This seems like an easy "no" - why would we go through the effort of the House doing a spending bill, as constitutionally required. Seems implicit, and also traditional. Since the US has never done otherwise, that s the way it was when the US was great the first time around.
Let's say he can't ignore congress.
But let's say congress don't care to act ... does it matter / do laws mean anything then?
SCOTUS has decided the POTUS is off limits anyway ... does it even matter if congress or even the courts do anything?
I suspect SCOTUS likely thinks they were being a little nuanced letting Trump off the hook legally, but I think they just started the landslide that now they can't stop. The SCOTUS majority has created an inevitable situation where absolute power reaches its obvious ending ...
Ideally "no", because otherwise the Presidency has a retroactive on-demand reversible line-item veto.
It's funny, in 2015 I pondered if a Trump presidency would be so terrible that, as a silver lining, the Legislative branch would be motivated to claw-back some of the power it has delegated to the Executive over the years.
As everyone knows, that's not how it turned out.
This question recapitulates the debate around line-item vetoes in respect of spending bills [1][2]. Based on SCOTUS precedent, which admittedly doesn't mean much nowadays, it is unconstitutional [3].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Line-item_veto_in_the_United_S...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Line-item_veto
[3] https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep...