The Power Of The People Over The Purse

There was a lot of excitement today over the possibility that the "Gang of Six" in the U.S. Senate may be close to putting a package together that could garner bi-partisan support.  In the meantime, the House passed the Cut, Cap and Balance bill.

The Senate package reportedly is a combination of spending cuts and revenue increases that would result in $3.75 trillion in budget savings over a decade.  Included in this number is about $1.2 trillion in new revenues.

I have made my views known that I am not opposed to revenue increases as part of a "grand bargain". However, I am adamantly of the view that they should not take effect until the money is in the bank from any spending cuts.  Spending cuts should also be at least 5-6 times as large as any revenue increases. 

However, the biggest problem I have with any "grand bargain" involving tax increases that originates in the Senate is that it is UNCONSTITUTIONAL.  Due to this inconvenient fact, I think the House has additional leverage they can deploy in any final agreement.

Article I, Section 7 of the U.S. Constitution reads,

"All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments as on any other bills."

That could not be simpler or more straightforward.

What does this mean right now?  I don't know how any proposal that attempts to raise revenue as part of a debt ceiling deal can proceed unless it is first introduced and passed in the House.  I think that the House Republicans should immediately start talking about the Constitution to counter balance the Senate talk.  If there is a deal in the making they need to be at the table.  This is the Constitution we are talking about.

This power over the purse was given to the House of Representatives very purposely by our Founding Fathers.  Consider the thoughts of James Madison in Federalist Paper 58 as translated in The Original Argument.

Forgetting for the moment the equal authority between the Houses of Congress (except on money bills)-since the House of Representatives will not only have a greater number of members but will also be supported by the more powerful states-it will no doubt have an advantage over the Senate in any endurance contest between the two, especially when it is speaking and acting upon the known opinion of the majority of the People.

Of course, that opinion is reinforced every two years.  Last year's election made the opinion of the people pretty well known on what they wanted done regarding fiscal issues.

The House of Representatives will be aware of these advantages, as well as the fact that they would be supported by right, by reason, and by the Constitution, just as the Senate would be aware of the fact that it would be contending with all of these powerful forces. 

That is very powerful language but it gets even better.

The House of Representatives are also the only ones that can provide the necessary financial resources for the operations of the government.  In a word, they hold the purse...


In fact, this power over the purse may be regarded as the most effective weapon that the People's Representatives themselves can ever be given by a Constitution in order to obtain a redress of any grievance, and for carrying out every good and beneficial plan. 


I have written previously that I would not have approached the debt ceiling vote as was done today.  My end goals were the same but I think a much better job could have been done on the positioning and perception of the Republican plan in the House.

However, from where the House Republicans are right now I would come out strong tomorrow quoting the Constitution and James Madison.  President Obama may not like it.  The Senate may not like it.  However, the Constitution gives all the power to the House Republicans.  It can be very effective if they use it responsibly.  If they do not, the Founding Fathers made sure the opinion of the majority of the People will have another chance to be heard next year.