answer 2 short essay questions

Anonymous
timer Asked: Oct 16th, 2018
account_balance_wallet $45

Question Description

Please make sure to cite the textbook and page numbers when you use them to answer your questions. All answers must be in complete sentences and should be proof read before submitting.

II. Short Answer Essays:
Choose two of the three short essay questions and provide a complete response. Be sure to identify which questions you are answering.
(worth 40 points and I expect at least one and half page response for each)

a) Identify and discuss some of the challenges facing public pensions. From where do the revenues for pension funds typically come? What are some alternative/innovative revenue strategies used by municipalities to help “shore up” their pension funds as discussed in lecture? How are pensions vulnerable during municipal bankruptcy negotiations?
b) Compare and contrast discretionary and mandatory spending as discussed in your assigned readings. What are they? Provide examples of each. What are some of the challenges associated with each type of spending?
c) Identify and discuss the different long-term and short-term debt instruments used by state and/or local governments as discussed in lecture and your textbooks. When would these debt instruments most likely be used?

There are 2 books for the class; one is attached (pdf attached) and one online (use can access it via my email info attached).

Unformatted Attachment Preview

To access McKinney book (Jerome B. McKinney (2015). Effective Financial Management in Public and Nonprofit Agencies. 4th Edition. Santa Barbra: Praeger/ABC-CLIO. ISBN: 144083122X) Email: alqahtanisami7@gmail.com Password: sami2371406 Then go to google play -> books -> my books Page i The Politics of Public Budgeting: Getting and Spending, Borrowing and Balancing Fourth Edition Irene S. Rubin Northern Illinois University CHATHAM HOUSE PUBLISHERS SEVEN BRIDGES PRESS, LLC NEW YORK • LONDON Page ii The Politics of Public Budgeting: Getting and Spending, Borrowing and Balancing Fourth Edition Seven Bridges Press, LLC 135 Fifth Avenue New York, NY 10010 Copyright © 1990, 1993, 1997, and 2000 by Chatham House Publishers of Seven Bridges Press, LLC All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior permission of the publisher. Publisher: Robert J. Gormley Managing editor: Katharine Miller Production supervisor: Melissa A. Martin Cover design: Judith Hudson Composition: Linda B. Pawelchak/Lori Clinton Printing and binding: Sheridan Books Library of Congress Cataloging­in­Publication Data Rubin, Irene. The politics of public budgeting : getting and spending, borrowing and balancing / Irene S. Rubin.—4th ed. p.$6s;cm Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 1­889119­42­3 1. Local budgets—Political aspects—United States. 2. Budget—Political aspects— United States. I. Title. HJ9147.R83 2000 336.73—dc21 99­086159 Manufactured in the United States of America 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Page iii Contents Preface to the Fourth Edition vii Acknowledgments x 1. The Politics of Public Budgets 1 What Is Budgeting? 3 Governmental Budgeting 6 Minicase: City Manager Replies to Scathing Budget Critique 8 Minicase: The Government Performance and Results Act 19 The Meaning of Politics in Public Budgeting 24 Budgetary Decision Making 26 Microbudgeting and Macrobudgeting 29 Summary and Conclusions 32 2. Revenue Politics Increasing Taxes 34 35 Minicase: Income Tax Increases in Illinois 36 Minicase: A Successful Municipal Tax Increase in Dayton, Ohio 37 The Politics of Protection 44 Minicase: Legislature Denies Economic Development Incentives 62 Minicase: The Politics of Tax Expenditures in Minnesota 63 The Politics of Reform 68 Summary and Conclusions 71 3. The Politics of Process Macro and Micro Politics 73 74 Minicase: Republican Macro­level Reform Proposals 74 Minicase: Micro Politics: Bending the Rules to Win Individual Decisions 79 Public Budgeting and the Budget Process 81 Variable Elements of Budget Processes 82 Minicase: Participatory Budgeting 86 Page iv Variation between and among Federal, State, and Local Governments 89 Summary and Conclusions 96 4. The Dynamics of Changing Budget Processes Major Changes in the Federal Budget Process Minicase: Committee Response to Gramm­Rudman­Hollings Changes in Budget Process at the State Level 98 100 104 108 Minicase: Early Budget Evolution in Illinois 109 Minicase: Illinois State Budgeting: The Governor and the Legislature 113 Minicase: The Executive and the Legislature in Florida's Budgeting 115 Changes in Budget Process at the Local Level 116 Minicase: Cleveland, Ohio 116 Minicase: Target­based Budgeting in Tampa 123 Summary and Conclusions 5. The Politics of Expenditures: Managing Competition, Accountability, and Acceptability Tradeoffs Minicase: Tradeoffs in the Budget under the Federal Budget Enforcement Act 125 127 128 128 Multiple Actors Compete for Spending Preferences 134 Budget Constraints Can Reduce Competition 140 Minicase: Children's Amendment in San Francisco 141 Minicase: Science Funding and Earmarking 142 Minicase: Is Social Security Going Bust? 148 Minicase: Taking the Highway Trust Fund Off Budget 150 The Environment Can Affect Spending Priorities 153 The Separation between Payer and Spender Requires Public Approval of Spending Choices 155 Minicase: Federal Credit Reform 163 Minicase: Between a (Little) Rock and a Hard Place: Siting and Funding a Presidential Library 