appropriations in such manner that the Executive, before submitting estimates, and each member of Congress, and the people, after estimates have been submitted, may know what has been done by the government or what the government proposes to do. . . . A well-defined business or work program for the government has Lack of a not been evolved. work program. are unsys The reports of expenditures required by law are unsystematic, Reports of lack uniformity of classification, and are incapable of being summaexpenditures rized so as to give to the Congress, to the President, or to the people tematic. a picture of what has been done, and of cost in terms either of economy of purchase or efficiency of organization in obtaining results. The summaries of expenditures required by law to be submitted by the Secretary of the Treasury, with estimates, not only do not provide the data necessary to the consideration of questions of policy, but they are not summarized and classified on the same basis as the estimates. revenues not The report on revenues is not in any direct way related to the Report on expenditures, except as the Secretary of the Treasury estimates a directly surplus or a deficiency and this estimate is based on accounts which do not accurately show expenditures or outstanding liabilities to expenditures. be met. related to bility. Instead of the President being made responsible for estimates Lack of responsiof expenditures, the heads of departments and establishments are made the ministerial agents of the Congress, the President being called on only to advise the Congress how, in his opinion, expenditures may be reduced or revenues may be increased in case estimated expenditures exceed estimated revenues. mittee The committee organization is largely the result of historical The comdevelopment rather than of the consideration of present needs. Inadequate provision is made for getting before each committee unable to handle the to which appropriations are referred all of the data necessary for matter of the consideration of work to be done, organization provided for appropriadoing work, character of expenditures, or method of financing. Following the method at present prescribed, the estimates submitted by each organization unit may have to be split up for consideration by appropriation committees of the Congress and be made the subject of several different bills; in few places are all of the esti tions effectively. No correlation of revenues and appropriations. Conclusion. Rapid development of budget reform after 1900. mates or appropriations asked for by a single organization unit brought together. . . . While the classification and summaries of estimates do indicate a proposed method of financing, these summaries do not show classes of work or the character of expenditures provided for and therefore can not lay the foundation for the consideration of methods of financing as a matter of governmental policy, as is contemplated under the Constitution. The appropriations are just as unsystematic and incapable of classification and summary as the estimates - in fact, follow the same general form, making it difficult and in many cases impossible to determine what class of work has been authorized, how much may be spent for each class, or the character of expenditures to be made. . . Bills for appropriations are not considered by the committee to which measures for raising revenues and borrowing money are referred, nor are revenues and borrowings considered by committees on appropriations in relation to the funds which will be available. So long as the method at present prescribed obtains, neither the Congress nor the country can have laid before it a definite understandable program of business, or of governmental work to be financed; nor can it have a well-defined, clearly expressed financial program to be followed; nor can either the Congress or the Executive get before the country the proposals of each in such manner as to locate responsibility for plans submitted or for results. . . ... The movement for budget reform in this country was rapid after 1900. Almost all of the states now have some sort of a budget system. After a great deal of agitation the beginnings of a National budget have been provided for. In the spring of 1921 a bill establishing a budget system passed both houses of Congress, and on June 10, 1921, the bill became law by the signature of President Harding. These developments are encouraging, though it should be not for1 From the Academy of Political Science, Proceedings, 1914-1915. New York, 1915. Frederick A. Cleveland, "Constitutional Provision for a Budget"; pp. 143-145. gotten that the establishment of a budget system does not mean that the arrangement is entirely satisfactory. Budgets must vary with different needs and circumstances, and yet the essentials are everywhere the same. These essentials Professor Frederick A. Cleveland, one of the leaders of budget reform in this country, describes as follows: a budget. Whatever else a budget is or is not, it must have these essentials: The two essentials of (1) It must be a definite plan or proposal for financing the present and future needs of the state; and (2) it must be submitted to a legislative body by an officer who may be held responsible for the wisdom or unwisdom of its proposals, i.e. it must serve as an instrument through which both executive and legislative responsibilities to the electorate may be located and enforced. should As it is of much importance that there be no question, in this dis- A budget cussion, with respect to what is meant by a budget, I shall be still contain more concrete and attempt to state what the bundle or bag full of papers referred to should be and contain. 1. A budget should contain a summary statement, in the simplest possible terms, setting forth a proposed plan for financing next year's requirements; and this statement should balance prospective resources against estimates and requests for expenditures. 