Trump budget proposes cutting 80 programs - a great start
No fluff to this article - surprisingly. I only hope Republicans get with the sentiment and cut out a few more. This is a good start.
- Hot
- New
- Categories...
- Producer's Lounge
- Producer's Vault
- The Gulch: Live! (New)
- Ask the Gulch!
- Going Galt
- Books
- Business
- Classifieds
- Culture
- Economics
- Education
- Entertainment
- Government
- History
- Humor
- Legislation
- Movies
- News
- Philosophy
- Pics
- Politics
- Science
- Technology
- Video
- The Gulch: Best of
- The Gulch: Bugs
- The Gulch: Feature Requests
- The Gulch: Featured Producers
- The Gulch: General
- The Gulch: Introductions
- The Gulch: Local
- The Gulch: Promotions
- Marketplace
- Members
- Store
- More...
1. No agency can spend more then $350/hr on lawyers consultants, or experts including expenses. This will make firms use the bright young people.
2. No agency can hire ad or PR firms for advertising to or informing the public.
3. Each agency must reduce its leased office apace by 15%.
4. No agency can lease charter or own an airplane or boat except for operational functions ie firefighting Supply etc
5 No agency can send more than 15 people to a conference or meeting.
Lots more where these came from but its billions
and
6 Close 25 military bases in US and 35 abroad.
7. Sell 20% of all Govt cars by 2018
8) Auction all vacant property and land to the private sector and reduce the BLM accordingly.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2...
My state, NY owns millions of acres of land in what it calls parks, all paid for by our tax dollars, and the first thing they do is restrict access to the public tax payers by many means. I have heard it said that 95% of these park lands are only ever seen by 2% of the people. 18-30 somethings who are in shape and willing to hike 5-10 miles in to some remote sight or pond in the deep forests.
The President can advise (via a budget or talks with Congress) about certain programs, but once Congress funds them, the President is bound by the Constitution to carry them out.
So ultimately, it isn't Trump choosing the eliminate these programs, it would be Congress - by choosing not to fund them. Which seems entirely appropriate given that they had to sponsor them in the first place.
(1) Veto any spending bill that authorizes and funds such programs.
(2) Sign such bills ("to avoid a government shutdown") but refuse to spend any money on objectionable programs on the grounds he considers them unconstitutional. (I'm thinking specifically about Planned Parenthood and public broadcasting subsidies.) He does have this authority - see https://fas.org/irp/agency/doj/olc110...
(3) Issue regulations or executive orders to oversee such spending in minute detail and, to the extent possible, slow it down to reduce its effectiveness.
These are just three potential strategies to derail unneeded spending. Undoubtedly there are others.
(2) I would note that this is an Executive Branch advisory note written by a Justice Department lawyer. It does not hold the rule of law as such. I would submit that the President would be better off to employ #1 above or #4 below. The duties of the President are to "faithfully carry out and execute the laws of the United States" whether he agrees with them or not. His Constitutional refusal lies solely in the Veto power - if he chooses not to use it or is overridden by Congress, that is where his power to object ceases. Any other form of objection should subject the President to Impeachment proceedings for dereliction of duty and/or obstruction of justice.
Case in point was President Obama's illegal granting of amnesty. This was specifically beyond his powers and for this action not only did the Supreme Court rule against him, but Congress had every right to (and should have IMO) Impeached the President. A President who decides at his own will and pleasure which laws duly passed by Congress to enforce sets himself up as an imperial tyrant and should not be tolerated.
(3) This one is just #2 lite. The purpose is still to take it upon himself to oppose a duly passed and legal law. It is not up to the President to decide what is Constitutional. That role is left for the Supreme Court. He can and should advise Congress (using the Department of Justice) as to the legal and practical viability of various laws, but once the law has been declared legal and has passed through the requisite Constitutional processes, he is under solemn obligation to carry them out.
I would propose that one that is legal is #4 - executive discretion. There is a judgement call involved in carrying out the will of the Legislature as per any Act of Congress. (For a humorous definition of an "Act of Congress", see Dave Barry's book Dave Barry Slept Here.) A President could - under executive discretion - act within the confines of the directive to a limited manner or extent based on the resources granted. This is only a marginal effort, however, and is likely to be a result of partisanship rather than real Constitutional objection.