Budget Gridlock: The House is More Powerful than the Senate and President Combined

By Roger F. Gay

Washington, business as usual, tends to complicate things in ways that were not meant to be. Such is the case in parts of the public discussion on the budget and further increasing the national debt. The key argument of Barack Obama and the Democrats is that getting a budget passed requires their approval and therefore any fiscally responsible position must be compromised. To the uneducated eye, this may seem to be the case. Democrats have a majority in the Senate and a guy in the White House.

But let's (from my perspective, I should say “once again”) get back to basics. The Constitution tells us that in order for a federal law to be created – any federal law – a bill must first be introduced and passed by the House of Representatives. Senators may then vote on the bill and it will pass or not. If it passes, it goes to the desk of the president, who may sign or return it. There is no alternative. There are no other options. This is the process. There is no such thing as a “Senate Bill” in the Constitution. The president's powers are limited and do not include writing law.

There is a sound reason for this arrangement. The intention is that of maintaining a representative government. The House of Representatives is where the representatives of the people work. This distinction is made clear in the Constitution. Startlingly close to the first words of the Constitution is the establishment of this idea.

Article 1, Section 2: The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States ...

Contrast that with the Senate.

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State … In its original form, these words were followed by “chosen by the Legislature thereof ...”

Senate elections are held every six years. We have a much greater opportunity to “throw the bums out” of the House of Representatives; every two years, precisely so that we, the people, can have greater and more timely control over who our representatives are and what effect they will have on us in the laws that they introduce and pass. We need people who have heard from us recently, so that our sense of what should happen next has the strongest impact on what actually does happen next.

It is more than merely appropriate for the House of Representatives to assert its will, acting as representatives of the people, against that of the Senate and the White House. This is especially true when the people have voiced strong opposition through their words and votes to what the Senate and White House prefer. Compromise, against the will of the people, is highly inappropriate and the people should consider recalling representatives that sway from their duty.

The House has the necessary Constitutional power. The budget bill must first be introduced in the House. There is no other way. A “House Bill” is the only bill recognized by law as part of the law-making process. The Senate may “propose or concur with Amendments.” They may pass the bill. They may fail to pass the bill. They do not have the power to originate a bill. That power rests solely with the people's representatives.

The president's power in making law can be quickly summarized. He can take it or leave it. That's not a political position taken in the context of a particular circumstance. That is the actual power given to the president by the Constitution of the United States. In addition, he may not refuse to obey or administer laws at his choosing as compensation of not getting a new bill that he desires. In threatening retaliation against retirees for example, a group more prone to supporting Republicans than his own party, or threatening not to pay debts if he does not get “compromise” on the budget, Barack Obama is threatening to (in Barack Obama's case, I should say “once again”) engage in impeachable behavior.

Who's fault is it if no budget is passed? When the difference of opinion rests purely on political whim, as the current disagreement does, fault must properly fall on the Senate and the president if they refuse to agree to the terms sent to them by the people. The power that they have is to either accept or reject. If they reject, then they have made their decision and it makes no sense to assign responsibility for that decision to anyone else. Rest assured, the time will come when we can throw those bums out too.