There are employment service people in other States who claim the 1968 directive not only provided an unrealistic solution for the problems of the unskilled, the untrained, and the disadvantaged . . . they also argue that the directive created conditions that led to a general decline in employer reliance on their services. . . I dont know if their argument is valid . . . but I do know you cannot solve manpower problems by merely grafting new priorities or new programs on to State and local operations. In complex systems like yours and in equally complex programs like those the manpower council is concrned with, major changes in aims and operations must come through careful, well-thought-out revisions or expansions... and this means that those of us at the State and local level must play an important part in shaping those changes. If the Nixon administration or its administrative agents don't recognize that fact... if they don't take it into account, then it is difficult to believe they are ready to allow the kind of decentralized planning, programming, and servios we think are necessary . . . and in recent months there has been disturbing evidence that someone either doesn't recognize that fact or won't take it into account in practice... Let me give you some examples . . . first, take that community college program I have mentioned . . . this program was developed in North Carolina to deal with that often-discussed problem of placing the disadvantaged . . . it was tested in one community college before the General Assembly voted funds to begin setting it up in other units of the system. . . the State Manpower Council has concluded it is an essential part of any realistic plan for solving the problem of placing North Carolina's hard core of unemployed and underemployed. . . But to make it work, there must be stipends or scholarships so poor people can participate full time in its ten to twelve weeks of training . . . so the conncil's State plan allocated Federal matching funds to provide these "training allowances" or "scholarships". . . the arrangement worked reasonably well until shortly after the start of the current fiscal year. Then, as you know, without advance notice or consultation, the available Federal MDTA funds were slashed by 20 percent . . . and the remaining S percent were set up to be distributed on a quarterly basis only . . . needless to say, the program has been in a State of confused uncertainty ever since... Meanwhile, the 20 percent torn away from this carefully conceived program has been set aside for the work incentive program—whose potential benefits | to North Carolina are problematical . . . so an administration dedicated to decentralization and re-categorization has undermined a promising attempt at decentralized action in order to bolster yet another unpromising categorical scheme for solving the problems of all fifty states at one fell swoop.. Now, let's consider briefly some of North Carolina's experiences with the publie employment program that was created by the Emergency Employment Act of 1971... I don't have the time even to mention all the strange gyrations that have gone on around this program since last summer . . . up until that time the program had gone reasonably well... more than seven million dollars had been channeled to North Carolina's state and local government, school districts, and other public employers for job creation . . . a monitoring study showed the money was being well spent . . . it was producing jobs that were useful to public em ployers and welcome to job seekers... Then, last summer, as the program neared the end of its first operations? year, it was suddenly hit by a hiring freeze... the freeze order had nothing to do with the success or failure of the program . . . and it would have had serious effects no matter how it was handled . . . for it came at the start of the new fiscal year when public employing agents were in their best position to fulfill a major aim of the program by moving personnel from subsidized to nonsubsidized jobs... Since the freeze precluded them from putting new employees on in subsidized jobs, few public employers moved subsidized job holders . . . some publie employers-like the city of Winston-Salem-which had not waited for the new fiscal year to move people-got caught well below their authorized level of public employment program employees... and the freeze repaid their good performance by keeping them at that level... These developments were bad enough 、、、 but they were compounded by confusion and back of Federal-local communications that continued even after the freeze was lifted in six weeks . . . in fact, the freeze was only partially lifted after six weeks... six program agents remained under the freeze order for rea .. one sons they could not get explained . . . other employing agents came out of the freeze period with no idea how to plan for their second program year. . community in the state reported it could not find out when its first program year would end and its second program year would start . . . All of this not only reflected a lack of appreciation for effective state-local planning and programming . . it reflected a lack of appreciation for sound business operation . . . if I ran my bank and managed its budget in such a way, I'd be applying to you for unemployment insurance within a month ... But perhaps the most bizarre case of all was the on-and-off order to eliminate three new careers projects in North Carolina last fall . . . three community action agencies were simply told in September that their new careers contractswhich were due for renewal in October-would not be renewed . . . trainees under the contracts were to be terminated . . . There was not evaluation of the