State, Jurisdictional and Local Budgets: How they Impact Organizations

Name:

Tutor:

Course:

Date:

State, Jurisdictional and Local Budgets: How they Impact Organizations

Introduction

The system of federalism benefits the individuals, groups, and organizations in various ways in its services. Each stratum of the government ranging from federal, state, county to local provides a piece of the service fabric that the lower citizen benefits. The federal system is a functional body characterized by shared and distributed power between governmental layers. Each form of governance has its specific power limitations and check to minimize any instances of waste, corruption, or abuse. While the system dictates that each state has its constitution, state bill must comply with the U.S charter. The budget is the core avenue for governments to source funding, direct and implement priorities and policies. State, jurisdictional and local arms unlike the federal government have to work within a balanced budget. Operational corporations to ascertain continuity and expansion of trade need to comprehend expenditure limitations together with associative implications and factors that influence allocation changes.

Impact of State Budgeting

Any changes made on State budgets have a direct impact on jurisdictional and local budgeting processes. State arms source their revenue from intergovernmental transfers, state-level taxes, operational licenses, lotteries, and borrowing (Tyer and Willand 2). Taxes present at this level include corporate and individual levies, sale, fuel, estate, inheritance, and special duties on certain services and products. State budgets determine the amount of funds accessible and available to jurisdictional and local governments. More important in this case is that State arms directly fund public health services and public safety programs (Tyer and Willand 2). This means the Women, Infants and Children (WIC) nutrition program is directly funded by state budgets. This level of government determines the scope and size of cuts and increments made per county and municipality. In essence, state governments structure and establish the fiscal landscape of the region in accordance with their economic trends and national requirements.

New York being a ‘corporate run’ state in America, state budgeting directly influences public funding concerning lending rates, state bonds, and debt covers. A good budget will result in a decrease in lending rates and an increase in debt cover grants for companies. A bad budget made up of cuts will increase loaning rates and debt repossessions as the administration heighten their objectives in revenue sourcing (Lee & Johnson 192). New York in its performance budgeting means there is increased the municipal assessment. This means that WIC suffers from enhanced program assessments in the determination of eligibility to public funding. Moreover, there are increased costs in policy conformance. As state revenues decline, the emphasis on fixed costs is increased (Lee and Johnson 192). This means WIC program as a non-profit act suffers from declined prioritization in terms of funding. Corporate states have no clear pattern of state-federal balance; hence, nature of the impact on companies is dependent on national objectives.

Impact of Jurisdictional Budgeting

Jurisdictional budgeting refers to the fiscal powers shared between federal and state governments within the federalist system (Tyer and Willand 3). The objective of the monetary plan is to improve courts to increase law enforcement, infrastructure development, the charter of corporations and banks, borrow money for local funding, and spend under the premise of bettering the overall welfare of the average resident. For instance, this arm of government is responsible for the removal of snow to maintain roads in Rockland, New York. Economists perceive jurisdictional budgets as humane as they prioritize welfare over economic development (Tyer and Willand 3). Despite the perception, inter-state fiscal plans represent the most problematic budgets given the need to balance federal and local accounts. Moreover, there are no clear guidelines on power constraints meaning frequent inter and intra-jurisdictional conflicts and competition between states. Monetary competition at this level exists because of tax base sharing between different states and with the federal government.

Jurisdictional budgeting has the ability to influence national and state policies. Given the need for federal-state balances, a revenue shift at one end will result in a proportional shift in the other (Lee and Johnson 336). The negative externality of this relationship as depicted by New York trends is the requirement for the state to increase its tax rates. In this instance, fixed costs are given more priority making the WIC program less likely to receive timely or complete funding. Moreover, the externality influences expenditure meaning spending is in reaction to the other arm of government. An implication of this occurrence is the inconsistent pattern of welfare funding. For instance, if the federal government increases its taxation rate to maintain revenue amounts, New York will be forced to cut its expenditures to maintain its billing base. This might imply null or incomplete funding for the nutrition program.

Impact of County and Local Budgeting

Local governments have little power in the determination of the economic size and scope of expenditure when compared to other governmental arms, but their billing implications are immediate and personal. Local governments such as Rockland, New York source for their budgets through inter-governmental transfers, local sale and property taxes, user charges and bond borrowings (Tyer and Willand 2). Local budgets do not have entrepreneurial objectives but focus on infrastructure and service sector developments. In meaning, local regimes support education, police, fire services, public works, urban zoning, parks, and recreation. The role of county regimes is to actuate state and federal expenses. For instance, when states release funds for emergency events such as a hurricane, the local government costs, bills, and establishes equipment and staff. The smallest arm of the government in terms of scope does not have a direct relationship with public health services such as WIC.

