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.
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.
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.