Fears grow that Trump could ignore Congress on spending

[DonViejo]

Source: Politico




Lawmakers and activists see warning signs that Trump officials could cut budgets by leaving federal money unspent.

By NAHAL TOOSI 08/18/2017 05:24 AM EDT

Lawmakers and activists are preparing for the possibility that President Donald Trump's administration, in its zeal to slash the federal budget, will take the rare step of deliberately not spending all the money Congress gives it — a move sure to trigger legal and political battles.

The concern is mainly focused on the State Department, where Secretary of State Rex Tillerson has drawn criticism for failing to spend $80 million allocated by Congress to fight Russian and terrorist propaganda and for trying to freeze congressionally authorized fellowships for women and minorities. Activists and congressional officials fear such practices could take hold at other U.S. departments and agencies under Trump.

"We've seen just too many instances these past few months ... where there is clear congressional intent and funds provided, yet an unwillingness or inability to act," Sen. Ben Cardin of Maryland, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said in a statement to POLITICO.

Advocacy groups are consulting lawyers and gathering information on current spending and the laws that govern the budget; one NGO network is even surveying humanitarian organizations to gather more facts. Capitol Hill staffers are scouring the fine print of appropriations bills, hunting for loopholes that would allow the executive branch to slow down or stop spending.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2017/08/18/fears-grow-trump-will-ignore-congress-spending-241768

[Bernardo de La Paz]

1. I wonder if this pattern is yet another impeachable offense; abuse of Presidential power, failure to

... failure to enforce laws.

[Fozzledick]

9. Indeed it is, the technical term is "misdemeanor of authority".

As in "high crimes and misdemeanors". The legal meaning of "misdemeanor" in this context is not a petty crime in the common modern sense, but an older usage meaning dereliction of duty, specifically failing to perform the required functions of one's office.

[bucolic_frolic]

2. Yes, surely

and then privatize the governmental functions to private industry through contractors - themselves and their contributors - with hefty fees, provide little if any services, and walk off with the money.

[mucifer]

3. and don't think pence or ryan won't do the same if one of them become president

[marylandblue]

4. Nixon did it too

The practice is called "impoundment" and the courts decided he had to spend the money Congress allocated.

[DetlefK]

5. Aaaand cutting back on government-spending will slow down the economy.

Combine that with a downwards stock-market correction that is long over-due for statistical reasons, and we get a Trump Presidency with a sluggish economy.

In 2018.

[Jim__]

6. I think Trump should do everything in his power to really piss off Congress.

And then, if the opportunity should arise where Congress has some options that they can exercise against Trump, well, they should just remember how he acted towards them.

[tanyev]

7. Gosh, if only Congress could do something about a derelict president.

[procon]

8. As the normal functions of government are forced to grind to a halt, Trump and his gang

will be helping to destroy it all. They will be shouting about how government programs have collapsed, and screaming that every agency is a useless failure and no longer necessary. Then what?

For years, Republicans have been promising to shrink the government down until it was 'small enough to drown in a bathtub'. Are we then, at long last, to the point where Bannon's dream of a Republican utopia with the total 'deconstruction of the state' is at hand?

And without a working government to perform the critical roles of checks and balances, what do we end up with? A king? A dictator?