One Man's Opinion
  • Blog
  • Press
  • Contact
  • New Page
  • Blog 3/11/25
  • 3/16

One Man's Opinion

My motivation for beginning this blog is to express thoughts regarding pertinent subjects to me and hopefully others.  I found that expressing myself on social media caused too much name calling, too much anxiety, too much anger.  As we all know, it is very easy to subject someone to a level of stress hiding behind social media.  It would appear, everyone has an opinion, which they are entitled to, but few, if any, have serious thoughts regarding their statements.  

Call it inductive reasoning or deductive reasoning…or maybe just common sense, but at one point in time everyone must exhibit it, for the good of the person, for the solving of a problem, or, for expressing an opinion that is not full of holes like Swiss cheese.  It is one thing to have an opinion based on fact; it is another to be a parrot of words.
 
The bottom line is if you choose to read what I have written, good for you.  You may not like what I have written and that is okay, just don’t utilize this blog to bash anyone with a barrage of unsavory comments.  That is unacceptable.  If you choose to differ, please have a well thought out response.  Everyone is entitled to an opinion.​

Educational Funding...at what price?

7/3/2025

0 Comments

 
I must give thanks for Dr. Sasha Anaya for bringing this to my attention.  The good doctor is one of my former students.  She has done well for herself.

As of July 1, 2025, the Department of Education is withholding approximately 6.2 BILLION in funding for education throughout the United States.  According to Reuters on July 2nd, “A spokesman at the White House Office of Management and Budget said on Wednesday there was an "ongoing programmatic review" of education funding and that initial findings showed what he termed as a misuse of grant funds to "subsidize a radical leftwing agenda." 
​ 
 However, The Learning Policy Institute stated the billions of dollars of congressionally appropriated funds across five programs currently remained unavailable to states and territories. The funds were meant for after-school and summer programs and initiatives for migrant students and those who speak limited English, it said.

The Trump administration has threatened schools over other matters that include DEI practices, transgender policies, and protests against Israel and supporting Palestinians.  Many universities are now examining their DEI policies and are in the midst of acquiescing to the demands of the President.  Harvard may be the only university to be objecting to the threat by the Trump administration.

So, the question that needs to be answered is:  How can the Department of Education withhold Congressional appropriations when the Constitution gives the strings of the national purse to Congress?

It is generally not legal for the federal government to withhold appropriated funds.  The Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (CIA) restricts the Executive Branch ability to refuse to spend money that Congress has approved. The President can propose rescissions or deferrals, but these require specific procedures and congressional approval. 
Please allow me to provide an explanation to the process.  And you may thank AI for this.

Constitutional Basis:

The U.S. Constitution grants Congress the "power of the purse," meaning they control government spending. The President's role is primarily to execute the laws passed by Congress, including spending laws. 

Impoundment Control Act:

This act was passed in response to President Nixon's attempts to withhold funds from programs he disagreed with. It established procedures for the President to propose rescissions (cancellations) or deferrals (temporary delays) of appropriated funds.
 
Rescissions:
If the President wants to cancel an appropriation, they must send a special message to Congress outlining the reasons and the proposed impact. Congress then has a set period of time (45 days) to approve the rescission. If Congress does not approve, the funds must be released.
 
Deferrals:
The President can also propose a deferral, which is a temporary delay in spending. This also requires a special message to Congress.
 
GAO's Role
The  Government Accountability Office (GAO) plays a role in overseeing impoundments and ensuring compliance with the ICA. The GAO can review impoundment actions and report any violations of the law.
 
Consequences of Illegal Impoundment:
Refusing to spend appropriated funds without following the proper procedures is illegal and can be challenged in court. For example, several cases against President Nixon's impoundment practices were successful.
 
Exceptions and Limitations:
While the ICA generally prohibits the President from unilaterally withholding funds, there are some limited exceptions and situations where the President may have some flexibility, such as in cases of budget emergencies or when funds are not needed.  However, even in these cases, the President must act within the established legal framework. 
 
So, then, the answer to the posed question?  The One Big Beautiful Bill Act
 
How does that happen?
 
The "One Big Beautiful Bill Act" is a budget reconciliation bill. It was passed by the House of Representatives and Senate using the reconciliation process, which allows certain bills to bypass the usual Senate filibuster rules. In essence, the reconciliation process allows the previously ratified budget from the prior year to be changed.
  
Keep in mind the budget from last year was ratified by the House and Senate in 2024, with the Republicans controlling the House and the Democrats controlling the Senate.  And just for general knowledge, ALL revenue bills must originate in the House.  So, it may be assumed, the Republican controlled House had a great deal of influence on funding SNAP and Medicaid when the budget was ratified.

In the context of the US budget reconciliation process, a reconciliation bill can be used to affect spending, but the process has limitations regarding canceling previous appropriations. 
 