Despite the local government having no direct influence on the WIC program, the nature of its service distribution affects the short-term operational capacities of the initiative together with other native businesses. Funding under this arm determines the level of availability and accessibility to public resources such as homeless shelters. With increased property taxes, WIC program may suffer from increased demands for their products resulting in faster depletion of reserves. Local budgets equally determine the purchasing patterns of consumers within the topographic area (Lee and Johnson 252). In times of economic cuts, consumers tend to decrease purchasing acts. The same is projected to public programs such as WIC that rely on philanthropic funding. Personal income taxes mean people have less to spare for such non-profit initiatives. Local budgets may not bankrupt a business or financial institution, but they may immensely lower profit margins.

Effective Strategies for Working at each Level

At State Level

Given difficulties in accessing state or federal grants, corporations, and public programs may opt for private investor funding while cutting on services that are less demanding (Morgan 51). Private corporations normally have the tendency to choose and support certain non-profit initiatives in order to improve their public image. WIC can employ this marketing requirement to establish a sponsorship relationship with a private firm. The WIC program gives some nutritious items, some of which have the same nutritional value. The initiative may opt to give fruits only as opposed to fruit and fruit juice to pregnant mothers. The above recommendations only give short-term recovery.

To ascertain long-term operational continuity, WIC, and other corporations need to put pressure on state legislatures to structure and implement favorable market policies (Morgan 55). Business planning requires political hesitancy when there is economic uncertainty. Senior management in WIC needs to identify, seek and appeal to their State legislators who include the governor and senator. Deep fiscal changes in history have been made through political petitions necessitating review of present laws or implementation of new ones.

At Jurisdictional Level

There is danger in unclear information such as in generalizations or assumptions. Generalization ignores important information while assumptions employ unreliable data. This is the case seen in inter and intra-jurisdictional competition and conflicts. The need to derive balance between federal and state budgets is imperative, but not for state-to-state. To lower balance conflicts, fiscal services should enhance state-country and state-federal partnerships through some individuals including governors, senators, senior corporate managers, and stakeholders in the private sector (Morgan 55). Jurisdictional expenditures should have specific fund allocations and sources. Macroeconomic parameters included in budgets should be clear to ascertain resource availabilities (Morgan 55). Clarification will also reduce any jurisdictional overlaps that result in legislative conflicts. Research teaches that there is no clear connection between inter-state reallocations and implementations after the shift to Performance Budget Systems (PBS).

At Local or County Level

Primarily, the local government should privatize services such as emergency and safety. Privatization protects income-generating activities from the inflexibilities of the public sector (Morgan 50). WIC can privatize the supplier of nutritious foods to allow long-term continuity even during the recession. Counties should utilize allocated funds on long-term plans as opposed to the normal short term. Service prone budgets require strategic planning based on input performance. Counties can minimize their expenditures by closing down services that do not give profits (Morgan 50). For instance, the offices may structure a small government to save money on human income. Saving allows local regimes not to borrow funds resulting in fiscal debt or raise extra taxes resulting in discouragement of consumer purchasing power in the county. Saving represents the best alternative to covering economic gaps at local level given the small budget scopes. County officers should strengthen their relationships with local businesses to allow accurate policy capture, cost saving and fiscal support for public programs.

Conclusion

Budgeting represents a complex planning process in the federalist system, which benefits individuals, groups, and organizations in various ways through governmental decentralization. WIC as a public service should be aware of power limitations and assessment checks for each form of governance to minimize on any instances of short-term functionality, untimely funding, and incomplete endowment or complete operational closure. State level budgets determine the scope and size of fiscal activities within the large area. They determine the amount of funds accessible to jurisdictional and local governments. Jurisdictional expenditures determine the availability of welfare funds such as grants, debt pardons, and low-interest rates. Local budgets determine the nature of resource distribution within the county. To address any negative implications of expenditures in the three government levels, WIC need to be aware of respective political figures per stratum. These are legislators (governors and senators) for state and jurisdictional levels and Council Managers for local level. Essentially, operational corporations to ascertain continuity and expansion of trade need to comprehend expenditure limitations together with associative implications and factors that influence allocation changes.

Works Cited

Lee, R. D., and R. W. Johnson. Public Budgeting Systems. Baltimore: University Park Press. 2013. Print.

Morgan, Douglas F. Budgeting for Local Governments and Communities. 2015. Print.

Tyer, Charlie, and Jennifer Willand. Public Budgeting in America: A Twentieth Century Retrospective. Journal of Public Budgeting, Accounting and Financial Management.9 (2). 1997. Print. <http://www.ipspr.sc.edu/publication/budgeting_in_america.htm>