Advertisement

Building a Visible Government

  • Paul Winfree
Chapter

Abstract

The progressive budget reformers sought efficiency through standardization, transparency, and bringing business practices to the government. Balancing the federal budget was seen as a form of efficiency. However, the executive budget process created in 1921 was a difficult fit compared to existing institutions. Congress also replaced a system where they governed federal debt on a rolling basis with a series of limits. It is impossible to know for sure how the American Founders would have considered the fundamental reforms of this period; however, the control over taxation and debt had been seen as the primary determinant of sovereignty to be vested in the people. The progressive reformers, of course, believed this power was best placed in the hands of the executive.

References

  1. Bolles, Albert S. 1969a. Financial History of the United States from 1774 to 1789. Vol. I. 3 vols. New York, NY: Augustus M. Kelly Publishers.Google Scholar
  2. ———. 1969b. Financial History of the United States from 1861 to 1885 Volume III. New York, NY: Augustus M. Kelley Publishers.Google Scholar
  3. Buck, A.E. 1924. “The Development of the Budget Idea in the United States.” The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 113: 31–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Burkhead, Jesse. 1954. “The Balanced Budget.” The Quarterly Journal of Economics 68 (2): 191–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cerillo, Augustus. 1991. Reform in New York City: A Study of Urban Progressivism. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  6. Cleveland, Frederick A. 1919. “Review of Budget Making in a Democracy: A New View of Budget Making by Edward A. Fitzpatrick.” Political Science Quarterly 34 (3): 510–512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cleveland, Frederick. 1916. “Budget Making and the Increased Cost of Government.” The American Economic Review 6 (1): 50–70.Google Scholar
  8. Cleveland, Grover. 1887. “Third Annual Message (first term).” The American Presidency Project. John Woolley and Gerhard Peters. December 6. www.presidency.ucsb.edu/node/204041.
  9. Congressional Record. 79th Cong., 2nd sess. 1946. March 11.Google Scholar
  10. Cooke, H.J., and M. Katzen. 1954. “The Public Debt.” The Journal of Finance 9 (3): 298–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Crisp, Charles. 1894. Congressional Record. Vol. 26. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, February 1.Google Scholar
  12. 1920. “Democratic Party Platform, 1920 Democratic Party Platform.” The American Presidency Project. June 28. https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/1920-democratic-party-platform.
  13. Ferguson, E. James. 1961. The Power of the Purse: A History of American Public Finance, 1776–1790. Chapel Hill, NC: The University of North Carolina Press.Google Scholar
  14. Fisher, Louis. 1970. “The Politics of Impounded Funds.” Administrative Science Quarterly 15 (3): 361–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Granger, G. 1930. “The national budget system. Editorial research reports 1930 (Vol. IV).” Congressional Quarterly. Accessed June 21, 2019. http://library.cqpress.com/cqresearcher/cqresrre1930120100.
  16. Hager, Sandy Brian. 2016. Public Debt, Inequality, and Power: The Making of a Modern Debt State. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  17. Handford, A.C. 1920. “Review of The Budget and Responsible Government by Frederick A. Cleveland and Arthur Eugene Buck: Evolution of the Budget of Massachusetts, 1691–1919 by Luther H. Gulick.” The American Political Science Review 14: 711–713.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Heitshusen, Valerie. 2017. The Speaker of the House: House Officer, Party Leader, and Representative. Report to Congress, Washington: Congressional Research Service.Google Scholar
  19. Irwin, Douglas A. 1998. “Higher Tariffs, Lower Revenues? Analyzing the Fiscal Aspects of the ‘Great Tariff Debate’.” The Journal of Economic History 58 (1): 59–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Irwin, Douglas. 2010. “Revenue or Reciprocity? Founding Feuds Over Early U.S. Trade Policy.” In Founding Choices: American Economic Policy in the 1790s, by Douglas Irwin and Richard Sylla. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. James, John A. 1984. “Public Debt Management and Nineteenth Century American Economic Growth.” Explorations in Economic History 21 (2): 192–217.Google Scholar
  22. Jones, Francis R. 1895. “Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan and Trust Company.” Harvard Law Review 9 (3): 198–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kahn, Jonathan. 1997. Budgeting Democracy: State Building and Citizenship in America. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Kennon, David R., and M. Rebecca Rogers. 1989. The Committee on Ways and Means: A Bicentennial History, 1789–1989. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
  25. Kraines, Oscar. 1954. “The Dockery-Cockrell Commission.” The Western Political Quarterly 7 (3): 417–462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Levy, David. 1987. “Paradox of the Sinking Fund.” In Deficits, by James M. Buchanan, Charles K. Rowley and Robert D. Tollison. New York, NY: Basil Blackwell, Inc.Google Scholar
