Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You are correct, the House is responsible for originating all appropriation bills. Boehner should do precisely what you suggest and submit a balanced budget (based upon projected revenues of course). There still may be a deficit, but it would cut at least a trillion dollars off last year's "budget." I quoted budget because no budget actually existed last year.
The three largest single budgetary items are
Social Security (34%);
MediCare/MedicAid (23%); and
Defense (20%).
The Interest Payment on the National Debt is the fourth largest single budgetary item, but that can only be reduced by the paying off the National Debt. Also keep in mind that the US is still currently in a state of war until Congress repeals Public Law 107-40.
Where would you cut a trillion dollars?
Social Security is not on-budget.
It is misleading and disingenuous to include Social Security. It was the idiot LBJ who combined Social Security with the General Fund. It was the Republicans (Gramm-Rudman-Hollings) who got it out of the General Fund, but properly required the Trust Funds to be included in the whole National Debt, since they are in fact a liability to the US Government via the General Fund and not an asset (in part since they represent future payments).
No money from the General Fund pays for Social Security. All payments to beneficiaries and to employees of the Social Security Administration come from the FICA payroll tax.
It is true that under the idiotic FICA payroll tax holiday, the 2% reduction in FICA taxes was reimbursed to the Social Security Administration from the General Fund, but that is/was an aberration.
In effect, Social Security is totally separate and apart from the government; self-contained.
True, money from the General Fund covers the interest on the special treasury notes held in trust, but that represents the cost to the government for borrowing from Social Security
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glitch
A law which the President can completely disregard, if he so chose. Since Congress has no constitutional authority to compel the President to produce a proposed budget, and since there is no constitutional requirement for a President to produce a proposed budget, the law is unconstitutional.
It is Congress' constitutional responsibility to enact a budget, nobody else.
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Dark
This is not how laws become unconstitutional. It's when they contradict the Constitution. Otherwise, there could be no law in the country that wasn't specifically addressed by the Constitution. In case you hadn't noticed, there are thousands and thousands.
Neither the 1921 nor the 1974 budget acts are unconstitutional.
That isn't quite right.
The law is unconstitutional on its face.
The issue here is standing. I can think of no possible way in which either a citizen or a State would have legal standing to file suit in federal court to challenge the law.
So who can challenge the law to determine its constitutionality?
A president who refused to comply with the law could challenge it, if pressed by Congress.
That would require a situation where a president gave Congress the California Hello and refused to propose a budget, and then Congress tried to impeach the president for malfeasance in failing or refusing to submit a proposed budget.
Is that likely to happen? I think not.
The other possibility would be that a president submitted a budget and Congress flipped off the president and tossed his budget in the trash can -- perhaps during a photo-op for political or publicity reasons --- and the ignored the president. The president then tries to force Congress to accept the budget and Congress asks the courts to intervene.
I don't see that happening either.
The only other parties who might have legal standing to challenge the constitutionality of the law would be federal agencies. Suppose the EPA, or DOD or DOL were submitting budgets to the president who then trashed and modified them before submitting them to Congress. The agency then attempts an "end around" by submitting their budget directly to Congress, at which time it draws fire from the president, and then the agency challenges the law in court.
That would be more likely than the other two scenarios, but I don't see that happening either.
There's a general misconception that all laws passed are automatically reviewed for their constitutionally.
That is not the case, nor has it even been the case in the history of the US. The constitutionality of any law is only reviewed if suit is filed to challenge it.
Okay, here's a long shot I just thought of, a citizen or a State could file a Writ of Mandamus to compel the Speaker of the House to originate a budget and/or reject the budget proposed by the president, and then through that attempt to challenge the constitutionality.
The bastard Wilson did a lot to muck up the United States. His administration was for the most part the beginning of the end of the United States.
I don't suppose some of you would recognize that the purpose of both the 1913 and 1974 laws was to broaden the power of the office of the presidency, and there have been, are, and always will be many in Congress willing to give the office of president even more powers to the point that it is a dictatorship.
It is misleading and disingenuous to include Social Security. It was the idiot LBJ who combined Social Security with the General Fund. It was the Republicans (Gramm-Rudman-Hollings) who got it out of the General Fund, but properly required the Trust Funds to be included in the whole National Debt, since they are in fact a liability to the US Government via the General Fund and not an asset (in part since they represent future payments).
No money from the General Fund pays for Social Security. All payments to beneficiaries and to employees of the Social Security Administration come from the FICA payroll tax.
It is true that under the idiotic FICA payroll tax holiday, the 2% reduction in FICA taxes was reimbursed to the Social Security Administration from the General Fund, but that is/was an aberration.
In effect, Social Security is totally separate and apart from the government; self-contained.
True, money from the General Fund covers the interest on the special treasury notes held in trust, but that represents the cost to the government for borrowing from Social Security
That isn't quite right.
The law is unconstitutional on its face.
The issue here is standing. I can think of no possible way in which either a citizen or a State would have legal standing to file suit in federal court to challenge the law.
