This might present a separation of powers issue but I don't really think so. The House has appropriation power, the power of the purse strings in popular parlance but does that extend to mandating the Executive Branch has to spend every single dime that is appropriated in that manner?

Quote:

---

Repealing the Impoundment Control Act is key to allowing the President of the United States to curtail spending, Rep. Andrew Clyde (R-GA) said during a discussion on Breitbart News Daily, previewing his plans to reintroduce the measure in the next Congress.

Clyde described the basic premise of impoundment something that has been brought up lately in light of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) gearing up to recommend cuts as "helping to save the nation by reducing the spending of the federal government."

---

Quote:

---

"You think of impoundment like, you know, the impound yard where somebody takes your car. Well, we are impounding spending on a particular topic, many topics … impounding spending of a particular, you know, line of spending of the federal government," he said.

---

Quote:

---

"We're impounding it so it cannot be further used. And that's the whole idea here. You know, if Congress provides $10 million to the president to accomplish a certain program or a function, and he can do that, you know, for less money," that should be able to happen, he said, explaining that there should not be a reason that the president has to use every single penny allotted to him for a particular program if he can realistically do it for less.

"Let's say, instead of the ten million, he can do it for $7 million. There shouldn't be a reason why he has to spend ten million on the program. He should be able to spend $7 million and save $3 million," he said, explaining that Congress should provide the "ceiling in the amount that he can spend, not the floor in the amount that he can spend."

"So that's the whole point of impoundment and the 1974 Impoundment Control Act," he said, noting that the measure essentially says that the president "must spend the money that Congress appropriates."

"And there was a little back and forth there between the president and Congress, and the president didn't necessarily want to, and Congress was afraid that he would withhold money for a specific program. Well, that's not the point of it. It's not to withhold money from a program so that the program doesn't get accomplished. No, the president still must faithfully execute the law," Clyde said, explaining that impoundment is about saving money.

"I don't think we're giving away our power of the purse because the power of the purse is like, you cannot spend more than this, but if you can spend less and be more efficient in doing it, then I would think the entire country would want that," he continued, adding that the unused money would go back to the treasury to pay down debt.

"The President doesn't have the authority to take that money and allocate it to another program, because that's the power of the purge. That's what Congress does," he said, clarifying what this means for critics and explaining that he plans to reintroduce the measure in the next Congress.

---

Repeal that act.
Thoughts?

Audio at LINK

What's your take on impoundment vs. line item veto? IIRC, the SCt held that the line-item veto was unconstitutional, unfortunately. Would the Court's reasoning in that decision also apply to impoundment?

I believe impoundment is a constitutional check that belongs to the executive branch. I believe the Impoundment Act is unconstitutional.

Jabin said:

---

What's your take on impoundment vs. line item veto? IIRC, the SCt held that the line-item veto was unconstitutional, unfortunately. Would the Court's reasoning in that decision also apply to impoundment?

---

I don't think so because of the language I bolded above. It is a ceiling, not a floor. But mandating it as the floor I do think interferes too much with the Executive Branch with that interpretation.

If you recall during Trump's first impeachment over Zelensky and Ukraine, the ICA was a factor. Trump put a temporary pause on aid to Ukraine and was being hammered for "breaking" the law of the ICA.

So if not an outright repeal, amend the ICA to so clarify that appropriated funds are a ceiling under ICA and if the Executive needs additional money for the project, they go back to Congress to get it.

What if the President refuses to spend any appropriated/authorized money for a project?

For example, what if Congress passed a law to spend X dollars on defense, and an anti-military President refused to spend it? Of it Congress authorized Y dollars for disaster relief in a certain area, and a President who knew that area to be hostile to him refused to spend it? Or a President unfriendly to Israel refuses to spend money on aid and arms for Israel that Congress had authorized?

Also, does the part you bolded above really distinguish impoundment from line item veto? Isn't impoundment an even greater violation of the separation of powers? Rather than giving the President specific veto power, impoundment essentially gives the President statutory amendment power.

