week 5- Madeline Kelley, writing homework help
THIS IS ONLY AN INTERPRETATION, FIVE SENTENCES AND A QUESTION IS ALL I NEED. TELL ME YOUR THOUGHTS, HAVE REFERENCES
Introduction
With regards to a government, such as a national government, a balanced budget equates with revenues’ being equal to expenditures: Accounts balance
(Mikesell, 2014, pp. 166-167; Boundless, n.d.). It may be said that the
federal government always has had a balanced budget as its deficits
have always been covered by loans (Mikesell, p. 166). For a government
it may be also allowed that in a balanced-budget, there is not only no
deficit, but a surplus of revenue, (Boundless). Typically, handling
sudden expenses is handled by borrowing (Mikesell, p. 167). Ideally,
with regards to a government’s having a balanced budget, this should
also mean decreased interest rates, and, in complementary-fashion,
increased savings and investment opportunities, in-the-midst of
shrinking trade deficits (Boundless). All of this should help the
country grow much faster, and over a longer period of time
(Boundless). Such a presumed view of the ideal of a balanced national
budget would also seem to make it a panacea in then being able to
provide fiscal support to public organizations, inclusive of Nonprofit
Organizations (NPO’s) (Mikesell, p. 166; Boundless). Notwithstanding,
the application of such things as Keynesian
theory (Mikesell, 2014, p. 137; Boundless), Zero-Based Budgeting (ZBB)
(Deloitte, 2015, pp 1-3; Mikesell, pp. 265-268), and political-budgeting
assumptions of a congress and senate that directs and redirects funds
without the understanding, insight, savvy, extrapolation abilities,
vision and objectivity of pure economists (Mikesell, p. 112; Buchanan,
2012, pp. 683-684), even while the President may be appropriating funds
(Mikesell, pp. 107-119), may well prove otherwise (Buchanan, pp.
683-684; Mikesell, pp. 139-143; pp. 110-112). Regarding supporting
public organizations, the actual concern is sustainability through not
overspending for large government, rather than paying the national debt
to balance the budget (Mikesell, p. 166; Boccia, 2013; Mitchell, 2005).
General Misconceptions and Innocently Dispelling the Empty Myths
In
dispelling the misconceptions promoting laboring under illusions, which
suffering could well be global nowadays, in a rapidly-changing world
(Mikesell, p. 137; pp. 139-143), some other key terms need to be defined
as to their actual meaning as they should be affecting
the world of reality (Buchanan, pp. 683-684). As politicians may be no
more knowledgeable than the public stakeholders they are supposed to
support when it comes to federal deficits and debt (Mikesell, pp.
110-112), their cries of financial responsibility to eliminate
government borrowing and promote paying the national debt may actually
prove misguiding and counterproductive (Mikesell, p. 166; Buchanan, pp.
683-684). There is, in-fact, no decided advantage to paying immediately a
debt that can only be eliminated through running annual budget
surpluses (Buchanan, pp. 683-684). It might be argued that strategically
it is far better to let the debt rise through borrowing to ensure that
tomorrow’s children will be provided for, and not deprived, as would be
guaranteed if attempt were made to pay the debt immediately and thereby
lose all resources for now and the future (Buchanan, pp. 683-684).
Being Positively Dynamic with Regards to Borrowing in a Rapidly-Changing World
At-the-same-time,
the debt cannot just be carelessly allowed to escalate as it is already
having a devastating effect upon the economy, including globally, which
can negatively affect public organizations (Mikesell, pp. 139-143;
Boccia). The rising debt that has not been kept-in-check as promised by
the Obama administration rampantly causes higher interest rates, less
purchasing power because of inflation, delayed home purchasing,
unaffordable medical care for longer-living seniors, etc. (Boccia).
For the benefit of public organizations with regard to government
spending as concerns their sustainability for the benefit of the
stakeholders of the environment, it appears that what is actually needed
is dynamism, such as is expressed in Keynesian theory, in a
rapidly-changing world and ever-more global economy (Mikesell, p. 137;
pp. 139-143; Mitchell, Boccia; Rivin & Sawhill, 2005; Primo, 2011;
Sheck, pp. 109-114; DeHaven, 2011).