  27. Marquette, Penny R., and Richard K. Fleischman. 1992. “Government/Business Synergy: Early American Innovations in Budgeting and Cost Accounting.” The Accounting Historians Journal 19 (2): 123–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. McDiarmid, John. 1937. “Public Administration: Reorganization of the General Accounting Office.” The American Political Science Review 31 (3): 508–516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Mill, John Stuart. 1909. Principles of Political Economy. 7th. London: Longmans, Green, and Company.Google Scholar
  30. New York Herald. 1906. “President Would Cut Out Red Tape: He Tells the Keep Commission That There Is Too Much of It in Departments.” March 24.Google Scholar
  31. Palen, Marc-William. 2010. “Protection, Federation and Union: The Global Impact of the McKinley Tariff upon the British Empire, 1890–94.” Journal of Imperial and Commonwealth History 38 (3): 395–418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Pinchot, Gifford. 1947. Breaking New Ground. New York, NY: Harcourt Brace and Co.Google Scholar
  33. Pinkett, Harold T. 1965. “The Keep Commission, 1905–1909: A Rooseveltian Effort for Administrative Reform.” The Journal of American History 52 (2): 297–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Reitano, Joanne. 1994. The Tariff Question in the Gilded Age: The Great Tariff Debate of 1888. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press.Google Scholar
  35. 1916. “Republican Party Platforms: Republican Party Platform of 1916.” The American Presidency Project. June 7. https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/republican-party-platform-1916.
  36. 1920. “Republican Party Platforms: Republican Party Platform of 1920.” The American Presidency Project. June 8. https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/republican-party-platform-1920.Google Scholar
  37. Rockoff, Hugh. 1985. “The Origins of the Federal Budget.” The Journal of Economic History 45 (2): 377–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Rourke, John T. 1978. “The GAO: An Evolving Role.” Public Administration Review 45 (2): 377–382.Google Scholar
  39. Rubin, Irene S. 2008. “Who Invented Budgeting in the United States?” In Public Budgeting: Policy, Process, and Politics, by Irene S. Rubin. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.Google Scholar
  40. Skowronek, Stephen. 1982. Building a New American State: The Expansion of National Administrative Capacities, 1877–1920. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Smith, Adam. 1904. An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations. Edited by Edwin Cannan. London: Methuen.Google Scholar
  42. Taft, William. 1912. “Message of the President of the United States on Economy and Efficiency in the Government Service.” Communication to Congress. April 4.Google Scholar
  43. The Commission on Economy and Efficiency. 1912. The Need for a National Budget. Document 854, 62nd Congress, 2nd Session, Washington: U.S. House of Representatives.Google Scholar
  44. The New York Times. 1905. “Against Printer Palmer: Commission Would Remove Him and Cancel Type Setting Machine Contract.” August 1.Google Scholar
  45. The New York Times. 1905. “Keep Makes Report on Machine Inquiry: Investigation Into Contract for Typesetting Machines Ends.” August 17.Google Scholar
  46. The New York Times. 1905. “Palmer Order Upheld: His Method Censured: President Denounces Mergenthaler Co. for False Charge.” September 11.Google Scholar
  47. The New York Times. 1905. “Palmer Order Upheld; His Methods Censured: President Denounces Mergenthaler Co. for False Charge.” September 11.Google Scholar
  48. The New York Times. 1905. “President Stops Contract: Mergenthaler Company Believes Politics Figures in Choice of Machines.” June 25.Google Scholar
  49. The New York Times. 1905. “Printer Palmer May Go: Typesetting Investigation at Washington Expected to Cause a Change.” July 14.Google Scholar
  50. The New York Times. 1905. “Printer Palmer Ousted: Ignored President’s Order—Ricketts Is in His Place.” September 9.Google Scholar
  51. The New York Times. 1905. “Typesetting Stock Scandal: Printing Office Inquiry as to Holdings of Employees.” July 4.Google Scholar
  52. The New York Times. 1905. “Will Not Overrule Palmer: President to Leave Printing Office Removals to Keep Committee.” September 10.Google Scholar
  53. U.S. House Committee on Rules. 1983. A History of the Committee on Rules, 1st to 97th Congress, 1789–1981. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
  54. U.S. Senate Committee on Appropriations. 2008. Committee on Appropriations, 1867–2008. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
  55. Willoughby, W.F. 1931. Financial Condition and Operations of the National Government, 1921–1930. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.Google Scholar
  56. Willoughby, William. 1918. The Problem of a National Budget. Berkeley, CA: University of California Libraries.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Paul Winfree
    • 1
  1. 1.Heritage FoundationWashington, DCUSA

Personalised recommendations