This paper examines three interconnected roles of the U.S. federal government in economic policy. It traces the federal budget process from the president's initial submission through congressional action, then analyzes how government intervenes to address both negative and positive externalities — such as pollution taxes and R&D incentives — that markets cannot self-correct. The paper further discusses government responses to market failures, including corporate bailouts and pandemic stimulus measures. Finally, it defends the use of taxpayer resources for these corrective actions, arguing that while critics warn of moral hazard, the protective function of government is essential for citizens who bear the consequences of economic forces beyond their control.
This study guide is drawn from PaperDue's library of 130,000+ paper examples across 47 subjects.
The U.S. federal government plays a central role in managing the nation's economy — not only by setting the annual budget, but also by correcting externalities and market failures that the private sector cannot address on its own. This paper examines each of these functions in turn and defends the use of taxpayer resources for corrective economic action.
The budgetary process begins when the president submits a budget request to the U.S. Congress in conjunction with the Office of Management and Budget, with recommendations for how much the government should spend, how much tax revenue is needed, and how large a deficit is permitted (Policy Basics, 2020). The president also lays out budgetary priorities, and the budget typically extends not only for the coming year but also for the subsequent nine years — subject to change — supported by evidence from prior years and projected growth (Policy Basics, 2020).
Next, Congress holds hearings, interviewing various representatives of the administration, and passes its own budget resolution. This concurrent resolution does not go to the president to be signed or vetoed and cannot be filibustered (Policy Basics, 2020). In recent years, Congress has not always been able to agree on such a resolution, resulting in the previous year's resolution carrying over (Policy Basics, 2020). Finally, Congress considers various appropriations bills to enact and later reconcile the budget (Policy Basics, 2020).
Although the monetary policy set by the Federal Reserve has a substantial impact on the economy, the government can similarly take an aggressive role in correcting the influence of externalities — areas where monetary policy alone falls short. "An externality is a cost or benefit of an economic activity experienced by an unrelated third party" (Externality, 2022, para. 1). For example, it might be less expensive for consumers to buy cars that generate pollution, or to purchase cheaper products even though the factories producing them generate substantial waste. By levying a tax on inefficient vehicles, or passing legislation to ban products that release toxins into the environment, the government can reduce the impact of such negative externalities on the economy — effectively enacting a market correction that the invisible hand of the marketplace cannot.
However, the government can also encourage the development of positive externalities. Examples might include a company investing in infrastructure, or the discovery of a new drug that offers substantial public health benefits by stemming the spread of disease, beyond the revenue generated from the company's own investment in R&D (Externality, 2022). In such instances, the government may wish to extend tax credits to organizations that engage in socially beneficial activities, with the goal of generating more positive externalities for citizens.
"Bailouts, stimulus, and invisible hand correction"
"Defense of intervention on equity and protection grounds"
The federal government plays an indispensable role in shaping economic outcomes — from crafting the national budget to correcting the failures and externalities that free markets cannot resolve on their own. While critics of intervention raise valid concerns about moral hazard, the evidence suggests that the costs of inaction fall disproportionately on citizens with the least power, justifying the use of taxpayer resources for corrective action.
You’re 61% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 2 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.