Already seeing the $600 "stimulus" posted. WTF? Did this thing pass? Or was it red lined? I don't want to touch this money - especially until this shit is settled.
Trump SIGNED the law. He had to, it was veto proof.
He used the only play he could given a bad hand to throw it back to congress under a 1974 law that allows him to withhold funds for anything in the bill he "red-lines" (not really a red-line since they took those powers away with their 3-day session shenanigans) for up to 45 session days. (around 160 session days in a Congressional year). Doing this was a good troll move, as it turned Congress on itself where as before they were unanimous.
Congress needs to go, line by line, and vote to approve funding for each recission he made, and they immediately get funded before the 45 session days. This same voting process essentially allows them to amend the law quickly according to recommendations Trump cited in his "special message to Congress" attached to the bill.
If the bill was small, as they rightly should be if Congress wasn't corrupt, this wouldn't take any time at all. Any undue burden in having to review the bill to vote for funding on the recinded items is Congress' own fault for making an omnibus in the first place.
Anything they don't immediately vote to fund goes into effect on the 46th session day and Trump has to allow funding for the programs by law.
The increase to $2000 was only a suggestion they could take or leave without going through the President again. Since the President didn't veto, they could do whatever they wanted and he couldn't veto again so long as they didn't change the bill more than what is legislatively allowed.
Since the original bill has already passed, and Trump didn't REFUSE the $600 payment in his recission, we will receive the original payment outlined by the bill immediately.
The recission suggests an additional $1400 per person and total $600 per dependent child. They are currently voting on this measure as a separate (veto-proof) bill, effectively.
The only reason the President can do this is because while the Legislature is the only one who can decide what is and isn't funded and by what amount, the Executive branch has the sole authority to act upon the law.
If there isn't enough money to act on the law, the Executive branch can't do everything Legislature asks. Before the 1974 law, Nixon used this to just fund or not fund whatever he wanted.
Legislature and Judiciary decided that was overstepping his powers and passed the 1974 act to ensure both the Executive and Legislature wouldn't cock-block each other. This benefitted Legislature more, obviously, which is why it is near impossible to achieve a balanced budget.
Thank you for the explanation pede. Appreciate it. I missed the specifics of this over the past days and wanted to understand the President's intentions before dealing with this lump of cash. Feels bad to get this inasmuch as it was intended as shut-up money for Congress' corruption.
The move trump made amounted to a 48 hour delay. By writing a rescission bill and voting it down, the bill trump signed is the one that is enforced.
Okay, this is how it goes:
Trump SIGNED the law. He had to, it was veto proof.
He used the only play he could given a bad hand to throw it back to congress under a 1974 law that allows him to withhold funds for anything in the bill he "red-lines" (not really a red-line since they took those powers away with their 3-day session shenanigans) for up to 45 session days. (around 160 session days in a Congressional year). Doing this was a good troll move, as it turned Congress on itself where as before they were unanimous.
Congress needs to go, line by line, and vote to approve funding for each recission he made, and they immediately get funded before the 45 session days. This same voting process essentially allows them to amend the law quickly according to recommendations Trump cited in his "special message to Congress" attached to the bill.
If the bill was small, as they rightly should be if Congress wasn't corrupt, this wouldn't take any time at all. Any undue burden in having to review the bill to vote for funding on the recinded items is Congress' own fault for making an omnibus in the first place.
Anything they don't immediately vote to fund goes into effect on the 46th session day and Trump has to allow funding for the programs by law.
The increase to $2000 was only a suggestion they could take or leave without going through the President again. Since the President didn't veto, they could do whatever they wanted and he couldn't veto again so long as they didn't change the bill more than what is legislatively allowed.
Since the original bill has already passed, and Trump didn't REFUSE the $600 payment in his recission, we will receive the original payment outlined by the bill immediately.
The recission suggests an additional $1400 per person and total $600 per dependent child. They are currently voting on this measure as a separate (veto-proof) bill, effectively.
The only reason the President can do this is because while the Legislature is the only one who can decide what is and isn't funded and by what amount, the Executive branch has the sole authority to act upon the law.
If there isn't enough money to act on the law, the Executive branch can't do everything Legislature asks. Before the 1974 law, Nixon used this to just fund or not fund whatever he wanted.
Legislature and Judiciary decided that was overstepping his powers and passed the 1974 act to ensure both the Executive and Legislature wouldn't cock-block each other. This benefitted Legislature more, obviously, which is why it is near impossible to achieve a balanced budget.
Thank you for the explanation pede. Appreciate it. I missed the specifics of this over the past days and wanted to understand the President's intentions before dealing with this lump of cash. Feels bad to get this inasmuch as it was intended as shut-up money for Congress' corruption.
Wow, the president is not joking around! I don't see any problems spending the $600. What are your concerns?
whoever told you that "red lining" was a real thing lied