Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
E. Rey Garcia, MPA Candidate
Public Policy Formulation
August 10, 2015
Budgeting: Allocation & Public Policy
Final Assignment #7
A Summary, Analysis, & Recommendations, the Federal Budget Process and Public Policy
Budgeting: Allocation and Public Policy 1
Intentionally Left Blank
Budgeting: Allocation and Public Policy 2
Final Assignment
Budgeting: Allocation & Public PolicyA Summary, Analysis, & Recommendations, the Federal Budget Process and Public Policy
By: E. Rey Garcia, MPA CandidateMonday, August 10, 2015
**************
The University of Texas Rio Grande Valley (UTRGV)The Graduate College
Public Affairs-Administration
*************
PUBA 6311: Public Policy FormulationSummer 2015, Module 2
Dr. Atisa
Budgeting: Allocation and Public Policy 3
Intentionally Left Blank
Budgeting: Allocation and Public Policy 4
Table of Contents
Objective 6
Introduction 6
Summary 6
The Characteristics of the Federal Budget 6
Executive Budget 7
The Line Item 7
Annual Budget 7
The Budget Cycle 8
Setting the Parameters: The President and His Friends 9
The Agency Requests 9
Executive Review 9
Congressional Action 10
Budget Execution 11
Budget Control 11
Problems in the Budget Process 12
The Deficit 12
Uncontrollable Expenditures 12
Supplemental Appropriations 13
Earmarks 13
The Rebirth of Program Budgeting 16
Analysis 17
Resources/Money 17
Working with and around the Deficit and the National Debt 18
The Top-Five Elements of the Budgeting Process 18
Concluding Recommendations – Performance Measurement 23
References 25
Budgeting: Allocation and Public Policy 5
Intentionally Left Blank
Budgeting: Allocation and Public Policy 6
Objective
To brief, educate, and mentor the candidate on the Characteristics of the Federal Budget,
the Executive Budget, Line Items, the Annual Budget, the Federal Budget Cycle and the
allocation of funds and any obstacles, issues or problems associated with the process.
Introduction
This case study defines the processes and steps that a recent MPA graduate, who was
hired as a campaign manager for a Congresswoman from a conservative Republican and
Democratic district with two large cities and a large rural population with a vast majority of
senior citizens. The primary task of the campaign manager is to brief, educate, and mentor the
Congresswoman on the Federal Budget Process and the allocation of funds, as it applies to
Public Policy.
Summary
I. The Characteristics of the Federal Budget:
The Federal Budget has several fundamental features that are in some ways not only
beneficial to decision makers but also serve to constrain them and at times help create
undesirable outcomes. The Federal Budget is not politically neutral, however, it directly
affects the outcomes of the process. The frequent attempts to adjust and reform comes
with budgetary resistance from the stakeholders, thus, causing political debating that ends
up in compromising and negotiating before it is approved.
Budgeting: Allocation and Public Policy 7
a. Executive Budget - The federal budget is an executive budget, prepared by the
president and his staff, approved by Congress, and then executed by the president
and the executive branch. That has not always been the case. Before 1921, the
federal budget was a legislative budget, prepared almost entirely by Congress and
then executed.
The Budget and Accounting Act of 1921 – Prior to 1921, the Federal Budget
was a Legislative Budget and was prepare by Congress. The Budgeting and
Accounting Act of 1921 added to the existing conflict between the executive and
legislative branches over budgeting powers. Budgetary power has accumulated in
the executive branch and in the Executive Office of the President, in large part
because of the analytical dominance of the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB; it was called the Bureau of the Budget until 1971).
b. The Line Item - The Federal Budget remains a line-item budget. That is, the final
budget document allocates funds into categories such as wages and salaries,
supplies, travel, equipment, and so forth for specific purposes within an agency.
Input controls are now considered inefficient means of control over public
organizations and their managers. Critics have argued that it would be better to
give a manager a relatively unrestricted budget and judge him afterwards.
c. Annual Budget - The Federal Budget is primarily an annual budget. Agencies
now must submit five-year forecasts for each of their expenditures and they are
used primarily for OMB’s management purposes. The budget presented to
Congress and the appropriations bills that Congress eventually adopts together
constitute only a one-year expenditure plan.
Budgeting: Allocation and Public Policy 8
II. The Budget Cycle:
Fiscal Year 2014 U.S. Federal Spending – Cash or Budget Basis. The Budget of the
United States Government often begins as the President's proposal to the U.S. Congress
which recommends funding levels for the next fiscal year, beginning October 1. Fig 01,
shows the step-by-step cycle and process for adopting the Annual Federal Budget.
