How Congress Controls America’s Wallet

Last updated 2 months ago. Our resources are updated regularly but please keep in mind that links, programs, policies, and contact information do change.

In the machinery of the United States government, no power is more fundamental than the “power of the purse.” This is the constitutional bedrock of legislative authority and the single most effective check on the power of the executive branch.

The U.S. Constitution grants Congress—the branch of government most directly accountable to the people—the exclusive authority to control the nation’s finances. This means that every government salary paid, every military operation funded, every road paved, and every social program enacted can only happen with the explicit consent of the people’s representatives.

The Constitutional Blueprint for Financial Power

The authority of Congress to manage the nation’s finances is not an implied or assumed power. It is meticulously detailed in the text of the Constitution. The framers, deeply skeptical of concentrated executive power, designed a system where the President would be perpetually dependent on the legislature for the resources needed to govern. This financial check was seen as the ultimate safeguard against tyranny and the primary tool for ensuring government accountability.

Where Does This Power Come From?

Two key sections of Article I of the Constitution work in tandem to create a comprehensive and exclusive grant of financial power to the legislative branch.

First, Article I, Section 8 grants Congress the proactive power to raise money. It explicitly states, “The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States.”

This clause, often called the Taxing and Spending Clause, gives Congress the authority to fill the national treasury. It is complemented by the power “To borrow Money on the credit of the United States,” allowing the government to finance its operations through debt when revenues are insufficient.

Second, Article I, Section 9 establishes Congress’s absolute control over spending that money. The Appropriations Clause is one of the most powerful and direct statements in the entire Constitution: “No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law.”

This clause acts as a constitutional lock on the U.S. Treasury, and only Congress holds the key. The executive branch, including the President and all federal agencies, cannot spend a single dollar without a specific law passed by Congress authorizing that expenditure. This provision is not merely a suggestion but a strict constraint on government action.

The Interlocking Design

These two sets of powers—the authority to fill the Treasury and the exclusive right to authorize withdrawals from it—are not separate functions but are deeply interconnected. Their true potency lies in this interlocking design.

If the President could spend money without a congressional appropriation, the power to tax would become a hollow authority. The executive could create financial obligations that Congress would be forced to fund, effectively seizing control of the nation’s fiscal policy.

Conversely, if Congress could appropriate funds but had no power to raise revenue through taxes or borrowing, its spending decisions would be meaningless gestures. The framers intentionally created a complete, end-to-end system of financial control.

By commanding both the inflow and the outflow of all public money, Congress was given total authority over the federal government’s financial engine, making the executive branch perpetually dependent on the legislative will for its resources. This design is not a procedural quirk but a fundamental pillar of the American system of checks and balances.

The Framers’ Vision: A Deliberate Check on Executive Power

The decision to vest the power of the purse in the legislature was a direct and deliberate reaction to centuries of English history. The long struggle between the British Parliament and the Crown was largely a battle for control over the treasury. Parliament learned that by withholding funds, it could extract constitutional concessions, limit the monarch’s power, and force the Crown to be responsive to the will of the people.

The American colonists and, later, the framers of the Constitution saw this as a vital lesson in the architecture of liberty.

James Madison, often called the “Father of the Constitution,” articulated this vision with powerful clarity. In Federalist No. 58, he described the power of the purse as “the most complete and effectual weapon with which any constitution can arm the representatives of the people, for obtaining a redress of every grievance, and for carrying into effect every just and salutary measure.”

The framers believed that a president who needed to appeal to Congress for every dollar would be unable to become a monarch. This dependency would force cooperation, transparency, and accountability. Virtually every action the federal government takes, from enforcing laws to defending the nation, requires an expenditure of funds. In theory, this gives Congress the ability to exercise discretion over nearly every action of the executive branch by choosing to provide or withhold the necessary funding.

The Federal Budget Process: A Year in the Life of a Dollar

The exercise of the power of the purse is not a single event but a complex, year-long process that involves a formal dance between the executive and legislative branches. This annual budget cycle is a structured arena where national priorities are debated, political power is tested, and the financial blueprint for the country is ultimately decided.

Phase I: The President Proposes

Long before a spending bill ever reaches the floor of the House or Senate, an intensive process of planning and negotiation takes place within the executive branch. This formulation phase begins a staggering 18 to 21 months before the fiscal year in which the budget will be executed even starts.

