Latest news with #ImpoundmentAct
Yahoo
09-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Opinion - We need a bipartisan Congress to check presidential power
It is no coincidence that the first article of the U.S. Constitution, the one the Framers prioritized, defines the powers of Congress, not the president. The Framers assumed Congress would play the leading role under the new constitution, as it had through the Continental Congress and the Confederation Congress. As Americans have witnessed since Jan. 20, the Framers assumed wrongly. And it is time to reassess what is best for the nation — the Framers' vision or the powers claimed by President Trump. In the 20th century and early in the 21st century, Congress ceded more power to the presidency in areas such as budget creation, diplomacy, war powers and law enforcement. Popular support accompanied those changes, particularly during the 1930s, the 1960s and the early 2000s as Americans demanded presidents 'get things done.' The first 100 days standard gained popular currency, which forced presidents to act quickly. Additionally, media coverage centered on the person of the president rather than the Congress. The latter appeared as an amorphous blob. No one could speak for the whole Congress. Disturbed by the excesses of the Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon administrations, Congress attempted to claw back some of its power through the War Powers Act, the Congressional Budget Act and the Impoundment Act. It also enacted the legislative veto that allowed Congress to override presidential actions, sometimes by doing nothing. But presidential power began to grow, particularly as divided government became more common. Presidents began to rely on executive orders to enact policy that formerly had been Congress' purview in areas such as gun control. Trump has taken presidential powers to another level entirely. He issued 26 executive orders on his first day. In his first hundred days, he signed 142. Plus, their scope is well beyond those of other presidents. They include gutting whole departments, cutting programs such as public television and public radio, ending DEI programs, authorizing massive immigrant deportation orders, and targeting individuals and corporations he felt harmed him. He has declared these orders are essential due to various national emergencies. The Framers established three branches of government to separate power, but also to check power held by each branch. Presidential power is now out of balance in relation to the other two branches. The trend has been going in that direction for many years, but now, with a president who is anxious to use such power, the effects of that imbalance are glaringly apparent. Some federal judges have checked presidential power by ruling that Trump's actions are unconstitutional or violate statutes. But the Trump administration is counting on the Supreme Court to back them up in most if not all the actions. However, the court may or may not do so, as indicated by its decision in the Kilmar Abrego Garcia case directing the administration to facilitate his return. The question of whether to abide by the Supreme Court's decisions has rarely been a live one. But today it is, making many Americans wonder whether the judiciary will be an effective check on a rapacious president. Congress could and should check the president. Some members of Congress are working on legislation to do so. Others should join. But it cannot be partisan. One such recent example of a partisan effort was the Federalist Society's Article I Project, which targeted checking Democratic presidents but has been silent about Republican ones. Members of both parties need to come together to enact legislation that limits presidential powers regardless of who is president. The legislation should not be targeted at particular policies but at reining in presidential power generally to dictate economic policy, punish opponents or ignore congressional appropriations. Congressional Republicans would benefit since Congress would be checking a Democrat in the future and not just a Republican today. Members of Congress swore to uphold the Constitution. Preserving constitutional checks and balances to maintain our democratic system is a large part of that obligation. It is time for Congress to restore the balance in the Constitution the Framers so carefully crafted for our benefit. Richard Davis is a professor emeritus of political science at BYU. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
The Hill
09-05-2025
- Politics
- The Hill
We need a bipartisan Congress to check presidential power
It is no coincidence that the first article of the U.S. Constitution, the one the Framers prioritized, defines the powers of Congress, not the president. The Framers assumed Congress would play the leading role under the new constitution, as it had through the Continental Congress and the Confederation Congress. As Americans have witnessed since Jan. 20, the Framers assumed wrongly. And it is time to reassess what is best for the nation — the Framers' vision or the powers claimed by President Trump. In the 20th century and early in the 21st century, Congress ceded more power to the presidency in areas such as budget creation, diplomacy, war powers and law enforcement. Popular support accompanied those changes, particularly during the 1930s, the 1960s and the early 2000s as Americans demanded presidents 'get things done.' The first 100 days standard gained popular currency, which forced presidents to act quickly. Additionally, media coverage centered