2. A budget should be an instrument of accountability - a statement prepared by a responsible executive or administrative officer showing present financial conditions and past results. 3. As an instrument of accountability and financial planning, a budget should contain (a) statements showing actual and estimated revenues and expenditures; (b) statements showing actual and estimated financial condition, surplus or deficit. a proposed plan of financing next year's requirements, 4. Budget statements showing actual estimated revenues and adequate information expenditures should provide all the information needed for considering concerning and determining executive recommendations, as well as legislative revenues and action, relative to money-raising policy; and executive recommenda- expenditures, tions, as well as legislative action, relative to money-spending policy. 5. The budget information pertaining to estimated expenditures should be such as to support and explain items in the appropriation bill, if one is presented with the budget, or, if not, to enable the proper authorities to draw such a bill. and a Development of city government after 1900. 6. Since the amount of money to be voted for payrolls, supplies, etc., must be governed by work to be done, the budget should contain a well-defined "work program". . . setting forth what it is that the administration proposes to do with the supplies requested. 7. The "work program" set forth in a budget should be in two parts one which shows the necessary or proposed costs of rendering public service, and one which shows the proposed costs of making public improvements or betterments i.e. current expenses and charges should be clearly distinguished from capital outlays. 8. A budget should be transmitted as a part of a speech or message or letter from the responsible officer who prepared the plan or program interpreting the significance of the statement and estimates to the legislative body which is asked to pass on it. . . . ... 217. Results of the commission plan of government 1 Turning now to the problem of honesty and efficiency in municiof new types pal government, it should be noted that there are three chief types of municipal government in this country: (a) the mayor-council plan, formerly universal and even now prevailing in most American cities; (b) the commission plan, first applied in 1900, by the city of Galveston, Texas; and (c) the city-manager plan, which is a modification of the commission plan. One of the clearest and most judicial summaries of the commission plan is that by Professor Munro, in which he discusses the results of commission government during the decade 1900-1910. He concludes as follows: Has commission government made good? When the agitation for the adoption of the commission plan took definite and forceful shape a half-dozen years ago, the sponsors of the scheme promised that it would bring about great improvement both in the personnel and in the work of city administration. How far have these promises been fulfilled? The experience that we have now put behind us is not extensive and varied enough to give an absolutely sure basis for broad generalization; yet the lapse of a decade has put some things to proof, and of these one may speak with reasonable assurance. 1 From the National Municipal Review, Vol. 1, No. 4, October, 1912. William Bennett Munro. "Ten Years of Commission Government"; pp. 563-568. which service has been In the first place, we were told at the outset that the commission Extent to plan would serve to install better men in municipal office. [As a better matter of fact, about the same sort of men are connected with the public city administration as under the old mayor-council plan.] It can fairly be said, however, that while the change to commission govern- secured. ment has not revolutionized the type of official secured by the city, it has permitted men of the same calibre to achieve vastly better results. This it has done by the simplification of official machinery and by the concentration of responsibility in fewer hands. In a dozen or more cities the experience has been that a man who made a very ineffective alderman or councillor or administrative official under the old system of divided powers has succeeded in doing excellent work as a commissioner under the new frame of government. has not In the second place the sponsors of the commission plan assured Commission us some years ago that their scheme of urban administration would government secure a reduction in municipal expenditures. On the whole the reduced the commission form of government has failed to do anything of the cost of city kind. . . . government. It is likewise to be feared that a good many commission governed A fallacy. cities have allowed themselves to be deluded into the idea that the mere establishment of the new framework of government sufficiently guarantees thorough improvements in the method of conducting public business. Some commission charters seem to have taken it for granted that any able-bodied citizen can be transformed into a municipal expert by the alchemy of a popular vote. Yet nothing can be plainer than the fact that a change from wasteful and slovenly to efficient business methods cannot be secured by the simple expedient of placing all responsibility in the hands of [a commission.] Commission charters have been too commonly deficient in the matter of definite provisions or expert advice. Their framers seem to forget that the chief responsibility for success or failure in the proper conduct of the city's affairs must rest not upon the commissioners themselves but upon the municipal officials whom they employ. . . . These are some of the shortcomings which the experience of a decade discloses in the actual operation of the commission plan. They are not of great importance and all are easily capable of remedy. On the other hand, the system of government by commission has, |