Yves here. I’ve been waiting for legal arguments against the planned wholesale Federal budget whackage under the Trump DOGE initiative to start. Admittedly its leaders Musk and Ramaswamy had not given much insight into how they intended to achieve their ambitious aims. The little I have seen suggests that they effectively intend to override regulations….which implement statutes passed by Congress and signed by the President (or where Congress overrode a veto). Those statutes are sometimes implemented by regulations, which are subject to an elaborate approval process where opponents get to weigh in and their objections very often do lead to changes in the final rules.
In other words, the current DOGE implementation plan seems likely to run into successful court challenges. This piece provides the latest detail.
By Jake Johnson, staff writer at Common Dreams. Originally published at Common Dreams
Democrats on the House Budget Committee said Friday that the plan Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy outlined to eliminate spending already appropriated by the U.S. Congress would run afoul of a federal law enacted in response to former President Richard Nixon’s impoundment of funds for programs he opposed.
In a Wall Street Journal op-ed published earlier this week, Musk and Ramaswamy specifically mentioned the 1974 Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act (ICA) only to wave it away, arguing it would not hinder their effort to enact sweeping spending cuts as part of the “government efficiency” commission President-elect Donald Trump appointed them to lead.
But House Budget Committee Democrats said Friday that the Nixon-era law and subsequent Supreme Court rulings make clear that “the power of the purse rests solely with Congress.”
“Fifty years after the ICA became law, Congress once again confronts a threat attempting to push past the long-recognized boundaries of executive budgetary power,” the lawmakers wrote in a fact sheet. “During his first administration, President Trump illegally impounded crucial security assistance funding for Ukraine in an effort to benefit his reelection campaign. Now, Donald Trump and his far-right extremist allies are pushing dangerous legal theories to dismantle that system.”
“They want to give the president unchecked power to slash funding for programs like food assistance, public education, healthcare, and federal law enforcement—all without congressional approval,” the Democrats continued. “American families would be forced to pay more for basic necessities, investment in infrastructure and jobs would decline, and our communities would become less safe. Instead of working within the democratic process, Trump and his allies want to sidestep Congress entirely. But the Constitution is clear: only Congress, elected by the people, controls how taxpayer dollars are spent.”
The fact sheet was released days after Musk and Ramaswamy, both billionaires, offered for the first time a detailed explanation of their plan to pursue large-scale cuts to federal regulations and spending, as well as mass firings of federal employees, in their role as co-heads of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE).
The pair noted that Trump “has previously suggested” the ICA is unconstitutional and expressed the view that “the current Supreme Court would likely side with him on this question.” The former president appointed half of the court’s right-wing supermajority.
“But even without relying on that view, DOGE will help end federal overspending by taking aim at the $500 billion-plus in annual federal expenditures that are unauthorized by Congress or being used in ways that Congress never intended, from $535 million a year to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and $1.5 billion for grants to international organizations to nearly $300 million to progressive groups like Planned Parenthood.”
Other programs that would be vulnerable if Musk, Ramaswamy, Trump, and Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.)—who’s set to lead a new related House subcommittee—get their way are veterans’ healthcare, Head Start, housing assistance, and childcare aid, according toThe Washington Post.
Rep. Brendan Boyle (D-Pa.), the top Democrat on the House Budget Committee, said in a statement Friday that “the legal theories being pushed by Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy are as idiotic as they are dangerous.”
“Unilaterally slashing funds that have been lawfully appropriated by the people’s elected representatives in Congress would be a devastating power grab that undermines our economy and puts families and communities at risk,” said Boyle. “House Democrats are ready to fight back against any illegal attempt to gut the programs that keep American families safe and help them make ends meet.”
I notice that there is no mention of the Military Industrial Complex budget(s.)
In relation to the above, I see no suggestions that “excess” military bases on American soil be repurposed for “pet projects” like “Illegal Immigrant” detention and ‘processing,’ climate control programs, (a new CCC perhaps?) or “green enterprise zones.” (As precedent, the ‘repurposing’ of the naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba as a “detention centre” for “terrorists” and other quasi-political prisoners can be cited.)
