@amuse
DOGE IDEA: One way Trump could cut the size of federal agencies is by reclaiming the power of 'impoundment' - a power that was exercised by every president from Jefferson to Kennedy.
Here is how it could work:
A crucial tactic Trump could use is reasserting presidential power over federal spending through impoundment, a power that was severely weakened by the Impoundment Control Act (ICA) of 1974. In response to President Nixon's bold use of impoundment to control federal spending, Congress passed the ICA to limit the President’s ability to withhold or delay funding, effectively stripping future Presidents of this essential authority. Before the ICA, Presidents from Jefferson to Kennedy exercised impoundment to prevent wasteful spending, aligning expenditures with their executive priorities. The ICA's restrictions transformed the President from a steward of taxpayer funds into a mere bookkeeper, obligated to spend every dollar as Congress dictates, regardless of necessity or effectiveness. By reclaiming the power of impoundment Trump could effectively cut the funding of any federal agency to reduce its headcount.
The Unitary Executive Theory provides the constitutional basis for reclaiming impoundment authority. At its core, this theory emphasizes that all executive power rests solely with the President, as articulated in Article II of the Constitution. This authority allows the President to execute laws with judgment, including managing federal funds prudently. Without this discretion, the President’s ability to effectively oversee the executive branch is compromised. The Supreme Court’s decision in Zivotofsky v. Kerry (2015) further reinforces this idea, asserting that certain powers belong exclusively to the President, especially in areas central to executive function.
By embracing the Unitary Executive Theory, President Trump could argue for the restoration of impoundment authority as a legitimate tool for ensuring fiscal discipline. This move would allow the President to halt unnecessary spending and rein in agency budgets that have far exceeded their original scope, such as the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). It’s about prioritizing the efficient use of taxpayer dollars and aligning federal spending with the administration’s vision, rather than letting bureaucratic inertia dictate national priorities. Reclaiming this power is not only practical governance but a necessary reassertion of constitutional authority to prevent Congress from overreaching into executive responsibilities.
A Trump administration committed to impoundment could curtail unnecessary spending within federal agencies, using judicial precedents such as Zivotofsky v. Kerry (2015) to assert that Congress cannot micromanage executive action, especially in managing government resources. Reclaiming impoundment not only saves taxpayer money but ensures that every federal dollar spent reflects executive intent—an essential step in reversing the unchecked expansion of regulatory agencies that stifles both liberty and efficiency.
DOGE IDEA: One way Trump could cut the size of federal agencies is by reclaiming the power of 'impoundment' - a power that was exercised by every president from Jefferson to Kennedy.
Here is how it could work:
A crucial tactic Trump could use is reasserting presidential power over federal spending through impoundment, a power that was severely weakened by the Impoundment Control Act (ICA) of 1974. In response to President Nixon's bold use of impoundment to control federal spending, Congress passed the ICA to limit the President’s ability to withhold or delay funding, effectively stripping future Presidents of this essential authority. Before the ICA, Presidents from Jefferson to Kennedy exercised impoundment to prevent wasteful spending, aligning expenditures with their executive priorities. The ICA's restrictions transformed the President from a steward of taxpayer funds into a mere bookkeeper, obligated to spend every dollar as Congress dictates, regardless of necessity or effectiveness. By reclaiming the power of impoundment Trump could effectively cut the funding of any federal agency to reduce its headcount.
The Unitary Executive Theory provides the constitutional basis for reclaiming impoundment authority. At its core, this theory emphasizes that all executive power rests solely with the President, as articulated in Article II of the Constitution. This authority allows the President to execute laws with judgment, including managing federal funds prudently. Without this discretion, the President’s ability to effectively oversee the executive branch is compromised. The Supreme Court’s decision in Zivotofsky v. Kerry (2015) further reinforces this idea, asserting that certain powers belong exclusively to the President, especially in areas central to executive function.
By embracing the Unitary Executive Theory, President Trump could argue for the restoration of impoundment authority as a legitimate tool for ensuring fiscal discipline. This move would allow the President to halt unnecessary spending and rein in agency budgets that have far exceeded their original scope, such as the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). It’s about prioritizing the efficient use of taxpayer dollars and aligning federal spending with the administration’s vision, rather than letting bureaucratic inertia dictate national priorities. Reclaiming this power is not only practical governance but a necessary reassertion of constitutional authority to prevent Congress from overreaching into executive responsibilities.
A Trump administration committed to impoundment could curtail unnecessary spending within federal agencies, using judicial precedents such as Zivotofsky v. Kerry (2015) to assert that Congress cannot micromanage executive action, especially in managing government resources. Reclaiming impoundment not only saves taxpayer money but ensures that every federal dollar spent reflects executive intent—an essential step in reversing the unchecked expansion of regulatory agencies that stifles both liberty and efficiency.