The process officially kicks off in the spring when the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB), the nerve center of the executive budget process, issues a “spring guidance” memorandum to all federal agencies. This document provides detailed instructions, policy priorities from the President, and deadlines for submitting budget requests.

Over the summer and into the fall, each federal agency—from the Department of Defense to the National Park Service—develops a detailed budget request outlining its funding needs for the upcoming fiscal year. These requests are submitted to OMB in early fall, roughly four to five months before the President’s budget is due to Congress.

OMB’s program examiners then scrutinize these agency requests, leading to a period of negotiation known as “passback.” During passback, OMB officials inform agencies of the approved budgetary levels that will be included in the President’s final proposal, which may be significantly different from what the agencies originally requested.

This entire internal process culminates in the President transmitting the Budget of the United States Government to Congress. By law, this is supposed to occur no later than the first Monday in February for the fiscal year that begins on October 1.

It is crucial to remember that this document, often running thousands of pages, is a comprehensive statement of the administration’s policy priorities and economic outlook, but it is only a proposal. It is not legally binding, and Congress is under no obligation to adopt it.

Phase II: Congress Disposes

Once the President’s budget arrives on Capitol Hill, the legislative branch begins its own complex process of review, debate, and decision-making. This process is where the power of the purse is truly wielded, as Congress takes the President’s suggestions and transforms them into the laws that will actually govern federal spending.

Analysis and Hearings

The first step is analysis. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO), a strictly non-partisan agency that works for Congress, provides an independent assessment of the nation’s economic and budget outlook by February 15. The CBO’s report serves as a crucial, unbiased reality check on the economic assumptions and projections contained in the President’s budget.

Simultaneously, various committees in both the House and Senate hold public hearings. Cabinet secretaries and agency heads are called to testify and justify their budget requests, facing tough questions from lawmakers about their spending plans and priorities.

The Budget Resolution

Next, the House and Senate Budget Committees each draft a concurrent budget resolution. This document is an internal congressional blueprint that sets the total level for spending, revenues, and the deficit for the upcoming fiscal year and for at least the next five years.

It is not a law and is not signed by the President, but it is a critically important framework that guides the subsequent spending and tax bills. The budget resolution is supposed to be passed by both chambers by April 15, although this deadline is frequently missed in modern practice.

The Appropriations Process

This is the heart of the power of the purse, where broad targets are translated into specific dollar amounts for every federal agency and program. The total amount of discretionary spending agreed upon in the budget resolution (known as the “302(a) allocation”) is handed to the powerful House and Senate Appropriations Committees.

These committees then subdivide this total amount among their 12 parallel subcommittees. Each of these subcommittees is responsible for drafting one of the 12 annual appropriations bills that collectively fund the entire discretionary portion of the federal government.

These bills cover specific areas such as Defense, Agriculture, Energy and Water, and Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education.

From Bill to Law

Each of the 12 appropriations subcommittees holds its own hearings, drafts its bill, and “marks it up” (amends and votes on it). The bills then proceed to the full Appropriations Committee and then to the floor of the House and Senate for a vote.

Because the House and Senate pass their own versions, any differences must be resolved in a conference committee composed of members from both chambers. The final, reconciled version of each of the 12 bills must then be passed by both the House and Senate one more time before being sent to the President, who can sign it into law or veto it.

This entire, multi-layered process is more than just a technical exercise in accounting. It is an annual, formalized arena for power struggles. The President’s budget submission is an opening salvo designed to frame the national debate and advance the administration’s political priorities.

The CBO’s independent report acts as a non-partisan counterweight, often challenging the executive branch’s more optimistic economic forecasts. The budget resolution serves as a test of party discipline and cohesion within Congress.

Finally, the 12 individual appropriations bills become the battlegrounds where specific programs are funded or cut, and where members of Congress often attach policy “riders”—legislative provisions that might not pass on their own—to these must-pass spending bills to force policy changes.

Every stage of this process is a venue for political negotiation, reflecting the constitutional separation of powers in dynamic, and often contentious, action.

Authorization vs. Appropriation: A Critical Distinction

A common point of confusion in understanding how Congress works is the difference between “authorization” and “appropriation.” These are two distinct and necessary steps for any federal program to receive funding.

An authorization bill is the legislation that creates a federal program, agency, or activity. It establishes the program’s purpose and rules and may recommend a funding level, often for a period of several years. However, an authorization does not actually provide any money.

