Overpaid Federal Workers Case Study

Overspending is a pertinent problem facing the lawmakers in Congress. In 2012 discretionary spending reached $1.3 trillion and mandatory spending $2 trillion, while only bringing in $2.5 trillion in revenue. Since the turn of the century back in 2000, non-mandatory spending by the government has topped out a whopping $16.1 trillion just in the past 13 years (Boccia, Frasser & Goff 2013). This persistent overspending on programs and services that are not necessary to the functionality of the country is what is causing the deficit to rise year after year. To remedy this issue the government must either increase the revenue it brings in through taxes and trade or reduce the amount of money it spend or perhaps even both. In 2012 thirty-one cents of every dollar that Washington spent was borrowed (Boccia, Frasser & Goff 2013). Most of which went to large programs such as Social Security and Medicare and if these large, growing programs, or just the budget in general, do not undergo financial reform it could spell disaster for the economy and fiscal state of the nation.

It's 19 percent of what we spend every year.( Doc C) Enough on that though we can also cut costs on other things too like Social services because we are handing money to people. I don't see how that does anything for the country, we should bring back the CCC and make more jobs. That way America gets invested into and we stop handing out money. If they need money they can help work for it not be handed tax money. We also need to take some of the cut money from the Big 5 and put more into FBI because they can stop terrorists before they strike. That is currently the biggest threat against the United

“The federal budget is the yearly plan for how the US government will spend the money it takes from taxes and borrowing.” After thoroughly analyzing the federal budget from 2012, it is unquestionably evident that a majority of the money is being put into a few major categories, leaving room for the rest of the smaller categories to be financially neglected. Is this fair? It seems that the money could be more fairly distributed, and that there is room for cuts in some of the larger categories, to improve the littler ones. In each of the three budget clusters, the US Government should make adjustments in the way it is distributing money; changes involving the big five, the middle

Those not onboard with reduced funding argue that we can put more money into the programs if we raise taxes on the rich sector. This is another one of those ideas that looks great on paper but also has many drawbacks. There a couple of things wrong with this idea one being the fairness of it. Why should we punish those who earn more? That is segregating one group from the population because they earn more. People battled for years to end segregation and now we want to segregate one group and tell them they owe the government more money because they can afford it. That is not at all morally right or considerate. So taxing the rich more is not an answer. When we were little we were told, “Help people who can not help themselves “ but the real question is if they can

There is currently a surplus of $8 billion in the Pell Grant program. As Secretary of Education, would you support congressional efforts to use this funding to shore up Pell Grants or to support higher education programs serving low income and/or first-generation students?

I believe we need government policies that will guarantee that the funds for social security and Medicare will be filled each year. The government’s budget should cut unnecessary spending on things we can survive without, and pump more money into social security and Medicare. Our retirees depend on their social

I think the NCAA should pay their players in the top 5 conferences because they help generate billions for dollars for the NCAA. The players can be considered employees because their production leads to profit and in any other work place; the people that produce high profits receive higher wages. The NCAA needs the players just as much as the players need the NCAA, but the league is able to exploit the player by offering them a scholarship for their work. The scholarship and education isn’t important for most athletes; most are there primary to play a sport and their time, and dedication deserves to be rewarded monetarily.

Growing spending and debt are undermining economic growth and may push the nation into a financial crisis in coming years. Edward then stated that the solution to these problems is to downsize every federal department by cutting the most harmful programs. This study proposes specific cuts that would reduce federal spending by almost one-quarter and balance the budget in less than a decade."

A great example of the inability to fire government workers is teacher’s tenure. Once a teacher is tenured they can essentially keep their job for the rest of their life. Factor claims, “If we got rid of five to ten percent of the worst-performing teachers, our children’s educational outcomes would improve dramatically.” In other words, because unions make it difficult to fire poor performers, the system gets clogged with employees who put out a level of work which is less deserving of the pay they receive than their better-performing

The federal budget is known as the notorious economic tank from which money is distributed to various programs. The money used every fiscal year, which begins October 1st and ends September 30th the next year, belongs to the people. The government raises this money through taxes and they spend it on national defense, Medicare, and social security. The federal budget is an exercise in making choices, and those options will certainly affect individuals living in the U.S. These choices cause debt to pile up on the government, who is struggling to make it disappear. The deficit and debt of a government gauges how well it is being run and how well it has been run in the past. According to The Economist the national debt is the total

During our monthly meeting with Lenora, she mentioned information related to the potential overpayment of Pell to students for aid year 16-17.

When it comes to the government not many people fully understand what is going on, especially when it comes to the budget and how they decide what to spend things on. Some people just tend to look at a country and see a huge amount of debt and just assume that the country isn’t doing well. When people look at the United States of America they see a country that is a world power. People see a country that overcame many conflicts and is still trying to develop further, as much as possible. A country that has a lot of opportunities. But those opportunities would be in place if there wasn’t a process for the federal government budget. The United States government is filled with many checks and balances to avoid conflicts. Whether it’s though

The American people have come to expect that the government should take care of them. They expect the government to provide social security, regulation of food and medicines, protect consumers, and a whole bunch of other concerns and interests. The government can not provide these things without bureaucracies. People tend to consider bureaucracies as huge overgrown parts of the government, but this is rarely the case with most bureaucracies short on necessary training, funding, supplies and equipment – to carry out the huge task of serving the American people. The government is providing the most it can for Americans with the least amount of spending. The people govern in a democratic government, and if the

It isn’t to give everyone a set budget from the government and what you do with it is yours. We Need to educate our children that are going to later be in the work force, that are later going to be our society. If we keep going at this rate, they will be poor. They will be in a state of poverty we haven’t seen since the Great Depression.

Historically, incrementalism has characterized public budgeting because at its core, budgeting has evolved: increased and decreased through gradual stages within the realm of the political arena. The need for this one step at a time type of response, found within incremental budgeting, would have likely been caused by the known fact that prior to the 1900’s public welfare programs, federal, states, and even city spending did not exist in the way in which is more than obviously observable in today’s society simply because America did not employ an actual budgetary system. Therefore, as with any unchartered territory, it was approached in stages, with caution, a little at a time in response to the growing needs of the public. Aaron Wildavsky made this case in his book “The politics of the budgetary process,” when he pointed out “budgeting is incremental, not comprehensive. The beginning of wisdom about an agency budget is that it is almost never actively reviewed as a whole every year in the sense of reconsidering the value of all existing programs as compared to all alternatives. Instead, it is based on last year’s budget with special attention given to a narrow range of increases or decreases.” (Wildavsky 1964, p. 15)