Mark Levin’s question about congressional power centers on whether Congress can “do whatever it wants” through mechanisms like omnibus spending bills. The answer lies in constitutional authority, historical precedent, and ongoing political debates.
## Constitutional Framework
Congress holds the “power of the purse” under Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution, granting it exclusive authority to allocate federal funds. This power is not absolute but is constrained by statutory laws, judicial rulings, and political accountability. For example, the Impoundment Control Act of 1974 limits presidential authority to withhold congressionally approved spending, reinforcing legislative supremacy in budgetary matters[9][10]. Legal scholars like Brett Kavanaugh and William Rehnquist have affirmed that presidents cannot unilaterally refuse to spend funds appropriated by Congress[9].
## Omnibus Bills: Efficiency vs. Accountability
Omnibus bills—massive spending packages combining multiple appropriations measures—have become a frequent tool to avoid government shutdowns. Critics argue these bills:
– : The 2025 $1.7 trillion omnibus bill spanned 4,155 pages and included contentious provisions, such as a $12.3 billion IRS funding boost and restrictions on border security spending[2][3].
– : Recent omnibus bills have raised discretionary spending by 7-9% annually, adding $260 billion to the national debt in 2025 alone[2][10].
– : Leadership often uses omnibus bills to bypass committee debates, sidelining rank-and-file lawmakers[3][6].
Proponents counter that omnibus bills are pragmatic solutions to legislative gridlock, especially when sequestration rules or partisan divides complicate budget negotiations[6][10].
## The Impoundment Debate
Recent clashes between Congress and the Trump administration highlight tensions over spending authority. Trump has argued for reviving presidential “impoundment power”—the ability to withhold funds—citing historical precedents like Thomas Jefferson’s refusal to spend on gunboats[9]. However, legal experts and bipartisan jurisprudence reject this view, emphasizing that the Constitution mandates presidents “faithfully execute” spending laws[9]. Rep. Mike Levin (D-CA) has accused Trump of instigating a “constitutional crisis” by attempting to usurp Congress’s power through alliances with figures like Elon Musk[5].
## Conservative Critique
From a conservative perspective, omnibus bills epitomize reckless governance. Rep. Jay Obernolte (R-CA) notes that such bills often prioritize partisan projects—like $410 million for Jordan’s border security—over fiscal responsibility or domestic priorities[2]. Mark Levin has condemned the process as enabling “plunder” through bureaucratic waste and unconstitutional overreach, arguing that Congress exploits omnibus bills to evade accountability[4][9].
In summary, while Congress has constitutional authority to control spending, its reliance on omnibus bills and resistance to executive impoundment reflect systemic flaws in budgetary governance. The debate underscores broader concerns about fiscal discipline, separation of powers, and democratic accountability.
