Government Funding of Religious/501(c)(3) Charities / Social Services

[Teancum]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I already provided the links.  Feel free to do your own research.  I don't think anyone is disputing that Politico and the NY Times have received millions from the federal government.  

Thanks,

-Smac

Well Lauren Boebert's offices spent $7500 per year on Politico subscriptions. 

[Teancum]

52 minutes ago, Zosimus said:

My friend, if Biden had put Soros in as a government employee at the Department of Digital Services and gave him the keys to the databases of the DOD, I'd object.

If Soros then proceeded to dismantle and fire every employee at the OCO after tweeting that they are all criminals because they have wasted taxpayer money ($10K for toilet seat covers), I'd object

If democrats started slapping themselves on the back because Soros is saving us billions of dollars, I'd object

I also like cutting costs wherever costs can be cut, whether at USAID or OCO. So why on earth would I object to George Soros shaving budgets and protecting my tax dollars? 

Because its obviously partisan hackery and I'm just sooo tired of partisanship in America. Soros is not the right person for that job because he's partisan, and he has no business accessing government data and firing federal employees. 

This is how I feel about Musk and DOGE. They are doing the right thing, but they are doing it wrong. They are doing it in a way that stirs the pot and makes things worse

I feel exactly the same.

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I would love to live in Canada, except for the cold. 

But heat is not an issue and you can always put on more clothes.

[Calm]

3 hours ago, Zosimus said:

This is how I feel about Musk and DOGE. They are doing the right thing, but they are doing it wrong. They are doing it in a way that stirs the pot and makes things worse

This one hundred times over…

There are humane ways to perform surgery to remove cancer or a diseased organ and inhumane ways….that more often can result in death rather than recovery.

But using an axe to cut off corrupted flesh or organs accomplishes the removal of disease in seconds rather than targeting solely that which must be removed for healing or even survival and taking hours and even months of repeated, precise treatment isn’t as flashy..or as easy.  Problem is all the healthy body parts that go into the incinerator with the corruption are rather difficult to replace.

Edited February 8, 2025 by Calm

[The Nehor]

6 hours ago, smac97 said:

Yes, I had that concern.  Then I examined the matter and found that the premise was incorrect.

See here: DOGE Is Coming for the Bureau of Labor Statistics - Knees Are Already Knockin'

The BLS is an interesting outfit.  As noted above, it has access to "an enormous amount of confidential data." 

Boy, I remember being flummoxed at a "revision" of job data amounting to "818,000 fewer jobs from April 2023 through March 2024," the months heading into the 2024 election.

It sure seemed convenient that the then-current administration was able to trumpet - smack-dab in the middle of the election cycle - the "creation" of these jobs, only to have them quietly disappear a few months later.  It was even . . . concerning.

It appears that BLS may have been fabricating job numbers to bolster the election prospects for one of the two viable candidates, that is, the incumbent, non-orange one.

Anyway, the article goes on to address the concern you raise:

The article goes on to cite an X thread that lays it all out, including images of the relevant statutes and other formal government documents:

So, contrary to your claim that the guys doing the housecleaning have "no government position," it appears they do.

As it happens, I largely concur with the the X thread's final comment about the executive branch having "far more authority than they should."  I think the entire federal government has far more power and authority and money that it should.  I would prefer to have that power and authority and money devolved to the several states, or to the people.  

That said, I find it very interesting that folks like you, who are currently experiencing having fits of apoplexy about efforts to reduce the size and scope of the State are doing so by objecting to the use that tremendous power.  Isn't that . . . inconsistent?  You and yours have long wanted Big Government.  This is what Big Government looks like.

And the author of the a key component of that tremendous power currently which is now being deployed by the Bad Orange Man (that is, the power to give DOGE legal authority to do what they are doing) was . . . President Obama, as a part of the hallmark of his presidency, Obamacare.

The irony.  It burns.

It looks like Théoden may have been on to something. 

"This idiot" being . . . Elon Musk?

You seem to be channeling the observations of that AOC, who herself has a long track record of accomplishments and demonstrated intellect as compared to Mr. Musk.  Or . . . not.

I invite readers to compare the accomplishments of Mr. Musk to the accomplishments of Rep. Occasio-Cortez and decide for themselves whether the latter's critique of the former is sound.

Meanwhile, what are the credentials/accomplishments of these "interns"?  See here.

I am going to focus on whether widespread corruption, incompetence, graft, etc. has been happening with taxpayer dollars, yes.

