In Pursuit of Full Employment

  • Paul Winfree


The government and the economy became seen as inseparable by many policymakers by the 1960s. Full employment and stable prices were the principal economic objectives of the period and acted as a driving force behind new legislation, including the Great Society programs. The Office of Management and Budget had become central to not only executing financial plans but also overseeing the management of agencies. President Nixon would push the powers amassed during the last fifty years too far and Congress responded by introducing significant reforms to the budget process. However, economic policy would remain consistent and the budget process reforms would only place Congress in a formal role within the executive budget process still driven by the presidency.


  1. Brundage, Percival Flack. 1970. The Bureau of the Budget. New York, NY: Praeger Publishers.Google Scholar
  2. Burns, Arthur. 1973. “Statement by Arthur F. Burns before the Joint Study Committee on Budget Control.” Washington, DC: U.S. Congress, March 6.Google Scholar
  3. Cato, Erle. 1959. “Accrued Cost, not ‘Accrued Expenditures’ is the Answer for Government.” The Accounting Review 34 (3): 392–398.Google Scholar
  4. Christensen, Michelle C. 2012. The Executive Budget Process Timetable. Report to Congress, Washington: Congressional Research Service.Google Scholar
  5. Congressional Quarterly. 1971. “Congress Accepts Four Executive Reorganization Plans.” In CQ Almanac, 1970, by Congressional Quarterly. Washington: Congressional Quarterly.Google Scholar
  6. Congressional Quarterly. 1956. Hoover Commission Reports. CQ Almanac 1955, 11th edition, Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly.Google Scholar
  7. Congressional Record. 76th Cong., 1st sess. 1939. July 27–28.Google Scholar
  8. Congressional Record. 79th Cong., 2nd sess. 1946. March 11.Google Scholar
  9. Cooke, H.J., and M. Katzen. 1954. “The Public Debt.” The Journal of Finance 9 (3): 298–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Corey, Joseph C., and Jason E. Taylor. 2010. ‘Oversell and Underpreform’: The Impact of the Great Society Economic Programs Upon the City of Detroit, 1964–1968. Vol. XXVIII. Essays in Economic & Business History.Google Scholar
  11. Dierberger, Wesley A. 1950. “Revenue Act of 1948, edited by Paul A. Walkin and Marcus Manoff.” Indiana Law Journal 25 (3): 416–419.Google Scholar
  12. Fisher, Louis. 1970. “The Politics of Impounded Funds.” Administrative Science Quarterly 15 (3): 361–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Heady, Ferrel. 1949. “The Reports of the Hoover Commission.” The Review of Politics 11 (3).Google Scholar
  14. Humphrey, Herbert H. 1973. “Testimony by Senator Hubert H. Humphrey Before the Joint Study Committee on Budget Control.” Washington, DC: U.S. Congress, March 6.Google Scholar
  15. Ippolito, Dennis S. 2003. Why Budgets Matter: Budget Policy and American Politics. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press.Google Scholar
  16. 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
  17. King, Ronald J. 1993. Money, Time, and Politics: Investment, Tax Subsidies, and American Democracy. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lyonscot, Richard D. 1973. “Nixon’s Impounding of Billions in Federal Money is Complicated Issue, Abounding in Misconceptions.” The New York Times. October 7. Accessed June 22, 2019.
  19. Mills, Frederick C., and Clarence D. Long. 1949. The Statistical Agencies of the Federal Government: A Report to the Commission on Organization of the Executive Branch of the Government. Research Staff of the National Bureau of Economic Research, New York: National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.Google Scholar
  20. Mosak, Jacob L. 1946. “National Budgets and National Policy.” The American Economic Review 36 (1): 20–43.Google Scholar
  21. Nixon, Richard. 1970. “Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1970.” Public Administration Review 30 (6): 611–619.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. President’s Commission on Budget Concepts. 1967. Report of the President’s Commission on Budget Concepts. Final Report, U.S. Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
  23. Schick, Allen. 1975. The Congressional Budget Act of 1974: Legislative History and Analysis. Report to Congress, Washington: Congressional Research Service.Google Scholar
  24. Schultze, Charles L. 1992. “Is There a Bias Towards Excess in U.S. Government Budgets or Deficits?” The Journal of Economic Perspectives 6 (2): 25–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Stein, Herbert. 1996. The Fiscal Revolution in America: Policy in Pursuit of Reality. Washington, DC: The AEI Press.Google Scholar
  26. Tomkin, Shelley Lynne. 1998. Inside OMB: Politics and Process in the President’s Budget Office. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  27. Truman, Harry S. 1945. “Special Message to the Congress Presenting a 21-Point Program for the Reconversion Period.” The American Presidency Project. September 6.
  28. U.S. Congress. 1947. An Act for the establishment of the Commission on Organization of the Executive Branch of the Government. Public Law 80–162, July 7.Google Scholar
  29. U.S. Congress. 1968. Revenue and Expenditure Control Act of 1968: Explanation of the Bill H.R. 15414 As Agreed to in Conference. 90th Congress, 2nd Session, Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
  30. U.S. Senate Committee on Government Operation. 1961. Financial Management in the Federal Government: A Comprehensive Analysis of Existing and Proposed Legislation Including Financial Management Improvements Made on a Government-Wide Basis. Committee Report, Washington: U.S. Senate, 87th Congress, 1st Session.Google Scholar
  31. Webster, George D. 1951. “Taxpayer Relief: The Revenue Act of 1951.” Virginia Law Review 37 (8): 1039–1081.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

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

Personalised recommendations