"Today, a federal judge heard the case. And as I mentioned earlier, that judge expects to issue a ruling at some point tonight. And the AP says she, quote, seemed to be leaning toward requiring the government to put billions of dollars in emergency funds towards SNAP. That's what those funds are for. And these contingency funds that she said is that she said is her interpretation of what Congress's intent when an agency's funding runs out."
"Yeah, that's what a contingency fund is for. And congressional intent is key here, because the core of the Trump administration's argument is that they believe that tapping into these emergency funds would, quote, violate a law that bars the government from paying for programs without congressional approval. Now, this leads us back to one of the dumpster fire events of last week."
"Trump got hundreds of millions of dollars from private donors to fund his new ballroom and the destruction of the East Wing of the White House, which we all remember. He had no issue with the limitations of the law in that case. He also got a billionaire buddy of his to write a check for $103 million to the military. And believe me, we all want members of the military to be paid, but not by someone who may think they are owed somethin"
A federal judge heard a case over whether the administration must apply emergency contingency funds to continue SNAP benefits during the government shutdown. The judge appeared inclined to require billions in emergency funds to sustain SNAP, reflecting an interpretation that contingency funds are intended for agency funding gaps. The White House and Republican officials argued that tapping contingency funds would violate a law prohibiting payments without congressional approval. The administration recently accepted large private donations for White House renovations and a $103 million donation directed to the military, prompting questions about selective application of funding limitations.
Read at www.mediaite.com
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]