So we agree to a bad deal with the hope to renogiate later?part of that is supposed to happen after the budget is passed through recissions. it does not appear recissions have always gotten us the bang for our buck.
per grok:
Historically, rescissions have been used to reduce federal spending, though their frequency and impact vary. For example:
- In 2018, the Trump administration proposed a $15.4 billion rescission package, targeting unspent funds from programs like the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) and other discretionary accounts. Congress passed a smaller $1.1 billion rescission, primarily affecting unobligated balances.
- During the 1980s, the Reagan administration frequently used rescission proposals to curb spending, with varying success. Between 1981 and 1988, Reagan proposed over $40 billion in rescissions, though Congress approved only a portion, often due to political disagreements.
- In the 1970s, after the 1974 Act was passed in response to President Nixon’s impoundment of funds, rescissions became a formalized tool to balance executive and congressional control over spending. From 1974 to 2005, Presidents proposed 1,178 rescissions totaling $76 billion, with Congress approving $25 billion (about 33%).
Spending needs to be frozen. It should be reduced, but the very minimum should be not to bleed out further.