective tool for keeping federal spending under control.

Impoundment is just a jargony word for instances where Congress appropriates a certain amount of money for a program in a given year, and the president refuses to spend all of it.

A research paper published by the Center for Renewing America (CRA) provides a long and detailed historical account of impoundment, including its roots in English law and its use by presidents – Democrats and Republicans – throughout the nation’s history.

Herbert Hoover, the CRA paper notes, “vigorously employed the impoundment power to decrease government spending in the midst of the Great Depression.” FDR “refused to spend more than $500 million in public works funds on policy grounds.” Lyndon Johnson would “withhold appropriations that exceeded the president’s budget.”

Even Trump-hating CNN admits that impoundment “occurred frequently in U.S. history, beginning in 1803 when Thomas Jefferson declined to buy gunboats to patrol the Mississippi as he negotiated the Louisiana Purchase with France.”

While the Constitution forbids the president from spending more money than Congress has appropriated, there’s nothing in the Constitution that forbids the president from spending less.

And lo and behold, the nation survived and thrived for nearly 200 years while the president had this authority.

It wasn’t until 1974 that Congress stripped the president’s ability to impound funds. That year, lawmakers used the Watergate scandal and President Richard Nixon’s aggressive use of impoundment as an excuse to pass the Impoundment Control Act. The law also created the Congressional Budget Office and the budget committees in the House and Senate, and “reasserted Congress’ power of the purse,” according to Democrats on the House Budget Committee.

Well, what happened after Congress reasserted its power? Look at the two charts below.

The first shows annual budget deficits as a share of GDP. The second shows the national debt as a share of GDP.

What do you see? In 1974, significant annual deficits became the norm. From 1947 to 1974, the federal deficit averaged 0.4% of GDP. Since 1974, deficits have averaged 3.8% of GDP. They’ve been close to 6% for President Joe Biden’s entire time in office. (Negative numbers in the chart are years when the government ran a surplus.)

The nation’s debt, which had been trending downward as World War II debts were paid off, suddenly stopped declining in 1974. It’s been climbing fairly steadily ever since.

Trump is likely to challenge the Impoundment Control Act as unconstitutional. We hope he does, and that he succeeds, or at the very least forces Congress to fix that law.

Because letting Congress have unlimited authority to set a floor on spending has been a fiscal disaster.

Thank you for referencing that article MtnClimber.

"If you’ve never heard the word “impoundment” before, you will – often – next year. And for good reason. Because this battle will determine whether government spending can ever be brought under control [??? emphasis added]."

FR: Never Accept the Premise of Your Opponent’s Argument

Spending should NEVER have gone out of control under our constitutionally limited power (hint) federal government imo.

In fact, corrupt federal government abuse of it's repealable (hint) 16th Amendment powers (16A; direct taxes) has only made the POTUS power of impoundment all the more urgent. So PDJT is on the right track as usual.

From related threads ...

In fact, if PDJT really wants to uphold his oath to protect and defend the Constitution, Musk and Ramaswamy have effectively been tasked with supporting PDJT to lead the states to put a stop to unconstitutional federal taxes by effectively "seceding" ALL the states from the unconstitutionally big federal government by repealing the 16th and 17th Amendments (17A; popular voting for federal senators).

More specifically, post-17A lawmakers long ago discovered that they could promise voters who have never really studied the fed's constitutionally limited powers every unconstitutional federal spending program under the sun to get themselves elected, voters ultimately taking the bait and electing them.

Once in office, crook lawmakers pass legislation to establish the unconstitutional, 16A-enabled spending programs that they had promised low-information voters on the campaign trail with no concern for national debt.

In other words, 16A has ultimately become the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow for organized crime.

