> There is no US federal budget - not a binding one at any rate.
Yes there is.
> The president recommends and Congress passes budgets for internal purposes
This is simply false.
> but they do not carry the force of law.
Yes, budget bills, like other bills, have the force of law once passed and either signed by the President or vetoed and the President’s veto overridden by both Houses (the President’s budget proposals do not have the force of law, just like other unpassed legislative proposals.)
> The numbers that matter are how much Congress appropriates
“The budget” is just the aggregate of tax and appropriations bills (sometimes, there is an annual package entitled a “comprehensive” or “omnibus” budget bill that covers some tax policy and most or all of the annual appropriations, but that’s rare, and even in that case there are typically continuous and multiyear appropriations and tax policies that are left untouched and outside of it, but which are considered part of the “budget” even though they are aren’t part of the “budget bill”; more commonly, this doesn’t occur.)
> if Congress appropriates $X dollars for something the executive branch is expected to spend it, not second guess Congress and say we really didn’t want to spend that money.
While this is true, and more than just a soft expectation, since Train v. City of New York and the Impoundment Control Act of 1974, it is not invariably the practice notwithstanding the expectation and the law (cf., the withholding of funds appropriated for Ukraine aid that was central to Trump’s first impeachment.)
> budget bills, like other bills, have the force of law once passed
First of all congress generally does not pass budget bills, they pass budget resolutions, and congressional resolutions are not submitted to the president for his signature and do not have the force of law.
As far as budget bills (like the Budget Act of 1974) are concerned, it is impossible for a previous congress to pass laws that govern the actions of succeeding congresses in a binding fashion because such laws have the character of congressional rules not statutes, and under the Constitution each house has complete authority over its own rules. So Congress can simply neglect to pass a budget resolution and the only remedy is for individual representatives to raise points of order. The executive branch cannot indict or prosecute anyone in Congress for neglecting to follow congressional rules or laws that have the character of congressional rules.
On the other hand, if you wish to refer to an appropriations bill as a "budget bill" you are merely disagreeing with me (and with congressional practice) over nomenclature. Personally, I have never heard of an appropriations bill referred to as a "budget bill", but I am sure someone does it.
> First of all congress generally does not pass budget bills, they pass budget resolutions
The budget resolution is a planning framework for the appropriations bills that make up the budget. It is not a “budget”.
> and congressional resolutions are not submitted to the president for his signature, and congressional resolutions are not submitted to the president for his signature and do not have the force of law.
That's not true. All Congressional actions are resolutions (e.g. the USA PATRIOT Act was "House Resolution 3162" of the 107th Congress), and many end submitted to the President and with the force of law. Some are even primarily characterized as "resolutions" after they are signed and have the force of law (See, in terms of the budget space, the use of "continuing resolutions".)
There are types of resolutions that are nonbinding, and do not have the force of law, and the "budget resolution" (which, again, is not the same as the budget) is one of them, but this isn't generally true of "congressional resolutions".
> As far as budget bills (like the Budget Act of 1974) are concerned, it is impossible for a previous congress to pass laws that govern the actions of succeeding congresses in a binding fashion
The 1974 Budget Act is not (relevant to this discussion) a budget bill, it is a meta-budget bill, or maybe even a meta-meta-budget bill (that is, a bill on the process by which Congress will plan future budgets.) You are correct that it is not binding on future Congresses, but this has no bearing on the budget not being binding, merely a past Congress's plan on how to plan annually to arrive at a budget is not binding.
> So Congress can simply neglect to pass a budget resolution
…which isn’t a budget, but a plan for one…
> and the only remedy is for individual representatives to raise points of order.
Well, sure, but the budget resolution isn’t the budget. If Congress doesn’t pass a budget (or only passes part of one), then the remedy is “spending governed by the parts not passed stops” (that is, a government shutdown.) This is…rather noticeable.
> On the other hand, if you wish to refer to an appropriations bill as a “budget bill” you are merely disagreeing with me (and with congressional practice) over nomenclature. Personally, I have never heard of an appropriations bill referred to as a “budget bill”, but I am sure someone does it.
While it is common to refer to the aggregate of appropriations as a “budget”, its not usually used for individual appropriations bills as a “budget bill” unless they are a single consolidated bill, which is typically referred to as a “budget bill”. Budget bills are frequently introduced, but less frequently passed. But not having a single budget bill passed is not “not having a budget” or “not having a budget with the force of law”, its “not having a budget in which the annual appropriations were adopted in a single bill”. Which is…less significant.
> The budget resolution is a planning framework for the appropriations bills that make up the budget. It is not a “budget”.
Guess what the President's budget proposal says on the cover?
"Budget of the U.S. Government, Fiscal Year 2023"
And if we look inside do we find a list of congressional appropriations? No. Instead we find a list of appropriations requests and explanatory information for congressional appropriators. Typical chapter headings have language like this:
"The Budget requests $773 billion in discretionary funding for DOD, a $69 billion or 9.8-percent increase from the 2021 enacted level."
So I am sorry, I cannot take seriously the idea that appropriations bills are "budget bills" or specify a federal "budget" except in an informal sense, one contrary to that used by the federal government itself.
> All Congressional actions are resolutions.
I certainly agree in the technical sense, and since we are debating nomenclature here I should be more careful.
Yes there is.
> The president recommends and Congress passes budgets for internal purposes
This is simply false.
> but they do not carry the force of law.
Yes, budget bills, like other bills, have the force of law once passed and either signed by the President or vetoed and the President’s veto overridden by both Houses (the President’s budget proposals do not have the force of law, just like other unpassed legislative proposals.)
> The numbers that matter are how much Congress appropriates
“The budget” is just the aggregate of tax and appropriations bills (sometimes, there is an annual package entitled a “comprehensive” or “omnibus” budget bill that covers some tax policy and most or all of the annual appropriations, but that’s rare, and even in that case there are typically continuous and multiyear appropriations and tax policies that are left untouched and outside of it, but which are considered part of the “budget” even though they are aren’t part of the “budget bill”; more commonly, this doesn’t occur.)
> if Congress appropriates $X dollars for something the executive branch is expected to spend it, not second guess Congress and say we really didn’t want to spend that money.
While this is true, and more than just a soft expectation, since Train v. City of New York and the Impoundment Control Act of 1974, it is not invariably the practice notwithstanding the expectation and the law (cf., the withholding of funds appropriated for Ukraine aid that was central to Trump’s first impeachment.)