.What if the government entities don't NEED, WANT nor can they USE what congress wants to fund. Can Congress force it down their throats? Doesn't Congress SERVE the government or does it really dictate to the government so it can service the people they're in bed with and want to please? How does that work exactly and why? Who is looking out for we the people? Anyone?
Rosie Please ... No government Agency turns down appropriations.!
Hello Rosie:
Congress decides who needs what. For example, Congress can tell the military NOT to prepare for climate change, and they won't.
excon
Congress along with the Executive branch are the government.
Congress does specify what the money is to be spent on in many cases. The law can be taylored to fit what congress wants.
Laws by nature are forced down your throat.
The gov agencies are legislated as to their function. The President is the CEO of the agencies and is charged with see that they operate within the law.
You assume the Pentagon officials are not in corrupt association with armaments suppliers themselves ???????
Lets say as a theoretical example that a helicopter manufacturer wants a bigger contract from the pentagon to supply it more transport helicopters and to free up more money it lobbies the pentagon with underhanded kickbacks to reduce the supply of ships to the navy thus freeing up a few billion dollars so they can sell another 100 transport choppers to the army.. It gets a few billion and gives the critical pentagon officials a million each in secret well hidden payments..
No, they pass spending bills to fund the legislation they pass. Do not manage agencies.
To my knowledge, Congress can be as specific or as general as it chooses to be in appropriations, within constitutional limits (e.g. it cannot allocate money for any purpose that violates Constitutional rights).
Congress mostly allocates funds to government agenices and provides broad guidelines as to how it should be spent. However, Congress can sometimes opt to be quite specific.
Example: Congress allocates government funds to support Planned Parenthood, but specifies such funds cannot be spent on abortion services.
Example: US military bases in Germany need coal to operate heating/steam/electrical generation. Congress allocates money to purchase the coal, but specifies the coal must be purchased from US coal mining companies (at much greater expense than buying coal locally in Germany).
Example: The story may be apocraphyl, but supposedly during WWII the adminstrators of the Manhattan Project went to the head of the Senate committee on war approprations (a Senator from Tennessee) and begged him to allocate money for a uranium enrichment facility so they could create the necessary fissile material for the first nuclear bomb. After not too much persuasion, the committee head said, "Gentleman, you have convinced me. This faciliy is absolutely vital for the war effort. My only question is where in the state of Tennessee are we going to build it?" Hence, the Oak Ridge National Laboratory.
Does such a system invite corruption, pork, horse-trading, and other anti-democratic practices? Of course it does. But I cannot think of a better system that doesn't also ultimately depend upon the vigilance of the voters.
Can Congress force the Pentagon to order weapons it doesn't want, can't use and that have proven undependable in the past? How does Congress know more about what is needed that the military top brass? Thank you for your reply excon and Happy Thursday! :)
Can Congress FORCE the Pentagon to buy weapons of war that have proven to be undependable in the past, that the Pentagon doesn't want
or need? Thank you for your reply Marguerite and Happy Wednesday! :)
Can Congress FORCE the Pentagon to buy weapons of war it doesn't want, can't use that have proven to be undependable? Mahalo for your helpful answer OS and Happy Thursday! :)