effectiveness or lack of effectiveness of the three projects . . . they were apparently singled out for termination because their contracts were up for renewal Predictably, so many people raised a fuss so close to election time that the decision was reversed . . . the contracts were renewed . . . however, this flipflop doesn't mean that the situation ended well . . . the decision to renew the projects was as mindless as the decision to eliminate them so far as their value and effectiveness in the manpower process was concerned . . . Such examples as these suggest there is a yawning gap between the administration's words and deeds in manpower . . . and confronted with this gap, I am sure all of us have an even bigger challenge to meet than I once realized. .. We must still push ahead with our efforts to develop the capacity for effective state-local action . . . I am aware of the good internal development that has been going on in your service... I am pleased that my old organization-the Manpower Development Corporation-has had a small part in your projects. . . Its role in providing specialized aid that your own heavily committed training division could not handle alone reflects the kind of mutual assistance we need more of... From all concerned with manpower in North Carolina. . . As I understand the relationship, your top management turned to the Manpower Development Corporation for aid in preference to out-of-state consultants suggested by the Department of Labor... Because they felt an in-state organization was in a better position to understand and respond to the needs of your service... But let me quickly say that in the area of mutual aid, I see your operation giving more than it gets within this state . . . Despite all the abuse the employment service has taken over the years. . . It is both the principal source of expertise and a key to systematic manpower development and utilization in North Carolina... We who are primarily concerned with planning and programming need your help and support . . . For, I am convinced that developments at the national level indicate we must add a dimension to our preparations for change here at the state and local levels... If we are going to make decentralization and de-categorization work, we must insist upon... and get a businesslike transitional period in which we will assume greater responsibility as we develop a greater capacity for handling that responsibility... this transition means we must be done with meddlesome interference and unrealistic solutions handed down to us from Washington . . . So far as we do strengthen our planning and programming and service capacity, we will strengthen our case for a businesslike transition . . . Here in North Carolina, the new Republican State administration may also prove invaluable... Because I am inclined to believe that the gap between words and deeds in the current administration is not intended... President Nixon has indicated he has. been less than satisfied with the performance of many of his people . . . and a Republican governor can certainly help alert the Republican National administration to what has happened in its name... There are those who doubt that we can capitalize on decentralization and decategorization . . . it whatever form it may come . . . these observers believe the administration is using decentralization and de-categorization as a cover for cutbacks in total manpower fund allocations. . . They claim the administration will take credit for showing faith in state and local initiative . . . while state and local officials will take the rap for dividing a smaller manpower pie in their areas... This kind of cynicism doesn't bother me. . . if we are given half a chance to do the kind of job we know must be done, I am ready to try... What concerns me is not the political hazard of serving smaller pieces of a manpower pie . . . What concerns me is whether we will be ready to cut the pie and do the serving... We aren't ready yet . . . But if we can work out a sensible transitional arrangement that neither calls on us to do the impossible at once. . . nor leaves us vulnerable to foolish decisions from above, we can get ready Then, we can begin providing North Carolina with a system that answers the need of individuals for manpower services and training . . . A system that answers the need of employers for a growing work force of motivated, productive men and women ... In this way, we can make an invaluable contribution to our ancient goal of improving the lot of all our people . . . [Excerpt from the Budget of the U.S. Government, Fiscal Year 1974] BUDGET AUTHORITY AND RELATED TRANSACTIONS Budget authority.-Government agencies are permitted to enter into obligations. requiring either immediate or future payment of money, only when they have been granted authority to do so by law. The amounts thus authorized by Congress are called budget authority (BA). Budget authority controls the obligations to be incurred, and for most accounts the amount of the authority is related to the obligations expected to be incurred during the year. In some cases-especially construction (other than water resource projects), research, and procurement-budget authority is requested and granted to finance the full cost of each project at the time it is started, regardless of when obligations are expected to be incurred, and the expected time of completion. Budget authority usually takes the form of appropriations which permit obligations to be incurred and payments to be made. Some budget authority is in the form of contract authority which permits obligations, but requires an appropriation or receipts "to liquidate" (pay) these obligations. There is also authority to spend debt receipts; such budget authority