Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Trump team’s ‘pocket rescission’ idea runs into GOP opposition
The Hill ^ | 07/27/25 6:00 AM ET | by Aris Folley

Posted on 07/27/2025 3:17:24 AM PDT by RandFan

“Pocket rescissions, I think, are unconstitutional,” said Rep. Mike Simpson (R-Idaho), a spending cardinal, this week.

“So, just like impoundment, I think, is unconstitutional.”

“So we’ll see how it goes,” he said.

Office of Management and Budget Director Russell Vought referred to pocket rescissions as “one of the executive tools” that are “on the table” earlier this month, as the administration continues a sweeping operation aimed at reducing federal spending.

“The president was elected to get us to balance, to deal with our fiscal situation, and we’re going to use all of the tools that are there depending on the situation, and as we move through the year,” he said at an event.

However, he also noted then that the administration hasn’t yet “made a determination to use it in part because we’re making progress during the normal course of business with Congress.”

Trump became the first president in decades to successfully claw back funds through the special rescissions process, with the GOP-led Congress agreeing to pull back about $9 billion in previously allocated funding for foreign aid and public broadcasting.

The Impoundment Control Act (ICA) lays out rules governing that process and allows the administration to temporarily withhold funding for 45 days while Congress considers the request. If Congress opts not to approve the request in the timeframe, the funds must be released.

Under a pocket rescission, however, experts say the president would send the same type of request to Congress, but do so within 45 days of the end of the fiscal year on Sept. 30. The targeted funds could then essentially be held until the clock runs out and they expire.

(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...


TOPICS: Chit/Chat; Conspiracy
KEYWORDS: randpaulsucks
Will they ever cut anything substantial?
1 posted on 07/27/2025 3:17:24 AM PDT by RandFan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: RandFan

If “they” means Congress, the answer is no.


2 posted on 07/27/2025 3:25:20 AM PDT by Soul of the South (The past is gone and cannot be changed. Tomorrow can be a better day if we work on it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RandFan

Too many hogs feeding at the trough with too much of the money directly or indirectly benefitting the members of Congress (both parties).


3 posted on 07/27/2025 3:31:10 AM PDT by Rlsau1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RandFan
Austerity is yesterday's campaign promise, we have bet the farm on growth and AI.


4 posted on 07/27/2025 3:31:56 AM PDT by nathanbedford (Attack, repeat, attack! - Bull Halsey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RandFan

You really didn’t think they’d put any real effort towards cutting the spending, did you?


5 posted on 07/27/2025 5:04:47 AM PDT by Antihero101607
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RandFan

@CongMikeSimpson

Hate to tell you this, but 90% of all taxes are unconstitutional....how about getting back to the bare bones and cutting the budget by that much?

ANY recissions are the right way to go - but Y’all got so used to spending other people’s money you’ve become addicted to it.


6 posted on 07/27/2025 5:16:49 AM PDT by trebb (So many fools - so little time...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RandFan
I'd like to just see the employee count for each Department pre-Trump and now or in the near future.

How many took an "out" voluntarily?

How many rescission packages will there be?

7 posted on 07/27/2025 5:31:12 AM PDT by Sacajaweau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RandFan
Will they ever cut anything substantial?

No they will not.

All the power they have is derived from spending other peoples money. They ain't giving that up for nothing nor no one.

8 posted on 07/27/2025 5:33:01 AM PDT by JParris
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RandFan

The he interest on the debt, social security, Medicare, most welfare type expenditures are the primary contributors to the debt.

They are politically untouchable.

The President’s trip to the Fed was to reduce interest rates and thus the debt incurred presently. That visit was apparently rebuffed.


9 posted on 07/27/2025 6:06:16 AM PDT by bert ( (KE. NP. +12) Where is ZORRO when California so desperately needs him?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RandFan

Impoundment is not Unconstitutional, the Impoundment control act is Unconstitutional.


10 posted on 07/27/2025 6:46:22 AM PDT by Farcesensitive (Epstein didn't kill himself)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RandFan

Rand thinks the Impoundment control act is Constitutional and makes Impoundment illegal.


11 posted on 07/27/2025 6:50:28 AM PDT by Farcesensitive (Epstein didn't kill himself)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RandFan

If the ICA was passed to curtail a constitutional authority of the executive, it must be unconstitutional on its face. Current legislation cannot be enacted which impedes legitimate constitutional authority of a successor administration. The constitution cannot be abridged by legislation.


12 posted on 07/27/2025 6:57:43 AM PDT by Sgt_Schultze (When your business model depends on slave labor, you're always going to need more slaves.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Antihero101607

How true. Both parties love to borrow and spend.


13 posted on 07/27/2025 7:41:51 AM PDT by Starboard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: RandFan

Note to Rep Simpson: A budget would be real nice. Then there would be little need for recissions and impoundment.


14 posted on 07/27/2025 7:57:25 AM PDT by OrioleFan (Republicans believe every day is July 4th, Democrats believe every day is April 15th.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RandFan

Not unconstitutional if put in the constitution. Keep the judges out of it.


15 posted on 07/27/2025 8:16:36 AM PDT by If You Want It Fixed - Fix It
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RandFan

Both are constitutional, and may be critical to saving the republic from spending into oblivion.


16 posted on 07/27/2025 8:17:37 AM PDT by 9YearLurker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RandFan

The first response from the deep state regarding anything that they are opposed to - it’s unconstitutional.


17 posted on 07/27/2025 8:40:03 AM PDT by No Party Affiliation
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AdmSmith; AnonymousConservative; Arthur Wildfire! March; Berosus; Bockscar; BraveMan; cardinal4; ...

18 posted on 07/27/2025 10:55:24 AM PDT by SunkenCiv (The moron troll Ted Holden believes that humans originated on Ganymede.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson