The impetuous vortex of the purse

The relationship between money and politics is nothing new to humanity, and they have always been linked together because, after all, nothing is more certain than death and taxes. How money is regulated will always be up for debate, and many interests will try to control those important decisions that guide our government. The founders knew the powerful influence that money could have over our government and were very thoughtful in how it was to be controlled, especially between different branches of government. Madison warned us that the legislative branch would attempt to draw “all power into its impetuous vortex.” So why would they then give the power of the purse over to the legislative branch if they knew how influential it would be? Why is the executive branch not more involved, and what role did they intend the people to play in this new republican way of approaching the dollar?

The founders’ reluctance to trust the executive

Having recently achieved their independence from a monarchy, it is easy to see why the founders were reluctant to hand over the purse to the executive. They had firsthand experience at what concentrated power could do when given the wrong incentives. While they go out of their way to explain all the checks and balances in place to ensure that a presidency would never turn into a kingship, they still had to “sell” the Constitution to the populace at large, and a main concern was who would be in charge of taxes. The flip side of the coin was also readily apparent as well: who should be in charge of the military. The Revolutionary War taught the young nation that a legislative committee could not be used in times of emergency and war; thus the executive was purposefully designed to be in charge of the military and handling emergencies. Giving the same branch the power of the sword and the purse would be unwise or just downright dimwitted.

Taxation and the people’s weapon

Taxation is one of the most invasive powers that the government has and is a stark reminder of how much power we the people have given to them. Since it is so personal, the founders wanted the power of the purse to equally lie as close to the citizens as possible. The power of the purse is the most complete and effectual weapon against a tyranny or an out-of-control government; thus it should belong to the branch that is closest to the people. The legislative branch was designed to be the most responsive to the will of the people, which is why the House of Representatives is elected every two years; they would constantly have to be responsible to their electorate. They also saw an effective balance to the actions of the executive because if the executive branch exceeded its powers, Congress could always refuse funding and curb the ambition of the executive. It was purposefully separated as a restraint between the two branches while also holding all elected representatives accountable for their spending habits.

Why the House, not the Senate

Why then did they choose to have the House of Representatives in charge of originating the funding instead of the Senate? When our country was beginning, the Senate was actually designed to be a balance of power for all of the states’ interests. The state legislatures were in charge of choosing their two senators, unlike the representatives being directly elected by the citizens. Senators were supposed to have a vested interest in promulgating state sovereignty and not necessarily the public. The House, however, was directly supposed to mirror the will of the population and sympathize most with the people. The caveat being that, like most things in our government, this design did not give the House a blank check to run the government, as they were also worried that one branch could succumb to mob mentalities or fall prey to appeasing the public at the expense of future consequences. The origination clause merely keeps all funding as close to the people as it can while also acknowledging the consent of the Senate. This whole system reflects the founders’ deep distrust of remote taxation.

Ambition counteracting ambition

The founders designed our government as a way to allow ambition to counteract ambition; to pit two branches against each other to prevent power from consolidating. Their logic was that each branch would be reluctant to delegate power to another branch and that they would not casually surrender their power. An aspect of executive power they consistently designed to prevent was to allow the executive enough power to act in emergencies but to also not be able to declare everything an emergency. Modern tariff disputes are a direct reflection of a direction the founders both could not predict but subsequently could also predict with great precision. When the legislative branch delegated away certain tariff powers to be used in an emergency, it is of little surprise that an emergency would be declared to use those powers. When Congress hands over portions of the purse to the executive, we should not be surprised at the weakening of our Constitution. The legislature was designed to be the most powerful branch precisely because they are most responsible to the people. But this design was deliberate in order to prevent us from being sucked in to its impetuous vortex. Most of the problems we face today are a direct result of the people not understanding the government they have been given and a careless disregard for the guardrails placed upon it. The dangers we face today are not just executive overreach but also the legislative abdication of their role and purpose.