[munchler]

"We spend too much" is a political opinion, rather than a statement of fact. Only Congress can change the amount of money spent by the government, so the executive branch's actions are unconstitutional, no matter how large the crowd cheering it on. This is exactly the sort of mob rule that the Founders wanted to prevent.

[Sysreq2]

I keep harping on this - but two points:

1) Our debt is above GDP and interest is rising faster than GDP growth. Debt is fine when being used as leverage but we are upside down at the moment.

2) We don’t have the ability to issue more debt at the moment. The government has no money. They are using employee pension funds to meet obligations with a promissory note. We have negative cash flow and have run out of the ability to extend our line of credit until Congress raises the debt ceiling.

[xphos]

I feel funny to say it, but I think we have an income problem, not an expense problem. Republicans just spend money and then cut taxes.

If people believe we need what we are spending on, we need to tax the difference. It sucks to pay taxes but we need to do it

[janandonly]

I read about a guy in Turkmenistan who would as a punishment be taxed 20%, and I thought, living in Western Europe or North America is kind of a financial punishment .

Mind you, taxed 20%, not 20% extra. Source: https://www.jw.org/en/news/region/turkmenistan/Turkmenistan-...

[ThunderSizzle]

How much tax is enough? The government would, without playing a deduction game, would love to take 20-30% of my income, while having devalued my dollar by 50-100% in the last 5 years. My salary goes half as far.

Being honest, on what should be a great local salary, we can't even afford a starter home, or savings after our monthly grocery bill. The government caused this inflationary Era to devalue the debt, and your suggestion is to take more from families already struggling to stay ahead?

Such a communist. Take from the people at gunpoint, give it to the DC bureuacrats.

[Tadpole9181]

It's telling that you didn't even consider that the taxes would come from businesses. The businesses that created the majority of inflation by gouging consumers out and bleeding them dry every tiniest opportunity they legally could.

[xphos]

I mean practically this take is so wrong. If the (US) government is just so hell bent on taxation how the heck did we get to the point where taxes on income went from 90% (~1950) on top bracket to less than 35%? Business tax was (35% 2008) -> 20% (2020).

Empirically in the US in the last 70 years this just never has played out this why. The government did not cause and rarely causes major inflation either at least in this time period. Usually its the economy explodes due to a private industry bubble exploding or natural resources crunch due to foreign governments reducing oil production or pandemics.

Its pretty childish to use communist as a tag line when I qualified the claim you can believe that benefits should not exist but if you do you have to own saying you want to cut benefits for poor people and give a tax break to rich people (at least that is what happens when you cut taxes in a progressive system)

[crabmusket]

> We don’t have the ability to issue more debt at the moment. The government has no money.

All spending is authorised by Congress, isn't it? So how is the debt ceiling any different? No federal programs "have money" short of Congress deciding it.

[Sysreq2]

Right but until Congress raises the debt ceiling, the Executive Branch has an empty wallet and maxed out credit card. Funding doesn’t go out all at once either. Some programs don’t start until later in the year for example. They typically aim to distribute 1/12th of the yearly allowance per month. Sometimes agencies will over spend early and have to be austere later (like FEMA last year).

Appropriations is Congressional and specifics how much an agency will get over the fiscal year.

Apportionment is under the Executive and addresses when and how those funds are made available.

They are two distinct things.

[skywhopper]

None of that has anything whatsoever to do with what DOGE is doing.

[skywhopper]

The debt ceiling is entirely artificial, and ought to be unconstitutional. Congress decides how much to spend. Issuing debt when necessary to pay for those allocations is implied.

Everyone is missing the most obvious way to raise revenue: raise taxes.

[insane_dreamer]

The military is over half of all Fed discretionary spending.

Another huge expense is servicing our debt.

Those are what we should be addressing, not cutting NIH research.

By the way, we do have the ability to issue more debt -- because thankfully our debt is USD denominated and we can simply print more dollars. It's the only way we've survived this long as the world's largest debtor nation.

[guax]

I went to search, the us gov has a nice website about the dev. Til.

https://fiscaldata.treasury.gov/americas-finance-guide/natio...

The debt graph caught my eye. I did not expect it to be that stable for so long. I wonder what happened in 1981, impossible to say.

[refurb]

> I wonder what happened in 1981, impossible to say.

Total federal income was flat after the early 80's recession, then grew by 60%+ over the next decade, despite the Reagan tax cuts, increasing $400B.

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FYFR

Federal spending continued to grow.

That's what happened.

[JumpCrisscross]

> We don’t have the ability to issue more debt at the moment

One, DOGE isn't doing anything to cut spending. Every dollar Musk "cuts" that doesn't get Congressional authorisation is just being borrowed from future litigation plus all the time and expense that will eat up.

