Federal Budgeting and Federal Spending
This is an excerpt from the paper...
America's recent crisis in federal budgeting cannot be solved by government policy measures alone. Federal spending has a tendency to grow because budget objectives and the budget process are in direct conflict. Congress, as a whole, is concerned with stable prices, low interest rates, and full employment. But as individuals, members of Congress confront pressures to increase spending. The reality of the American system has shown that the collective need to control spending is no match for the pressures each individual member of Congress faces to increase spending. Therefore, the resolution of the budget crisis in America must focus on entitlement reform and increasing personal savings. Until early in the twentieth century, taxing and spending procedures were relatively simple. Each executive department negotiated directly and separately with Congress for its funds. Revenue-raising and spending bills were passed as needed. All these activities took place without a formal budget process. Concerns over deficits and debt arising out of World War I brought about a change to more structured procedures. From the 1920s to the 1970s, budget making was in the hands of the president, who was assisted by the Budget Bureau (now part of the Office of Management and Budget [OMB] in the Executive Office). Under this process, Congress (in partnership with the president) exercised its constitutional responsibility for passing the taxing and spending laws needed to implement the
. . .
posed massive spending reductions in such programs as school lunches, student loans, job training, and urban mass transit. Congress went along to some extent, slashing billions of dollars from domestic spending albeit less than Reagan had requested. Conservative Democrats joined Republicans in voting these cuts. Many economists warned that the tax cuts, even with reduced spending, would produce huge federal deficits. But Reagan continued to insist that his program of lower tax rates would stimulate business growth and thereby push up total tax revenues: "In the 1980s we went on a national bender, cutting taxes and raising defense spending, without making provision for the long-term fiscal soundness of government" (Bentsen, 1996, p. 44).
By the middle of the Reagan administration, there was a realization that the time had come for crisis legislation to resolve the federal budget problem. The response was the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, commonly known as the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings (G-R-H) Act: "G-R-H was a recognition of certain real problems and an attempt to deal with them" (Stein, 1989, p. 41) The Act called for specific deficit ceilings for the years 1986-1990; in 1991 the budget was to b
. . .
Some common words found in the essay are:
Ronald Reagan, Social Security, John Shoven, , Richard Nixon, United Americans, Bill Clinton, Conservative Democrats, Enforcement Act, James Watt, federal budget, stein 1989, national debt, congressional budget, aros ed balancing, jw aros ed, tax increases, balanced budget, personal savings, peterson 1996, ed balancing, federal deficit, balancing federal budget, federal budget pp, ed balancing federal,
Approximate Word count = 2820
Approximate Pages = 11 (250 words per page)
More Essays on Federal Budgeting and Federal Spending
|