The Fables and Foibles of Federal Capital Budgeting

This article critically evaluates the notions behind proposals to institute capital budgeting at the federal level. Four critical assumptions are found to be behind the contention that capital budgeting will improve federal investment policies: (1) an agreed-upon and accepted definition of a capital budget exists; (2) a capital budget "adds value" by improving the quality of information; (3) better information leads to better decisions; (4) better decisions lead to better actions. Each of these assumptions is evaluated using examples drawn from various levels of government and from the private sector. The general finding is that if these assumptions hold, then it is reasonable to expect that capital budgeting will lead to better programmatic decisions. Unfortunately, one or more of these assumptions usually does not hold and for this reason the case for federal capital budgeting is not very strong     

The Great Unraveling: Federal Budgeting, 1998–2006

Since 1998, budgeting reforms at the federal level have unraveled extensively. The budget process has become ad hoc, fragmented, and opaque, balance has been elusive, and the failure to prioritize has become endemic. One cause was the mismatch between the budget process in 1998, which was designed to eliminate deficits, and the emerging budgetary surpluses of that time. A second contributing factor was the desire to reduce taxes while expenditures were increasing as a result of wars and natural disasters. The consequences of this great unraveling include the failure to fund Medicare and Social Security adequately when the opportunity was presented, as well as threats to constitutional and democratic governance. Renewed reform may require greater transparency and a willingness to embarrass elected officials with iconic stories.     

Federal Budgeting and Finance in 1991: The Future is Now

The large federal deficits run throughout the 1980s generated concern that we were mortgaging our future. In 1991, the note came due. The potential for aggravating the long-run deficit problem constrained fiscal policy from reacting to the recession. Institutional and partisan conflict and the controls established by the Budget Enforcement Act (BEA) limited responses to a remarkable budgetary opportunity—the dissolution of the Soviet Union—and to a serious budgetary threat—exploding health care costs. The BEA controls were applied rigidly with a few minor exceptions, and credit reform was implemented successfully; on the other hand, Congress and the president made no headway on further deficit reductions even though long-run projections worsened. The agenda-setting role of the president's budget for the fiscal year 1993 diminished, as the document's format was heavily influenced by the upcoming presidential election. In contrast to this mixed record for federal budgeting, progress was made in building a financial management structure and developing accounting standards.     

The Federal Reserve System and the Credit Crisis

The Federal Reserve System struggled to maintain order in U.S. credit markets as rapid declines in home prices led to huge write-downs in the value of mortgage-backed securities held by financial institutions. The Fed could have taken a number of steps—in the mortgage market or through broader regulatory actions—to either preempt or mitigate the impact of this market disruption. Broader regulatory actions—in the mortgage market, of risk taking by financial institutions, or in the form of actions to limit the contagion of crisis—imply fundamental changes at the Fed. The network of actors with a stake in broader regulatory action is powerful and highly resistant to regulatory scrutiny. The statutory mission of the Fed—especially its commitment to stable prices—could be jeopardized by a broad and explicit mandate to provide liquidity to a wide range of vulnerable financial institutions.     

A Comment on "The Great Unraveling: Federal Budgeting, 1998–2006"

To declare that the federal budgetary process is in utter shambles based principally on an analysis of a six-year interval during a single presidential administration, as Professor Irene Rubin does in the preceding article, is unfair to history and misleading. Drawing on significant budgetary experience as a U.S. Senate staff member, the author of this essay argues that (1) the contributions of emergency appropriations and earmarks to the federal budgetary imbalance are overstated, (2) the goal of perpetual budgetary balance is unsound policy, and (3) budgets—inevitably the result of a political process—are artifacts reflecting societal priorities at a given point in time.     

Federal Intervention in the Municipal Bond Market: The Effectiveness of the Build America Bond Program and Its Implications on Federal and Subnational Budgeting

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) included several new federal programs intended ostensibly to “unfreeze” the credit markets as a result of the global financial crisis. One such program, the Build America Bond (BAB) program, aimed to lower the borrowing costs for state and local governments by increasing their access to capital and providing a more generous federal subsidy than the traditional indirect tax exemption subsidy. BABs are taxable bonds sold by subnational governments, which carry a 35 percent direct federal payment subsidy to the borrower. In creating this program, the federal government hoped that the large direct federal subsidy along with greater potential investor interest in taxable securities would result in lower borrowing costs for state and local governments vis‐à‐vis traditional tax‐exempt bonds. This research study examines the relative effectiveness of the BAB program and details the various quantitative and qualitative implications on federal and subnational budgeting by moving from an indirect to a direct federal subsidy approach in facilitating state and local government capital raising.     

The Reiterative Nature of Budget Reform: Is There Anything New in Federal Budgeting?

This article will attempt to demonstrate the limitations of budget reforms to bring about fundamental change in budget outcomes. In an effort to determine the extent to which these reforms have had any lasting effect, the author first discusses the history of federal budgeting since the advent of the executive budget in 1921. Second, the author reviews three reforms that are prominent in the U.S. Congress current budget debate—enacting fixed budget targets, granting the president increased power in the budget process through enacting a line item veto, or implementing a performance-based budget. Lastly, the author will cite the limitations of each to bring about lasting changes in budget outcomes or decision processes.     

