a ship. This third type is a continuation of the principle of legislative domination established during the revolutionary period and continued for more than a century principle in the operation of which the government by standing committees, boss rule, logrolling methods, and pork-barrel politics in its worst form has developed. Only two states frankly adopted a budget system of this type New York and Arkansas. In New York a strong staff agency has been created to assist the legislature in its work. In the outworking of the plan in that state the demand for a more orderly handling of the finances have been met; but in both states the government is just as invisible to the people, and just as irresponsible, as before. The second type is an outgrowth of that school of American political thought which had for its purpose to defeat the boss, and prevent the building up of "parties by distribution of patronage and spoils, thereby weakening both the executive and the legislative branches of the government and placing the administration in the hands of boards. The budget commission is simply another board imposed through which the activities of the various independent administrative bodies are to be coördinated. In Wisconsin, North Dakota, Dakota, South Dakota, Maine, North Carolina, Vermont, and Georgia this is a mixed commission, made up largely of ex officio members in part taken from the administration and in part taken from the two houses of the legislature, the idea being that by such means an agreement may be reached through conference. This, however, confuses responsibility and does not make for publicity. In fact, it is an abandonment of the underlying principles of responsible government. In California, Washington, Montana, Michigan, Connecticut, West Virginia, and the five Southern states, Louisiana, Texas, Tennessee, Kentucky, and Alabama, the budget commission is made up of executive and administrative officers. These continue to accept the idea that the executive is not competent to take leadership or is not to be trusted. California, perhaps, is to be excepted, since the commission under the strong leadership of Governor Johnson in practice operated as his staff agency. There a procedure of monthly or periodical allotments was adopted by which the commission was put into constant and effective supervisory relation over expenditures. But, generally speaking, the plan itself is one which is intended to relieve the governor of responsibility, and it does not contribute to making popular control effective. The first, the executive type, has been accepted by twenty-three states. This has been the direct outgrowth of an effort to locate and enforce responsibility. But in no case has an organization and procedure been effected which fully meets the requirement. The old legislative procedure has been retained. Several of these states have provided the governor with the staff means for keeping in touch with the administration, and of preparing well-considered estimates of expenditures as a basis for his requests for funds. Under the leadership of Governor Lowden Illinois has gone further than any other state in the organization of a department of finance, the head of which is appointed (with the Senate's approval) and removable by the governor at will. This department is responsible for all departmental accounting, the preparation of specifications to be used in making purchases, the review and approval of contracts. Monthly requisitions for authorization to spend departmental appropriations are required, thereby giving to the governor through his director of finance the means of administering expenditures currently; and a special officer and staff is charged with the duty of compiling the data and at the end of the year of preparing the estimates to be reviewed by the governor. Governor Lowden also went before the legis lature personally to present the budget, and strict orders were given to all the governor's departments that no one should ask for appropriations or increases except through the department of finance. In a number of the states adopting this type of budget practically nothing has been done by way of administrative reorganization either to provide adequate staff facilities to enable the governor to act intelligently, or to locate responsibility. And in all of them the old legislative procedure still remains a procedure which is not designed either for informing the members of the legislature or for giving publicity to inquiry, criticism, and discussion of the acts and proposals of the executive and spending officers. Finally, it may be said that in no state has provision been made whereby responsible leaders may appeal directly to the people on issues in controversy in case of a deadlock. In conclusion it may be said, therefore, that the "legislative type " is not and cannot be made to serve the purposes of a democracy; that the other two types, while they may be made consistent with democratic ideals, to do so each must work out an entirely different procedure for locating and enforcing responsibility. Neither the "executive type" or the " or the "commission type" has so far developed a procedure which makes for publicity; and neither has provided or attempted to provide for an effective means of appeal to the people on vital issues. |