I may be wrong about this, but I'm trying to simplify this debate in my head so I can make sense of it. It seems to me the debate is more or less about whether the legislative branch or the executive branch has the authority in determining exactly how the money is spent in a particular department. Congress funds these departments through the budget. And when congress is not specific on how the department should spend the money, then the beauracrats start making those decisions which is how we get all this crazy spending on stupid **** by USAID for example. So in those cases where the direction is not explicit on how the money should be spent, the executive branch and the president should have authority to decide what to do with that money.

A few questions?

1. In the case of funding that is not explicitly directed can the executive branch just decide not to spend the money at all?

2. If yes to #1, you would think the executive should be able to make staffing decisions in terms of lowering head count correct?

3. For existing grants if there is a contract in place I would think the executive couldn't just arbitrarily break the contract, they'd have to abide by the terms. If there is no contract and it's not explicitly directed by congress they should be able to cancel, correct?

Mookie said:

---

There is no debate. We're broke, stop spending on stupid ***** It's your household budget X 300 million people with the same rules.

---

And who makes that decision? Legislative branch or executive? We elected both of them.

JB99 said:

---

I may be wrong about this, but I'm trying to simplify this debate in my head so I can make sense of it. It seems to me the debate is more or less about whether the legislative branch or the executive branch has the authority in determining exactly how the money is spent in a particular department. Congress funds these departments through the budget. And when congress is not specific on how the department should spend the money, then the beauracrats start making those decisions which is how we get all this crazy spending on stupid **** by USAID for example. So in those cases where the direction is not explicit on how the money should be spent, the executive branch and the president should have authority to decide what to do with that money.

A few questions?

1. In the case of funding that is not explicitly directed can the executive branch just decide not to spend the money at all?

2. If yes to #1, you would think the executive should be able to make staffing decisions in terms of lowering head count correct?

3. For existing grants if there is a contract in place I would think the executive couldn't just arbitrarily break the contract, they'd have to abide by the terms. If there is no contract and it's not explicitly directed by congress they should be able to cancel, correct?

---

Congress should pass a new law that sets the rules on what discretionary spending can and can't be used for unless specifically laid out in a spending bill.

For example, our treasure should NEVER be used to subvert freedom of religion, speech, or the right to bear arms anywhere in the world unless congress overrides that for defense reasons.

Congress could give the right to a specific joint committee for example to fund these black ops. People from both parties would be on the committee and the committee would need to be in 90% agreement for example to spend money.

The passing of grant money between NGOs should be outlawed. A grant should go directly to the recipients and be managed by the agency OR be given directly to the NGO that will manage the project.

If you have an org that can feed people in Africa how many people from the agency do you really need to manage it? Some auditors is about all.

None of shell game BS we have now.

And all grants given should be auditable and criminal penalties built in for fraud or abuse.

JB99 said:

---

Mookie said:

---

There is no debate. We're broke, stop spending on stupid ***** It's your household budget X 300 million people with the same rules.

---

And who makes that decision? Legislative branch or executive? We elected both of them.

---

How did Joe Biden handle border spending? Did he follow what Congress set out?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_Budget_and_Impoundment_Control_Act_of_1974

Quote:

---

Title X of the Act, also known as the Impoundment Control Act of 1974, specifies that the president may request that Congress rescind appropriated funds. If both the Senate and the House of Representatives have not approved a rescission proposal (by passing legislation) within forty-five days of continuous session, any funds being withheld must be made available for obligation. Congress is not required to vote on the request and has ignored most presidential requests. In response, some have called for a line item veto to strengthen the rescission power and force Congress to vote on the disputed funds.

---

TRM said:

---

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_Budget_and_Impoundment_Control_Act_of_1974

Quote:

---

Title X of the Act, also known as the Impoundment Control Act of 1974, specifies that the president may request that Congress rescind appropriated funds. If both the Senate and the House of Representatives have not approved a rescission proposal (by passing legislation) within forty-five days of continuous session, any funds being withheld must be made available for obligation. Congress is not required to vote on the request and has ignored most presidential requests. In response, some have called for a line item veto to strengthen the rescission power and force Congress to vote on the disputed funds.

---

---

Might get challenged since it's unconstitutional

That's the belief, but it's never been challenged.

USA is a poor country of rich people.

TRM said:

---

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_Budget_and_Impoundment_Control_Act_of_1974

Quote:

---

Title X of the Act, also known as the Impoundment Control Act of 1974, specifies that the president may request that Congress rescind appropriated funds. If both the Senate and the House of Representatives have not approved a rescission proposal (by passing legislation) within forty-five days of continuous session, any funds being withheld must be made available for obligation. Congress is not required to vote on the request and has ignored most presidential requests. In response, some have called for a line item veto to strengthen the rescission power and force Congress to vote on the disputed funds.

---

---

Start sending the impounded money to conservative organizations.

The left will stop that money flowing ASAP.

JB99 said:

---

Mookie said:

---

There is no debate. We're broke, stop spending on stupid ***** It's your household budget X 300 million people with the same rules.

---

And who makes that decision? Legislative branch or executive? We elected both of them.

---

This is easy.

Congress and POTUS pretty much have to agree on spending money on many things.

I would love it if SCOTUS encodes this in an opinion.

If the legislative branch wants to spend money, allocate it.

If the executive branch agrees that it should spend that money, they should spend it.

Congress should not be able to dictate how the executive branch spends money.

The executive branch should not be able to spend money that is not allocated.

The end result will be less spending, specifically on the things that both political parties strongly disagree on. Why on earth would this be a bad result?