Omaha daily bee., 1920-01-15
For q Budget System
statement by Nicholas Murray Butler

| framed in accordance with the best modern
theory and practice is unanswerable 1t is gen
! erally understood that nothing now stands ii
| the way Of the speedy adoption of such sys'
TEN save difference of opinion as to how q
budget may be best prepared for submission tc
the congress. The real point is to make the
president responsible for the budget, and
whether his agency in its preparation be
bureau in the Treasury department or an indie
pendent bureau, is a matter of subordinate I'M.
portance. Personally l prefer a bureau in the
Treasury department.
The budget however. is not an end in
itself, but means to farther end. That end
I conceive to be the establishment of a more
complete understanding and cooperation be-
tween the executive and the Legislative depart
ments of>the government in the formulation OF
national policy and in the transaction Of public
business During the past 100 years we have
frequently patched our system of governmental
administration to meet emergencies, but we
have never reconstructed it to meet our modern
needs.
The first essential is that the important gov
ernmental work of each year be regarded in and
through carefully classified budget The pres
ident should present his plans and recon-
mendations to the congress unit and the
part of single we'll thought out plan. The
chief political event of each year should be the
presentation and adoption of the annual budget.
Upon this the interest of the people and of the
press. as we'll as of the congress, should and
might be concentrated. There has been some
argument of the point that the preparation of
the budget should be matter apart from poll
tics. This could never happen in democratic
form of government A budget is nothing but
politics; it is all politics. 1t is indeed the is
sues of the last preceding campaign reduced to
practice. Legislation for an adequate budget
will I iplY tain fhrea disfin
of provision-hrst, those relating to the prepa-
ration and submission of the budget itself;
second, those requiring the presence of the
heads of executive departments on the floor of
congress at stated times to answer questions
and give explanations relative to budget items
falling within the scope of their several depart
ments, and third, provision for an independent
audit of all government expenditures, not only
as to the correctness of their form, but as to
their economic value, by public auditor directly
responsible to the legislative department of the
government
In my Judgment, these three steps would es-
tabish the proper relation between the executive
and the legislature. The legislature would be
the responsible critic of the executive and would
express its criticism through its control of the
purse strings and of the methods of raising
revenue. 1t would not deal with the executive
departments at haphazard on hearsay, or on the
basis of newspaper paragraphs, but at first hand
and face to face. Finally, it would have its own
independent audit.
NY preference is to have all bureaus and
activities not directly concerned with finance
that may now be in the Treasury department.
transferred to other executive departments. The
Treasury department should then be confined
to the collection of the revenue, to its activities
in connection with banking and currency, and
to the preparation of the annual budget.
do not think any estimates whatever should
be excluded from the budget, either those for
the War and Navy departments, for pub
lie buildings and grounds, for the
library of congress, for the supreme court
or for the legislative branch of the government
It is doubtless true that in practice, some, at
least of these estimates will not be treated in
just the same way as those for other purposes
but it certainly will be grave error to seem to
divide the activities of the government, so far
as the budget is concerned, into two separate
groups. Moreover, it may we'll be that at some
given time the policy Of president or that of
the party to which he belongs will largely turn
upon questions of appropriations for the mill
tary and naval establishments. | should omit
nothing from the scope of the budget. Hold the
president responsible, not for part of the ad-
ministration of the government, but for all of it.
When the budget has been submitted to the
congress, hope very much that the senate and
the house will both provide for its detailed con-
sideration and examination by single budget
committee large enough to be representative
of the whole house and of the whole senate
without being so large as to become town
meeting; When the budget has been reported
to the house or to the senate, l would then
require the attendance of the heads of the sew
eral executive departments at stated times, with
the right to participate in debate on matters
relating to the business of their departments
under such rules as the senate and house re-
spectively may prescribe. | regard this as one
of the most important steps to be taken in order
to make budget legislation really effective and
to bring the appropriations still more completely
within the knowledge and under the control of
the congress. AS senator's know, this is an old
proposal. The classic document on the subject
is report No. 837, submitted to the 10th congress-
third session, on February a, 1884, by Senator
Pendeton of Ohio, chairman of a select COM
mittee appointed to consider bill Is. 227) to
provide that the principal officer of each execu-
tive department may occupy a seat on the ho 3
of the senate and house of representatives. This
report, a most able and convincing document
was signed by Senators Pendleton of Ohio, Al
lson of Iowa, Voorhees, of Indiana, Blaine of
Maine, Butler of South Carolina, Ingalls, of
Kansas, Plat of Connecticut and Farley of
California. There is about it no shadow of
partisanship. 1t simply expresses strong de-
sire to improve the practical working of our
government in the way suggested. This report
deals exclusively with the constitutional
theoretical and practical objections that might
be made to this departure. | cannot do better
than ask senators to study that report. 1t is
doubtful whether anyone could add to the force
of its arguments. Coming at the close of a
legislative session. it was never acted upon.
This same proposal, when brought forward by
Mr. Pendleton of Ohio in 1864, at which time
he was member OF congress, was vigorously
supported then by Mr. Garfield and Mr.. Blaine
1t was renewed by the late John D. Long Of
Massachusetts, when he was member of the
house Of representatives in 1886. 1t has several
times been publicly supported by President Taft.