Congress Appropriates Money, Executive Branch Spends It: What Are the Mechanics?

Factual Questions
1

Dr. Evil shows up and demands ONE BILLION DOLLARS to not unleash The Plague on the United States. Congress passes a bill appropriating $1,000,000,000 for this purpose, making half of it contingent on Dr. Evil’s handing over his vials of Plague virus to the Centers for Disease Control, and the bill is signed by the President.

The President then authorizes the expenditure of $500,000,000 to Dr. Evil, which is delivered in due course, and waits for Dr. Evil to turn over the deadly vials.

What happens in between? How, exactly, is the Executive Branch empowered to spend this money? Is there anything more than a piece of paper from Congress that unlocks the President’s spending authority? If the President decided to give the whole billion to Dr. Evil upfront, what exactly would prevent this? For that matter, what (other than the disapproval of Congress, and the possible threat of impeachment) would stop the President from giving Dr. Evil $10 billion?

2

[QUOTE=RTFirefly]
If the President decided to give the whole billion to Dr. Evil upfront, what exactly would prevent this?
[/QUOTE]

It’s the Oath he took on becoming president. Otherwise, impeachment if not criminal charges of theft of government property, misappropriation of government funds, or something similar.

3

[QUOTE=Duckster]
It’s the Oath he took on becoming president. Otherwise, impeachment if not criminal charges of theft of government property, misappropriation of government funds, or something similar.
[/QUOTE]

Maybe I should rephrase that: what mechanically would prevent that? Anything?

4

[QUOTE=RTFirefly]
Maybe I should rephrase that: what mechanically would prevent that? Anything?
[/QUOTE]

The president doesn’t actually handle the cash so the mechanics of it at the simplest level should not be difficult. The various paper shufflers would stop the process by saying the law does not authorize them to process the president’s order. Of course, some (many?) would chicken out, but at some point in the chain, at least one or more people would stop the process, if not also notify the media or Congress, or both.

Senator Leahy said as much in a recent interview about the US Attorney firings. He knew of people in the Justice Department who would not go gently into the night and allow things to happen. There are plenty of federal employees with scruples who would stop the process from going through.

5

[QUOTE=RTFirefly]
Maybe I should rephrase that: what mechanically would prevent that? Anything?
[/QUOTE]

I doubt there is much because money gets spent without Congressional approval all the time. I assume that most of it is buried in some MISC line somewhere or it may just be misrepresented in the budget as something else.

The Nationa Security Agency was created without official Congressional knowledge and it even built a big secret headquarters and operated that way for years before the agency was officially acknowleged. Ditto for lots of other seceret projects. The Executive Branch has money that it can tap but I can’t say how exactly.

6

The Antideficiency Act is what I believe you are searching for. It is the law which creates administrative and criminal penalties for someone who obligates or expends funds that have not been appropriated for that purpose.

Does that answer your question?

7

[QUOTE=Shagnasty]
The Executive Branch has money that it can tap but I can’t say how exactly.
[/QUOTE]
This is wrong. Funding is appropriated for classified purposes in manners which obscure the purpose of the funds, but certain members of Congress are legally required to be fully apprised of the organization and activities of the intelligence community, as per the National Security Act of 1947. Those members also have oversight of funding for intelligence agencies. The members include those on the intelligence committees, the armed services committees, the appropriations committees, and the leadership of Congress.

8

[QUOTE=Shagnasty]
I doubt there is much because money gets spent without Congressional approval all the time. I assume that most of it is buried in some MISC line somewhere or it may just be misrepresented in the budget as something else.
[/QUOTE]
Then let’s say Dr. Evil asked for $100 billion, Congress approved it but made $50B conditional, and the President decided to pay him $200 billion. Just to make it too big to ‘hide’ in some already-approved budget line.

OK, but who are those paper shufflers, and what do they do, exactly? Like the thread title says, the question is, what are the mechanics?

Bush calls Gonzales, and tells him to pay Dr. Evil the $200 billion. Gonzo says he doesn’t have the budgetary authority, and Bush tells him to pretend he does. If Kyle Sampson and Monica Goodling have populated the lower echelons of Justice with people who are willing to do whatever Gonzo tells them to, can he spend the money or not? If not, where’s the hang-up, and how exactly does it work in either case?

9

[QUOTE=Ravenman]
The Antideficiency Act is what I believe you are searching for. It is the law which creates administrative and criminal penalties for someone who obligates or expends funds that have not been appropriated for that purpose.

