MyWar

Irisheyeball

genieman77

MyWar

You really think that’s how the federal government works? Like Congress just gives the department of defense a check for $850 billion and says “spend it all on whatever you like.! k, thnx, bye!

 
for the most part, yes.
Unless you're referring to ones forced on them like the Osprey and such.
otherwise, yeah they have much discretion 
are saying they don't? 
 
KTF 

Hello, gentlemen.
 
There's no reason to quarrel over this point.  Unless quarreling becomes the point, yes?
I've been a member of this board from very early on...1999 or 2000 or thereabouts, although I've had 2 different identities.  Trooper Thorn was my original.  I haven't posted since last summer, owing to concerns on the home front that just made the current political scene and culture wars seem trivial.  I can (attempt to) explain a lot of this stuff perhaps a little better than the average person based on experience gained in my professional career.  You can choose to believe it, or not.
I find that I know a little about quite a few of you.  I know we have former cops, finance guys, educators, mechanics, sales people  etc., but I have never shared much of my own history.  I was a Fed.
At age 22, I tested my way into a professional level job with the federal government.  I rose through ranks and was in mid-level management at 34. I spent the last 12 years of my career as Director of a Cabinet-level Department Field Office.  I retired at 57 after a 35-yr career.  Although my primary focus was delivering congressionally-mandated programs, I also worked at policy and regulatory development and completed detail assignments at "hot spots" in my Department as assigned.  I'm familiar with how federal appropriations come about, what they mean, how long they last, and what steps are necessary to recapture or reassign them.
Appropriations Acts are notoriously, stupendously, ridiculously detailed and prescriptive.  They are like commandments, except they're 1,100 pages long.  Congress does indeed state, with a great deal of specificity, just exactly what the appropriated funds can be spent for.  Read the 2024 appropriation for USAID for example and you'll learn that certain State Dept. programs can spend up to $4,000 for food or entertainment expenses.  That's an extreme example, of course, as most delineations are in the millions and billions.  If Congress determines that it will permit reclassification or fungibility between programs, the Act will actually state that.  If not so stated, you can't legally do it within the terms of the specific fy Act.
OK, so now consider this...and this is absolutely a key element to all the current hubbub regarding cutting programs, etc.:  Every word of those Acts, every punctuation mark, has the force of law.  
I have seen successful political strategies to thwart previously approved programs or line items.  Generally, however, that is done with the passing of another law. For example, and I'm struggling to remember the specific program, the Bush 2 administration once effectively killed a program for my agency by adding language to a subsequent Act proclaiming that no grantee was permitted to spend any current year's funds for the administration of xyz program from 3-4-5 years prior.  Sneaky.  By the way, you know who writes these laws?  25 year olds.  Congressional aides and consultants (also 25 yr olds) write the bills the Pres signs. 
That said, it is nearly impossible to eliminate a congressionally-mandated appropriation WITHIN THE TERMS OF A PARTICULAR FISCAL YEAR ACT ITSELF.  To understand the whys and hows and whatzits, you must necessarily understand the terminology and legal import of same that congress uses.  Key terms include "reserved", "obligated", "available", "available until", "expended", and on and on, but those are some important ones.  You'll often see mult-year commitments for programs, however, it is more common to see that one year's funding is available until X (generally the end of that fy.)  But what does "available" mean in the usual context?  Say HHS has medicaid funds to be distributed to states, with said funds available for that fiscal year only.  Once a grant agreement or contract of some type is executed with a state, those fund are obligated and HHS would have met the calendar deadline set in the Act.  Now those funds might sit in the treasury for years, but they would not be subject to recapture unless some other trigger mechanism comes into play, for example, the Act stipulates that they have to be drawn down and expended within 5 yrs.  Another example might have Transportation funds available for Pennsylvania bridge projects for that fy.  The year passes and the Federal Dept hasn't executed a contract with the state....those funds could technically be at risk.  Now it would be extremely unlikely that the funds would be rescinded, even in this case, due to political considerations, but there would technically be a legal path available to recapture money.  Is DOGE on top of examples like this?
I could go on and on, but to what end?  A full examination of this subject would be worth 6 college credits, I think.
My thoughts on the current situation?  The Trump administration and the DOGE boys are not addressing this in a serious manner, and, because of that, I doubt that they will effect any real or lasting change or efficiency.  They're just not going about it in a smart way.  They're opting for the beer and circus routine rather than engaging in serious governance.  But, hey!  Maybe that's their whole strategy.  What I find distressing is that our President is taking the lazy route.  To me it seems in some ways like a continuation of the leadership failures he exhibited during the pandemic.  When covid hit I was certain that he could leverage the crisis into a second term...but, he was unserious and screwed it up.  I see the same thing here, except he's not even bothering to lift a finger...he's having this shock and awe team do it for him.  The press event in the oval office yesterday was embarrassing and shameful.  Harry Bōlz indeed.  When I was in high school I would leave fake messages from Peter Gazinya and Phil Meidick.  Then again, I was 17, and not trying to remake our democratic republic.
Now, an editorial comment:  Right now, February 2025, would be the perfect time for the DOGE boys to be sitting with those 25 yr olds I mentioned earlier negotiating terms for the budget appropriation that's due next month.  Chop those programs in the upcoming budget!  Of course, that would take a lot of hard work and negotiations with Congress.  Unfortunately, it also would be treating the business of government with some modicum of respect and not like, you know, the business of BUSINESS BROS!  
 

Impressive.

Most impressive.

JM2
Someone of here should start an unelected government bureaucrat only thread.

JM2

He luvs him some big government.

MyWar

JM2

He luvs him some big government.

If by “big government”, you mean government that is NOT administered by liars, crooks, hypocrites, sycophants, convicted felons, rapists, white supremacists, incompetent ideologues and far right nutjobs… then yea, gimme some of that.

Irisheyeball
Some activities, by their nature, permit discretion.

MyWar

genieman77

Irisheyeball
Some activities, by their nature, permit discretion.

zaccally 
thanks 
 
KTF 

There’s modern conservatism for ya - Blind allegiance to imaginary truth, even after you have been presented contradictory evidence that proves your beliefs to be incorrect.