Hacker News Reader

Comment by bko | Hacker News Reader

> Rather, people doubt that they would belong to the over-policed parties

I don't think the people recording regular police interactions and refusing police instructions when stopped ever had any doubt about being over-policed.

> NSF funding from my relatives: "yes, funding has been illegally cut,..."

How is a cut illegal? Does any additional dollar in funding have to persist for all of eternity. For reference:

| FY | NSF appropriation |

| 1952 | $4M |

| 1960 | $153M |

| 1970 | $440M |

| 1980 | $992M |

| 1990 | $2.08B |

| 2000 | $3.91B |

| 2010 | $6.87B |

| 2020 | $8.21B |

| 2024 | $9.06B |

| 2025 | $9.06B |

| 2026 | $8.75B |

View on HN

> How is a cut illegal?

If the Office of Management and Budget follows a president's order to cut NSF funds and they violate the Anti-Deficiency Act, it's literally a crime. If the president orders the violation in order to achieve some political outcome, that's also bribery and extortion.

In this mafia regime it's a case of 'throw it on the pile,' but it doesn't change the fact that this stuff is wildly illegal. The president's job is to be the dumb unthinking agent of Congress and to execute the laws they pass on behalf of the people. Budgets are laws.

> The president's job is to be the dumb unthinking agent of Congress

Execution will never be as simple as the textual content of a bill, so I'm not sure 'mindless' is a useful term.

While the POTUS is expected to be a bureaucrat, functionally and conceptually that is only one aspect of their responsibilities. Military oversight and diplomatic coordination as head of state, comes to mind.

I'm oversimplifying, but when it comes to the budget I'm pretty accurate: the president can't just decide they won't spend the money because they don't like where it's going or who it's going to. They certainly can't extort the lawful recipients of the money.

I'm not 100% sure about your usage of the word "can't" since it's been actively happening. Maybe "shouldn't" might apply better to the reality of the world we now find ourselves living in.

It’s evident from the context, but to spell it out: can’t legally.

If you feel there should be cuts to nsf, then congress should do so (as enshrined by law). Not executive fiat by the president. Per the constitution the congress has the power of the purse.

> If you feel there should be cuts to nsf, then congress should do so (as enshrined by law). Not executive fiat by the president. Per the constitution the congress has the power of the purse.

Yes, exactly, and if someone don't like what the Constitution says, then you either do the proper patriotic thing and gather enough folks who agree with you to change or amend it, or you (as the MAGA loons are so fond of telling folks) move to a different country with rules you can agree with.

Sadly, that's not the world we now live in. We've let psychotic narcissists overun our government to a dangerous degree, making it near impossible to change those things that need changed, because they have all the money, power, and weapons, and they're not afraid to use them against "We The People". At this rate, I half-expect I'll see Trump out on 5th Avenue one day soon, testing his theory about him shooting someone without consequence.

My understanding is that congress chooses how much money should be distributed to each organization (e.g. NSF) each year, and preventing that money from being distributed is not legal. If I understand correctly, your table is of appropriation from Congress, not distribution[1]. I am open to being corrected if I am wrong.

[1] https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-026-02574-6

Government funding must be approved by Congress. If Congress already approved funding the NSF, then it has to be Congress that removes the funding.

The cuts can be illegal if one doesn’t have the authority to cut it and/or violates the procedures required.

Cuts must come from congress. Read Constitution.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com