politics

President Donald Trump’s budget chief suggested Thursday that he doesn’t need Congress or the Constitution to force through massive cuts to federal spending, hinting that more such cuts are coming soon as Trump demonstrates he’s “not cowing to a legislative branch’s understanding of its own authorities and powers.

The OMB director said Trump has a number of tools he can use to impose more spending cuts, like rescissions packages and so-called “pocket rescissions,” a potentially illegal tactic where a president proposes a funding cut so late in the fiscal year that the funding expires before Congress has had 45 days of session to consider it.”



https://www.huffpost.com/entry/russ-vought-scoffs-congress-spending-cuts_n_687907bce4b007ebff46dc4e

There’s about 200 years of legal back and forth in between, but it’s not at all clear to me that, based on the founders’ ideas of government spending, there is any limit the executive’s ability to *cut* spending

The historical context (after Charles I) clearly suggests that delegating spending power to Congress was not for them to impose it, but to verify and allow spending by the executive

History, tech stuff, SEO/marketing, shitposting, etc. etc.


https://paragraph.com/@afaik

Specifically, the impoundment control act of 1974 is obviously unconstitutional and violates Article II, and not explicitly, but violates the spirit of Article I

Look at the text in Article I:

“No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law”

Does that sound like they are mandating or approving spending?