When we were honored to take oath as secretaries of the 70th, 71st, 75th, 76th and 78th Treasury, we took oath to support and defend the United States Constitution. –
Our characters were multi -dimensional. We tried to advance the president’s agenda and develop a sound policy to represent the United States’s economic interests globally. But in doing so, we acknowledged that our most basic responsibility is the loyalty of the laws of the United States and the constitution.
We were fortunate that no attempt was made to illegally harm the country’s financial promises during our position. Sadly, recent reporting gives the reason why such efforts are underway today.
The country’s payment system has historically been operated by a very small group of government employees in an unmanned carrier. In recent times, this routine has been abolished, and the roles of these undesirable officials have been compromised. Political actor From the performance of the so -called Department of Government. One has been appointed financial assistant secretary. This is a post that has been specially reserved for government employees for the past eight decades to ensure neutrality and public confidence in handling and payment of federal funds.
These political actors have not been subject to the same rules of morality like government employees, and have anyone Clearly retained Its role in a private company creates the best form of financial conflicts of interest. They lack training and experience to handle private data – such as social security numbers and bank account information. Their electricity pose the risk of displaying the US payment system and highly sensitive data within it, possibly for our opponents. And our major infrastructure is at risk of failure. If the code writes, it is not handled with proper care. That is why a federal judge last weekend, at least temporarily, stopped people belonging to the Treasury Payment System, note the risk of “irreparable damage”.
Although the privacy of important data, cybersecurity and national security risks are serious, constitutional issues are probably even more worrisome. We take extraordinary steps to write this piece because we are afraid of the dangers of discretion and discretionary political control over federal payments, which will be illegal and corrosion to our democracy.
An important component of the rule of law is the Executive Branch’s commitment to respect the powers of the Congress purse: Legislative Branch is the only authority to pass the laws that determine where and how the federal dollar Spend
The role of the Treasury Department – and the Executive Branch more widely – does not have to decide on the promises of federal funding by Congress that it will keep it, and which one will not do so. Supreme Court as Justice Brett Cavanov Was written before“Even the president has no unilateral authority to refuse to spend funds.” Chief Justice John Roberts agreed: he Is written That “no area of ​​Congress province seems more clearly than the power of the purse.”
During our collective 18 years, in the Helm of Treasury, we have never been asked to stop the funds allocated as Congress fully. No, since the Nixon administration has considered such executive action. At that time, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the president did not have the authority to withhold federal funds, which the Congress had adopted.
How can the Trump administration try to change the law and change the spending of Congress, before the administration as its administration. And if the law should change, the executive branch will play a role in putting these changes into practice. But for the Treasury Department or the administration, it is not to decide which promises our Congress will fulfill and which is to be aside.
In our first weeks, no treasury secretary should be taken to the post where the world of integrity of the nation and our payment system must be assured or our commitment to improve our financial responsibilities.
Secretary Scott Basant just had to do so, and we were relieved to see the agency Commitment to Congress That any recent access to the Treasury Payment System, the federal government cannot be suspected or rejected. “When asked – repeatedly – if the treasury stops any federal payments If tried, he has clearly stated that “We don’t have.
We hope this commitment stands. Thus, the framers intended this when they designed a government with checks and balances that provided many powers to the executive branch, but only for Congress elected members, and only for the Congress, taxing and federal. Provided the option of spending funds.
Many people and institutions depend on the loyalty of the Treasury’s federal funds: Social security checks every month. Experts receive their benefits. Medicare providers are paid. Federal workers, military members and businesses that provide goods and services to the government are paid on time and fully. People with outstanding federal loans receive interest payments.
People often rely on these funds for survival, which poses a risk of delaying their cut off or existence. But even more than the importance of making special promises are the importance of making a good maker on the principles that stand in this country. We had moments of crisis during our services in the Treasury Department, when an American default was deployed. As a Congress, no indication of the selected suspension of authorized payments will be a violation of confidence and, ultimately, will be a form of default. And our reputation, once lost, will be difficult to regain.