So who can challenge the law to determine its constitutionality?
A president who refused to comply with the law could challenge it, if pressed by Congress.
That would require a situation where a president gave Congress the California Hello and refused to propose a budget, and then Congress tried to impeach the president for malfeasance in failing or refusing to submit a proposed budget.
Is that likely to happen? I think not.
The other possibility would be that a president submitted a budget and Congress flipped off the president and tossed his budget in the trash can -- perhaps during a photo-op for political or publicity reasons --- and the ignored the president. The president then tries to force Congress to accept the budget and Congress asks the courts to intervene.
I don't see that happening either.
The only other parties who might have legal standing to challenge the constitutionality of the law would be federal agencies. Suppose the EPA, or DOD or DOL were submitting budgets to the president who then trashed and modified them before submitting them to Congress. The agency then attempts an "end around" by submitting their budget directly to Congress, at which time it draws fire from the president, and then the agency challenges the law in court.
That would be more likely than the other two scenarios, but I don't see that happening either.
There's a general misconception that all laws passed are automatically reviewed for their constitutionally.
That is not the case, nor has it even been the case in the history of the US. The constitutionality of any law is only reviewed if suit is filed to challenge it.
Okay, here's a long shot I just thought of, a citizen or a State could file a Writ of Mandamus to compel the Speaker of the House to originate a budget and/or reject the budget proposed by the president, and then through that attempt to challenge the constitutionality.
The bastard Wilson did a lot to muck up the United States. His administration was for the most part the beginning of the end of the United States.
I don't suppose some of you would recognize that the purpose of both the 1913 and 1974 laws was to broaden the power of the office of the presidency, and there have been, are, and always will be many in Congress willing to give the office of president even more powers to the point that it is a dictatorship.
Constitutionally...
Mircea
Why did I think of Arizona when I read your longshot scenario ?
How many Tea Party members are in Congress? If they're all about smaller government, lower taxes and balanced budgets why didn't they all vote from someone else?
That is a very good question. I would love to hear the answer to your question, but I know it will never happen.
Instead of fighting the Debt Ceiling Battle head on by forcing a government shutdown, why doesn't Boehner follow Tip O'Neill's tactic of cutting off funding to government programs that increase government spending exponentially ? All spending bills arise in the House. He could pull a Harry Reid and just not bring these huge bills to the floor.
The people may still get mad, but not as mad as they would if government services are shut down.
It will be fun to watch the new ways Pubs will find to play Russian roulette with the economy.
I think next year's midterm elections will be fun, too.
Actually if Boehner and the GOP exercised the power of the puse a lot of Americans would get upset over things like learning they would not be getting a cost of living increase in their SS benefits payments...
Uh, it doesn't work that way. Social Security benefits are paid out of the Social Security Trust Funds, not the General Revenue Fund.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wade52
It will be fun to watch the new ways Pubs will find to play Russian roulette with the economy.
You can voluntarily cut spending now, or have it forced upon you....your choice....choose wisely.
Anyway, the House no longer has the Power of the Purse.
For the first 150-odd years or so, the Constitution was correctly interpreted by the Supreme Court.
The Constitution creates a federal system of government, with explicit power-sharing. In this arrangement, each of the independent sovereign countries -- what you call States -- agreed to forfeit their right with respect to treaties and speak as one voice in matters of diplomacy and foreign affairs.
It also happened that each of these independent sovereign countries were permitted to appoint 2 persons to represent their country in the Senate. Each independent sovereign country handled this differently. Some of the independent sovereign countries -- you know, States -- allowed residents to vote for the Senators; others allowed the governors to appoint them with approval by the State legislatures; some permitted one house of the State legislature to nominate two persons, while the other house confirmed/approved them; and then some just allowed the State legislatures to select two persons for the Senate.
So, then, logically, it stands to reason that if these independent sovereign countries were giving up their voice in diplomatic matters, shouldn't they at least have the power and authority to review and approve treaties?
But, of course!
The vast majority of diplomatic matters revolve around FCNs (Friendship, Commerce & Navigation Treaties). Since that primarily involves trade, and since these independent sovereign countries -- the States -- may be affected by international trade agreements then it is only just and proper that they review and approve them.
In addition to having the sole power to approve Treaties, the Senate also has the power to confirm appointments to the Cabinet and the Supreme Court. That power needs to be balanced and that was done by giving the House the sole power to originate appropriations bills and taxes.
And that's how the Supreme Courts up until about the time of FDR viewed it.
Then things changed. Courts started misinterpreting a clause that says the Senate may amend bills.
That gave rise to a couple of court cases. I won't bore people with the details, but two cases you should know about are
Moore v. U.S. House of Representatives, 733 F.2d 946 (D.C.Cir. 1984), cert.den., 469 U.S. 1106 (1985)
If I remember, Moore had something to do with the Traitor & Criminal Dan Rostenkowski (D) who bogarted one of the House committees. Moore was an House member (R or D I don't know) who ran to the DC District Court and filed suit. The Court said he had standing to sue, but that it couldn't grant any relief. Many suspect that was due to the fact that the Court didn't want members of Congress setting up a revolving door on the Court. Anyway, the Court ruled that they were unable to grant relief.
