Line-Item Veto.

[Aloha Hoosier]

What President Trump and Musk are doing with spending items is very much like the Line-Item Veto that was in the Republican Contract with America in the 1990s and passed into law in 1996. I supported it, but it was eventually deemed unconstitutional. Seems like the current administration is trying to implement it by another name.

 

[hookyIU1990]

Broad brush stroke here, but if Congress doesn't allocate funds specifically, doesn't that give the executive branch a lot of leeway in distributing those funds?

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

Broad brush stroke here, but if Congress doesn't allocate funds specifically, doesn't that give the executive branch a lot of leeway in distributing those funds?

Could, but that has to be in the legislation. Congress, specifically the House, controls the purse strings.

 

[hookyIU1990]

Could, but that has to be in the legislation. Congress, specifically the House, controls the purse strings.

I have a hard time believing there's a line item in any legislation for $70k for a musical in Ireland or $30k for comic books in Peru though as examples.

Of course when something is 1k+ pages long, written by lobbyists and voted on within 48hrs of being sent to members, I could be wrong.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

What President Trump and Musk are doing with spending items is very much like the Line-Item Veto that was in the Republican Contract with America in the 1990s and passed into law in 1996. I supported it, but it was eventually deemed unconstitutional. Seems like the current administration is trying to implement it by another name.

Yeah, impoundment.

I think Trump is wanting SCOTUS to review the constitutionality of the Impoundment Control Act of 1974.

I don’t think he’ll win that one.

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

I have a hard time believing there's a line item in any legislation for $70k for a musical in Ireland or $30k for comic books in Peru though as examples.

Of course when something is 1k+ pages long, written by lobbyists and voted on within 48hrs of being sent to members, I could be wrong.

No, that wouldn't be so specific. Congress delegates decision making to departments and agencies about most of the specifics. But the broad category of spending is in the legislation. A lot of the specifics are available on government websites.

 

[The Original Happy Goat]

Broad brush stroke here, but if Congress doesn't allocate funds specifically, doesn't that give the executive branch a lot of leeway in distributing those funds?

There are different levels here.

First, there are specific earmarks, where Congress says spend X dollars on program A. A lot of the big ticket purchases are done this way. For example, Congress might earmark a set number of funds for a specific weapons system, or for a particular infrastructure program. The President has no choice. He has to spend that money.

Second, there are more generic allocations which aren't earmarked for specific recipients, but still specify an amount of funding that must go to a particular initiative. The President (or the particular agency in charge of the funds) will have discretion on exactly where to spend them, but they will still have to spend them. So, if Congress says "Spend $150M on bridges in Iowa," the Executive will get to decide which bridges get built and where, but they do have to spend the full $150M, and it has to go to bridges in Iowa. I believe this is the kind of allocation for which the Impoundment Control Act gives the President a method for requesting a drawdown of allocated funds, but it's only a request, and Congress has to approve it. If they don't, the funds must be spent.

Third, Congress has the authority to authorize but not require certain funding for some things. So, they might say, "Hey, Prez, you are allowed to spend up to $150M on research for new contraceptives for gerbils." The Executive isn't required to spend that money. The $150M is a limit, not a floor. Congress very rarely allocates funds in this way, but if they did, the President would in fact have the power to simply ignore it and not spend that money at all.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

No, that wouldn't be so specific. Congress delegates decision making to departments and agencies about most of the specifics. But the broad category of spending is in the legislation. A lot of the specifics are available on government websites.

The SCOTUS opinion in Loper Bright (overruling Chevron) will limit at least some of the wild agency independence in spending decisions.

 

[jet812]

There are different levels here.

First, there are specific earmarks, where Congress says spend X dollars on program A. A lot of the big ticket purchases are done this way. For example, Congress might earmark a set number of funds for a specific weapons system, or for a particular infrastructure program. The President has no choice. He has to spend that money.

Second, there are more generic allocations which aren't earmarked for specific recipients, but still specify an amount of funding that must go to a particular initiative. The President (or the particular agency in charge of the funds) will have discretion on exactly where to spend them, but they will still have to spend them. So, if Congress says "Spend $150M on bridges in Iowa," the Executive will get to decide which bridges get built and where, but they do have to spend the full $150M, and it has to go to bridges in Iowa. I believe this is the kind of allocation for which the Impoundment Control Act gives the President a method for requesting a drawdown of allocated funds, but it's only a request, and Congress has to approve it. If they don't, the funds must be spent.

Third, Congress has the authority to authorize but not require certain funding for some things. So, they might say, "Hey, Prez, you are allowed to spend up to $150M on research for new contraceptives for gerbils." The Executive isn't required to spend that money. The $150M is a limit, not a floor. Congress very rarely allocates funds in this way, but if they did, the President would in fact have the power to simply ignore it and not spend that money at all.

So does USAID funding fall into category 3?

 

[The Original Happy Goat]

So does USAID funding fall into category 3?

I don't think so. Maybe some of it does, but I think most of it is mandatory.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

I don't think so. Maybe some of it does, but I think most of it is mandatory.

It is only mandatory if Congress enforces it, which Congress won't.

 

[UncleMark]

Line item veto sounds good until you get to the actual consequences of implementing it. It totally breaks the machinery of legislating -- all the give and take, compromising, logrolling, back scratching, etc. gets upended.

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

Good site for people that want to see federal government spending information:

USAspending.gov

www.usaspending.gov