If “they” means Congress, the answer is no.
Too many hogs feeding at the trough with too much of the money directly or indirectly benefitting the members of Congress (both parties).
You really didn’t think they’d put any real effort towards cutting the spending, did you?
@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.
How many took an "out" voluntarily?
How many rescission packages will there be?
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.
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.
Impoundment is not Unconstitutional, the Impoundment control act is Unconstitutional.
Rand thinks the Impoundment control act is Constitutional and makes Impoundment illegal.
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.
Note to Rep Simpson: A budget would be real nice. Then there would be little need for recissions and impoundment.
Not unconstitutional if put in the constitution. Keep the judges out of it.
Both are constitutional, and may be critical to saving the republic from spending into oblivion.
The first response from the deep state regarding anything that they are opposed to - it’s unconstitutional.