Secrecy in Budgeting

As Rubin points out in Chapter 9, the openness of budgetary decision making is a subject that is frequently debated as to whether or not it yields positive results. Those in favor of openness argue that it helps to ensure government is accountable to the public for how tax dollars are spent. Others feel that too much openness leads to delay in budgetary decision making and an overload of information for the public.

It is easy to see how conflict arises because each side makes valid points. It seems to me that concern over transparency in budgetary decision making occurs when citizens are unhappy with how they perceive tax dollars spent, which is understandable. Political realities affect how much attention is paid to transparency in budgeting.

I agree with Rubin that every detail of the budget does not need to be parceled out to the public. It would have the opposite effect of bringing about accountability because most citizens do not have the time or the ability to analyze complicated budget processes. A minimal level of secrecy in budget making can exist without cause for alarm among the public. At times I think legislators are hindered by their concern that constituents will not agree with budget decisions and so they do not always advocate for initiatives they personally believe to be beneficial.

We spoke briefly about this in class last week when we discussed how legislators have staffers who advise them about budget shortfalls and offer recommendations for reform, but it is not always politically advantageous to adopt reform.

On the other hand, accountability is also incredibly important. I’m not exactly sure where the appropriate boundary is between openness and secrecy in budgetary decisions. A tilt too far to either side results in ineffective governance.