Toggle navigation
Toggle navigation
Home
DCUM Forums
Nanny Forums
Events
About DCUM
Advertising
Search
Recent Topics
Hottest Topics
FAQs and Guidelines
Privacy Policy
Your current identity is: Anonymous
Login
Preview
Subject:
Forum Index
»
Jobs and Careers
Reply to "Discretionary spending in the House Budget resolution -- what am I missing?"
Subject:
Emoticons
More smilies
Text Color:
Default
Dark Red
Red
Orange
Brown
Yellow
Green
Olive
Cyan
Blue
Dark Blue
Violet
White
Black
Font:
Very Small
Small
Normal
Big
Giant
Close Marks
[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]The executive branch right now is NOT executing to the spending levels congress already appropriated, halting funds to things they don't like. What makes you think they will follow anything congress says. That's the issue. [/quote] Again, you have to seriously believe that impoundment is on the table. If so, we have issues which will have far greater repercussions. I am not sure the Admin has votes in the SC in their favor - Roberts and ACB are likely nos, so that makes a 5-4 decision against them, at best (and I'm not sure they can count on Gorsuch/Kavanaugh either), compelling them to spend. This is saber-rattling. [/quote] What the Muskrats are doing right now is impoundment. Many of the ED programs they cancelled a few weeks ago were required by statute. That meant nothing when they slashed and burned them. We’re already there, budget agreement or no. [/quote] I am not sure that the specific contracts were statutory. Is there a list of actual authorized/appropriated spending that has been cancelled/impounded? It is just 4 months into the fiscal year. [/quote] Yes, they were. Regional Education Labs and Comprehensive Centers are both required by statute. And they were illegally axed overnight. [/quote] Thanks. I wonder if there is a ProPublica list. I can see that they think they can get away with a few B$ in impounded funds, but not wholesale reductions. [/quote] 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. [/quote] 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. [url]https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IN/IN12353[/url][/quote] 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. [/quote]
Options
Disable HTML in this message
Disable BB Code in this message
Disable smilies in this message
Review message
Search
Recent Topics
Hottest Topics