At the risk of souring the mood, Nick Catoggio at The Dispatch pointed out the same lack of concern recently, and his conclusion was that Trump does not intend to let the Democrats return to power. Which would sound deranged if the Capitol hadn’t been attacked four years ago.
Here’s how this works in real life: The guys in suits at establishment Conservatism (National Review, even more at Dispatch and Bulwark) say, “Now, fellas, we gotta play nice, we gotta be civil about this, we gotta play by the rules set by the last Democrat administration. That way, the Democrats will continue to play by the rules the next time we lose.” To which the next winning Democrat establishment howls, “Moron Republicans, they saw how they could win but played by the rules instead. Now we’ll show them how the game is really played for keepsies.” It’s a ratchet (and racket), only and always grinding one way. Trump threatens to strip the gears on the rachet, NYT squeals about civility.
I’ve never actually seen democrat presidents seriously limited by checks and balances. Infinite migrants and unenforced student loans are just immediate examples where they basically did it on their own
"Consider: We’ve given the president the power to cancel spending, not to create new spending. So, how would this hypothetical Bernie Sanders-type figure twist the president’s powers for progressive ends? By running the exact playbook that we’re running now, only in reverse?"
Of all the reasons impoundment is dumb, short-sighted, and unconstitutional, "the Dems might use it as a pretext to assert some totally unrelated authority that has a unique set of obstacles" isn't really among them. There is no principled reason why a power to not spend money Congress has appropriated should or would imply a corresponding power to spend money Congress has not appropriated, and any attempt at the latter would not look anything like the "the exact playbook that we’re running now, only in reverse."
As a theoretical matter, the Constitution explicitly says "no money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law," which is about as clear as the document gets gets. And practically speaking, any attempt at unilateral spending would require the cooperation of the Fed specifically and the bond market more generally to provide the actual money, which isn't a problem when you want to just *not* spend.
You're right that the the mechanics of spending and not spending aren't perfectly symmetrical, but the authority to not spend is conjured out of thin air, and in fact violates both constitutional law and statutory law (the Impoundment Control Act of 1974). So we're in the realm of simply inventing executive authority, and it's hard to say where that might stop.
"the authority to not spend is conjured out of thin air"
This isn't really true. While the impoundment theory has never been widely accepted (and is IMO wrong), it has a pretty long-standing intellectual pedigree that any theory of unilateral spending authority would lack.
Though I like a fair amount of Trump's agenda, and detest what Democrats are doing to our culture, I'd do anything now to see him removed from office. He is insane as is Musk, who was great as a tech entrepreneur and Twitter owner/commentator but whose crazed slashing of our government will have serious future consequences. A deliberate and reasoned approach would be the correct way to do it.
No. Trump has done the impossible and actually made the Democrats seem better.
I guess this is what pisses me off - this was so avoidable. I like some of the ideas ascribed to Trump, I’m a lifelong Republican, but even I could see way back in 2020 that he was not remotely fit to lead. You bozos keep nominating him and now we have Musk and the nerd brigade running amok.
Huh. And here I thought you'd been paying attention to U.S. politics during your adult life.
Bloggers like Digby have beclowned themselves since, but one thing they correctly pointed out again and again is that Republicans have no sense of shame. Remind me how quickly Amy Coney Barrett was confirmed to be a Supreme Court Justice, after Merrick Garland was placed in purgatory four years earlier?
Democrats doing this "in reverse" is simply not a concern for Republicans, because they will raise a stink and rely on their base to play along, on most undecideds to not pay attention, and whatever remains of the press to fail to emphasize the sleazy hypocrisy of it all, but lead with whatever argument they concoct (I no longer even know if there *is* a way to report things like this in a way that breaks through to the general public).
It will be far more effective if the Democrats find their spine and refuse to help in any way to help pass the budget without passing legislation that ends this authoritarian crap (don't ask me how)
This presidential grab for power has been coming for quite a while. Obama really got it rolling. What is different is that this time Trump has said 'Hold my beer' and has taken it up several notches.
Because at that point, it’s the next republican speaker’s problem. Johnson will be writing his memoirs between working on the board at Koch industries, enjoying his free healthcare for life.
Is losing a tic-tac-toe game to a box turtle any worse than losing to another human, or even a super computer? I mean, you can always force a draw, right?
At the risk of souring the mood, Nick Catoggio at The Dispatch pointed out the same lack of concern recently, and his conclusion was that Trump does not intend to let the Democrats return to power. Which would sound deranged if the Capitol hadn’t been attacked four years ago.
Here’s how this works in real life: The guys in suits at establishment Conservatism (National Review, even more at Dispatch and Bulwark) say, “Now, fellas, we gotta play nice, we gotta be civil about this, we gotta play by the rules set by the last Democrat administration. That way, the Democrats will continue to play by the rules the next time we lose.” To which the next winning Democrat establishment howls, “Moron Republicans, they saw how they could win but played by the rules instead. Now we’ll show them how the game is really played for keepsies.” It’s a ratchet (and racket), only and always grinding one way. Trump threatens to strip the gears on the rachet, NYT squeals about civility.
