Anonymous
03/02/2025 11:06
Subject: Discretionary spending in the House Budget resolution -- what am I missing?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Someone had to bring the suit first. There have been SC decisions already halting what DOGE is doing in some cases, are those being followed?
Roberts froze the order in the USAID funding suit which required the government to pay for work that has ALREADY been performed.
OP, this is already happening. They don’t care what’s in the budget for XYZ agency. They’re going to cut half the staff and the statutory mission anyway.
Did you see what they said about CFPB? They intended to cut it to “five men in a room with a phone.” Do you think any agency can perform its function with five people? That’s what they think of agencies.
Again, CFPB is not subject to Congressional approps. USAID is a contractual issue. They would only have impounded funds if and when there are funds left over at the end of the fiscal year. Even the NIH issue is dubious -- councils have started meeting and funds are going out if VERY slowly. Most of the Medicaid/Head start and other funds frozen in Jan are back on.
I know this about CFPB because I worked there. My point is this: They are already refusing to pay out on contracts for work performed. Roberts has already stepped in, temporarily, to prevent the government from being ordered to pay out on these contracts. They are also ignoring a TRO related to EPA funding. The courts cannot keep up.
And finally, their intention is to dismantle many agencies so that they exist in name only, with a fraction of the staff. USAID and CFPB are test cases. Whatever Congress appropriates will not matter. CFPB is especially in danger given that the director requests funding and the current acting asked for $0. They’re also trying to bring it under appropriations. But it doesn’t matter if an agency is appropriated; they will still gut the staff, probably by 50% at most.
I wish I shared your optimism about scotus but as already seen, they can do massive damage by kind of pretending but actually flat out ignoring court orders.
I think Roberts is trying to delay as long as possible issuing a ruling that orders the Trump administration to do something (ie, spend appropriated funds) which Trump will then ignore.
Because then what?
Anonymous
03/02/2025 11:03
Subject: Discretionary spending in the House Budget resolution -- what am I missing?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Someone had to bring the suit first. There have been SC decisions already halting what DOGE is doing in some cases, are those being followed?
Roberts froze the order in the USAID funding suit which required the government to pay for work that has ALREADY been performed.
OP, this is already happening. They don’t care what’s in the budget for XYZ agency. They’re going to cut half the staff and the statutory mission anyway.
Did you see what they said about CFPB? They intended to cut it to “five men in a room with a phone.” Do you think any agency can perform its function with five people? That’s what they think of agencies.
Again, CFPB is not subject to Congressional approps. USAID is a contractual issue. They would only have impounded funds if and when there are funds left over at the end of the fiscal year. Even the NIH issue is dubious -- councils have started meeting and funds are going out if VERY slowly. Most of the Medicaid/Head start and other funds frozen in Jan are back on.
You entirely ignored the first part about the government refusing to pay for work performed.
New poster- NIH Council meetings are not being held. The IC at NIH where I worked, and recently retired says on Council meetings are being held and future ones are on hold.
I think this is part of the DOGE scam on asking for 5 bullet points. They expect people to not have work to report because meetings to review applications by outside reviewers are not being held held (primary review) or by Council (secondary review).
Of course there is plenty of other work to do for planning for when these meetings are able to be held again, managing studies that still have funds, planning for future research priorities, etc. But in the meantime the heavy lifts for funding studies is on hold.
The USAID funding is being held.
Anonymous
03/02/2025 11:01
Subject: Discretionary spending in the House Budget resolution -- what am I missing?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Someone had to bring the suit first. There have been SC decisions already halting what DOGE is doing in some cases, are those being followed?
Roberts froze the order in the USAID funding suit which required the government to pay for work that has ALREADY been performed.
OP, this is already happening. They don’t care what’s in the budget for XYZ agency. They’re going to cut half the staff and the statutory mission anyway.
Did you see what they said about CFPB? They intended to cut it to “five men in a room with a phone.” Do you think any agency can perform its function with five people? That’s what they think of agencies.
