Budget Cuts

These budget cuts are at the federal, state and local level. Some of these cuts are short term while some of them are long-term. The main benefits of budget cuts is eliminating the budget deficit and ideally lower taxes. The budget deficit is important to eliminate as it is the primary cause of inflation. The budget deficit causes inflation because the federal government generally creates new money to cover a portion of the deficit, which slowly increases the money supply. How this causes inflation is due to the effects of supply and demand. As the money supply per person increases and people have more money to spend, demand on goods and services increases, leading to inflation. The cuts are all based on 2019 data. The budget cuts discussed deal with social security, the trade deficit, the federal debt, health care costs, military spending, welfare spending, capital projects, pensions & salaries, class sizes, prison and jail reforms, USPS, and the cost of college. Total government expenditures (federal, state, and local) in 2019 was approximately $7.35-7.8.1 Tax revenue collected in 2019 (federal, state, and local) was approximately $5.372 trillion.2 Other revenue (fees, insurance trust revenue, etc.) at the state and local level was approximately $910-1,443 billion.3 The federal deficit was approximately $983 billion4 the state and local deficit was approximately $85 billion.5 The GDP based on tax records in 2019 was around $16.1 trillion. Estimated savings from the cuts proposed in this essay are around $4 trillion for the year 2019. A portion of the savings are in the private sector, estimated at around $800 billion. Due to decreased spending from these cuts, this also means decreased income and a smaller tax base, which leads to less tax revenue being collected. An estimated $3 trillion of these cuts will lead to decreased income. With an average tax rate of .37, this will lead to a decrease in tax revenue of $1.1 trillion. So real savings would only be around $2.9 trillion. The savings made will possibly be spent elsewhere, whether in the private or public sector, which will then create income that can be taxed, so decreased tax revenue may not be as substantial. These cuts will not all happen overnight, but will have to be slowly made to ensure a smooth transition. Due to inflation, savings from these cuts are constantly changing. The best way to estimate the savings for the current year is to look at the change in the GDP between 2019 and the current year, and then change the savings by that amount.

Table A: GDP

This table records the GDP based on tax records. The GDP that is currently reported seems to use an old defunct equation based on revenue, which inflates the GDP due to revenue being double-counted when companies pay a large portion of their revenue to other companies through expenses, who then count those payments as part of their own revenue. The current GDP based on revenue is generally around 50% higher than the GDP based on tax records, which strictly looks at income. This pattern of inaccuracy seems to be true in other countries’ GDPs as well. This GDP based on tax records includes adjusted gross income, corporate profits without dividends, revenue from employer side of payroll tax, revenue from sales tax, pension plan contributions, and health care benefits. The reason dividends are not included in corporate profits is because dividends that are paid out to individuals are included in adjusted gross income, and dividends that are paid out to other companies are included in their corporate profits or personal income. The employer side of payroll is another part of the income of a company, it is just taken out and paid to the government before being counted as personal income or profits. Sales tax is part of a company’s revenue as well it is just paid directly to the government before it even becomes part of the revenue. Pension plan contributions are another part of personal income, it is just paid indirectly, and not counted as personal income or profits. Health care benefits are also a part of personal income, just paid indirectly, and not counted as personal income or profits. Short-term capital gains make up $1.895 trillion of the adjusted gross income, and it could be argued that it is not part of the GDP. Fees paid to the government by a company that are marked off as expenses could also be argued to be part of the GDP, but make up a small amount.

