been abused, and the financial picture
embodied in the comprehensive program
was thereby distorted.
In a 1952 amendment the requirement
that estimates of appropriations made by
the governor in accordance with para-
graphs (4) and (5) be itemized and de-
tailed were modified to permit flexibility
in the form employed in making such
estimates. The change resulted from the
finding of the "Sobeloff Commission"4
that detailed itemization of appropria-
tions was difficult, if not impossible, for
the members of the General Assembly
to follow, and should be superseded by a
more general and flexible mode of esti-
mating appropriations.
The other suggestions of the "Sobeloff
Commission" were directed toward
changes in executive policy rather than
changes in the constitutional provision.
It recommended that the use of special
funds be strictly curtailed and that the
Department of Budget and Procurement
and the Department of Legislative Refer-
ence should play more active roles in the
formulation of the budget bill. The Com-
mission also made suggestions for coordi-
nating the efforts of the governor and
the various state agencies which partici-
pate in the formulation of the budget.
In McKeldin v. Steedman, 203 Md. 89
(1953), it was found that the purpose
of the Budget Amendment was not only
to prevent the General Assembly from so
changing the plans of the governor as to
produce a deficit, but also to prevent the
General Assembly from reaping the bene-
fits of making popular expenditures while
foisting upon the governor the distasteful
burden of imposing the tax required to
pay the cost of such legislation. The
General Assembly had enacted the au-
thorization of a bond issue which in-
cluded a provision for the levy of a tax
sufficient to discharge the interest on the
4 Id. at 14-24.
234
|
debt as it matured and the principal with-
in fifteen years in accordance with the
requirements of Article III, Section 34.
Thus, the bill, which was conceded to be
a supplementary appropriation bill, pro-
vided for the levy of a tax for the collec-
tion of necessary revenues as required by
paragraph (8) of the Budget Amendment
and could not be responsible for a deficit
in the treasury.
However, another section of the bill
added that the governor should include
in his annual budget an item for the
payment of principal and interest due on
the bond issue in each respective year.
The tax provided for in the supplemen-
tary appropriation bill was not to be
levied unless the general funds appropri-
ated in the governor's budget bill were
insufficient to discharge the obligations
created by the supplementary bill. The
Court of Appeals found this device to be
contrary to the purposes of the Budget
Amendment, and therefore held the bill
to be invalid. The Budget Amendment
permits the General Assembly to make
additions to the budget bill only if it is
willing to assure the burden and respon-
sibility of sponsoring the necessary taxes
to finance its proposed additional expen-
ditures, and it may not shift from itself
to the governor the public onus of being
charged with the necessity of an addi-
tional tax.
Baltimore v. O'Conor, 147 Md. 639
( 1925) , involved a similar statute making
a disbursement without creating the pos-
sibility of a resulting deficit. The statute
in question provided that surplus fees of
certain officials, whose compensation was
derived from fees obtained in the dis-
charge of their duties, be appropriated
to pay any deficiencies which might exist
in the fees obtained by other officials.
The court held the statute to be invalid
for the reason that it provided for ap-
propriations of money out of the treasury
|
