Impoundment-Changes During The Nixon Administration, Deferrals, Rescissions (Debt Limit Options)

http://law.jrank.org ^ | July 2011 | http://law.jrank.org

[Maelstorm]

An action taken by the president in which he or she proposes not to spend all or part of a sum of money appropriated by Congress.

The current rules and procedures for impoundment were created by the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C.A. § 601 et seq.), which was passed to reform the congressional budget process and to resolve conflicts between Congress and President RICHARD M. NIXON concerning the power of the EXECUTIVE BRANCH to impound funds appropriated by Congress. Past presidents, beginning with THOMAS JEFFERSON, had impounded funds at various times for various reasons, without instigating any significant conflict between the executive and the legislative branches. At times, such as when the original purpose for the money no longer existed or when money could be saved through more efficient operations, Congress simply acquiesced to the president's wishes. At other times, Congress or the designated recipient of the impounded funds challenged the president's action, and the parties negotiated until a political settlement was reached.

Read more: Impoundment - Changes During The Nixon Administration, Deferrals, Rescissions, Legislative Line Item Veto Act Of 1995 - Congress, President, Money, Budget, Times, and Funds http://law.jrank.org/pages/7522/Impoundment.html#ixzz1SgwgiZIn

[Maelstorm]

I've been wondering about this for sometimes because the truth is just because money has been appropriated does not mean it has been spent in past tense but is planned and authorized to spend and that is where the debt limit increase comes in. The President and Democrats have on avg spent anywhere from 1 - 1.5 trillion a year more than Bush did causing debt to explode past debt limits with an alarming rate. The big dance in Washington is around the idea that they could simply through a process called impoundment cancel/rescind appropriations or deferr the spending. This would take a lot of work but even though the President can not do this somewhat unilaterally as they could prior to 1974 there is nothing that stops Congress from doing it through law.

Why is it that the Congress is trying to avoid this very obvious solution. Canceling proposed spending shouldn't be so hard and much easier than this stalemate.

[Maelstorm]

Here is an article I found at the huffpost of all places on this.

What May a President Do if He Cannot Pay Our Bills?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-m-shane/fourteenth-amendment-debt_b_903487.html

[musicman]

Your MONTHLY Donations To FR
Help "Light The Fuse"
To Speed Up The Pace
Of These FReepathons!!
"Click Here To Donate!!"

Sponsoring FReepers are contributing
$10 Each time a New Monthly Donor signs up!
Get more bang for your FR buck!
Click Here To Sign Up Now!