But for many observers, it is the competitiveness, compromises and incomplete nature of the process that are striking, not the real accomplishment every annual and biennial budget represents. Because budgets have so many functions, the process of writing one is often conflict-ridden, unsatisfactory to observers and participants and flawed in its outcomes. These complaints have shown up ever since formal, comprehensive budgeting became a feature of state and local government in the early years of the 20th century. The Taft Commission, which examined federal budget processes in 1912, criticized federal budgeting procedures for the same flaws observers note today. Others spring from conflicting expectations of the process.
Budgets are documents that express state governments' power to act.
They summarize policymakers' evaluations of past programs and public agencies and their forecasts of current and future needs and resources. Budgets set goals, decide among alternative objectives, and create means for controlling and accounting for the expenditure of public money. They can push reform or they can discourage it. State Legislators have indicated a certain comfort with this approach in the past because it is restrictive in terms of defining expenditures and setting limits, and it is also simple to explain in terms of where the taxpayer's money is going. However, while Line-item budgeting provided the essential ingredients of order and control it does not address issues of performance, quality and accountability.