What's the history of impoundment? Were Presidents able to exercise that power prior to the passage of the ICA?

I'm not pro- or anti-impoundment. Just trying to do my best to think through some of the possible issues.

Along these same lines:

Quote:

---

Joe Biden's federal international dole-out grants are, we hope, going to crash and burn after January 2025.

Hallelujah.
Remember Ronald Reagan to the rescue?

Back then, I was directing federal grants for a bloated, multi-county Community Action Agency. I was laid off when the first Reagan federal budget cuts came in.
After all, the feds were paying my salary through their lovely grants, too. The left hand didn't know -- or in my case was surprised by -- what the right hand was doing.

Jimmy Carter, good Democrat, had exited, leaving behind a lousy economy, inflation, and a bloated government.
President Reagan changed that; God bless him.

---

Quote:

---

It's way worse now of course: the American people have been gimmicked far beyond belief by Biden's grant world. I know, because I had a career in federal grants and raised millions for a series of national non-profit "initiatives" (that buzzword was born in the '70's and has served as verbal grant spending cover for decades).

---

Wait for it:

Quote:

---

See here just partial figures from fiscal year 2022 (the most recent available!), for grants in the U.S. alone, restricted to state and local governments in the United States:

Quote:

---

The analysis in this chapter focuses on Federal spending that is provided to State and local governments, U.S. territories, and tribal governments to help fund programs administered by those entities. This type of Federal spending is known as Federal financial assistance, primarily administered as grants. In 2022, the Federal Government spent roughly $1.2 trillion, approximately 5 percent of GDP, on aid to State, local, tribal, and territorial governments. The Budget estimates $1.1 trillion in outlays for aid to State, local, tribal, and territorial governments in both 2023 and 2024. Total Federal grant spending to State and local governments is estimated to be 4 percent of GDP in 2024. (my emphasis)

---

Moreover, as to the recent reports on just a portion of federal grantmaking, internationally: The US Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) alone granted international recipients $1.84 billion in fiscal 2022. (The latest publically available figures.)

---

Quote:

---

I offer below six curated illustrations of egregious grant opportunities/announcements under the Biden administration (more to come, as they heave 'their' grant bucks not just out the door but out of every White House crevice and hidey-hole):

1: USDA
U.S. Department of Agriculture
National Institute of Food and Agriculture
Higher Education Multicultural Scholars Program

One might want to ask: what does the US Dept of Agriculture have to do with a 'Higher Education Multicultural Scholars Program'?
USDA's Request for Proposal above is, in political reality, chiefly motivated by the desire for further outreach to and enrichment of our immigrant population, legal or otherwise.
It also reflects the Biden administration's obsessive focus on what they consider the 'multi-cultural' unity we are headed for with globalism -- a unity entirely belied by recent events and conditions both here and more so, in Europe.
Another point also arises: before Biden, federal departmental grant announcements stayed mostly in their own departmental lanes of responsiility, now the fields of 'unique' activity are not limited to anything other than the political agendas of the federal government. If the Department of Agriculture wants to do the work of the Department of Education, so be it. Uniparty becomes Unidepartment.

---

Read the rest HERE

Anything that gives more power to the already too powerful executive is a bad idea.

Congress collectively reflects the will of the people much more than the executive.

The outcome of repealing this would be equivalent to the House just passing a lump sum amount of money for the president to spend as he sees fit.

Additionally, while this might (theoretically) be used by the president to curtail spending, think of how the opposition might use this when they are in power. Further weaponization of the executive is not a positive.

Finally, Congress doesn't pass suggestions, it passes laws.

Under Train v City of New York, which had nothing to do with the Impoundment Act, the Supreme Court held that the Executive Branch can't decide not use the full amount of funds authorized under a statute.

