> the Republicans have tried numerous times to actually ban the practice of prioritizing payments to avoid default.
I was with you up until this point, but saying "the Republicans" want to ban prioritization of payments is false. Most appropriations laws do not specify that the executive can spend "up to $X" on a given thing, but must spend exactly $X on that thing. To wit:
> Regarding the spending power, the picture is a bit more nuanced. In
> the early years of the Republic, Congress passed laws that authorized the
> president to spend “up to” certain sums of money, and the president was
> accordingly able to carry out his constitutional duties while spending
> money in amounts not precisely specified by Congress.
> In most areas of the federal budget, however, that practice has long
> since ended. Congress now typically specifies precise amounts of money
> (or, in the case of so-called entitlement programs, precise formulae to
> determine amounts of money) that the president must spend for each
> authorized program.
> When Congress appropriates the money necessary to fund those authorized programs, it effectively orders the
> president to spend no more and no less than those amounts. It would be
> odd, indeed, if a president were to assert that he could choose to, say,
> send Medicare beneficiaries (or their medical care providers) less money
> than they would be entitled to receive under the relevant statute. [1]
I agree with your other points. But the illegality of spending prioritization is (1) not a creation of Republicans and (2) a much bigger issue than changing some Treasury software.
I was with you up until this point, but saying "the Republicans" want to ban prioritization of payments is false. Most appropriations laws do not specify that the executive can spend "up to $X" on a given thing, but must spend exactly $X on that thing. To wit:
> Regarding the spending power, the picture is a bit more nuanced. In
> the early years of the Republic, Congress passed laws that authorized the
> president to spend “up to” certain sums of money, and the president was
> accordingly able to carry out his constitutional duties while spending
> money in amounts not precisely specified by Congress.
> In most areas of the federal budget, however, that practice has long
> since ended. Congress now typically specifies precise amounts of money
> (or, in the case of so-called entitlement programs, precise formulae to
> determine amounts of money) that the president must spend for each
> authorized program.
> When Congress appropriates the money necessary to fund those authorized programs, it effectively orders the
> president to spend no more and no less than those amounts. It would be
> odd, indeed, if a president were to assert that he could choose to, say,
> send Medicare beneficiaries (or their medical care providers) less money
> than they would be entitled to receive under the relevant statute. [1]
I agree with your other points. But the illegality of spending prioritization is (1) not a creation of Republicans and (2) a much bigger issue than changing some Treasury software.
1. p1199, http://www.columbialawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/...