Article I of the U.S. Constitution vests spending authority for the “general welfare” with Congress. Indeed, U.S. senators and members of Congress are elected to represent the communities and constituencies that benefit from federal spending decisions. Congress is the anointed steward of taxpayer dollars. Congressionally directed spending and community project funding are embodiments of that authority.
Yet, for a century, Congress has delegated almost all but the top-line spending allocations to the executive branch, which has no spending authority under Article II of the Constitution. Congressional appropriations laws allocate spending to executive agencies in slabs of millions, tens of millions, or even billions of dollars. In turn, an army of unaccountable bureaucrats in federal agencies has sweeping discretion to make the decisions about how to spend taxpayer dollars. In this context, what are the chances that federal agencies in Washington, D.C. will identify and fund critically needed infrastructure and initiatives that are unique to each state and district?
The dramatic increase in the size of the executive branch can be traced to 1913 when the 16th Amendment allowed for the federal income tax. Almost as quickly as Congress had this new source of government revenue, it began delegating its authority to the rapidly expanding federal bureaucracy. At first, it may have been politically expedient or perhaps practical in the context of two world wars and the New Deal. Now it seems nothing more than an inexplicable transfer of authority by Congress to the president.
The wholesale delegation of this congressional spending authority has not served taxpayers and communities well. In the best-case scenario, funding ends up with entities that have grant and contract writers who are best at box-checking applications and populating compliance reports instead of merit and best return on investment. And as the funding flows through each level of government bureaucracy, taxpayer dollars are taken as a dividend to sustain the bureaucracy.
Congress should be directly involved in spending decisions that are intended for the benefit of the constituents and communities they represent. They are obligated to understand the needs in their communities and where and how taxpayer dollars can be best used for the general welfare in their respective states and districts. Congressional oversight barely scratches the surface of executive branch spending decisions and is not a substitute for the obligation of senators and members of Congress to their constituents.
Congressionally directed spending and community project funding are simply parts of Congress exercising its constitutional authority — a step toward restoring the separation of powers embodied in the Constitution.
Of course, federal agencies disdain what they view as Congress’s intervention in spending decisions that are rightfully theirs to make. They have dragged their feet in executing unequivocal direction from Congress. In some cases, recipients of FY2022 congressionally directed spending intended by Congress to be spent before Sept. 30 are just now receiving funding (there are specific examples of built-in delays under the Department of Housing and Urban Development and the Department of Education) — another area of oversight the next Congress should consider.
Any lingering concerns about potential abuse in congressionally directed spending were addressed in early 2021, with bipartisan bicameral adoption of new rules prohibiting for-profit entities from such funding and comprehensive and robust transparency and disclosure requirements.
Perhaps Congress should go further and take the executive branch entirely out of the congressionally directed spending process. For example, Congress could create a new arm of the Congressional Budget Office specifically charged with executing the intent of Congress in this area. The legislative branch entity can expedite the distribution of congressionally directed spending directly to designated recipients and engage in oversight necessary to protect the taxpayer funds. There is no need for executive branch involvement if Congress is simply exercising its exclusive authority over the 1 percent of the budget allocated in this manner.
In the 118th Congress, there will be immense pressure to curtail federal appropriations to combat inflation, reduce the deficit, or satisfy small government inclinations. Cuts in funding will not shrink the federal behemoth, but they will cause pain for states, local communities and constituents.
If the will of the 118th Congress is to reduce government spending, individual senators and members of Congress can mitigate the pain of those cuts in their individual states and districts by bypassing the federal bureaucracy and exercising its core constitutional spending authority. Congressionally directed spending ensures that limited taxpayer dollars are going to the most valuable projects and trustworthy recipients as determined by each senator and member of Congress. As they should be.
Steve Taylor is a principal at Integer specializing in consulting for 501(c)(3) nonprofits. Taylor spent 10 years as a staffer for four Republican senators (including 6 years on the Senate Judiciary Committee antitrust subcommittee staff) and 15 years as head of government relations for United Way.