Thread by @MattGlassman312

Sadly, I have to (mostly) concur. If solution to military pay was not some clever way to xfer RDTE $ to MILPERS, but that they just decided to just spend RDTE $ on MILPERS, that's an absurdly egregious violation of constitutional/statutory approps law. 1/

https://twitter.com/BBKogan/status/1978533640322617389

As noted, this isn't the worst-case-scenario you can think of on the *facts,* because (1) paying the troops has wide support; and (2) the affected RDTE accounts will probably be squared in the future. 2/

But this is, indeed, a POTUS move that hints at the total upending of duration/amount/purpose restrictions on approps. You know, the ones that date back 400-500 years, when parliament transitioned from "supply" to "appropriations" to reel-in the King. 3/

And the *obvious* next extension of this is one that should scare the crap out of Republicans: ICE/CBP appropriations spent on FEMA. 4/

But this isn't about partisan implications. As last 800 years of Anglo-American history have routinely shown, you wan legislature and law in control of the money. Whatever the merits of paying the troops--and I support it--this is another huge blow to congressional authority.

Go ahead and forget about Dems can bargain over approps if POTUS and GOP majority can rescind it. How can Congress appropriate if POTUS can simply ignore purpose limitations?

If impoundments are legal (refusal to spend) and purpose limitations unenforceable, you really are essentially just back to 16th century supply, where the only check the legislature has is on the total amount of money provided.

mattglassman.substack.com/p/energy-in-th…

That of course, assumes the executive doesn't start spending money *beyond* the total appropriation of Congress. (Bobby hints at that, but I see that as a totally different level of crazy, that would blow *supply* out of the water as a check).

Of course, public opinion and congressional action can still hold an exec in check, even under these conditions. But the framework of the constitution and the rule of appropriations law are a chesteron's fence you don't want to knock over. I'm afraid we are on our way.

I will write in more detail on Friday, when the picture is clearer and I have time to more carefully study the admin actions. Sigh. /end

One note: I do think @BBKogan slightly overstates the color of xferred $ wrt one problem with an RDTE-->milpers xfer; it's not *always* true that it takes the character of the receiving account. But that's more or less irrelevant given that admin is junking entire xfer framework.