"16th Amendment: The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived [emphasis added], without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."
"Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States." —Justice John Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
“If the tax be not proposed for the common defence, or general welfare, but for other objects, wholly extraneous, (as for instance, for propagating Mahometanism among the Turks, or giving aids and subsidies to a foreign nation, to build palaces for its kings, or erect monuments to its heroes,) it would be wholly indefensible upon constitutional principles [emphases added].” — Justice Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution 2 (1833).
The congressional record shows that Rep. John Bingham, a constitutional lawmaker, had clarified the federal government's constitutionally limited powers as follows.
”Simply this, that the care of the property, the liberty, and the life of the citizen, under the solemn sanction of an oath imposed by your Constitution, is in the States and not in the federal government [emphases added]. I have sought to effect no change in that respect in the Constitution of the country.” —John Bingham, Congressional. Globe. 1866, page 1292 (see top half of third column)
“Cherish, therefore, the spirit of our people, and keep alive their attention. If once they become inattentive to the public affairs, you and I, and Congress and Assemblies, judges and governors, shall all become wolves [emphasis added]. It seems to be the law of our general nature.” - Thomas Jefferson (Letter to Edward Carrington January 16, 1787)
Pelosi: "We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it." (non-FR; 6 sec.)
Illegals are indeed getting immediate Social Security, contrary to Democrat claims (7.11.24)
Arizona Sheriff: Illegal Immigrants Being Handed $5,000 Visa Gift Cards, Cell Phones, And Plane Tickets (12.7.23)
Democrats [and RINOs] Are Terrified Of An Educated And Informed Public (3.12.23)

Section 3 of 14th Amendment needs to be enforced on Congress for open rebellion against the federal government's constitutionally limited powers imo.

"14th Amendment, Section 3: No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability."

If PDJT feels that the federal government should keep some of the powers that it has stolen from the states, then he needs to lead the states to appropriately amend the Constitution for those powers.

We'll call those new constitutional powers for Congress the Trump Amendments.

Ultimately, after 16&17A have been repealed and unconstitutional federal taxes stopped, Congress returned to its constitutional Article I, Section 8-limited power cage, the states need to use their new revenues (state taxes go up) to experiment with their 10th Amendment (10A)-protected power as constitutional drafters had intended.

In fact, not only does the congressional record show that Rep. John Bingham, a constitutional lawmaker, had emphasized the 10A power of the states to serve the people, but Justice Louis Brandeis had introduced his "laboratories of democracy" metaphor to likewise emphasize power of the people to experiment with social spending.

”Simply this, that the care of the property, the liberty, and the life of the citizen, under the solemn sanction of an oath imposed by your Constitution, is in the States and not in the federal government [emphases added]. I have sought to effect no change in that respect in the Constitution of the country.” —John Bingham, Congressional. Globe. 1866, page 1292 (see top half of third column)
"[...] a single courageous State may, if its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory; and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country." —Justice Louis Brandeis, Laboratories of Democracy.

Awareness - How the national debt has increased and why President-elect Trump wishes to return to the historical precedent of Presidential “Impoundment”
“ Last year, President-elect Donald Trump said that “For 200 years under our system of government, it was undisputed that the president had the constitutional power
to stop unnecessary spending through what is known as impoundment.”
Ever since Congress had the ability to spend, .. they consistently over-spent since 1974, as there were no controls over spending !! .

(From the article):”If you’ve never heard the word “impoundment” before, you will – often – next year. And for good reason.
Because this battle will determine whether government spending can ever be brought under control.”

”Last year, President-elect Donald Trump said that “For 200 years under our system of government,
it was undisputed that the president had the constitutional power to stop unnecessary spending through what is known as impoundment.”

”Since he’s been elected, he’s given every indication that he intends to reclaim this power.
Indeed, the success of his “Department of Government Efficiency” run by Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy depends heavily on Trump being able to spend less than Congress appropriates. “

”This, of course, has the left freaking out.
The grumblers say that Trump’s refusing to spend money Congress has authorized would be “unprecedented”
and “a devastating power grab” that would “flip the power of the purse” and give Trump “authoritarian control” over the government.”

”There are just two big problems with these assertions.
The first is that presidential impoundment dates back to the very beginnings of the nation.
The second is that letting presidents impound funds appears to have been an effective tool for keeping federal spending under control.”

” While the Constitution forbids the president from spending more money than Congress has appropriated,
there’s nothing in the Constitution that forbids the president from spending less.” (Emphasis Mine)

“ Well, what happened after Congress reasserted its power?

” The first shows annual budget deficits as a share of GDP.
The second shows the national debt as a share of GDP. “
( The charts of debt appear on the original article and at the source article)
and are well worth the viewing in order to understand the precedent of Presidential need for “Impundment”, and installing controls to prevent "over-spending" into the national debt.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.