170 Minicase: The Impact of Being in a Secret Budget 175 Summary and Conclusions 6. The Politics of Balancing the Budget Balance as a Constraint Minicase: Balance and the Highway Trust Fund 176 179 181 181 Multiple Actors, Ideologies, and Deficits 183 The Environment, Unpredictability, and Deficits 185 Increasing Stress between Payer and Decider 187 Page v The Politics of Deficits: The Federal Level 190 Deficits in the States 201 Minicase: Connecticut Cuts Back to Balance the Budget The Politics of Balance in Cities Minicase: The Politics of Deficits: An Urban Example Summary and Conclusions 7. Budget Execution: The Politics of Adaptation Adapting to Economic Changes 202 209 212 214 216 218 Minicase: Rock Island, Illinois 220 Minicase: DeKalb, Illinois 222 Budgetary Changes for Noneconomic Reasons Minicase: Department of Defense and the O&M Budget Summary and Conclusions 8. Budget Implementation and Control The Discretion, Abuse, Control Cycle 224 239 243 245 245 Minicase: Abuse and Controls at the Department of Defense 248 Minicase: The Last Use of the M Funds? 251 Minicase: Massachusetts Overcontrols the Cities, 1875­1933 257 Minicase: Ohio's 1 Percent Law 258 Implementation and Control: The Politics of Finding Waste, Fraud, and Abuse Minicase: Tension at the CIA Summary and Conclusions 9. Budgetary Decision Making and Politics 260 263 267 269 Real­time Budgeting 269 A Comparison of the Decision­making Streams 273 Dynamics of Budgeting over Time 274 Common Themes: The Roles of Competition and Secrecy 276 Reconceptualizing Reform 278 Avenues for Research 281 Summary and Conclusions 283 Notes 285 Name Index 301 Subject Index 303 Page vii Preface to the Fourth Edition When the Third edition to The Politics of Public Budgeting was being prepared, the White House and congressional leaders had just failed, dramatically, to come to agreement on how to balance the federal budget. Without a budget agreement, the federal government had closed down, and much to the amazement of the Republicans, the public was not only aggravated by the shutdown, but blamed the Republicans for obstructing the budget process. In 1996 the atmosphere was thick with mistrust, and it did not look as if any kind of balanced budget agreement could be reached. By May 1997 the picture had changed. The Republicans had barely maintained their majorities in the 1996 congressional elections. With such slim majorities, they needed to cooperate with Democrats in order to get anything done. The president wanted an agreement. A booming economy provided more revenue than expected, allowing two contentious issues—the proposed reduction in the cost­of­living index and the cap on Medicaid spending—to be taken off the table. An agreement was reached during the spring and summer of 1997 to balance the budget by 2002 by cutting discretionary programs, including defense, and slowing the growth in Medicare spending. The latter was to produce more than $100 billion in savings over five years. The package included net tax cuts of $85 billion over the five years, ballooning to $250 billion over ten years. In addition, the president got about $32 billion in new money to fund his priority programs, including expanded health care for poor children, welfare benefits for legal immigrants, and more money for Pell education grants. By 1998, well ahead of schedule, the booming economy and the surging stock market had generated enough revenues to balance, or nearly balance, the federal budget (the degree of balance depended on whether surpluses from Social Security were or were not counted). The policy debate then shifted to whether to lift the spending caps a little or to keep them tight and spend the surplus on more tax reduction. The conflicts surrounding the unexpectedly successful efforts to balance the federal budget illustrate a number of features of public budgeting. Page viii One theme that emerges from the saga of balancing the federal budget is that budget negotiations sometimes deal with major policy issues. Budget observers used terms such as train wreck and budget battles to describe the ongoing discussions. Every actor who was engaged in the negotiations got something from the final deal. Budgeting was exciting and consequential. A second theme that emerges from the negotiations to balance the federal budget in 2002 is that unpleasant consequences are sometimes postponed. The negotiations took place in 1997; the deepest cuts in spending were planned for 2001 and 2002. The cost of the tax cuts would balloon after 2002. Budget balance was so attractive a political goal that the decision makers delayed some of the consequences to ease the difficulty of bargaining. If the deeper tax cuts had come earlier, they would have necessitated deeper spending cuts to achieve balance, which might have quashed the deal. By postponing the costs of the tax cuts, the negotiators made the overall package look more balanced than it was, but at the same time made the deal possible. One conclusion from this observation is that accountability— providing an accurate picture of budget decisions and implications—sometimes comes into conflict with acceptability. A second conclusion is that time is a crucial aspect of budgeting decisions. It makes no sense to say a budget is balanced unless one also describes when the budget will be balanced and for how long. A third idea that comes out of the balanced budget deal of 1997 is that sometimes budgeting events and decisions