permits the use of borrowed money to incur obligations and make payments. Where such authority pertains to the use of Treasury borrowing, it is authority to spend public debt receipts; authority for a Government agency to borrow directly from the public or from a Government-administered fund available for investment, is authority to spend agency debt receipts. Most appropriations for current operations are made available for obligation only within the year (1-year approriations). Others, including most of those for construction, some for research, and nearly all trust fund appropriations are made available until expended (no-year appropirations), and therefore remain available for obligation until the objectives have been attained. When budget authority is made available by Congress for a specific period of time, any part which is not used for obligations during that period lapses, and cannot be used later. However, reappropriations are congressional actions to continue availability of unused balances which would otherwise lapse; they are counted as budget authority in the year of the congressional action. A rescission is an action of Congress which cancels budget authority previously granted and remaining available, but still unused. Such rescissions are offset against new budegt authority in arriving at the total of budget authority for each year. Most authority to obligate funds is granted year by year (current authority). Under certain laws, some budget authority in Federal funds and most budget authority in the trust funds becomes available from time to time without further action by Congress (permanent authority). 1 For a more detailed discussion of this system see the coverage of the congressional authorization and appropriation process in the Budget Process section of this part. The amount of budget authority is usually named specifically in the legislation which makes it available (definite authority). In a few cases the amount is left indefinite to be determined by subsequent circumstances (indefinite authority); examples of the latter are the appropriation for interest on the public debt, and the trust fund appropriation equal to receipts, for social security, under the Federal Insurance Contributions Act. Obligations incurred.-Following the enactment of budget authority, obliga tions are incurred by Government agencies. Such obligations include the currently accruing liabilities for salaries and wages, certain contractual services, and interest; entering into contracts for purchase of supplies and equipment, construction, and land; entering into contracts to make loans; and other commitments requiring the payment of money. Outlays.--Obligations generally are liquidated by the issuance of checks or the disbursement of cash; such payments are called outlays (O). In lieu of issuing checks, obligations may also be liquidated (and outlays occur) by the maturing of interest coupons in the case of some bonds, or by the issuance of bonds or notes (or increases in the redemption value of bonds outstanding). [Excerpt from the Budget of the U.S. Government, Fiscal Year 1974] Congressional authorization and appropriation.-Congressional review starts when the President sends his budget to the Congress. The Congress can change programs, eliminate them, or add programs not requested by the President. It can increase or decrease the amounts recommended by the President to finance existing and proposed new programs. It may also act upon legislation determining taxes and other means of raising revenues. The Congress does not normally vote on outlays directly, but rather upon budget authority. Under the traditional procedures, the Congress first enacts legislation which authorizes an agency to carry out a particular program and, in some cases, set a limit on the amount that can subsequently be considered for appropriaiton for the program. Many programs are authorized for a specified number of years, or even indefinitely; other programs, such as atomic energy, space exploration, defense procurement, and some construction programs, receive annual authorizing legislation. The granting of budget authority usually is a separate subsequent action. In most cases, budget authority becomes available each year only as voted by the Congress. However, in some cases, the Congress has voted "permanent" budget authority, under which funds become available annually without further congressional action. Most trust fund appropriations are "permanent," as is the appropriation to pay interest on the public debt. Congressional consideration of requests for changes in revenue laws and for appropriations follows an established pattern. They are considered first in the House of Representatives. The Ways and Means Committee reviews proposed revenue measures; the Appropriations Committee, through its 13 subcommittees, studies the proposals for appropriations and examines in detail each agency's performance. Each committee then recommends the action to be taken by the House of Representatives. As parts of the budget are approved by the House, the appropriation and tax bills are forwarded to the Senate, where a similar process is followed. In case of disagreement between the two Houses of Congress, a conference committee (consisting of Members of both bodies) meets to resolve the issues. The conference report is returned to both Houses for approval, and the measure is then transmitted to the President, in the form of an enrolled bill, for his approval or veto. When action on appropriations is not completed by the beginning of the fiscal year, the Congress may enact a “continuing resolution” to provide authority for the affected agencies to continue operations until their regular appropriations are enacted. 90-538 O-73-53 |