The Applied Dynamism of Keynesian Economic Theory in a Rapidly-Changing World
Ostensibly,
major examples of the volatility of economy and the inherent necessity
of approaching it in a dynamic fashion have been little appreciated
by-way-of a lesson learned, especially in the United States (Piketty,
2014, pp. 570-571). The economy’s totaling dropping subsequent to World
War I (WWI) and taking the world totally by surprise provides the
biggest example of such instability (Piketty, pp. 106-109; Alesina,
2000, p. 6). Then, even while this is followed-up with hitting a high
plateau in 1998 from a surplus after building back up for about a
century (Alesina, 2000, pp. 3-18), the economy is threatening again to
dip severely, especially in America (Boccia; Piketty, pp. 570-571). The
theory that there is a direct correlation between a worker’s wage and
marginal productivity and skill has proven to be limited and naïve
(Piketty, pp. 304-307). Learning from economic circumstance such as to
respond positively is so bad, especially in the United States, that it
may be said that the past is devouring the future (Piketty, p. 570). Even the take-away aphorism Keynesian economic theory, The Boom, Not the Slump, Is the Right Time for Austerity at the Treasury,
has done nothing sustaining in national economic regard concerning
learning from the past and then applying the knowledge gained as wisdom
in the future in a world economy that does not hold still (Mikesell, p.
137; Edwards, 2015).
Applying Keynesian Economic Theory Now and Balancing the National Budget
In
responding dynamically to a rapidly-changing world, Keynesian economics
present the logic of budgeting during business cycles, while running
deficits during recessions (Boundless). Keynesian economists hold that
during a recession governments should increase spending and reduce taxes
(Boundless). Contrariwise, during a growth cycle, the government should
run budget surplus, thereby spending less and taxing more (Boundless).
Through responding to the economy in a balancing fashion, the budget
should be balanced without worsening recessions by spending more
(Boundless). Nonetheless, regarding an ever-shifting economy (Alesina,
p. 6; Piketty, pp. 570-571), the critical mass point is rapidly being
approached in borrowing (Mikesell, pp. 139-143; Boccia), and
remediation of such is not covered by Keynesian economics (Edwards).
Neither is the fact that balancing the national budget is a moot point
in the view of the merits of focused spending for such sustainability as
a large government does not afford (Edwards; Mitchell). It does not
seem that a balanced budget, even if achieved through Keynesian
economics or some other means, such as loans (Mikesell, p. 166), would
eliminate the threats of inflation, high interest rates, high trade
deficits, etc. as would capping borrowing (Boccia; Mitchell;
Mikesell, pp. 139-143; DeHaven, 2011). In this regard, ZBB has not
contributed much through being unrealistically inflexible as to why a
budget needs to be balanced anyway (Mikesell, pp. 265-268; Deloitte, p.
3).
ZBB’s Inadvertently Adding Inflexibility to Balancing the Budget
ZBB starts with the unrealistic notion that every fiscal year is going
to start with nothing owed—0—to the last fiscal year (Mikesell, p. 265;
Deloitte, p. 3). Such is the case, even when it is common practice to
push debts back into the future when funding is rapidly dissipating in
the present economic cycle (Mikesell, p. 265; Deloitte, p. 3). While ZBB
does want to do worthwhile things for the economy, such as making
certain money goes to where it can do the most good, rather than be
squandered, its incumbent micromanagement can be confusing and
demoralizing (Mikesell, pp. 266-268; Deloitte, p. 3). ZBB demands
specialists when the funding is all over the place itself with such
things as this year’s debts commonly getting paid from next year’s
budget, and never starting with the requisite clean slate anyway
(Mikesell, p. 265; Deloitte, p. 3). As such common practice means
starting with a deficit, instead of the necessary balance, even with the
best intentions, ZBB is not a realistic application in a
rapidly-changing—including politically inconstant—world (Deloitte, p. 3;
Mikesell, pp. 139-143; pp. 110-112; Boccia; Mitchell; Buchanan, pp.
683-684). Such has ironically proven to be the case also with
Results-Based/New Performance Budgeting, which has demonstrated itself
to be unrealistically inflexible in its not crossing agencies in its
application, when flexibility through objectivity was supposed to be its
saving and sustaining grace (Mikesell, p. 279; pp. 268-283). Perhaps
federal integration of performance and budgeting will come to prove
itself (Mikesell, pp. 283-291).