that look impossible happen anyway. Years of failure may turn out not to be precursors of further failure, but a means of learning what needs to be done and how to do it. Conditions, processes, and negotiators change; new opportunities arise. Nothing is inevitable. The negotiation process is fluid, not predetermined by a fixed structure or any group of actors. The decision making is also open to public opinion. Armed with knowledge, citizens can become budget actors, maybe not determining the outcomes, but influencing the discussion. Fourth, the budget­balancing negotiations—which initially took place apart from regular budget making—suggest that routine and nonroutine decision making may be segregated. Routine decision making is sometimes punctuated by various kinds of summit agreements that involve a broader range of actors and interests, and that bind future decisions. Routine decision making is highly constrained by such periodic reworkings. Budgeting can move at a slow and even pace or at breakneck speed. When the budget appears to be most routine, it may be difficult to follow because the real decision making occurred somewhere else at another time; when budgeting is moving at a rapid pace, with many major issues on the table, it may go by in a blur. Without an understanding of the basic pressures and processes, without Page ix an understanding of who the players are and the stakes they are fighting for, budgeting can be incomprehensible. Sometimes the actors themselves complain that they do not understand the process and beg for simplification. Citizen observers need some explanation, not only of specific events, but of the underlying patterns. This book describes those underlying patterns. The Politics of Public Budgeting is not just about the federal government, but about budgeting at all levels of government in the United States. The goal is to describe change over time, to show recent events in the context of institutional constraints, prior agreements, and political jockeying over process and outcomes. In this fourth edition, many of the minicases and tables have been updated, and references to recent budget literature have been included. The emphasis in this edition is on long­ term issues, such as accountability and tradeoffs, that are highlighted by current events such as the Government Performance and Results Act and the balanced budget agreement. The structure of the chapters is the same as in the previous edition, but there is less intentional repetition and unintentional wordiness. The introductory chapter has been rewritten in places for thematic clarity and contemporary relevance. Page x Acknowledgments I would like to thank particularly the people who read and critiqued the manuscript for me in its various stages: Aaron Wildavsky, Allen Schick, Naomi Caiden, Tom Lauth, and Herb Rubin. They have been good and helpful colleagues. Aaron is gone now, but may those of us who remain continue to challenge and encourage one another. I would like to acknowledge particularly the assistance of Professor Schick, whose scholarship and intellectual integrity have been a model for the profession and an inspiration to me. Page 1 Chapter One— The Politics of Public Budgets Public Budgets describe what governments do by listing how governments spend money. A budget links tasks to be performed with the amount of resources necessary to accomplish those tasks, ensuring that money will be available to wage war, provide housing, or maintain streets. Budgets limit expenditures to the revenues available, to ensure balance and prevent overspending. Most of the work in drawing up a budget is technical, estimating how much it will cost to feed a thousand shut­ins with a Meals­on­Wheels program or how much revenue will be produced from a 1 percent tax on retail sales. But public budgets are not merely technical managerial documents; they are also intrinsically and irreducibly political. • Budgets reflect choices about what government will and will not do. They reflect general public consensus about what kinds of services governments should provide and what citizens are entitled to as members of society. Should government provide services that the private sector could provide, such as water, electricity, transportation, and housing? Do all citizens have a guarantee of health care, regardless of ability to pay? Are all insured against hunger? Are they entitled to some kind of housing? • Budgets reflect priorities—between police and flood control, day care and defense, the Northeast and the Southwest. The budget process mediates between groups and individuals who want different things from government and determines who gets what. These decisions may influence whether the poor get job training or the police get riot training, both as a response to an increased number of unemployed. • Budgets reflect the relative proportion of decisions made for local and constituency purposes, and for efficiency, effectiveness, and broader public goals. Budgets reflect the degree of importance legislators put on Page 2 satisfying their constituents and the legislators' willingness to listen to interest­group demands. For example, the Defense Department may decide to spend more money to keep a military base open because the local economy depends on it and to spend less money to improve combat readiness. • Budgets provide a powerful tool of accountability to citizens who want to know how the government is spending their money