on the person of the president rather than the Congress. The latter appeared as an amorphous blob. No one could speak for the whole Congress. Disturbed by the excesses of the Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon administrations, Congress attempted to claw back some of its power through the War Powers Act, the Congressional Budget Act and the Impoundment Act. It also enacted the legislative veto that allowed Congress to override presidential actions, sometimes by doing nothing. But presidential power began to grow, particularly as divided government became more common. Presidents began to rely on executive orders to enact policy that formerly had been Congress' purview in areas such as gun control. Trump has taken presidential powers to another level entirely. He issued 26 executive orders on his first day. In his first hundred days, he signed 142. Plus, their scope is well beyond those of other presidents. They include gutting whole departments, cutting programs such as public television and public radio, ending DEI programs, authorizing massive immigrant deportation orders, and targeting individuals and corporations he felt harmed him. He has declared these orders are essential due to various national emergencies. The Framers established three branches of government to separate power, but also to check power held by each branch. Presidential power is now out of balance in relation to the other two branches. The trend has been going in that direction for many years, but now, with a president who is anxious to use such power, the effects of that imbalance are glaringly apparent. Some federal judges have checked presidential power by ruling that Trump's actions are unconstitutional or violate statutes. But the Trump administration is counting on the Supreme Court to back them up in most if not all the actions. However, the court may or may not do so, as indicated by its decision in the Kilmar Abrego Garcia case directing the administration to facilitate his return. The question of whether to abide by the Supreme Court's decisions has rarely been a live one. But today it is, making many Americans wonder whether the judiciary will be an effective check on a rapacious president. Congress could and should check the president. Some members of Congress are working on legislation to do so. Others should join. But it cannot be partisan. One such recent example of a partisan effort was the Federalist Society's Article I Project, which targeted checking Democratic presidents but has been silent about Republican ones. Members of both parties need to come together to enact legislation that limits presidential powers regardless of who is president. The legislation should not be targeted at particular policies but at reining in presidential power generally to dictate economic policy, punish opponents or ignore congressional appropriations. Congressional Republicans would benefit since Congress would be checking a Democrat in the future and not just a Republican today. Members of Congress swore to uphold the Constitution. Preserving constitutional checks and balances to maintain our democratic system is a large part of that obligation. It is time for Congress to restore the balance in the Constitution the Framers so carefully crafted for our benefit. Richard Davis is a professor emeritus of political science at BYU.
Yahoo
02-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Trump Threatens Congress if They Don't Pass His Radical Budget
Donald Trump has just sent Republicans in Congress a budget proposal that cuts nearly everything, and if they don't like it, he says he'll withhold cash that they approve, setting up a constitutional crisis. The budget proposal, released Friday, would slash nearly every federal program by $163 billion, except for defense spending, which would remain flat. Many Republicans are already unhappy with it, but the White House may not heed their concerns. One official in the Office of Management and Budget told Politico that the administration wouldn't rule out impoundment, or overriding Congress's decision by withholding funding they have already approved. 'We're working with Congress to see what they will pass, and I believe that they have an interest in passing cuts,' said the official. Such a move would violate the Impoundment Control Act of 1974, which Trump and his allies have called unconstitutional. The law prevents the president from withholding money allocated by Congress or using it for different purposes. Trump attempting to impound funds in this way would be a direct challenge to the Constitution's separation of powers, and could result in a legal fight that ends up in front of the Supreme Court. Trump hinted at bringing back 'presidential impoundment authority' while campaigning for president, making his attempt to seize appropriated funds a real possibility despite the Constitution clearly stating that the authority over government spending lies with Congress. The head of OMB, Project 2025 author Russell Vought, also called the Impoundment Act unconstitutional in his confirmation hearing. So, will the president try to impound funds, and will Republicans stand up for their own constitutional authority if he does? The GOP has not shown much, if any resolve, in standing up to Trump, and Democrats have little they can do as the minority in the House and Senate. It seems that if Trump tries to seize funds, the courts may be the only check on his power.
Yahoo
06-03-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Trump is driving us into recession. It might have already started.
