Connect with us

Hi, what are you looking for?


Relief Bill Causes Distress: Statement from Trump, Impoundment Control Act Explained, ‘Line Item Veto’?

President Donald J. Trump surprised his most dedicated supporters on Sunday night with the announcement that he had signed the Covid Relief Bill that he had refused to sign last week, causing confusion since the Propaganda media set out the narrative that Trump had betrayed people.

What was most surprising was when calmer heads prevailed, discussion of an interesting Presidential power called the Impound Act of 1974 was cited. Some political watchers called it a” line-item veto”, which is very upsetting to the left, or similar to a line-item veto, and what it might really be about it how much Trump believes he will be in office in 45 days.

But calmer heads posted:

In the official statement, Trump describes his use of the powers. Below is the full unedited statement.

Statement from the President

 Issued on: December 27, 2020

As President of the United States it is my responsibility to protect the people of our country from the economic devastation and hardship that was caused by the China Virus.

I understand that many small businesses have been forced to close as a result of harsh actions by Democrat-run states. Many people are back to work, but my job is not done until everyone is back to work.

Fortunately, as a result of my work with Congress in passing the CARES Act earlier this year, we avoided another Great Depression. Under my leadership, Project Warp Speed has been a tremendous success, my Administration and I developed a vaccine many years ahead of wildest expectations, and we are distributing these vaccines, and others soon coming, to millions of people.

As President, I have told Congress that I want far less wasteful spending and more money going to the American people in the form of $2,000 checks per adult and $600 per child.

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to carry out the full objectives or scope of programs for which it is provided, or that such budget authority should be rescinded for fiscal policy or other reasons (including termination of authorized projects or activities for which budget authority has been provided), the President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.

I will sign the Omnibus and Covid package with a strong message that makes clear to Congress that wasteful items need to be removed. I will send back to Congress a redlined version, item by item, accompanied by the formal rescission request to Congress insisting that those funds be removed from the bill.

I am signing this bill to restore unemployment benefits, stop evictions, provide rental assistance, add money for PPP, return our airline workers back to work, add substantially more money for vaccine distribution, and much more.

On Monday the House will vote to increase payments to individuals from $600 to $2,000. Therefore, a family of four would receive $5,200. Additionally, Congress has promised that Section 230, which so unfairly benefits Big Tech at the expense of the American people, will be reviewed and either be terminated or substantially reformed.

Likewise, the House and Senate have agreed to focus strongly on the very substantial voter fraud which took place in the November 3 Presidential election.

The Senate will start the process for a vote that increases checks to $2,000, repeals Section 230, and starts an investigation into voter fraud.

Big Tech must not get protections of Section 230!

Voter Fraud must be fixed!

Much more money is coming. I will never give up my fight for the American people


The Impoundment Control Act of 1974: What Is It? Why Does It Matter? Below will give you an understanding of the act written by the people who brought you the following:

What is the Impoundment Control Act? According to far left radical John Yarmuth:

The Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (ICA) reasserted Congress’ power of the purse. Specifically, Title X of the Act – “Impoundment Control” – established procedures to prevent the President and other government officials from unilaterally substituting their own funding decisions for those of the Congress. The Act also created the House and Senate Budget Committees and the Congressional Budget Office.

Why was the ICA necessary?

Congress passed the ICA in response to President Nixon’s executive overreach – his Administration refused to release Congressionally appropriated funds for certain programs he opposed. While the U.S. Constitution broadly grants Congress the power of the purse, the President – through the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and executive agencies – is responsible for the actual spending of funds. The ICA created a process the President must follow if he or she seeks to delay or cancel funding that Congress has provided.

What does it mean to ‘impound’ funds?

An “impoundment” is any action – or inaction – by an officer or employee of the federal government that precludes federal funds from being obligated[1] or spent, either temporarily or permanently.

How does the ICA work?

The ICA lays out procedures the President must follow to reduce, delay, or eliminate funding in an account. The Act divides impoundments into two categories: rescissions and deferrals.


Put simply, if the President wants to spend less money than Congress provided for a particular purpose, he or she must first secure a law providing Congressional approval to rescind the funding in question. The ICA requires that the President send a special message to Congress identifying the amount of the proposed rescission; the reasons for it; and the budgetary, economic, and programmatic effects of the rescission. Upon transmission of such special message, the President may withhold certain funding in the affected accounts for up to 45 legislative session days. If a law approving the rescission is not enacted within the 45 days, any withheld funds must be made available for obligation.

A 2018 Government Accountability Office legal opinion holds that if the President proposes a rescission, he or she must make the affected funds available to be prudently obligated before the funds expire, even if the 45-day clock is still running. This means, for example, that the President cannot strategically time a rescission request for late in the fiscal year and withhold the funding until it expires, thus achieving a rescission without Congressional approval.


The ICA defines a “deferral” as withholding, delaying, or – through other Executive action or inaction – effectively precluding funding from being obligated or spent. The ICA prescribes three narrow circumstances in which the President may propose to defer funding for a program: (1) providing for contingencies; (2) achieving budgetary savings made possible through improved operational efficiency; and (3) as specifically provided by law.

The ICA requires that the President send a special message to Congress identifying the amount of the proposed deferral; the reasons for it; and the period of the proposed deferral. Upon transmission of such special message, the funds may be deferred without further action by Congress; however, the deferral cannot extend beyond the end of the fiscal year in which the special message is sent. The ICA language on deferrals is long-standing budget law that allows the Executive branch to delay the obligation or expenditure of funding only for the specified reasons rather than policy reasons.

Why is the ICA important?

Today, 45 years after the ICA became law, Congress once again confronts a President attempting to push past the long-recognized boundaries of executive budgetary power. This year, for the second straight year, the Trump Administration reportedly considered issuing rescission requests for certain foreign aid and security assistance accounts less than 45 days before the end of the fiscal year, when the funds in question would expire. In the closing weeks of fiscal 2019, OMB withheld funding in these accounts in a manner inconsistent with longstanding procedures and policies. The House Budget and Appropriations Committees have serious concerns that President Trump and his administration violated the ICA in withholding these funds. The committees are examining when, why, and how these funds were withheld; and whether these actions prevented agencies from spending the full amount that Congress provided for these activities, thus thwarting the will of Congress. Congress will not bend to executive overreach. It will defend its constitutional power of the purse and the fundamental checks and balances that are critical to our constitutional republic.

[1] To “obligate” funds means to incur a legal obligation to pay, such as by entering into a contract for services.

Might be smart to remember that Trump told the White House staff not to pack up their offices…

It looks like this story is still developing…


Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.



Patriot Supply

You May Also Like

Copyright © 2022 Unite America First. Turbocharged by Adrevv