Replies

The GAO’s memo cites the following:

The ICA separates impoundments into two exclusive categories—deferrals and rescissions. The President may temporarily withhold funds from obligation—but not beyond the end of the fiscal year in which the President transmits the special message—by proposing a “deferral.”4 2 U.S.C. § 684. The President may also seek the permanent cancellation of funds for fiscal policy or other reasons, including the termination of programs for which Congress has provided budget authority, by proposing a “rescission.”5 2 U.S.C. § 683.

But the deferral is a holding beyond the period when the spending authorization would expire, i.e. the fiscal year. THAT is when the President must send a deferral proposal. NOT just for a temporary hold. Otherwise the President would become a puppet of the House of Representatives, always sending deferral proposals for minor holds. The definition section of the law is quite explicit on this. When the president does not want to CANCEL the spending but anticipates the spending might span into the next fiscal year, then he would send a request to defer the spending into the next period. SHEESH!

I went and read the law and there’s a section on how many days the Congress HAS to take action on rescission requests, but not on notices of deferrals. Not a WORD about a temporary hold.

The President is NOT beholding to minor functionaries in his own branch’s decisions about when to spend money. HE is the one where “The Buck Stops Here,” not them. It is HIS authority that things are spent under, not some bureaucrat. Everything they do is under HIS direction. Not the other way around.

This is especially true where foreign affairs are concerned. CONGRESS HAS NO ROLE except to vote funds. They cannot micromanage the expenditure after that! This NEEDS to be ruled on by SCOTUS and found unconstitutional. . . Especially the part about the Department of Defense directly reporting its findings to Congress and then having THAT obligate the President to expend of funds for Foreign Affairs. That is DOUBLY unconstitutional on its very face.

But the deferral is a holding beyond the period when the spending authorization would expire, i.e. the fiscal year.

Re-read the passage you cited:

"The President may temporarily withhold funds from obligation—but not beyond the end of the fiscal year in which the President transmits the special message—by proposing a “deferral.”4 2 U.S.C. § 684."

Another explanation from the House Budget Committee: the deferral cannot extend beyond the end of the fiscal year in which the special message is sent

When the president does not want to CANCEL the spending but anticipates the spending might span into the next fiscal year, then he would send a request to defer the spending into the next period.

That sounds reasonable except for the explicit language that prevents deferrals into the next fiscal year.

It is HIS authority that things are spent under, not some bureaucrat.

Huh. And all these years I've been taught that Congress had the power of the purse.

CONGRESS HAS NO ROLE except to vote funds.

I hope you'll excuse me if I want my elected Representatives to have some oversight on how my tax dollars are spent.

You are correct. And there are an infinite number of reasons why the Executive Branch might delay a transfer of funds, or a payment. Under the GAO interpretation it seems like an Executive Branch official would be unable to delay a payment that funds had been appropriated for to a vendor.

So, as an example, it appears that if some government supplier made a batch of defective parts and the contracting officer declined to pay the invoice then that would be illegal. But that is an absurd interpretation of the law, and surely wrong.

The GAO report is just another example of how corrupt and partisan many parts of the government have become.