Table B: Inflation in the United States

         This table records the increase in the value of several measures. The measures do not all increase at the same rate. There may be various reasons for this. GDP per hour and personal income per hour (wages+salaries) increase at essentially the same rate, as they are both derived from the same data. GDP is based of revenue, where personal income is a portion of the revenue. Reasons these two measures don’t increase at the same rate as the money supply per person may be 1. Increasing inequality. As inequality increases, the higher income earners save their money and a larger portion of the money supply is taken out of circulation. Only money that is being spent directly affects demand on products and prices. Slowly, the money supply per person increases more than revenue and income per hour. 2. Increased efficiency. As efficiency increases, it takes less labor to produce products, so the demand for labor decreases, which leads to the cost of labor decreasing. The overall amount of money needed to purchase the necessities as a percent of money supply per person decreases and savings increase. 3. Inaccurate data. There is also reason to believe the total amount of hours worked may be inaccurately recorded, most likely because people used to work more than reported. This can impact the change of income per hour and GDP per hour over time; essentially, they would have used to been lower, making the ratios relative to the money supply per person over time steadier. CPI (consumer price index) does not increase at the same rate as GDP per hour and personal income per hour due to changes in efficiency. As efficiency increases in the production process, the cost of producing products decreases, causing prices to decrease in relative terms when comparing to personal income per hour/GDP per hour. If the money supply per person didn’t change, personal income per hour/GDP per hour would generally stay the same over time, while CPI would decrease. The average cost of a house increased, but the average size was not taken into account. Change in the cost of a house per square foot may be a better measure. Change in the stock market capitalization per capita is based on the total value of the stock market divided by the total population. The stock market value per capita has increased at a significantly higher rate than all other measures. This may be due to an increase in total stocks relative to the population. It is also possible that the percentage of the population that is investing has increased, increasing the demand on stocks and causing their prices to increase at a higher rate than other prices. Foreign investors may also be affecting the market. Tax revenue has increased at a slightly higher rate than personal income per hour/GDP per hour. Taxes at the state/local level have generally increased at higher rates, but it may also be due to hours not being reported properly, which affects personal income per hour/GDP per hour.

Table C: Monetary Base

         The budget deficit causes inflation because the federal government creates new money to cover a portion of the deficit, while selling bonds to the private to cover the rest. New money is created whenever bonds are purchased by the central bank. This increases what is known as the monetary base, which refers to the legal money supply. Once the government receives money from the central bank it then enters the economy through government expenditures. Once in the economy it begins to be deposited into commercial banks, who can then further increase the money supply through fractional reserve banking. M1, M2, or M3 money supply represents the money supply created through fractional reserve banking plus the monetary base. The central bank can decrease the monetary base by selling the government bonds they purchased to the private. Money then leaves the economy and returns to the central bank. Commercial banks can decrease the M1, M2, or M3 money supply by selling bonds. Deposits then decrease while the monetary base just shifts around. Below is a data table recording changes in the money supply and budget deficit. Some years the monetary base decreases, this reflects years when the central bank was selling more government bonds to the private, than they were purchasing from the government. In other years, the monetary base increases more than the budget deficit, this reflects that the central bank is buying government bonds that are owned in the private, the bonds return to the central bank and money enters the economy. The change in monetary base reflects what percent of the budget deficit was funded by creating new money.

Table D: Budget Deficit

         The table below records the budget deficit as a percent of the GDP, as well as the federal debt as a percent of the GDP. The federal debt as a percent of the GDP has slowly climbed overtime due to the increasing budget deficit.

Table C: Monetary Base

         The budget deficit causes inflation because the federal government creates new money to cover a portion of the deficit, while selling bonds to the private to cover the rest. New money is created whenever bonds are purchased by the central bank. This increases what is known as the monetary base, which refers to the legal money supply. Once the government receives money from the central bank it then enters the economy through government expenditures. Once in the economy it begins to be deposited into commercial banks, who can then further increase the money supply through fractional reserve banking. M1, M2, or M3 money supply represents the money supply created through fractional reserve banking plus the monetary base. The central bank can decrease the monetary base by selling the government bonds they purchased to the private. Money then leaves the economy and returns to the central bank. Commercial banks can decrease the M1, M2, or M3 money supply by selling bonds. Deposits then decrease while the monetary base just shifts around. Below is a data table recording changes in the money supply and budget deficit. Some years the monetary base decreases, this reflects years when the central bank was selling more government bonds to the private, than they were purchasing from the government. In other years, the monetary base increases more than the budget deficit, this reflects that the central bank is buying government bonds that are owned in the private, the bonds return to the central bank and money enters the economy. The change in monetary base reflects what percent of the budget deficit was funded by creating new money.

Table D: Budget Deficit

         The table below records the budget deficit as a percent of the GDP, as well as the federal debt as a percent of the GDP. The federal debt as a percent of the GDP has slowly climbed overtime due to the increasing budget deficit.

Budget Cuts

Below is a list of several budget cuts at the federal, state, and local levels. Some of these cuts are short-term while some of them are long-term. The cuts are all based on 2019 data. The budget cuts discussed include social security, the trade deficit, the federal debt, health-care costs, military spending, welfare spending, capital projects, pensions & salaries, class sizes, prison and jail reform, USPS, and the cost of college.