Conclusion
As concerns the government’s supporting public organizations, the
concern is not balancing the budget, but capping borrowing debt and
directing funds properly for sustainability since overspending for large
government is counterproductive for everyone (Mitchell; Boccia;
DeHaven; Edwards). There are major economic concerns regarding the
government’s providing support for public organization stakeholders
(Mitchell; Boccia). The gratuitous balancing of the national budget is
not one of them (Mikesell, p. 136; Boundless; DeHaven). The somewhat
flexible Keynesian economic model cannot balance the national budget
when the real concern is keeping borrowing from taking things over the
top (Edwards; Deloitte, p. 3; Boccia). ZBB is too rigid and divorced
from reality to be of any use in a rapidly-changing world, which is
emphasized with its self-obsessiveness in balancing the national budget
when that will not help anything anyway (Deloitte, p. 3; Mikesell,
265-268; p. 166; pp. 139-143). The flexibility needed to ensure a
sustaining economy has to be more than Keynesian to handle economics for
public organizations in a rapidly-changing world (Edwards; Boundless;
Mikesell, pp. 268-282; pp. 283-291; pp. 139-143; pp. 110-112; pp.
268-291; Mitchell; Boccia). The flexibility of objectivity and openness
of economic skills have to be there to see and act upon the fact that
properly directing funds, dealing with unexpected expenses such as
appropriations, capping borrowing, and being free of large government
are what are crucial to the government’s supporting public
organizations, not rigidly, tautologically balancing a national budget
(Boundless; Mitchell; Boccia; Buchanan, pp. 683-684; Deloitte, p. 3;
Mikesell, p. 137; pp. 139-143; pp. 107-119; pp. 110-112; pp. 265-268;
pp. pp. 268-291; Edwards; DeHaven).
References
Aaron, H. J. (2015). Constitutional solutions to our escalating national debt: Examining balanced
budget amendments. Brookings. Retrieved from https://www.brookings.edu/testimonies/constitutional-solutions-to-our-escalating-national-debt-examining-balanced-budget-amendments/.
Alesina, A. (2000). The political economy of the budget surplus in the United States. Journal of
Economic Perspectives, 14(3), 3-19. Retrieved from https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/alesina/files/the_political_economy_of_the_budget_surplus_in_the_us.pdf.
Boccia, R. (2013). How the United States’ high debt will weaken the economy and hurt
Americans. The Heritage Foundation. Retrieved from http://www.heritage.org/budget-and-spending/report/how-the-united-states-high-debt-will-weaken-the-economy-and-hurt.
Boundless. (n.d.) Arguments for and against balancing the budget. Boundless.com. Retrieved
Buchanan, N.H. (2012). Why we should never pay down the national debt. GW Law Faculty
Publications and other Works, 683(2012), 681-697. Retrieved from http://scholarship.law.gwu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1025&context=faculty_publications.
DeHaven, T. (2011). We don’t need a balanced budget amendment. US News. Retrieved from
Deloitte. (2015). Zero-based budgeting: Zero or hero? Retrieved from
Edwards, C. (2015). The need to balance the budget and reduce the national debt. Cato Institute.
Retrieved from https://www.cato.org/publications/testimony/need-balance-budget-reduce-federal-debt.
Hatch, O. (2011). Balanced budget amendment would have prevented current mess. US News.
Mikesell, J. L. (2014). Fiscal administration: Analysis and applications for the public sector (9th
ed.). Boston, MA: Wadsworth.
Mitchell, D. (2005). The impact of government spending on economic growth. The Heritage
Foundation. Retrieved from http://www.heritage.org/budget-and-spending/report/the-impact-government-spending-economic-growth.
Piketty, T. (2014). Capital in the twenty-first century (A. Goldhammer, Trans.). Cambridge,
MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
Primo, D. (2011). Act now to prevent a debt crisis. US News. Retrieved from
Rivin, A.M., & Sawhill, I.V. How to balance the budget. (2005). Brookings. Retrieved from
https://www.brookings.edu/research/how-to-balance-the-budget/.
Rubin, D.B., Singh, S.R., & Jacobson, P.D. (2013). Evaluating hospitals’ provision of
community benefit: An argument for an outcome-based approach to nonprofit hospital tax exemption. American Public Health Association (APHA), 103(4). Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3673262/.
Scheck, A. (2005). Sustainable budget policy: Concepts and approaches OECD Journal on
Budgeting 5(1), 107-126. Retrieved from https://www.oecd.org/gov/budgeting/43481125.pdf.
