If a bill NOT to approve an increase is submitted, then the vote would be taken. Otherwise, the increase would be automatic, BUT at what amount of dollars for how long a period of time?
Rush Limbaugh isn’t often wrong, but he was wrong today when he said that the Constitution requires a budget. It does not. (Which makes me wonder why in the world we’d ever have a balanced budget amendment before we had a required budget amendment.)
Since there is no requirement for a budget, although it would be profoundly wise to have one, ANY process for disbursing funds appears to be constitutional provided it originates in the HOUSE. The only requirements are that a ledger must be kept and honesty maintained, since malfeasance is punished.
Therefore, the HOUSE of representatives is the culprit in the great cave-in of Oct 16, 2013. At that time they gave away the power of the purse for exactly nothing.
And according to this article, they may have given away for now the authority to PROPOSE debt spending and not simply to react.
That original power of initiating spending could easily be taken back by a powerful, principled Speaker who is backed by his caucus. We do not have that now. Boehner is not powerful, has malleable principles, and is not backed by his caucus.
Not picking on you, just this statement comes up more than the correct statement does.
The house has dibs on origination of TAXING (bills for raising revenue), not on spending. Obviously the House has to agree to the spending.