publication, said that as a result of your action here at the 1964
regular session, you deserved to be called "the education Legislature. "
This is a proud accomplishment, and one for which you will be
remembered long after the controversy surrounding the financing of
the program has subsided.

But let us get back to the sequence of events. In my message, I
said it had been the consistent policy of this Administration that any
new program the State adopts involving the expenditure of additional
money contain the necessary measures to finance it. Now, it was
estimated that the new program of State aid to Baltimore City and
die counties to help them improve their educational system would
cost the State an additional $16, 200, 000 in its first year of operation.
You will recall that I proposed that $6, 000, 000 of this be financed
from the revenue deficiency fund. According to the estimate of
revenues, provided me by the Board of Revenue Estimates on Decem-
ber 19, 1963, this left a remaining $10, 200, 000 to be financed pre-
sumably by tax revision, to operate the program for the first year.
The point to be emphasized here is that the Constitution of Maryland
requires us to adopt a balanced budget. Deficit spending is forbidden
by law. The Board of Revenue Estimates is the legally constituted
body whose responsibility it is to estimate the revenues which we
may expect for any given fiscal year. Using its estimates, as I did,
and as fiscal prudence would require, it appeared at the time the
new school program could not be financed without additional tax-
ation. Accordingly, I suggested, and you approved, a 1-per-cent in-
crease in the ordinary income tax to finance the school program and
other anticipated needs for State services.

As you remember, some disagreement arose during the session as
to the amount of revenues that could be expected for die fiscal year
1965. One member of the Board of Revenue Estimates, changing a
position he had taken earlier, contended that the estimates were too
low. But the other two members of die Board, constituting a majority,
declined to concur in that opinion and held that the original estimate
was realistic. You and I, of course, had no choice but to accept the
estimate of the majority of the Board, and we proceeded on the plan
that had been offered in the beginning. It was at this point that the
move was made to protect the taxpayers of our State against the
possibility of overtaxation in the event that continued upward rise
in the economy produced a greater revenue yield than had been
expected.

Acting on what we thought was an abundance of precedent, namely,

28