Fig. 01: The Annual Federal Budget Process
Budgeting: Allocation and Public Policy 9
a. Setting the Parameters: The President and His Friends – The spring review is
the first official act of the budget cycle is the development of estimates of the total
size of the federal budget to be prepared for the fiscal year. Agencies and OMB
have already have begun to discuss and prepare expenditure plans and a letter
from the president to OMB (Circular A-11, usually issued in June) is an important
first step in the formal process, providing a statement of overall presidential
budgetary strategy and of the financial limits within which agencies should begin
to prepare their budgets. Setting overall parameters in the letter present details on
individual agencies.
b. The Agency Requests – When it comes to U.S. policymaking, government
agencies are central actors in the budget process. Whether independent or within a
cabinet-level department, the agency is responsible for the initial preparation of
estimates and requests for.
c. Executive Review – Once agencies decide on the requests, it is passed to the
presidential agency, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review.
OMB’s task is to gather all agency requests and conform them to presidential
policy priorities for overall expenditure-levels desired.
Budgeting: Allocation and Public Policy 10
d. Congressional Action - The Constitution grants it the powers of the purse, by the
1960s and 1970s, Congress has ceased to be dominating budgetary decision-
maker.
The Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 –
According to Congress.gov, the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control
Act of 1974, sets forth the definitions of terms used in the Act:
Title I: Establishment of House and Senate Budget Committees= - Establishes a
Standing Committee of the Senate to be known as the Committee of the Budget.
Establishes such a Committee of the House. Outlines the composition and duties
of the committees. Provides that each such committee shall make a continuing
study of the effects of budget outlays and devise methods of coordinating tax
policies with budget outlays.
Title II: Congressional Budget Office= - Creates a Congressional Budget Office
and outlines the duties of such Office. States that the function of the Office is to
provide information to the Budget Committees of the two Houses and to other
Committees of the two Houses with respect to the budget, appropriation bills, and
other bills providing budget authority or tax expenditures.
It abolishes the Joint Committee on Reduction of Federal Expenditures. Provides
for public access to budget data.
(Source: https://www.congress.gov/bill/93rd-congress/house-bill/7130.)
Budgeting: Allocation and Public Policy 11
e. Budget Execution - Once Congress appropriates the funds for the executive
branch, agencies must develop mechanisms and plans for spending the allocated
funds. An appropriations warrant, drawn by the Treasury and countersigned by
the Government Accountability Office, is sent to each agency. Agencies make
plans for expenditures for the year and base it on the warrant and submits a plan
to OMB for apportionment of the funds. Funds appropriated by Congress are
made available on a quarterly basis, but for some agencies, there may be great
differences in the amounts for each quarter.
f. Budget Control – Once the executive branch spends the approved funds,
Congress verifies, checks and audits the expenses to make sure they are legal.
g.
Budgeting: Allocation and Public Policy 12
III. Problems in the Budget Process:
The Federal Budget Process is a lengthy one, taking as up to eighteen months to approve
a complexity of negotiations of back and forth debate amongst the competing agencies.
The process involves substantial bargaining and analysis, from which emerges a plan for
spending billions of dollars.
a. The Deficit – According to False Economy, is the gap between what the
government spends and what it gets in income, mainly from taxes. Big deficits
are inevitable in a recession. Spending goes up to pay extra unemployment
benefits. Tax income falls. Companies make smaller profits or
even fail. (Source: http://falseeconomy.org.uk/cure/what-is-the-deficit).
The importance of the deficit during the election process and debates. The deficit
has been a major force driving budget reform in the United States, because of the
negative and debts it symbolizes. Politicians need to remain concerned and aware
of their charges of fiscal irresponsibility. Because of the ideological baggage
associated with deficit and debt, it has been difficult at times to discuss them
rationally.
b. Uncontrollable Expenditures – Most of the Federal Budget is uncontrollable in
any one year. Most federal spending programs cannot be controlled systematically
without making policy changes that would be politically unpalatable. With Social
Security, Medicare and unemployment benefits being the most important
uncontrollable expenditures in the Federal Budget.
Budgeting: Allocation and Public Policy 13
c. Supplemental Appropriations – To cover any shortfalls, agencies may also
require supplemental appropriations to be made outside the normal budget cycle.
