Here’s Why President Trump Signed The Relief Bill, and Realize What This Means….

All day long I’ve seen people panicking about why President Trump signed the COVID relief bill.

Many of you emailed me about it.

Some of you didn’t understand…

Some thought he caved….

One person even told me they think this is evidence Trump has been a Deep State operator since the very beginning.

Are you kidding me?

Complete nonsense.

Once again, our President is the ONLY man, or woman for that matter, in Washington fighting for the American public.

He’s fighting against the entire Congress, except maybe 6 honorable Senators, and he’s still beating them at nearly every turn.

I was trying to find the best way to explain to you what is going on and then I found this video that I think is perfect.

Please watch this and understand the real move here:

Comments:

Now read this Statement directly from the President and check out the part I put in bold for you so you can see this is the real deal — we do our research here at WeLoveTrump!

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carry out the full objectives or scope of programs for which it is provided, or that such budget authority should be rescinded for fiscal policy or other reasons (including termination of authorized projects or activities for which budget authority has been provided), the President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

And check out this next part.

You have to realize what this means.

This means that President Trump must be expecting a DRASTIC shift in Congress in a few weeks.

Something dramatically different than what we see right now.

Because he’s basically banking on a future Congress totally re-doing this piece of garbage.

Now ask yourself what does he know and when will WE know?

Soon, I believe.

Read this from the House website:

What is the Impoundment Control Act?
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.

Rescissions
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.

Deferrals
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.

Last, here is Fox News with more:

In the President’s signing statement, accompanying his signature of the COVID aid/government funding plan, he points out he wants “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.”

Under the Budget Act of 1974, the President is required to submit a “budget request” to Congress in the winter. Many of the spending requests flagged by the President were consistent with his own budget request to Capitol Hill earlier this year.

But, the President goes on to say he is “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.”

GET THE TRUTH: DailyTruthReport.com

Like the President’s budget request, a rescission is a “budget-cutting request.” Rescissions bills aren’t unheard of. But the administration must now send to Capitol Hill a list of items that it wants to be cut. It’s then up to Congress to advance a potential rescissions bill. And, with only a few days left in this Congress, such a request is nearly out of the question. It’s possible Congress could address the proposal before Mr. Trump leaves office January 20. But doubtful.

Congress does not have to vote on a rescissions bill and often ignores such requests. But, technically, an administration can only withhold (impound, thus the name of the act) funds for a month and a half. If Congress doesn’t act on the rescission request, the Treasury has to spend the money.

Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution gives Congress ultimate control over the federal “purse.” It says “No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law.”

This is why a “line-item veto” is unconstitutional at the federal level. Congress approved the Line Item Veto Act of 1996 to curb some of the type of spending flagged by Mr. Trump. In other words, Congress could pass a bill. A President could sign it, but veto specific “lines,” not the entire bill.

In 1998, the Supreme Court found the line-item veto unconstitutional in Clinton v. New York. Article I, Section 7 of the Constitution includes the “presentment clause.” It states that once the House and Senate have passed a bill it shall “be presented to the President of the United States. If he approves, he shall sign it, but if not, he shall return it, with his Objections.”

In other words, the “presentment clause” gives the President a binary choice. Either he can sign a bill or veto a bill. He can’t just veto “part” of a bill. That would be a “line-item veto.”