Actually, Republican presidents DON'T spend more

“[The Congress shall have the power] To borrow money on the credit of the United States … ”

– Article 1, Section 8, Paragraph 2 of the United States Constitution

Democrats often point to bogus studies claiming that the “Republican presidents spend more” …

I have often criticized the federal government for its continually spendthrift ways. People on both sides are often alarmed at the extent to which our federal deficit spending and national debt are growing. But who is really to blame for this situation? My friends on the left often point fingers at the Republicans, and tell me that “the Republican presidents have historically spent more than the Democrat presidents.” Many of them point to bogus studies that seem to support this argument (often the same studies), with data about “which presidential administrations have spent the most.” These studies point fingers at virtually every Republican president in recent times, but tend to criticize Ronald Reagan in particular, I have noticed. By contrast, they credit the Bill Clinton administration with much lower deficit spending levels, saying that “he is the only recent president who hasn't increased the deficit.”

Ronald Reagan

… but presidents don't actually control the purse strings in this country (Congress does)

What's wrong with these studies? For starters, presidents don't actually control the purse strings in this country – Congress does. Presidents can only veto the budgets passed by the Congress. The influence of a president is not insignificant, of course, but nor is it the “primary factor,” as these studies erroneously seem to imply it to be. Ronald Reagan faced a Democratic Congress for all of his administration (excepting the first 17 days of it), while Bill Clinton faced a Republican Congress for all but the first two years of his eight-year administration. During the last six years of his administration, the Republicans controlled both houses of Congress. In light of who controls the nation's purse strings in this country, it would thus seem that the blame for this massive deficit spending during the Reagan administration belongs to the Democratic Congress that then controlled the nation's purse strings. By the same logic, it would also seem that the credit for the lower deficit spending during the Clinton administration belongs to the Republican Congress of that time. I could easily cite other examples of presidents who have faced hostile Congresses (there are many), but suffice it to mention just the most prominent two of them for this debate for now. I can provide others upon request, if need be. While presidents obviously play an important role in the budget process, it would seem that their role is somewhat junior to that of the Congress. Congress is the senior partner in this process, and has far more influence over the budget process than any president does.

Bill Clinton

Budgets are the product of two factors: Revenues and expenses

To prove this, I will turn my attention to some relevant parts of the Constitution, the supreme law of the land in the United States. Budgets in general (and deficit spending in particular) are the product of two factors: revenues and expenses. Revenues are gained largely through taxation, and expenses are determined by the appropriation of these tax dollars towards particular ends.

United States Constitution

On the revenue side of the budget, the Congress has the power to tax and borrow money …

On the revenue side of the budget, the Sixteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution actually says that “The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever sources derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.” (Source: Sixteenth Amendment, ratified 1913) And the original United States Constitution also says that “The Congress shall have the power To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States” (Source: Article 1, Section 8, Heading and Paragraph 1). The same section also says that the Congress shall have the power “To borrow money on the credit of the United States” (Source: Article 1, Section 8, Paragraph 2). This shows that both the revenue side of the budget and the borrowing of money necessary for the deficit spending are listed as the powers of Congress, rather than the president. The president can only veto these things.

Capitol Dome

… and all bills for raising revenue must “originate” in the House of Representatives

On the revenue side of the budget, the Constitution also says that “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.” (Source: Article 1, Section 7, Paragraph 1) One of my debating opponents once claimed that the budget “originates” in the executive branch each September. In light of this argument, this clause is very interesting to me. It says that all bills for raising revenue shall “originate” in the House of Representatives, which paints a very different picture of (at least) this one component of the budget for me, if not more.

