If the Presidents Wants to Run off the Cliff, then Let Him

If  the Presidents Wants to Run off the Cliff, then Let Him

We are fast approaching the "fiscal cliff."

The president is playing hardball.

It is time for the House to play hardball, and to save the country. Here is the simple advice I would give Congressman Paul Ryan:

Dear Congressman Ryan:

Here is my plan to save the country by ending deficit spending.

1. Let President Obama "drive the bus" off the "fiscal cliff."
2. Then pass separate appropriation bills for only the things the House wants; e.g.:

a. A Social Security appropriation;
b. A Medicare appropriation;
c. A military appropriation;
d. An FBI appropriation.
e. Etc.

3. Make no appropriation for anything the House opposes. Agree to nothing else.

4. Force the president to accept or veto the things the country really needs.

The principle involved is simple. It can be found in the U.S. Constitution.

Article I, provides, "No money shall be drawn from the treasury but in consequence of appropriations made by law." And before any bill (appropriation or otherwise) can become law, it must be passed by both the House and Senate. "

The principle, therefore, is that the president and the Senate cannot spend one penny, unless the House agrees to appropriate the money.

If the House decides to take control of the "purse" as it did in the early days of the republic, and as it did after the Civil War, all the president's grand schemes are checkmated. There may be adverse consequences. But the deficit problem won't be one of them. Nor will deficit spending.

And until we eliminate trillion dollar deficits, all other fixes are phony.

Posted Online: : Dec. 11, 2012, 1:41 pm - Quad-Cities Online
by John Donald O'Shea

Copyright 2012
John Donald O'Shea

House GOP Should Assert Constitutional Prerogative

In 1627, England was at war, and King Charles I needed money.

The House of Commons refused to provide that money. The King reacted by dissolving Parliament.

Two week later, the King opted to raise the money he needed by resorting to "forced loans" -- a euphemism for a "tax" imposed by the king without the consent of the Commons.

For the next 20 years, the King and Parliament battled over who controlled the "power of the purse." The issue was finally settled only after the English Civil War (1642-1651), during the course of which Charles I, lost his head.

When America adopted its Constitution (1788), that "power of the purse," which the House of Common fought a 10-year civil war to hold on to, was, in the first instance, vested in our House of Representatives. It is the House's preeminent power, and the guarantee that the people of our country will not be taxed without the consent of their Representatives in the House. A guarantee that they will not be taxed by a "king" or his ministers.

This is the historical backdrop in front of which President Obama rails against a "do-nothing (Republican) Congress" on an almost daily basis. So, is he being honest with the voters? Or is he playing an anti-constitutional cynical game?

How does he explain the fact that when he recently sent his own "budget" to Congress, that every member of the House of Representatives -- every Republicans and even every Democrats -- voted against it!

And how does he explain the fact that Democrat Harry Reid refuses to even call it up for a vote in the Senate the House's proposed appropriations bills?

If President Obama's budget is a "good faith submission," why doesn't Reid call it?

The Democrats control the Senate. If it has an iota of merit, the Senate could pass it without a single Republican vote! Then senators could go to conference with the House, where maybe something might get done.

So, who is really to blame? A president who cannot get a single Democratic House member or senator to vote for his "budget?" Both houses of Congress?

Or would it be "fairer" to blame only one house? And if so, which house? The House or the Senate?

I am from a generation that believes talk is cheap, and that "actions speak louder than words." So what would I do if I were running the House?

It is very simple. I would pass legislation, which if ignored by the Senate or vetoed by the president, would clearly demonstrate to the voters who is really at fault for the current mess. (Of course, the Republican leadership in the House may lack the wit to fashion such legislation.)

Section 7 [1] of the U. S. Constitution provides "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."

It also provides "No money shall be drawn from the treasury but in consequence of appropriations made by law ..."

Two years ago, Americans gave the Republicans control of the House.

They concluded that the Democrats had been spending ruinously. They expected the Republicans to fix things. Instead, the House and Senate have given us a series of gutless "continuing resolutions."

So here is my solution. The Republicans, rather than passing "omnibus" appropriation and spending bills, should pass a series of separate appropriation bills, and a series of separate spending bills.

If the Republicans believe that there should be an appropriation for the armed forces, they should pass a "clean" appropriations bill for funding the armed forces. (When I say "clean," I mean a bill that does nothing other than fund the armed forces -- with no earmarks, no gimmicks, no extraneous provision.)

If they want to fund Social Security (which will be necessary to make up for revenue shortages caused by President Obama's payroll tax holiday), pass a clean appropriations bill for that purpose.

If they want to fund Medicare, pass a clean appropriations bill for that purpose, etc.

On the other hand, if they are serious about wanting to defund Obamacare, or the Department of Education or any other department, they can refuse to pass an appropriations bill for that department.

If the House passes clean appropriation bills, and if the Senate refuses to consider them, or amends them in a way to dirty them up, it will then be patently clear to the American public which branch of Congress is truly the do-nothing branch.

House Republicans would then be in perfect position to say if the government is forced to shut down, "Don't blame us. We passed a clean bill to make sure that every American would get his Social Security check. And if you don't get your checks, blame Harry Reid and the Senate and/or the president for shutting down the Social Security programs of the government."

Under our Constitution, the House "controls the purse."

It's time that the House, asserts its Constitutional prerogative. Demonstrate in a way that the public can't misunderstand that the Democrats in the Senate are the true obstructionists -- if that is indeed the case.

A House that won't fight to maintain its right to control the power of the purse is a disgrace to its heritage.

Posted Online: April 11, 2012, 3:08 pm pm - Quad-Cities Online

by John Donald O'Shea

Copyright 2012, John Donald O'Shea