Hi, Shrewd!        Login  
Shrewd'm.com 
A merry & shrewd investing community
Best Of Politics | Best Of | Favourites & Replies | All Boards | Post of the Week!
Search Politics
Shrewd'm.com Merry shrewd investors
Best Of Politics | Best Of | Favourites & Replies | All Boards | Post of the Week!
Search Politics


Halls of Shrewd'm / US Policy
Unthreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (2) |
Author: ges 🐝  😊 😞
Number: of 48447 
Subject: Trump and impoundment
Date: 01/28/2025 4:46 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Report Post | Recommend It!
No. of Recommendations: 4
The Republican House seems to be willing to diminish the power of Congress and give more of it to the President, upsetting the balance between those branches of government.

Congress essentially banned presidents from unilaterally and permanently impounding funds in a 1974 law. But during the presidential campaign, Mr. Trump, in a video on his campaign website, vowed to restore the power so that he could “squeeze the bloated federal bureaucracy for massive savings.”

What would impoundment mean for presidential power?

Legalizing permanent impoundment would transfer power from Congress to the presidency.

The founders devised the separation of powers to keep each branch from accumulating too much authority and posing a threat to liberty. Central to that is Congress’s control of decisions about taxation and spending — its power of the purse.


He can't get 'massive savings' from the Federal government without cutting from Medicare, Social Security and Defense. And Defense seems sacrosanct. Trump may or may not understand this but he's happy to lie about it.
Post New | Post Reply | Report Post | Recommend It!
Print the post
Unthreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (2) |


Announcements
US Policy FAQ
Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.

Best Of Politics | Best Of | Favourites & Replies | All Boards | Followed Shrewds