6 ms·

They aren't. They are informing the President and the President does it either by EO or asking congress.

by impulser_ 2y ago

outside1234 2y ago
The president can't decide to stop spending money Congress has passed by EO.
- buzer 2y ago
  That sounds weird. I can understand that you cannot take money that was promised for thing X and spend in thing Y but if you can reduce the X spending I don't think there is any issue. Now I do not know if Congress has explicitly required X to provide certain thing. If they did then there might be some issue if X fails to provide it. It's probably easy to say someone is accountable for it if it's something objective (let's say building for Congress) but if it's subjective it could get tricky.
  - llamaimperative 2y ago
    No, the executive is not allowed either to redirect or to stop or slow the Congressionally apportioned funds. This is called impoundment and it's unequivocally illegal.
    - buzer 2y ago
      No wonder everyone always tries to figure out how to spend money if they still have some left before end of the fiscal year. Some individual "I saved us $1 million by shutting down servers we don't use!" Manager "Fuck, now need to quickly figure out some way to spend $1 million..."
      - llamaimperative 2y ago
        That's a much more mundane bureaucratic imperative that exists at every level in every budgeted system. But yeah, that more mundane imperative definitely doesn't help to control costs in the next budget cycle, for sure.
      - outside1234 2y ago
        Most of the US Government spending is on things that are fairly fixed and fairly known. There isn't a lot of elastic spending like this, or at least not in a way that really turns a dial.
- polski-g 2y ago
  Correct. But Congress doesn't and didn't ever say "spend $250k on transgender operas." Congress' laws are ambiguous and rely on the administrative state to dish out money to a specific cause. The law probably said something like "promote health policy in the Europe". The Trump administration will repurpose those funds to things more aligned with GOP preferences.
kemayo 2y ago
President doesn't have authority to shut them down by EO either. Congress does, yes. (It's one of those "power of the purse" things. If Congress has created an organization and funded it, the executive is required to spend that money on it.)
- rastignack 2y ago
  Then, the president is acting illegally, and not doge ?
- lupusreal 2y ago
  That would make the executive orders illegal, or at best invalid. It wouldn't make DOGE illegal. DOGE is private citizens giving their opinions about how the government should work to a politician who happens to be listening to them (for now, but probably not long given that politician's track record for getting into feuds with former allies.) Citizens voicing their opinions about the government is clear cut First Ammendment activity, of precisely the sort the first ammendment was intended to protect in the first place. People need to get a grip.
  - jacobr1 2y ago
    > DOGE is private citizens giving their opinions about how the government should work to a politician who happens to be listening to them No, DOGE was formalized as a division of the US Digital Service. Employees of DOGE are federal government employees. Some of them, like Elon are "Special Government Employees" which is a short-term category and avoids certain disclosures. Creating DOGE and enabling them to have access to certain IT systems is legal ... but what data, how much control they have, what they can demand of other departments is subject to all sorts of laws and controls which may or may not be being followed at the moment.
    - lupusreal 2y ago
      Okay, so these citizens are federal employees. Guess what, the First Ammendment still gives them the right to tell politicians what they should be doing.
zzzeek 2y ago
neither have happened and virtually all employees of USAID have been put on leave at the orders of the acting deputy administrator. (via CNN) - It is not legal for the president to unilaterally “abolish, move, or consolidate USAID”. He needs to have congressional authorization to do so.
- impulser_ 2y ago
  The current acting deputy administrator is Marco Rubio who the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State works directly for the President. The President hasn't shut down the USAID yet. They just froze it with the intent to abolish it.

They aren't. They are informing the President and the President does it either by EO or asking congress.

outside1234 2y ago

The president can't decide to stop spending money Congress has passed by EO.

buzer 2y ago
That sounds weird. I can understand that you cannot take money that was promised for thing X and spend in thing Y but if you can reduce the X spending I don't think there is any issue. Now I do not know if Congress has explicitly required X to provide certain thing. If they did then there might be some issue if X fails to provide it. It's probably easy to say someone is accountable for it if it's something objective (let's say building for Congress) but if it's subjective it could get tricky.
- llamaimperative 2y ago
  No, the executive is not allowed either to redirect or to stop or slow the Congressionally apportioned funds. This is called impoundment and it's unequivocally illegal.
  - buzer 2y ago
    No wonder everyone always tries to figure out how to spend money if they still have some left before end of the fiscal year. Some individual "I saved us $1 million by shutting down servers we don't use!" Manager "Fuck, now need to quickly figure out some way to spend $1 million..."
    - llamaimperative 2y ago
      That's a much more mundane bureaucratic imperative that exists at every level in every budgeted system. But yeah, that more mundane imperative definitely doesn't help to control costs in the next budget cycle, for sure.
    - outside1234 2y ago
      Most of the US Government spending is on things that are fairly fixed and fairly known. There isn't a lot of elastic spending like this, or at least not in a way that really turns a dial.
polski-g 2y ago
Correct. But Congress doesn't and didn't ever say "spend $250k on transgender operas." Congress' laws are ambiguous and rely on the administrative state to dish out money to a specific cause. The law probably said something like "promote health policy in the Europe". The Trump administration will repurpose those funds to things more aligned with GOP preferences.

kemayo 2y ago

President doesn't have authority to shut them down by EO either. Congress does, yes. (It's one of those "power of the purse" things. If Congress has created an organization and funded it, the executive is required to spend that money on it.)

rastignack 2y ago
Then, the president is acting illegally, and not doge ?
lupusreal 2y ago
That would make the executive orders illegal, or at best invalid. It wouldn't make DOGE illegal. DOGE is private citizens giving their opinions about how the government should work to a politician who happens to be listening to them (for now, but probably not long given that politician's track record for getting into feuds with former allies.) Citizens voicing their opinions about the government is clear cut First Ammendment activity, of precisely the sort the first ammendment was intended to protect in the first place. People need to get a grip.
- jacobr1 2y ago
  > DOGE is private citizens giving their opinions about how the government should work to a politician who happens to be listening to them No, DOGE was formalized as a division of the US Digital Service. Employees of DOGE are federal government employees. Some of them, like Elon are "Special Government Employees" which is a short-term category and avoids certain disclosures. Creating DOGE and enabling them to have access to certain IT systems is legal ... but what data, how much control they have, what they can demand of other departments is subject to all sorts of laws and controls which may or may not be being followed at the moment.
  - lupusreal 2y ago
    Okay, so these citizens are federal employees. Guess what, the First Ammendment still gives them the right to tell politicians what they should be doing.

zzzeek 2y ago

neither have happened and virtually all employees of USAID have been put on leave at the orders of the acting deputy administrator. (via CNN) - It is not legal for the president to unilaterally “abolish, move, or consolidate USAID”. He needs to have congressional authorization to do so.

impulser_ 2y ago
The current acting deputy administrator is Marco Rubio who the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State works directly for the President. The President hasn't shut down the USAID yet. They just froze it with the intent to abolish it.