Be advised: this thread is not for serious in-depth discussion of weighty topics (we have a link for that), this thread is not for anything Culture War related. This thread is for Fun. You got jokes? Share 'em. You got silly questions? Ask 'em.
- 112
- 2
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Payroll expenses are about 5% of federal spending. Laying off half of the employees would have only a minimal effect on total spending.
Right, though I meant more like the general sketch of the strategy. Congress authorizes spending and revenues are raised and they don't stop being raised just because the executive stops spending it.
So, if it's politically impossible for Congress to pass a bill that cuts expenses by 20%, can it be done in reverse? The executive stops spending 20%, damage done, they own it. But then Congress can just rubber stamp the reduction after the fact? And since it's revenue neutral (negative actually) it only needs the reconciliation process to pass (simple, filibuster proof majority)?
Anything's possible, because laws aren't real, but the President has a constitutional mandate to "take care that the laws be executed faithfully," which includes making the expenditures specified in law. Anyone who's "harmed" by the reduction in spending (e.g. by getting laid off, or by not getting the benefit of the legally mandated spending) has standing to sue, and contrary to the histrionic claims of the left, I think the conservative majority on the Court actually cares about upholding the law.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link