The interesting part of this to me is just how far they’ll go to demean their own principles to win. They are implicitly saying that a fetus is just “evidence.” Much like they say God or religions symbols aren’t religious and have no meaning, just so they can keep them on coins and government buildings.
One more time and maybe a rooster will crow.
Congressman Mo Brooks (R-AL) is deeply concerned that we need to balance the budget. And so he’s proposed to do so by introducing a constitutional amendment which does nothing except prove that he has absolutely no idea what branch of government controls spending;
[QUOTE=The Hill]
The bill says the amendment must require federal spending not to exceed the revenue it collects, a goal it must meet after five years…
If a budget deficit occurred for any other reason, the president would have to take “such steps as are necessary” to avoid it. Failure would leave him open to impeachment.
“The President may not order any increase in taxes or other revenue measures to enforce the Amendment,” the bill reads. “A President’s failure to prevent a prohibited fiscal year deficit is an impeachable offense.”
[/QUOTE]
You could have quoted the Gospel according to Mark (Knopfler) : Monet for nothing, chicks for free.
Or even the Apocrypha, the Gospel according to Carl (Perkins) : One for the Monet, two for the show…
That’s not exactly true - the POTUS can send back most of the money Congress appropriates to fund the executive if he wants to. The real problem with this bill is that he’d have to send back just about all of it to fix the deficit, because 90% of the budget is not federal agency funding.
The Republicans have been working hard to find people committing voter fraud. They seem to have trouble finding actual instances so they have to make do with creating them themselves. Roxanne Rubin was arrested trying to prove how easy fraud was. Guess it isn’t so easy.
Typical Congress too - just throw their responsibility over to the president. (Then they complain that the president is being “imperial.”)
Not since the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 outlawed it.
I don’t understand where you get that 90% figure.
What about History of the World Part 1?
“Count de Money!”
“It’s Count de *Monet.”
*
Most appropriations for federal agencies leave the actual spending to the discretion of the executive. “The Director of the Environmental Protection Agency may spend up to $3,000,000 building a Potomac Duck Sanctuary…” or whatever. The Act you refer to outlawed recission of mandatory spending - “the Secretary of Defense shall purchase 342 tanks for $4,000,000,000”.
I didn’t think most appropriations bills leave discretion to the executive like that. But maybe I haven’t looked closely enough. Thanks for that point.
In any event, I doubt Rep. Brooks has any idea how it works.
What’s amusing about that proposed amendment is that it orders the Prez to take “such steps as are necessary” to balance the budget. Any steps at all. Well, except increasing revenue. But other than raising taxes or other revenue measures, he can totally do whatever it takes to balance the budget.
Funny that it’s somehow the President’s fault if congress doesn’t balance the budget, and it’s an impeachable offense if he doesn’t fix it.
It doesn’t say anything about not dissolving Congress and using their salaries and the proceeds of the sale of the Capitol, I notice…
It’s the equivalent of “If the President doesn’t do what I want I’m going to stomp my foot really hard like THIS!” childish rant.
How about Congress actually do it’s job and send spending bills that reduce the deficit to the President to sign?
But…but…if Congress just actually did thier jobs, how would that make the Black Socialist Kenyan illeagally occupying the White House look bad?
You’re wrong. That vast majority of appropriations acts state something like, “The following sums are appropriated from the Treasury for the following purposes: For necessary expenses of the Department of Redundancy Department, $123,454,321…” The President doesn’t have the option to simply not spend that money. The phrasing “$1,000,000 may be used for…” is not the common way to write budget bills.
If the President decides as a policy that he does not wish to spend appropriated funds, that’s an impoundment and requires congressional approval.
And “mandatory” spending isn’t what you purport it to be. Mandatory means entitlement or direct spending, it does not mean “no options for the executive.”
I don’t think he meant it that way. He meant mandatory, not Mandatory.
I meant mandatory as in the use of mandate language (“shall”). I bow to your (vastly) greater experience as to the other bit, though.
♪ Well you came and you spent without taxing ♫
♫ And I sent you away, oh Mandatory ♪
That hurt my brain.