US House of Reps, taxing and spending

[What_the]

IIRC that body is supposed to start legislation that involves taxing and spending.

If “start” isn’t the best description please revise it. In either case what did or does that actually mean and how has it evolved over the last couple hundred years?

[md2000]

Does that mean a bill has to be passed by the house before being introduced in the senate?

Of course, a lot of bills are passed in the house, passed in the senate, with amendments on both ends. The a committee sits down and hammers out a compromise bill, which IIRC gets passed again by both houses. (Unless, like Obama’s health bill, the version of one house is acceptable in the other.)

[anson2995]

Article 1 Section 7 of the Constitution begins with this sentence:

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.

This website has some insight into what the framers intended.

The annotated Constitution website from Cornell Law School offers some commentary and discussion of how that clause has come into play.

[Chronos]

In practice, it hardly means anything, for a couple of reasons. First, if a senator wants a particular bill, it’s not going to be hard for him to find a representative who agrees with him and who will officially introduce the bill. Second, even absent that, the Senate can take an existing revenue bill that originated in the House (there’s always going to be a few of those lying around), and just amend it to be whatever they want.

[UltraVires]

@Chronos

In practice, it hardly means anything, for a couple of reasons. First, if a senator wants a particular bill, it’s not going to be hard for him to find a representative who agrees with him and who will officially introduce the bill. Second, even absent that, the Senate can take an existing revenue bill that originated in the House (there’s always going to be a few of those lying around), and just amend it to be whatever they want.

Agreed on the first point, but it would still have to pass the full House.

On the second point, not so much. I would think that “originated” means that it found the Senate through the process the founders envisioned: full passage in the House, and then once in the Senate, can be amended, but not before.

[UltraVires]

@jtgain

Agreed on the first point, but it would still have to pass the full House.

On the second point, not so much. I would think that “originated” means that it found the Senate through the process the founders envisioned: full passage in the House, and then once in the Senate, can be amended, but not before.

On second thought, I misunderstood you, and agree with you on both points. I believe you are saying that if a bill passes the House providing for a 50 cent increase in National Park Admission Fees, the Senate can “amend” the bill to provide for a National Sales Tax or a 39.6% top marginal income tax rate..

[Ravenman]

@Chronos

In practice, it hardly means anything, for a couple of reasons. First, if a senator wants a particular bill, it’s not going to be hard for him to find a representative who agrees with him and who will officially introduce the bill. Second, even absent that, the Senate can take an existing revenue bill that originated in the House (there’s always going to be a few of those lying around), and just amend it to be whatever they want.

I have a mild disagreement with this: it does mean something. Just because a congressman can introduce a bill doesn’t mean that bill will be considered at all. Senators have much more power to propose amendments that are not related to the subject matter of a bill, and often get a vote on it.

For example, in the 2000s, Senator Biden several times proposed tax increases on wealthy Americans to help pay for the war in Iraq. I believe he proposed those amendments to military spending bills that did not deal at all with taxation. Had any of those amendments actually passed, the bill as amended would be automatically rejected by the House of Representatives without a vote or even a moment’s consideration, because of the origination clause. Things like that do happen every once in a while: cite.

It is true that the Senate can generally find a piece of House-passed tax legislation laying around if it wants to: the House could pass a bill to suspend a duty on ball bearings from Whoknowswhereistan, and the Senate can amend it to raise taxes on anything that moves or doesn’t. That would be perfectly fine.

[Chronos]

Of course, any bill, regardless of whether it deals with revenue or not, must eventually pass both houses. In most cases, which one it passes first is a mere detail (and yes, I am aware that there are occasional exceptions where such procedural details matter).

[Freddy_the_Pig]

Any revenue bill, presented to the President for signature, must bear an H.R. serial number. This in turn means that the House must pass the bill first, since an HR bill cannot be introduced into the Senate unless and until passed.

This doesn’t necessarily mean that the Senate can’t even think about taxes until the House is done. Senators often introduce revenue bills as a vehicle for debate and amendment, knowing they will eventually need to be grafted onto a (hopefully related) House bill.

