3 ms·

I don't think this is correct usage of the term "unfunded mandate". "Unfunded mandate" means when the federal government requires a separate entity (e.g. state

by jholdn 5y ago

I don't think this is correct usage of the term "unfunded mandate". "Unfunded mandate" means when the federal government requires a separate entity (e.g. state, municipality, company) to perform a function without reimbursement or appropriation of funds. Executive orders (that don't rely on special powers granted to the executive by legislation like emergency powers) only apply to the federal agencies. "Unfunded mandate" cannot describe mandates the federal government places on itself. edit: You're right, what's required is a funded mandate. Gas is too foundational to the function of the country to leave to a private enterprise that isn't (and shouldn't be) responsible for a guarantee to provide their service. There should be federal intervention by buying a stake in the industry (though maybe in the case of the petroleum industry the federal government already pays enough but I say that from meme knowledge not actual knowledge).

toomuchtodo 5y ago
I am open to more appropriate terminology to indicate an executive order is set forth with no funding provided alongside. For these orders, the President’s Budget should include requests for Congress to provide appropriations for the work that will need to be performed (the delta between current state and expected state).
- dwheeler 5y ago
  Within various parts of the US executive branch, presidential executive orders that say "do X" without funding to match are also called "unfunded mandates" - at least sometimes. I certainly heard the phrase used that way. I don't know if that's an abuse of the term or not. It is true that it's different when it's applied within the executive branch. The US executive branch has to obey the laws, but it does have some discretion on how it prioritizes the work. So, for example, it could prioritize some of these activities by de-prioritizing (and thus reducing the funds) of other activities. That's hard, because it's often harder to stop something you're already doing (there are often existing groups in place who will be unhappy if you stop it). But it's officially possible, and if it's important enough, then it can be done. The US government's executive branch bureaucracy cares very much about what the president orders, though when there's limited funding the work must be prioritized. Some of these steps, such as creating new FAR clauses & adding them to contracts, don't require new money (though their results may impose new costs later). But it's fair to say that others will cause costs, and they'll need to go to Congress to try to get that funding. But that's not insane. The attacks on SolarWinds and friends have been estimated to cost $100 billion in damage to the USG (that's probably too high, but it shows real harm). The latest Colonial Pipeline ransomware, which threatens the US east coast, is making the news. Congress lives on the US east coast. I can easily see that money flowing from Congress.
- jholdn 5y ago
  Agreed, and I see your point, I just see it as the EO doesn't have the authority to (and thus doesn't actually) require such things from private companies and not that it requires something without funding. In terms of what should be done, I'm not sure whether companies should be expected recoup their costs by raising prices, reducing margins or expect federal funding. My gut reaction is that this level of security should be a cost of doing business and not require federal funds.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]

by jholdn 5y ago

toomuchtodo 5y ago

I am open to more appropriate terminology to indicate an executive order is set forth with no funding provided alongside. For these orders, the President’s Budget should include requests for Congress to provide appropriations for the work that will need to be performed (the delta between current state and expected state).

dwheeler 5y ago
Within various parts of the US executive branch, presidential executive orders that say "do X" without funding to match are also called "unfunded mandates" - at least sometimes. I certainly heard the phrase used that way. I don't know if that's an abuse of the term or not. It is true that it's different when it's applied within the executive branch. The US executive branch has to obey the laws, but it does have some discretion on how it prioritizes the work. So, for example, it could prioritize some of these activities by de-prioritizing (and thus reducing the funds) of other activities. That's hard, because it's often harder to stop something you're already doing (there are often existing groups in place who will be unhappy if you stop it). But it's officially possible, and if it's important enough, then it can be done. The US government's executive branch bureaucracy cares very much about what the president orders, though when there's limited funding the work must be prioritized. Some of these steps, such as creating new FAR clauses & adding them to contracts, don't require new money (though their results may impose new costs later). But it's fair to say that others will cause costs, and they'll need to go to Congress to try to get that funding. But that's not insane. The attacks on SolarWinds and friends have been estimated to cost $100 billion in damage to the USG (that's probably too high, but it shows real harm). The latest Colonial Pipeline ransomware, which threatens the US east coast, is making the news. Congress lives on the US east coast. I can easily see that money flowing from Congress.
jholdn 5y ago
Agreed, and I see your point, I just see it as the EO doesn't have the authority to (and thus doesn't actually) require such things from private companies and not that it requires something without funding. In terms of what should be done, I'm not sure whether companies should be expected recoup their costs by raising prices, reducing margins or expect federal funding. My gut reaction is that this level of security should be a cost of doing business and not require federal funds.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]