From: Bi-valve Mollusk <Bi-valve_Mollusk@riptear.com>
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,can.politics,alt.politics.trump,alt.politics.liberalism,alt.politics.democrats,alt.politics.usa.republican
Subject: Re: Both Presidents Obama And Biden Said They Wanted To End Waste In Government, So Why Are All You Faggots Whining About DoGE?
Date: Sat, 22 Feb 2025 09:25:03 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
On 2/21/2025 7:35 PM, -hh wrote:
> On 2/21/25 17:06, Bi-valve Mollusk wrote:
>> On 2/21/2025 4:36 PM, -hh wrote:
>>> On 2/21/25 14:04, Bi-valve Mollusk wrote:
>>>> ...
>>>> The test should be real simple:
>>>>
>>>> Does <insert spending initiative here> further a constitutionally
>>>> authorized proper role, purpose and function of the government?
>>>>
>>>> If Yes - authroize the spending.
>>>> If No - whack it.
>>>
>>>
>>> Of course, since all spending by Congress is duly authorized
>>> Constitutionally, it means that nothing qualifies to get cut.
>>
>> It's a bit more nuanced than that.
>
> But of course.
>
>> Congressional spending doesn't generally line-item *specific* spending
>> (for ex. see if you can find 'circumcisions in Mozambique' in any US
>> bill). It merely delivers a bag of cash to an agency to spend in its
>> oh-so infinite wisdom.
>
> Nah, ita more detailed than what you're trying to suggest. Nomenclature
> varies by Agency, but an example is the "Program Objective Memorandum"
> which is a short summary and is required down to a resolution of $5M.
Prevalent in DOD. Not aware of its use anywhere else. Or maybe you can
show us the POM that lists funding for circumcisions in Mozambique.
>
>> Furthermore, Article 2 gives the president significant influence over
>> federal agencies, including reorganize agencies, direct agency heads
>> to cut programs, reduce staff, or shift priorities, as long as it
>> aligns with the law.
>
> Sure, because that's the essential nature of what 'delegation' is. Even
> so, there's additional Congressional micromanagement rules which
> constrain freedom, such as a cap on how much funding can be shuffled
> between POM lines before it requires higher authority approval ... and
> even then, there's still the quarterly reports that go to Congress for
> their review even when below change approval threshold requirements.
>>> Because once someone besides Congress starts trying to make those
>>> decisions, one needs to have a third arbiter ... oh, say maybe we
>>> need to have a Judicial branch?
>>
>> Which is exactly what's happening right now. Let's call it 'democracy'
>> in action.
>>
>>> Until all of that's been decided, Federal funds brought you your
>>> telephone service, cellular service and internet services, so to make
>>> sure you're not being a hypocrite, please unplug from USENET now.
>>>
>>>
>>> -hh
>>
>> So, let's try out my test:
>>
>> Does telephone service, cellular service and internet services further
>> a constitutionally authorized proper role, purpose and function of the
>> government?
>>
>> Yes - commerce clause. I think I'll stay plugged in.
>
> Except that the commerce clause doesn't specifically call out
> "telephone", "cellular", or "internet":Â time to unplug. /s
It doesn't mention "wheat" either. Ask Roscoe Filburn how that worked out.
>
> -hh
>
>