Oftentimes, due to poor budget management or demands of services, agencies
sometimes run out of money. Agencies can often request that a program be
approved with minimal appropriations to gain popular vote and support, however,
the agencies can then use strategies to attempt to expand funding once the
program and funds have been allocated and approved, followed by the agencies
anticipation that by returning to Congress for supplemental appropriations when
clients materialize and demand benefits.
d. Earmarks - These are funds provided by Congress for projects or programs that
curtail the ability of the Executive Branch to manage critical aspects of the funds
allocation process.
The following table summarizes preliminary earmark counts and amounts by
Appropriations Subcommittee for FY 2010 as earmarks move through the
legislative process to become law. By clicking on the links below, you can browse
available earmark data by agency. The data includes total counts, amounts (in
thousands), and listings of earmarks with descriptions, funding by stage,
congressional sponsors, and supporting citations. These webpages will be updated
as federal departments and agencies complete their review of House, Senate, and
enacted FY 2010 appropriations. Each total includes a "Date Published" that
reflects the date that amounts, counts, and supporting citation information was last
modified.
Budgeting: Allocation and Public Policy 14
Earmarks table: FY2010 Earmarks by Appropriations Subcommittee
Appropriations Bill
Earmark 2008 Enacted
2009 Enacted
FY 2010 House Committee
FY 2010 House Floor
FY 2010 Senate Committee
FY 2010 Senate Floor
FY 2010 Conference
Agriculture and Rural Development
Count
Amount ($K)
Date Published
525
337,204
04-Sep-2009
494
312,830
09-Mar-2010
323
224,228
11-Apr-2010
323
224,228
11-Apr-2010
302
229,240
11-Apr-2010
302
229,240
11-Apr-2010
465
359,859
11-Apr-2010
Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies
Count
Amount ($K)
Date Published
1,738
932,531
04-Sep-2009
1,556
785,690
09-Mar-2010
1,090
371,158
11-Apr-2010
1,090
371,158
11-Apr-2010
564
384,810
11-Apr-2010
567
400,925
11-Apr-2010
1,518
745,389
11-Apr-2010
Defense
Count
Amount ($K)
Date Published
2,087
6,644,746
04-Sep-2009
2,091
5,577,811
11-Apr-2010
1,132
3,078,455
11-Apr-2010
1,132
3,078,455
11-Apr-2010
793
2,953,160
11-Apr-2010
793
2,953,160
11-Apr-2010
1,759
4,592,471
11-Apr-2010
Energy and Water Development
Count
Amount ($K)
Date Published
1,781
3,686,124
04-Sep-2009
1,839
3,801,893
11-Apr-2010
617
602,808
11-Apr-2010
617
602,808
11-Apr-2010
547
921,016
11-Apr-2010
547
921,016
11-Apr-2010
965
1,185,239
11-Apr-2010
Financial Services and General Government
Count
Amount ($K)
Date Published
202
409,240
04-Sep-2009
265
143,204
11-Apr-2010
189
152,800
11-Apr-2010
190
153,175
11-Apr-2010
111
257,631
11-Apr-2010
278
350,766
11-Apr-2010
Homeland Security
Count
Amount ($K)
Date Published
122
348,218
04-Sep-2009
131
501,328
09-Mar-2010
151
109,723
11-Apr-2010
158
159,723
11-Apr-2010
25
125,725
11-Apr-2010
25
125,725
11-Apr-2010
177
243,695
11-Apr-2010
Interior and Environment
Count
Amount ($K)
Date Published
568
436,058
04-Sep-2009
565
447,300
09-Mar-2010
275
158,131
11-Apr-2010
275
158,131
11-Apr-2010
299
236,136
11-Apr-2010
310
242,461
11-Apr-2010
555
371,356
11-Apr-2010
Budgeting: Allocation and Public Policy 15
Appropriations Bill
Earmark 2008 Enacted
2009 Enacted
FY 2010 House Committee
FY 2010 House Floor
FY 2010 Senate Committee
FY 2010 Senate Floor
FY 2010 Conference
Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education
Count
Amount ($K)
Date Published
2,252
899,278
04-Sep-2009
2,163
882,671
09-Mar-2010
1,139
439,574
11-Apr-2010
1,139
441,574
11-Apr-2010
780
453,262
11-Apr-2010
1,786
823,347
11-Apr-2010
Military Construction and Veterans Affairs
Count
Amount ($K)
Date Published
190
1,177,245
04-Sep-2009
178
1,329,609
11-Apr-2010
109
578,994
11-Apr-2010
109
578,994
11-Apr-2010
96
628,055
11-Apr-2010
96
628,055
11-Apr-2010
184
1,206,086
11-Apr-2010
State and Foreign Operations
Count
Amount ($K)
Date Published
5
23,012
04-Sep-2009
1
5,000
09-Mar-2010
0
0
11-Apr-2010
0
0
11-Apr-2010
0
0
11-Apr-2010
0
0
11-Apr-2010
0
0
11-Apr-2010
Transportation and Housing and Urban Development
Count
Amount ($K)
Date Published
2,053
1,748,036
04-Sep-2009
1,841
1,495,744
09-Mar-2010
1,021
595,775
11-Apr-2010
1,021
595,775
11-Apr-2010
575
733,082
11-Apr-2010
575
733,082
11-Apr-2010
1,505
1,218,913
11-Apr-2010
TotalCount
Amount ($K)
11,523
16,641,692
11,124
15,283,080
6,046
6,311,646
6,054
6,364,021
4,092
6,922,117
9,192
11,097,121
Budgeting: Allocation and Public Policy 16
e. The Rebirth of Program Budgeting - The ideas of program budgeting continue
to appear in thinking about the budget process, and especially in thinking about