I would think all Americans would be concerned about such things.  This is the funny thing about politics.  It tends to have a "It can't be bad when my side does it"-style effect on us.  I try to avoid this by resisting strong devotion to any particular political ideology.  Instead, I use my noggin, my legal training, the counsel from the Brethren, and common sense to suss out my own path and preference, and then try to find others whose preferences more or less align with mine.  This is why I can approve and appreciate some of the policies and enactments of the Bad Orange Man as "President," while at the same time reserving the right to disagree with other policies/enactments that go against my preferences (which are present), and also while not approving his personal failings (also present).

In other words, I'm not a "blood is thicker than water" kind of guy as to any political party or figure.  As it is, though, what we are currently seeing is the Bad Orange Man cleaning up corruption and mismanagement in government.  I am glad of that.  Very glad, in fact.

See above.  DOGE is not "outside the government."

As for "government employees {} getting dictated to," I refer you to these remarks from Secretary of State Marco Rubio:

Rubio says 'no choice' but to bring USAID 'under control' after agency takeover: 'rank insubordination'

Secretary Rubio is not "outside the government."

Here's a blast from the past:

That door should swing both ways, right?  Right?

Sure.  Again, from Secretary Rubio:

"{T}his is a 90-day freeze through which it allows us now to review programs."

Thanks,

-Smac

You don’t have to freeze programs to review them. That should be obvious. Also most of this propaganda is wrong. Hope this helps.

[The Nehor]

5 hours ago, longview said:

You might have a point only IF the national debt was not so crushingly huge. Politicians have rationalized the debt by always kicking the can down the road. BUT we can NOT continue this insanity. Servicing the debt will soon become the largest budget nightmare.

Argentina's inflation rate peaked near 300% in April 2023, making it one of the highest in the world. Printing money out of thin air is BAD policy. It leads to massive inflation. A major reason why the people voted for libertarian President Javier Milei. He is making hopeful gains by grabbing the bull by the horns and bringing everything under control.

America demands accountability. We are shining blazing sunlight into every dank recesses of the Deep State.

And how is that working for Argentina? It is bad. Very bad. You can’t austerity yourself out of an economic crisis. The FDR approach works better.

The idea that the national debt will suddenly destroy us is mostly a myth. Having some debt is actually good. How much is too much? We don’t really know.

And there is no reason to believe this president cares about the national debt. He is in the top ten presidents for increasing the debt as a percentage of the debt when they started. His vague plans to kill off income tax and further gut the IRS suggest this is not going to be an administration concerned with fiscal responsibility. His last term wasn’t. This isn’t about fixing anything. This is about ripping things apart without figuring out if doing so is going to be to our benefit or not. This weirdly isolationist tact with spending combined with the naked imperialist ambitions about the Panama Canal, Greenland, and Canada are an odd mix. 

The “deep state” doesn’t set budget policy. Congress does. Sort of. Congress hasn’t passed a budget on time since the 90s. The debt ceiling approval requirement costs us even more in shutdowns and the use of stopgap funding keeps Congress from being able to actually figure out and control funding. They are the problem. The supposed “deep state” are just federal employees doing their jobs. They aren’t some secret powerful force. The closest thing we have to a “deep state” is the State Department having some foreign policy goals that continue through administrations and the intelligence community running operations and having goals that are not explicitly directed by elected officials though elected officials can corral them.

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

Again, you are incredibly naive, trust all the wrong sources, and don’t fact check anything. You have terrible instincts for discerning what’s true from what’s false. You should be embarrassed.

According to Politico:

POLITICO has been the subject of debate on X this week. Some of it has been misinformed, and some of it has been flat-out false. Let’s set the record straight.

POLITICO is a privately owned company. We have never received any government funding — no subsidies, no grants, no handouts. Not one dime, ever, in 18 years.
Millions of people around the world read our journalism on POLITICO.com, POLITICO.EU and in newsletters. It is supported by advertising and sponsorships.

POLITICO Pro is different. It is a professional subscription service used by companies, organizations, and, yes, some government agencies. They subscribe because it makes them better at their jobs — helping them track policy, legislation and regulations in real-time with news, intelligence and a suite of data products. At its core, POLITICO Pro is about transparency and accountability: Shining a light on the work of the agencies, regulators and policymakers throughout our vast federal government. Businesses and entities within the government find it useful as they navigate the chaotic regulatory and legislative landscape. It’s that simple.

Most POLITICO Pro subscribers are in the private sector. They come from across the ideological spectrum and subscribe for one reason: value. And 90 percent renew every year because they rely on our reporting, data and insights.

Government agencies that subscribe do so through standard public procurement processes — just like any other tool they buy to work smarter and be more efficient. This is not funding. It is a transaction — just as the government buys research, equipment, software and industry reports. Some online voices are deliberately spreading falsehoods. Let’s be clear: POLITICO has no financial dependence on the government and no hidden agenda. We cover politics and policy — that’s our job.

We are so proud of our journalists and so proud of the connection we have with you, our readers.

