A criticism of the procedure which results in appropriations acts must proceed from some premises regarding the function of Congress and the nature and use of the budget process. This criticism is based on the assumption that it is not the function of Congress to govern, but instead: (1) to indicate wants, (2) to institutionalize the giving or withholding of consent, (3) to bring political conflicts toward resolution, (4) to provide a forum for the formation and expression of public opinion, and (5) to act as a court of final review in which the actions of the government may be scrutinized, controlled, and checked. All of these functions are thought of as being performed in the broadest policy sphere, the application of policy to particular matters being left to the executive branch. The whole function of Congress, so conceived, is to make value judgments in matters of widest concern.

Budgeting is commonly regarded as a method of setting down, item by item, the estimated component costs of an undertaking in order to arrive at an estimated total cost. At the same time, budgeting is also used as a technique for securing managerial control over expenditures; by requiring that funds be spent according to a budget, it is possible, if the budget is sufficiently itemized, to control the spender in minutest detail. While these uses of budgetary procedure are by no means excluded, it is the premise of this paper that the primary purpose of budgeting ought to be to achieve the most desirable allocation of funds among alternative uses, and over time.

Provision for national security requires planning in many fields—military, technological, political, and economic. Planning in the economic field is of special importance. The sustained striking power of our armed forces would depend to a large extent on our economic preparedness and on the speed and effectiveness with which the economy could be converted to war production.

Economic mobilization involves the marshaling and coördination of the nation's resources as an integral part of a total war effort. It means the conversion of thousands of factories from the production of civilian goods to the production of essential war items. Machine tools and other industrial equipment must be reconditioned and new machinery made and installed for the production of airplanes, ships, tanks, and guns. Facilities for the production of essential war-supporting products and services must be expanded, and the output of non-essential products must be curtailed. Allocations, priorities, rationing, and conservation measures must be imposed to assure the effective utilization of manpower, materials, production facilities, fuels, power, and communication and transportation services. These and other wartime measures must be accomplished with a minimum disruption of the civilian economy, lest they destroy the sources upon which the effectiveness of economic mobilization in a democratic nation depends.

The model session of an organ of the United Nations, whether it be the Security Council or the General Assembly, is probably the most dramatic method available today for teaching American students the practical problems of postwar international relations. Dormant during the war, model councils and assemblies have been reactivated and are now playing an important rôle in the international relations programs of many colleges and universities. Typical of the model international organizations are the Model General Assembly of the United Nations, sponsored by the American Association for the United Nations, and the Model Security Council of the United Nations, sponsored jointly by the colleges and universities of central New York State. Between forty and forty-five institutions in New York, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey participate in the model assembly, while eleven send delegates to the model security council.

The reaction of students who have participated in sessions of such model international organizations has been enthusiastic. Not only do such sessions stimulate general interest in international relations, but in addition they build a knowledge of procedure and structure of international organizations, a familiarity with reports and documents of the United Nations, an understanding of international problems currently influencing relations of the Great Powers, and a recognition of the difficulties under which the United Nations must labor. The model security council or assembly is not just a rehearsal of past events in the Security Council or General Assembly of the United Nations, although such events must provide the foundation for all action taken by the model group. Instead, the sessions of the model international organs are creative and develop initiative, for they start with what has been done to date and attempt to arrive at new decisions, all the while functioning within the general framework of the over-all foreign policies of the states involved.

An erroneous impression appears to exist among certain people in the United States that if a person is convicted of a crime by a court of competent jurisdiction, he immediately and automatically loses his citizenship. It is apparently believed that when a citizen is convicted of a felony or a crime involving moral turpitude in either a state or national court, the person is no longer a citizen, and can never enjoy any of the rights or privileges of American citizenship for the rest of his natural life. A search of standard textbooks on American government will disclose that if the matter of the loss of citizenship or of civil rights for the conviction of crime is discussed at all, the author or authors will dismiss the topic by making the statement that citizens of the United States do not lose their citizenship for the conviction of crime; and the authors usually add that this fact is contrary to popular impression.

The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution defines citizenship by stating that all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States and of the state in which they reside. The procedure required for a person to become a citizen by naturalization is one for Congress to determine by law, and Congress has passed legislation governing it. On the other hand, the Constitution does not contain a statement providing for the loss of citizenship or expatriation in any form, whether by voluntary or involuntary act on the part of the citizen.

The actual use of polling techniques by the federal government falls far short of what one eminent social scientist, Julian L. Woodward, foresees for the future. He says: “Sooner or later, the government itself will have to go into the polling field and provide both its administrators and its legislators with adequate and sound information on what the public thinks. Eventually this sort of information will become as necessary as census data and will be provided by an agency with a reputation for unbiased research equal to that now enjoyed by the present Census Bureau.”

While the potentialities of public opinion research in the government have only begun to be exploited, administrators and even legislators, who characteristically have been more hostile toward polling, have found methods of testing public opinion answerable to their needs. In accord with their purposes, they have used public opinion surveys to sample a small group of leaders, a large group, or the total population. They have been concerned also with content analysis of the press and of radio programs. The usefulness of attitude surveys was established particularly during the war and has continued since in a somewhat lesser degree.

“So you want to be a politician,” my friend said, with a slight lift to the eyebrows. Others wanted to know what the goal was. Running for alderman in ward politics and a partisan campaign must be a training ground for some coveted objective in the state legislature or Congress. You don't just want to be an alderman, some queried. “Starting pretty low down,” was another leading remark. All these and many more comments intrigued me, for they spelled out something or other about the prestige of local government in a day of Big Government at the federal level, or any level other than a municipality of 40,000 population. My answer to all this was that, after twenty years of residence in one community, a professor of municipal government could hardly avoid grubbing around in politics at the level of local self-government. I hoped to become an alderman—period.

I soon learned to parry the pleasant “hazing” remarks made to all prospective ward “politicians.” “Kissed any babies today, Alderman?” “Where are the cigars?” “How's ward-heeling today?” “I'll vote for you, if—.” “How is door-bell ringing?” Most of these remarks prompted the unspoken remark: “When you say those words, sir, smile.” You will notice that I said unspoken.

After the North Atlantic Treaty. The North Atlantic treaty, with its incorporation of the principle that attack on any one of the signatory powers will be considered an attack on all, has done more than any previous measure to strengthen the morale of Western Europe. No longer need any of the participating European countries, whether big or small, be afraid that it might be left alone in the hour of attack. Against that hour, if it should have to come, all will prepare in common.

On the other hand, it is obvious that this firm expression of the “will to defend” has gravely accentuated the dividing line between East and West. More definitely than ever, outside of the two World Wars, Europe has now realigned herself in two antagonistic camps, both heavily armed. This fact will receive further emphasis in the process of implementing the treaty. Each one of the many particular measures that will now be taken to organize and strengthen the common defense, and the concomitant increase in expenditures for armament—much more noticeable in democracies with their public discussion of all military and budgetary issues than in the silent realms of dictatorial censorship—will have the effect of a showing of teeth and rattling of sabers.