Evening star., 1929-12-14
Secrecy in Budget Practice.

6hAis VAC hedIlIlBS last year on the
1880 appropriation bill Commissioner
Taliaferro was asked to explain how the
Commissioners would recommend the
expenditure Of certain funds not cov-
cred in the estimates. He replied:
Mr.. Chairman, as you know, the mat
ter Is presented here after coming from
the Director of the Bureau of the Bud
get. and this represents the amount
Wnlch we are here to speak for, and, as
the committee knows. we are under an
executive order not to discuss
He was here interrupted by Mr.. Sim
mons, who assured him, in so many
words, that he might disregard the
executive order for the time being and
be frank with the committee. Later
on Mr., Taliaferro hesitated again:
The Commissioners, Mr.. Chairman,
believe that additional moneys might
well be spent for needs of the District
OF Columbia, but, as I stated a mo-
ment before, We are here under the
budget system, under certain restric-
tions.
Mr.. Simmons renewed his assurances
that it was safe to talk and the Com
miSsioners later furnished the commit
tee with a list of projects that were in
need of financing.
A few days ago it developed that
expenditure of an original appropria-
ton Of 100000 for starting work on
the proposed $2,5O0,00O Roosevelt High
School was held up because of the pro-
vision that only three per cent of the
appropriation can be used in prepar-
ing plans Three per cent of the ap-
preparation in this case was not enough
to prepare the plans. The Commission
ers previously had recommended 81 ,000.-
900 for the initial appropriation. but
the Budget Bureau cut 1t to the $780,
600 appropriated. Because of the in
hibition against discussing actions of
the Budget Bureau, none Of the Dis
trict officials appearing before the
congressional committees mentioned
the tact that the Budget Bureaus re-
duction would interfere with drawing
the plans, though they must have
known it.
The sanctity Of Budget Bureau es-
Inmates originates not from an ex-
ecutive order, but from the budget
act itself, which declares, in section
206, mo estimate or request for an
appropriation and no request for an
increase in an item of any such es-
innate or request, or no recommendation
as to how the revenue needs of the
Government should be met, shall be
submitted to Congress or to any COM
mittee thereof by any oficer or EN-,
ploye Of any department or establish
ment unless at the request of either
house of Congress"
Such a provision is of course funda-
mental. Without It the Bureau of the
Budget might as we'll pass out Of ex-
istence. But II 1t is interpreted to mean
that an official called before one of the
appropriation subcommittee must con-
fine his statements to the estimates
from the Budget Bureau, without at
tempting to explain or to give his ver-
sion of changes made by the bureau,
then the hearings on the appropriation
bills themselves might as we'll be abolish
ed. 1t Is doubtful II the committees of
Congress would object, nor could the
Bureau Of the Budget rightly object to
responsible statement from an official,
giving it as his opinion that the Budget
Bureau had exercised questionable judg-
ment Certainly it is not violating the
budget law, as quoted above, to make
such statements. They are neither re-
quests for appropriations nor are they
recommendations.
If the Commissioners asked for a new
automobile to cost $1,000 and the Bu-
reau of the Budget cut the estimate to
$3.50, it is inconceivable to believe that
the Commissioners would be guilty
either of law violation or a breach Of
ethics If one Of them remarked that 1t
was impossible to buy an automobile
for $3.50.
The danger is not that the budget
act will be frustrated by frankness on
the part of officials appearing before
committees, but that these officials
may use the prohibitions outlined in
section 206 as a means of shedding
their own responsibility and passing
the buck" to the Budget Bureau. Oficials
Of the Budget Bureau may make mis-
takes, for they are human. Certainly
there is no law against pointing them
out.