The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) has ruled that a judge's order forcing the Trump administration to pay about $2 billion in foreign aid that it had "frozen". This is interesting from a number of perspectives.
Firstly, the funds concerned are owed to parties (contractors, NGO's and other agencies) for work that had already been completed. They weren't for projects that have yet to be begun, or work that has not yet been undertaken. I can see the sense in that. No matter whether one agrees with the politics of the former Biden administration or not, if it committed those funds to pay for those contracts and the work was carried out as agreed, then it should be paid for. The ruling does not force the Trump administration to undertake, or authorize, or pay for, any more such projects.
Second, the ruling does not address one of the Trump administration's key issues: whether or not a single district court judge can issue a ruling binding the administration in every district, in every State of the Union. Surely a district court's powers extend only to the district concerned? SCOTUS did not rule on this (to the stated displeasure of four SCOTUS justices, let it be said). This leaves that question open to further consideration. Should that be by SCOTUS, or by new legislation passed by Congress and the Senate to be signed by President Trump? Who can make that determination?
Third, agencies, NGO's and others that have depended on US government aid until now have to seriously re-evaluate their work going forward. They now know they can't rely on a "bottomless cup" of largesse from the United States. They're either going to have to get assurances on a project-by-project case that the income will be there to support it, or they're going to have to put all such projects on hold unless and until a new modus operandi can be worked out with regard to funding. Already some major charities and NGO's have furloughed or laid off large proportions of their workforces. Expect that to continue.
Needless to say, I don't like the SCOTUS ruling: but I believe in the rule of law. This one might be distasteful to me, but I can't argue with its basic rationale; that you pay for the completed work for which you contracted. The Trump administration may not have contracted for it, but the Biden administration did, explicitly or implicitly; therefore, the obligation exists.
Peter
4 comments:
I'm with you on this one. One should pay for work done. Hoping another case will settle the ability of the executive to control the executive branch. We'll have to wait for a better case.
Grumpy
Levin is clear on this: District judges do not have the Constitutional authority to override the Executive Branch…or in modern parlance, they need to stay in their lane and are disallowed to cut off the President in his.
Paid for work completed? Yeah, color me skeptical (who sais so? Their lawyers?) But if so - with this particular case - then pay it and end the contract going forward, otherwise if Congress “appropriates” taxpayer monies - often to feather their own grifter nest* - when does it stop? Never? I see, so no one can cut it off despite trillions in debt?
(*Jeffries entered congress $40k in debt but is now worth $37m…yeah, nothing to see there.)
Government funding…the only perpetual motion machine in existence. Not anymore…so agreed, these NGO’s need to find a new business source other than We The People.
The $2 billion is "insult after injury" but if the work has been completed the damage has already been done, and honoring a contract is a basic principle of honest business.
That said, this should provide the incentive to stop, at least temporarily, the expenditure of any government money - aka "the citizens' money" - until it can be determined that such expenditure is, in fact, properly authorized, is a legal expenditure, and supports the objectives and practices of the United States of America. That may, and probably will, negatively affect some legitimate organizations and their employees and associates, but given the stunning level of corruption, fraud, and malfeasance, seems entirely warranted.
It is not only that the United States simply cannot withstand such levels of expenditure and survive, it's very basically, and emphatically, wrong.
The Art of the Deal. Trump knows not everything his does will fly. But casting a wide net, not only does he get exactly what he wants, but also draws attention to the waste
Post a Comment