Posted on 04/18/2018 10:33:45 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
When President Trump signed the 2,232-page, $1.3 trillion omnibus spending bill last month, he was emphatic that it wouldn’t happen again.
Referring to the fact that no one could possibly have had time to read this mammoth piece of legislation, he said, “I will never sign another bill like this again.”
The implication, of course, was that nothing could be done about this latest round of massive overspending. Like it or lump it, there it is.
But that’s not exactly true. The president can, in fact, do something. He can pursue what’s known as a rescissions package.
Don’t let the wonky word cause your eyes to glaze over. “Rescission” simply means to revoke, cancel or repeal a law, or at least part of it. A rescissions package would basically rescind part of the spending that Congress recently passed.
But wait, you may say. The Constitution gives the “power of the purse” to Congress, not the president. What’s he got to do with initiating such an action?
Article I does stipulate that “no money shall be drawn from the Treasury but in consequence of appropriations made by law.” But Article II says the president “shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed.”
So Congress provides the funding, but the president is responsible for how the appropriations are executed.
That doesn’t mean he can decide how it’s spent unilaterally, or do so in a vacuum. Congress still has an important role to play.
Presidents from Thomas Jefferson on down had been submitting rescissions for years with relatively little trouble. But things came to a head during Richard Nixon’s presidency. He broke with previous presidents by impounding larger amounts (nearly $15 billion in 1973, out of a total budget of $245 billion) and ignoring Congress’s intent that the funds be spent.
The legislative branch responded to this challenge with the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974. “Title X of the act limited the power of the president to withhold funding and put into place a formal procedure for when the president tried to do so,” writes budget expert Justin Bogie.
This didn’t mean the end of the road for rescissions. From 1974 to 2000, presidents proposed about 1,200 rescissions, totaling more than $77 billion. Congress approved 461 of them, which resulted in a savings of $25 billion.
But there have been no requests for rescissions since 2000. President Clinton was the last one to even try. That needs to change.
Yes, the amounts we’re talking about aren’t exactly huge. The most significant budgetary savings occurred under President Reagan: 1.3 percent. And that, of course, refers to cuts from discretionary spending – not the increasingly massive amount considered mandatory.
So no, as Bogie points out, “rescissions will not fix the country's current fiscal mess. Rescissions are not a significant deficit-reduction tool, nor are they meant to be.”
However, they are still an important first step toward what should be a top goal for Washington policymakers: getting their out-of-control spending problem under control.
Just because the amount we can save through rescissions is a relatively small one doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try. If nothing else, it sends a message that cuts need to be made. The least Congress could do is provide a package of $13 billion in rescissions, which is just 1 percent of the total omnibus.
We can’t just throw up our hands because the task before us is so huge. Yes, the federal debt is higher than it’s been at any time in the post-World War II era. The need to get spending under control is more important than ever. But if we can’t claw back even a small amount through rescissions, does that mean we’re just supposed to give up entirely?
You have to start somewhere. And a rescissions package is the place to do it.
How ‘bout this: Trump calls a news conference and announces via Executive Order:
“Effective immediately, all federal entities, except the military, have had their budgets reduced by 10%. If any agency or bureau head cannot meet this reduction without any decrease in services provided by their agency, they will be replaced with someone who can. Have a nice day.”
Fine.
President Trump can start with that $500 million to Planned Parenthood if he is serious.
Serious about reigning in foolish spending, and serious about protecting the lives of the most innocent of children.
Recall that dozens of Tomahawk missiles were thrust upon Syria for an alleged chemical attack that killed far, far fewer children than are murdered everyday in America by their own mothers.
Melania is reportedly pro-life, and they both profess to be Christians. If it’s true the President can use this power at his discretion, there is NO EXCUSE.
RE: President Trump can start with that $500 million to Planned Parenthood if he is serious.
A very nice thought.... but does the President have the authority to block funding for a group that was SPECIFICALLY FUNDED by Congress?
Just wanted to know....
Put a ten percent ‘sales’ tax on ALL money sent out of the United States...
It would seem so, according to the article you posted. Is the information you supplied accurate?
But if the President does not, or doesn’t even make an attempt, I’m sure any excuse will fly.
It’s alarming that barely a peep out of Congress or the WH about this. And after all that is known about the abortions and selling the body parts...
You think stopping several thousand murders per day of human beings is simply a ‘nice thought’?
I’m a little surprised.
RE: You think stopping several thousand murders per day of human beings is simply a ‘nice thought’?
OK, let me rephrase that “THAT WOULD BE GREAT!”.
BUILD THE WALL
RE: Put a ten percent ‘sales’ tax on ALL money sent out of the United States...
How does that solve the problem of overspending? All you’re doing is PUTTING MORE MONEY INTO THE BUREAUCRAT’s COFFERS.
>
A very nice thought.... but does the President have the authority to block funding for a group that was SPECIFICALLY FUNDED by Congress?
>
Pres. calls ‘em on their ILLEGAL expenditure (A1S8. Coax it as anti-5th\9th\10th\13th if you want to beat a dead horse)
Let’s see the Const. ‘crisis’ when the elephant is actually acknowledged
RE: BUILD THE WALL
I wonder, can Trump TAKE ALL OF the $500 Million Congress gave to Planned Parenthood and allocate this for part of the Wall instead?
RE: Pres. calls ‘em on their ILLEGAL expenditure (A1S8. Coax it as anti-5th\9th\10th\13th if you want to beat a dead horse)
Be careful what you wish for, a future President Kamala Harris (God forbid) could use the same powers to call expenditure for the Wall ILLEGAL.
Now yer talkin’!
Maybe I shouldn’t have put it that way.
Just that it’s a travesty how so many - and I mean government all the way down to the voter on the street - has become so desensitized and cavalier when it comes to abortion.
I don’t mean any disrespect.
How about stopping all care for illegals? That's a cut.
If illegals get sick the US will pay for a free ticket back to their home country and taxi fare to hellhole hospital closest to the airport.
We STOP spending money 'educating' their children AND we stop footing the bills for illegals to sit in our prison system.
If 'home' countries don't pay the bills we send them to take care of their citizens we put massive tariffs on all their goods coming into our country until the bills are paid.
>
Be careful what you wish for, a future President Kamala Harris (God forbid) could use the same powers to call expenditure for the Wall ILLEGAL.
>
IMO, it should be the LAST resort.
No welfare, no ‘free ride’ of ANY type (for ANYONE), and knowing the LAW will be upheld/enforced (esp. vs. govt employees of EVERY level 1st), the illegals would be returning voluntarily.
IIRC, Big Sis took $600 Million that was allocated to building The Wall during Obummer's first term and spent it elsewhere. She said that that was OK because the border was secure.
I must have missed it — who is Big Sis again?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.