THIS IS ONLY AN INTERPRETATION, FIVE SENTENCES AND A QUESTION IS ALL I NEED. TELL ME YOUR THOUGHTS, HAVE REFERENCES

Introduction

With regards to a government, such as a national government, a balanced budget equates with revenues’ being equal to expenditures: Accounts balance (Mikesell, 2014, pp. 166-167; Boundless, n.d.). It may be said that the federal government always has had a balanced budget as its deficits have always been covered by loans (Mikesell, p. 166). For a government it may be also allowed that in a balanced-budget, there is not only no deficit, but a surplus of revenue, (Boundless). Typically, handling sudden expenses is handled by borrowing (Mikesell, p. 167). Ideally, with regards to a government’s having a balanced budget, this should also mean decreased interest rates, and, in complementary-fashion, increased savings and investment opportunities, in-the-midst of shrinking trade deficits (Boundless). All of this should help the country grow much faster, and over a longer period of time (Boundless). Such a presumed view of the ideal of a balanced national budget would also seem to make it a panacea in then being able to provide fiscal support to public organizations, inclusive of Nonprofit Organizations (NPO’s) (Mikesell, p. 166; Boundless). Notwithstanding, the application of such things as Keynesian theory (Mikesell, 2014, p. 137; Boundless), Zero-Based Budgeting (ZBB) (Deloitte, 2015, pp 1-3; Mikesell, pp. 265-268), and political-budgeting assumptions of a congress and senate that directs and redirects funds without the understanding, insight, savvy, extrapolation abilities, vision and objectivity of pure economists (Mikesell, p. 112; Buchanan, 2012, pp. 683-684), even while the President may be appropriating funds (Mikesell, pp. 107-119), may well prove otherwise (Buchanan, pp. 683-684; Mikesell, pp. 139-143; pp. 110-112). Regarding supporting public organizations, the actual concern is sustainability through not overspending for large government, rather than paying the national debt to balance the budget (Mikesell, p. 166; Boccia, 2013; Mitchell, 2005).

General Misconceptions and Innocently Dispelling the Empty Myths

In dispelling the misconceptions promoting laboring under illusions, which suffering could well be global nowadays, in a rapidly-changing world (Mikesell, p. 137; pp. 139-143), some other key terms need to be defined as to their actual meaning as they should be affecting the world of reality (Buchanan, pp. 683-684). As politicians may be no more knowledgeable than the public stakeholders they are supposed to support when it comes to federal deficits and debt (Mikesell, pp. 110-112), their cries of financial responsibility to eliminate government borrowing and promote paying the national debt may actually prove misguiding and counterproductive (Mikesell, p. 166; Buchanan, pp. 683-684). There is, in-fact, no decided advantage to paying immediately a debt that can only be eliminated through running annual budget surpluses (Buchanan, pp. 683-684). It might be argued that strategically it is far better to let the debt rise through borrowing to ensure that tomorrow’s children will be provided for, and not deprived, as would be guaranteed if attempt were made to pay the debt immediately and thereby lose all resources for now and the future (Buchanan, pp. 683-684).

Being Positively Dynamic with Regards to Borrowing in a Rapidly-Changing World

At-the-same-time, the debt cannot just be carelessly allowed to escalate as it is already having a devastating effect upon the economy, including globally, which can negatively affect public organizations (Mikesell, pp. 139-143; Boccia). The rising debt that has not been kept-in-check as promised by the Obama administration rampantly causes higher interest rates, less purchasing power because of inflation, delayed home purchasing, unaffordable medical care for longer-living seniors, etc. (Boccia). For the benefit of public organizations with regard to government spending as concerns their sustainability for the benefit of the stakeholders of the environment, it appears that what is actually needed is dynamism, such as is expressed in Keynesian theory, in a rapidly-changing world and ever-more global economy (Mikesell, p. 137; pp. 139-143; Mitchell, Boccia; Rivin & Sawhill, 2005; Primo, 2011; Sheck, pp. 109-114; DeHaven, 2011).