An appropriations bill is the legislation that provides the actual “budget authority”—the legal permission to withdraw funds from the Treasury—for an authorized program, typically for a single fiscal year.

A program can be authorized by law but receive zero funding in the annual appropriations bill. In such a case, the program exists on paper but cannot operate. This two-step process provides Congress with multiple checkpoints to control government activity, first by deciding whether a program should exist at all (authorization) and then by deciding each year how much, if any, funding it deserves (appropriation).

The Statutory Federal Budget Timetable

The Congressional Budget Act of 1974 established a formal timeline for the budget process. While these deadlines are now frequently missed, they represent the “regular order” of how the process is designed to function by law. Understanding this ideal timeline is essential for appreciating the delays and procedural shortcuts that have become common in recent decades.

Source: Congressional Budget Act of 1974, as detailed in reports from the Congressional Research Service and the House Budget Committee

Slicing the Pie: Mandatory vs. Discretionary Spending

The federal budget is not a single, monolithic entity. It is divided into three main categories: mandatory spending, discretionary spending, and net interest on the debt. Understanding the difference between these categories is critical to understanding where most of your tax dollars go and how much control Congress exercises over the budget on a year-to-year basis.

On Autopilot: Mandatory Spending

Mandatory spending is the largest portion of the federal budget, and it is governed by permanent laws that operate outside of the annual appropriations process. This spending is essentially on “autopilot”; it occurs automatically each year without Congress needing to pass new legislation.

For this reason, these programs are often referred to as “entitlements,” because individuals who meet the eligibility criteria established in the law are legally “entitled” to receive the benefits.

The major components of mandatory spending are:

Social Security: Provides retirement, disability, and survivor benefits to millions of Americans.

Medicare: A federal health insurance program primarily for people aged 65 or older and for some younger people with disabilities.

Medicaid: A joint federal and state program that provides health coverage to low-income individuals and families.

Together, these three programs—Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid—account for nearly 75 percent of all mandatory spending. Other mandatory programs include veterans’ benefits, federal civilian and military retirement, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly known as food stamps), and unemployment compensation.

The amount of money spent on these programs is not determined by a fixed dollar amount in a budget, but rather by the number of people who qualify for benefits and the benefit formulas set in law. For example, if a recession leads to more people qualifying for unemployment benefits, federal spending on that program will automatically increase.

While the term “mandatory” suggests this spending is unchangeable, Congress can—and sometimes does—pass new laws to alter the eligibility rules or benefit formulas, thereby changing the spending levels for these programs.

The Annual Battleground: Discretionary Spending

Discretionary spending is the portion of the budget that Congress determines on an annual basis through the 12 appropriations bills. This is the part of the budget that is debated and decided upon each year, making it the primary battleground for political fights over government priorities.

Nearly half of all discretionary spending is allocated to national defense. The remaining portion funds a vast array of government functions that touch the lives of every American, including:

• Education and scientific research (e.g., funding for the National Institutes of Health and NASA)
• Transportation and infrastructure projects
• Homeland security and federal law enforcement (e.g., the FBI, Border Patrol)
• Environmental protection and management of national parks
• Food safety inspections and public housing
• The operational budgets for most federal agencies

The Shifting Balance: A Long-Term Trend

One of the most significant fiscal trends of the past half-century has been the dramatic shift in the composition of the federal budget. The portion of the budget dedicated to mandatory spending has grown substantially, while the share for discretionary spending has shrunk.

In the 1960s, discretionary programs accounted for roughly two-thirds of all federal spending. By fiscal year 2024, that share had fallen to just 27 percent. Conversely, mandatory spending has grown from about 40 percent of the budget in the early 1970s to over 60 percent today.

This long-term shift has profound implications for the power of the purse. While Congress’s constitutional authority over all spending remains absolute, its practical, year-to-year leverage is increasingly concentrated on a shrinking portion of the total budget.

The annual appropriations process, the primary forum for exercising fiscal control, now governs a minority of federal outlays. The largest financial commitments of the U.S. government are largely locked in place by laws passed years or even decades ago.

This means that to truly alter the nation’s long-term financial trajectory, Congress must move beyond the annual appropriations debate and engage in the much more politically challenging task of reforming the nation’s major entitlement programs.