I’ve never actually seen democrat presidents seriously limited by checks and balances. Infinite migrants and unenforced student loans are just immediate examples where they basically did it on their own
How about Obamacare? Or Merrick Garland?
"Consider: We’ve given the president the power to cancel spending, not to create new spending. So, how would this hypothetical Bernie Sanders-type figure twist the president’s powers for progressive ends? By running the exact playbook that we’re running now, only in reverse?"
Of all the reasons impoundment is dumb, short-sighted, and unconstitutional, "the Dems might use it as a pretext to assert some totally unrelated authority that has a unique set of obstacles" isn't really among them. There is no principled reason why a power to not spend money Congress has appropriated should or would imply a corresponding power to spend money Congress has not appropriated, and any attempt at the latter would not look anything like the "the exact playbook that we’re running now, only in reverse."
As a theoretical matter, the Constitution explicitly says "no money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law," which is about as clear as the document gets gets. And practically speaking, any attempt at unilateral spending would require the cooperation of the Fed specifically and the bond market more generally to provide the actual money, which isn't a problem when you want to just *not* spend.
You're right that the the mechanics of spending and not spending aren't perfectly symmetrical, but the authority to not spend is conjured out of thin air, and in fact violates both constitutional law and statutory law (the Impoundment Control Act of 1974). So we're in the realm of simply inventing executive authority, and it's hard to say where that might stop.
Is it easier to spend money you don't have, or to not spend money you do have?
Sadly, it's much easier to destroy than it is to build. Similar problem with the "burn it all down" crowd from the Left.
"the authority to not spend is conjured out of thin air"
This isn't really true. While the impoundment theory has never been widely accepted (and is IMO wrong), it has a pretty long-standing intellectual pedigree that any theory of unilateral spending authority would lack.
I would think the impoundment theory should have been pretty much put to bed by the 1974 Act.
It sure does seem like Rep. Johnson et al are not overly concerned with the possibility of losing future elections. One can only speculate as to why.
See, I think that they're right. They think the next president (Dem or GOP) would say "that was stupid, let's never do that again."
I appreciate the "imagine giving this power to your worst enemy' argument. But President Buttigieg would do a return to normalcy.
Unfortunately!
Though I like a fair amount of Trump's agenda, and detest what Democrats are doing to our culture, I'd do anything now to see him removed from office. He is insane as is Musk, who was great as a tech entrepreneur and Twitter owner/commentator but whose crazed slashing of our government will have serious future consequences. A deliberate and reasoned approach would be the correct way to do it.
No. Trump has done the impossible and actually made the Democrats seem better.
I guess this is what pisses me off - this was so avoidable. I like some of the ideas ascribed to Trump, I’m a lifelong Republican, but even I could see way back in 2020 that he was not remotely fit to lead. You bozos keep nominating him and now we have Musk and the nerd brigade running amok.
To be fair, when democrats are in power, they never think about circumscribing the President’s power in case a Republican becomes President.
Huh. And here I thought you'd been paying attention to U.S. politics during your adult life.
Bloggers like Digby have beclowned themselves since, but one thing they correctly pointed out again and again is that Republicans have no sense of shame. Remind me how quickly Amy Coney Barrett was confirmed to be a Supreme Court Justice, after Merrick Garland was placed in purgatory four years earlier?
Democrats doing this "in reverse" is simply not a concern for Republicans, because they will raise a stink and rely on their base to play along, on most undecideds to not pay attention, and whatever remains of the press to fail to emphasize the sleazy hypocrisy of it all, but lead with whatever argument they concoct (I no longer even know if there *is* a way to report things like this in a way that breaks through to the general public).
It will be far more effective if the Democrats find their spine and refuse to help in any way to help pass the budget without passing legislation that ends this authoritarian crap (don't ask me how)
This presidential grab for power has been coming for quite a while. Obama really got it rolling. What is different is that this time Trump has said 'Hold my beer' and has taken it up several notches.
Because at that point, it’s the next republican speaker’s problem. Johnson will be writing his memoirs between working on the board at Koch industries, enjoying his free healthcare for life.
Is losing a tic-tac-toe game to a box turtle any worse than losing to another human, or even a super computer? I mean, you can always force a draw, right?
I don’t agree with Mike’s politics, but I have pre-ordered The Erotic Taming of Kazuko.
It doesn’t bite you in the butt if we become a dictatorship/oligarchy and no one other than a MAGA gets elected again.
And if it does, well it is a bit late to worry about it at that point. Because all we worry about is now, not the future.
Which is why, if they think it is necessary (though given the way things are going IDK why it would be) they will do away with the filibuster.
Are you taking pre-orders?
Enjoyable article, genuinely humorous. Reminded me of all the British sitcoms I watched with the Grandparents as a child. Thank you!