We stand by our work, our values and our commitment to transparency, accountability and efficiency — the same principles that drive great journalism and great business.

Now, back to work.

Goli Sheikholeslami, CEO
John Harris, Editor-in-Chief

According to the New York Times:

Charlie Stadtlander, a spokesman for The Times, said in a statement that the only federal funds the company receives were for subscriptions, which have been bought by both Democratic and Republican administrations, including during President Trump’s first term. The amount of revenue from federal subscriptions is less than 1/1000th of The Times’s annual revenue, he said.

 

People just want to get rid of facts.

[Zosimus]

34 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

This weirdly isolationist tact with spending combined with the naked imperialist ambitions about the Panama Canal, Greenland, and Canada are an odd mix. 

POTUS; We won't pay for the Deep State's corrupt foreign aid and soft power development teams and programs any longer. America First!

POTUS two days later: "The US will take over the Gaza Strip and we will do a job with it, too. We’ll own it. With “humanitarian hearts” and “great wealth” we'll relocate (temporarily) 1.8 million Palestinian refugees living in Gaza to neighboring countries. The US, working with great development teams from all over the World, would slowly and carefully begin the construction of what would become one of the greatest and most spectacular developments of its kind on Earth"

No wonder they want to dismantle USAID, Israel and POTUS will need all of out foreign aid dollars to pull this one off

[Zosimus]

5 hours ago, smac97 said:

anything that is saving lives and is 1:35 immediate and Urgent you're not included 1:38 in the freeze.  I don't know how much more 1:40 clear we can be than that and I would 1:42 say if some organization is receiving 1:44 funds from the United States and does 1:46 not know how to apply a waiver then I 1:48 have real questions about the competence 1:50 of that organization.  Or I wonder whether 1:52 they're deliberately sabotaging it for 1:54 purposes of making a political point.

How exactly will Rubio process these waivers when everyone responsible for processing waivers has been fired?

Dismantling of USAID leaves no staff to process aid waivers

"Secretary of State Marco Rubio said last month that food and other life-saving aid was exempt from the freeze. But to resume operations, the groups must submit requests for waivers to their contacts at USAID and receive memos from the secretary's office, said a congressional source with knowledge of the process. The staff reduction at USAID this week from more than 10,000 to several hundred has left organizations without contacts at the agency and rendered the waiver process effectively moot, said four sources.

U.S. Representative Lois Frankel, the top Democrat on the House subcommittee that oversees spending on foreign aid, said humanitarian waivers were not being implemented because so many USAID staff had been cut."

"There's no one to do it. It's total chaos out in the field and here, with contractors, recipients, mission partners. Everything has stopped," she said.

The State Department did not immediately respond on Friday to a request for comment.

Edited February 8, 2025 by Zosimus

[smac97]

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

Even when the way it is done is unconstitutional?

Please walk me through the constitutional argument.  I'm willing to listen.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

34 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Please walk me through the constitutional argument.  I'm willing to listen.

Thanks,

-Smac

He already pointed out the problem.

3 hours ago, Teancum said:

I do object to the shuttering of any congressionally approved agency or impounding previously approved spending by DOGE and the administration. They do not have the Constitutional authority do do such things.

While the original USAID was established by Executive Order, Congress stepped in later and made it a congressional agency.  The Executive branch does not have final authority over the congressional branch….whole balance of powers thing…it will take a congressional act to remove the authority given to the agency by a congressional act.

https://www.justsecurity.org/107267/can-president-dissolve-usaid-by-executive-order/

Quote

In 1961, USAID was created by an E.O. issued by President John F. Kennedy (E.O. 10973), based in part on authority provided in the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961. But a later act of Congress (The Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998, 22 U.S.C. 6501 et seq.) established USAID as its own agency. In a section titled “Status of AID” (22 U.S.C. 6563) it states:

(a) In general

Unless abolished pursuant to the reorganization plan submitted under section 6601 of this title, and except as provided in section 6562 of this title, there is within the Executive branch of Government the United States Agency for International Development as an entity described in section 104 of title 5. (emphasis added)

The key language here is “there is within the Executive branch of Government [USAID]” (see sections 6562/6563). Those are the words Congress uses to establish an agency within the executive branch. It would take an act of Congress to reverse that – simply put, the president may not unilaterally override a statute by executive order.  

Quote

Finally, a much more recent provision of law – section 7063 of the FY24 State and Foreign Operations Appropriations Act (later incorporated into the Further Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2024) – explicitly requires both congressional consultation and notification to Congress for reorganizations, consolidations, or downsizing of USAID. Absent consultation and notification, actions to “eliminate, consolidate, or downsize” USAID or “the United States official presence overseas” would not be lawful.  