Now, there's intricacy to it and you need to look at the particular language of a particular statute to fully understand what level of discretion the executive has, but there's no carte blanche Constitutional ability for the Executive Branch to just say "nah, I'm just not going to do that" and Congress has the Constitutional power to mandate a President spend every penny appropriated for something.

It's called impeachment.

Quote:

---

What if the President refuses to spend any appropriated/authorized money for a project?

---

If the President just straight refuses to spend any money for something, then I think the President would have practically changed the law and that would violate the same reasoning for why line item vetoes are unconstitutional.

The possible exception would be that the particular statute you're looking at gave the President that level of discretion.

TXAggie2011 said:

---

Under Train v City of New York, which had nothing to do with the Impoundment Act, the Supreme Court held that the Executive Branch can't decide not use the full amount of funds authorized under a statute.

Now, there's intricacy to it and you need to look at the particular language of a particular statute to fully understand what level of discretion the executive has, but there's no carte blanche Constitutional ability for the Executive Branch to just say "nah, I'm just not going to do that" and Congress has the Constitutional power to mandate a President spend every penny appropriated for something.

---

Biden built the border wall? He didn't at all stop construction from the funds appropriated in 2019? He didn't recently try to auction off the remaining border wall panels?

Nor would an interpretation that appropriations are a ceiling and not the floor would be somehow consistent with a line item veto. Different animal altogether. A line item veto if a repudiation of only selected portions of legislation instead of a full veto.

Further, in the absence of an actual true budget bill, is it really a budgetary mandate? CRs may accomplish a similar goal, but they are not a budget. Congress can tell a POTUS to pound sand when they submit a proposed budget and let the negotiations begin.

Same thing if the ICA sets a ceiling, not a floor. If the amount is not enough, again let the negotiations begin between Congress and the WH for supplemental funds.

If the president does not agree with the appropriations in a bill, the president is allowed to veto the bill in toto. The president is not allowed to accept or reject the bill piecemeal

Quote:

---

Biden built the border wall? He didn't at all stop construction from the funds appropriated in 2019? He didn't recently try to auction off the remaining border wall panels?

Nor would an interpretation that appropriations are a ceiling and not the floor would be somehow consistent with a line item veto. Different animal altogether. A line item veto if a repudiation of only selected portions of legislation instead of a full veto.

---

To the extent Biden tried to not spend those funds on a border wall, he lost in court earlier this year after Missouri sued.

The Biden Administration did start building the wall, and got into an internal fight with Democrats over it after he famously said "The border wall...the money was appropriated for the border wall. I tried to get to them to reappropriate it, to redirect that money. They didn't. They wouldn't. And in the meantime, there's nothing under the law other than they have to use the money for what it was appropriated. I can't stop that." (link)


A President not spending funds for a program passed into law has the practical effect of totally or partially vetoing that law outside the defined veto power. And that's core separation of powers issue.

Congress can give the President some level of discretion. The President doesn't, and shouldn't, have the inherent discretion to spend as little as he wants no matter the text of a specific law.

pagerman @ work said:

---

Anything that gives more power to the already too powerful executive is a bad idea.

Congress collectively reflects the will of the people much more than the executive.

The outcome of repealing this would be equivalent to the House just passing a lump sum amount of money for the president to spend as he sees fit.

Additionally, while this might (theoretically) be used by the president to curtail spending, think of how the opposition might use this when they are in power. Further weaponization of the executive is not a positive.

Finally, Congress doesn't pass suggestions, it passes laws.

---

Yeah, at least as far back as the Bush era and Congress' emasculating its power to declare war by passing those open-ended AUMFs, Congress has seemed determined to slowly neuter itself and abdicate its roll in our governmental system.

If Congress wants the President to have discretionary power over how to spend some amount of funds, then write a law that says the President has up to X dollars to spend on this and explain the criteria the President should use to decide how much to spend.

That's the answer. The answer isn't to say we don't have the Constitutional ability to mandate the President spend anything on anything we pass into law.