Again, CFPB is not subject to Congressional approps. USAID is a contractual issue. They would only have impounded funds if and when there are funds left over at the end of the fiscal year. Even the NIH issue is dubious -- councils have started meeting and funds are going out if VERY slowly. Most of the Medicaid/Head start and other funds frozen in Jan are back on.
You entirely ignored the first part about the government refusing to pay for work performed.
New poster- NIH Council meetings are not being held. The IC at NIH where I worked, and recently retired says on Council meetings are being held and future ones are on hold.
I think this is part of the DOGE scam on asking for 5 bullet points. They expect people to not have work to report because meetings to review applications by outside reviewers are not being held held (primary review) or by Council (secondary review).
Of course there is plenty of other work to do for planning for when these meetings are able to be held again, managing studies that still have funds, planning for future research priorities, etc. But in the meantime the heavy lifts for funding studies is on hold.
Anonymous
03/02/2025 11:00
Subject: Discretionary spending in the House Budget resolution -- what am I missing?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Someone had to bring the suit first. There have been SC decisions already halting what DOGE is doing in some cases, are those being followed?
Roberts froze the order in the USAID funding suit which required the government to pay for work that has ALREADY been performed.
OP, this is already happening. They don’t care what’s in the budget for XYZ agency. They’re going to cut half the staff and the statutory mission anyway.
Did you see what they said about CFPB? They intended to cut it to “five men in a room with a phone.” Do you think any agency can perform its function with five people? That’s what they think of agencies.
Again, CFPB is not subject to Congressional approps. USAID is a contractual issue. They would only have impounded funds if and when there are funds left over at the end of the fiscal year. Even the NIH issue is dubious -- councils have started meeting and funds are going out if VERY slowly. Most of the Medicaid/Head start and other funds frozen in Jan are back on.
I know this about CFPB because I worked there. My point is this: They are already refusing to pay out on contracts for work performed. Roberts has already stepped in, temporarily, to prevent the government from being ordered to pay out on these contracts. They are also ignoring a TRO related to EPA funding. The courts cannot keep up.
And finally, their intention is to dismantle many agencies so that they exist in name only, with a fraction of the staff. USAID and CFPB are test cases. Whatever Congress appropriates will not matter. CFPB is especially in danger given that the director requests funding and the current acting asked for $0. They’re also trying to bring it under appropriations. But it doesn’t matter if an agency is appropriated; they will still gut the staff, probably by 50% at most.
I wish I shared your optimism about scotus but as already seen, they can do massive damage by kind of pretending but actually flat out ignoring court orders.
This will end up before SCOTUS soon enough -- are they really prepared to defy the ruling that will almost surely be against them? Already, even without Medicaid cuts, they will lose the House (there are several swing districts that have a ton of Feds who would have been laid off/RIFd). Thom Tillis is also done for (there's a huge effort in the Triangle and Triad areas in NC to mobilize against him).
Anonymous
03/02/2025 10:56
Subject: Re:Discretionary spending in the House Budget resolution -- what am I missing?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:The budget passed by congress is meaningless. The sky is falling because Musk is demolishing agencies, firing federal workers, and terminating grants and contracts, all of which is based on funding already approved by congress. So if congress passes a new budget with the same funding as last year for ED or NOAA or any other agency it means nothing because of the illegal slashing of government by DOGE.
All of this. The budget will be meaningless as far as the executive branch goes.
And they are taking the impoundment issue all the way to scotus. They are already impounding funds. They will keep doing it.
This is true, but SCOTUS has generally upheld the impounding act, even recently. I think this will be a court battle that will take some time to play out because even if they rule quickly, he'll look for sideways ways to avoid spending the money, as he has been doing in NIH despite court orders. Ultimately, impoundment act wlll be upheld and spending will be pushed through, but for some time services and oversight will be terrible because of lack of staff. All this mess could easily take 4 years to play out. So either way, we're waiting for another administration to get back to something more normal.
I agree that this is how it will likely play out, but I also think SCOTUS will slow walk it as loooong as possible and do everything in its power to not order this administration to release funding. In the meantime, there will be massive damage to our government and to the economy. I think this damage will reverberate for years.
