Davin News Server

On 2/22/25 09:25, Bi-valve Mollusk wrote:
> 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, its 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.

As I said, budget nomenclatures vary by Agency, but ultimately they do 
all have to go back up to Congressional appropriation lines, including 
the obligation and disbursement follow-up reports.

Now when the public wants to go trace something specific, homework is 
required to go find where its published, because bureaucratically it 
can't not be in some line somewhere.  And as I already said, the minimum 
threshhold reporting means that very small efforts get captured in the 
rollup of an above-threshhold line but may on its own fail to make the 
cut for the line's short description paragraph. Personally, I never had 
to bother to track down the Open Lit reporting because I had no reason 
to; my involvement's mostly been to update the sanitized for public 
release descriptions paragraph for the appropriations submissions.


>>> 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":  time to unplug. /s
> 
> It doesn't mention "wheat" either. Ask Roscoe Filburn how that worked out.


Precisely:  one can't assume that the commerce clause is definitive upon 
itself:  one needs to go look deeper into all of the regulatory 
guidance, prior Judicial determinations, etc.  It is what marks the 
current campaign as extrajudicial and severely wanting.


-hh