Congress has not passed laws requiring spending more than the debt ceiling.
A very few of the budget items REQUIRE the spending. Most simply allow the executive to spend up to the allocated amount.
Say, just for example, that a Republican congress authorized spending on SDI 2, and a Democratic president said, “Oh, I’m authorized to spend that money, but I’m not going to.” Would that be legal? Or do these executive powers to decline to spend money only kick in when the debt limit is reached?
But how? Could the President say: “Okay, everybody gets Medicare for the rest of the year except for Texas. Oh, and the Air Force needs to immediately RIF half their service members.”
Or are there restrictions on it?
Bricker, the “up to $x may be spent on y” construction for appropriations text is not the standard. As a general rule, appropriated funds are required to be spent, except if various circumstances arise, like a program is terminated because it has gone over budget or whatever. If the Executive Branch simply refuses to make funds available for obligation, that is an impoundment and is not allowed unless Congress passes a rescission bill to void the appropriation.
Typically entitlements like Medicare are the required spending I would think.
Of the $2140 bn 2012 Federal Budget, $817.5bn was non-discretionary spending by the Social Security Administration, $787.8bn was non-discretionary spending by DHHS. $148.7 bn of the Treasury budget was non-discretionary. In total that covers virtually all of the mandatory spending and comes in at $1,754bn. Much smaller portions from every other agency bring non-discretionary spending up to $2,252bn.
Total receipts were supposed to be around $2,469 bn, so stuff like Medicare for Texas would be covered regardless. The President has no option to not pay mandatory stuff if their is money available.
Almost the entirety of the DoD is discretionary, by the way, out of $683bn only $5.3bn is mandatory, so the Air Force furloughing people is a lot more legally defensible than not paying Texas Medicare payments.
When people have speculated on what happens if there is genuinely not enough money to cover mandatory spending, the assumptions have said that the debt payment would be first priority and then they would try their best to fund the entitlements people need to live on, and they’d send notices to Congress informing them of everything they are supposed to pay for but can’t to let Congress deal with it as they see fit.
Congress can pass any law that is Constitutional. They could theoretically pass a law establishing a large Federal Agency dedicated to the breeding of purebred rabbits and mandate you spend $100 trillion a year on it. I understand it seems confusing to people, but there is nothing inherently crazy about being able to pass laws the President can’t execute. It’s not wise, and in fact it’s stupid, but there is nothing legally impossible or even strange about it.
It’s a strange claim that the most legally appropriate thing for the President to do when faced by laws he physically cannot execute, is to do things he is specifically prohibited from doing to try and execute him. It makes far more sense that he would simply note he cannot fulfill the parameters of the law and inform Congress.
Also in theory, it’s a ripe area where you could argue the President has a responsibility to do “everything legally in his powers” to execute laws passed by Congress. And if you exhaust all legally permissible actions it actually must include the power of the President to issue very large-denomination coins to settle affairs. So there is always that.
But also keep in mind, what’s the actual consequence of the President not executing a law Congress orders him to? In most States the legislature could file suit in court or with some administrative body to get a writ of mandamus forcing the executive to do something, and failure to do so can usually be handled in extremely negative ways for the executive. At the Federal level that’s not really a possibility at least under my current understand of precedent (I believe Marbury v. Madison the court ruled it could not compel the executive to do anything through its judicial powers.)
So the consequences of a President not being able to execute a law are essentially nothing. It’s not like he goes to jail for it. Congress could impeach him for not fulfilling his duties, saying that since he was not executing laws they passed he was derelict, sure. But impeachment is political, how would the electorate respond to a Congress impeaching a President for not executing laws that the President can’t execute because Congress wrote them such that it was an impossibility?
No, the President can notify Congress which activities he intends to halt, under the provisions of 2 USC §§ 683 and 684.
Yes, but only a tiny fraction of programs are not eligible for recission or deferral under § 683 or § 684.
Mandatory and discretionary spending does not refer to the executive’s option to spend or not spend the funds. Mandatory spending is interchangably called direct or entitlement spending, and refers to a standing spending authority that does not need to be renewed each year by law. Discretionary spending must be approved every year by law. That’s the only difference.
