Limited Government And Balanced Budget Amendment

All public budget policies and ideas ultimately arise from presumptive and foundational ideas related to the proper role and limits of government. Debates include acceptable and productive financial practices of government activity within the lives of citizens. After carefully reviewing this module’s reading assignments, you will conduct your own research and write a concise but thorough research paper examining the Constitutional limits on the federal government and the rationale employed by proponents of a balanced budget amendment to the United States Constitution.

Instructions

For this assignment, you should prepare a 5-7 pages research paper in APA format (not including title page, reference page, and any appendices). You must also include a title and reference page, citations from appropriate professional, scholarly, or other appropriate sources to fully support your assertions and conclusions. Additionally, your research paper must contain citations from the course text books, assigned readings, and a minimum of 5 additional sources which does not include the course textbooks, assigned readings, and the Bible.

The research paper’s content should:

1) fully explain what is meant by “constitutionally limited government,”

2) provide an analysis of the general limits on government that should influence government

spending/budgeting,

3) explain the relationship between constitutionally limited government and the rationale

employed by proponents of a balanced budget amendment to the United States Constitution

and

4) evaluate these issues considering a Judeo-Christian worldview.

This is a graduate-level research assignment designed to test your ability to carefully research, effectively organize, and concisely communicate a nuanced understanding of the concepts and issues raised in the assignment. While the minimum page limit is short (as is often the case in public policy/public administration briefings), students are expected to craft efficient, highly substantive papers.

You are expected to comport with the highest writing, research, and ethical standards. Additionally, to do well on this assignment, you must conduct high-quality research and offer rich, well-supported analysis; mere opinion or conjecture will not suffice.

There must be no careless or simple grammatical errors such as misspellings, incomplete sentences, comma splices, instances of faulty noun/verb agreement, etc. Such errors will result in significant point deductions.

Plagiarism in any form is strictly prohibited and may result in failure of the assignment, failure of the course, and/or removal from the program. It is your responsibility to ensure that you fully understand what constitutes the various forms of plagiarism and that you avoid all forms of plagiarism.

· All key elements of the assignment are covered thoroughly and in a substantive way. Student provides a well-researched, fully developed analysis of each element of the assignment.

· Content is thoroughly, comprehensively, accurate, and exhibits a nuanced rather than superficial understanding of the terms and concepts assigned.

Major points are thoroughly stated clearly and are supported by appropriate professional and scholarly literature and/or logic. Student employs sound, reasoned discussion, description, explanation, and evaluation of assigned terms and concepts.

• Analyze ideas that influence public sector budgeting.
• Evaluate concepts of public sector budgeting in light of the idea of constitutionally limited government.
• Differentiate between competing ideas that affect public sector budgeting.
• Evaluate ideas affecting public sector budgeting in light of a Judeo-Christian world view.

Public budgeting debates often arise from the ideas about the role and limits of government in citizens’ lives and from disagreements about moral, acceptable, wise, and productive financial practices of government.  In this module, you will explore if perpetual deficit spending leads to financial destruction for future generations.

reading :

Epstein:

• pp. 73-85
• pp. 145–158
• pp. 245–266