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.
Saturday, February 20, 2010
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
These are some good posts. To some extent more to do with policy than budgetary processes but they do connect and Randy and Meghan have done a nice job laying out some issues.
The defense spending issue is usually a surprise to many. Given the size of some of our weapons programs you would think it would be much higher. Part of this is due to the fact that our standing army is not as large as it once was. Weapons systems are expensive, but personnel is even more pricey. I also think that some of the complicated nature of defense budgets is due to the procurement process and the length of time for building weapons. But you do bring up a good point, if the slice of the pie keeps getting smaller, why such and involved process.
Meghan's issues on entitlements also bring up a variety issues that have long been debated. A few points that might help. First, the level of corruption by beneficiaries in entitlement programs is actually pretty low, I don't have the research in front of me but the numbers are much smaller than we think. The problem is that when someone violates the public trust, we are rightfully more outraged than in private corruption. As you pointed out, entitlements often benefit the least well-off in our society (for whatever reason, whether a person has had a "difficult life" or they just did not act responsibly). In your scenario of the two people going into a skilled nursing facility you don't find the person who to private pay as often as one would think -- there is a whole industry of attorneys and accountants who specialize in "spending down" -- that is legally moving your resources to family members and to others sheltered accounts. It doesn't mean that it doesn't happen, but it can be controlled. But you are right, entitlements continue to grow and the health of many of these systems is on the verge of failure. What is it about our political system that makes it difficult to find the will to confront these issues? Do they simply need to collapse? Good job everyone.
The defense spending issue is usually a surprise to many. Given the size of some of our weapons programs you would think it would be much higher. Part of this is due to the fact that our standing army is not as large as it once was. Weapons systems are expensive, but personnel is even more pricey. I also think that some of the complicated nature of defense budgets is due to the procurement process and the length of time for building weapons. But you do bring up a good point, if the slice of the pie keeps getting smaller, why such and involved process.
Meghan's issues on entitlements also bring up a variety issues that have long been debated. A few points that might help. First, the level of corruption by beneficiaries in entitlement programs is actually pretty low, I don't have the research in front of me but the numbers are much smaller than we think. The problem is that when someone violates the public trust, we are rightfully more outraged than in private corruption. As you pointed out, entitlements often benefit the least well-off in our society (for whatever reason, whether a person has had a "difficult life" or they just did not act responsibly). In your scenario of the two people going into a skilled nursing facility you don't find the person who to private pay as often as one would think -- there is a whole industry of attorneys and accountants who specialize in "spending down" -- that is legally moving your resources to family members and to others sheltered accounts. It doesn't mean that it doesn't happen, but it can be controlled. But you are right, entitlements continue to grow and the health of many of these systems is on the verge of failure. What is it about our political system that makes it difficult to find the will to confront these issues? Do they simply need to collapse? Good job everyone.
Local impact of Federal Stimulus
This isn't related to our discussion this week on Defense spending, but an article in the Public Opinion ran today about local projects resulting from the stimulus package. I thought it was interesting to see how money was distributed locally and the impact it has had on local businesses. The Chambersburg Area School District superintendent expressed frustation over the restrictions on funds granted from the IDEA program.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)