I’m still waiting for the official announcement of those fabulous FEMA Re-education Centres.
This entire process reminds me, curiously, of Franklin Roosevelt’s attempt to “pack” the Supreme Court. That might still be a possibility today. With Trump’s clear win this time, the knives will be out on both “sides” of the political divide. Said “political divide” is not shaping up to be strictly along the ‘traditional’ Party lines. With the Democrat Party going all Establishment Republican Lite and the Trump wing of the Republican Party shifting “populist” and pseudo working class, a big shuffling of political factions is happening.
A hundred plus years ago, the Democrat Party supported slavery and the rule of landed oligarchs. They seem to be returning to their roots today.
Observations: For once, the Democrats may be right. Article I of the Constitution is more than clear that the Congress controls spending.
So the first paragraph here is correct. The second is posturing and historically obtuse:
‘But House Budget Committee Democrats said Friday that the Nixon-era law and subsequent Supreme Court rulings make clear that “the power of the purse rests solely with Congress.”’
[Yes. See article 1 of the U.S. Constitution. Extraneous commissions can only make recommendations in a long report, which neither Musk nor Vivek will have the patience to effect.]
Then, the melodrama and slobbering:
“Fifty years after the ICA became law, Congress once again confronts a threat attempting to push past the long-recognized boundaries of executive budgetary power,” the lawmakers wrote in a fact sheet. “During his first administration, President Trump illegally impounded crucial security assistance funding for Ukraine in an effort to benefit his reelection campaign. Now, Donald Trump and his far-right extremist allies are pushing dangerous legal theories to dismantle that system.”
Is that you, Vindman? Why is it that no one can stick to the knitting these days? I watched the first part of Bernie Sanders’s speech advocating the elimination of illegal funding of arms to Israel. Poor Bernie, blabbering on about Iran and Russia first, the usual virtue signaling and muddied messaging. Just cut off the Israelis, FFS. Is it too much COVID brain fog?
Free advice to the Democrats: Stick to Article 1. Try not to re-play the ill-fated impeachments from Trump’s first term. Don’t give in to COVID brain fog and Hillary’s splatter-theater “theory” of politics.
“Theory”? There’s that word again.
Speaking of word, why Doge? The doge of Venice was an elected duke, much hemmed in by Venetian laws and customs. He could never have slashed the budget / revenues of the Serenissima. There were too many other branches of government, including the Maggior Consiglio, which was considered the sovereign and nominated the candidate for doge.
So doge doesn’t mean what these lightweights think it means,
At least they didn’t chose the word zanni.
Here in the Undisclosed Region, we will pass the bonet, brethren and sistren, as the U.S. melodrama gets even more melodramalicious.
An observation of Marjorie Taylor Greene. I once saw an interview that she gave with, I believe, Krystal Ball.
Marjorie Taylor Greene came across as cogent. Then she started taking about the federal budget as a checkbook. Now, either she has fallen for the warped metaphor as a talking point, or else, she may even believe that budgeting at the level of government is done with a giant checkbook. Marked in ink.
So in “theory,” she is full of potholes.
I was reminded of MTG later, when I saw an interview with Candace Owens, who also seemed reasonable for a few minutes but then went on a tear about how Brigitte Macron is really a man — except that Brigette Macron has three adult children from her first marriage. Hmmm. Sounds manly to me…
So believing that the federal government’s budget is a checkbook is somewhere around “Brigitte Macron, c’est un mec.”
I like your reading of the etymology better, but sadly, DOGE apparently comes from the eponymous crypto, which in turn comes from:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doge_(meme)
Stupidest timeline, natch.
Sadly Kabosu the dog, who featured so often on cryptocurrency, passed away a few months ago-
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doge_(meme)#/media/File%3AOriginal_Doge_meme.jpg
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kabosu_(dog)
Hey DJG, a “legal theory” is actually a term of art used to describe a combination of law and facts that support a legal argument. They’re only “dangerous” when someone realizes that the argument might actually win in a court, overturning a cherished precedent and they don’t have a solid enough argument as to why the theory should not prevail. I haven’t litigated in years but I think that’s the right explanation.