The question still comes back to, "If the goal or task is accomplished with 80% of the spending, should the remaining allocation be spent?"

Would make sense to say, "Do this, but did not spend more than $x." The goal is the goal, not wasting money after the goal is met.

taxpreparer said:

---

The question still comes back to, "If the goal or task is accomplished with 80% of the spending, should the remaining allocation be spent?"

Would make sense to say, "Do this, but did not spend more than $x." The goal is the goal, not wasting money after the goal is met.

---

That's allowable, but the key there is you're still fully accomplishing Congresses purpose.

It is on congress to write good law and come up with budget language that allows funds to be returned if not needed.

Hawg,

Pagerman isn't wrong. If you said "this is the max you can spend on XYZ project" then a Dim would spent approximately 3 cents on XYZ if they don't also have a floor. There has to be a ceiling and floor and discretion on how to achieve that goal.

It's asinine to completely handcuff a president to do something he finds odious and if h doesn't like spending money on lesbian Middle Ages interpretive dance studies, why should he be forced to fund stupid crap like that?

Many of you guys are missing key points:

1. The Constitution gives Congress exclusively spending authority. You don't like the way Congress is spending it so you want to give that authority, in part, to Trump. Unfortunately, that's not the way the separation of powers as spelled out in the Constitution works.

2. Saying the President shouldn't have to spend money after what Congress wants is accomplished is missing the point. The point is that what Congress wants accomplished is for the money to be spent. Much if not most of spending bills' only point is to spend money and to do so in specified districts.

The only goal and priority of Members of Congress is to be reelected, and they view the best way of doing that is to spend lots of money in their own districts and states.

aggiejayrod said:

---

Hawg,

Pagerman isn't wrong. If you said "this is the max you can spend on XYZ project" then a Dim would spent approximately 3 cents on XYZ if they don't also have a floor. There has to be a ceiling and floor and discretion on how to achieve that goal.

It's asinine to completely handcuff a president to do something he finds odious and if h doesn't like spending money on lesbian Middle Ages interpretive dance studies, why should he be forced to fund stupid crap like that?

---

So a floor and a ceiling as an amendment to ICA would be fine with me. But these twice a year grift-a-thons, needlessly throwing money out of the door has to be restricted in some manner. Maybe give OMB much more oversight, then? Also encourages insider trading by members of Congress. And one way how they get rich.

The system as it is rewards and encourages waste, graft and corruption. I'd wager 90% of those yahoos on Capitol Hill cannot balance a checkbook so placing the country's finances solely in their hands seems to me to be foolish.

So any other suggestions as to how to rein in spending, since debt ceilings don't work apparently, would be welcomed by me.

aggiehawg said:

---

aggiejayrod said:

---

Hawg,

Pagerman isn't wrong. If you said "this is the max you can spend on XYZ project" then a Dim would spent approximately 3 cents on XYZ if they don't also have a floor. There has to be a ceiling and floor and discretion on how to achieve that goal.

It's asinine to completely handcuff a president to do something he finds odious and if h doesn't like spending money on lesbian Middle Ages interpretive dance studies, why should he be forced to fund stupid crap like that?

---

So a floor and a ceiling as an amendment to ICA would be fine with me. But these twice a year grift-a-thons, needlessly throwing money out of the door has to be restricted in some manner. Maybe give OMB much more oversight, then? Also encourages insider trading by members of Congress. And one way how they get rich.

The system as it is rewards and encourages waste, graft and corruption. I'd wager 90% of those yahoos on Capitol Hill cannot balance a checkbook so placing the country's finances solely in their hands seems to me to be foolish.

So any other suggestions as to how to rein in spending, since debt ceilings don't work apparently, would be welcomed by me.

---

Somebody else suggested this: a Constitutional amendment that prevents any Member of Congress from running for reelection if they voted for a spending bill during a year that the budget was not balanced.

Or do it like most of the states - a Constitutional amendment requiring a balanced budget.

