bills introduced looking toward the introduction of an "executive-budget " procedure for the preparation and consideration of service needs and requirements in financial support, it became evident that there were many facts still to be developed before the proponents of the system would be ready to go before Congress with a plan that they could defend. Therefore all the moving parties joined in advocacy of a special committee to collect data and prepare a well-considered plan to be laid before the next Congress. Mr. Tinkham had proposed that the Standing Committee on Rules report on the subject. But this I would be a committee that had little interest in a new budget procedure; its instinctive reaction would be to perpetuate the rules as they have developed around standing-committee leadership - the old system. Mr. Mann and Mr. Goodwin introduced resolutions for a special committee to report on a plan. Congressman Good proposed a "Select Committee on the Budgets," to which was referred for consideration and report all bills, resolutions, and documents for the establishment of a national budget system or proposing changes in the present methods of dealing with appropriations, estimates, and expenditures. This committee held many long sessions, called before it many persons in and out of public life, and then reported recommending the passage of the Good Bill.

The Amended Good Bill (H. R. 9783) Recommended by the Committee

That the Good Bill is not intended as a straight outand-out" executive budget " measure appears both from analysis and by admission of its sponsors. For purposes of analysis let us consider each of the three phases of a budget procedure laid down by the committee itself. In its report this formula is found:

66

Broadly speaking a budget system has three distinct phases, namely:

(1) The formation of the budget;

(2) Action on the budget by Congress;

(3) Supervision and control of the executive of the budget."

In making critical appraisal of the bill as it came from the committee let us also consider the admitted purpose. The purpose as stated is to make the administration responsible to the people. Enlarging on this, the committee said:

"In the national government there can be no question that the officer upon whom should be placed this responsibility is the President of the United States. He is the only officer who is superior to the heads of departments and independent establishments. He is the only officer of the administration who is interested in the administration, who is interested in the government as a whole, rather than one particular part. He is the only administrative officer who is selected by the people and thus can be held politically responsible for his actions. Furthermore, as the head of the administration, it is to him that Congress and the people should look for a clear and definite statement of what provision in his opinion should be made for revenue and expenditure needs of the Government."

Only One of Three Essentials to an Executive Budget Provided For

Now with these propositions before us let us consider what provision is made for placing and keeping responsibility on the shoulders of the President. If the President is to be held accountable to the people there can be no question about this proposition: That members of the

representative body when they are called on to vote for or against an executive proposal, and the people must know what it is that the President stands for. That is to say: It is not enough to know what the original or initial request was. A procedure must be adopted which will enable members of Congress and the people to follow executive responsibility through each phase from the initial request to execution: (1) What the plan was as originally prepared; (2) what propositions are made for modification before enactment, and the reasons therefor; and (3) what was done in the conduct of the business authorized. The Good Bill makes provision for only one of these three essentials.

With respect to the formation of the plan of work and finance to be laid before Congress, the Good bill is very explicit. On this point the report of the committee offers a convincing argument and clear exposé:

"In order that the President may be in a position intelligently to formulate such a plan he must be given a machinery through which he can keep in intimate and immediate touch with all the work of the government and be able intelligently to criticize, revise, and correlate the requests for authorizations to engage in work or for funds with which to pay for their several activities. The bill that has been prepared by the committee provides for such machinery by the creation of a service known as the Bureau of the Budget. This service is placed under the immediate direction of the President. Its duties are to assist the President in the performance of the powers conferred on him by the proposed act."

So much for clarity in fixing responsibility for preparing a plan or program to be submitted to Congress. But look as one may no provision can be found either in the bill or in the accompanying resolution for like definition

of responsibility through the other two phases. On the contrary, the provisions made are no other than those which in the past have brought to pass results that every true American abhors-" invisible" and "irresponsible government.

The President Already Has All the Powers Provided For With respect to the various changes that must necessarily be made in a measure prepared weeks or months in advance of enactment, there is no method provided for fixing responsibility. Neither the President nor the members of his cabinet are expected or permitted to come before the representatives of the people in Congress assembled to explain, defend, and discuss the proposals as originally urged or in amended form. And no provision is made to enable the President to direct, control, or supervise the execution of the activities of the government after appropriations have been granted. Both of these are essentials to fixing responsibility. Without them there can be no "executive budget "- there can be no clear vision of what the executive really stands for; there is no way of preventing misrepresentation of the acts and proposals of the administration on the floor of the House; there can be no clear issues joined; there can be no publicity given to the moving considerations that affect decisions reached; there can be nothing to guide the judgment of members or the people in voting except "party" loyalty.

Under the Good bill there would be almost no gain in furtherance of efforts to establish "visible" and "responsible" government. As was stated by President Taft, the constitution gives to the executive the right to propose and submit a budget and this is recognized by the committee when it says in its report:

"It thus makes more definite the constitutional obligation that rests on the President from time to time to

give to Congress information of the state of the Union and recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient.'

The committee might also have pointed to the constitutional provision quoted by President Taft in support of his proposal: The right of the chief executive to call on "the principal officers of each of the executive departments "for such information as he may desire " upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective offices." Further than this, by Act of March 4, 1909, known as the Smith law, Congress has already made it the duty of the Secretary of the Treasury, whenever the estimated expenditures exceed the estimated revenues, to transmit the estimates to the President "to the end that he may, in giving Congress information of the state of the Union, and in recommending to their consideration such measures as he may judge necessary, advise the Congress how in his judgment the estimated appropriations could with least injury to the public service be reduced . . . or if such reduction be not in his judgment practicable without undue injury to the public service, that he may recommend to Congress such loans or new taxes as may be necessary to cover the deficiencies." So far as the President is concerned, therefore, the Good bill has done nothing except to set up a new bureau to do what he already could do if he had wished to use the machinery and powers already provided. There is no reason why we have not had an executive budget except the dominance of irresponsible standing committees, and this the Good bill does not propose to change.

Intent of the Committee not to Provide for an Executive Budget

Finally, the committee in support of the Good bill frankly admits that it does not intend that the country