Oh....my.....goodness. Is this any way to run a country? Between my recent (much-belated) reading of PJ O'Rourke's very scary book, Parliament of Whores, and your close reading of government shenanigans, I am stunned that this country functions at all.
Hi Gabe. Maybe the Senate Democrats could get a personal promise from four Republicans not to vote for rescissions. Then maybe a budget deal could be brokered. What do you think?
Hey Gabe--Your comment about an inartfully written bill struck me. It seems I hear this a lot. The president (any president, not just Trump) and Congress seem to spend an inordinate amount of time trying to find loopholes in laws. Sometimes a law written decades ago cannot have anticipated new developments, but it seems like an awful lot were just written rather carelessly without forethought of how important the actual wording can be. Couple that with the observation that the laws are actually written by Congressional aides and most Congressional aides are extremely young, barely out of college, and I wonder if the problem of inartfully written laws is one worth examining.
I feel we need a better way to voice citizen desires for spending "our" money...Have each tax return include a pie chart of all discretionary funding items and let each citizen adjust the pieces of pie however they want...include an "other" category with "comments"...send it in (with your return$$$) - then broadly publicize the results (using all these new analytic graphing tools and pervasive social media). Make it non-binding, but widely acknowledged. Report on each congressman's votes compared to the citizen's preferences. Add a spoonful of sugar, stir and sit back and wait for the mid-terms:-)
So interesting! Great article, Gabe! I am all about the intention of something and I hope that Pocket Rescission thing gets ruled unconstitutional. That is one ridiculous loophole. At the very least the Court should require the outcome to be produced within the agreed 45 days (regardless of date) and if not approved then the President must then spend that money as originally directed by Congress albeit late. But I suspect that could muddy the waters more going forward with a new Presidential function to keep tabs of monies they have to spend late versus what is approved for the next year.
Jeez, how complicated! In Canada if the budget fails to get the confidence of Parliament, the government falls and an election could be held. The president should have no say in the spending outlined in a bill that has passed Congress. None.
Forget the point of having a minority party; Trump is daring everyone to tell what the point of having a Congress is when he can rule unilaterally on all budget decisions. This is tantamount to declaring him an absolute monarch.
Agreed. As Gabe’s closing sentence (“It’s a lose-lose for Democrats — and a win-win for Trump.”) illustrates, the normal, average American right is effectively silenced as well. Our president would prefer we simply forget the point of having political parties at all, and all hail the king.
“pocket rescissions are best understood as an unfortunate loophole in the ICA, which Congress probably should have closed by now but has not.” Wallach article
So, the Congress has had 51 years to correct this? Democracy in action?
Gabe, what power do the federal courts have when the executive branch willfully disobeys court orders, banks on endless appeals and challenges? What value does a contempt ruling hold when there is no penalty for willful disregard?
Schumer. Should not be making decisions for the dem party. We are at war! The enemy is Trumplican dipshits. Stop working together, and turn back. Get in power and stay there.
Oh....my.....goodness. Is this any way to run a country? Between my recent (much-belated) reading of PJ O'Rourke's very scary book, Parliament of Whores, and your close reading of government shenanigans, I am stunned that this country functions at all.
I’m not sure this country is currently functioning. At least not as it was intended to.
Hi Gabe. Maybe the Senate Democrats could get a personal promise from four Republicans not to vote for rescissions. Then maybe a budget deal could be brokered. What do you think?
Sounds like a plan
Hey Gabe--Your comment about an inartfully written bill struck me. It seems I hear this a lot. The president (any president, not just Trump) and Congress seem to spend an inordinate amount of time trying to find loopholes in laws. Sometimes a law written decades ago cannot have anticipated new developments, but it seems like an awful lot were just written rather carelessly without forethought of how important the actual wording can be. Couple that with the observation that the laws are actually written by Congressional aides and most Congressional aides are extremely young, barely out of college, and I wonder if the problem of inartfully written laws is one worth examining.
I feel we need a better way to voice citizen desires for spending "our" money...Have each tax return include a pie chart of all discretionary funding items and let each citizen adjust the pieces of pie however they want...include an "other" category with "comments"...send it in (with your return$$$) - then broadly publicize the results (using all these new analytic graphing tools and pervasive social media). Make it non-binding, but widely acknowledged. Report on each congressman's votes compared to the citizen's preferences. Add a spoonful of sugar, stir and sit back and wait for the mid-terms:-)
So interesting! Great article, Gabe! I am all about the intention of something and I hope that Pocket Rescission thing gets ruled unconstitutional. That is one ridiculous loophole. At the very least the Court should require the outcome to be produced within the agreed 45 days (regardless of date) and if not approved then the President must then spend that money as originally directed by Congress albeit late. But I suspect that could muddy the waters more going forward with a new Presidential function to keep tabs of monies they have to spend late versus what is approved for the next year.
Are the fund for the court system subject to recission?
Jeez, how complicated! In Canada if the budget fails to get the confidence of Parliament, the government falls and an election could be held. The president should have no say in the spending outlined in a bill that has passed Congress. None.
Forget the point of having a minority party; Trump is daring everyone to tell what the point of having a Congress is when he can rule unilaterally on all budget decisions. This is tantamount to declaring him an absolute monarch.
Agreed. As Gabe’s closing sentence (“It’s a lose-lose for Democrats — and a win-win for Trump.”) illustrates, the normal, average American right is effectively silenced as well. Our president would prefer we simply forget the point of having political parties at all, and all hail the king.
Let’s get the pedo’s locked up. Release the files. Trump-Picked Advisor Defends Israeli Official in Las Vegas Child Sex Sting
https://hotbuttons.substack.com/p/trump-picked-advisor-defends-israeli
“pocket rescissions are best understood as an unfortunate loophole in the ICA, which Congress probably should have closed by now but has not.” Wallach article
So, the Congress has had 51 years to correct this? Democracy in action?
Gabe, what power do the federal courts have when the executive branch willfully disobeys court orders, banks on endless appeals and challenges? What value does a contempt ruling hold when there is no penalty for willful disregard?
Another every day can be like Christmas article. Thank you.
Schumer. Should not be making decisions for the dem party. We are at war! The enemy is Trumplican dipshits. Stop working together, and turn back. Get in power and stay there.
ALOHA......
Oh, my!😮
Note: Congressmen work when the House is not in session.