3 ms·

Congress is vested by the Constitution with the power to appropriate funds, or to not appropriate them. There is currently a Republican Congress and Republican

by runako 2y ago

Congress is vested by the Constitution with the power to appropriate funds, or to not appropriate them. There is currently a Republican Congress and Republican President. Congress could & should enact these cuts immediately instead of having the Executive do whatever it is that DOGE is doing. The Constitutional mechanism still works, and would be much more effective.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> Congress could & should enact these cuts immediately instead of having the Executive do whatever it is that DOGE is doing The whole point is there are no cuts. USAID was easy. DOE just moved jobs around. After that, there isn’t anything actually being cut. Just stupidity and chaos. (And possibly grift.)
- runako 2y ago
  Funds for medical research, which our elected Congresses and Presidents allocated for those purposes, are not being disbursed. This is a cut. Congress did not approve these cuts. We did not get a refund of the money.
  - AnimalMuppet 2y ago
    We do not get a refund of the money... but the deficit should be a bit lower because the money was not spent. Look, I am not a fan of DOGE. They are far more theater than effective. But on this one small point, your argument doesn't work.
    - runako 2y ago
      > the deficit should be a bit lower because the money was not spent. The durable problem with this logic is that it depends on the President overriding the written instructions laid out by Congress in appropriations. This power of the purse, of course, is one of the main checks in our system of checks and balances. Power is intentionally divided between the branches. Is it even legal for the Executive to ignore the spending orders set forth by Congress? So maybe the deficit is smaller (although we continue to pay the same tax rates), but the cost is we have eroded a foundational piece of our Constitutional republic. We don't have to pretend like there is not a legitimate process to reduce the deficit if that is the expressed wish of the American people. And any time we veer from the proper legal mechanism, there will be unforeseeable ramifications in the future. [Yes, in theory a smaller deficit can lead to a future reduction in tax rates. Congress can address both deficit and tax reduction to take place over several years this week if it wants. That's how the Constitution is designed.]
    - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
      > the deficit should be a bit lower because the money was not spent But...it's not. The deficit is ballooning.
      - AnimalMuppet 2y ago
        All right, the deficit is a bit lower than it otherwise would have been, if they had spent the other money also.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
duxup 2y ago
Agreed, constitutionally all these wide ranging cuts should come from congress if they happen at all. Unfortunately the GOP is just a Trump fan club / hangers on party now and they control congress.
xnx 2y ago
You are correct. They have control of executive, legislative, and (more or less) judicial. They could make any of this permanent through law, but they don't want to. They don't want to work. They don't want the visibility. They don't want the accountability/blowback. We've already embarrassed ourselves by electing these clowns twice. We'll really have failed if every responsible person and accomplice isn't voted out at the first possible opportunity.
cosmicgadget 2y ago
He told Time (POTY interview) that because Congress didn't fund his wall idea and he had to take it from the military, he was going to do everything through executive action.
- blooalien 2y ago
  > ... "because Congress didn't fund his wall idea" ... I could swear he was absolutely insistent that Mexico would pay for the wall the last time around... (Of course this time around, he's also insisted the war in Ukraine would long-since be over, guided by his "stable genius" and his friendship with Putin.) The guy's a psychotic pathological liar, straight-up.
  - cosmicgadget 2y ago
    Say what you will about his funding methods but the wall solved immigration as promised. Never heard about illegal border crossings again after it was built.

by runako 2y ago

JumpCrisscross 2y ago

> Congress could & should enact these cuts immediately instead of having the Executive do whatever it is that DOGE is doing The whole point is there are no cuts. USAID was easy. DOE just moved jobs around. After that, there isn’t anything actually being cut. Just stupidity and chaos. (And possibly grift.)

runako 2y ago
Funds for medical research, which our elected Congresses and Presidents allocated for those purposes, are not being disbursed. This is a cut. Congress did not approve these cuts. We did not get a refund of the money.
- AnimalMuppet 2y ago
  We do not get a refund of the money... but the deficit should be a bit lower because the money was not spent. Look, I am not a fan of DOGE. They are far more theater than effective. But on this one small point, your argument doesn't work.
  - runako 2y ago
    > the deficit should be a bit lower because the money was not spent. The durable problem with this logic is that it depends on the President overriding the written instructions laid out by Congress in appropriations. This power of the purse, of course, is one of the main checks in our system of checks and balances. Power is intentionally divided between the branches. Is it even legal for the Executive to ignore the spending orders set forth by Congress? So maybe the deficit is smaller (although we continue to pay the same tax rates), but the cost is we have eroded a foundational piece of our Constitutional republic. We don't have to pretend like there is not a legitimate process to reduce the deficit if that is the expressed wish of the American people. And any time we veer from the proper legal mechanism, there will be unforeseeable ramifications in the future. [Yes, in theory a smaller deficit can lead to a future reduction in tax rates. Congress can address both deficit and tax reduction to take place over several years this week if it wants. That's how the Constitution is designed.]
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > the deficit should be a bit lower because the money was not spent But...it's not. The deficit is ballooning.
    - AnimalMuppet 2y ago
      All right, the deficit is a bit lower than it otherwise would have been, if they had spent the other money also.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]

duxup 2y ago

Agreed, constitutionally all these wide ranging cuts should come from congress if they happen at all. Unfortunately the GOP is just a Trump fan club / hangers on party now and they control congress.

xnx 2y ago

You are correct. They have control of executive, legislative, and (more or less) judicial. They could make any of this permanent through law, but they don't want to. They don't want to work. They don't want the visibility. They don't want the accountability/blowback. We've already embarrassed ourselves by electing these clowns twice. We'll really have failed if every responsible person and accomplice isn't voted out at the first possible opportunity.

cosmicgadget 2y ago

He told Time (POTY interview) that because Congress didn't fund his wall idea and he had to take it from the military, he was going to do everything through executive action.

blooalien 2y ago
> ... "because Congress didn't fund his wall idea" ... I could swear he was absolutely insistent that Mexico would pay for the wall the last time around... (Of course this time around, he's also insisted the war in Ukraine would long-since be over, guided by his "stable genius" and his friendship with Putin.) The guy's a psychotic pathological liar, straight-up.
- cosmicgadget 2y ago
  Say what you will about his funding methods but the wall solved immigration as promised. Never heard about illegal border crossings again after it was built.