LETTER: A dangerous argument on the federal budget

Russ Vought, Office of Management and Budget director, recently claimed that “the appropriations process has to be less bipartisan” (“House passes bill to cut spending;” July 18 Review-Journal). That argument isn’t just misguided — it runs contrary to the Constitution.

Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution is clear: “No money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law.” Laws are not the product of one-party rule; they require passage in both chambers of Congress and the president’s signature. In practice, this means bipartisan support is not a courtesy — it’s a constitutional necessity. The Founders designed this process deliberately. James Madison called the power of the purse the “most effectual weapon” to check executive overreach. By requiring consensus, the system guards against fiscal chaos and authoritarian drift.

Mr. Vought’s vision — where appropriations are driven by a single party and rescission packages claw back duly enacted spending — is an attack on this balance of powers. It substitutes factional dominance for constitutional governance.

The real threat to our republic isn’t bipartisanship. It’s the erosion of constitutional norms in favor of partisan control over the very lifeblood of government — public funds.