It seems likely the U.S. entered recession this month, marking the end of a 4 1/2-year post-pandemic recovery. Policy mistakes caused this downturn — an unforced error of first order. It is possible we'll see a rapid reversal of these policies, which could avert a deep recession. But enough damage appears to have been done to push us into one. Economic data through January was strong. Inflation-adjusted GDP growth in 2024 was a solid 2.8%, only slightly below the 2.9% from 2023. Labor markets in January continued an expansion of 143,000 jobs, cutting the unemployment rate to 4%. This marks the strongest four-year labor market conditions since the late 1960s and early 1970s. Hicks: Running Indiana like a business has failed Capital markets have been unusually robust, with stock exchanges posting their best four years in several decades. The S&P 500 more than doubled in value during this recovery. Physical capital investment boomed. Of course, much of this good news was overshadowed by inflation that hit three-decade highs. But, by January, it had slowed to within a half-point of the Federal Reserve target. Forecasts for the 2025 economy were universally solid. Nearly every major forecast, from the Federal Reserve, commercial firms, trade associations and university economists, had the economy growing by 2.3% to 2.7% this year. My forecast was for 2.5% growth nationally, a happy soft landing. Then President Trump took office and did exactly what he said he would do. He raised tariffs on China, and now on our two largest trading partners — Canada and Mexico. This would raise an additional tax on U.S. families of more than $1,600 each. By any measure, these tariffs will be the largest tax increase on Americans in history. But there's more to that in this downturn. Trump has also unleashed the Department of Government Efficiency onto the domestic economy. Hicks: We lost Trump's first trade war. We'll lose the next one, too. Ultimately, DOGE will not cut spending. Nearly all of its actions violate either Article I of the Constitution, the Impoundment Act or a series of federal civil service laws. So, most of it will be reversed in anticipation of a courtroom embarrassment — like the birthright citizenship order — or lose in court. Most fired federal workers will get back pay and damages. Taxpayers will be the big losers, but it will take years to sort it out. In the meantime, tens of thousands of payments to farmers, cancer researchers, FEMA contractors and other public services will be disrupted. The effects will be everywhere — only 6% of federal employees live in the Washington, D.C., metropolitan area. Ironically, the densest federal workforce nationwide is in Martin County, Indiana, where more than half of all workers are federal civilian employees. A whopping 79.3% of their votes went to Trump last November. Still, the DOGE impacts are weeks or months away from having any macroeconomic effect. The House passed a budget last week by one vote. The content of the bill isn't especially important to current economic conditions. But the immediate impact of this bill passing by such a narrow margin is a good signal that the government is aimed for a mid-March shutdown. The problem isn't that Trump administration policies have already hit the economy. The problem is that unhinged wackiness is the Trump governing strategy. That realization has exploded economic uncertainty. The best measure shows economic uncertainty at its highest point in history — worse than the week of 9/11, the Great Recession or COVID-19. Hicks: DOGE for Indiana? Here's why government efficiency is hard. Consequently, nearly every measure of economic health has plummeted in the past few weeks. A survey of the carnage is stunning. Consumption is in steep decline. Measures of consumer confidence by the University of Michigan and the Conference Board have both taken deep downturns, while the Federal Personal Consumption Expenditure data dipped sharply last month. Household investment growth has stopped, with housing sales and prices reversing across markets in much of the country. Stock indices — a measure of business growth expectations — have experienced declines since Trump took office. Government spending is not part of the decline. In fact, federal government spending has risen substantially in the first two months of 2025. That is unsurprising, since 76% of it is Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and debt service. So, this downturn is not precipitated by actual spending cuts — because there aren't any. U.S. exports are poised to shrink for two policy-related reasons. The first is appreciating dollars — a negative consequence of trade war rhetoric, which makes our exports pricier. The second is trade retaliation and a growing boycott of U.S. products. This is poised to grow exponentially, clobbering agriculture, automobiles and many key brands. Canada, Mexico and China have far better economists than Trump has hired. They know our pain points and will surgically target retaliatory tariffs. The yield curve on bonds has inverted. That means bond buyers expect long-term interest rates to decline relative to short-run rates. That is because the U.S. is entering a recession and may have to cut rates. I think a period of stagflation will happen first, persisting for many months. Worse still, the Federal Reserve's GDPNow model, which had U.S. growth at over 2.7% in the first week of the Trump administration, has turned negative. Its current prediction is that first quarter U.S. GDP will decline by 2.8%. If you omit government spending from the Fed's equation, the GDP drop