Let the following explain what the reconciliation process can and cannot do.
  • Mandatory Spending: Reconciliation bills can be used to make changes to mandatory or entitlement spending programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid. This is because mandatory spending is determined by existing laws, and reconciliation allows changes to these laws, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.
  • Discretionary Spending: Generally, reconciliation has not been used to either enact new or cancel existing discretionary spending. Discretionary spending, such as annual funding for the Departments of Education or Defense, is controlled through the regular appropriations process, which is separate from the reconciliation process.
  • Rescinding Previously Appropriated Funds: In theory, a reconciliation bill could include a provision to rescind unspent and unobligated discretionary funds that were previously appropriated. However, this would require specific instructions in the budget resolution given to the Appropriations Committees. The Economic Policy Innovation Center reports that the Appropriations Committees have not received such instructions since FY 1982.
  • Byrd Rule: A key limitation on the reconciliation process is the "Byrd Rule." This rule states that provisions in a reconciliation bill must be primarily budget-related. The rescission of previously appropriated discretionary funds would have to demonstrate a clear change in outlays to comply with this rule. Provisions that don't change spending or revenues, or that rely on future action (like subsequent annual appropriations), are unlikely to pass the Byrd Rule test. 
​
In essence, while a reconciliation bill could theoretically be used to rescind unspent discretionary funds, it's generally not used for this purpose due to the rules and limitations of the process, particularly the Byrd Rule. The primary focus of reconciliation is on mandatory spending, revenue changes, and the debt limit. 

What are the points of emphasis for the One Big Beautiful Bill Act?

·       "One Big Beautiful Bill" context:
The "One Big Beautiful Bill" is a reconciliation bill that was a key part of President Trump's second-term domestic agenda.
 
·       Key components:
The bill includes significant tax cuts, funding for defense, and provisions related to border security, immigration, and healthcare programs like Medicaid.

And that will bring us back to Doe, as the song lyrics state.  Only this doe is a Supreme Court decision that originated in Texas in 1982, Plyler v. Doe.
 
In Plyler v. Doe, the Supreme Court ruled that states cannot constitutionally deny a free public education to students based on their immigration status.  The 1982 case involved a Texas law that withheld state funds from local school districts for educating undocumented children and allowed districts to deny enrollment to these children. The Court held that this violated the Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.

There are many aspects of this case that should apply to the federal government withholding appropriated money from the education system of our nation.  Those aspects are as follows:
 
·       Texas Law:

The Texas legislature enacted a law that allowed local school districts to deny enrollment to, and withhold state funding for the education of, undocumented children.
 
·       Fourteenth Amendment Violation:

The Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, determined that this law violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which guarantees equal protection under the law to all individuals within a state's jurisdiction. 


·       Undocumented Children's Rights:
The Court recognized that denying undocumented children access to public education creates a marginalized group with limited opportunities, harming both the individuals and society as a whole. 


·       No Rational Basis:
The Court found that the Texas law lacked a rational basis for discriminating against undocumented children and did not serve any legitimate state interest.
 
·       Impact:
Plyler v. Doe ensured that all children, regardless of immigration status, have access to a free public education through 12th grade, according to the National Immigration Law Center. 

 
It is my opinion if the President wants to close the Department of Education as he has stated, then do it.  First, get permission from Congress to do so…that should be a slam dunk.  Then, give the individual state ample time to raise taxes to replace the lost federal funding.  It is also my opinion the Department of Education, acting upon the direction of the President, is withhold funding that public schools around the nation built their budgets on.  By state law, most all school expenditures must be included in the state budget and that amount is the sum of each school district budget.  That money being withheld by the federal government is appropriated by Congress, and it is categorized as “Discretionary Spending”.  
 
Withholding funding will undoubtedly cause school districts to cut programs and faculty.  Why?  Because the individual states haven’t had enough time to raise taxes to compensate for the lost federal funding.  This will set education in the United States back for years to come.  The only ones who will suffer the most will be the students.  Classroom teachers, of which there is a national shortage as it is, will leave the classroom for greener pastures.  The job is tough enough as it is…why would classroom instructors stick around to work in an underfunded entity?
 
If the Learning Policy Institute is correct, the funds meant for after-school and summer programs and initiatives for migrant students and those who speak limited English, being withheld by the Department of Education, under the direction of the President, could quite possibly be in violation of Plyler v. Doe.  Unfortunately, it will take a long, drawn-out court battle to see who is compliant with the law.

I’m betting it isn’t the Executive Branch.
 
 
 
 
0 Comments



Leave a Reply.

    Archives

    July 2025
    June 2025
    May 2025
    April 2025
    March 2025

    RSS Feed

Proudly powered by Weebly
  • Blog
  • Press
  • Contact
  • New Page
  • Blog 3/11/25
  • 3/16