4 ms·

Congress approves the annual budget for each department, it's not micromanaging how it's spent

varjag 2y ago
It had approved the budget for USAID which was slashed wholesale.
KennyBlanken 2y ago
What exactly do you think a budget is? There's a reason the federal budget is several inches of very thin paper. The budget spells out how much money gets spent for various purposes, programs, projects, etc. Of course they don't specify the kind of paperclips the FAA buys. But they will approve or modify the FAA's budget plan which includes $X for office supplies, $Y for an upgrade to the FAA's network equipment in a branch office, $Z for upgrading some nav beacons, and so on. The executive branch can't defund or "stop spending money on" anything. Nixon decided he just wouldn't spend money on programs he didn't like, and congress very rapidly passed a law that said that the president couldn't do it, because the "power of the purse" rests solely with congress. It certainly can't stop issuing payments for existing obligations, and it especially can't take money back, which M did a day or two ago to NYC because he read a tweet that said NYC was spending money housing migrants in "luxury hotels", which shockingly turned out to be nonsense... That's why all of this DOGE crap is such theatrical nonsense. Congress, representing their state's interests and the interests of those who live in their district, via two separate branches, approves all the budgets. No matter what T and M say, no federal agency can just willy-nilly decide to spend money it's allocated by congress on other stuff.
- ForHackernews 2y ago
  > The executive branch can't defund or "stop spending money on" anything. Nixon decided he just wouldn't spend money on programs he didn't like, and congress very rapidly passed a law that said that the president couldn't do it, because the "power of the purse" rests solely with congress. That's all great in theory: in actual reality those laws are just words on paper, Congress has no interest in asserting its authority, and enforcement rests with the executive.
  - UncleMeat 2y ago
    Sure. But then the continuous narrative must be that Trump is violating the law. Every single person who supports Trump should have to confront the fact that Trump is doing this in a way that declares the end of our constitutional order and his position as an autocrat.
    - johann8384 2y ago
      I don't think they see a problem with this. My grandfather used to say we needed to get a couple leaders from GE or whatever company was huge and successful then, and let them have free reign for a year.
      - ethbr1 2y ago
        I, for one, am glad I'm not living through the legacy of Jack Welch's government management. Companies can declare bankruptcy and fold their hand: governments, notsomuch.
      - deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
      - insane_dreamer 2y ago
        You end up driving up the share price in the short term and destroying the company in the long term but by then you’re gone as CEO with your golden parachute. Not unlike presidents who will be gone in 4 years time (if second term) and let someone else deal with the consequences of their actions.
      - UncleMeat 2y ago
        There are definitely people who think that a president who just violates the law in order to achieve these outcomes is a fine thing. Those people are lost. Nothing I can say to those people will stop them from eventually putting a bullet in my brain. The goal should be messaging to everybody else. Especially those who might like the outcomes of Trump's crimes but would prefer not to have a president that just smashes through the law to get there. A way to help achieve this is to repeat, over and over and over, that Trump's actions are violating shitloads of laws.
oldandboring 2y ago
That's not true. At all.

It had approved the budget for USAID which was slashed wholesale.

What exactly do you think a budget is? There's a reason the federal budget is several inches of very thin paper. The budget spells out how much money gets spent for various purposes, programs, projects, etc. Of course they don't specify the kind of paperclips the FAA buys. But they will approve or modify the FAA's budget plan which includes $X for office supplies, $Y for an upgrade to the FAA's network equipment in a branch office, $Z for upgrading some nav beacons, and so on. The executive branch can't defund or "stop spending money on" anything. Nixon decided he just wouldn't spend money on programs he didn't like, and congress very rapidly passed a law that said that the president couldn't do it, because the "power of the purse" rests solely with congress. It certainly can't stop issuing payments for existing obligations, and it especially can't take money back, which M did a day or two ago to NYC because he read a tweet that said NYC was spending money housing migrants in "luxury hotels", which shockingly turned out to be nonsense... That's why all of this DOGE crap is such theatrical nonsense. Congress, representing their state's interests and the interests of those who live in their district, via two separate branches, approves all the budgets. No matter what T and M say, no federal agency can just willy-nilly decide to spend money it's allocated by congress on other stuff.

ForHackernews 2y ago
> The executive branch can't defund or "stop spending money on" anything. Nixon decided he just wouldn't spend money on programs he didn't like, and congress very rapidly passed a law that said that the president couldn't do it, because the "power of the purse" rests solely with congress. That's all great in theory: in actual reality those laws are just words on paper, Congress has no interest in asserting its authority, and enforcement rests with the executive.
- UncleMeat 2y ago
  Sure. But then the continuous narrative must be that Trump is violating the law. Every single person who supports Trump should have to confront the fact that Trump is doing this in a way that declares the end of our constitutional order and his position as an autocrat.
  - johann8384 2y ago
    I don't think they see a problem with this. My grandfather used to say we needed to get a couple leaders from GE or whatever company was huge and successful then, and let them have free reign for a year.
    - ethbr1 2y ago
      I, for one, am glad I'm not living through the legacy of Jack Welch's government management. Companies can declare bankruptcy and fold their hand: governments, notsomuch.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - insane_dreamer 2y ago
      You end up driving up the share price in the short term and destroying the company in the long term but by then you’re gone as CEO with your golden parachute. Not unlike presidents who will be gone in 4 years time (if second term) and let someone else deal with the consequences of their actions.
    - UncleMeat 2y ago
      There are definitely people who think that a president who just violates the law in order to achieve these outcomes is a fine thing. Those people are lost. Nothing I can say to those people will stop them from eventually putting a bullet in my brain. The goal should be messaging to everybody else. Especially those who might like the outcomes of Trump's crimes but would prefer not to have a president that just smashes through the law to get there. A way to help achieve this is to repeat, over and over and over, that Trump's actions are violating shitloads of laws.

oldandboring 2y ago

That's not true. At all.