Indeed, there are laws and parliamentary rules against making new law in appropriation bills, although such rules are periodically waived. This has remained the practice, as substantiveĬommittees design authorization acts and the House and Senate Appropriation Committees fund authorized programs later. Priorities were spelled out in one law and money appropriated for those priorities in another. But legislation and funding were always kept separate. The House Committee on Ways and Means, which also had jurisdiction over tax policy, controlled the appropriations process. These were considered on an annual basis by the late 1850s. Over time, nine regular appropriation bills emerged and funded such priorities as pensions, harbors, the post office, and the military. The law funded the government, including important pensions for Revolutionary War veterans, with just $639,000-an amount in the tens of millions in real terms. The First Congress (1789–1791) passed the first appropriations act-a mere 13 lines long-a few months after it convened. This strongly-held belief was rooted in the framers’ experiences with England, where the king had wide latitude over spending once the money had been raised. The framers were unanimous that Congress, as the representatives of the people, should be in control of public funds-not the President or executive branch agencies. The constitutional provision making Congress the ultimate authority on government spending passed with far less debate. The Convention reconsidered the matter over the course of two months, but the provision was finally adopted, nine to two, in September 1787. be best attained, if money affairs were to be confined to the immediate representatives of the people.” The provision in the committee’s report to the Convention was adopted, five to three, with three states divided on the question. Speaking in favor of the provision, Benjamin Franklin of Pennsylvania said, “It was a maxim that those who feel, can best judge. Smaller states, which would be over-represented in the Senate, would concede the power to originate money bills to the House, where states with larger populations would have greater control. The provision was part of a compromise between the large and small states. The second concerned the roles the House and Senate would play in setting fiscal policy.Īt the Convention, the framers considered the extent to which the Senate-like the House of Lords-should be limited in its consideration of budget bills. The first was to ensure that the executive would not spend money without congressional authorization. Constitutional Framingĭebate at the Constitutional Convention centered on two issues. Indeed, the American colonists’ cry of “No taxation without representation!” referred to the injustice of London imposing taxes on them without the benefit of a voice in Parliament. The British House of Commons has the exclusive right to create taxes and spend that revenue, which is considered the ultimate check on royal authority. Massachusetts’ Elbridge Gerry said at the Federal Constitutional Convention that the House “was more immediately the representatives of the people, and it was a maxim that the people ought to hold the purse-strings.” OriginsĮnglish history heavily influenced the Constitutional framers. Good of Iowa, and future Speaker Joseph Byrns of Tennessee.Ĭongress-and in particular, the House of Representatives-is invested with the “power of the purse,” the ability to tax and spend public money for the national government. Swagar Sherley of Kentucky, future Speaker Frederick Gillett of Massachusetts, future Secretary of War James W. Byrnes of South Carolina, former Speaker Joseph Cannon of Illinois, Chairman J. tiles/non-collection/i/i_origins_power_purse_approps_lc.xml Image courtesy of the Library of Congress The House Appropriations Committee in 1918 featuring (from left to right) future Secretary of State James F.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |