The Trump administration’s attack on corruption continues:
Roses are red, violets are blue,
Today, DOGE and 10 agencies made 586 wasteful contracts bid adieu!With a ceiling value of $2.1B and $445M in savings secured,
A perfect Valentine’s gift for all taxpayers—well-earned and deserved!Today’s batch includes a $8.2M USDA… pic.twitter.com/6Pehk3vn2L
— Department of Government Efficiency (@DOGE) February 15, 2025
Also:
$1.9 billion of HUD money was just recovered after being misplaced during the Biden administration due to a broken process. These funds were earmarked for the administration of financial services, but were no longer needed. @SecretaryTurner and @DOGE worked together to fix the… pic.twitter.com/NDZPr8sjFC
— Department of Government Efficiency (@DOGE) February 14, 2025
I don’t understand how nearly two billion dollars can literally be “misplaced,” but our government is so inept, and so corrupt, that nearly anything seems possible. We can only hope that DOGE stops such dollars from flying out the window before it is too late.
But will DOGE’s work really be a boon to the taxpayers? That may come down to the issue that I discussed here. It is commonly said that, as a result of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Train v. City of New York and Congress’s passage of the Impoundment Control Act, the Executive Branch must spend every dollar that is appropriated by Congress, like it or not.
The practice for most of our history was different, and the Train case doesn’t actually say the executive can’t hang on to money, outside the narrow confines of the two sections of one law that were at issue there. (In fact, in that case the Nixon administration only argued that it could delay spending the money, not turn it back to the taxpayers.) And the constitutionality of the Impoundment Control Act has never been tested.
So, if fraudulent or wasteful spending is identified by the Executive Branch, liberals will argue that it can’t be returned to taxpayers, but must be spent elsewhere in the same department. Whether that position is correct, is unresolved.
Ultimately, of course, Congress needs to radically reduce federal spending so as to stop funding Democratic Party slush funds. But Congress might not do that, and, in any event, in the meantime many billions of dollars are at stake. At some point, the Supreme Court will have to sort out the relative powers of Congress and the Executive Branch when it comes to spending. Until then, we can cheer on DOGE, but without knowing whether taxpayers will eventually benefit, or not.
Notice: All comments are subject to moderation. Our comments are intended to be a forum for civil discourse bearing on the subject under discussion. Commenters who stray beyond the bounds of civility or employ what we deem gratuitous vulgarity in a comment — including, but not limited to, “s***,” “f***,” “a*******,” or one of their many variants — will be banned without further notice in the sole discretion of the site moderator.