We also need a Constitutional amendment preventing Members from insider trading. All of their investments should be in blind trusts.

Quote:

---

Somebody else suggested this: a Constitutional amendment that prevents any Member of Congress from running for reelection if they voted for a spending bill during a year that the budget was not balanced.

Or do it like most of the states - a Constitutional amendment requiring a balanced budget.

---

Constitutional amendments take years and by this time are practically impossible.

Other than fig leafs for pork spending, what function does the Congressional Budget Office serve? I ask because I am really not sure which service they perform other than cover for whichever party is charge to get their pet projects funded?

My impression is that, to a large extent, that's right. And when the CBO does release info contrary to what the majority wants, Congress just ignores the CBO.

You're right that Constitutional amendments take forever, but on the other hand we can't trust Congress to control itself. It's like putting an alcoholic in charge of the family alcohol cabinet.

The problem is that the Constitution clearly gives all spending power to Congress. Most conservatives are fairly strict constructionists, so we shouldn't ignore it when it suits our purposes.

The Founders never envisaged this situation. There was no income tax - in fact, the Constitution specifically prohibited one. As a result, they Founders couldn't imagine the Federal government getting this large and powerful. They also never contemplated an organization like the Fed which serves as an enabler of deficit spending. Treasury issues the bonds to fund the spending, and the Fed is the single largest purchaser of those bonds (I think). Perhaps the answer is to either get rid of the Fed or to forbid or limit its ability to purchase Treasury bonds?

Quote:

---

So a floor and a ceiling as an amendment to ICA would be fine with me

---

I mean, I'm all on team "don't spend money when the same job can be done just as well but cheaper" but there's no need for the ICA to do that.

The Constitution already sets a ceiling on the executive ("No funds shall be drawn from the Treasury without Congress") and Congress can set the "floor" in every bill they pass as to that respective bill.

Putting a "floor" into the ICA will achieve nothing except to (1) actually impede executive discretion even when Congress would want to give them broad discretion and (2) lead Congress to add "this is excepted from the ICA" to the end of each law.

Jabin said:

---

My impression is that, to a large extent, that's right. And when the CBO does release info contrary to what the majority wants, Congress just ignores the CBO.

You're right that Constitutional amendments take forever, but on the other hand we can't trust Congress to control itself. It's like putting an alcoholic in charge of the family alcohol cabinet.

The problem is that the Constitution clearly gives all spending power to Congress. Most conservatives are fairly strict constructionists, so we shouldn't ignore it when it suits our purposes.

The Founders never envisaged this situation. There was no income tax - in fact, the Constitution specifically prohibited one. As a result, they Founders couldn't imagine the Federal government getting this large and powerful. They also never contemplated an organization like the Fed which serves as an enabler of deficit spending. Treasury issues the bonds to fund the spending, and the Fed is the single largest purchaser of those bonds (I think). Perhaps the answer is to either get rid of the Fed or to forbid or limit its ability to purchase Treasury bonds?

---

Which office has more power? Secretary of the Treasury or head of the Economic Council? I have heard it is the latter since that office is closer to the day-to-day happenings in the Oval. Or are both merely subject to the whims of the Fed?

But you are onto something in addressing that power structure to assist DOGE?

Aggie4Life02 said:

---

I believe impoundment is a constitutional check that belongs to the executive branch. I believe the Impoundment Act is unconstitutional.

---

Couldn't agree more. My thoughts exactly. It needs to happen.

Quote:

---

Which office has more power? Secretary of the Treasury or head of the Economic Council? I have heard it is the latter since that office is closer to the day-to-day happenings in the Oval. Or are both merely subject to the whims of the Fed?

---

Dunno. No clue, but excellent questions.

I hope DOGE is able to dig that deep and doesn't skim the surface by trying to just cut spending and regs. Those are important, but if all DOGE does is cut, those cuts will be instantly restored the second DOGE goes out of business.