Social Security

         In 2019, social security payments were around 1.05 trillion.24 Social security is a very interesting system as far as how payments and contributions are determined. Changes in population can affect social security in several ways. If the population is increasing, more people are paying into it than are receiving payments from it, making it easier to fund. However, if the population is decreasing, less people are paying into it, then are receiving payments from it, making it more difficult to fund. Changes in life expectancy can affect Social Security as well. If life expectancy is increasing, the number of people who qualify for social security will increase, while if life expectancy is decreasing, the number of people who qualify will decrease. Income inequality can also affect social security contributions. Currently, income over a certain amount isn’t taxed by payroll taxes, in what is known as the “wage base limit”. This means if income inequality is increasing, less income is being taxed since more of it is above limit.

When Social Security was first created, it made up a very small portion of the budget. Payroll taxes were 2% of personal income, and Social Security payments made up 1.8% of the federal budget and .3% of the GDP. Social Security currently makes up 22% of the federal budget and 5% of the GDP.25 Currently, social security payments are generally made directly to individuals, and they spend the money however they please. There are also a few other small forms of social security for the elderly that fall under welfare in the federal budget. The best way to cut social security while still ensuring the elderly are taken care of is by replacing direct payments with government-funded retirement homes. Government-funded retirement homes would be a much more cost-effective safety net for the elderly. Retirement homes could either be run directly by the government or run by the private sector with government funding. If run by the private the government can still regulate salaries and structure to ensure costs are at proper levels. Two different types of retirement homes could be used: 1. Homes for independent elderly. 2. Homes for dependent elderly. Homes for independent elderly are for the elderly who can still take care of themselves; they can essentially be like mini apartments with mini kitchens and bathrooms, around 150 sq. ft. Homes for dependent elderly will be for the elderly who need assistance, so more nurses and other medical staff will be present. Just as a reference in 2019 total revenue of assisted living retirement homes was around $80 billion.26 Nursing homes had revenue of around $126 billion.27 Making it means-tested can further decrease costs; if individuals have money saved, this can be used to pay for some of the cost; only once individuals run out will the government completely take over. Ideally, retirement homes will be run/regulated at the local level, either by the city or county government; otherwise federal workers will have an office there. Funding can still come from the federal government. Cutting social security may also increase work ethic, as people will be less likely to retire. Ideally $800 billion of spending could be cut from social security, leaving only $200 billion in spending.

Trade Deficit

         The trade deficit affects the budget deficit in several ways. 1. The income that leaves the country through a trade deficit leads to a decrease in tax revenue as it is no longer taxed by the U.S. government. With the elimination of the deficit, this income will come back to the U.S. and then be taxed. 2. The budget deficit is also often used to balance the trade deficit. Money flows out of the country through the trade deficit and then the government sells bonds to foreign investors in order to bring money back into the country. This helps maintain exchange rate stability and the current terms of trade between importers and exporters. The trade deficit must be eliminated in order to eliminate the budget deficit while maintaining exchange rate stability, otherwise, money flows out of the country and has limited means of returning.

         In 2019, the U.S. trade deficit was $570 billion.28 If this income was kept in the United States and taxed at the average tax rate of 37%, this would create around $210 billion in tax revenue. Since the cost of labor is higher in the U.S. and prices will most likely be higher, this means there will probably be more income than $570 billion, further increasing potential tax revenue. If there are no taxes on the lower income, revenue collected might not be as significant because much of the labor returning might be paid at a lower rate.

The Federal Debt

         Interest payments on the federal debt in the United States in 2019 was $587 billion.29 If the repayment of the principal of the federal debt was included, the payments would be even higher. Currently, the principal is paid off with new loans, and the payment of it doesn’t seem to be included in government expenditures. To eliminate this expense means the federal debt would have to be paid off. There are two ways the debt could be paid off. One possible way of eliminating the federal debt is to inflate our way out of it with new money. Essentially, a small budget deficit could be run, and new money would be created to cover the difference, except that instead of having the central bank loan money to the government, the money will just be transferred to the federal government without debt attached to it. Over time, the current debt will be devalued by inflation, but no new debt will be created. The second way to pay off the debt, is with tax revenue. Debt owed to the central bank, representing the monetary base, could just be cancelled, while debt to the private will be repaid with tax revenue. Savings for 2019 would be $587 billion plus any principal paid off.

