Article Review and Analysis - Book Report/Review Example

Important is to make judicious choice of resource utilization. The new thing that has happened since 9/11 is that instead of surplus budgets, the U.S. economy seems to be on the path of deficit budgeting. All credit cannot be given to terrorism for the current various budgetary complications. Budget outlook and process has undergone change irrespective of the happenings of September 2011. Other factors affecting deficit budget include weakened economy and tax cuts. Sharpness of fiscal measures has become blunt due to increased spending on national security.

The new situation has questioned the quantum of authority given to the President. Nothing has changed in federal budgeting procedures after September 11. Actually, budgetary complications are arising because of uncertainties over cost and length of war-time on terrorism. Policy makers need to determine fiscal policy rules to attain set targets. Change in federal budgeting since September 11 was due more because of other factors than terrorism. Estimates of Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and that of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) are unanimous over the increasing deficit between 2001 and 2002, but OMB is positive of a surplus budget two years in advance than what CBO perceives to get a surplus budget in 2006 only.

Leading cause of deficit budget has been weak economy; while tax cuts has been the secondary reason. Federal revenues declined because of reduction in the earning of wealthiest Americans, while growth during the fiscal years 1993-2000 was credited to high stock market and reward to senior level executives. Medicare and Medicaid also played a role in deficit budgeting, of course other than terrorism. Overall, not more than 40 percent change in budget outlook was caused by terrorist attack. Irrespective of the September 11 attacks, deficit budgeting was sure to happen.

The Loss of Budgetary Consensus A lack of consensus was observed in political leaders over macro-budgetary aims. Earlier, during 1985-1998, Nirvana was sought in presenting an overall balanced budget only, which changed later on reaching a consensus, but without a limitation. Congress achieved a budgetary process from the Budget Act, but without a pre-determined result. Actually, the norm of deficit budget was never questioned historically, although not recommended by economists and experts. A list of legislative actions and sudden economic growth led to budgetary balance in 1998.

The 2000 Presidential campaign by both the political parties prioritized the Social Security trust funds, above all to get political mileage. President Bush let this priority to Social Security continue until the magic line has been crossed. The fiscal policy goals changed suddenly with September 2011 with the $40 billion defense assistance. The long-term security concerns over-ruled budgetary balance when the 2003 budget was presented. The terrorist act of September 11 let President Bush to increase the defense budget by 27 percent, which was bound to be increased otherwise too.

The shift to crisis strategies was evident. Other government departments also realigned spending with the new priority. The extent of drowning deep into the deficit budgeting was never measured to know where to put a full stop. It led to the loss of macro-budgetary consensus, as no resolution was passed in 2003. Without a resolution, either on BEA caps or PAYGO, or any other constraint, federal budget is a half-heartedly