Two, if DOGE can supercede the Congress than so can the Treasury in issuing new debt. Trump has said he wants to kill the debt limit. He could just try that with an executive order. DOGE is already shredding contracts and blocking lawful payments--we're already jeopardising the full faith and credit of the U.S. government. (Ironically, in a manner similar to how South Africa trashed itself in modern history.)

[ankwardat]

Musk is stealing data to use for his own gain, and installing back doors so he permanently has control over government. It will take decades to undo the spyware he's installing.

[cr__]

So raise the debt ceiling?

[ankwardat]

These are the biggest contributors to undoing Clinton's balanced budget in the 90's:

* Bush Jr Tax Cuts

* Useless Iraq war

* Too Big to Fail Bailouts of Banks

* Trumps tax cuts

* COVID spending

When billionaires and trillion-dollar corporations pay episilon to zero in taxes, maybe they should pay their share. Taxing the rich would solve the problem overnight.

[loanedempathy]

Well, we either have a despot or mob rule--hard to have both.

Congress has abdicated its role, and the rot is now so plain that even a 78 year old can get the idiot masses to vote him in to do something.

The thing about power...it only stays with the people who have the balls to wield it. Congress needs to find their balls or we'll just be back here in another four years.

[dragonwriter]

> Well, we either have a despot or mob rule--hard to have both.

It's really not that hard to have that combination, i.e., "authoritarian populism".

[loanedempathy]

You'll note that I used the word despot, and not authoritarian. This was not an accident.

[vkou]

> Congress needs to find their balls

Some of the GOP tried to do that a few years ago, and went against Trump.

They were all destroyed.

There's no longer an escape hatch from this.

[amanaplanacanal]

They should have convicted him when they had the chance, either time they had the chance to do it. But party over country seems to be the motto.

[loanedempathy]

To misquote Death of Stalin, they had they choice between his conviction and his revenge. They picked poorly.

[rayiner]

It’s quite debatable what the founders intended here. Congress has the power to appropriate funds, it’s not clear as a constitutional matter it has the power to compel the executive to use all the appropriated funds.

Even as a legal matter, the impoundment act only requires rescission notification once it’s clear that the executive won’t use all the money appropriated for a “program.” When Congress is appropriating say $3 billion in a line item for USAID, DOGE can cancel a lot of individual contracts before it needs to invoke recession saying USAID won’t use all $3 billion.

[tptacek]

This is tantamount to saying that the executive not only has a line-item veto, but that it's non-overridable. Seems wrong.

[secos]

This planet money article lays out the arguments for both with lots of interesting links to follow. https://www.npr.org/sections/planet-money/2025/02/18/g-s1-49...

[unclebucknasty]

>cancel a lot of individual contracts before it needs to invoke recession

This is not correct.

The recission process requires that the Executive branch notify Congress upon appropriation that it will not use appropriated funds. Congress can then decide to accept or reject the recission notice. If rejected, the funds remain appropriated, with whatever conditions Congress set.

The argument could be made that this is a new administration with different priorities, so does not intend to use the previously appropriated funds. But, even then, the spirit of the law (and the Constitution) is such that the new administration would engage in the recission process as if the funds had just been appropriated. So, they would submit a recission notice before taking action.

That is, they would not just do whatever they wanted and inform Congress afterwards.

[rayiner]

> The recission process requires that the Executive branch notify Congress upon appropriation that it will not use appropriated funds.

That’s not what the statute says. 2 U.S.C. 683(a) says:

> Whenever the President determines that all or part of any budget authority will not be required to carry out the full objectives or scope of programs for which it is provided or that such budget authority should be rescinded for fiscal policy or other reasons (including the termination of authorized projects or activities for which budget authority has been provided), or whenever all or part of budget authority provided for only one fiscal year is to be reserved from obligation for such fiscal year, the President shall transmit to both Houses of Congress a special message specifying

There must be a determination and it must be with respect to a program. So for example Congress appropriated $1.7 billion for USAID operations as a single line item. The executive is completely within its power to halt discretionary grants or expenditures during the audit process. Then at some point the executive can make a determination how much of the total “program” amount will actually be needed and how much won’t be needed. Only at that point is the recessionary notice required.

[unclebucknasty]

Your conclusion directly contradicts the Code you quoted.

From the Code:

>Whenever the President determines that all or part of any budget authority will not be required...or whenever all or part of budget authority provided for only one fiscal year is to be reserved from obligation, the President shall transmit to both Houses of Congress...

The operative phrase is "Whenever the President determines".

However, your conclusion adds:

>The executive is completely within its power to halt discretionary grants or expenditures during the audit process.

The Code says nothing like this, instead, explicitly stating "on determination", not "after action".

This "prior notification" requirement is also both within the letter of the original appropriations process, and the intent of the law overall.

[mpalmer]

Cutting matters not one bit if Congress doesn't pass tax cuts. Voters don't care about the national debt if they don't see more money coming to them.