In short, Congress established USAID as its own agency and asserted its role in transfers of functions between USAID and State. It authorized the president to abolish or reorganize USAID for a moment in time, in accordance with the plan it authorized the then-president to provide in 1998. That reorganization occurred, with USAID’s independence retained. And there is no additional authority granted by Congress to the president to abolish USAID as an agency. 

 

Edited February 8, 2025 by Calm

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

He already pointed out the problem.

Quote

I do object to the shuttering of any congressionally approved agency or impounding previously approved spending by DOGE and the administration. They do not have the Constitutional authority do do such things.

AFAICS, USAID's administrator (the head of USAID) is appointed by POTUS, not by Congress.

POTUS has provisionally appointed Jason Gray, and then Marco Rubio, as Administrator.

1 hour ago, Calm said:

While the original USAID was established by Executive Order, Congress stepped in later and made it a congressional agency.  

Um, could you clarify this?  My understanding is that there are a few "congressional agencies" (CBO, GAO, CRS), but that USAID is squarely part of the Executive, not Legislative, Branch.

1 hour ago, Calm said:

The Executive branch does not have final authority over the congressional branch….whole balance of powers thing…it will take a congressional act to remove the authority given to the agency by a congressional act.

https://www.justsecurity.org/107267/can-president-dissolve-usaid-by-executive-order/

AFAICS, POTUS has not "dissolved" USAID.  I'm not even sure what that means.

I'll be curious as to the how the legalities are sorted out.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited February 8, 2025 by smac97

[Peacefully]

7 hours ago, Duncan said:

Canada is doing fine! We are like you guys, ups and downs

I was speaking with one of our French-Canadian team members today, and I jokingly told him that my husband and I are ready to move to Canada because of the mess here. He said “nope, we don’t take refugees”. We had a good laugh about that. 

[Calm]

35 minutes ago, smac97 said:

could you clarify this? 

You need to read the quotes and even better the link I provided.   The info is there. This is not my specialty.  I may even be wrong if that website and others I am reading are inaccurate.  My guess is my choice of language is likely saying something I don’t want it to say.

Edited February 8, 2025 by Calm

[Zosimus]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

USAID's administrator (the head of USAID) is appointed by POTUS, not by Congress.

Its under the executive but it was formed through an act of Congress, the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961. The executive can restructure and reduce, but cannot feed it to the wood chipper and kill it as Musk claims he will do. USAID can only be fed to the wood chipper after Congress repeals the Foreign Assistance Act

Quote

The duly-elected POTUS working to eradicate corruption and waste and incompetence in government is, according to you, "authoritative abuses."

I guess reasonable minds can disagree about such things.

In the spirit of the op I have a small proposition. Some background first: 

During the Vietnam War, the US flew 230,000 illegal bombing sorties over Cambodia, a country we weren't even at war with. 50,000–150,000 Cambodian civilians were killed by the 2.7 million tons of ordnance and cluster bombs we dropped. Many of these munitions are still active, and are still killing people. (source) 

In an act of good will (if you can call cleaning up our own mess good will) The Office of Weapons Removal and Abatement of the US State Department has been funding operations to deactivate and remove these bombs. (source)

Sadly, that funding has now been frozen. (source)

This problem is significant, because this is the exact reason why USAID was originally created, to create more good will in SE Asia than China and Vietnam, so that people who are just trying to survive don't flip communist.

And guess what is happening now that this funding has been frozen:

China provides $4.4 million more in demining aid amid USAID funding freeze

From the article above: "In this regard, mine and cluster munition clearance, along with the removal of other explosive remnants of war, will continue with financial support from the Cambodian government and other donor countries outside of the US,” it said. Recently, Ly Thuch, CMAA’s First Vice President, stated that the reduction in US aid has impacted over 1,000 demining personnel."

I think we can both agree that its just plain immoral to drop bombs on a country we weren't at war with, and then after promising to help deactivate those bombs that are still killing people 50 years later, we go back on our word and leave it to China to clean up for us.

So here's my proposition. If after the 90-day pause, Sec. Rubio has not provided a waiver for these life-saving de-mining projects to be refunded, we'll both call our representatives and explain the situation with an appeal to unfreeze the funding. If the waiver isn't approved within 30 more days, we'll both call LDS Charities and request they make a significant donation. If LDS Charities doesn't step up, we'll both donate $1000 to the projects. If we don't follow through with our commitment to donate $1000 each, then we both acknowledge here on this thread that the system that existed previous to DOGE feeding foreign aid into the wood chipper wasn't so inefficient after all.

Deal?

Edited February 8, 2025 by Zosimus

[smac97]

9 minutes ago, Zosimus said:

Its under the executive but it was formed through an act of Congress, the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961.

And yet, it's still a part of the Executive Branch.

