The Impoundment Control Act (ICA) and Pocket Rescissions: A historical perspective
The Impoundment Control Act (ICA) of 1974 stemmed from a constitutional clash between Congress and the Nixon Administration regarding presidential power over the budget.
History of presidential impoundment
Historically, presidents from Thomas Jefferson onward, had used impoundment - the practice of delaying or refusing to spend funds appropriated by Congress.
Initially, this was seen as a way to economize or address changes in circumstances, and often, Congress tacitly approved these actions or resolved disputes informally.
However, President Nixon significantly escalated the practice of impounding funds, targeting social programs and withholding large sums appropriated by Congress.
Passage of the ICA
Nixon's impoundment actions, coupled with the Watergate scandal, prompted Congress to act.
The ICA was enacted in 1974 with the intent of reasserting Congress's authority over federal spending and establishing a formal process for impoundments, according to the Government Accountability Office (GAO).
The act created a new Congressional Budget Process and established the House and Senate Budget Committees and the Congressional Budget Office.
ICA and pocket rescissions
The ICA outlines specific procedures for two types of impoundments: deferrals (temporary withholding) and rescissions (permanent cancellation).
Rescissions are proposed by the President, but require congressional approval within 45 days of continuous session to become permanent.
Pocket rescission, a tactic employed by some presidents, involves submitting rescission proposals within the 45-day window but close enough to the end of the fiscal year that the funds will expire before Congress has a chance to vote on them.
The argument supporting this maneuver suggests that it's no different from any other rescission proposal, merely timed closer to the end of the fiscal year.
However, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) has ruled against this practice, deeming it unlawful because it circumvents the requirement for Congressional approval to make a rescission permanent.
This interpretation aligns with the ICA's overall goal of ensuring Congress's "power of the purse" and preventing the executive branch from unilaterally canceling or delaying spending enacted into law.
In essence, the ICA was a legislative response to curb presidential overreach in controlling federal spending and to solidify the constitutional division of power between the legislative and executive branches, according to the House Budget Committee Democrats (.gov). Pocket rescissions represent an ongoing debate over the interpretation of the ICA and the extent of executive power in the budgetary process.I
Ashland, thank you for taking the time to dig up the history of this tactic. I feel Q and President Trump had this maneuver planned since 2016, he just wanted to wait until the right moment. Gosh, there are so many wheels and cogs turning in the background I doubt there will ever be a tell all book about how the good guys saved America. Thanks again, Ashlanddog!!
After learning about how the enemy operates, the sheer number of "wheels and cogs" must be intentional. It seems like these individuals always want to either delay, defer, or seek unaccountable ways to get what they want done through both opaque systems and opaque rules.
The ethanol industry/subsidies is a huge one that should be cut. It takes more energy to produce one gallon of ethanol than burning that one gallon produces. Boo hoo, thousands of jobs would be lost in those mid-western states where the Federal money is pumped, but those jobs should have never been created in the first place.
The Impoundment Control Act (ICA) and Pocket Rescissions: A historical perspective
The Impoundment Control Act (ICA) of 1974 stemmed from a constitutional clash between Congress and the Nixon Administration regarding presidential power over the budget.
History of presidential impoundment
Historically, presidents from Thomas Jefferson onward, had used impoundment - the practice of delaying or refusing to spend funds appropriated by Congress. Initially, this was seen as a way to economize or address changes in circumstances, and often, Congress tacitly approved these actions or resolved disputes informally.
However, President Nixon significantly escalated the practice of impounding funds, targeting social programs and withholding large sums appropriated by Congress.
Passage of the ICA
Nixon's impoundment actions, coupled with the Watergate scandal, prompted Congress to act.
The ICA was enacted in 1974 with the intent of reasserting Congress's authority over federal spending and establishing a formal process for impoundments, according to the Government Accountability Office (GAO).
The act created a new Congressional Budget Process and established the House and Senate Budget Committees and the Congressional Budget Office. ICA and pocket rescissions
The ICA outlines specific procedures for two types of impoundments: deferrals (temporary withholding) and rescissions (permanent cancellation).
Rescissions are proposed by the President, but require congressional approval within 45 days of continuous session to become permanent.
Pocket rescission, a tactic employed by some presidents, involves submitting rescission proposals within the 45-day window but close enough to the end of the fiscal year that the funds will expire before Congress has a chance to vote on them.
The argument supporting this maneuver suggests that it's no different from any other rescission proposal, merely timed closer to the end of the fiscal year. However, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) has ruled against this practice, deeming it unlawful because it circumvents the requirement for Congressional approval to make a rescission permanent. This interpretation aligns with the ICA's overall goal of ensuring Congress's "power of the purse" and preventing the executive branch from unilaterally canceling or delaying spending enacted into law.
In essence, the ICA was a legislative response to curb presidential overreach in controlling federal spending and to solidify the constitutional division of power between the legislative and executive branches, according to the House Budget Committee Democrats (.gov). Pocket rescissions represent an ongoing debate over the interpretation of the ICA and the extent of executive power in the budgetary process.I
...copied / pasted Google AI
Ashland, thank you for taking the time to dig up the history of this tactic. I feel Q and President Trump had this maneuver planned since 2016, he just wanted to wait until the right moment. Gosh, there are so many wheels and cogs turning in the background I doubt there will ever be a tell all book about how the good guys saved America. Thanks again, Ashlanddog!!
" there are so many wheels and cogs turning in the background "
https://youtu.be/w2keHevAN54?si=sEGQzPdj5y-EJX7L
Ashlanddog...WISE GUY EXTRAORDINAIRE...tango yankee for the screed!!!
"tango yankee for the screed!!!"
...a good screed is hard to find...
After learning about how the enemy operates, the sheer number of "wheels and cogs" must be intentional. It seems like these individuals always want to either delay, defer, or seek unaccountable ways to get what they want done through both opaque systems and opaque rules.
https://nitter.poast.org/RodDMartin/status/1949928748901683563
Thank you 🙏
I LOVE Russ Vought!! He talks about this in his interview with Tucker Carlson. A very interesting interview - I highly recommend it.
May he make use of it.
The ethanol industry/subsidies is a huge one that should be cut. It takes more energy to produce one gallon of ethanol than burning that one gallon produces. Boo hoo, thousands of jobs would be lost in those mid-western states where the Federal money is pumped, but those jobs should have never been created in the first place.
DO IT
I love this PLAN more every day! Kek