According to the US Constitution all spending must start in the House. This was supposed to give the House (the part of government with most localized representation) the power to control spending.
Is the House actually supposed to have this power or are they simply supposed to rubber stamp everything?
Thumbs up for deciding what to spend and using its power.
Originally posted by Eladar According to the US Constitution all spending must start in the House. This was supposed to give the House (the part of government with most localized representation) the power to control spending.
Is the House actually supposed to have this power or are they simply supposed to rubber stamp everything?
Thumbs up for deciding what to spend and using its power.
Thumbs down for rubber stamping.
Rubber stamping is proof of dereliction of duty. People need to keep an eye on it and make it an issue in elections.
Originally posted by Eladar According to the US Constitution all spending must start in the House. This was supposed to give the House (the part of government with most localized representation) the power to control spending.
You are exactly right Eladar. Let us not forget that approximately 25,000 American soldiers lost their lives so that we could establish a House of Representatives that is elected every two years.
Here is a podcast about why Obamacare violates the clause alluded to in the OP: http://ec.libsyn.com/p/6/5/b/65b1066a8c1faf2b/9-18-13_obamacare_pod.mp3?d13a76d516d9dec20c3d276ce028ed5089ab1ce3dae902ea1d01c08637d9cf58b1ca&c_id=6154054
Originally posted by Eladar According to the US Constitution all spending must start in the House. This was supposed to give the House (the part of government with most localized representation) the power to control spending.
Is the House actually supposed to have this power or are they simply supposed to rubber stamp everything?
Thumbs up for deciding what to spend and using its power.
Thumbs down for rubber stamping.
Presidents have proposed budgets and led the budget process for generations. Reagan was the king at that. There are many reasons for this. One, the President has veto power. Two, it is more practical for a single person to propose an initial budget than it is to start with 435 budget proposals.
Originally posted by moon1969 Presidents have proposed budgets and led the budget process for generations. Reagan was the king at that. There are many reasons for this. One, the President has veto power. Two, it is more practical for a single person to propose an initial budget than it is to start with 435 budget proposals.
Just because something has been done does not mean that it is correct.
The President should not be another name for dictator or king. When the Legislative Branch abdicates its authority and hands it over to the Executive, this is wrong. I can see why puppets would do this, it makes it easier for the puppeteers to make the changes they want to make.
Power of the Purse
06 Oct '13 18:201 edit
Back to Top