Right now the freeze is what you need. There hasn't been enough to do what you want. By the time they finally get to something the funds have been dispursed and it's too late to get them back.
That's why you focus on preventing future allocations, rather than trying to halt already-approved funding from the past.
Freeze then prioritize the reviews. Some could be reviewed relatively quickly then released as needed.
That's completely backwards and would just result in layoffs of private and public sector Americans that are doing good work.
This is a very strange concept to a lot of people I see. How dare the government do their due diligence with taxpayers money? I mean we should just pay for everything, no questions asked right?
You can do you due diligence without laying off countless people and wrecking the economy in the process.
Yes of course there are some things that are vital and somethings that are important. The vital things can be first review. But there are boat loads of things that can wait.
Even in this scenario, the vital things are frozen. That's the problem. And you say "the vital things can be reviewed first". I don't think you understand how the government operates. There is no such thing as a rapid and efficient review of multi-billion or trillion dollar budget agencies.
Everyone gets the shaft on this one. Good programs and bad programs.
Like sending 50 million to Gaza for sex ed and condoms or whatever nonsense. Or money sent to the WHO.
Sure. Well with that said, those programs can be closed down, and you know what? If that money was dispersed before you get to it, in a country of dozens of trillions of dollars of debt, nobody would have noticed anyway. And you just save the money next go around.
The damages of halting grants and loans nationwide, especially if it will be for 3 months, would vastly exceed the pennies going toward condoms in Gaza. Whereas alternatively, the Gaza program can be ended, at a much lower cost, if future dispersions are cancelled in a professional manner.
Consider the following options:
Option A. You approve funding for a project. State government hires staff to distribute and manage that funding. The private sector spends countless dollars hiring and bidding on state government proposals. Then the federal government backtracks, removes that funding, resulting in the layoff of federal, state, and private sector workers (and manufacturers of products used by contract awardees, among others).
Or
Option B. You just let the contract expire and you simply don't renew it. Federal, state, and private sector workers have time to plan for new jobs. Nobody ends up homeless or incapable of paying their mortgage (especially those living paycheck to paycheck that can't afford a 3-month pay freeze). And the government ultimately saves the same amount of money, albeit it just takes a little longer.
There are ways of cutting government spending without pulling the rug out from under people.