Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Strengthening the system means putting power over the purse where it belongs

Barack Obama

President Barack Obama and congressional Republicans went to the Supreme Court in a fight over control of spending related to the Affordable Care Act.

Johnny Louis/FilmMagic

Lautz is a government affairs manager at the National Taxpayers Union, which advocates for fiscally conservative policies. Bydlak directs the budget policy work of the R Street Institute, a center-right think tank.

This is part of a series advocating for parts of legislation soon to be proposed in the House, dubbed the Protecting Our Democracy Act, designed to improve democracy's checks and balances by curbing presidential power.


As debate rages inside and outside of Washington over the health of American democracy, it's past time for Congress to address one of the most significant problems in our system of checks and balances: presidential administrations usurping the power of the purse, and lawmakers all too happy to let them.

The Founders were clear in their intent for this separation of power between the branches. James Madison, who would serve in the House and as secretary of state before becoming the fourth president, wrote in "Federalist No. 58" that the House "cannot only refuse, but they alone can propose, the supplies requisite for the support of government," adding: "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."

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

The Constitution reflects Madison's perspective. Article 1, Section 7 states that "All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives," and Section 8 asserts that "Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States." Section 9 affirms that "No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law." It is hard to imagine how the Framers could have been clearer.

Over recent decades, however, Congress has increasingly abdicated these powers to a growing executive branch. The problem is illustrated by numerous and prominent abuses of congressionally appropriated funds by presidents of both parties.

Last year, Donald Trump reprogrammed $3.8 billion worth of Defense Department money for a border wall that Congress refused to fund at his desired levels — a move a federal appeals court partially rolled back last summer. And Trump's first impeachment trial was focused in part on a similar withholding of funds for aid to Ukraine.

When Barack Obama was president, a lawsuit over the Affordable Care Act's risk-based payments to health insurers became a major purse strings fight between him and a Congress controlled by Republicans. The case made it all the way to the Supreme Court last year.

Arguments about the congressional power of the purse were often featured in the debate over the military operations of George W. Bush's administration, with some of the toughest pushback from Joe Biden when he was chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

Such fights threaten the integrity and transparent flow of taxpayer dollars, and lawsuits and inter-branch warfare cost further time, money and effort. But there are solutions: Title V of the Protecting our Democracy Act would reassert the congressional power of the purse and recalibrate the constitutional imbalance over who controls taxpayer dollars.

The legislation would require the executive branch and its powerful Office of Management and Budget to release congressionally appropriated funds with enough time for agencies to actually obligate and spend the money before their authority to do so expires. It would also require OMB to set up a public website for reporting all its decisions on when and how fast agencies may spend funds that are released to them. This process, called apportionment, now has little transparency — and that makes it nearly impossible for either lawmakers or non-governmental watchdogs to safeguard taxpayer dollars.

The bill would require presidents to report to Congress on outstanding balances of taxpayer funds that expired or were cancelled in the past few years — a direct analog to the Constitution's stipulation that "a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time." More practically, the provision would give lawmakers important insights into how money moves (or doesn't move) through a complex and often byzantine executive branch system.

None of these reforms alone would fix the existing power imbalance between Congress and the president. Lawmakers also should reform the National Emergencies Act, enhance the roles of federal inspectors general in reporting abuse and misuse of taxpayer funds, and enact more robust legal protections for whistleblowers in government — particularly those in the executive branch.

The Protecting Our Democracy Act, while far from a perfect piece of legislation, would make important strides in all of these areas.

Ensuring proper oversight of taxpayer dollars requires a strong Congress. Only the legislature can get access to — and constitutionally demand — information from the executive, but sadly the House and Senate have found it easier to abdicate this responsibility. Stronger congressional control over the nation's purse strings would ensure that all American citizens could effectively petition their representatives in government over the use of taxpayer dollars. It would enable elected members of Congress, and non-governmental oversight groups, to exercise greater input over how the executive branch spends our money.

And ultimately, it would strengthen a democracy that sorely needs to build some muscle.

Read More

US Capitol

Each branch of government needs to get serious about restoring the public's trust.

Andrey Denisyuk/Getty Images

We need a government that works

Frazier is an assistant professor at the Crump College of Law at St. Thomas University and a Tarbell fellow.

The first — and really only — order of business for the government is to solve problems beyond the grasp of a single person or a small community. In exchange for that service, we the people surrender some of our income and liberty. This grand bargain breaks down when the government decides it’s got other things to do besides take care of everything from our sewage to our space debris.

The longer the government falls short of our expectations, the more likely the people will be to opt out of their own obligations, such as voting. This dangerous tit-for-tat is hard to reverse. A less effective government sparks a less dutiful public, which makes it harder for the government to perform, and so on.

Keep ReadingShow less
People wading in a river, in front of a destroyed house

Workers walk through the Rocky Broad River in Chimney Rock, N.C., near a home destoryed by Hurricane Helene.

Matt McClain/The Washington Post via Getty Images

Project 2025 would have 'catastrophic' impact on hurricane warnings

Raj Ghanekar is a student at Northwestern University and a reporter for the school’s Medill News Service.

Residents in the southeastern United States are still recovering from devastating damage brought on by back-to-back hurricanes. As federal, state and local officials continue working to deliver aid, experts say the country would be less prepared for future hurricanes if proposals included the conservative plan known as Project 2025 were to be put in place.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration houses the National Weather Service and National Hurricane Center, which are vital to predicting these cyclones. But the 920-page proposal published by the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, argues NOAA “should be dismantled” and includes steps to undermine its authority and position leading the country’s planning for severe weather events, such as providing official emergency warnings.

Keep ReadingShow less
Destroyed mobile home

A mobile home destroyed by a tornado associated with Hurricane Milton is seen on Oct.12 in the Lakewood Park community of Fort Pierce, Fla.

Paul Hennesy/Anadolu via Getty Images

Disaster fatigue is a real thing. We need a cure.

Frazier is an assistant professor at the Crump College of Law at St. Thomas University and a Tarbell fellow.

Before I left for the airport to attend a conference in Washington, D.C., I double checked with my wife that she was OK with me leaving while a hurricane was brewing in the Gulf of Mexico. We had been in Miami for a little more than a year at that point, and it doesn’t take long to become acutely attentive to storms when you live in Florida. Storms nowadays form faster, hit harder and stay longer.

Ignorance of the weather is not an option. It’s tiring.

Keep ReadingShow less
Latino man sitting outside a motel room

One arm of the government defines homelessness narrowly, focusing on those living in shelters or on the streets. But another deparmtent also counts people living in doubled-up housing or motels as homeless.

Francine Orr/Los Angeles Times via Getty Images

How conflicting definitions of homelessness fail Latino families

Arzuaga is the housing policy analyst for the Latino Policy Forum.

The majority of Latinos in the United States experiencing homelessness are invisible. They aren’t living in shelters or on the streets but are instead “doubled up” — staying temporarily with friends or family due to economic hardship. This form of homelessness is the most common, yet it remains undercounted and, therefore, under-addressed, partly due to conflicting federal definitions of homelessness.

The Department of Housing and Urban Development defines homelessness narrowly, focusing on those living in shelters or places not meant for habitation, such as the streets. This definition, while useful for some purposes, excludes many families and children who are technically homeless because they live in uncertain and sometimes dangerous housing situations but are not living on the streets. This narrow definition means that many of these “doubled up” families don’t qualify for the resources and critical housing support that HUD provides, leaving them to fend for themselves in precarious living situations.

Keep ReadingShow less