DOGE needs to kill the roots of the weeds the produce deficits and regs.

aggiehawg said:

---

Jabin said:

---

What's your take on impoundment vs. line item veto? IIRC, the SCt held that the line-item veto was unconstitutional, unfortunately. Would the Court's reasoning in that decision also apply to impoundment?

---

I don't think so because of the language I bolded above. It is a ceiling, not a floor. But mandating it as the floor I do think interferes too much with the Executive Branch with that interpretation.

If you recall during Trump's first impeachment over Zelensky and Ukraine, the ICA was a factor. Trump put a temporary pause on aid to Ukraine and was being hammered for "breaking" the law of the ICA.

So if not an outright repeal, amend the ICA to so clarify that appropriated funds are a ceiling under ICA and if the Executive needs additional money for the project, they go back to Congress to get it.

---

It totally handcuffs the Executive in regards to checking Congress with budgeting. What's the purpose of the CEO then?

The answer is the head of OMB has more power.

Let's switch gears for a second. How about how NGOs get their hundreds of billions in funding from the federal government. How to stop that? Or restrict it in a meaningful way? Transparency requirements to continue to be eligible to receive grants?

I saw the other day where Jay Valentine is about to start using his fractal technology specifically on NGOs, tracing where grants and private dark money are transferred among each other as money laundering.

Reagan did it when he came into office in 1981. Cut those grant programs by a lot. And many of those people who lost their 'jobs' then went into the private sector, new jobs wherein they actually produced something.

If you want less government grants, then you do what David Stockman did under Reagan and work with Congress to cut grant programs.

Stockman's famous Atlantic interview/article that led to his falling out with Reagan describes that work in depth.

aggiehawg said:

---

Let's switch gears for a second. How about how NGOs get their hundreds of billions in funding from the federal government. How to stop that? Or restrict it in a meaningful way? Transparency requirements to continue to be eligible to receive grants?

I saw the other day where Jay Valentine is about to start using his fractal technology specifically on NGOs, tracing where grants and private dark money are transferred among each other as money laundering.

Reagan did it when he came into office in 1981. Cut those grant programs by a lot. And many of those people who lost their 'jobs' then went into the private sector, new jobs wherein they actually produced something.

---

Along those lines, federal agencies should be prohibited from settling lawsuits brought by NGOs outside the scope of the agencies' statutory authority. Right now they can, and that's a dirty secret on how the agencies constantly legally exceed their statutory authority.

And it's worse than that.

• Employees (especially lawyer employees) leave agency to start an NGO.
• Only employees of that NGO are those few former agency employees.
• NGO sues agency.
• Agency settles lawsuit within 6-12 months, agreeing to matters that are outside Agency's authority and agreeing to pay NGO's attorney fees.
• Those payments are the only or primary source of funding for NGO.
• Federal judge approves settlement making it the new law of the land.
• Rinse and repeat.

TXAggie2011 said:

---

If you want less government grants, then you do what David Stockman did under Reagan and work with Congress to cut grant programs.

Stockman's famous Atlantic interview/article that led to his falling out with Reagan describes that work in depth.

---

Didn't Stockman essentially give up, concluding that no one really wants cuts or balanced budgets?

The answer is to have it written into the statute with a $ floor (X) and a $ ceiling (Y). If the CEO comes in somewhere in the middle then those $ are "spent" by Congress paying down debt which should, also, be in the statute or generally law. This is if you have serious politicians who actually run our government the way we run our households.

TXAggie2011 said:

---

taxpreparer said:

---

The question still comes back to, "If the goal or task is accomplished with 80% of the spending, should the remaining allocation be spent?"

Would make sense to say, "Do this, but did not spend more than $x." The goal is the goal, not wasting money after the goal is met.

---

That's allowable, but the key there is you're still fully accomplishing Congresses purpose.

---

That is my point. Is the mandate to accomplish the purpose, spend the money. A ceiling means a limit, a floor means "spend at least this much." Even if it not necessary.