|
Is Congress Doing Their Job? |
 |
 |
 |
|
Written by Administrator
|
|
Wednesday, 02 October 2013 09:03 |
James Madison, Father of the Constitution and author of Federalist 58
Well first of all, let's try to establish what is Congress' job in relation to setting the budget and funding programs invented by prior Congresses. The source of all government power is the Constitution, so that's where we'll look to find out what Congress should and shouldn't be doing.
Article 1, Section 9 says that "No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law". An appropriation is money set aside by formal action for a specific use. And laws are only made by Congress, as declared in Article 1, Section 1: "All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives". This means that the President, who does not have any legislative powers and my not write law, may not expend funds until Congress says so. It is in fact Congress' job to make laws which appropriate money.
Moreover, Article 1, Section 7 says that "All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills". As budgets necessarily include revenue, the budget process starts in the House of Representatives. The Senate may not originate a budget bill, but only offer amendments.
James Madison described why this is important in Federalist 58: "The House of Representatives cannot only refuse, but they alone can propose, the supplies requisite for the support of government. They, in a word, hold the purse... This power over the purse may, in fact, be regarded as the most complete and effectual weapon with which any constitution can arm the immediate representatives of the people, for obtaining a redress of every grievance, and for carrying into effect every just and salutary measure." In other words, it is Congress' job to withhold funding from government programs that they feel are unfeasible, unsound, or undesirable as per their constituents. This was designed into the structure of government from the beginning by the principle author of the Constitution.
Obamacare is not an appropriation. Obamacare is a regulatory framework which defines a bureaucracy and rules. As an analogy, if you were building a house, Obamacare is like the blueprint for the house. As the owner, after you've drafted and approved the blueprint, it is still your prerogative to hire a contractor or not. Just because you've approved blueprints doesn't mean that your control over the construction process has ceased. Maybe the contractor starts laying the foundation and then you decide that the plan isn't so good after all -- well, the contractor can't come back to you and say "you've already approved the plans, so it's all getting built". You're still in charge of your checkbook and can decide to scrap the project at any time. Maybe you lose your deposit, but you don't have to follow through with bad plans and build a house that you don't want. Likewise, Congress holds the checkbook for America and may choose to fund or not fund any regulatory schemes drawn up by prior Congresses.
This is why we elect a new Congress every two years. Sometimes previous ones designed idiotic plans and so succeeding ones need to put the kibosh on them. It's a part of our checks and balances.
Is Obamacare the law? Not under even a loose interpretation of the Constitution, but as per the Supreme Court, it is a statue which is being enforced as if it were constitutional by claiming that the fine which Obama said was not a tax is in fact a tax. But does that mean that it must automatically receive whatever appropriations the President deems necessary? Absolutely not. It is the Congress' job to only fund government programs that the current Congress believes to be in their constituents' best interests. Congress does not believe that Obamacare should be funded. Therefore, it shouldn't be. If you disapprove of that decision, there's another election in 2014. Elections have consequences, remember.
As recently as 2007, a Democratic majority in Congress pushed an effort to use their "power of the purse" to defund the Iraq War. In fact, Harry Reid -- who now calls Republicans "anarchists" and "terrorists" for wanting to defund Obamacare -- co-sponsored the bill to defund the war in April, 2007. The principle sponsor of that bill, Russ Feingold, said, "Congress has a responsibility to end a war that is opposed by the American people and is undermining our national security. By ending funding for the President's failed Iraq policy, our bill requires the President to safely redeploy our troops from Iraq." Reid said, "I am pleased to cosponsor Senator Feingold's important legislation. I believe it is consistent with the language included in the supplemental appropriations bill passed by a bipartisan majority of the Senate. If the President vetoes the supplemental appropriations bill and continues to resist changing course in Iraq, I will work to ensure this legislation receives a vote in the Senate in the next work period."
That legislation included the specific clause: "Prohibition on Use of Funds – No funds appropriated or otherwise made available under any provision of law may be obligated or expended to continue the deployment in Iraq of members of the United States Armed Forces after March 31, 2008." Remember that the Iraq War Resolution was law, passed by the House and Senate and signed by the President, just like Obamacare. How this 2007 legislation to defund the Iraq War (which would have actually put American troops in danger) was considered a proper use of constitutional power but the current effort to defund President Obama's failed health care policy opposed by the American people and undermining our economy is "irresponsible and futile" is beyond comprehension. If the Democrats had that power then, the Republicans have it now.
The House of Representatives proposed three different budget bills prior to the beginning of FY 2014 on October 1st, and all of them were shot down by the Senate Democratic majority. The Democrats refuse to recognize the House's prerogative to set spending levels and negotiate a budget, as per the Constitution. The House of Representatives (controlled by Republicans) is doing their job. The process is being held hostage by the Senate Democrats who refuse to adhere to Constitutional separation of powers in order to hold onto the Obama administration's signature legislation which was passed in the middle of the night only through bribery and coercion. It is fully within the House's authority to defund this law that never should have been.
|
|
Last Updated ( Thursday, 03 October 2013 17:06 )
|
|
|
|