reforms. The basic idea of making the most efficient allocation of money among
competing resources is an extremely alluring one, and politicians and analysts will
attempt to pursue that rationalistic goal even in the face of massive evidence that
it may not be attainable in the rough world of politics.
The Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA) represented
the rebirth of the fundamental idea of making the allocation of funds more
rational. The principal concept underlying this legislation was to shift the focus in
assessing organizations in the budget process away from inputs and toward
outcomes and “results.” Thus, each organization in the federal government has
been required to develop a strategic plan and a set of operational indicators of
attaining the goals specified in that plan. The degree of success or failure in
attaining the goals then plays a significant role in determining the budgetary
success of the organization. This process involves neither the direct linkage to
expenditures nor the level of analysis inherent in program budgeting, but it does
depend on some of the same assumptions.
Budgeting: Allocation and Public Policy 17
Analysis
The analysis of this case study addresses a scenario where a recently graduated MPA,
Master of Public Affairs-Administration, is hired by a Congresswoman as the Campaign
Manager, Advisor and Expert on the Federal Policy Process, to advice and recommend policy
updates, status and formulation according to the votes, needs and requests of the candidate’s
constituents. The campaign manager, must stay current on all policy formulation processes and
must make recommendations to the Congresswoman based on the current election and the
budget cycle. He or she must stay current on all policies affecting the programs in the
candidate’s district to make sure that the allocation of funding goes to these programs.
New or younger candidates are less politically networked and might not be current on
policy formulation at the U. S. Capital. This is a clear example of how a candidate might not
know all processes of the budget cycle, along with the endless amount of negotiating with the
agencies that entails the process before the Federal Budget is approved. By hiring a campaign
manager with expertise on policy formulation, the Congresswoman can focus on getting new
votes and keeping the existing supporters happy by addressing their wants and needs and by
focusing on getting approval and funding for much needed programs in her district.
1. Resources/Money – The candidate must have the support of his or her constituents and
should remain transparent on how and where funding is going to programs in the district.
2. Working with and around the Deficit and the National Debt – The candidate must
work closely with the campaign manager, to research the Deficit and the Federal Budget
Process and how funds are allocated for specific programs by agencies and how it may
Budgeting: Allocation and Public Policy 18
affect his or her district. The candidate must be able to adjust his or her agenda based on
constituent popular vote and recommendations.
3. The Top-Five Elements of the Budgeting Process, according to The Heritage
Foundation (www.heritage.org). There are actually ten elements that are crucial to the
Federal Budget Process, however, I will address the top five as these a critical during a
candidate’s campaign during the election process, which the candidate must remain
transparent in order to gain the support and trust of the constituents and be seen as a
candidate with morals, values, and ethics, thus earning the credibility and respect of the
people with a deep-rooted concern for being the voice of his or hers constituents.
a. Element #1: Statutory Spending Caps Taxpayers' bill of rights cap: The most
promising budget reform would be to cap federal spending increases at the
inflation rate plus population growth (economic growth rates could be another,
albeit more loose, target). Lawmakers could allocate federal spending however
they wish as long as total government growth does not exceed this predetermined
rate. Such a cap could save $3 trillion over the next decade by forcing lawmakers
to set priorities and to make trade-offs.
i. Omnicap. Like a taxpayers' bill of rights cap, an "omnicap" would apply a
single cap to all federal spending (including mandatory). Rather than cap
spending increases by a preset formula, lawmakers would manually set
omnicap levels every few years, similar to the discretionary spending caps
of the 1990s.
ii. Discretionary spending caps. Discretionary spending caps successfully
restrained discretionary spending while in effect from 1990 through 2002.
