THIS IS ONLY AN INTERPRETATION, FIVE SENTENCES AND A QUESTION IS ALL I NEED. TELL ME YOUR THOUGHTS, HAVE REFERENCESIntroduction With regards to a government, such as a national government, a balanced budget equates with revenues’ being equal to expenditures: Accounts balance(Mikesell, 2014, pp. 166-167; Boundless, n.d.). It may be said that thefederal government always has had a balanced budget as its deficitshave always been covered by loans (Mikesell, p. 166). For a governmentit may be also allowed that in a balanced-budget, there is not only nodeficit, but a surplus of revenue, (Boundless). Typically, handlingsudden expenses is handled by borrowing (Mikesell, p. 167). Ideally,with regards to a government’s having a balanced budget, this shouldalso mean decreased interest rates, and, in complementary-fashion,increased savings and investment opportunities, in-the-midst ofshrinking trade deficits (Boundless). All of this should help thecountry grow much faster, and over a longer period of time(Boundless). Such a presumed view of the ideal of a balanced nationalbudget would also seem to make it a panacea in then being able toprovide fiscal support to public organizations, inclusive of NonprofitOrganizations (NPO’s) (Mikesell, p. 166; Boundless). Notwithstanding,the application of such things as Keynesiantheory (Mikesell, 2014, p. 137; Boundless), Zero-Based Budgeting (ZBB)(Deloitte, 2015, pp 1-3; Mikesell, pp. 265-268), and political-budgetingassumptions of a congress and senate that directs and redirects fundswithout the understanding, insight, savvy, extrapolation abilities,vision and objectivity of pure economists (Mikesell, p. 112; Buchanan,2012, pp. 683-684), even while the President may be appropriating funds(Mikesell, pp. 107-119), may well prove otherwise (Buchanan, pp.683-684; Mikesell, pp. 139-143; pp. 110-112). Regarding supportingpublic organizations, the actual concern is sustainability through notoverspending for large government, rather than paying the national debtto balance the budget (Mikesell, p. 166; Boccia, 2013; Mitchell, 2005). General Misconceptions and Innocently Dispelling the Empty Myths Indispelling the misconceptions promoting laboring under illusions, whichsuffering could well be global nowadays, in a rapidly-changing world(Mikesell, p. 137; pp. 139-143), some other key terms need to be definedas to their actual meaning as they should be affectingthe world of reality (Buchanan, pp. 683-684). As politicians may be nomore knowledgeable than the public stakeholders they are supposed tosupport when it comes to federal deficits and debt (Mikesell, pp.110-112), their cries of financial responsibility to eliminategovernment borrowing and promote paying the national debt may actuallyprove misguiding and counterproductive (Mikesell, p. 166; Buchanan, pp.683-684). There is, in-fact, no decided advantage to paying immediately adebt that can only be eliminated through running annual budgetsurpluses (Buchanan, pp. 683-684). It might be argued that strategicallyit is far better to let the debt rise through borrowing to ensure thattomorrow’s children will be provided for, and not deprived, as would beguaranteed if attempt were made to pay the debt immediately and therebylose all resources for now and the future (Buchanan, pp. 683-684). Being Positively Dynamic with Regards to Borrowing in a Rapidly-Changing World At-the-same-time,the debt cannot just be carelessly allowed to escalate as it is alreadyhaving a devastating effect upon the economy, including globally, whichcan negatively affect public organizations (Mikesell, pp. 139-143;Boccia). The rising debt that has not been kept-in-check as promised bythe Obama administration rampantly causes higher interest rates, lesspurchasing power because of inflation, delayed home purchasing,unaffordable medical care for longer-living seniors, etc. (Boccia).For the benefit of public organizations with regard to governmentspending as concerns their sustainability for the benefit of thestakeholders of the environment, it appears that what is actually neededis dynamism, such as is expressed in Keynesian theory, in arapidly-changing world and ever-more global economy (Mikesell, p. 137;pp. 139-143; Mitchell, Boccia; Rivin & Sawhill, 2005; Primo, 2011;Sheck, pp. 109-114; DeHaven, 