I wish I didn’t sound alarmist. But I’m tired of trying to be reasonable about this group. They’re not reasonable; they intend to remake American government and society.
Anonymous
03/02/2025 10:53
Subject: Discretionary spending in the House Budget resolution -- what am I missing?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Someone had to bring the suit first. There have been SC decisions already halting what DOGE is doing in some cases, are those being followed?
Roberts froze the order in the USAID funding suit which required the government to pay for work that has ALREADY been performed.
OP, this is already happening. They don’t care what’s in the budget for XYZ agency. They’re going to cut half the staff and the statutory mission anyway.
Did you see what they said about CFPB? They intended to cut it to “five men in a room with a phone.” Do you think any agency can perform its function with five people? That’s what they think of agencies.
Again, CFPB is not subject to Congressional approps. USAID is a contractual issue. They would only have impounded funds if and when there are funds left over at the end of the fiscal year. Even the NIH issue is dubious -- councils have started meeting and funds are going out if VERY slowly. Most of the Medicaid/Head start and other funds frozen in Jan are back on.
I know this about CFPB because I worked there. My point is this: They are already refusing to pay out on contracts for work performed. Roberts has already stepped in, temporarily, to prevent the government from being ordered to pay out on these contracts. They are also ignoring a TRO related to EPA funding. The courts cannot keep up.
And finally, their intention is to dismantle many agencies so that they exist in name only, with a fraction of the staff. USAID and CFPB are test cases. Whatever Congress appropriates will not matter. CFPB is especially in danger given that the director requests funding and the current acting asked for $0. They’re also trying to bring it under appropriations. But it doesn’t matter if an agency is appropriated; they will still gut the staff, probably by 50% at most.
I wish I shared your optimism about scotus but as already seen, they can do massive damage by kind of pretending but actually flat out ignoring court orders.
Anonymous
03/02/2025 10:51
Subject: Re:Discretionary spending in the House Budget resolution -- what am I missing?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:The budget passed by congress is meaningless. The sky is falling because Musk is demolishing agencies, firing federal workers, and terminating grants and contracts, all of which is based on funding already approved by congress. So if congress passes a new budget with the same funding as last year for ED or NOAA or any other agency it means nothing because of the illegal slashing of government by DOGE.
All of this. The budget will be meaningless as far as the executive branch goes.
And they are taking the impoundment issue all the way to scotus. They are already impounding funds. They will keep doing it.
This is true, but SCOTUS has generally upheld the impounding act, even recently. I think this will be a court battle that will take some time to play out because even if they rule quickly, he'll look for sideways ways to avoid spending the money, as he has been doing in NIH despite court orders. Ultimately, impoundment act wlll be upheld and spending will be pushed through, but for some time services and oversight will be terrible because of lack of staff. All this mess could easily take 4 years to play out. So either way, we're waiting for another administration to get back to something more normal.
OP here -- that's my read on this. Yes -- the damage will be quite bad, even this fiscal year. But I think (at least from approps perspective), things should be better in FY26. I don't know how they'll bring back USAID or fix the wreckage in the other sectors though. Pity the remaining Feds who will have 2-3X workloads.
Anonymous
03/02/2025 10:46
Subject: Re:Discretionary spending in the House Budget resolution -- what am I missing?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:The budget passed by congress is meaningless. The sky is falling because Musk is demolishing agencies, firing federal workers, and terminating grants and contracts, all of which is based on funding already approved by congress. So if congress passes a new budget with the same funding as last year for ED or NOAA or any other agency it means nothing because of the illegal slashing of government by DOGE.
All of this. The budget will be meaningless as far as the executive branch goes.
And they are taking the impoundment issue all the way to scotus. They are already impounding funds. They will keep doing it.
This is true, but SCOTUS has generally upheld the impounding act, even recently. I think this will be a court battle that will take some time to play out because even if they rule quickly, he'll look for sideways ways to avoid spending the money, as he has been doing in NIH despite court orders. Ultimately, impoundment act wlll be upheld and spending will be pushed through, but for some time services and oversight will be terrible because of lack of staff. All this mess could easily take 4 years to play out. So either way, we're waiting for another administration to get back to something more normal.
