Discretionary spending in the House Budget resolution -- what am I missing?
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
Look up Title 4 grants with HUD. Required by statute, canceled Thursday. Same with green energy contracts under DOT. Required in IRA, canceled since ~ Jan 25. We’re well past impoundment. Even if they unfreeze the funds later, the delay in timely obligation is an illegal impoundment (one that is done for policy reasons). Finally, the Budget Resolution cannot affect discretionary spending, because the Budget Committees cannot issue instructions to the appropriations committees. |
Anonymous
Thanks. This is the analysis I was looking for. But the Budget Committees do set the top line numbers don't they? If you look at the previous reconciliation instructions from the Build back better era (2021), the topline numbers for all the spending categories were essentially adhered to (some small percentage fluctuations notwithstanding). I think the Budget Control act does require that the topline numbers set the limits that are set for individual appropriations committees. https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IN/IN12353 |
Anonymous
For one, the just eliminated SSA’s EEOC office. Which is statutorily required. Easiest of the top of my head because I work there and had an accommodation there to be signed off on. That now no one knows what to do with. |
Anonymous
| The big tax cuts talking point is also a little deceptive. The current individual tax rates are set to expire at all levels of income (expiration done so they could in some way control the cost) and Republicans are trying to find funds to prevent those rates from increasing. It is technically a tax cut but people won’t feel a tax cut. If Republicans are not successful taxes will go up for all. I’m not saying the way they would pay for it (Medicaid) is ok. Just that we all get lost in the language used to attack each side. |
Anonymous
Yes -- that's the "current policy v/s prior to TCJA enactment" baseline issue. It's not just attacks -- CBO scores the impact on the deficit based on the current situation (i.e. TCJA expires as scheduled) and Republicans note that the consideration should be that TCJA is the current law and so extending it will have no impact on the deficit (we are already incurring them). |
Anonymous
| Personally I’d like the SALT cap to go away as that will save me taxes. So, I’m fine if the whole thing just expires…. |
Anonymous
The budget committees do set the discretionary top lines, called 302 (a)s. They can do this through a Budget resolution or a deeming resolution (called a deemer). However, they do not become “controlling” or binding unless they are also passed by the H/S and signed by the President (which Budget Resolutions are not). Otherwise, it’s just a gentleman’s agreement about what will trigger points of order in the House or the Senate. That’s why it’s called a resolution, not a law or bill. If the House Budget Resolution and the Senate Budget Resolution have the same discretionary top lines, then they’re good, provided they can hold the caucus together for the next 18 months. But if they can’t, then there’s nothing to say that they can’t increase or decrease the top lines, or pass wildly incongruent bills through each chamber and face a total shitshow at conference. What was important is that the top lines for last year and this year were set in the FRA (fiscal responsibility act). Typically, to get everyone to actual hold hands, they add some stuff that needs to be legislated, like the debt limit, or health care extenders, or tax credits. Then they put statutory 302 (a)s in like they did a few years ago. |
Anonymous
IMO, USAID is not coming back. At least not until the next Democratic administration. |
Anonymous
Believe? It’s already HAPPENING!! Wake upppp |
Anonymous
|
Read or have ChatGPT summarize for you:
https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R46468 |
Anonymous
|
It seems like there might be a typo in your question. I assume you meant “What does impounding funds mean?” Based on that, here’s the explanation:
“Impounding funds” refers to the act of withholding or delaying the spending of money that has been allocated or appropriated, typically by a government or authority, for a specific purpose. In the context of government, it often involves an executive (like a president or governor) choosing not to spend funds that a legislative body (like Congress) has designated for a program, project, or expense. This can be done temporarily (a deferral) or with the intent to cancel the spending entirely (a rescission). Key Points: • Historical Use: In the U.S., presidents have historically impounded funds to avoid spending on projects they deemed unnecessary or wasteful. For example, Thomas Jefferson in 1803 delayed spending $50,000 allocated for gunboats when the need diminished after the Louisiana Purchase. • Legal Context: The practice became controversial, especially under President Nixon, who impounded billions in the 1970s, prompting Congress to pass the Impoundment Control Act of 1974. This law limits the president’s ability to impound funds unilaterally, requiring congressional approval for rescissions and setting rules for deferrals. • Purpose: Impounding can be a tool to control budgets, prioritize spending, or push policy goals, but it’s also seen as a challenge to legislative authority over the “power of the purse.” • Modern Meaning: Today, “impounding funds” might also refer to escrow accounts in mortgages, where lenders hold funds to pay property taxes or insurance, but your question seems to lean toward the governmental context. In short, impounding funds means holding back money that’s been set aside, often sparking debates about who really controls spending—executives or lawmakers. If you meant something else by “impounding fund,” feel free to clarify! |
Anonymous
OP here -- I completely understand what impounding funds means. I was referring to the fact that while it seems that de facto, the admin is refusing to spend the money appropriated by Congress, I am not sure that they will push it far enough to defy SCOTUS (when it comes to it). Meanwhile, all indications are that most agency budgets (as expressed in the House budget resolution) are not that different from past topline numbers. Since these topline numbers in general form the guidelines for appropriations, these would not be too far from current year appropriations. There might be a constitutional crisis related to the Impoundment control act, I don't see it. Yes, the current damage is quite large, but I am not sure it will stay that way. |
Anonymous
Have you read none of Project 2025? Defying the courts is the actual plan. It’s getting so exhausting talking to people who are just gaslighting themselves or denying reality or having read anything or whatever it is that’s going on here. |
Anonymous
No, Roberts is not slow walking this. He picked up both the USAID payment issue and the OSC firing issue very quickly, he could have legitimately waited on both of these for weeks or longer but instead moved quickly to take them up. I anticipate he'll try to find some way to thread the needle and find some middle route - but on the other hand, Republican actions are not going well with the public right now. All of Congress is getting buried by angry constituents, the budget deal looks disastrous, the Ukraine meeting was a debacle, and the economy is crashing. Etc. Trump is a figurehead for Project 2025 but he is not the architect and he can abandon it at any time, when he starts to get in real trouble. From a purely political calculus, the administration is looking less and less strong and untouchable. |
Anonymous
On the one hand I agree with this analysis in a sane world and a sane administration. On the other, they don't seem to be acting like 2026 and future elections are a factor. |