Does that answer your question?
[/QUOTE]
Not at all, I’m afraid. I’m asking whether and how it CAN be done, not whether it MAY be done.

10

[QUOTE=Ravenman]
This is wrong. Funding is appropriated for classified purposes in manners which obscure the purpose of the funds, but certain members of Congress are legally required to be fully apprised of the organization and activities of the intelligence community, as per the National Security Act of 1947. Those members also have oversight of funding for intelligence agencies. The members include those on the intelligence committees, the armed services committees, the appropriations committees, and the leadership of Congress.
[/QUOTE]

I agree that is what they are supposed to do and I am sure they always make a motion in that direction. However, they can obscure things things sometimes in multipe passes. I will break out my favorite government gone wild example, The Iran-Contra Affair to show that the executive branch and others can definitely get shady with money. Sure, people got in trouble for that one but it was an offshoot of similar dealings in Latin America and the Middle-East that had gone on for decades.

11

[QUOTE=Shagnasty]
I agree that is what they are supposed to do and I am sure they always make a motion in that direction. However, they can obscure things things sometimes in multipe passes. I will break out my favorite government gone wild example, The Iran-Contra Affair to show that the executive branch and others can definitely get shady with money. Sure, people got in trouble for that one but it was an offshoot of similar dealings in Latin America and the Middle-East that had gone on for decades.
[/QUOTE]
In Iran-Contra, the money came from Iran. The mechanics of it were pretty simple: they took weapons owned by the U.S. government, sold them to Iran, and got money in return.

12

[QUOTE=RTFirefly]
In Iran-Contra, the money came from Iran. The mechanics of it were pretty simple: they took weapons owned by the U.S. government, sold them to Iran, and got money in return.
[/QUOTE]

Its like they went on a bender, stole whatever they could and went to a pawn shop to get more cash. Its a common story.

13

[QUOTE=Shagnasty]
I agree that is what they are supposed to do and I am sure they always make a motion in that direction. However, they can obscure things things sometimes in multipe passes. I will break out my favorite government gone wild example, The Iran-Contra Affair to show that the executive branch and others can definitely get shady with money.
[/QUOTE]
There is also the case in which the National Reconnaissance Office illegally squirreled away billions of dollars in the late 1980s, IIRC. If you want to say that sometimes it occurs, then yes; in the same manner one could say that elected officials sometimes sleep with underage boys. It is not legal nor is it common behavior.

I’m not really sure how to answer this. When Congress passes an appropriations bill, the President signs it into law. The President then authorizes the Office of Management and Budget to apportion funds to agencies for execution. OMB typically measures out agencies’ spending authority over the year, but in this case, the Department of Homeland Security would probably be immediately authorized to give half a billion to Dr Evil. The agency would be notified of the availability of funds, and the Secretary of the Department would have a check drafted, or rather, instruct the comptroller to do so, and the check would be put in the mail to Dr Evil at Skull Island.

Following Dr Evil’s destruction of the offending items, the President would then probably have to submit a certification to Congress that the condition has been fulfilled. OMB would then release the remaining money to DHS, and another check goes in the mail.

If the President wanted to violate the Article I, section 9 of the Constitution and the Antideficiency Act, he would order the OMB to release funds to whatever agency he chose so that the agency could write a check to Dr Evil, he could issue the illegal orders to the appropriate personnel and then those guys would then be breaking the law in drafting the spending order.

It’s like, if the President wanted to invade another country without Congress declaring war, the President would order the Secretary of Defense to tell the generals to invade Mexico. All that stands in his way is Article I, section 8 of the Constitution and the War Powers Act.

There is not some physical barrier to breaking the law; he doesn’t have to sneak past the guards at Ft Knox to steal the gold to give to Dr Evil.

Aside from an appropriations bill, there are various legal authorities that allow the purpose of funds to be shifted mid-year. For example, the Department of Defense is given the ability to shift billions of dollars each year to higher-priority items. These shifts, called reprogrammings, are subject to the approval of Congress in an informal process that does not involve votes.

(edited for grammar mistakes)

14

[QUOTE=Ravenman]
I’m not really sure how to answer this.

<snip>

If the President wanted to violate the Article I, section 9 of the Constitution and the Antideficiency Act, he would order the OMB to release funds to whatever agency he chose so that the agency could write a check to Dr Evil, he could issue the illegal orders to the appropriate personnel and then those guys would then be breaking the law in drafting the spending order.
[/quote]

That’s exactly what I was looking for, thanks.

No Goldfinger-style operation? Damn! :wink:

Anyway, thanks again.