The Applied Dynamism of Keynesian Economic Theory in a Rapidly-Changing World

Ostensibly, major examples of the volatility of economy and the inherent necessity of approaching it in a dynamic fashion have been little appreciated by-way-of a lesson learned, especially in the United States (Piketty, 2014, pp. 570-571). The economy’s totaling dropping subsequent to World War I (WWI) and taking the world totally by surprise provides the biggest example of such instability (Piketty, pp. 106-109; Alesina, 2000, p. 6). Then, even while this is followed-up with hitting a high plateau in 1998 from a surplus after building back up for about a century (Alesina, 2000, pp. 3-18), the economy is threatening again to dip severely, especially in America (Boccia; Piketty, pp. 570-571). The theory that there is a direct correlation between a worker’s wage and marginal productivity and skill has proven to be limited and naïve (Piketty, pp. 304-307). Learning from economic circumstance such as to respond positively is so bad, especially in the United States, that it may be said that the past is devouring the future (Piketty, p. 570). Even the take-away aphorism Keynesian economic theory, The Boom, Not the Slump, Is the Right Time for Austerity at the Treasury, has done nothing sustaining in national economic regard concerning learning from the past and then applying the knowledge gained as wisdom in the future in a world economy that does not hold still (Mikesell, p. 137; Edwards, 2015).

Applying Keynesian Economic Theory Now and Balancing the National Budget

In responding dynamically to a rapidly-changing world, Keynesian economics present the logic of budgeting during business cycles, while running deficits during recessions (Boundless). Keynesian economists hold that during a recession governments should increase spending and reduce taxes (Boundless). Contrariwise, during a growth cycle, the government should run budget surplus, thereby spending less and taxing more (Boundless). Through responding to the economy in a balancing fashion, the budget should be balanced without worsening recessions by spending more (Boundless). Nonetheless, regarding an ever-shifting economy (Alesina, p. 6; Piketty, pp. 570-571), the critical mass point is rapidly being approached in borrowing (Mikesell, pp. 139-143; Boccia), and remediation of such is not covered by Keynesian economics (Edwards). Neither is the fact that balancing the national budget is a moot point in the view of the merits of focused spending for such sustainability as a large government does not afford (Edwards; Mitchell). It does not seem that a balanced budget, even if achieved through Keynesian economics or some other means, such as loans (Mikesell, p. 166), would eliminate the threats of inflation, high interest rates, high trade deficits, etc. as would capping borrowing (Boccia; Mitchell; Mikesell, pp. 139-143; DeHaven, 2011). In this regard, ZBB has not contributed much through being unrealistically inflexible as to why a budget needs to be balanced anyway (Mikesell, pp. 265-268; Deloitte, p. 3).

ZBB’s Inadvertently Adding Inflexibility to Balancing the Budget

ZBB starts with the unrealistic notion that every fiscal year is going to start with nothing owed—0—to the last fiscal year (Mikesell, p. 265; Deloitte, p. 3). Such is the case, even when it is common practice to push debts back into the future when funding is rapidly dissipating in the present economic cycle (Mikesell, p. 265; Deloitte, p. 3). While ZBB does want to do worthwhile things for the economy, such as making certain money goes to where it can do the most good, rather than be squandered, its incumbent micromanagement can be confusing and demoralizing (Mikesell, pp. 266-268; Deloitte, p. 3). ZBB demands specialists when the funding is all over the place itself with such things as this year’s debts commonly getting paid from next year’s budget, and never starting with the requisite clean slate anyway (Mikesell, p. 265; Deloitte, p. 3). As such common practice means starting with a deficit, instead of the necessary balance, even with the best intentions, ZBB is not a realistic application in a rapidly-changing—including politically inconstant—world (Deloitte, p. 3; Mikesell, pp. 139-143; pp. 110-112; Boccia; Mitchell; Buchanan, pp. 683-684). Such has ironically proven to be the case also with Results-Based/New Performance Budgeting, which has demonstrated itself to be unrealistically inflexible in its not crossing agencies in its application, when flexibility through objectivity was supposed to be its saving and sustaining grace (Mikesell, p. 279; pp. 268-283). Perhaps federal integration of performance and budgeting will come to prove itself (Mikesell, pp. 283-291).

