Do USA's November elections immediately affect Amtrak's approp

[unitedstatesfan]

Do the USA November elections, which from memory are not for every Senator but are for every House of Representatives member (congressman) affect the level of Amtrak's appropriations within two or three months once Congress meets and its committees like those for transportation are reconstituted and begin meeting?

Or does Amtrak receive annual appropriations that last up until the end of the USA financial year that I gather ends on 30 September 2017 for most companies and entities?

As the election date draws closer, is Amtrak a subject of discussion in any local or state communities - things like 'we believe it should receive more/less funding'; it is subsidised too much; we need a train, or greater train frequencies, to our city or town; is candidate X going to see that Amtrak is financially supported to increase its route coverage of trains, or train frequencies?

 

[Ryan]

The short answer is "it depends". If things work the way they are supposed do, Comgress passes an annual budget prior to the end of the FY, and so the finding levels for FY17 are set over a month before the election.

However, in this new world where the Republican-held Congress steadfastly refuses to do their jobs, we instead fund the government through incremental Continuing Resolutions, we get to have funding conversations multiple times per year. Makes it super awesome to be a Federal worker, where you can literally leave work one day unsure if you'll be able to go back to work in the morning, depending on 535 idiots to get together and agree to fund the government.

(Your memory is correct, 1/3 of the Senate and all of the House stand for election every 2 years)

 

[Alexandria Nick]

The short answer is "it depends". If things work the way they are supposed do, Comgress passes an annual budget prior to the end of the FY, and so the finding levels for FY17 are set over a month before the election.

Technically, they're already set as of February 2016. To be fair, in the magical world of budgeting, nothing is set, even if it already happened.

I work in an agency OCFO with their budget people and I'm wary of saying too much, because it starts straying into privileged information, but I wouldn't worry about Amtrak's money based on what unofficial rumblings and our schedule changes have been. The general feeling we have, based on what we've seen and heard, is that the election interacting with the budget may cause a live test run of the hypothetical two year budget. I don't know what the real world thinks, but the last three years or so has really caused the Federal OCFO community to press hard on the idea of a two year budget cycle linked to a specific Congress. I'm pretty sure it doesn't require a Constitutional amendment to do that. Just a super-broad interpretation of the Constitution and its not like that's ever really slowed someone down.

 

[neroden]

The Constitution does not require a budget. The budget was invented by Warren G. Harding, and is arguably a bad idea. Prior to the "budget", Congress would make permanent appropriations ("$X per year" indefinitely) or appropriations with matching taxes ("Department Y will receive 10% of the tarriff income") and a whole bunch of those are still around -- the federal workers in those agencies are the lucky ones.

There is only ONE Constitutional budget restriction, and it's been largely ignored by Congress:

"[Congress shall have the power] To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;"

This was intended to make sure that a new Congress or new President could at any time shut down the army simply by refusing to act; the army would lose funding and be required to go away within less than two years. The Founders *really* disapproved of standing armies.

Sadly, even the anti-war Congressmen routinely vote for the army appropriation bills these days. I would not. I think we need to get rid of the standing army, which has been causing nothing but trouble since the Cold War ended and seems to be pretty much useless; it's become an attractive nuisance which tempts Presidents to meddle militarily in things they should stay out of.

Anyway, that's the ONLY Constitutional budget rule. Any other appropriations could be forever; the Congress could simply pass an eternal automatic appropriations budget and amend it occasionally, with the exception of the army appropriations. We only do it yearly because Warren G Harding thought a yearly budget was businesslike, and his party was promoting "business" attitudes in government at the time.

 

[A Voice]

I think we need to get rid of the standing army, which has been causing nothing but trouble since the Cold War ended and seems to be pretty much useless; it's become an attractive nuisance which tempts Presidents to meddle militarily in things they should stay out of.

At the risk of dragging us seriously off-topic, history has shown that freedom and democracy endure when they are supported by strength. In modern times, that means a standing army (though the particulars are always debatable).

 

[Alexandria Nick]

The Constitution does not require a budget.

I'd disagree. Article 1 Section 9 Clause 7 is in play: No money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time

What is an appropriation followed by a regular (that is, on a set interval) statement of receipts and expenditures with recurrent publication? That's...the budget. The only sticking point is what regular and time to time means.

Geez, "time to time" might be the single vaguest passage in the whole dang Constitution. That's like putting "if we feel like it" after something.

 

[Bob Dylan]

Lots of similar vague language in the Constitution, hence the Supreme Court issues "Decisions" and politicians bloviate about what's Constitutional and what isn't???

The Four Amendments that have been the most debated and abused are the First,Second Fourth and Fifth!

 

[Ryan]

The Constitution does not require a budget.

I'd disagree. Article 1 Section 9 Clause 7 is in play: No money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time
What is an appropriation followed by a regular (that is, on a set interval) statement of receipts and expenditures with recurrent publication? That's...the budget. The only sticking point is what regular and time to time means.

Geez, "time to time" might be the single vaguest passage in the whole dang Constitution. That's like putting "if we feel like it" after something.

No, I see his point. A budget is a forward looking document, the statement of receipts and expenditures is a historical document.

In theory, they could appropriate what they wanted, when they wanted with no plan (e.g. no budget), and then periodically publish the general ledger on a periodic basis so we could see what they did. I think that would satisfy the Constitutional requirements without publishing a budget.

 

[neroden]

The Constitution does not require a budget.

I'd disagree. Article 1 Section 9 Clause 7 is in play: No money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time

Yeah, I thought of that. That's an accounting rule. Basically says (a) no taking money without Congressional approval, (b) you have to keep track of what you spent. Not really a budgeting restriction.

No, I see his point. A budget is a forward looking document, the statement of receipts and expenditures is a historical document.

In theory, they could appropriate what they wanted, when they wanted with no plan (e.g. no budget), and then periodically publish the general ledger on a periodic basis so we could see what they did. I think that would satisfy the Constitutional requirements without publishing a budget.

That's actually what they did prior to Warren G. Harding.

 

[neroden]

I think we need to get rid of the standing army, which has been causing nothing but trouble since the Cold War ended and seems to be pretty much useless; it's become an attractive nuisance which tempts Presidents to meddle militarily in things they should stay out of.

At the risk of dragging us seriously off-topic, history has shown that freedom and democracy endure when they are supported by strength. In modern times, that means a standing army (though the particulars are always debatable).

Does it mean a standing army? Costa Rica, most stable democracy in Central America, disagrees. Thomas Ricks has a long lecture on how the US military was stronger when we sent the army home after every war, basically because whenever the US got into a new war, we had a brand new army which *wasn't fighting the last war*. Fighting the last war is a famous problem for standing armies, and is certainly a major problem for the US military now. Anyway, I found his historical evidence very convincing; apparently George Marshall agreed, and had a military theory based on the principle of improvising a new officer corps into existence for each war, and firing practically everyone left over from the last war. We only ended up with the ossified, bureaucratic standing army due to the Cold War. Marshall based *his* theories on how Lincoln won the Civil War...
Anyway, that's all I have to say on that topic. I did study it for a while and was quite convinced by Marshall's "American" theory of improvising the army needed for the situation (as contrasted to the "European" theory of having a standing army prepared for any contingency).

 

[PaulM]

The Constitution does not require a budget.

I'd disagree. Article 1 Section 9 Clause 7 is in play: No money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time

What is an appropriation followed by a regular (that is, on a set interval) statement of receipts and expenditures with recurrent publication? That's...the budget. The only sticking point is what regular and time to time means.

I'm no accountant, but the second clause in the first sentence sounds like the income and expense part of a financial statement, not a budget.