9 minutes ago, Zosimus said:

The executive can restructure and reduce, but cannot feed it to the wood chipper and kill it as Musk claims he will do. USAID can only be fed to the wood chipper after Congress repeals the Foreign Assistance Act.

We'll see, I suppose we'll see just what the Executive Branch gets to do with the parts of the Executive Branch.

I found this article, by John H. Hinderaker (an attorney I've been following for a long time), to be interesting: The Real Constitutional Crisis

Quote

Thus, from today’s New York Times:

Constitutional crisis?

The president can’t shut down agencies that Congress has funded, yet that’s what Trump did, with Elon Musk’s help, to the U.S. Agency for International Development. The president can’t fire inspectors general without giving lawmakers 30 days’ notice, but Trump dismissed 17 of them anyway. … “The president is openly violating the law and Constitution on a daily basis,” said Brendan Nyhan, a political scientist at Dartmouth College.

The claim that the president can’t decline to spend money that Congress has appropriated (which may or may not amount to “shutting down an agency”) is generally asserted without qualification. It derives from President Nixon’s attempt to impound some of the funds that Congress had appropriated for water pollution control purposes. The Supreme Court held in Train v. City of New York that Nixon’s withholding of these funds was unlawful. But Train was not decided on any constitutional basis. Rather, the opinion consisted of a close reading of the text and legislative history of two sections of a particular statute. If the language of the appropriating law had been different, the president may well have had the power to withhold some, or all, of the money.

While that controversy was in progress, Congress passed the Impoundment Control Act. That act says that if a president wants not to spend any monies appropriated by Congress, he must go through a procedure to give Congress notice and obtain permission. No president since Bill Clinton has tried to follow this procedure. To my knowledge, the constitutionality of the Impoundment Control Act has not been tested.

"{T}he constitutionality of the Impoundment Control Act has not been tested."  There may be a pretty potent "separation of powers" argument against it:

Quote

In my view, we are indeed experiencing a constitutional crisis. But it is not the one the Democrats have in mind. For President Trump to assert control over the executive branch is not only proper, it is long overdue. Under Article II of the Constitution, the President doesn’t just run the executive branch. He is the executive branch. All employees of federal agencies are members of the executive branch, and as such, ultimately report to the president. Their job is to carry out his policies.

Yep.

Can the Legislative Branch supersede the authority of the Executive Branch by funding supposedly "independent" executive agencies?  We'll see.

Quote

The fact that this, to many, is not self-evident illustrates the real constitutional crisis that we face–the slow-moving crisis that has been underway now for close to a century. That crisis is the growth of the administrative state, the fourth branch of government that is mentioned nowhere in the Constitution. There is a strong argument that the administrative state is unconstitutional. What is incontrovertibly unconstitutional is the concept of an executive branch that is independent of the president.

I have commented several times on the terribleness of the Administrative State, and condemn it again here.  Perhaps it's time for a good legal wrassle.  

Quote

But that is exactly what the Democrats want–a fourth branch that is not accountable to the president, but for which, at the same time, Congress need not take responsibility.

I think this is a potent, and accurate point.

Quote

Take the case of USAID. Trump and his minions have brought to light that USAID has been spending money on a transgender opera in Colombia, a transgender comic book in Peru, and so on. Beyond such obviously inappropriate expenditures, it has also come to light that USAID functions largely as a slush fund for politically-connected NGOs. Thus:

Since 2010, USAID has disbursed at least $2.13 billion in contracts and grants for Haiti-related work. Overall, just $48.6 million has gone directly to Haitian organizations or firms, just over 2 percent. Comparatively, more than $1.2 billion has gone to firms located in DC, Maryland or Virginia.

So what is the Trump administration supposed to do when it finds that an executive branch agency is wasting money, engaging in corrupt practices, or spending resources in ways that actually undercut the administration’s policies? According to the Democrats, nothing. Once Congress has appropriated money to USAID or any other agency, the Trump administration has no option but to spend it–and, apparently, to spend it in the ways that the unelected bureaucrats in that agency choose.

The bolded part appears to be an intended feature, not a bug.

Quote

Of course, if you look at the appropriations bill that covers USAID, you will see no reference to transgender operas. Nor will the phrase “transgender comic book” appear. USAID’s funding is allocated in broad categories that sound noble. But where the money actually goes, Congress has no idea.

Congress has no idea, and hence no obligation for its members to rationalize or defend inanities like transgender operas being paid for by taxpayers.

Quote

Secretary of State Marco Rubio has talked about this. When he was in the Senate he tried to exercise oversight over USAID. Employees of that agency would appear before his committee, and he would ask them how money is a particular category was being spent. Where is this money going? Who is being paid, and for what purpose? And the USAID witnesses would refuse to answer. They didn’t have to say; they were independent.