Conclusion

As concerns the government’s supporting public organizations, the concern is not balancing the budget, but capping borrowing debt and directing funds properly for sustainability since overspending for large government is counterproductive for everyone (Mitchell; Boccia; DeHaven; Edwards). There are major economic concerns regarding the government’s providing support for public organization stakeholders (Mitchell; Boccia). The gratuitous balancing of the national budget is not one of them (Mikesell, p. 136; Boundless; DeHaven). The somewhat flexible Keynesian economic model cannot balance the national budget when the real concern is keeping borrowing from taking things over the top (Edwards; Deloitte, p. 3; Boccia). ZBB is too rigid and divorced from reality to be of any use in a rapidly-changing world, which is emphasized with its self-obsessiveness in balancing the national budget when that will not help anything anyway (Deloitte, p. 3; Mikesell, 265-268; p. 166; pp. 139-143). The flexibility needed to ensure a sustaining economy has to be more than Keynesian to handle economics for public organizations in a rapidly-changing world (Edwards; Boundless; Mikesell, pp. 268-282; pp. 283-291; pp. 139-143; pp. 110-112; pp. 268-291; Mitchell; Boccia). The flexibility of objectivity and openness of economic skills have to be there to see and act upon the fact that properly directing funds, dealing with unexpected expenses such as appropriations, capping borrowing, and being free of large government are what are crucial to the government’s supporting public organizations, not rigidly, tautologically balancing a national budget (Boundless; Mitchell; Boccia; Buchanan, pp. 683-684; Deloitte, p. 3; Mikesell, p. 137; pp. 139-143; pp. 107-119; pp. 110-112; pp. 265-268; pp. pp. 268-291; Edwards; DeHaven).

References

Aaron, H. J. (2015). Constitutional solutions to our escalating national debt: Examining balanced

budget amendments. Brookings. Retrieved from https://www.brookings.edu/testimonies/constitutional-solutions-to-our-escalating-national-debt-examining-balanced-budget-amendments/.

Alesina, A. (2000). The political economy of the budget surplus in the United States. Journal of

Economic Perspectives, 14(3), 3-19. Retrieved from https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/alesina/files/the_political_economy_of_the_budget_surplus_in_the_us.pdf.

Boccia, R. (2013). How the United States’ high debt will weaken the economy and hurt

Americans. The Heritage Foundation. Retrieved from http://www.heritage.org/budget-and-spending/report/how-the-united-states-high-debt-will-weaken-the-economy-and-hurt.

Boundless. (n.d.) Arguments for and against balancing the budget. Boundless.com. Retrieved

from https://www.boundless.com/economics/textbooks/boundless-economics-textbook/fiscal-policy-26/evaluating-fiscal-policy-113/arguments-for-and-against-balancing-the-budget-437-12534/.

Buchanan, N.H. (2012). Why we should never pay down the national debt. GW Law Faculty

Publications and other Works, 683(2012), 681-697. Retrieved from http://scholarship.law.gwu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1025&context=faculty_publications.

DeHaven, T. (2011). We don’t need a balanced budget amendment. US News. Retrieved from

https://www.usnews.com/debate-club/does-the-united-states-need-a-balanced-budget-amendment/we-dont-need-a-balanced-budget-amendment.

Deloitte. (2015). Zero-based budgeting: Zero or hero? Retrieved from

https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/us/Documents/process-and-operations/us-cons-zero-based-budgeting.pdf.

Edwards, C. (2015). The need to balance the budget and reduce the national debt. Cato Institute.

Retrieved from https://www.cato.org/publications/testimony/need-balance-budget-reduce-federal-debt.

Hatch, O. (2011). Balanced budget amendment would have prevented current mess. US News.

Retrieved from https://www.usnews.com/debate-club/does-the-united-states-need-a-balanced-budget-amendment/balanced-budget-amendment-would-have-prevented-current-mess.

Mikesell, J. L. (2014). Fiscal administration: Analysis and applications for the public sector (9^th

ed.). Boston, MA: Wadsworth.

Mitchell, D. (2005). The impact of government spending on economic growth. The Heritage

Foundation. Retrieved from http://www.heritage.org/budget-and-spending/report/the-impact-government-spending-economic-growth.

Piketty, T. (2014). Capital in the twenty-first century (A. Goldhammer, Trans.). Cambridge,

MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.

Primo, D. (2011). Act now to prevent a debt crisis. US News. Retrieved from

https://www.usnews.com/debate-club/does-the-united-states-need-a-balanced-budget-amendment/act-now-to-prevent-a-debt-crisis.

Rivin, A.M., & Sawhill, I.V. How to balance the budget. (2005). Brookings. Retrieved from

https://www.brookings.edu/research/how-to-balance-the-budget/.

Rubin, D.B., Singh, S.R., & Jacobson, P.D. (2013). Evaluating hospitals’ provision of

community benefit: An argument for an outcome-based approach to nonprofit hospital tax exemption. American Public Health Association (APHA), 103(4). Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3673262/.

Scheck, A. (2005). Sustainable budget policy: Concepts and approaches OECD Journal on