Posted on 03/11/2019 6:06:06 PM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum
President Trump’s administration is proposing a sharp cut in diplomatic funding for the third year in a row, even though Congress repudiated his last two State Department budgets and gave the branch billions more than he requested.
“This is a back and forth with Congress,” Doug Pitkin, director of State's bureau of budget and planning, told reporters Monday. “Just because Congress has not taken up some of the reductions that were proposed over the last three years does not change the administration's position.”
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo touted the $40 billion request for fiscal 2020, a steep decline from the $54 billion Congress provided the State Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development last year, as “the strategic, efficient use of taxpayer dollars." The plan drew immediate criticism from Capitol Hill, where lawmakers accused Trump of devaluing diplomacy when they rejected his $41.8 billion request last year.
“For the third year in a row, the President’s foreign affairs budget request is dead on arrival,” House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Eliot Engel, D-N.Y., said. "Even though the Administration doesn’t seem to get the message, it bears repeating: at a time when the United States is facing crises across the globe, investing in diplomacy and development advances American interests, values, and security.”
The requested budget reduction reflects Trump’s goal of decreasing nondefense discretionary spending by 5 percent. State would shoulder a disproportionate share of the cuts, though, with spending slashed nearly 25 percent.
The White House has given up on trying to cut funding for the diplomatic workforce, slotting it into the budget at the same level Congress set last year. But the administration again called for cuts to international programs and organizations appropriators spiked in previous years.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonexaminer.com ...
I’m not sure I understand this. It says Congress appropriated money to the state department that President Trump did not want. My understanding is the Congress can appropriate money, but that the president is not required to spend anything appropriated. I thought his main limit was that he couldn’t spend money that was not appropriated, but not that he is forced to spend everything appropriated.
That used to be the case. Now the President must ask for rescission of funds but it is rarely, if ever, granted by Congress. See Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 which changed the law.
Fedzilla always wants to grow, its minions in Congress are there to protect and feed Fedzilla.
If that’s the case, then the new game in town is called he has at least a minuscule degree of discretion on how it’s spent. Some things get slow walk, some awards go to organizations not specifically prohibited, but never intended to get money from the state department grants. I think there’s a million ways to punch back.
A line item veto would solve this problem, something congress will never agree to.
Apparently the line item veto briefly existed in the 90s as a remedy to that congressional power grab during the Nixon years. In 1998 the Supreme Court ruled line item veto unconstitutional because it said that was the president essentially creating legislation on spending rather than it originating in the house.
My personal solution, which I wish the President would do, but won’t, is the veto every spending bill until we have a balanced budget. It won’t work because there would be too much pain for Congress to accept and they would eventually override the veto.
My next best personal solution is to have enough states to call an Article 5 convention and pass three measures: Term Limits, Balanced Budget (with teeth), and repeal of 17th Amendment.
We’ll have a socialist government before any of that happens. Yes, I’m a pessimist.
Base line budgeting needs to stop. Continuing resolutions need to stop. Term limits, balanced budgets, etc. All for it. How long have we been saying this? Pessimism? What is that? /s
Good post
something constitution will never agree to. /fixed
Corect.
It is also correct the president can prioritize what laws he wants to spend time and money on enforcing.
Implement THE PENNY PLAN!
Only make it the TWO PENNY plan
Go on TV and say you are ordering each department to cut 1%.
Let them try to say that is so horrible!
“That used to be the case. Now the President must ask for rescission of funds but it is rarely, if ever, granted by Congress. See Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 which changed the law.”
Has this been tested at SCOTUS?
Slash it by 110%.
Shut it down and tax the pensions an extra 10%.
90% reduction or nothing.
The U.S. State Department...a greater collection of worthlessness exists only in Mos Eisley.
I agree 100%. Take the $14 billion difference, and give it to Mexico to build a wall on its Northern border. Hence, Mexico will be paying for the wall.
Second President in our lifetime to actually fight for the workers.
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.