Our Man Mitch
In today’s Wall Street Journal, Ricochet’s own Mitch Daniels, governor of Indiana, provides a list of emergency economic measures for Republicans to consider after election day. The Governor’s measures include a holiday on payroll taxes and a freeze on federal hiring and pay increases. “[T]o have a prayer of avoiding fiscal ruin, we need to go to economic general quarters immediately.”
One of the Governor’s proposals in particular caught my eye:
Impoundment power. Presidents once had the authority to spend less than Congress made available through appropriation. On reflection, nothing else makes sense. Plowing ahead with spending when revenues plummet is something only government would do. In Indiana, we are still solvent, with no new taxes, money in reserve, and a AAA credit rating only because our legislature gave me the power to adjust spending to new realities. I promise you that a president who wanted to could put the kibosh on enormous amounts of spending that a Congress might never vote to eliminate, but the average citizen would never miss.
That’s Mitch Daniels through and through. He displays deep historical knowledge—presidents possessed impoundment power right up until 1974, when a Democratic Congress, still motivated by spite for the disgraced Richard Nixon, made the practice illegal—and then he provides a trenchant budgetary analysis. And then? Well, then Mitch Daniels writes about giving impoundment power back to the president almost as if—and this is part I really love—he’s been thinking about what he’d do with the presidency himself.
- Comment (26)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (3)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments:
Jul '10
Re: Our Man Mitch
Haven't seen Mitch post here. Get him on!
He could post a recipe for banana bread or an enconium to his deceased ferret, I don't care....
I just want him to see a thread with 3 zillion comments, all saying the same thing:
"The country needs you. We'll contribute. We'll volunteer.
Now run!"
Aug '10
Re: Our Man Mitch
Kenneth: Haven't seen Mitch post here. Get him on!
He could post a recipe for banana bread or an enconium to his deceased ferret, I don't care....
I just want him to see a thread with 3 zillion comments, all saying the same thing:
"The country needs you. We'll contribute. We'll volunteer.
Now run!" · Sep 8 at 11:13am
Kenneth, sniping at you is fun but it's even more fun to agree with you.
Edited on September 9, 2010 at 2:08amMay '10
Re: Our Man Mitch
Mitch! Mitch! Mitch!
May '10
Re: Our Man Mitch
We really should keep these conversations consolidated. I believe this is the thread you were looking for.
Jul '10
Re: Our Man Mitch
I left Indiana just before I would have had the opportunity to vote for him...but I'll vote for him in two years, without hestitation.
May '10
Re: Our Man Mitch
A technical question: How does impoundment power differ from a line-item veto, which SCOTUS has ruled unconstitutional? And why on earth is this the first we've heard of this? Is there a decent argument against it? (I can't imagine what it would be, but it just seems strange that we--or at least I--haven't known this was an option.)
Also, Gov. Daniels' list of proposals answers the question of "What now?" pretty well for Republicans if they take Congress. Force Obama to be the obstructionist. We'll no doubt have gridlock regardless, but better for the blame to be on the Pres and Dems.
Edited on September 8, 2010 at 11:55pmJul '10
Re: Our Man Mitch
Scott Reusser: We'll no doubt have gridlock regardless, but better for the blame to be on the Pres and Dems. · Sep 8 at 2:54pm
Edited on Sep 08 at 02:55 pm
I love me some gridlock.
Jul '10
Re: Our Man Mitch
Scott Reusser: A technical question: How does impoundment power differ from a line-item veto, which SCOTUS has ruled unconstitutional? And why on earth is this the first we've heard of this? Is there a decent argument against it? (I can't imagine what it would be, but it just seems strange that we--or at least I--haven't known this was an option.)
Also, Gov. Daniels' list of proposals answers the question of "What now?" pretty well for Republicans if they take Congress. Force Obama to be the obstructionist. We'll no doubt have gridlock regardless, but better for the blame to be on the Pres and Dems. · Sep 8 at 2:54pm
Edited on Sep 08 at 02:55 pm
Impoundment was available to the President, though rarely used, until 1974. That year, Congress passed the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act, in response to Nixon's impoundment of appropriated funds. SCOTUS upheld the act.
So the law would have to be changed.
May '10
Re: Our Man Mitch
Mitch! Mitch! Mitch!
May '10
Re: Our Man Mitch
Thanks, Kenneth--though I still don't quite get why, until now, re-granting the president impoundment power has been so under the radar. Why, for instance, did Reagan not advocate for this? Or Cheney, with his push to increase the power of the executive? Seems right up their alley. Or maybe they did, and this is just a blind spot in my knowledge.
Jul '10
Re: Our Man Mitch
I don't know that I have ever seen this level of enthusiasm from the Ricochet gang. I think there is something Trumanesque about Daniels. Besides being a middle-aged balding gentlement of limited stature. We are all Trumanesque in that way.
He has the ability to capture very important messages with a common sense midwestern vocabuilary. And he is on the right track. Limiting spending is the key to everything.
Combine his natural talents as a politician with Prof. Rahe's strategic approach and we might be on to something here.