Bugs: Thanks. I should have recalled that use of theory. I worked for several years as an editor at a major legal publisher. Yet the use of theory in this legal sense may be a term of art, but it is also an inflated use of the word theory, which truly should be confined to life sciences, physical sciences, and mathematics.
I recall, too, that lawyers liked to be styled “Esq.” in addresses on letters. Title inflation (?).
Fortunately, you have haven’t litigated in years, which is what lawyers should do (not go to court), so I won’t have to address you as
Bugs, Esq.
<>
If I recall Fowler accurately, “Esquire” is denotes “mere gentleman” and its use is a “pompous affectation”.
Legalities and constitutional issues are one thing. The US simply running out of money is another. While the doggy department on the one hand appears farcical, behind it is the now very real issue of the US federal budget and it’s interest payments which show no signs of correction. I think doggy department is a clown or satire show on purpose as the court jester has more freedom to speak truth than the rest of the palace.
It’s not there to do the job, it’s there to highlight it.
Please wash your mouth out. The Federal government will never run out of money. No sovereign currency issuer ever runs out of money.
The can generate too much inflation.
Saw interesting suggestion today from Stephanie Kelton – eliminate wasteful interest payment transfers by permanently capping rates at very low levels and use other tools to manage economy. Or stop issuing debt altogether.
…the invective DT as court jester is one thing,
the temerity of his sycophants is altogether another
Interesting that the Congressional Democrats remembered that they had powers described in the Constitution. Normally they are more than happy to abdicate those to the executive so they can get on with the more important business of fundraising.
But yes, the histrionics! Trump doesn’t have policies, he threatens, his every move is illegal, and they are always far-right and extremist moves.
The left/right dichotomy may have run its course so I’m reluctant to call a genocide far right given the bipartisan zeal tp carry it out, but it is most definitely “extreme”. Supplying the weapons to purposefully target hospitals, journalists, children?? But it’s having an accountant chose a disapproved definition in a drop down menu that makes someone a criminal with 34 felony counts – that is definitely not just a legal theory, it’s a horrible crime, right there in black and white!
If the Democrats want to people to take them seriously and not be seen as a bunch of do nothing, money grubbing scolds, maybe tone down the rhetoric, do something to help citizens and prioritize them over donors. Bernie Sanders might have given people health care and then there might have millions more liberal leaning people around to vote for Democrats, as another post today notes. But the excuse we hear over and over is they must behave as they do, otherwise the evil Republicans might win and they won’t be able to help us any longer.
The Democrats made it clear three times now that they’d rather lose to Trump than win with someone like Bernie, so they got what they wanted, good and hard. And he won with far less money. I’m sure the lesson Democrats will take is they need to raise even moar. Maybe instead of the ridiculous pleas to help them protect us from the evils of Trump, the next round of fundraising emails they send out should simply show this (thanks to Harry Shearer and friends!) – it would be a lot more honest.
Hills declaring universal healthcare will never, ever ever come to pass. Take that Bernie voters. But we did get O-care. / ;)
Another monetary musical interlude.
Sidenote: The doge election process was complex and provided some stability over the centuries. That was one type of public-ish involvement by lot, even if a somewhat constrained elector pool.
Seems a lot simpler than a US election.
<"Free advice to the Democrats: Stick to Article 1"
Art I/9:
"No money shall be drawn from the treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law; and a regular statement and account of receipts and expenditures of all public money shall be published from time to time."
The Dem "Fact Sheet" cites "Train v. City of New York, 420 U.S. 35 (1975)". That case says nothing about Article I powers, it's about statutory construction. Seems to me it comes down to Art II/3 clause:
"he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed" with respect to the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974.
Bernie’s pre-emptive talk about Iran and Russia first is not blabbering. It is pre-emptive flag self-wrapping to pre-emptively shield himself from cynical McCarthy-style accusations of anti-americanism. Once flag self-wrapped, he hopes that his talk about Israel will be heard and maybe even listened to. If he hadn’t said that stuff about Russia-Iran first, he would be dismissed with ” well, what can you expect from that Russia-loving Iran-lover?” You see what is said about Tulsi Gabbard, after all.
