Rubin devotes much of her time in explaining the variety of actors, how their priorities , different levels of power, and conflicting motivations and goals affect budgets. For example, if a senator loses an important issue they may try to influence budget implementation by favoring themselves. Rubin defines key players such as the Bureau Chief, chief executives, interest groups, and describes what their roles are and how they affect budgets. Wilson also describes and sometimes agrees with Rubin's description and analysis of the various actors. Government can force citizens to pay taxes but citizens can vote them out of office if they do not like the way they are spending their money.
Politicians are accountable to the acceptability of citizens.
Sometimes politicians will present the budget in a way that will be acceptable by the public, because of public pressure, even if the results are inefficient and deceptive. Rubin's third characteristic is that the budget document itself becomes an important means of accountability. Citizens cannot go around and watch everything government does but the budget serves as proof that they have done what they said they would do. For example, the citizens of our community were dismayed with the way the Director of the Housing Authority in Corpus Christi handled the agency's budget funds. Rubin's fourth characteristic describes public budgets as being vulnerable to the environment, to the economy, change in public opinion, the media, to elections, and natural and political disasters.