By Heather Thompson
Once upon a time, the U.S. Congress and the executive branch were concerned about the amount of taxpayer dollars spent unnecessarily and had the interest of the people and the country in mind when appropriating funds for projects and other necessities.
What makes the U.S. unique in its construction as a republic is the host of checks and balances that, in the early days, maintained debate and honesty in creating laws, spending money and doing the will of the people. However, as time passed and we the people moved further from our founding intent, these checks and balances became cumbersome to many elected officials, who used any situation they could to curtail the power of the three branches of government.
For example, when President Franklin D. Roosevelt wanted his New Deal passed but met resistance from the Supreme Court, he sought to pack the court with more justices under the guise of “fairness,” when really he just wanted his agenda. Similarly, modern history shows that laws and executive powers that once kept sinister agendas at bay have been steamrolled by lifelong politicians, many of whom have never held a job outside Washington in their lives. Meanwhile, American voters are gaslit into believing that many of these terrible policy decisions are for the good of the country, and they believed the officials who said so.
However, there’s a massive resurgence in American voters’ engagement in political discourse, creating a larger-than-ever group of citizens who are paying attention and don’t like what they see. But what I’m here to discuss is the executive branch’s use of impoundment of appropriated funds. This is a concept I didn’t know much about, and why would I, given that this presidential power was severely restricted in 1974?
Before that year, however, presidents throughout history regularly exercised this power for the good of the people and Congress. What is impoundment? The president’s impoundment power allows them to stop or return excess funds to Congress if a project costs less than approved. If Congress approves $50,000 for new Capitol desks but they cost only $40,000, the president can return $10,000 to Congress, saving money. Once Congress approves funding, the executive branch controls its expenditure, allowing the president to spend less.
Saving money was so common that in 1795, Congress passed a surplus law stipulating that any unspent funds within two years reverted to the Treasury. What a novel approach to spending — logically and fiscally. Why does this matter today? Because Congress has a spending problem. Historically, nearly every president used impoundment for various reasons after Congress passed spending bills. This executive power acted as a check against Congress to curb any undue spending.
Moreover, the total in a funding bill was always considered a ceiling — the maximum amount that could be spent on a project — not a floor. The minimum spent should not equal the maximum approved — a fact everyone in our political system understood until 1974.
Prior to 1974, presidents used impoundment with zero congressional oversight because this authority was given to the president in Article II of the Constitution. This idea was further expounded in The Federalist No. 72, where it states that the Executive Branch shall be responsible for the “…application and disbursement of the public moneys in conformity to the general appropriations of the legislature…”. This was understood and exercised with nearly zero congressional complaint, with the impoundments often not even reported to Congress, for nearly 200 years.
In 1974, Congress passed the Impoundment Control Act (ICA) which essentially strips away the right of a president to faithfully spend taxpayer dollars. Under this act, the president must notify Congress when he plans to impound funds — which was not the case before — and stipulates that funds cannot remain impounded for the entire fiscal year. Remember earlier when we discussed the 1795 surplus law? Well, under the ICA, there is no surplus on appropriations. Additionally, the ICA limits why and how impoundments can be done by the president, essentially forcing appropriations to be paid regardless and at their topmost amount.
When the ICA was passed, the power of approval of impoundment was shifted from the Executive Branch to the Government Accountability Office (GAO), who, over the last 50 years, has interpreted the ICA “to mean that agencies cannot even pause spending to determine the best uses of appropriated funds, even if the appropriation measure does not so restrict the Executive’s traditional spending discretion” as stated by the Center for Renewing America. Basically, the money has to be spent even if it is fiscally irresponsible. And we wonder why we are $37 trillion in debt.
Voters need to understand that the ICA flies in the face of the Constitution and essentially requires an unelected agency to tell the president what he can or cannot spend — despite that full authority already being granted to him in Article II. As the new administration works to rein in the massive spending spree our Congress has been on for the last 50 years, there will be more lies and fake stories about how withholding appropriated funds to manage our budget is unconstitutional, but now you know the truth and can arm yourself with facts.
In a perfect world, Congress would repeal the ICA and allow the current and future presidents to use the impoundment authority in the way it was intended. But we live in an upside-down world where right is wrong and wrong is right, which means understanding history, context, and the functions of the offices of our government will be our only defense against lies and deceit.
This article was republished with the consent of the author. Heather Thompson is an American journalist and podcaster covering America and the people who make it great.
