Davin News Server

On 2/22/2025 1:32 PM, -hh wrote:
> 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.

In other words, you can't tell me where it appears.

> 
>>>> 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.

Wickard is so vaugue that almost anything can be considered 'commerece.' 
Truth be told, Wickard is one of, if not *the*, primary reason why we 
are in debt beyond anything we can ever recover from.

> 
> -hh