This is an interesting thing.  I saw the video of Sec. Rubio speaking about this, but I haven't seen any recordings or transcripts of the actual hearings he referenced.  If he is telling the truth, I'd like to see specific instances of USAID doing what Sec. Rubio describes.  If no such incidents occurred, I'd like to know that too.

Quote

That is a constitutional absurdity and a policy outrage. And it also is one of the reasons why Democrats love the fourth branch. They use vague appropriations to enable spending for which they would never want to take responsibility. Can you imagine a Democratic House member trying to explain to constituents why he voted to fund a transgender opera in a foreign country? But no such explanation ever becomes necessary. The fourth branch is shrouded in secrecy and “independence.”

If you take seriously the fact that the President runs the executive branch–indisputable, under Article II–then, if the president learns that money is being wasted, that an agency has gone rogue, that its officials are pursuing policies that contradict those of the administration they serve–the president’s duty is to stop it. Stop the spending, fire the employees, neuter the rogue agency.

I think this is a point worth discussing.

Quote

Of course it is true, as the Democrats say, that the President doesn’t have the power to abolish an agency that Congress has created. Thus, for example, President Trump cannot, by executive order, abolish the Department of Education. But he can run the Department of Education, and if that department is spending resources in ways that are wasteful or that contradict his administration’s policy goals, he can stop or redirect that spending.

That sounds right.  Or it should be right.

Quote

The Democratic Party press has the current crisis exactly backward. The fact that President Trump is asserting control over the federal employees who work for him is a natural, if long-overdue, return to constitutional norms. The idea that the executive branch is somehow beyond the control of the president is the real crisis, one that has been long in the making. Ultimately, the Supreme Court will sort out the respective powers of Congress and the President with regard to the agencies that are established by Congress. In the meantime, President Trump needs to continue to assert his constitutional responsibility for the executive branch.

Bold part mine.  I think this merits discussion.

9 minutes ago, Zosimus said:

In the spirit of the op I have a small proposition. Some background first: 

...

So here's my proposition. If after the 90-day pause, Sec. Rubio has not provided a waiver for these life-saving de-mining projects to be refunded, we'll both call our representatives and explain the situation with an appeal to unfreeze the funding.

Okay.  I'm game.

9 minutes ago, Zosimus said:

If that doesn't happen within 30 more days, we'll both call LDS Charities and make the same request.

No thanks.

9 minutes ago, Zosimus said:

If LDS Charities doesn't donate, we'll both donate $1000 to the projects. If we don't donate $1000 each, then we both acknowledge here on this thread that the system that existed previous to January 2025 wasn't so corrupt and inefficient after all

I'm not sure 90 days is sufficient to suss out what's been going on at USAID.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Zosimus]

21 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I'm not sure 90 days is sufficient to suss out what's been going on at USAID.

Hold up, Rubio said waivers were available now for life-saving projects. I'm giving 90 days to prove that waivers are ready to go today.

Besides, its not USAID, its a freeze of all activities at State's Office of Weapons Removal and Abatement. If 90 days isn't enough to suss out which State Department projects save lives and which are bloat, then would you agree it was the wrong decision to freeze everything in the first place instead of allowing the programs to continue while audits were done? Sec. Rubio is over this program, so he's the one that needs to submit a waiver to himself. Will he? Can't blame the corruption at USAID for this. Let's see

Relevant to mention that just days after POTUS froze efforts to remove cluster bombs we Americans dropped in SE Asia, he committed to remove all the munitions Israel left in Gaza

Edited February 8, 2025 by Zosimus

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

And yet, it's still a part of the Executive Branch.

We'll see, I suppose we'll see just what the Executive Branch gets to do with the parts of the Executive Branch.

I found this article, by John H. Hinderaker (an attorney I've been following for a long time), to be interesting: The Real Constitutional Crisis

"{T}he constitutionality of the Impoundment Control Act has not been tested."  There may be a pretty potent "separation of powers" argument against it:

Yep.

Can the Legislative Branch supersede the authority of the Executive Branch by funding supposedly "independent" executive agencies?  We'll see.

I have commented several times on the terribleness of the Administrative State, and condemn it again here.  Perhaps it's time for a good legal wrassle.  

I think this is a potent, and accurate point.

The bolded part appears to be an intended feature, not a bug.

Congress has no idea, and hence no obligation for its members to rationalize or defend inanities like transgender operas being paid for by taxpayers.

This is an interesting thing.  I saw the video of Sec. Rubio speaking about this, but I haven't seen any recordings or transcripts of the actual hearings he referenced.  If he is telling the truth, I'd like to see specific instances of USAID doing what Sec. Rubio describes.  If no such incidents occurred, I'd like to know that too.

I think this is a point worth discussing.