For example, consider the legislative history of Obamacare (see this PDF, pages 6-7, which contained a number of revenue provisions. For an issue of this complexity it would be impractical for the Senate to sit on its hands until the House was done:

The America’s Healthy Future Act of 2009 (S. 1796) was approved by the Senate Finance Committee on October 13, 2009, and a corresponding committee report was introduced on
October 19, 2009. The primary revenue raiser in S. 1796 is a proposed 40% excise tax on high premium insurance plans, which would be levied at the insurer level and apply to health insurance coverage greater than $8,000 a year for individuals and $21,000 for families.

This would be unconstitutional if carried to final passage. Therefore,

On November 18, 2009, Senator Reid introduced a new health care reform measure, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as an amendment in the nature of a substitute for H.R. 3590, which included much of the proposals in the two Senate-reported bills S. 1796 and the Affordable Health Choices Act (S. 1679).

As Ravenman notes, if the process is abused to turn an unrelated non-revenue measure into a revenue measure, the House will resist.

[What_the]

@anson2995

Article 1 Section 7 of the Constitution begins with this sentence:

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.

This website has some insight into what the framers intended.

The annotated Constitution website from Cornell Law School offers some commentary and discussion of how that clause has come into play.

I appreciate the info but was kind of hoping for the “silver platter” version

Anybody… what was the intention? Assuming there was good reason why didn’t they stick to it and resist all the work-arounds mentioned above?

[Ravenman]

Consistent with the English requirement that money bills must commence in the House of Commons, the Framers expected that the Origination Clause would ensure that “power over the purse” would lie with the legislative body closer to the people. Under the Articles of Confederation, the national government could not tax individuals, and the clause was one of several provisions meant to cabin the national revenue power created under the Constitution. The clause was also part of a critical compromise between large and small states, helping to temper the large states’ unhappiness with equal representation in the Senate by leaving the power to initiate tax bills with the House of Representatives, where the large states had greater influence.

The final version of the clause was much weaker than the form proposed by Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, which would have required all “money bills” (including appropriations) to originate in the House and would have given the Senate no power to amend. Gerry feared that the Senate would become an aristocratic body because of its small size, its selection by legislatures rather than by election, and its six-year term of office. “It was a maxim,” he said, “that the people ought to hold the purse-strings.”

Hands Off My Purse! Why Money Bills Originate in the House

[Freddy_the_Pig]

@What_the

Anybody… what was the intention?

To be like Great Britain. In England, the House of Commons had fought a long battle against the kings of the Stuart dynasty, and the “power of the purse” was the most important device by which the Commons ultimately won. The King could dissolve Parliament, or refuse to summon Parliament, or veto bills passed by Parliament, but in the end he needed money, and only Parliament could provide it. The House of Lords could be manipulated by creation of new Peers, but the Commons could not.

The English (after 1707, British) Commons was therefore intensely jealous of its power of the purse, resolving in 1678

That all Aids and Supplies, and Aids to his Majesty in Parliament, are the sole Gift of the Commons: And all Bills for the Granting of any such Aids and Supplies ought to begin with the Commons: And that it is the undoubted and sole Right of the Commons, to direct, limit, and appoint, in such Bills, the Ends, Purposes, Considerations, Conditions, Limitations, and Qualifications of such Grants; which ought not to be changed, or altered by the House of Lords.

Since the House of Commons regarded this power as all-important, it seemed the path of least resistance to confer it on the House of Representatives as well. (Never mind that we would have an elected President instead of a King; you can’t be too careful in safeguarding against executive tyranny!) As noted we backed off a step in allowing the Senate to amend revenue bills, which greatly alters the balance of power between the houses.

[What_the]

@Freddy_the_Pig

To be like Great Britain. In England, the House of Commons had fought a long battle against the kings of the Stuart dynasty, and the “power of the purse” was the most important device by which the Commons ultimately won. The King could dissolve Parliament, or refuse to summon Parliament, or veto bills passed by Parliament, but in the end he needed money, and only Parliament could provide it. The House of Lords could be manipulated by creation of new Peers, but the Commons could not.

The English (after 1707, British) Commons was therefore intensely jealous of its power of the purse, resolving in 1678 Since the House of Commons regarded this power as all-important, it seemed the path of least resistance to confer it on the House of Representatives as well. (Never mind that we would have an elected President instead of a King; you can’t be too careful in safeguarding against executive tyranny!) As noted we backed off a step in allowing the Senate to amend revenue bills, which greatly alters the balance of power between the houses.

Interesting…thanks !!!