> Any serious attempt at reducing the deficit would mean confronting one of the largest sectors of the American economy. All of the stuff you mentioned - pointless tests, upcoding fraud, etc - is part of that.
Which is exactly what they should have been doing. It's blatantly obvious that they failed -- federal spending went up year over year.
But that means the problem remains and someone's going to have to take another go at it.
The budget is determined by what's written on a piece of paper that Congress eventually passes. You don't have to be a member of Congress to be the one drafting it or making recommendations.
I believe their argument was that the Impoundment Act is unconstitutional because Congress can appropriate money for something, and the executive branch can't take that and use it for something else, but Congress doesn't have the power to make them do something with it instead of just not spending it at all. It's basically a checks and balances argument; to get the government to do something you need Congress to appropriate money for it and the President to implement it and if either of them says no then it's not happening.
The executive can't unilaterally declare something is unconstitutional. The impoundment act was passed to prevent exactly this because that's exactly what Nixon did. The executive doesn't make the laws and congress literally already litigated this. If you want it to be unconstitutional then take it up with the supreme court, otherwise you're just indulging in lawlessness. This is a ridiculous argument.
> The executive can't unilaterally declare something is unconstitutional.
Any of the branches can do that. The courts don't need the permission of Congress or the President to strike down a law. Congress doesn't need anyone's permission to refuse to pass something because they think it's unconstitutional.
Consider what prosecutorial discretion is.
> The impoundment act was passed to prevent exactly this because that's exactly what Nixon did.
Congress passed it, but Congress frequently does unconstitutional things and then one of the other branches has to put a stop to it because that's how checks and balances work.
What do you suppose would happen if Congress passed a First Amendment-violating censorship law, the courts struck it down and then Congress passed a second law saying the courts have to uphold the first one?
Which is exactly what they should have been doing. It's blatantly obvious that they failed -- federal spending went up year over year.
But that means the problem remains and someone's going to have to take another go at it.