The Shutdown is a Constitutional Responsibility

Guest Column

           by G. Sontag 

     

       Re·spon·si·ble : able to be trusted to do what is right or to do the things that are expected or required : involving important duties, decisions, etc., that you are trusted to do. There are some in Congress who, perhaps by being "educated" by our national school system, forgot the meaning of this word. It is, after all, their reason for being in Washington in the first place.

      James Madison, the 39 other men who signed the Constitution in 1787, wisely provided for separation of powers among the three branches of government. The president would faithfully execute the laws and be commander in chief of the military, but both houses of Congress would have to approve of every penny the government could spend. All spending bills must originate in the House of Representatives, which means that Congressmen there have a right to decide whether or not they want to spend money on a particular government activity. A right under the Constitution to with hold money from ANY program the choose.

     Whether legislation by appropriation is a good idea or a bad idea is a matter of opinion. But whether it is both legal and not unprecedented is a matter of fact. You cannot blame other people for not giving you everything you want. And it is a fraud to blame them when you refuse to use the money they did vote, even when it is ample to pay for everything else in the government.

      Government shutdown is not exactly a new thing. We have had 17 government shutdowns since the late 1970s. Almost all involved legislative-executive disagreement. So when we hear from Harry Reid or Barack Obama keeps claiming that it is some new outrage for those who control the money to try to change government policy by granting or withholding money, that is simply another one of their lies.