Thesis Statement Of Pork Barrel Fund

But having a budget is a good step in the right direction. Continuous reexamination is necessary to keep the budget on track. A potential reform for the federal budget is the switch from a short-term budget perspective to a long-term perspective (Budget & Projections, 2015, p. 1). This switch can be beneficial for several reasons. The main beneficial reason is having a greater outlook. Having a greater outlook on future budgetary effects can help policymakers make better-informed decisions in regards to the federal budget. Another potential reform for the budget is to commit and concentrate on spending control. In order to reduce the debt, spending must be under control. A good policy must be in place to ensure the control on spending is a continuous effort by the

In the case of the National Trust for Historical Preservation (this will be referred to in the future as NTHP in this paper), the concept is reflected in their decision to break away from government funding. Because Congress had designated them as a trust, they had a large portion of their budget in their hands, about a fifth. When budgeting constraints began to be too close for comfort, the NTHP was done dealing with Congress. They were done being “lobbyists on our own behalf” (Adelman, 2005) and wanted to do more with what resources they had from other grants and memberships. This interaction of revenue stream and priorities came to a confluence and then a compromise. This compromise helped the NTHP establish what they felt was important, and put their priorities first. Because they now were leaning away from government support, their true priorities could be established without the lobbying and bias of the Congress of the United States.

Evaluate the case for cutting public expenditure rather than raising taxes as a means of reducing fiscal deficits.

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.

The purpose of my research is to discern how welfare spending, healthcare spending, defence spending, and pension spending impacted vote choice in the 2013 Australian election in comparison to the 2012 United States election, 2013 German election, and 2012 France election. I expect that as support for welfare spending, pension spending, and healthcare spending, decreases, support for right wing parties will increase. I expect that there will be a positive effect on voting for right wing parties as support for defence spending increases. I expect that of these issues, welfare spending will have the largest magnitude and that pension spending will have the lowest magnitude. I do not believe there will be an additional effect in Australia and that the impact will be similar to that of other industrial democracies.

This diminishes the potential of an elitist concentration developing in the congress. By providing each politician (whose is significant enough to qualify for such funding) an equal amount of funding to use to campaign during an election, the frugality of limited resources will cause the funds to be spent deliberately, appealing to people through a political platform and message, and not due to behemoth largesse employed to win elections. According to author of Welfare for Politicians?: Taxpayer Financing of Campaigns John Samples, “Fundraising success correlates strongly with electoral success. In 2002, 95 percent of House winners raised more than their opponents. In 2004, more than 95 percent of House winners outspent their

To begin with , budgeting in the public setting clearly have political implications ,as Rubin discussed in her writings “ The politics of public budgeting”. In the government’s effort to build an audacious spy satellite , the government surpassed it’s budget limit for a failed attempt on the creation of “F.I.A.” During this time the C.I.A and the government was in a rush to build this brand new spy program in order to spy on the soviet union. Although , after a while congress realized there were no progress in building the spy program and wanted to shut it down others in the political setting continuously paid for the project to keep it going. According to Phillip Taubman “ It took two more years, several more review panels , and billions more dollars before the government finally killed this project.”

Definition: Money granted by the federal government to state and local governments, with strict limitations on how it is to be spent.

“To budget is to fight over money and the things money buys” (Document A). The federal budget is adjusted every year and has to follow certain criteria set forward by the Preamble to the Constitution. The Preamble sets five goals that the budget must fulfill, these goals are: to establish justice, to insure domestic tranquility, to provide for the common defence, to promote the general welfare, and to secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our prosperity. Furthermore, it is difficult to decide what clusters of the federal budget to allocate money to in order to meet the five goals of the Preamble which are “The Big Five”, “The Middle Five”, and “The Little Guys.” In each of the three budget clusters,

One of the advantages that incumbents enjoy in congressional elections is due to “Pork barrel politics” this term is used when congressmen and senators focus government funds into their home

32. Legislators use pork barrel politics and earmarks to bring money and jobs back to their home districts to show their constituents that they are working toward their best interests in Congress.

Taylor, a special interest group member, controlled everything Senator Paine did until he finally decided to change. This denotes the impact that wealth can have in the government. The system is designed so that things such as pork barreling can pass and sometimes need to pass in order for a law to go through. This creates a system of lies and corruption, with members of the Senate not looking out for the national good. Senators are forced to focus on improving their own district because it is all they can do to ensure re-election. The most successful Senators do this because it gains short-term approval from their district and gets them a future vote. This is a method of maintaining their career, and is something they are in some cases forced to do. If someone like Mr. Smith came in and was consistently free of corruption, people would vote for him based on his truthfulness.

The federal budget is known as the infamous monetary tank from which money is distributed to various programs. Why does the federal budget plan cause such uproar of approval or disapproval when it is proposed by the President every February? The money utilized every fiscal year, which runs from October 1st of each year until the end of September of the following year, belongs to the people. The money is raised through income taxes, excise taxes (taxes on goods) and social insurance payroll taxes. Presently, the public is worried about how they will receive a fair share of money appropriations in such a slow economy. The federal deficit has returned, which means that the government’s spending

The funds from the bill were to be allocated to different projects that were designed to create jobs. Part of this was a distribution of the funds to states based on how effectively they would use the funds (Chenn). In an article quoted by Chenn, Daniel Wilson says that the bill is aimed at states that are in need of funds, therefore they will spend the money

All organizations strive to streamline operations, which in turn should lead to saving money. Fighting the wasting of resources should be a top priority for any government entity and particularly for supervisors, managers, and executives. In the public sector this is particularly true because the citizens in effect supply the resources wasted. The public trust should not be abused by careless or needless spending. However, because of the bureaucratic nature of any government agency, some waste cannot readily be avoided. The laws and regulations that have been duly enacted to secure justified expenditures in and of themselves can cause waste.