Trump’s redlines on the Omnibus bill were all about money for Americans

2

President Trump, Donald Trump, Omnibus, coronavirus, COVID, aid package, spending package, government debt,

Reading Time: 4 minutes

Charlotte, NC — If you are like me, you were no doubt in shock when the White House reported that President Donald Trump had signed the massive spending legislation. He had called the bill a disgrace as he outlined all of the ridiculous spending that it contained. I agree that many of the spending programs were ridiculous.

In his initial statement on the signing of the bill, he made one comment that many conservatives grabbed onto.

As President I am demanding many rescissions under the Impoundment Control Act of 1974. The Act provides that, “whenever the President determines that all or part of any budget authority will not be required to carry out the full objectives or scope of programs for which it is provided, or that such budget authority should be rescinded for fiscal policy or other reasons (including termination of authorized projects or activities for which budget authority has been provided), the President shall transmit to both Houses of Congress a special message” describing the amount to be reserved, the relevant accounts, the reasons for the rescission, and the economic effects of the rescission. 2 U.S.C. § 683.

In essence, President Donald Trump was drawing a red line across many of the areas in the bill and stating that the spending should be removed under the Impoundment Control Act. Across social media, conservatives were celebrating, saying he was getting the repeal of section 230, he was getting the funds removed, and getting the $2,000 checks as opposed to $600 checks. It was many posts like this one from a previous Senate nominee.

No Title

Trump invoked the Impoundment Control Act of 1974 while signing the COVID relief bill, allowing him to redline areas that must be fixed.Sending it BACK to Congress to:1) Repeal 2302) Cut out the wasteful spending3) add $2k in direct aid.Thank you, President Trump!🇺🇸

(function(w,d,s,i){w.ldAdInit=w.ldAdInit||[];w.ldAdInit.push({slot:13258399726934374,size:[0, 0],id:”ld-4815-780″});if(!d.getElementById(i)){var j=d.createElement(s),p=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];j.async=true;j.src=”//cdn2.lockerdomecdn.com/_js/ajs.js”;j.id=i;p.parentNode.insertBefore(j,p);}})(window,document,”script”,”ld-ajs”);

It seems there is a little confusion about what the Impoundment Control Act allows. The House Committee on the Budget, which was established by the Act when passed, has a great website outlining the process. In short, the process was started by President Donald Trump, but it does not guarantee Congress will act.

The President can withhold the funds under the request for recission for up to 45 legislative days. After those 45 days are expired, the funds must be released as appropriated in the bill. In other words, Trump issued his demands, but Congress can simply ignore them.

This is exactly what many in Congress have said they plan to do. The House is set to take up a vote on the $2,000 checks on Monday, but it is not clear that the measure would pass the Senate.

For the recissions to be made, Congress would have to agree to new legislation to remove those items as requested by the President. Do we really believe that the House would go for that sort of legislation? Democrats in the House have already said they have no desire to change the bill.

It would also require that same new bill to pass through the Senate. If you recall, the Senate is where only 6 Republicans stood up against the massive spending bill the first time. I think we are missing the real story of what is happening behind the scenes.

President Donald Trump knows the act under which he requested the changes and knows that Congress will fail to act. He again has put Republicans on notice that they will be going on the record regarding their wasteful spending and failure to help Americans.

They had the opportunity to stand up to the ridiculous spending once before. They failed to do their job of benefiting the American people. All across the world, people will benefit from the American taxpayer, while taxpayers here suffer with a mounting national debt.

I believe that many in the House will vote to approve the $2,000 checks, which I think was the President’s main goal. He has said all along he wanted to get those additional funds for Americans. One thing that you must pay attention to is that many of the spending pieces in the Omnibus bill were in the President’s own budget proposal, like them or not.

Trump knew that his redlines were not going to be addressed. Congress has ignored him since the beginning, but he also knew that many in the House would support the $2,000 checks. Trump was in a situation where he was going to lose either way. If he stood against the bill, he would be further crucified in the media as they paraded around Americans that were “suffering” without the funding. If he signed, he was going to disappoint conservatives because he did not stand up to the massive spending.

Instead, he chose Plan C. He chose to try to push Congress to consider changes, knowing that they wouldn’t. In exchange, he very well may succeed in getting Americans $2,000 of their own tax money back before Congress blows it on another ridiculous spending program.

Proof The Lockdowns Are Not Making A Difference

The Christmas weekend was marred by the explosion in downtown Nashville in what appears to be a suicide bombing. As more details emerge, it appears to be tied to the 5G conspiracy theory. Jared shares more about the theory and why it is irrelevant without evidence.

Jared Dyson is the Editor-in-Chief at The Liberty Loft and host of The Jared Dyson Show. Be sure to subscribe to The Liberty Loft’s daily newsletter. If you enjoy our content, please consider donating to support The Liberty Loft so we can continue to deliver great content.

Subscribe to The Jared Dyson Show on Apple Podcasts, Google Podcasts, Spotify, TuneInPandora, or iHeart Radio.

The post Trump’s redlines on the Omnibus bill were all about money for Americans appeared first on The Liberty Loft.

View original post