Question

The framers gave the power to introduce appropriations (i.e., 'money bills') to the House of Representatives but not the Senate because they believed that:

a) the chamber closest to the people should exercise greater authority over taxing and spending.
b) taxing and spending were not important issues and the Senate should focus its attention on the country's most pressing problems.
c) the Senate was too small in size to make good decisions about taxing and spending.
d) every state should not have equal influence over taxing and spending decisions.

Answer 1

The Framers of the Constitution granted the House of Representatives the power to introduce appropriations because it is the chamber closer to the people, with direct elections enforcing greater accountability on issues of taxing and spending.

Step-by-step explanation:

The framers of the Constitution granted the power to introduce appropriations bills (money bills) solely to the House of Representatives. This was because they believed that the chamber closest to the people should exercise greater authority over taxing and spending. Directly elected by the people and representing smaller constituencies, the members of the House are more frequently accountable to voters than Senators. This arrangement reflects the principle that only those elected by the people should have the power to impose taxes upon them, a rebuke to the concept of taxation without representation.

While the Senate does have the power to offer changes to these bills and must approve them before they become law, it does not have the same direct relationship with the electorate as the House. This difference stems, in part, from the original design where Senators were once appointed by state legislatures and the longer six-year terms that current Senators serve, which means they face re-election less frequently than members of the House. Thus, the Senate acts as a more deliberate body that tempers the immediate, often transient, demands of the populace.