So his talk about Iran and Russia was the delivery vehicle, and his talk about Israel was the payload.
And if he has come to believe his own Russia and Iran talk? Well, maybe you ” have to pull the wool over your own eyes before you can pull it over anyone else’s” . . . as J. R. Dobbs is said to have said.
I’m waiting for the explanation of how the elimination of so much aggregate demand is absorbed without a recession. To be clear, I’m all in for a much smaller federal footprint. I don’t see how you can turn off that much spending in a short timeframe.
Because trillions are trickling up instead of down? There goes our amazing GDP geiger counter. Wealth accumulation at the top while the peasants freeze.
Yes, that’s a wee problem they have not gotten to.
They think then they can really cut taxes and the private sector will take up the slack.
What if this is a shell game and the slack will be taken up by the states (funded by feds) and/or private contractors (funded by feds) and it will lead to greater public spending? Isn’t that what happened in the 90s?
Metro DC area, say, DelMarVa could be recipients of a Martial Plan to marshall resources to ease the transition away from the Fed budget spending multiplier. Gotta help out Georgetown eateries, secluded bars, hotels and anonymous storefronts used for extracurricular lobbying, consulting and other purposes.
Too much slash and burn too soon would crater the area with ripple effects around the country, to start. Obvious and logical, but don’t take anything for granted when there is legislation or a program to enact, kill or modify.
I saw a tweet from Musk about a week ago admitting that tarrifs, deportations and spending cuts would cause near term pain but benefit after. I don’ think they factored in the 2 year congressional cycle. Tank the economy and see a blue wave hit the house.
I liked the following analogy: impact of DOGE likely will be like trying to free up hard drive space by deleting text files.
This video is currently going viral in China’s internet, but it’s germane to the topic. Elon Musk uses advanced ancient martial arts to explain the meaning of DOGE.
So basically, someone in China had used AI to transplant Elon’s face to a character in the following movie. Elon’s character is a Ming dynasty era eunuch who has obtained the favor of the emperor’s chief concubine and as such he’s decided to get rid of the old guards (the so called “Federation” in the subtitle). The Chinese word “联邦” often gets translated as Federal (as in the Fed) or Federation, but etymologically it means united factions, hence old guards in the context of the movie. It’s worth a watch, because this is probably how ordinary Chinese are viewing Elon’s DOGE.
The “Ming dynasty era eunuch” part might be more ineteresting to Mericans.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eunuchs_in_China
It is said that the justification for the employment of eunuchs as high-ranking civil servants was that, since they were incapable of having children, they would not be tempted to seize power and start a dynasty.
So Elon Musk is an Amerocan version of He Jin? (Note: He Jin was a Han dynasty era official and a relative of an empress who famous picked a fight with the Ten Eunuchs, an influential gdoup of eunuch courtiers in the waning days of Han. Things disn’t go well for He, the eunuchs, or the Han. In fact, this fight is what sets off the events of the novel Romance of the Three Kingdoms.)
https://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2024/11/how-many-people-work-for-us-federal.html
Interesting note from Bill McBride. There isn’t much left to cut, a lot has been cut already.
Currently there are just over 600 thousand postal workers, and just under 2.4 million other federal employees.
Federal employment was around 4.3% of total employment in 1960 and is now down to 1.9%.
Sure. Back in my day the OMB A-79 process had gov’t employees competing with private sector and private sector often won. My impression (haven’t done any fact checking) is that most fed positions eliminated were blue collar.
Separately the post cold war “peace dividend” did eliminate many DoD positions not just blue collar, some by RIF but mostly through VERA/VSIP authorities. In my corner of the defense biz, closing of Philly, Charleston, Mare island, and Long Beach shipyards had major employment impacts.
Cutting federal jobs makes for good budget-cutting copy but the dirty secret is that those jobs are then often filled with private sector contractors. It’s a win/win for the politicians, as those contract companies return the favor in the form of campaign donations.