That sounds right.  Or it should be right.

Bold part mine.  I think this merits discussion.

Okay.  I'm game.

No thanks.

I'm not sure 90 days is sufficient to suss out what's been going on at USAID.

Thanks,

-Smac

So your argument is that it is not a settled constitutional issue whether the President can refuse to allocate money that Congress allocated? Seriously, that is your defense? That the Supreme Court hasn’t said that the President can ignore Congress and rule by fiat?

Are you trying to undo the Revolutionary War? Give us a KING!

[Benjamin McGuire]

A couple of thoughts with regard to the OP, that I don't think have been really addressed -

I think that government - especially local government - wants partners to help with certain aspects of governance. This interest creates a willingness to build (limited) compromises into these public-private partnerships. At the same time, there are often expectations that come with public funds that need to be met (even with compromises). And sometimes these expectations and the compromises asked for by these partners creates conflict. The one that comes most readily to mind is the much litigated issue of allowing religious organizations to sponsor agencies using public funds to offer adoption services and foster care services that discriminated against certain groups (generally LGBTQ+ parents). I am not interested in arguing which side is right or wrong in those cases - but I want to point out that when religious organizations enter into private-public partnerships for the purpose of the furthering the greater good, there is an expectation that public funds will be used in a way that is consistent with current public policy and policy goals. And consequently, those organizations may be required to do things that run into conflict with their own set of closely held beliefs (whatever they may be). I think that this is a primary reason why the LDS Church rarely engages in these public-private partnerships (at least here in the U.S.). And while this topic is fairly narrow in terms of its scope, we shouldn't forget the fact that the LDS Church does receive large amounts of public monies. Here is one example where the reception of this money has been a focal point of conflict in the past - and where this money does place some requirements on the LDS Church's organizations that otherwise would not exist. Hospitals owned by religious organization are another are where funding sources create expectations that can cause conflict. When the work that is done has little overlap with the religious space, these partnerships are easier. In my own area there has been some public-private partnerships with the local Church units for the purposes of distributing food and goods to those who need them. There is very little potential conflict that is a concern in that context.

[Tacenda]

10 hours ago, smac97 said:

And yet, it's still a part of the Executive Branch.

We'll see, I suppose we'll see just what the Executive Branch gets to do with the parts of the Executive Branch.

I found this article, by John H. Hinderaker (an attorney I've been following for a long time), to be interesting: The Real Constitutional Crisis

"{T}he constitutionality of the Impoundment Control Act has not been tested."  There may be a pretty potent "separation of powers" argument against it:

Yep.

Can the Legislative Branch supersede the authority of the Executive Branch by funding supposedly "independent" executive agencies?  We'll see.

I have commented several times on the terribleness of the Administrative State, and condemn it again here.  Perhaps it's time for a good legal wrassle.  

I think this is a potent, and accurate point.

The bolded part appears to be an intended feature, not a bug.

Congress has no idea, and hence no obligation for its members to rationalize or defend inanities like transgender operas being paid for by taxpayers.

This is an interesting thing.  I saw the video of Sec. Rubio speaking about this, but I haven't seen any recordings or transcripts of the actual hearings he referenced.  If he is telling the truth, I'd like to see specific instances of USAID doing what Sec. Rubio describes.  If no such incidents occurred, I'd like to know that too.

I think this is a point worth discussing.

That sounds right.  Or it should be right.

Bold part mine.  I think this merits discussion.

Okay.  I'm game.

No thanks.

I'm not sure 90 days is sufficient to suss out what's been going on at USAID.

Thanks,

-Smac

The people are in charge, not the president.

[Teancum]

17 hours ago, smac97 said:

Please walk me through the constitutional argument.  I'm willing to listen.

Thanks,

-Smac

Really?  I think it is pretty clear and simple. Article 1 of the constitution gives the power of the purse and all legislative power.  The executive branch is empowered to carry out the spending directives of congress. It has the veto power and can persuade to have congress pass legislation. The president can also veto legislation (M and by the way I support a line item veto). But the executive branch does not have the power to not spend the $$ in a way that does not comply with the directive of congress nor to simply shut down an agency that congress has by law established. And I do not apply this to the president you call bad orange man, which by the way using that term is passive aggressive and it is the same way the MAGA frenzied base uses TDS. I and many other have good reason to oppose much of what Trump does and to use terms like these does not foster reasonable dialogue.