2011). The Applied Dynamism of Keynesian Economic Theory in a Rapidly-Changing World Ostensibly,major examples of the volatility of economy and the inherent necessityof approaching it in a dynamic fashion have been little appreciatedby-way-of a lesson learned, especially in the United States (Piketty,2014, pp. 570-571). The economy’s totaling dropping subsequent to WorldWar I (WWI) and taking the world totally by surprise provides thebiggest example of such instability (Piketty, pp. 106-109; Alesina,2000, p. 6). Then, even while this is followed-up with hitting a highplateau in 1998 from a surplus after building back up for about acentury (Alesina, 2000, pp. 3-18), the economy is threatening again todip severely, especially in America (Boccia; Piketty, pp. 570-571). Thetheory that there is a direct correlation between a worker’s wage andmarginal productivity and skill has proven to be limited and naïve(Piketty, pp. 304-307). Learning from economic circumstance such as torespond positively is so bad, especially in the United States, that itmay be said that the past is devouring the future (Piketty, p. 570). Even the take-away aphorism Keynesian economic theory, The Boom, Not the Slump, Is the Right Time for Austerity at the Treasury,has done nothing sustaining in national economic regard concerninglearning from the past and then applying the knowledge gained as wisdomin the future in a world economy that does not hold still (Mikesell, p.137; Edwards, 2015). Applying Keynesian Economic Theory Now and Balancing the National Budget Inresponding dynamically to a rapidly-changing world, Keynesian economicspresent the logic of budgeting during business cycles, while runningdeficits during recessions (Boundless). Keynesian economists hold thatduring a recession governments should increase spending and reduce taxes(Boundless). Contrariwise, during a growth cycle, the government shouldrun budget surplus, thereby spending less and taxing more (Boundless).Through responding to the economy in a balancing fashion, the budgetshould be balanced without worsening recessions by spending more(Boundless). Nonetheless, regarding an ever-shifting economy (Alesina,p. 6; Piketty, pp. 570-571), the critical mass point is rapidly beingapproached in borrowing (Mikesell, pp. 139-143; Boccia), andremediation of such is not covered by Keynesian economics (Edwards).Neither is the fact that balancing the national budget is a moot pointin the view of the merits of focused spending for such sustainability asa large government does not afford (Edwards; Mitchell). It does notseem that a balanced budget, even if achieved through Keynesianeconomics or some other means, such as loans (Mikesell, p. 166), wouldeliminate the threats of inflation, high interest rates, high tradedeficits, etc. as would capping borrowing (Boccia; Mitchell;Mikesell, pp. 139-143; DeHaven, 2011). In this regard, ZBB has notcontributed much through being unrealistically inflexible as to why abudget needs to be balanced anyway (Mikesell, pp. 265-268; Deloitte, p.3). ZBB’s Inadvertently Adding Inflexibility to Balancing the Budget ZBB starts with the unrealistic notion that every fiscal year is goingto start with nothing owed—0—to the last fiscal year (Mikesell, p. 265;Deloitte, p. 3). Such is the case, even when it is common practice topush debts back into the future when funding is rapidly dissipating inthe present economic cycle (Mikesell, p. 265; Deloitte, p. 3). While ZBBdoes want to do worthwhile things for the economy, such as makingcertain money goes to where it can do the most good, rather than besquandered, its incumbent micromanagement can be confusing anddemoralizing (Mikesell, pp. 266-268; Deloitte, p. 3). ZBB demandsspecialists when the funding is all over the place itself with suchthings as this year’s debts commonly getting paid from next year’sbudget, and never starting with the requisite clean slate anyway(Mikesell, p. 265; Deloitte, p. 3). As such common practice meansstarting with a deficit, instead of the necessary balance, even with thebest intentions, ZBB is not a realistic application in arapidly-changing—including politically inconstant—world (Deloitte, p. 3;Mikesell, pp. 139-143; pp. 110-112; Boccia; Mitchell; Buchanan, pp.683-684). Such has ironically proven to be the case