The Roads to Transformation: Budgeting Issues in the Czech and Slovak Federal Republic 1989–1992

The Czech and Slovak Federal Republic no longer exists, but by the time of its dissolution, the transformation from a socialist to a democratic model of budgeting to another was well under way. This article illustrates some of the major issues facing countries attempting to remodel their systems of budgeting and financial management toward a more liberalized and democratic society.     

The Impact of Federal Preemption of State Antipredatory Lending Laws on the Foreclosure Crisis

State antipredatory lending laws (APLs) are designed to protect borrowers against predatory lending that can increase the risk of default and deplete the home equity held by borrowers. Federal regulators instituted preemption that limited the scope and reach of state antipredatory lending regulations for certain lenders. Based on the variation in state laws and the variation in the regulatory environment among lenders, this paper identifies the effects of federal preemption of state APLs on the quality of mortgages originated by preempted lenders. The results provide evidence of a relatively higher increase in default risk among loans exempted from strong state antipredatory laws. These results are most robust among refinance mortgages with adjustable interest rates—a large and highly dynamic market in the period of analysis. The findings provide initial evidence that preemption of state mortgage lending regulations may result in an increase in mortgage default risk, thus limiting consumer protection in the residential mortgage market.     

Beyond Truth and Integrity in State Budgeting: Why State Governments Use Budget Balancing Maneuvers (or Gimmicks)?

This study investigates the influence of political, structural, economic, and other factors on state governments’ use of maneuvers to balance budgets and eliminate deficits from FY 15 to FY 18. Budget maneuvers are unsound and nonsustainable strategies, such as using borrowed funds to finance operations and underfunding pensions. These practices were documented and graded by The Volcker Alliance for all states and years in collaboration with faculty and students at multiple universities. Consistent with prior research that uses an adaptation framework to explain the strategies government officials use to balance budgets, this research finds that state financial condition has the strongest effect or one of the strongest effects on states’ use of such budget gimmicks.     

The "Ball of Confusion" in Federal Budgeting: A Shadow Agenda for Deliberative Reform of the Budget Process

The budget process is seriously flawed, as Irene Rubin suggests, but there is little prospect for its effective reform. Current economic and political conditions could open the window for reform, but the excessive partisanship that helped create these conditions also has reduced the pool of institutionalists who could lead reforms. More important is confusion about which reforms might be most effective. Most proposed reforms would create more rules, but they will not work unless politicians commit to meeting the goals such rules are intended to support. Those commitments could be produced by deliberation over critical issues that have been neglected in recent discussions of budget process reform: how the process could support macroeconomic policy making, how improved budget concepts could accurately measure finances and aid in dealing with upcoming policy challenges, how reorganization could enable intelligent priority setting, and how the process could be better aligned with the constitutional sharing of powers and the electoral system.     

Australian Public Policy, Federalism, and Intergovernmental Relations: The Federal Factor

Public policy is the overt activity of governing and what governmentshave as their primary purpose. This is so whether the politicalsystem is unitary or federal. There are many more elements thatcomplicate policymaking in a federal system. In particular,constitutional, financial, and political issues intrude becauseof the necessary interdependence of otherwise independent andautonomous national and subnational components. This articleaddresses this complexity of joint action through use of theideas about federalism, the structure of governing institutions,and the processes of policymaking. The extent to which an outcomedepends on the mixture of independence and interdependence isconceptualized as degrees of the federal factor. Linking thisconcept to particular policy arenas may provide a better understandingof federal systems than explanation from centralization or decentralizationor dependence or independence.     

The Federal, and the State and Local Roles in Government Expenditures

This article compares government expenditures by functional category of the federal government relative to state and local governments and the changes in their respective roles since 1955. The article includes a review of the federal role relative to the state and local role on a function-by-function basis for these three and a half decades. This analysis demonstrates considerable stability in the federal sector and the state and local sector, but also the capacity for change.     

The Federal Judiciary and Northern School Desegregation: Law, Politics, and Judicial Management

Using a three-tier analysis, this article examines how the interplayof political and legal factors has influenced the developmentof school desegregation policy in Michigan and Ohio. The authorconcludes, among other things, that the district courts, theSixth Circuit Court of Appeals, and the U.S. Supreme Court aresensitive to the influences of politics and legalism, but thatthe responses of the three kinds of federal courts are different.Recognizing a constitutional imperative to eradicate segregation,district courts have emphasized the participation of electedofficials and affected community groups in the remedial process.Because of isolation and low visibility, the Sixth Circuit hastended to pursue a more tenacious policy course than eitherthe district court or the Supreme Court. Meanwhile, the U.S.Supreme Court has generally championed the cause of local officialsby attempting to balance the interest of eliminating segregationwith that of protecting the integrity of state and local decisionmakers.