Understanding the Implications of Mandatory Spending in Federal Budget

ASSIGNMENT INSTRUCTIONS:

You must post at least one response per topic:
If more than 60 percent of the federal budget is “mandatory spending,” what is left to cut? What economic goals do categories of mandatory spending support? What programs should be abolished or cut? Should any programs be expanded? If so, identify which ones and explain why they should be expanded. if agencies such as the Red Cross?
In recent years, the American armed forces have been called on to perform duties that are more humanitarian than militaristic, providing support after the Fukushima disaster, in addition to funds for drought victims in Ethiopia, COVID-19 vaccinations to countries who could not afford them, Ebola patients in West Africa, and earthquake victims in Nepal. Do we have an obligation to assist other countries experiencing a crisis, or should that be left to private relief agencies such as the Red Cross?
You must post at least three responses (200+ words minimum for each post). Please see the syllabus for additional information on the requirements for discussion forums

HOW TO WORK ON THIS ASSIGNMENT (EXAMPLE ESSAY / DRAFT)

More than 60% of the total federal budget is made up of required expenditures by the federal government. Programs that are required by law and do not require annual appropriations are included in this spending. These mandated policies aim to protect people’s social safety nets and advance economic objectives including healthcare, retirement security, and poverty reduction.

Given that mandatory spending must be done as required by law, eliminating such programs can be difficult. However, by implementing changes that aim to lower program costs while maintaining benefits for the intended recipients, officials can slow down the growth rate of these programs.

The required spending categories help to achieve several economic objectives, such as lowering poverty, giving low-income people access to healthcare, and promoting retirement security. Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and other safety net programs are among these.

Policymakers should take into account programs that are unsuccessful or inefficient and do not fit with the stated aim when deciding which ones should be cut or abolished. Before deciding whether to downsize or eliminate certain programs, authorities should consider whether they are outdated, superfluous, or duplicated.

Additionally, some programs ought to be increased in scope to better support particular demographics or advance economic objectives. For instance, increasing Medicaid can help more low-income people have access to healthcare while boosting Social Security can benefit seniors who are worried about their retirement security.

In conclusion, programs that require mandatory spending promote several economic objectives, and policymakers must find initiatives that support these objectives while lowering costs and enhancing effectiveness. Additionally, rather than reducing programs that offer vital assistance to residents in need, lawmakers ought to think about expanding them.

 

ORDER A SIMILAR PAPER NOW