Health Care Costs

Health care costs in the United States in 2019 was around $2.8 trillion. This is based off of Medicaid, Medicare, private health insurance spending, and out-of-pocket costs.30 Health care costs in the U.S. were around twice the amount compared to other countries. In the United States about ½ of health care spending is covered by the government, while half is covered by the private.31 Due to the high costs, this increases government spending and as well as private spending. The primary reasons for high health care costs in the U.S. include 1. High Salaries of Medical Staff 2. High Pharmaceutical Spending 3. Diet. 4. Private Health Insurance. High salaries most likely contribute the most to the high costs, with pharmaceutical spending and diet also playing a role. Private health insurance increases spending by a minimal amount.

Table E: Health Care Costs by Country

This table records the cost of health care in OECD countries in 2019. The best way to measure health costs is by looking at the health care expenditures per capita as a percent of the GDP per 1000 hours worked. The reason GDP per capita isn’t used is that the amount of labor taken to produce it differs by country, so it is not a consistent measure. GDP per 1000 hours looks at how much is earned within a fixed period. Health care costs may be the same in each country, but if the GDP per capita differs because of how much labor it takes to produce it, health care costs may appear more or less as a percent. For example, if health care costs are $100 per capita, and GDP per capita is $200 in one country and $400 in another, percent of the GDP per capita will differ even though the costs are the same. Another way to look at health care costs is by looking at health care expenditures adjusted for differences in the GDP per hour. The reason we don’t use health care expenditures per capita raw is that exchange rates alter the value of the expenditures. Adjusting the healthcare expenditures for differences in GDP per hour eliminates the effects of exchange rates, as GDP per hour reflects the average cost of labor in each country. In some countries, the health care system is not as developed and health care only covers a small percent of the population, so costs are lower as a percent of the GDP because of this. It is also possible data is off, as raw figures show US health care spending to be $8,528 per capita, which is about 80% of the amount reported by the World Bank in the data below.32

Transition to Decrease Health Care Spending

         If health care spending were cut in half, it would have been $1.3 trillion in 2019. Government spending would have been around $650 billion, down from $1.3 trillion, this equates to $650 billion in savings in the public, and $650 billion in the private. However, due to decreased spending, this will lead to a decrease in income in the health care industry, which will mean a smaller tax base, and less tax revenue. A decrease in health care spending of $1.3 trillion, if taxed at the average rate of 37.5%, would lead to a loss of tax revenue of $480 billion. This would mean savings would only be $180 billion in the public. Overall savings would be $820 billion.

         There are several ways to help transition into the decrease in costs. One way is to slowly decrease the pay of workers in the medical field, especially focusing on cutting the pay of non-surgical employees and non-emergency staff first. Drug prices can also slowly be decreased. Regulating diets through various means could lead to better health, and a decrease in costs. Eliminating private insurance would save around 3% of revenues. Making medical school free could make it easier to lower costs. Currently, tuition is only around $3-6 billion,36 and makes up a small percent of the total costs of medical school, which is currently around $200 billion.37 Making it free would allow students to stay out of debt, reducing the burden of any decrease in pay. It would also encourage more people to go into the medical field, which would increase the supply of workers, making it easier to decrease pay as there is more competition. Bachelor’s degree requirements could also be eliminated, so high school graduates can go straight into medical school. K-12 education reforms can make it easier for students to begin preparing for a career in the medical field at a younger age. With an increase in students attending medical school, overall costs of medical school may increase, so the impacts of this should be analyzed.

Military Spending

         A long-term plan to decrease spending is to create a U.N. army and decrease national armies. This plan would be similar to why the U.S. originally formed a union, which was to fight the English and other potential countries. If divided, each state would have had to supply a larger amount soldiers and resources to fight a foreign enemy, but united, each state doesn’t have to supply as many troops because collectively they create a larger force. If a U.N. military was large enough to take on any single country or group of countries, then in the case of a hostile country, the U.N. army would intervene. Bases would be spread throughout the world for quick reaction, possibly having mixed nationalities at each base to decrease likelihood of local corruption. In 2019, national defense spending was around $700 trillion.38 If this could be cut in half, savings could be $350 billion.

