Evening star., 1943-12-11
Open to Question

remove much OF the Budget Bureaus
power over appropriations. the SEN
ate has taken a step which should
receive careful consideration.
The amendment-now awaiting
the final decision OF Senate and
House conferees-Would ostensibly
strengthen the constitutional con-
troll OF Congress over the Nations
purse strings, and to that extent it
seems altogether right in principle.
But as a practical matter, there is
considerable room for argument
that its operation might we'll mill
tate against the sound management
OF our Federal departments.
AT present, acting as the agent of
the Chief Executive. the Budget Bu-
reau exercises sufficient check to
'apportion appropriations, review
them, hold back spending on some
projects, transfer money thus saved
to other projects within the same
department, and set aside reserves
Tor various contingencies. BY and
large. this has been a standing prac-
tlce for many years, but it is par
t1cularly common today because of
the war.
The Senate amendment would
end the practice. 1t would, for ex
ample, forbid the War Department
to transfer any part of it's funds
from one undertaking to another
without the specific prior approval
OF Congress. Thus. if money were
saved as result of reduction in
the production Of tanks, that money
could not be spent to increase the
production of some other weapon
more urgently needed-not until the
War Department went through the
tlme-consuming process of getting
congressional permission. Similar
~, the amendment would forbid any
department, through the Budget
Bureau, to impound or hold in re-
serve or use for any other purpose
any money appropriated for any
particular project. In effect, this
would make it mandatory. unless
Congress directed otherwise, to con-
struct certain projects which might
be deemed wholly nonessential in
periods of such an emergency as the
present war.
Advocates Of the measure argue
most persuasively that Congress
alone has the right to do some of
the things that the Budget Bureau
has long been doing. Despite court
decisions to the contrary, Senator
McKellar, for example, maintains
that congressional appropriation
Is mandate to spend and that the
bureau has no power to hold up the
spending or to single out funds spe-
clf1cally appropriated for a particu-
lar program and approve their
transfer to another program for
which Congress has authorized no
money. This is the argument in
terms of the Constitution. and it is
cogent in that sense. But critics
might say that the background of
the Senate amendment encom-
passes not only principle but at
least the shadow of the pork barrel
as well. Thus, it appears to be
aimed In part at pushing through
to completion more than a score of
civilian airports of dubious essen
tiality at this time. Funds appro-
priated for these fields-located in
all parts Of the country-have been
held back by the Budget Bureau; in
other past cases. the pet projects of
numerous Congressman have been
similarly blocked. But if the House
conferees accept the Senate meas
ure, no such notification will be pos
sible in the future
Congress. of course. would seem to
be fully within it's rights in ending
this practice, yet it is serious ques-
OiOiA WllCVllCI ny 81 UOlIlS III WOulO
not be impairing the efficiency of
our Federal machine more than it
would be fortifying our constitu-
tional processes. It is a serious
question, too. whether the mere act
of appropriation constitutes a man.
date to spend or whether the execu-
tive branch should not have a rea-
sonable amount of leeway for the
discretionary management of the
funds made available to it.
Actually, even though it repre-
sents system that may invite abuse,
the Budget Bureau can be strongly
defended as an instrument of good
business management in govern
ment. And to the degree that it
functions as such, it promotes eff
cheney and even some economies.
More than that. its operations per-
nit the kind Of flexibility and dis
patch that is desirable and neces-
sary in times of great emergency.
Other Occasions