and if government has generally followed their preferences. Budgeting links citizen preferences and governmental outcomes. • Budgets reflect citizens' preferences for different forms of taxation and different levels of taxation, as well as the ability of specific groups of taxpayers to shift tax burdens to others. The budget reflects the degree to which the government redistributes wealth upward or downward through the tax system. • At the national level, the budget influences the economy, so fiscal policy affects the level of employment—how many people are out of work at any time. • Budgets reflect the relative power of different individuals and organizations to influence budget outcomes. Budgetary decision making provides a picture of the relative power of budget actors within and between branches of government, as well as the importance of citizens in general and specific interest groups. In all these ways, public budgeting is political. But budgeting is not typical of other political processes and hence one example among many. It is both an important and a unique arena of politics. It is important because of the specific policy issues reflected in the budget: the scope of government, the distribution of wealth, the openness of government to interest groups, and the accountability of government to the public at large. It is unique because these decisions have to take place in the context of budgeting, with its need for balance, its openness to the environment, and its requirements for timely decisions so that government can carry on without interruption. Public budgets clearly have political implications, but what does it mean to say that key political decisions are made in the context of budgeting? The answer has several parts. First, what is budgeting? Second, what is public budgeting, as opposed to individual or family budgeting or the budgeting of private organizations? Third, what does political mean in the context of public budgeting? Page 3 What Is Budgeting? The essence of budgeting is that it allocates scarce resources and hence implies choice between potential objects of expenditure. Budgeting implies balance, and it requires some kind of decision­making process. Making Budgetary Choices All budgeting, whether public or private, individual or organizational, involves choices between possible expenditures. Since no one has unlimited resources, people budget all the time. A child makes a budget (a plan for spending, balancing revenues and expenditures) when she decides to spend money on a marshmallow rabbit rather than a chocolate one, assuming she has money enough for only one rabbit. The air force may choose between two different airplanes to replace current bombers. These examples illustrate the simplest form of budgeting because they involve only one actor, one resource, one time, and two straightforward and comparable choices. Normally, budgeting does not compare only two reasonably similar items. There may be a nearly unlimited number of choices. Budgeting usually limits the options to consider by grouping together similar things that can be reasonably compared. When I go to the supermarket, I do not compare all the possible things I could buy, not only because I cannot absorb that number of comparisons, but because the comparisons would be meaningless and a waste of time. I do not go to the supermarket and decide to get either a turkey or a bottle of soda pop. I compare main dishes with main dishes, beverages with beverages, desserts with desserts. Then I have a common denominator for comparison. For example, I may look at the main course and ask about the amount of protein for the dollar. I may compare the desserts in terms of the amount of cholesterol or the calories. There is a tendency, then, to make comparisons within categories where the comparison is meaningful. This is as true for governmental budgeting as it is for shoppers. For example, weapons might be compared with weapons or automobiles with automobiles. They could be compared in terms of speed, reliability, and availability of spare parts, and the one that did the most of what you wanted it to do at the least cost would be the best choice. As long as there is agreement on the goals to be achieved, the choice should be straightforward. Sometimes, budgeting requires comparison of different, and seemingly incomparable, things. If I do not have enough money to buy a whole balanced meal, I may have to make choices between main dishes and desserts. How do I compare the satisfaction of a sweet tooth to the nourishment of turkey? Or, in th ...
Purchase answer to see full attachment

Tutor Answer

ProAnswers411
School: UT Austin

at...

flag Report DMCA
Review

Anonymous
Good stuff. Would use again.

Similar Questions
Hot Questions
Related Tags
Study Guides

Brown University





1271 Tutors

California Institute of Technology




2131 Tutors

Carnegie Mellon University




982 Tutors

Columbia University





1256 Tutors

Dartmouth University





2113 Tutors

Emory University





2279 Tutors

Harvard University





599 Tutors

Massachusetts Institute of Technology



2319 Tutors

New York University





1645 Tutors

Notre Dam University





1911 Tutors

Oklahoma University





2122 Tutors

Pennsylvania State University





932 Tutors

Princeton University





1211 Tutors

Stanford University





983 Tutors

University of California





1282 Tutors

Oxford University





123 Tutors

Yale University





2325 Tutors