Common Sense with Paul Jacob

In “The AfD’s Rise Is Angela Merkel’s Legacy,” a Wall Street Journal op-ed by Mark Brolin, we witness one of many new think-pieces about the rise of what the Journal calls a “populist right-wing party” and most other journals call a “far-right party.”

Something strange is happening in Germany. On closer inspection, it isn’t so strange.

In two state elections on Sept. 20, Germany’s political center took another beating. In Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania, the far-right Alternative for Germany, or AfD, won a 38.3% plurality, while the center-right Christian Democratic Union managed a mere 4.9%, its worst postwar result in any state election since 1949. In Berlin, the CDU lost first place to Die Linke, successor to the East German communists, while the AfD took more than 16%. Two weeks earlier, the AfD won Saxony-Anhalt. Nationally, it now leads several polls with support approaching 30%.”

This update is an update to a previous update. A lot has happened since early September. But the Journal editorial is looking for explanations. Why is the eastern part of Germany turning “far right”? (I know, groan; what is happening is a turn against the policies of Angela Merkel, her party, and all other parties. And the AfD is not exactly “far right,” though populist is a good word.) Because the center and center-left have gone crazy, perhaps?

All in all, Germany was simultaneously weakening its domestic energy resilience, deepening its dependence on Moscow, and underfunding the military alliance designed to deter Moscow. You hardly needed a doctorate in geopolitics to spot the problem. If anything, a doctorate made it easier to obfuscate the truth. Much of respectable academic and policy opinion was firmly behind Team Merkel.

Read the article online at https://www.wsj.com/opinion/the-afds-rise-is-angela-merkels-legacy-15d277b0, or through some service, like Apple News. A key line from the final paragraph should entice you: “Admitting that the center itself has become unbalanced isn’t an attack on moderation.”

The title of the press release possesses a certain élan. “President Trump Takes Historic Action to Eliminate Wasteful and Harmful Spending,” which, if true, would be welcome news.

But how is the president doing this? That is, if he is indeed doing it.

“Last year, President Trump took the historic step of utilizing long-neglected Presidential authorities provided to him under the Impoundment Control Act to deploy the first ‘pocket rescission’ in 50 years,” the White House press release states. “This year, he is continuing his commitment to the American taxpayer by utilizing a pocket rescission for another nearly $1 billion of the most harmful government spending.”

Use of the pocket rescission technique in 2025 targeted “woke, weaponized, and wasteful spending.” This year the president’s red pen strikes out at quite a number of aid packages to non-citizens living in the United States, and other programs as well, including

• An HHS Office that Provides Funding Based on Race and Sex ($5 million)
• HUD Counseling Support for NGOs that Peddle DEI and Discriminate Based on Race ($56 million)
• Overfunded and Unaligned HHS Research Programs ($28 million)
• Minority Business Development Agency ($10 million)
• Debt Relief to Foreign Countries that Fund Climate Change Policies ($9 million)

You may be wondering how legal all this is. It sounds like impoundment, and wasn’t that prohibited in 1974 by and act of Congress?

Well, the Impoundment Control Act of 1974 disallows the president from simply canceling appropriated funds on his own. He can only propose a rescission by sending a special message to Congress, which has 45 days of continuous session to respond. During that month-and-a-half window, Section 1012(b) lets the president temporarily withhold the funds from obligation while Congress decides.

Under President Trump, this rescission is carefully timed to the fiscal year and congressional adjournment. If the president sends his rescission request less than 45 days before the funds’ expiration date (typically the end of the fiscal year on September 30), then the administration simply withholds the money until the clock runs out. The funds expire unspent while Congress still has days remaining in its consideration window. That’s how a rescission request becomes a “pocket rescission.”

You can imagine the objections. And the howls of rage.

This is a tricksy maneuver, for the House is adjourned right now, recommencing at noon on September 28. Not much time to reassert previously passed spending.