Reply to Discretionary spending in the House Budget resolution -- what am I missing?

Forum Index » Jobs and Careers

Reply to "Discretionary spending in the House Budget resolution -- what am I missing?"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=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!
[/quote]

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.
[/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