United States Capitol

On the expenses side of the budget, the Congress has the power to appropriate public money

Regarding the expenses side of the budget, the Constitution also says that “No money shall be drawn from the treasury but in consequence of appropriations made by law; and a regular statement and account of the receipts and expenditures of all public money shall be published from time to time.” (Source: Article 1, Section 9, Paragraph 7) The part about how “No money shall be drawn from the treasury but in consequence of appropriations made by law” means appropriations made by the body that makes the laws – namely, Congress. Elsewhere, the Constitution also says that “All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.” (Source: Article 1, Section 1 of the Constitution) The presidential veto is thus not a “legislative power,” but merely a check upon that legislative power. The part about “appropriations made by law” thus means appropriations made by Congress, not by any part of the executive branch (even the president).

Capitol Dome at night

A president can only veto these things, and even this veto can be overridden at times

Besides that, a president’s veto can actually be overridden in certain cases (see this post for details). One of my debating opponents once referenced the House of Representatives website, which said that there have been 1509 regular vetoes, only 111 of which have been overridden (at the time that he said this). He may have actually been correct to say this, but this same source also said that there have been 1066 pocket vetoes; and as his source said, the Constitution shows that “The authority of the pocket veto is derived from the Constitution’s Article I, section 7, ‘the Congress by their adjournment prevent its return, in which case, it shall not be law.’ ” (Source: House of Representatives website). This shows that the “Congress … prevent[ing] its return” is key to the realization of a pocket veto. If the Congress had not “prevent[ed] its return,” these bills would not have been stopped by a pocket veto, as this source agreed. Thus, although the president’s refusal to sign the bill clearly is necessary to realize a pocket veto, the Congress’s refusal to be in session at that time is also necessary to realize it. One cannot attribute this entirely to any president, let alone to specific presidents from one party (like the Republican Party). This argument seems to imply that presidents can do these things even when the Congress is hostile to them, and can stop deficit spending even when the Congress is in favor of it. For the reasons mentioned earlier, I find all of this very hard to believe. These bogus studies are thus based upon fundamental misunderstandings of the separation of powers in this country.

White House

Thus, presidents don't “cause” deficit spending (and specifically, Republican presidents don't) …

Thus, although I actually agree that the president has considerable influence on the budget process, I cannot see how anyone can ignore the fact that it is something of a partnership – with Congress being the senior partner, and the president being the junior partner in this process. If presidents have as much power as these bogus studies claim them to have, then it's because the Congress has yielded that power to them, and doesn't have the ability to stand up to presidents. But given the relations between the two within my lifetime, I find that very hard to believe.

United States Capitol

… but if the timing of these studies is indeed correct, Democratic Congresses would seem to be the bigger spenders …

But if you believe that these studies are legitimate, you might consider this: If you examine who controlled the Congress during the various presidential administrations discussed in these budget studies, their own evidence can actually be used against them (at least in modern times). If the facts of these studies are indeed correct with regards to the timing (as their proponents claim them to be), then this timing would seem to implicate the Democratic Congresses of recent times, more often than they implicate the Republican Congresses of those times. The critical timing of their own statistics can thus be used against them, to support the counter-argument that Democrats are bigger spenders than Republicans.

Deficit spending political cartoon

… so the timing of these bogus studies can be used to destroy their own argument

In fairness, I have shown their studies to be completely unreliable in at least one regard – namely, their argument that it was the presidents that “caused” these deficits. As I have shown, this argument is based upon fundamental misunderstandings of the separation of powers in this country. But I admit freely that I have not even attempted to refute the timing of their data, because I find it more convenient to use it against them in this way. If you find this timing to be legitimate (and their whole argument would seem to be based upon it), then you might consider reading it with a more realistic view of who actually controls the purse strings in this country. You might then reach very different conclusions about who is really to blame for these higher deficits, and which party actually holds a viable solution for them.

If you liked this post, you might also like:

Congress controls the purse strings, and has power to declare war

The most controversial part of the original Constitution was … a LIST

So what are the “midterm elections,” and how do they work?

United States Census can influence a state's votes in Congress (and the presidential elections)

The president enforces the laws, commands the military, and conducts foreign diplomacy