Jul '10
Re: Our Man Mitch
Well, SCOTUS declared the principle of impoundment to be unconstitutional, saying that the President does not have the authority to "...frustrate the intent of Congress."
In other words, once a bill is signed into law, the President must execute - or seek repeal or amendment of the law through the legislative process.
In the wake of the SCOTUS decision, it would take a Constitutional amendment to re-instate impoundment.
Jul '10
Re: Our Man Mitch
By the way, I'm assuming Mitch Daniels is advocating Congressional impoundment, which is certainly a novel concept. Sort of like expecting a teenager to cut up her own credit cards.
Jul '10
Re: Our Man Mitch
Patrick Shanahan: I don't know that I have ever seen this level of enthusiasm from the Ricochet gang. I think there is something Trumanesque about Daniels. Besides being a middle-aged balding gentlement of limited stature. We are all Trumanesque in that way.
He has the ability to capture very important messages with a common sense midwestern vocabuilary. And he is on the right track. Limiting spending is the key to everything.
Combine his natural talents as a politician with Prof. Rahe's strategic approach and we might be on to something here. · Sep 8 at 5:23pm
Agreed on all counts, Mr. Shanahan. I have personally become quite a fan of Governor Daniels since reading so much about him on Ricochet and elsewhere as a result of all the Ricochet buzz about him. Mr. Long once commented on the Podcast that he hoped that politicians would someday consider the "Ricochet vote" when positioning themselves and forming policies. It looks like we're on that road right now.
Jul '10
Re: Our Man Mitch
Humza Ahmad
Agreed on all counts, Mr. Shanahan. I have personally become quite a fan of Governor Daniels since reading so much about him on Ricochet and elsewhere as a result of all the Ricochet buzz about him. Mr. Long once commented on the Podcast that he hoped that politicians would someday consider the "Ricochet vote" when positioning themselves and forming policies. It looks like we're on that road right now. · Sep 8 at 6:11pm
Well, they'll have to hedge their position:
"Senator Soandso would be delighted to have the support of Ricochet voters...
...except for that one guy..."
May '10
Re: Our Man Mitch
And again thanks, Kenneth.
On re-reading the Daniels blurb, though, it sure seems like he's advocating presidential impoundment power. Hmmm. Strange.
Calling John Yooooooooo! (or calling the man himself: Gov.Daniels)
Jul '10
Re: Our Man Mitch
Scott Reusser: And again thanks, Kenneth.
On re-reading the Daniels blurb, though, it sure seems like he's advocating presidential impoundment power. Hmmm. Strange.
Calling John Yooooooooo! (or calling the man himself: Gov.Daniels) · Sep 8 at 6:20pm
Yeah, I just looked at his op/ed again. You're right: he's talking presidential impoundment. That's really odd, especially given the POTUS we've got.
Jul '10
Re: Our Man Mitch
Kenneth
Scott Reusser: And again thanks, Kenneth.
On re-reading the Daniels blurb, though, it sure seems like he's advocating presidential impoundment power. Hmmm. Strange.
Calling John Yooooooooo! (or calling the man himself: Gov.Daniels) · Sep 8 at 6:20pm
Yeah, I just looked at his op/ed again. You're right: he's talking presidential impoundment. That's really odd, especially given the POTUS we've got. · Sep 8 at 6:27pm
Obviously the current POTUS won't be impounding anything, but if Republicans gain control of the House and have enough votes to pass it in the Senate come January 2011, then why not get it out of the way earlier rather than later in anticipation of a new POTUS come January 2013?
May '10
Re: Our Man Mitch
The governor of Minnesota had statutory authority to reduce spending to balance the budget if the legislature failed to do so, and so he did. The state supreme court ruled (decision by a turncoat Republican-appointed justice) that the law was not being used as intended, so the imposed cuts were technically rescinded- but then they still couldn't get a budget passed, so the low level of spending held for practical reasons.
I wonder how the practical effects of the Impoundment Act would be affected by congressional failure to pass a budget, followed by an appropriations continuing resolution- those are generally ceilings rather than floors. Nixon's overruled impoundment was of a statutory budget.
Yes, we need Constitutional Counsel to weigh in here.
BTW, Scott, impoundment is failure to obligate authorized and appropriated funds. A line item veto is rejection of a portion of the statute before signing it, so it never becomes law- two different concepts. Clinton's frank political legerdemain illustrated why a line item veto in the hands of a skunk is not necessarily the great tool we intended when proposing the policy.
May '10
Re: Our Man Mitch
Humza Ahmad
Obviously the current POTUS won't be impounding anything, but if Republicans gain control of the House and have enough votes to pass it in the Senate come January 2011, then why not get it out of the way earlier rather than later in anticipation of a new POTUS come January 2013? · Sep 8 at 6:44pm
Agreed. If it can be done, we should strike while the iron's hot, regardless of who's pres.
And Duane: Thanks for the explanation. Very helpful. Evidently Gov. Daniels is confident that these legal and practical issues would be resolved in a happy way. (And for a firmer understanding of your post, I shall now look up the word "legerdemain"--and then nonchalantly use it tonight while chitchatting with my wife.)