Impound once again!

Since 1974, the President of the United States has been required to spend money appropriated by Congress – even if it's wasteful, foolish, or self-destructive. That's crazy.

We should restore the President's power to "impound" unnecessary appropriations unless Congress specifically requires the appropriations to be spent.

Expand executive power?!

No, we shouldn't continue expanding executive power. The modern President is more than powerful enough. But this is an unusual case, where empowering the President would make the whole government more efficient and accountable. It would restore some sanity that we lost in 1974.

What happened in 1974?

Historically, Presidents had the power of "impoundment." They could decline to spend money appropriated by Congress. Perhaps the first use of the power was by Thomas Jefferson, the third President, when in 1803 he declined to spend money appropriated for the Navy. He wrote:

The sum of fifty thousand dollars appropriated by Congress for providing gun boats remains unexpended. The favorable and peaceable turn of affairs on the Mississippi rendered an immediate execution of that law unnecessary;

Since then, various other Presidents have used the power of "impoundment", including President Nixon. Unfortunately, Nixon took it too far.

In particular, Nixon simply refused to administer funds appropriated for a certain environmental protection program, even after Congress overrode his veto of the law. In response, Congress eviscerated the President's power of impoundment in the Congressional Budget Control and Impoundment Act of 1974. Nixon lost the subsequent legal battle in Train v. City of New York, and the President effectively lost the power to impound.

The Act makes it very difficult for a President to decline to spend:

Whenever the President determines that all or part of any budget authority will not be required ... the President shall transmit to both Houses of Congress a special message [requesting permission not to spend]

Unless Congress approves within 45 days, the President must spend the money. If either house of Congress rejects, the President must spend the money. In other words, the President must default to spending money over saving money. That's crazy.

Congress made a mistake

It's obvious Congress did something foolish when you compare it against a private company.

In a private company, the board sets an arbitrary cap on spending and the CEO tries to spend less. No responsible board would force a CEO to spend the maximum possible. That would be a breach of their fiduciary duty. Likewise, no responsible Congress would require a President to spend the maximum possible.

Ultimately, Congress in 1974 was frustrated with President Nixon. They drafted a law that was excessively punitive, and in hindsight clearly dysfunctional. Our elders advise us not to speak when we are angry; likewise we shouldn't legislate. Congress got mad and screwed up.

What should we do?

The solution is simple. Congress should repeal Title X of the Congressional Budget Control and Impoundment Act of 1974.

Instead, Congress should follow a simple practice: When a President is not allowed to impound certain funds appropriated by law, the law should state that. This way the President has wide leeway to save money whenever possible, but can still be forced by Congress to spend on certain programs. Problem solved.

So here's the message to Congress: Get on it! You've piled up the largest government debt in the history of the world, and during peacetime no less. Yet you're prohibiting an obvious way to be more efficient. Simply allow the Executive to operate your government more efficiently. Do it now.