Political Science

U5-Survey of Public Policy
Budget deficit is the worst thing that can happen in any government. This is the reason why each fiscal year, the governments budget allocation is carefully evaluated. The initial reaction when there is a deficit is to cut on expenditures and raise the taxes. However, this is easier said than done. If we are to do this, there should be careful and thorough analysis on which expenses can be considered unnecessary and in case of increasing taxes, we have to determine if the public and the businesses can afford it.

The Presidents 2006 budget proposal which proposed a cut in non security discretionary spending saved a total of 20 billion dollars. However, this is only a fraction of the deficit which was around .6. Favourably, the 2006 Budget also proposed critical reforms in mandatory programs like the Social Security budget which are harder to restrain. The reforms are estimated to reduce up to 137 billion over a 10-year period. (n.a, 2006)

When doing a budget allocation, even in a unit as simple as a family, there is one consideration that will outweigh everything else  priorities. Did the president allocate the budget in such a way that it will give more focus to things of utmost importance

How would you specifically adjust the Presidents proposal
While the President proposed a cut in most of non-security discretionary spending, the increase on Armed Forces budget that fiscal year marked the highest since the Reagan Administration. This is even higher than the increase imposed on Medicare. One major highlight of the presidents proposal is the increase in the Defense budget and the 171 decrease on Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)s budget. (Bell, 2006, p-2)

This is despite the fact that year 2005 was called the year of disasters specifically after Hurricane Katrina claimed a total loss of more than 125 billion dollars. In this aspect, I think the President should focus not just on the transformation of the Armed Forces but also in the rehabilitation of the areas affected by disasters and most importantly, the funding strategy that year should have been to give more importance on emergency management. The increase applied to the Armed forces should have been allocated to rehabilitation and emergency preparedness instead. Thus, rather than reducing FEMAs budget by 171 billion, it should have been increased by at 100 or to 3.742. Then, the Homelands Securitys budget should be retained at 40.3 billion rather than increasing it to 42.7 billion.

Would you increase taxes in order to raise revenue or would you cut funding to certain programs
This happened in a time when businesses and citizens alike are having a hard time keeping themselves afloat. Also those who have suffered from the disasters for the year of 2005 may still havent recovered from the loss they have encountered. As such, while increasing taxes may have increased revenue, it would make businesses recovery harder and slower thus making it difficult for them to continue employing people. If this will happen, there will be lesser job in the future and therefore, increase unemployment rate. This will pose bigger problem in the long run.

Also, imposing a higher tax rate will only encourage tax payer not to pay. This is the same as increasing taxes on home ownership. If you will increase the taxes, most may be discourage to purchase one. If there will be a reduction however, then they might consider owning one. Should it be the latter, the government, the citizens and the real estate companies will all benefit.

In my assumption, it is therefore much better if the government will focus on reducing funds for programs that are not necessary. Again, budget allocation all boils down to determining what your priorities are.