All spending authority is equally valid.
I don’t recall the last year that Congress acted on a presidentially proposed rescission, but I wouldn’t be surprised if it was 20 years. Congress has to pass a bill to enact the proposed rescission; if Congress doesn’t act within 45 days, it is a rejection of the President’s proposal not to spend the funds.
It was my understanding mandatory spending is spending required by existing statute (like the laws creating the SSA’s retirement benefit plan, for example) so they are mandatory in that you’d have to actually pass a law undoing the legislation in the existing laws that mandate the spending in perpetuity.
I was under the impression this sort of spending, at least based on random news clippings from the last debt ceiling debate, were the ones Geithner was saying would be prioritized. I guess it makes sense that they are no more or less required than any other appropriation, though.
Maybe I missed it, and maybe it’s obvious, but why is it that the country cannot be expected to live within it’s budget?
What you really mean is why the country cannot be expected to not borrow. The budgets contain deficits in them. It’s not like the President spends more money than was budgeted.
And the answer is: Sometimes it’s good to not borrow, and sometimes it’s good to borrow.
We can argue about whether or not we borrow too much, too often. But sometimes it makes sense to borrow.
What’s your plan?
Yay, strawmen! No one has said he gets to run afoul of the Constitution. Congress has authorized him to spend the money. He therefore has the Constitutional ability to spend the money. The executive has the right to decide which law to enforce. He can choose to not enforce a contradictory law, which is what the debt ceiling is.
You can’t have it both ways. Either Congress alone handles money, and thus is the ones on the hook if the President follows their laws and overspends, or the President has some responsibility to the money, and thus Congress can authorize him to raise the debt ceiling when that law is in contradiction to other laws. Just like he can be authorized to spend up to a certain amount rather than the actual amount, he can be authorized to disregard the debt ceiling legislation if it contradicts other laws.
This is not him taking over powers. Congress still tells him what he can spend. Congress is just putting in a clause that allows him to handle contradictory laws.
You keep arguing using current law. He is required right now to try to cut funding (which, according to you, should fall entirely to Congress because your textualist version of the Constitution says so.) He doesn’t want to be required to do this, and is asking for Congress to make a law that gives him an out.
Stop acting like the debt ceiling is in the Constitution. It’s a law. And, as a law, it can have exceptions. By changing the law, Congress CREATES that authorization you’re so dadblasted worried about.
If the Republicans were so dablasted sure this was unconstitutional, they would be stupid not to go ahead and agree, differing to Obama’s legal expertise, and then let it go to the Supreme Court, where it would be knocked down. They aren’t nearly as sure as Bricker is that it’s unconstitutional.
BigT - the only reasoned response to those last two posts are: You are an idiot.
It’s one thing to be mistaken about legal issues. It’s quite another to have three pages of discussion of why the proposal is blatantly unconstitutional, and then have someone jump in with less than no understanding of the matter.
No, I don’t mean why the country cannot be expect to not borrow, I just don’t get why it is that, as someone said upthread, the country cannot be expected to stay within budget. Why have a budget if it’s planned to be ignored?
Write up a budget, stay within it except for an emergency. You know, like people do all the time?
Today, we’re going to teach you how to play the flute. Well, you blow in one end and move your fingers up and down on the outside.
Welp, another very informative thread, 'dopers. My comment on this:
is that the result always seems exactly the same as the budget I issued to my gf when we had to move: “We can afford rent up to $x, and I will reserve veto power over your choice, but please pick something you like since I don’t care so much about apartments” Guess what? Nothing under $x-1 was considered and we’re paying the maximum amount I specified, not a cent less. Are there many major examples to the contrary?
Can the defense budget, for example, be cut unilaterally by the president? This cut gets framed as a part of the fiscal cliff negotiations, but if Obama decides he is going to cut $200 bn per annum from the Pentagon because he says so, is it just that simple? The thread, if I am not mistaken, says this is discretionary, but somehow I anticipate a wrinkle.
You mean the folks that are supposed to be running the country don’t know how to draw up and stick to a budget? :dubious: