> 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 wri

> 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.]