The federal agency I worked for in 2010 had 48,000 federal employees on the payroll and 48,000 federal contractors. I believe this 50/50 split is likely typical for most federal agencies and may even be worse for mega agencies like DOD, DHS, and the VA. But you will never hear a politician decry the glut of federal contractors, even for those doing “inherently governmental work.”
Pearl clutching because democrats are not wielding the axe, IMO. This is deja vu all over again. Clinton-Gore Reinventing Government, from Wikipedia:
Dumbing down of bureaucracy, stripping expertise and turning it into contract administration to outsourced corporations. Been there done that, haven’t we?
The result I saw after “reinventing government” was that they fired all the secretaries so the professionals became confused didn’t know where to find sh*t and spent a lot of money on semi-fraudulent computer contractors like me (I participated in a few semi-fraud myself). The professionals didn’t care how much money they spent because they knew all the angles to keep their offices afloat even if they did nothing. Like most things the new procedures made some things better and other things worse.
I think, however, the Trump people are more ambitious than Gore and friends–it looks like they want to eliminate departments and offices. This won’t necessarily step on Congress and its right to appropriate money for particular tasks because you can re-assign tasks to other departments who will be asked to drag their feet (the Federal bureaucracy know every imaginable trick to do so) and quietly redirect the money somewhere more useful. The administration always has the advantage vis a vis Congress.
“In other words, the current DOGE implementation plan seems likely to run into successful court challenges.” Didn’t Obama get immunity for telecoms? Because inefficient Constitutional right of privacy. So just grant blanket immunity to corporations and the rich. Replace courts with the Obama proposed TPP corporate controlled appeal boards, because courts are inefficient, too. I mean, for goodness sakes who owns this nation and government?
I slogged through that op Ed. It has all manner of very specific numbers of how committees will determine the appropriate head count for agencies and other weird metrics and is thin on what we can do without and why we don’t need it.
Regulation and oversight of any kind bad, I guess, privatization good.
And keeps those Space X and Starlink contracts coming. Make sure EVs have zillions in credits ND incentives.
Seriously, if you have held a newspaper lately or recall the dimensions, the op ed is one whole sheet of newspaper. So it must be important!
Arming Israel is illegal according to US laws, but the US still does it. I guess there is bi-partisan, while in this case is not?
As much as I hate to say it, I hope they succeed in absolutely gutting everything.
The result would be so catastrophic that it would present the opportunity to finally, finally permanently reset the political landscape in the US. The GOP would be so discredited that it implodes, the Dems would at long last become the GOP of ten years ago after 50 years of trying, and a new party would have to show up that represents labor-the 99%. Of course it could permanently reset the political landscape in a myriad of other ways.
I don’t see the Dems challenging any of this. The only thing Dems seem to challenge is the concept of MAD which could result in the big KABOOM before the next administration has a chance to do anything. Otherwise they’re fine with whatever the GOP does and have been so for decades.
The best long-term outcome of this IMNSHO would be the decisive and shameful discrediting of neoliberalism as a governing paradigm, understanding that doing so will quite be painful.
It won’t happen as you hope. The reset will be towards a new Dark Ages Feudalism. Or even more so than now.
I voted for 4 years of semi peace and semi quiet so that the Survivalism minded would have 4 years to prepare to survivalize in place.
As it is, the Survivalism-minded will have to build their own survivalism sooner than that, hopefully with like minded people.
I agree that it won’t happen as I hope. I’m cynical enough that however bad I can imagine it getting, it’ll be worse.
Well, remember what Morpheus said to Neo somewhere in those Matrix movies . . .
” There is no bottom”.
Get ready to survivalize in a world of ” no bottom”.
I voted for 4 more years of Brezhnevian Stagnation and social semi-peace in order to buy 4 years to use for getting ready to Survivalize. But Accelerationism won and we will have a totalistic and finalistic-to-endpoint application of Yeltsinization for America.
So anyone who hopes to Survivalize will have to start working on their Survivalist preparations right away.
Start here:
10th Amendment to U.S. Constitution – Bill Of Rights.
Chevron Deference.