pull down to refresh

There are just two big problems with these assertions. The first is that presidential impoundment dates back to the very beginnings of the nation. The second is that letting presidents impound funds appears to have been an effective tool for keeping federal spending under control.
Impoundment is just a jargony word for instances where Congress appropriates a certain amount of money for a program in a given year, and the president refuses to spend all of it.
The reason they do not want the president impounding is that the pork factor may just get eliminated, so there will be no more bridges to nowhere and other logrolling goodies. It imposes discipline on congress, which has been lacking since Nixon.
That is clearly the reason, but I’m not sure what recourse they have, other than impeachment.
reply
That didn’t work during his first term, twice, did it? I don’t think it will work this time, either. They were bogus charges, they couldn’t convict in the Senate. I also think that SCOTUS would uphold the decision to impound by striking down the anti-Impoundment act as unconstitutional for the stated reasons, Also there is a lot of precedent for impoundment going back to the beginning of the federal government. Jefferson even did it!!!! FDR did it!! It was a reasonable thing to do in many cases.
reply