Suppose when he took office in January 2009, President Obama wanted to reduce the level of spending by the DEA during fiscal year 2009. What budget procedure would have allowed him to do that? A. He could have requested executive transfers out of the Drug Enforcement Administration to the Department of Treasury impoundment fund. B. Congress could have approved a recession. C. He could have requested a financial audit of the DEA. D. He could have created a new governing policy or federal law.

Suppose when he took office in January 2009, President Obama wanted to reduce the level of spending by the DEA during fiscal year 2009. What budget procedure would have allowed him to do that? A. He could have requested executive transfers out of the Drug Enforcement Administration to the Department of Treasury impoundment fund. B. Congress could have approved a recession. C. He could have requested a financial audit of the DEA. D. He could have created a new governing policy or federal law.

Principles of Economics 2e

2nd Edition

ISBN:9781947172364

Author:Steven A. Greenlaw; David Shapiro

Publisher:Steven A. Greenlaw; David Shapiro

Chapter18: Public Economy

Section: Chapter Questions

Problem 17CTQ: When Microsoft was founded, the company devoted very few resources to lobbying activities. After a...

See similar textbooks

Similar questions

Suppose that when he took office in January 2009, President Obama wanted to reduce the level of spending by the Drug Enforcement Administration during fiscal 2009. What budget procedure would have allowed him to do that?
Thinking in terms of economic efficiency, almost all economists agree that some government agencies are needed to have economic efficiency because they can ensure ... Group of answer choices a. Private property rights b. Companies earn profits c. Consumers will always receive good products d. Governments can redistribute wealth
Name and explain in detail two mechanisms through which the market for corporate control operates.
The rules of politics are not always the same as the rules of economics. In discussions of setting budgets for government agencies, there is a strategy called “closing the Washington Monument.” When an agency faces the unwelcome prospect of a budget cut, it may decide to close a high-visibility attraction enjoyed by many people (like the Washington Monument). Is this strategy economically efficient? In other words, does it minimize the utility loss from a budget cut? Explain. If this strategy is not economically efficient, what is the incentive to pursue such a strategy?
How does a government agency raise revenue differently from a private company, and how does that affect the way government makes decisions compared to business decisions?
6. The course is us american government Locate an article that covered the 2016 presidential election. Look for evidence in the article for priming, framing, and slant. Make sure to include in your assignment: Name of the article and its author Is the article made by a public or private entity? Who is the author trying to reach (audience)? Are they playing more to one specific ideology and if so, what ideology is it? Looking at the article as a whole, and based on what you have found in your analysis, do you believe that this article is a credible source? Why?
3. Can federal agencies make their own rules and prosecute those who violate the rules?
The concept of market efficiency applies only in the financial market. True or False?
When Microsoft was founded, the company devoted very few resources to lobbying activities. After a high-profile antitrust case against it, however, the company began to lobby heavily. Why does it make financial sense for companies to invest in lobbyists?
Government affects business by being all but one of the following 1. A tax collector 2. An agent 3. A customer 4. A Regulator Asap
The Federal Debt Reduction Commission recommended that both mortgage-related subsidies and tax breaks from the federal agencies that help middle- and lower-income families buy homes be scaled back or eliminated. The Obama administration has proposed taking the latter step, eliminating Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac but doing nothing about the incentives and tax breaks that benefit wealthier taxpayers. Is their proposal ethical? Why or why not?
Explain the impact of corruption from an economic perspective!