After the U.S. government shutdown this fall, there is plenty of accusation and blame going back and forth across the aisle in Washington. The crisis led to furloughs of hundreds of thousands of federal workers, canceled military training missions and slowed economic growth. Clearly, regardless of who or what is at fault, it has had a negative impact on everyday life in America. It has also resulted in concern from abroad that if the debt ceiling is not raised [for the 83rd time since Congress adopted a debt ceiling] the United States will default on its outstanding financial obligations, which will have negative consequences for the financial well-being of many countries across the world. This crisis gives rise to consideration of the role of separation of power in our constitutional government.
Remember the separation of powers and the three branches of government from your high school civics class? It is the job of Congress to fund the operations of our government. The Constitution grants the House of Representatives the power of the purse. Since the beginning of our country Congress has authorized national debt, starting with the bonds issued to pay for the Revolutionary War. The first fixed over-all debt ceiling was set in 1939. At times the extension of the debt ceiling has been a routine matter and on other occasions there have been extended fights in Congress. Is this, as some suggest, exactly what was contemplated by our forefathers in granting the power of the purse to the House of Representatives, or is it an aberration? As James Madison explained, in The Federalist Papers, No. 58, “This power over the purse may, in fact, be regarded as the most complete and effectual weapon with which any constitution can arm the immediate representatives of the people, for obtaining redress of every grievance, and for carrying into effect every just and salutary measure.” The Founding Fathers also famously warned of the dangers of factions (i.e., political groupings and parties) to the new government. Our unique constitutional system was built to maintain the government through certain checks and balances. Many countries, like The Netherlands, the United Kingdom and Canada, either have established laws or have a government whose nature precludes a shut-down. The United States does not. If an ongoing consensus cannot be reached in Congress, then the option of NOT doing something may be democracy at work, even though it puts many out of work.
So is gridlock what the Founding Fathers had in mind, or is it the excess of an imperfect process? Are the Founding Fathers smiling or are they rolling over in their graves?