 

By the way I don't oppose everything  Trump does. I do think he is a criminal. I think that he did try to steal and election and that he did incite a riot. I do believe he is a criminal and he is a convicted felon and adjudicated rapist. He is guilty of busines fraud in NY state and is prohibited from doing busines in NY state. He had to pay a significant settlement for his fraudulent Trump U and his Private Charitable Foundation was shut down because he and his family were stealing from it. He and his family are also prohibited from establishing a charity ever again in NYS.  I am fairly confident had Merrick Garland not been overly cautious and had he not delayed the appointment of the special council in the form of Jack Smith that he would have been convicted of all the charges related to the 2020 election case and likely on the document case.  But we will never know now, at least unless he lives long enough to outlast his current term in office a future justice department resurrects the case. He has to be one of histories most lucky con man and criminal.  But the legal system played out and here we are. I still am befuddles how anyone could support and vote for the man but 77 million did.  He did not receive a mandate and he has a narrow advantage in the house and senate. So legislate instead of try to rule by EOs and such. But there were things in his last term I was in favor of. I was in favor of parts of the 2017 tax act and am for extending some of those provisions now. I am for a strong border and while I did not chime in on the border threads I think I am pretty much on the same page as you except I would support not deporting undocumented immigrants who are here, have no criminal offense, are working and so on, and then set up a guess or migrant worker program for future immigrants.  There are some other things I could find but that is not the topic of this thread.  But I do oppose what I view as a clear heavy overreach that is being perpetuated on the institutions of our nation by Trump, Musk and DOGE. If DOGE would just review, advise, recommend then work with congress to pass legislation to implement the their desired changes then OK, even if I do not like it.  I am glad the judiciary is already doing this to limit and stop these activities and the dems are proposing legislation but they are blocked the the MAGAfied GOP just block them because they seem quite find surrendering their constitutional power to the president.

[Teancum]

16 hours ago, smac97 said:

AFAICS, USAID's administrator (the head of USAID) is appointed by POTUS, not by Congress.

POTUS has provisionally appointed Jason Gray, and then Marco Rubio, as Administrator.

I agree that POTUS can change and appoint the administrator.

16 hours ago, smac97 said:

Um, could you clarify this?  My understanding is that there are a few "congressional agencies" (CBO, GAO, CRS), but that USAID is squarely part of the Executive, not Legislative, Branch.

As she noted USAID was set up under a Kennedy EO and later and act of congress.  It takes and act of congress to eliminate it.

 

16 hours ago, smac97 said:

AFAICS, POTUS has not "dissolved" USAID.  I'm not even sure what that means.

He and Musk have, or are attempting to close it down. Currently they are making it a shell of what it was. 10,000 to 300 employees, barring employees from entering, furloughing all USAID overseas employees and bringing them home in 30 days, freezing funds, etc. This seem to be an attempt to close the agency down and impound the $ congress has allocated to USAID to spend.  That is unconstitutional.

16 hours ago, smac97 said:

I'll be curious as to the how the legalities are sorted out.

Thanks,

-Smac

Indeed.  It is pretty clear Trump and team want to go around congress. The party the believes in the constitution are attempting to stop them with the tools they have. The judiciary is now stepping in.  It Trump and team ignore a court order then we have a major constitutional crisis on our hands.

[The Nehor]

For those befuddled and confused by everything going on and the rapid fire pace at which a lot of these orders and directives are coming out this is not an accident. In rhetoric and debate this is called gish galloping. Basically you bury someone under so much stuff that they don’t have time to figure out what is going on. Also has the advantage of slowing opposition trying to piece together what is going on. By the time the courts get involved illegal actions might already be fait accomplis and can’t be walked back even if found to be illegal.

Many people are starting to find out why federal agencies exist the hard way. This will likely continue as the Department of Education is in the crosshairs and looks like the FBI is going to experience a purge to clean out those who *checks notes* did their job.

If the Department of Education goes it is likely all the federal grants associated with it go as well. That means special education funding is likely to vanish which may mean special education schooling is cut or becomes more subpar. That is just the first thing that comes to mind. I expect there are all kinds of new and exciting ways we can find why we actually needed this stuff.

[Peacefully]

2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

For those befuddled and confused by everything going on and the rapid fire pace at which a lot of these orders and directives are coming out this is not an accident. In rhetoric and debate this is called gish galloping. Basically you bury someone under so much stuff that they don’t have time to figure out what is going on. Also has the advantage of slowing opposition trying to piece together what is going on. By the time the courts get involved illegal actions might already be fait accomplis and can’t be walked back even if found to be illegal.

Many people are starting to find out why federal agencies exist the hard way. This will likely continue as the Department of Education is in the crosshairs and looks like the FBI is going to experience a purge to clean out those who *checks notes* did their job.

If the Department of Education goes it is likely all the federal grants associated with it go as well. That means special education funding is likely to vanish which may mean special education schooling is cut or becomes more subpar. That is just the first thing that comes to mind. I expect there are all kinds of new and exciting ways we can find why we actually needed this stuff.

“Flooding the zone” also comes to mind.