is 3.8%. The yield curve and GDPNow models are imperfect, but they've been 100% accurate when both predict a recession. Both now say a recession has started. The downturn is a policy choice by Trump. He could reverse any policy on a dime to prevent a deep downturn. In fact, many on Wall Street believe he will, which has prevented a stock market route. I do not. He is doing precisely what he said he'd do, and no American should be surprised. Still, I'm old fashioned. Elections matter, and good economic policy should be rewarded by good economic outcomes. Bad policy by bad outcomes. That is how we learn, or in this case, re-learn our lesson. Michael J. Hicks is the director of the Center for Business and Economic Research and the George and Frances Ball distinguished professor of economics in the Miller College of Business at Ball State University. This article originally appeared on Indianapolis Star: Trump's tariffs are breaking the American economy | Opinion
CBS News
20-02-2025
- Politics
- CBS News
Murkowski urges Congress to "stand up" and assert authority if Trump withholds funding
Washington — Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska on Wednesday urged her colleagues in Congress to reassert their constitutional authority and stand up to President Trump if he withholds funding approved by lawmakers through his mass firings of federal workers or severe cuts to federal agencies. "If the president, for instance, should should seek to withhold federal funding that has already been authorized and appropriated, that violates the Budget Act, it violates the Impoundment Act and it cannot be allowed to stand. And so, if we in Congress allow that, we effectively cede some of our authority, and so, your question as to, what do we do about it? We have to stand up," she said in a virtual town hall with constituents. "Now, the 'we' has to be more than just me. And this is where it becomes more of a challenge, but it requires speaking out. It requires saying, 'That violates the law. That violates the authorities of the executive,'" she said. The Alaska Republican said Congress has an "obligation to the Constitution" that requires "speaking out and standing up, and that requires, again, more than just one or two Republicans — it requires us as a Congress to do so." Murkowski is a moderate Republican who has been in the Senate since 2002 and won reelection despite longstanding differences with Mr. Trump. She said more than 1,000 people dialed into the call, and that all questioners were concerned about the Trump administration's cuts, which are being spearheaded by Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency. Alaska has one of the highest concentrations of federal government workers per capita outside the Washington, D.C., Maryland, and Virginia region. Most Republican lawmakers have so far shown little interest in objecting as the Trump administration tries to whittle down agencies established and funded by Congress. On the war in Ukraine, Murkowski said "we were all more than a little bit stunned" by what she called a "radical switch" in the president's rhetoric about the war and Russia. Mr. Trump this week referred to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy as a "dictator" and wrongly blamed Ukraine for Russia's invasion, while his top aides met with Russian representatives in Saudi Arabia about the war without inviting Ukrainian officials. Murkowski said she thought Mr. Trump's comments about Zelenskyy were "uncalled for and unfortunate." "It is wrong to suggest that somehow or other Ukraine started this war, asked for this war. It is clear for all the world to see and to know that Putin invaded Ukraine and started the war," Murkowski said. Mr. Trump has repeatedly said Russia wants to end the war, without mentioning that Russia started the conflict and could end it at any point by withdrawing troops from Ukraine. Asked if he trusts Russia to negotiate in good faith on ending the war, the president said he does. "I do, I think the Russians want to see the war end," the president said. "And I do, I really do. But I think they have the cards a little bit because, you know, they've taken a lot of territory, so they have the cards." A handful of other Republicans have expressed their disagreement with Mr. Trump's stance on Russia and Ukraine, without directly crossing the president. "Russia's the aggressor here," Senate Majority Leader John Thune said Wednesday. "Putin started this war," Republican Rep. Don Bacon wrote on X Wednesday. "Putin committed war crimes. Putin is the dictator who murdered his opponents. The EU nations have contributed more to Ukraine. Zelensky polls over 50%. Ukraine wants to be part of the West, Putin hates the West. I don't accept George Orwell's doublethink." Murkowski separately told CBS News at the Capitol earlier Wednesday she has been hearing from lots of constituents, including employees who have been working in federal service for years or decades. She said she heard from one woman who used to work for her before accepting a position with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Because the woman received a promotion, Murkowski said, she was considered a probationary employee and was terminated. Now the woman has a "black mark" on her record, Murkowski said. "She's been terminated and given no opportunity to appeal it, no opportunity to even think about it," Murkowski said. "You get a notice on Friday saying you're gone. Now that, to me, doesn't demonstrate much, much due process. But even more to it, it doesn't show respect for those who have worked hard as federal servants."