Welfare

         In the year 2019, welfare spending at the federal level was $200-300 billion. There are various forms of welfare at the federal level, including food stamps $54 billion, unemployment $35 billion, housing assistance $64 billion, EITC at $60 billion, as well as various other programs.39 Recipients include the poor, the elderly and the disabled. Welfare can be potentially trimmed back as better solutions are enacted, i.e. tax reforms, affordable housing, new homeless shelters, assisted living facilities for the disabled etc. The worst forms of welfare are probably housing assistance, which is often run on a lottery base, so people randomly receive it, rather than strictly by qualifications. Unemployment is probably the second worst, as it is often taken advantage of by people who aren’t necessarily making an effort to work. Food stamps can probably be cut back for people who are working, as their pay will be significantly higher due to lower taxes and they may not even qualify.

Capital Projects

         Capital projects generally refer to construction projects, and sometimes other investments made by the government. These projects mainly occur at the local level. The total cost of capital projects in the United States in 2019 between state, county and city was an estimated $400-600 billion. One issue with these projects, is that many of them add no significant value to the economy and are essentially just creating fake jobs. Another issue is that the projects are often extremely overpriced relative to market rates, often costing up to 10 times higher than what they would cost in the private. The savings from eliminating insignificant projects and controlling prices is difficult to determine, depending on how wide spread corruption is. Some states may be worse than others. Total savings may be in the $100’s of billion.

Pensions and Salaries

         There is reason to believe salaries and especially pensions are higher for government workers than in the private. This should be investigated, comparing income per hour earned in the public vs the private. Some data shows pensions in the public are twice as high relative to the private.40 This should also be investigated on a per hour basis, total pensions paid out relative to total hours worked in the public compared to the private, whether or not all workers received pensions. Estimated public pensions between the federal, state and local for 2019 was $400-500. Pensions are often self-funded by workers’ salaries, rather than directly using tax revenue, so cutting them may not actually save money.

Class sizes

         Class sizes in the United States generally average 15-20 students, probably higher in the cities.41 In the United States in 2019, the education budget was $700 billion for K-12.42 Only around 50% of the budget usually goes to teacher salaries; other portions go to support services, capital projects, and administration. Doubling class sizes at the high school and middle school level could save around $100 billion. Classrooms would have to be remodeled, walls taken out and classrooms combined and made larger so more students can fit in one room. Other cuts could potentially be made as well to staff and salaries. Incomes are often higher for public teachers, than the average income.

Prison and Jail Reform

         For the year 2019, there were around 1.8 million people incarcerated in the United States (prisons & jails),43 incarceration costs averaged $50,000 per inmate, varying by state.44 Total operations costs were around $100 billion annually. Prisons and jails are run inefficiently due to their design. Jails and prisons often have shared cells, don’t have bathrooms in cells, and don’t have kitchen facilities in cells. These designs increase the operation costs of prison and jails in various ways. Due to inmates sharing cells, and having to leave their cells to go to the bathroom and eat, inmates must spend a lager percent of their time together. This leads to an increased need for security guards. Ensuring inmates are self-sufficient within their cells will allow them to be kept separate for a larger percent of the time. Ensuring inmates can cook for themselves will also eliminate kitchen staff. Currently, security makes up 50% of the staff.45 Cutting security in half, kitchen staff and possibly some other staff. Should decrease operation costs by at least 15% but possibly up to 30%. Savings are estimated to be between $15-30 billion nationally. New jails and prisons would have to be built, and based on construction costs for 2019 costs would be between $150-200 billion.46 Savings would cover costs of construction within 10 years.

USPS

USPS reported a budget of $85.8 billion in 2023, but revenue of only $79.5 billion from sale of products, creating a $6.3 billion deficit, which had to be funded by the federal government.47 Further more, USPS is exempt from several types of taxes, especially at the local level. These exemptions are essentially an indirect subsidy, for if they paid these taxes their deficit would be greater.48 Ways to increase efficiency are as follows.

1. Have Mail Carriers Deliver Less Often - If mail carriers deliver three times a week instead of six, the amount of carriers could be cut in half. If they deliver two times a week the amount could be cut by 2/3rds. Since loads may be larger due to less deliveries, larger trucks may have to be invested in.

