Friday, October 11, 2019
Public Finance Essay
The city of Eugene has been in a critical position due to budget crisis. Apparently, the city of Eugene has spent more of its resources, which is higher than what the city government has determined to be the budget under the public financing system. Since then, the city government has decided to implement a new approach in dealing with the finances of the city, which was called the â€Å"budgeting for outcomes†approach. The city government of Eugene has employed the services of Public Strategies Group – an institution acting as a financing consultant based in St. Paul, Minnesota – which recommended the need to cut down spending and limit the budget to expenditure that are agreeable to the citizens. This means that the public financing system will only allocate budget according to the priorities of the city, determined by its constituents. (Russo, 2007)            The concept of â€Å"budgeting for outcomes†constitutes the genuine essence of public financing and budgeting. It establishes the ideal dimensions of what public financing should be. With this in mind, it is appalling to think that the city government of Eugene only determined the flaws in their public financing system only after experiencing crisis in their budget scheme – which is much difficult to reverse, than situations wherein detection and prevention would have sufficed. Setting this thought aside, the agreeable point in the public finance approach is that the city is willing to implement a responsible method or technique in fixing the public financing system to sustain resources by means of controlling the city’s expenses.            The â€Å"budgeting for outcomes†approach is a responsible means of handling the city’s budget because it will be allocated only to the demands of the city, concentrating on needs and wants and eliminating operating cost for unnecessary features or entities. Moreover, Eugene has viewed the matter logically by determining a plan that will ensure the success of the public financing project. The city government, along with its hired consultant, has formulated several steps in order to realize the purpose of the â€Å"budgeting for outcomes†approach. First, the city government will review all areas (schools, libraries, health care institutions, law enforcement institutions, etc.) within the dimensions of Eugene that have been receiving funds from the public budget. All areas will be evaluated or assessed in order to determine how roles and responsibilities of each institution are being carried out. This will help the city government determine what areas within the city to focus on and prioritize. (Russo, 2007)            Second, allocating budget for different areas within the city will be decided upon based on the goals and objectives of the city council. The city government of Eugene has decided to align public spending with the goals and objectives upheld by city council. Third, spending will be based on what the citizens need and demand, such as public safety, health care, education, transport systems, etc. Fourth, the city government will harness all the help or assistance it can get from other institutions (public or private), in order to determine flaws or improvements for the â€Å"budgeting for outcomes†plan. (Russo, 2007)            The four considerations that the city government is willing to focus on veers away from the concepts of traditional budgeting, setting the desirability of the â€Å"budgeting for outcomes†approach. Moreover, it improves the face of public financing by focusing on the outcomes that will benefit the city and its constituents, rather than concentrating on how the budget will allocated. It is sensitive to the needs and demands of the city, therefore, transforming it into a people-based and outcome-based public financing system. These ideas establish the positive backdrop of Eugene’s plan for public financing.            However, although the positive side of the approach has been presented through and through, it is important to confront the impending risks and threats in implementing such an approach. This concern lies in the true meaning of responsibility. Rationality and logic in prioritizing what areas to spend for requires the responsibility and ability to place the more important things ahead of superficialities. The problem of the â€Å"budgeting for outcomes†approach is the decision-making process imposed by the citizens. These decisions should be true priorities – that is, priorities that genuinely provide the best results that the city will benefit from – and not those that promote personal vested interests. Therefore, to implement an effective â€Å"budgeting for outcomes†approach, it needs not only a carefully made plan, but also a responsible and rational city government and citizenry. References  Russo, E. (2007). City Trying New Approach to Budget. The Register Guard, C19. Retrieved            from the Gale Group via Questia. Website: http://www.questia.com/read/5024242890
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.