All the cuts are funds already legally allocated by congress.
EM or DT do not have the authority to reverse that funding decision outside the democratic / congressional process.
EM or DT do not have the authority to reverse that funding decision outside the democratic / congressional process.
So what keeps Trump from unilaterally deciding not to spend money duly appropriated by congress?
I had to think about this.
What's the point/goal of giving the power of the purse to Congress if it's actually just a slush fund?
If Congress can allocate money for the courts, but the executive is the one tasked with execution (DOJ) and decided not spend that, we are saying there is no real need to balance power.
So if there's no authority to direct spending, what prevents the executive from spending money on replacing the courts and Congress?
Congress does have the authority to direct spending, but doesn’t always do so.
Here’s an example appropriation for USAID:
> development assistance
> For necessary expenses to carry out the provisions of sections 103, 105, 106, 214, and sections 251 through 255, and chapter 10 of part I of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, $3,000,000,000
https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/8771...
If you look at the foreign assistance act it’s extremely broad. That’s how you end up with USAID giving money to AFL-CIO to fund labor movements in Bangladesh. They get three billion dollars to spend however they can creatively fit under the general categories of things like “education.” So what supervisory role has Congress really left itself over that money?
Let's assume it is all one giant slushfund for the executive. What now enables checks on the slush funds use?
If Congress says "here's 10 billion to spend on X and Y but not on Z. And the executive says "nah, I'm going to actually not spend it on X, but Y and Z sure." So Congress says "ok here's half as much so you can't spend it on Z "
Executive replies "now I spend it all on Z"
Congratulations you've discovered a defunding spiral I guess?
My point is that, having given a large slush fund to USAID with only vague guidance on how to spend it, they’ve put the ball in the President’s court. The President isn’t obligated to spend the money on the priorities career USAID people want to spend it on. He can spend it on whatever smart lawyers can justify as being within the broad terms of the corresponding appropriation bills. Congress never specifically appropriated money for grants to bankroll left wing labor organizations in Bangladesh. The executive did that and the executive can undo that. And they can see where they stand in terms of total program funding after all that’s done.
And it’ll take time to see whether he’s going to end up spending less than appropriated for statutory programs, such that there’s an impoundment. Remember, USAID isn’t going away, it’s keeping 600 or so mission critical employees.
Right, he tried that last term with the wall and didn't win in the courts.
> My point is that, having given a large slush fund to USAID with only vague guidance on how to spend it,
How certain are you that it's as vague as you claim?
>The President isn’t obligated to spend the money on the priorities career USAID people want to spend it on. He can spend it on whatever smart lawyers can justify as being within the broad terms of the corresponding appropriation bills.
I think it's a large assumption to say the POTUS can spend the money for an organization on lawers meant to defend dismantling the organization.
What statues do you believe enable this? >Congress never specifically appropriated money for grants to bankroll left wing labor organizations in Bangladesh. The executive did that and the executive can undo that.
Not familiar with the specifics you are waving at, do you have more information?
> And it’ll take time to see whether he’s going to end up spending less than appropriated for statutory programs, such that there’s an impoundment.
So logically the lawyers mentioned earlier by you, could demand a fee sum large enough to ensure the spending, and try to prevent any impoundment?
> Remember, USAID isn’t going away, it’s keeping 600 or so mission critical employees.
You don't have to take all the water away from a tree to kill it, but take away enough water, for long enough time, and it can only wither and rot.