3 ms·

I disagree on that power being "narrow". Being able to veto individual portions of all spending bills in the future (until/unless the Act is repealed) is a pret

I disagree on that power being "narrow". Being able to veto individual portions of all spending bills in the future (until/unless the Act is repealed) is a pretty broad power as I see it. "Narrow" would have been something like "this bill authorizes spending $X on Y", leaving the executive branch to decide which of those specific authorizations to take advantage of in that specific Act.

rsj_hn 4y ago
> "Narrow" would have been something like "this bill authorizes spending $X on Y", leaving the executive branch to decide which of those specific authorizations to take advantage of in that specific Act. What you describe is how things are generally done, and there is no legal issue here, nor would it be challenged in court. If you are referring to executive order on student loans, then IIRC, some amounts were authorized for student debt forgiveness, but they were not in the same timezone as what the executive order was trying to spend (which was $430 Billion). I know this is an emotional issue for many people and hits their personal finances, but that's a lot of money to spend by executive order. One can even say that the fact that so many people would have their finances improved by this EO is kinda proof that it involves spending a lot of money, it's more than the budgets of the US Airforce and the US Navy added together.
- dataflow 4y ago
  I'm confused. If generally the spending is just an authorization and not mandatory, then what would be the point of a line item veto on that spending? Couldn't the executive avoid that expenditure regardless? (I'm not asking about the student debt issue - I'm asking about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Line_Item_Veto_Act_of_1996 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Line_Item_Veto_Act_of_1996)
  - rsj_hn 4y ago
    The President is not a dictator of the executive branch, he is there to execute the law, not set policy that contradicts congressional authorizations, so there are limits on what an EO can do. * First, many agencies are (by law) independent. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_agencies_of_the_United_States_government https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_agencies_of_the_Un... This is now a huge fight, as the administration is trying to also direct independent agencies. See https://www.americanactionforum.org/insight/competition-eo-further-blurs-independence-of-agencies/ https://www.americanactionforum.org/insight/competition-eo-f... * Second, if the money is given to the states as a grant, there isn't much the Federal government can do to restrict the funds. There were attempts, for example by the Trump administration to withhold money to states that don't cooperate with INS, but those were struck down. There were also attempts by the Biden administration to deprioritize farm aid to white farmers, but these were also struck down. * Third, as the job of the President is to carry out the law rather than set his own policy, if the EO appears to contradict the founding charter of the agency or specific legislation passed by congress, then it can also be struck down. The role of the president in setting policy should be limited to signing or vetoing legislation, not trying to tip a federal agency to go one way or another. Of course no President honors this ideal, they are always trying to affect policy, and the courts are constantly striking down EOs that go too far in that direction. As to pork barrel spending, it's generally money given to states, negotiated by congressmen. It's really hard to stop that kind of spending via executive order. Some of it you can, most you can't. One of the litigants of the line item veto was Robert Byrd, famous for successfully routing huge quantities of pork to Virginia, primarily by relocating every federal office to Virginia, and funding lots of programs for virginia schools, parks, etc. Here are some examples: * Bill to move FBI headquarters to Virginia, building a new office there -- spend up to $X (How will you stop the spending with an EO? Move the headquarters but only build half of the new HQ? The FBI will not like this) * Bill to build a new post office in Virginia, spend up to $X (USPS is supposed to be independent, so hard to block with an EO) * Bill to create a cancer research fund to be given to some Virginia university, that can spend up to $X. Again, you are going to tell the grant review board to turn down all those proposals? That's hard to do, especially if the review board works for an independent agency. But here is stuff that you could do more easily with an EO * Bill to provide up to $X in hurricane relief to qualified home owners. Now maybe you don't spend the full $X. You can set the requirement to screen applicants to be stricter as FEMA is not an independent agency (it used to be, but now under DHS). You have to be careful how you word the EO, but you could get away with spending less. So while there are things the President can do to spend less, it's often quite difficult to do once the legislation is passed.

rsj_hn 4y ago

> "Narrow" would have been something like "this bill authorizes spending $X on Y", leaving the executive branch to decide which of those specific authorizations to take advantage of in that specific Act. What you describe is how things are generally done, and there is no legal issue here, nor would it be challenged in court. If you are referring to executive order on student loans, then IIRC, some amounts were authorized for student debt forgiveness, but they were not in the same timezone as what the executive order was trying to spend (which was $430 Billion). I know this is an emotional issue for many people and hits their personal finances, but that's a lot of money to spend by executive order. One can even say that the fact that so many people would have their finances improved by this EO is kinda proof that it involves spending a lot of money, it's more than the budgets of the US Airforce and the US Navy added together.

dataflow 4y ago
I'm confused. If generally the spending is just an authorization and not mandatory, then what would be the point of a line item veto on that spending? Couldn't the executive avoid that expenditure regardless? (I'm not asking about the student debt issue - I'm asking about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Line_Item_Veto_Act_of_1996 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Line_Item_Veto_Act_of_1996)
- rsj_hn 4y ago
  The President is not a dictator of the executive branch, he is there to execute the law, not set policy that contradicts congressional authorizations, so there are limits on what an EO can do. * First, many agencies are (by law) independent. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_agencies_of_the_United_States_government https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_agencies_of_the_Un... This is now a huge fight, as the administration is trying to also direct independent agencies. See https://www.americanactionforum.org/insight/competition-eo-further-blurs-independence-of-agencies/ https://www.americanactionforum.org/insight/competition-eo-f... * Second, if the money is given to the states as a grant, there isn't much the Federal government can do to restrict the funds. There were attempts, for example by the Trump administration to withhold money to states that don't cooperate with INS, but those were struck down. There were also attempts by the Biden administration to deprioritize farm aid to white farmers, but these were also struck down. * Third, as the job of the President is to carry out the law rather than set his own policy, if the EO appears to contradict the founding charter of the agency or specific legislation passed by congress, then it can also be struck down. The role of the president in setting policy should be limited to signing or vetoing legislation, not trying to tip a federal agency to go one way or another. Of course no President honors this ideal, they are always trying to affect policy, and the courts are constantly striking down EOs that go too far in that direction. As to pork barrel spending, it's generally money given to states, negotiated by congressmen. It's really hard to stop that kind of spending via executive order. Some of it you can, most you can't. One of the litigants of the line item veto was Robert Byrd, famous for successfully routing huge quantities of pork to Virginia, primarily by relocating every federal office to Virginia, and funding lots of programs for virginia schools, parks, etc. Here are some examples: * Bill to move FBI headquarters to Virginia, building a new office there -- spend up to $X (How will you stop the spending with an EO? Move the headquarters but only build half of the new HQ? The FBI will not like this) * Bill to build a new post office in Virginia, spend up to $X (USPS is supposed to be independent, so hard to block with an EO) * Bill to create a cancer research fund to be given to some Virginia university, that can spend up to $X. Again, you are going to tell the grant review board to turn down all those proposals? That's hard to do, especially if the review board works for an independent agency. But here is stuff that you could do more easily with an EO * Bill to provide up to $X in hurricane relief to qualified home owners. Now maybe you don't spend the full $X. You can set the requirement to screen applicants to be stricter as FEMA is not an independent agency (it used to be, but now under DHS). You have to be careful how you word the EO, but you could get away with spending less. So while there are things the President can do to spend less, it's often quite difficult to do once the legislation is passed.