Originally published at: Senate Dems Will Attempt to Stop Trump White House’s Latest Illegal Pocket Rescission - TPM – Talking Points Memo
Senate Appropriations Committee Ranking Member Patty Murray (D-WA) and Senate Budget Committee Ranking Member Jeff Merkley (D-OR) will try to pass a bill Wednesday to block the $810 million “pocket rescission” the Trump White House sent over to Congress last Friday. Murray and Merkley are planning to seek unanimous consent on the Senate floor later…
1 Like
Will this bill have to be passed by the House and signed by the president?
If so, there’s at least two problems there.
Since this is inadvertently the first post: Edited to add an uncuddly animal that was recently posted in another thread:
7 Likes
They might be able to get the 2/3 majority in the Senate that would make the bill not subject to a presidential veto, but the House is an entirely different animal, or, as your image suggests, a different part of an animal. The only hope is that the entire House is up for reelection, and there might be enough on the wrong side of the aisle who’ll want to put a little distance between themselves and Trump and Vought’s executive branch between now and November.
4 Likes
So, I’m not sure what’s going on. Googling the Impoundment Act of 1974 (not 1964), here are the guts of the Act:
(Note: The correct enactment year is 1974, passed as Title X of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act in response to President Richard Nixon’s widespread refusal to spend appropriated money). [1, 2, 3]
Core Purpose and Mechanisms
-
The Power of the Purse: Under Article I of the Constitution, Congress holds the power to allocate federal funds, meaning the executive branch is legally expected to spend money as directed by law. [1, 2]
-
Deferrals (Temporary Pauses): The president may temporarily delay spending for specific programmatic reasons or contingencies, but the withholding cannot extend past the end of the fiscal year, and written notice must be given to Congress. [1, 2]
-
Rescissions (Permanent Cancellations): If the president wants to cancel funding permanently, they must formally request a rescission from Congress via a special message. Funds can only be withheld for up to 45 days while awaiting congressional approval; if Congress does not vote to approve the cancellation within that window, the money must be spent. [1, 2, 3]
As can be seen, the Act already precludes the withholding of funds unless Congress approves upon request. Why the Senate feels it has to pass new laws under these circumstances makes no sense.
5 Likes
This GOP simply cannot play by the rules. These Unites States - Trump - it don’t do Constitution-type governance.
6 Likes
There are more horse’s asses than horses in this country…
6 Likes
Susan seems very concerned.
3 Likes
Her brow will be in ceaseless furrow from now through election day. That Susan … she really cares. Just look at her face. 
2 Likes
RoJo finds the bill “poorly written”? This from the guy who goes to war with the English language every time he speaks. Those subordinate clauses in the bill are the real killers.
2 Likes
I personally am glad, I don’t care who the president is or what party, I will generally support that president reducing spending. And I’d applaud it
Hopefully a future president will reduce spending by getting rid of the total ASSHOLES in the Senate. The Republican side has MANY qualifiers, but there is at least one on the Dem side too.
1 Like
EXCEPT - he’s not reducing spending. He’s grabbing the money to spend elsewhere. And he’s sitting there because Mandela Barnes didn’t get any support from the DNC in his campaign which was overwhelmed by “scary Black man” shouting by the right. It’s what’s happening now with David Crowley.
Of course, Barnes has his own baggage which has been dragged out now, but that’s a different story.
1 Like