Where Your Tax Dollars Go: A Snapshot of Federal Spending (FY 2024)

In fiscal year 2024, the U.S. federal government spent approximately $6.75 trillion, which was equal to about 23% of the nation’s total economic output, or Gross Domestic Product (GDP). The breakdown of this spending reveals the nation’s major financial commitments:

• Social Security: 22%
• Net Interest on the Debt: 14%
• Medicare: 14%
• Health (including Medicaid and other programs): 13%
• National Defense: 13%
• Income Security (e.g., SNAP, unemployment): 10%
• Veterans Benefits and Services: 5%
• All Other Programs: 9%

This data shows that the majority of federal spending is directed toward social insurance programs for seniors and low-income individuals, national defense, and paying interest on the national debt.

When the System Breaks: Shutdowns, Stopgaps, and Showdowns

The formal, orderly process for funding the government laid out in the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 has become more of an ideal than a reality. In an era of heightened partisan polarization, the process frequently breaks down, leading to a series of stopgap measures, standoffs, and manufactured crises that have become a regular feature of American governance.

Living on Borrowed Time: Continuing Resolutions

When Congress and the President cannot agree on one or more of the 12 regular appropriations bills by the October 1 start of the fiscal year, they must pass a continuing resolution (CR) to avoid a government shutdown. A CR is a temporary, stopgap funding measure that allows federal agencies to continue operating, usually at the same funding levels as the previous year, for a limited period—weeks or months—while negotiations continue.

Relying on CRs has become the norm, not the exception. Congress has failed to pass all 12 appropriations bills on time every single year since fiscal year 1997. In fact, lawmakers have resorted to passing at least one CR in all but three of the past 47 fiscal years.

While CRs prevent the immediate disruption of a shutdown, they come with significant drawbacks. They create massive uncertainty for federal agencies, which cannot plan for the future, start new projects, or hire new staff. They force the government to operate on the previous year’s priorities, even if national needs have changed dramatically. This reliance on short-term funding undermines the entire budget process and introduces unnecessary costs and inefficiencies into government operations.

The Shutdown Threat: When Funding Lapses

If Congress fails to pass either the regular appropriations bills or a CR, funding authority for affected agencies expires. This is known as a government shutdown. When this happens, the Antideficiency Act, a law dating back to the 19th century, kicks in. This law makes it illegal for federal officials to spend money that has not been appropriated by Congress.

As a result, agencies must cease all operations deemed “non-essential.” This leads to the furlough (temporary unpaid leave) of hundreds of thousands of federal employees. The real-world impacts are immediate and widespread: national parks and museums close, passport and visa processing is delayed, scientific research is halted, and many government services are suspended.

While “essential” services related to national security and public safety continue, a shutdown disrupts the lives of millions of Americans and can have a significant negative impact on the economy.

The Debt Ceiling: A Misunderstood Political Weapon

Perhaps the most fraught and dangerous fiscal standoff is the debate over the debt ceiling. It is also one of the most widely misunderstood.

The debt ceiling is the total amount of money that the U.S. government is legally authorized to borrow to meet its existing legal obligations. These obligations include paying for things that past Congresses and Presidents have already approved, such as Social Security and Medicare benefits, military salaries, interest on the national debt, and tax refunds.

Crucially, raising the debt ceiling does not authorize new spending. It simply allows the Treasury to borrow money to pay for spending that has already been authorized by law.

Failing to raise the debt ceiling would mean the U.S. government would default on its obligations for the first time in history. The economic consequences would be catastrophic. Experts predict it would trigger a global financial crisis, as U.S. Treasury bonds are considered the safest financial asset in the world. Interest rates for mortgages, car loans, and credit cards would skyrocket, the stock market would plummet, and millions of jobs would be lost.

Despite these dire warnings, what was once a routine procedural vote (the debt limit has been raised 78 times since 1960) has been transformed into a high-stakes political weapon. In recent decades, parties have used the must-pass nature of a debt ceiling increase to engage in brinkmanship, threatening to allow a default unless their demands for policy concessions or spending cuts are met.

The Power of the Purse in Action: Four Case Studies

Throughout American history, Congress has wielded its power of the purse to shape domestic policy, direct foreign affairs, and engage in power struggles with the executive branch. These historical and contemporary examples illustrate the profound real-world consequences of congressional funding decisions.

Case Study 1: Ending a War (The Vietnam Conflict)

As public opposition to the Vietnam War intensified in the late 1960s and early 1970s, Congress increasingly turned to its most potent tool to challenge the war policies of the Johnson and Nixon administrations: the power of the purse.