[whall6]

I actually think that they would still care. It weirdly feels cathartic to know that we are no longer spending federal taxpayer dollars on “zombie apocalypse preparation classes” no matter how insignificant it is to the budget. What is the best way to eat an elephant?

[mpalmer]

I don't see how an informed person who cares about the rule of law feels cathartic about what is happening.

[MisterKent]

We don't. Rules are all essentially fictional, and an agreed illusion that we've all been conditioned to see as an immutable.

What the past few decades did was push enough people to the point of no longer seeing the value in continuing the illusion.

I am terrified of the long term ramifications here. But again, I do see how we ended up here.

[cwalv]

I think you're both right. The don't care (without a tax cut) until the most ridiculous line items are made public.

[mpalmer]

Problem is the ridiculous line items wouldn't make a shadow of a dent in the federal budget. Certainly won't lower your tax bill.

[cwalv]

Agree .. but my point is that people will still care, on principle. Throw in any kind of cut, or esp. a helicopter payment, and the effect would be shock and awe

[mpalmer]

Bad metaphor. What's the best way to lose weight? Elon thinks it's cutting your arm off.

[dboreham]

Voters generally speaking don't pay federal income tax, or pay so little that it won't make a difference.

[KennyBlanken]

The Impoundment Act passed with overwhelming bipartisan support in the house and unanimous support in the senate. It was a direct rebuke to Nixon deciding he had the presidential authority to not fund programs he didn't like.

It unambiguously affirmed Congress's sole authority over federal spending.

The Constitution clearly gives Congress the authority over federal taxation and spending, and this power is a key check on executive power. If the executive branch could ignore congressional spending decisions, it would effectively render Congress’s "power of the purse" irrelevant.

It's called the Spending Clause, not the Appropriation Clause, for a reason.

As to the rest of your argument: not spending the full $100M congress specifies in 100M Mars Bars for the Air Force because Mars wasn't able to deliver the last 25 million Mars Bars, is not the same thing as "One person decided Mars Bars are Woke so we just stopped paying Mars Candy yesterday."

[georgemcbay]

> it’s not clear as a constitutional matter it has the power to compel the executive to use all the appropriated funds.

It seemed pretty clear to (now-Supreme Court justice, nominated by Trump) Brett Kavanaugh:

"Like the Commission here, a President sometimes has policy reasons (as distinct from constitutional reasons, cf. infra note 3) for wanting to spend less than the full amount appropriated by Congress for a particular project or program. But in those circumstances, even the President does not have unilateral authority to refuse to spend the funds. Instead, the President must propose the rescission of funds, and Congress then may decide whether to approve a rescission bill."

https://casetext.com/case/in-re-aiken-cnty-2

Though to be fair he wrote this in 2013 when a black Democrat was President so maybe now he feels like things are a little bit less clear for... reasons.

[munchler]

Forget the Impoundment Act -- this is a Constitutional issue. The Supreme Court ruled in 1975 that the President is required to carry out the full objectives or scope of programs for which budget authority is provided by the United States Congress. Shuttering USAID, as Trump and Musk have done, goes way beyond mere line item impoundments.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Train_v._City_of_New_York

[zdragnar]

However, they claim that USAID was spending far too much on projects that were not in line with their objectives. Not even Congress can create an agency that is fully autonomous with zero oversight from anyone within the government.

Whether that argument would hold up in court remains to be seen, of course.

[Volundr]

Can you clarify what USAIDs objectives are and which programs are "far outside those objectives".

Most of what I see being complained about can easily fall under socioeconomic development, which is ostensibly one of the objectives.

[daveguy]

All of these agencies had multiple levels of oversight both within the executive and through congress. Trump eliminated inspectors general positions providing oversight.

The executive branch doesn't get to interpret what spending is in line with the laws passed by Congress.

Trump is taking a shit on the US Constitution.

[rayiner]

From your source:

> Although one commentator characterizes the case's implications as meaning "[t]he president cannot frustrate the will of Congress by killing a program through impoundment,"[2] the Court majority itself made no categorical constitutional pronouncement about impoundment power but focused on the statute's language and legislative history.

[skissane]

The current SCOTUS majority isn't afraid to overturn 50 year old precedents. Given they overturned Roe v Wade, why not Train v City of New York too?

But they don't strictly speaking have to overturn it, just limit its scope of application somehow. For example, Train was about grants to the states – SCOTUS might rule the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 unconstitutional, and decide that the President has the right in general to impound appropriated funds, but they also might follow Train in carving out an exception to that general right for grants to the states.

[johnnyanmac]

Depends on the lens. Depending on your tolerance for debt, we can argue that we objectively spend too much. Another lens can be that we don't collect enough taxes and therefore we don't have enough to spend.

Now of course, since the lens isn't objective, we can't say it's an objective statement. And no, we can say that we spend too much and also think Trump is doing illegal stuff.