How is sheltering citizens affected by hurricanes misappropriation of funds? Are you claiming Congress specifically set this money aside for NYC immigrants?
I don't think I've ever implied that every immigrant is illegal. Both my mom & wife are legal immigrants.
I never said it was a misappropriation of funds. Taking back funds that have been approved by Congress violates the COTUS and the Impoundment Control Act.
You've mentioned hurricanes a few times. I'm not understanding what you're trying to get at with the reference.
Illegal immigrants - You've mentioned several times about the money NY got for housing illegal immigrants. That suggests they only housed illegal immigrants.
I'm still unaware of Congress specifying that that $19m was specifically for NYC shelters. I'll be happy to admit that Trump violated COTUS if you can document that. Again, I don't see that the Fed or Trump owes NYC a bailout for a problem they created. Perhaps cities shouldn't take on responsibilities they aren't capable of meeting and expect a federal bailout.
Congress doesn't specify down tot he dollar how the money is spent. When they appropriate money to help find the cost of rebuilding a collapsed bridge, do you think Congress does a line-item breakdown of how much goes to steel, how much to concrete, how much to asphalt, water, etc? That's not how grants work.
The money was approved under the 118th Congress. You can read it here: chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://www.congress.gov/118/bills/hr2882/BILLS-118hr2882enr.pdf
You don't see where the fed "owes" the money to NYC? Well, if the money was approved by Congress, then Congress indeed owes the money unless Congress goes back and changes the appropriation by amendment. No congressional amendment to the appropriations has occurred.
Trump doesn't legally just get to decide he doesn't like what Congress approved previously and either roll back the appropriation, or take back the money after it has been disbursed.
For the umpteenth time, the Constitution says CONGRESS holds the purse strings, not the President.
I've cited the where the COTUS says as much.
Can you explain why you think Trump has a power that the COTUS very clearly says he does NOT legally have?
But to go a step further, Nixon tried to do the same thin a long time ago. This was the result:
https://www.congress.gov/bill/93rd-congress/house-bill/7130
"For recissions, the president must propose such actions to Congress for approval, and he can delay spending-related to recissions for 45 days. Unless Congress approves the recission request, the funds must be released for spending." - https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/can-a-president-refuse-to-spend-funds-approved-by-congress
Did he submit to Congress and get their approval before taking money back that was approved by Congress when he wasn't even President?
As for cities "expecting a federal bailout", keep in mind that we all pay Federal Taxes for exactly such purposes, just like we all pay for insurance that some of us may never use, but others will use extensively.
Why am I paying for people that choose to live in a hurricane zone or flood zone or tornado zone, when I'll never get any money for either catastrophe, but they get them year after year, and refuse to move away?
I'd bet a nickel that NYC contributes a HUGE chunk of money to the federal coffers, possibly enough that the state overall puts more in than they take back.
*I guess the bet might be a push. New York is ranked 3rd for per capita contributions to the federal coffers, but for the past 3 years they have gotten $1.06 back for every $1.00 they put in. A reversal after a long history of getting back less than they contribute.
Contrast that with a state like West Virginia, that
consistently has gotten back over $2.00 for every dollar they have contributed. Or California, that has consistently gotten back less than 50 cents for every dollar they put in.
apnews.com