Anonymous
03/02/2025 10:42
Subject: Discretionary spending in the House Budget resolution -- what am I missing?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Someone had to bring the suit first. There have been SC decisions already halting what DOGE is doing in some cases, are those being followed?
Roberts froze the order in the USAID funding suit which required the government to pay for work that has ALREADY been performed.
OP, this is already happening. They don’t care what’s in the budget for XYZ agency. They’re going to cut half the staff and the statutory mission anyway.
Did you see what they said about CFPB? They intended to cut it to “five men in a room with a phone.” Do you think any agency can perform its function with five people? That’s what they think of agencies.
Again, CFPB is not subject to Congressional approps. USAID is a contractual issue. They would only have impounded funds if and when there are funds left over at the end of the fiscal year. Even the NIH issue is dubious -- councils have started meeting and funds are going out if VERY slowly. Most of the Medicaid/Head start and other funds frozen in Jan are back on.
You entirely ignored the first part about the government refusing to pay for work performed.
Anonymous
03/02/2025 10:40
Subject: Re:Discretionary spending in the House Budget resolution -- what am I missing?
Anonymous wrote:Everything said here is correct. Also OP you are obviously out of touch and not one of the 1 in 5 Americans who gets health insurance from Medicaid. Lucky for you. Also wait to see what those Medicaid cuts mean for hospitals and nursing homes and the employment and state budget fall out from it.
Yeah Ben from daily wire said Medicaid is “bad outcomes” and people will be better off getting ER care at hospitals.
Which is a cost the hospitals generally have to eat.
Anonymous
03/02/2025 10:39
Subject: Discretionary spending in the House Budget resolution -- what am I missing?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote: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.
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.
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.
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.
Yes, they were. Regional Education Labs and Comprehensive Centers are both required by statute. And they were illegally axed overnight.
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.
Anonymous
03/02/2025 10:37
Subject: Re:Discretionary spending in the House Budget resolution -- what am I missing?
Anonymous wrote:Everything said here is correct. Also OP you are obviously out of touch and not one of the 1 in 5 Americans who gets health insurance from Medicaid. Lucky for you. Also wait to see what those Medicaid cuts mean for hospitals and nursing homes and the employment and state budget fall out from it.
I understand and I don't think that will happen either -- see my point that the House is likely hoping that the Senate will rescue them. They should have let the Senate jam them with their ridiculous but ultimately harmless budget agreement. They know that they are in for an electoral wipeout if this House plan is actually adopted, even for a single fiscal year.
Anonymous
03/02/2025 10:36
Subject: Discretionary spending in the House Budget resolution -- what am I missing?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote: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.
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.
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.
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.
Yes, they were. Regional Education Labs and Comprehensive Centers are both required by statute. And they were illegally axed overnight.
Anonymous
03/02/2025 10:36
Subject: Discretionary spending in the House Budget resolution -- what am I missing?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Someone had to bring the suit first. There have been SC decisions already halting what DOGE is doing in some cases, are those being followed?
Roberts froze the order in the USAID funding suit which required the government to pay for work that has ALREADY been performed.
OP, this is already happening. They don’t care what’s in the budget for XYZ agency. They’re going to cut half the staff and the statutory mission anyway.
Did you see what they said about CFPB? They intended to cut it to “five men in a room with a phone.” Do you think any agency can perform its function with five people? That’s what they think of agencies.
Again, CFPB is not subject to Congressional approps. USAID is a contractual issue. They would only have impounded funds if and when there are funds left over at the end of the fiscal year. Even the NIH issue is dubious -- councils have started meeting and funds are going out if VERY slowly. Most of the Medicaid/Head start and other funds frozen in Jan are back on.
Anonymous
03/02/2025 10:34
Subject: Re:Discretionary spending in the House Budget resolution -- what am I missing?
Everything said here is correct. Also OP you are obviously out of touch and not one of the 1 in 5 Americans who gets health insurance from Medicaid. Lucky for you. Also wait to see what those Medicaid cuts mean for hospitals and nursing homes and the employment and state budget fall out from it.