Budgeting: Allocation and Public Policy 19
Bringing back these caps would help to rein in federal spending, although
lawmakers should improve on previous caps with supermajority
enforcement and by closing the "emergency" loophole.
iii. Entitlement spending caps. With entitlement spending projected to
consume the entire federal budget eventually, the country cannot afford to
allow entitlements to remain on autopilot. Lawmakers could write one cap
for total entitlement spending or write a formula that would apply to each
program individually (such as inflation plus beneficiary population). This
could be enforced by requiring Congress to reform excessive entitlement
spending or face an across-the-board sequestration.
b. Element #2: Realistic and Honest Budget Scoring:
i. Accounting for unfunded liabilities in the budget. While businesses
compute their long-term liabilities, Congress does not. Budgets should
include a calculation of all future explicit and implicit taxpayer liabilities
and lawmakers should create a point of order against increasing these
liabilities.
ii. Dynamic scoring of taxes. Currently, Congress evaluates tax policies by
"static scoring," a method that assumes changes to tax policy have almost
no economic impact. History, economics, and common sense prove this
assumption false. Dynamic scoring would more accurately estimate the
economic and budgetary impact of tax changes.
iii. Ending baseline budgeting. Baseline budgeting keeps entitlement spending
on autopilot and creates the false impression that anything less than a
Budgeting: Allocation and Public Policy 20
large, previously assumed spending increase is a "cut." That is a recipe for
rapidly accelerating spending.
c. Element #3: Strengthening the Budget Resolution:
i. Joint budget resolutions signed by the President. Because concurrent
budget resolutions do not carry the force of law, appropriators can easily
bypass them. A joint budget resolution would not only add the force of
law, but also allow the White House and Congress to negotiate spending
levels in the spring, rather than waiting until the completed appropriations
bills reach the President's desk in the fall.
ii. Dividing budget resolution by committee, not function. The budget
resolution's functional breakdowns have no binding effect and can be
altered by the Appropriations Committees. Dividing the budget
resolution's discretionary spending by appropriations subcommittee makes
more sense, especially since Congress uses this breakdown when filling in
the discretionary budget.
d. Element #4: Enforcing Existing Budget Rules:
i. Requiring a roll call vote to waive a point of order. The House Rules
Committee has routinely reported rules automatically waiving all points of
order against excessive spending. Rules that can be so easily circumvented
quickly become irrelevant.
ii. Requiring a supermajority to waive a point of order. Budget rules are
supposed to prevent a simple majority from violating predetermined
budget standards. Yet allowing the same simple majority in the House to
Budgeting: Allocation and Public Policy 21
vote to ignore its own rules effectively eliminates all enforcement. Raising
the bar to three-fifths would make it harder to violate budget rules.
iii. Requiring a caucus majority to waive a point of order. If the majority party
fears a three-fifths requirement would give the minority party a veto on
bypassing budget rules, they could enact an internal party rule requiring a
majority vote of the caucus before bringing to the floor a motion to waive
a point of order.
iv. Budget Committee enforcement of spending limits. The Budget
Committees should be empowered to enforce the budget resolutions that
they write. Spending bills that exceed the 302(a) or 302(b) allocations
should be sent back to the Budget Committees for approval, modification,
or rejection.
e. Element #5: Tools for Accountability:
i. Requiring a roll call vote for authorizations. Lawmakers often pass
expensive authorization bills by voice vote, thus removing individual
lawmaker accountability with voters. Roll call votes should be required to
pass legislation authorizing $50 million or more over five years.
ii. Congressional Budget Office cost estimate for every bill. The CBO does
not provide cost estimates for all bills and only rarely for conference
reports. Lawmakers should always know the cost of a bill before they
vote.
iii. Repealing the Gephardt rule. House lawmakers should not be able to hide
debt limit increases by automatically including them in the budget
Budgeting: Allocation and Public Policy 22
resolution. Lawmakers who truly believe in policies to increase federal
debt should be willing to publicly vote that way.
