Would this take partisanship out of the budget process?

Answer two question. Independent answer for each question. Write next to your answer question number, Each question should be 1- 2 paragraph. No longer than that. You opinion and your thought from the reading- there is a page number next to each question. Answer from the reading. ( PDF) + add source (Rubin+ page number)

1- States’s Budget Process

On pg. 181 of Rubin there is a mini case of South Carolina. In the case it states that they are on of the few states that has “Idependently elected executive officials whom the governor does not control”.

Question: Do you think that this is a good idea? Would this take partisanship out of the budget process?

2-Budget Balance

Page (163) If you can believe it the budget was balanced by 1998 (Rubin, 163). However, the country leaders were not equipped to see how the newly former surplus should be spent. So they went back to business, as usual, thinking that the gravy train was going to keep on coming in. They went against the Budget Enforcement Act put in place in 1990 (Rubin, 163). The BEA put into place budget caps and split the budget into category trying to lower the debt which it did in eight years. This pushed the spending up and when things took an economic downturn we were back in the middle of a deficit and the Federal Government was back to borrowing money instead of going back to BEA of 1990 and trying to fix it. We are now in debt trillions of dollars because there is no push to balance the budget. Unlike state budgets that have to be balanced the federal government can keep borrowing tell another country won’t lend the US money.

questions : when you look at how States have to have a balanced budget do you think the federal government should look to the BEA and our past to fix the budget? And then be put in the same constraints as States and not be allowed to borrow money? Or should they be able to borrow but only in times of actual disaster to the United States?