That was mostly political. The Democrat-controlled House didn't want to take the blame for a massive tax increase (Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982), so they passed it off onto the Republican-controlled Senate.
That pretty much solidified the ability of the Senate to meddle in revenue and appropriations matters.
Then in Swearingen, the Carter Administration drafts a treaty handing over the Panama Canal to Panama, and in the process, granting a tax exemption to US employees of the Panama Canal Commission.
Here, the Court rules that first, the tax provisions conflict with IRS tax code, and secondly, the Treaty did not originate in the House, so the Senate had no power to grant the tax exemption (Swearingen ended up paying some taxes owed).
The point is that Swearingen confirms that so long as a bill originates in the House, the Senate can pretty much do whatever it wants, including writing an original bill and then claiming their bill is an "amendment" to the House bill.
Anyway, when people --especially Courts -- start bending the rules, bad things happen (usually badly).
Uh, it doesn't work that way. Social Security benefits are paid out of the Social Security Trust Funds, not the General Revenue Fund
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
.
You can voluntarily cut spending now, or have it forced upon you....your choice....choose wisely.
Anyway, the House no longer has the Power of the Purse.
For the first 150-odd years or so, the Constitution was correctly interpreted by the Supreme Court.
The Constitution creates a federal system of government, with explicit power-sharing. In this arrangement, each of the independent sovereign countries -- what you call States -- agreed to forfeit their right with respect to treaties and speak as one voice in matters of diplomacy and foreign affairs.
It also happened that each of these independent sovereign countries were permitted to appoint 2 persons to represent their country in the Senate. Each independent sovereign country handled this differently. Some of the independent sovereign countries -- you know, States -- allowed residents to vote for the Senators; others allowed the governors to appoint them with approval by the State legislatures; some permitted one house of the State legislature to nominate two persons, while the other house confirmed/approved them; and then some just allowed the State legislatures to select two persons for the Senate.
So, then, logically, it stands to reason that if these independent sovereign countries were giving up their voice in diplomatic matters, shouldn't they at least have the power and authority to review and approve treaties?
But, of course!
The vast majority of diplomatic matters revolve around FCNs (Friendship, Commerce & Navigation Treaties). Since that primarily involves trade, and since these independent sovereign countries -- the States -- may be affected by international trade agreements then it is only just and proper that they review and approve them.
In addition to having the sole power to approve Treaties, the Senate also has the power to confirm appointments to the Cabinet and the Supreme Court. That power needs to be balanced and that was done by giving the House the sole power to originate appropriations bills and taxes.
And that's how the Supreme Courts up until about the time of FDR viewed it.
Then things changed. Courts started misinterpreting a clause that says the Senate may amend bills.
That gave rise to a couple of court cases. I won't bore people with the details, but two cases you should know about are
Moore v. U.S. House of Representatives, 733 F.2d 946 (D.C.Cir. 1984), cert.den., 469 U.S. 1106 (1985)
If I remember, Moore had something to do with the Traitor & Criminal Dan Rostenkowski (D) who bogarted one of the House committees. Moore was an House member (R or D I don't know) who ran to the DC District Court and filed suit. The Court said he had standing to sue, but that it couldn't grant any relief. Many suspect that was due to the fact that the Court didn't want members of Congress setting up a revolving door on the Court. Anyway, the Court ruled that they were unable to grant relief.
That was mostly political. The Democrat-controlled House didn't want to take the blame for a massive tax increase (Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982), so they passed it off onto the Republican-controlled Senate.
That pretty much solidified the ability of the Senate to meddle in revenue and appropriations matters.
Then in Swearingen, the Carter Administration drafts a treaty handing over the Panama Canal to Panama, and in the process, granting a tax exemption to US employees of the Panama Canal Commission.
Here, the Court rules that first, the tax provisions conflict with IRS tax code, and secondly, the Treaty did not originate in the House, so the Senate had no power to grant the tax exemption (Swearingen ended up paying some taxes owed).
The point is that Swearingen confirms that so long as a bill originates in the House, the Senate can pretty much do whatever it wants, including writing an original bill and then claiming their bill is an "amendment" to the House bill.
Anyway, when people --especially Courts -- start bending the rules, bad things happen (usually badly).
Legally...
Mircea
But if the government shuts down, then the General Fund stops issuing checks, right ?
Also, can't Obama use the 14th. Ammendment via Executive Order to raise the debt ceiling on his own and bypass congress which Reid is urging him to do ?
Finally, when did Swearingen get ruled on, pre- Tip O'neil or post-Tip Oneil ?
Last edited by Pawporri; 01-12-2013 at 02:40 PM..
Reason: change question
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Why Won't Boehner Use the Power of the Purse ?