After years of anti-war resolutions that lacked the force of law, Congress took decisive action. The pivotal moment came with the passage of the Case–Church Amendment of 1973. This amendment, attached to an appropriations bill, was stark and unambiguous. It stated that after August 15, 1973, “no funds heretofore appropriated under any other act may be expended to support directly or indirectly combat activities in or over Cambodia, Laos, North Vietnam and South Vietnam.”

This was not a suggestion or a policy recommendation; it was a legally binding prohibition that cut off the financial fuel for the war machine. Faced with veto-proof majorities in both the House and Senate, President Nixon had no choice but to sign the bill into law.

The amendment effectively ended direct U.S. combat involvement in Vietnam, demonstrating a powerful and successful use of the appropriations power to override the President’s authority as commander-in-chief and force an end to a major military conflict.

Case Study 2: Checking Covert Action (The Iran-Contra Affair)

The Iran-Contra Affair of the 1980s stands as a dramatic example of what can happen when the executive branch attempts to defy Congress’s power of the purse.

In response to the Reagan administration’s support for the Contra rebels fighting the socialist government of Nicaragua, Congress passed a series of legislative restrictions known as the Boland Amendment. The most stringent version of this amendment, in effect from 1984 to 1985, prohibited any U.S. government agency involved in intelligence activities from, directly or indirectly, supporting the Contras’ military or paramilitary operations.

Determined to continue their policy, senior officials within the Reagan administration, operating primarily through the National Security Council (NSC), devised a secret scheme to circumvent this explicit funding ban. They facilitated the clandestine sale of arms to Iran—at the time a designated state sponsor of terrorism—and illegally diverted the profits from those sales to fund the Contras in Nicaragua.

When this operation was exposed, it triggered a major constitutional crisis. The affair was a direct evasion of the Appropriations Clause, as the executive branch had raised and spent money outside of the legal framework established by Congress.

The Iran-Contra Affair serves as a powerful cautionary tale, illustrating the limits of the power of the purse when faced with a determined executive branch willing to operate in secret and outside the law to achieve its policy goals.

Case Study 3: President vs. Congress (The Border Wall Dispute)

A more recent and vivid clash over the power of the purse occurred during the Trump administration concerning funding for a wall on the U.S.-Mexico border. Throughout 2018 and into 2019, Congress repeatedly refused to appropriate the billions of dollars President Trump requested for the wall’s construction, leading to the longest government shutdown in U.S. history.

Frustrated by this legislative impasse, in February 2019, President Trump declared a national emergency at the southern border. This declaration was used as a justification to unilaterally divert approximately $6.7 billion in funds that Congress had appropriated for other purposes—specifically, $3.6 billion from military construction projects and $2.5 billion from Department of Defense counter-drug activities—and redirect that money to build the wall.

This move immediately triggered a constitutional showdown. Lawsuits were filed arguing that the President was usurping Congress’s exclusive power of the purse by spending money on a project that Congress had explicitly and repeatedly refused to fund.

Federal courts, including the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, ultimately ruled that the transfer of funds was illegal because it violated the Appropriations Clause.

This case study highlights the critical role of the judiciary in policing the boundaries of the separation of powers and enforcing the constitutional principle that only Congress can decide how public money is spent.

Case Study 4: Investing in America (The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law)

The power of the purse is not only a tool for restriction and conflict; it is also the primary mechanism through which Congress proactively shapes national policy and directs investment.

A prime example is the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), commonly known as the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, signed in 2021. This landmark legislation directed $1.2 trillion in federal funds toward a vast array of projects aimed at modernizing the nation’s infrastructure.

Unlike a general grant of money, the IIJA demonstrates Congress’s ability to be highly specific in its spending directives. The law allocates funds for targeted purposes, creating new programs and expanding existing ones to address specific national needs. For example, it provides billions of dollars for:

• Repairing and replacing bridges, with a significant portion set aside for smaller, locally-owned “off-system” bridges that are often neglected
• Building a national network of 500,000 electric vehicle (EV) chargers to facilitate the transition to clean energy transportation
• A first-of-its-kind program to reconnect communities, often minority neighborhoods, that were divided and isolated by the construction of interstate highways decades ago
• Replacing lead water pipes and upgrading water infrastructure to ensure clean drinking water
• Expanding broadband internet access to rural and underserved communities

This case study shows the power of the purse in its most constructive form: Congress using its authority to make long-term investments, create jobs, and direct the course of national development through targeted, strategic spending that flows directly to local communities.