iv. Term limits for appropriators. Long-time appropriators have some of the
highest spending records in Congress. Even appropriators who may wish
to restrain spending are often required to vote for runaway spending to
remain on the committee long enough to build seniority. Placing a term
limit on membership on these committees would help to tear down the
barrier between appropriators and other Members of Congress, and free
appropriators to vote for less spending.
v. Caucus election of appropriations subcommittee chairmen. Currently, only
the chairman of the House Appropriations Committee is elected by his
peers. Yet chairmen of appropriations subcommittees also have enormous
power and have been accused of wielding that power in ways detrimental
to Congress as a whole. Basic accountability requires that subcommittee
chairmen also be elected by their peers in a caucus vote.
vi. Biennial budgeting. Lawmakers rarely finish all budget bills by October 1,
when the federal fiscal year begins. Biennial budgeting would free
lawmakers to spend more time overseeing federal programs and reforming
failed or unnecessary programs.
Budgeting: Allocation and Public Policy 23
Concluding Recommendations – Performance Measurement
My concluding recommendations for this case study are for the use of Performance
Measurement in the Federal Budget Process. The Performance Measurement Process is when an
organization uses performance measures and standards to achieve desired results. It is a forward-
looking, continuous process. Performance management can be implemented at the program,
organization, community, and state levels.
What Is Performance Measurement? It is the regular collection of data to assess whether the
correct processes are being performed and desired results are being achieved. First, by using
quantitative measures that provide information about critical aspects of activities, including their
effect on patients. Measures of what “actually happened” can be compared to goals set by your
organization. Second, it analyzes the success of a work group, program, or organization's efforts
by comparing data on what actually happened to what was planned or intended. Finally, it asks
“Is progress being made toward desired goals? Are appropriate activities being undertaken to
promote achieving those goals? Are there problem areas that need attention? Successful efforts
that can serve as a model for others?” It focuses more on the organization when evaluating the
progress and less on the individual provider.
Budgeting: Allocation and Public Policy 24
Why Measure Performance? There are many reasons why an organization or an agency should
measure performance. First, it promotes total Quality Improvement. Measuring performance
can tell you what you’re doing well so you can share your successes and also reveal areas where
you need to make adjustments. Measuring performance tells you whether you are achieving
your ultimate goal of improving patient outcomes. Second, it promotes Transparency to the
public, thus gaining the trust and respect of the community. Third, it encourages Accreditation.
For example, such organizations as NCQA, the Joint Commission, and the Accreditation
Association for Ambulatory Health Care (AAAHC), evaluate health care provider organizations
to provide accreditation or certification signifying that those places meet certain performance
standards. Fourth, it allows for Recognition from the community as providing information that is
credible and empirical. Finally, it promotes Participation or Citizen Engagement. It gets the
community involved and the people feel as if their voice, their opinions do matter.
Concluding Statement: The use of Performance Measurement during the Federal Budget
Process established Performance standards or organizational standards, goals, and targets. It
establishes Performance measures or the development, application, and use of performance
measures to assess achievement of standards. It Reports on the Progress by documentation and
reporting on the progress in meeting standards. Finally, it promotes organizational Quality
improvement or the Establishment of a program or process to achieve quality improvement
based on performance standards, measurements, and reports.
Budgeting: Allocation and Public Policy 25
References
Office of Management and Budget - Earmarks. (n.d.). Retrieved August 9, 2015, from https://earmarks.omb.gov/earmarks-public/
H.R.7130 - Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 197493rd Congress (1973-1974). (1974, June 21). Retrieved August 8, 2015, from https://www.congress.gov/bill/93rd-congress/house-bill/7130
Peters, B. (Brainard) Guy (2012-10-16). American Public Policy: Promise and Performance (Page 153). SAGE Publications. Kindle Edition.
Riedl, B. (2006, June 15). 10 Elements of Comprehensive Budget Process Reform. Retrieved August 10, 2015, from http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2006/06/10-elements-of-comprehensive-budget-process-reform
The U. S. Department of Health and Human Services - Performance Management & Measurement. (n.d.). Retrieved August 11, 2015, from http://www.hrsa.gov/quality/toolbox/methodology/performancemanagement/index.html
.
![[PPT]The resource allocation decision (capital budgeting)adamodar/pptfiles/cf2E/invret.ppt · Web viewAswath Damodaran Stern School of Business](https://img.pdfslide.net/doc/110x75/5ae783197f8b9aee078e500a/pptthe-resource-allocation-decision-capital-budgeting-adamodarpptfilescf2e.jpg)