2. Regulate Types of Mail That Can Be Sent – Companies, charities, politicians, as well as others

, often send a fair amount of junk mail. Much of this could be emailed or never sent at all. If the total mail sent was decreased, less staff would be needed, and mail carriers could make longer routes before having to return to their truck.

3. Reorganizing Shipping Centers – There are several minor inefficiencies in the customer service process when shipping. When customers ship packages, employees working behind the counter in charge of packaging often are in control of typing in the address of the sender and receiver. This often takes time and they are prone to mistakes. If the shipper instead typed in the address, the employee could focus on packaging, leading to a more efficient packaging process and less typos.

4. Requiring Accounts To Ship – Many people have accounts with shipping companies, and use

them when shipping. However, some do not. If there are issues with the package such as rerouting, this can often lead to a complicated process where customers have to talk to customer service on the phone. Where as, when you have an account you can re-route online through your account. Requiring accounts could help decrease customer service over the phone, this can save money by decreasing employees in USPS phone centers. Making account log ins as simple as possible, such as by fingerprint, would make the shipping process most efficient while at the shipping centers. Not requiring scheduled password changes, or capital letters or other password requirements would further enhance the customer service experience.

Cost of College

The cost of college in the United States nearly doubled between 1980-2010 in real terms when comparing to the average personal income. (See graph below) There are various explanations for the increase in cost of college. One cause may be the decrease in class size or the decrease in the amount of classes taught per professor, and a general overall decrease in the student to professor ratio. If the student-to-professor ratio has decreased this means more professors have to be hired to teach the same amount of students. Professors currently teach around 3-5 courses a semester. Another possible reason is an increase in support services. There are various other employees that work at colleges, if these types of employees have increased relative to the student population, this could cause costs to increase as well. A final reason may be due to a decrease in government subsidies per student. Public college is partially funded by taxes, if tax revenue used to fund college has decreased as a percent of total costs this could cause tuition to increase, even if the real cost is still relatively the same. The percent of the population that attends college has doubled during this time,49 so possibly subsidies are being spread across more students, increasing out-of-pocket costs.

There are several ways of decreasing the cost of college, including increasing class sizes, increasing the class load on professors, decreasing professor salaries, and decreasing support staff. Professors currently only teach 3-5 courses a semester, which is only 12-20 hours of real work a week. In 2010, public professors had an average salary of $100,000 a year, by 2019 an estimated $140,000, compared to an average personal income of $54,040. The end goal is to increase class load on professors to around 10 a semester, which equates to about a 40 hour work week. Class sizes ideally should be up to 50 students; this may require bigger classrooms. Salaries ideally should be closer to $70,000. This is a more realistic pay rate for professors. Different departments may have higher pay rates. If all these adjustments were made, the cost of professors could be 1/6th of the amount. There are other costs of operating a college, so overall costs won't necessarily be this much lower. Total revenue of colleges in 2019 was $750 billion. Local governments funded about $311 million of this. Saving from this will probably be in the $100’s of billions.

Decreasing Coinage

The role of coins in the economy has continued to decline over the past 100 years to the point where the cost of producing them isn’t worth it. A step forward is to cut the production of pennies, nickels and quarters, leaving only dimes in circulation. Prices will required to all be in increments of 10 cents. The current budget of the U.S mint is $5 billion, with around $1 billion going to the production of circulating coins.59 This could save the United States up to $1 billion yearly. This will save businesses’ time and money as well, as their accounting processes will become more efficient due to dealing with less coins, and simpler pricing.

Table G: Federal Debt as % of GDP by Country (2020-2023)

Conclusion

         There are certainly more budget cuts that can be found, but most of them will probably far less substantial. Interviewing employees at the agencies at the federal, state and local level is probably the best step to take in order to find smaller cuts. It is often difficult to find smaller cuts without actually having first-hand experience dealing with the systems and operations. But people who work within the agencies may often have good ideas. There is often internal corruption since making budget cuts means people may lose their job, so it can often be difficult to find honest employees. One way to help encourage cooperation is to offer rewards for people who find budget cuts. A certain percent of the cut could be rewarded to the finder for the first year the cut is made, up to a certain amount. For example, if a $1 million budget cut is made, $100,000 of it could be awarded to the finder. Interviewing people in the private who use the agencies may be another way to find improvements. At the state, and local level, comparing agencies to other states and cities may be a way to find improvements. Increasing transparency of budgets could help people outside of the government find ways to make improvements.