A concept I have heard no one mention or ever try, but President Trump once did say he agreed with our proposal and did propose the concept. But, many say The Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 prevents anyone from not spending money congress has approved. If that is true, we need to get rid of that act!

How can we manage spending when Congress is on this mission to drive us to insolvency? It seems to me that every function of government, save the two houses of Congress, the Legislative Branch of government, and the many arms of the Judicial Branch government, are in the Executive Branch of government. Obviously, there are many thousands of ways to get to Government Spending back down to a maximum of 19% of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and the National Debt down to a maximum of below 70% of GDP so those 'ceilings must be enacted through legislation! And, it is that Executive branch of government that manages far over 95% of the national funds that are spent each year.

So, like in any private corporation, having once been someone in a business, usually the owners or Board of Directors/Operating Committee, etc., establishes spending limits or an annual budget, or something similar, the heads of each division, each department, etc. can decide, or maybe demand, that their group spend less than the maximum budgeted.

In the case of the United States of America, the Congress establishes and approves (or is supposed to) the maximum budgeted level of spending, the leader(s) of each of the 3 branches of our government can decide how much of that maximum actually gets spent. It seems to me that the President, the head of the Executive Branch, would just tell each Cabinet Secretary how much he/she will be allowed to spend of that maximum for that Department each year, regardless of what maximum funding might have been approved by congress! So, it seemed to me, that President Trump could control spending on his/her own by just setting a limit at say 97% of the maximum voted for the budget! And, he has proposed the exact idea, only more aggressively asking for a 5% reduction instead of our proposed 3% reduction.