How Congressional Spending Shapes Your Life

The trillions of dollars that Congress appropriates each year are not abstract figures. These decisions have a direct, tangible, and profound impact on the daily lives of every American, shaping the quality of the roads we drive on, the schools our children attend, the healthcare we receive, and the economic opportunities available in our communities.

Paving Roads, Building Bridges, and Connecting Communities

Federal infrastructure spending is one of the most visible ways congressional appropriations affect daily life. When Congress passes a law like the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, it sets in motion a flow of funds to state and local governments for specific projects.

This money is used to repair potholes on your local streets, rehabilitate the bridges you cross on your commute, and expand public transit systems that reduce congestion. These investments not only improve safety and convenience but also serve as a powerful engine for economic growth, supporting an estimated 14 million jobs in fields directly related to infrastructure and enabling businesses to move goods more efficiently.

Economists generally see this spending as having a significant “multiplier effect,” meaning that every dollar of public investment generates more than a dollar in resulting economic activity.

In the Classroom: From Preschool to College

Federal funding plays a crucial role in education at every level, and congressional appropriations decisions can determine the resources available to students from their earliest years through higher education.

Head Start: This federally funded preschool program is a direct result of congressional appropriations. It provides comprehensive early learning, health, nutrition, and family well-being services to nearly a million low-income children each year. Research has shown that children enrolled in Head Start are more likely to graduate from high school and attend college, demonstrating the long-term impact of these federal dollars on individual lives.

Pell Grants: For millions of college students, the path to a degree is made possible by the Federal Pell Grant program. These grants, which do not have to be repaid, are awarded to undergraduate students with exceptional financial need. Congressional decisions on the maximum Pell Grant award directly affect the affordability of higher education for about a third of all undergraduates.

Studies have found that Pell Grants not only increase graduation rates but also boost future earnings for low-income students, with one study estimating that the federal government recoups the entire cost of the grants within 10 years through increased tax revenues from these higher-earning graduates.

Your Health and Retirement: The Pillars of the Social Safety Net

The largest financial commitments made by Congress are to the nation’s major social insurance programs, which form the bedrock of the social safety net for tens of millions of Americans.

Medicare & Medicaid: These programs provide essential health coverage for approximately 147 million Americans, including seniors, people with disabilities, and low-income families. While their funding is largely mandatory, Congress has the power to pass laws that change eligibility requirements, benefits covered, and payment rates to doctors and hospitals. These legislative changes can have immediate and profound effects on access to healthcare and out-of-pocket costs for beneficiaries.

Social Security: In 2025, nearly 70 million Americans will receive Social Security benefits. The program is primarily funded through dedicated payroll taxes paid by workers and employers. However, Congress holds the ultimate authority to make adjustments to ensure the program’s long-term financial health. Debates in Congress over potential changes to the full retirement age, the benefit formula, or cost-of-living adjustments directly concern the future retirement security of every working American.

National Security and Your Community

The national defense budget, the largest component of discretionary spending, does more than fund military hardware and overseas operations. It has a significant economic footprint that extends into communities across the country.

Defense spending supports salaries and benefits for military service members, veterans, and civilian personnel. Furthermore, the Department of Defense awards billions of dollars in contracts to private companies for everything from building aircraft carriers to providing IT services. These contracts support jobs and drive economic activity in nearly every congressional district, making defense spending a powerful, if sometimes controversial, tool of local economic policy.

Oversight and Accountability: The Congressional Watchdog

The power of the purse is not just about allocating money; it is also about ensuring that those funds are spent wisely, effectively, and without corruption. This is the crucial function of congressional oversight.

Congress uses its committees to hold hearings and conduct investigations into how the executive branch is implementing laws and spending taxpayer dollars.

A key player in this process is the Government Accountability Office (GAO), an independent, non-partisan agency that works for Congress. Often called the “congressional watchdog,” the GAO audits federal programs and investigates allegations of waste, fraud, and abuse.

Each year, the GAO issues a report on fragmentation, overlap, and duplication in federal programs, identifying specific areas where the government could be more efficient. Since 2011, the GAO’s recommendations have resulted in approximately $725 billion in financial benefits for the federal government.

This oversight function is an essential part of the power of the purse, completing the cycle of accountability by checking not only where the money goes, but how well it is being used.

Our articles make government information more accessible. Please consult a qualified professional for financial, legal, or health advice specific to your circumstances.