also withResults-Based/New Performance Budgeting, which has demonstrated itselfto be unrealistically inflexible in its not crossing agencies in itsapplication, when flexibility through objectivity was supposed to be itssaving and sustaining grace (Mikesell, p. 279; pp. 268-283). Perhapsfederal integration of performance and budgeting will come to proveitself (Mikesell, pp. 283-291). Conclusion As concerns the government’s supporting public organizations, theconcern is not balancing the budget, but capping borrowing debt anddirecting funds properly for sustainability since overspending for largegovernment is counterproductive for everyone (Mitchell; Boccia;DeHaven; Edwards). There are major economic concerns regarding thegovernment’s providing support for public organization stakeholders(Mitchell; Boccia). The gratuitous balancing of the national budget isnot one of them (Mikesell, p. 136; Boundless; DeHaven). The somewhatflexible Keynesian economic model cannot balance the national budgetwhen the real concern is keeping borrowing from taking things over thetop (Edwards; Deloitte, p. 3; Boccia). ZBB is too rigid and divorcedfrom reality to be of any use in a rapidly-changing world, which isemphasized with its self-obsessiveness in balancing the national budgetwhen that will not help anything anyway (Deloitte, p. 3; Mikesell,265-268; p. 166; pp. 139-143). The flexibility needed to ensure asustaining economy has to be more than Keynesian to handle economics forpublic organizations in a rapidly-changing world (Edwards; Boundless;Mikesell, pp. 268-282; pp. 283-291; pp. 139-143; pp. 110-112; pp.268-291; Mitchell; Boccia). The flexibility of objectivity and opennessof economic skills have to be there to see and act upon the fact thatproperly directing funds, dealing with unexpected expenses such asappropriations, capping borrowing, and being free of large governmentare what are crucial to the government’s supporting publicorganizations, not rigidly, tautologically balancing a national budget(Boundless; Mitchell; Boccia; Buchanan, pp. 683-684; Deloitte, p. 3;Mikesell, p. 137; pp. 139-143; pp. 107-119; pp. 110-112; pp. 265-268;pp. pp. 268-291; Edwards; DeHaven). References Aaron, H. J. (2015). Constitutional solutions to our escalating national debt: Examining balanced budget amendments. Brookings. Retrieved from https://www.brookings.edu/testimonies/constitutional-solutions-to-our-escalating-national-debt-examining-balanced-budget-amendments/. Alesina, A. (2000). The political economy of the budget surplus in the United States. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 14(3), 3-19. Retrieved from https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/alesina/files/the_political_economy_of_the_budget_surplus_in_the_us.pdf. Boccia, R. (2013). How the United States’ high debt will weaken the economy and hurt Americans. The Heritage Foundation. Retrieved from http://www.heritage.org/budget-and-spending/report/how-the-united-states-high-debt-will-weaken-the-economy-and-hurt. Boundless. (n.d.) Arguments for and against balancing the budget. Boundless.com. Retrieved from https://www.boundless.com/economics/textbooks/boundless-economics-textbook/fiscal-policy-26/evaluating-fiscal-policy-113/arguments-for-and-against-balancing-the-budget-437-12534/. Buchanan, N.H. (2012). Why we should never pay down the national debt. GW Law Faculty Publications and other Works, 683(2012), 681-697. Retrieved from http://scholarship.law.gwu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1025&context=faculty_publications. DeHaven, T. (2011). We don’t need a balanced budget amendment. US News. Retrieved from https://www.usnews.com/debate-club/does-the-united-states-need-a-balanced-budget-amendment/we-dont-need-a-balanced-budget-amendment. Deloitte. (2015). Zero-based budgeting: Zero or hero? Retrieved from https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/us/Documents/process-and-operations/us-cons-zero-based-budgeting.pdf. Edwards, C. (2015). The need to balance the budget and reduce the national debt. Cato Institute. Retrieved from https://www.cato.org/publications/testimony/need-balance-budget-reduce-federal-debt. Hatch, O. (2011). Balanced budget amendment would have prevented current mess. US News. Retrieved from https://www.usnews.com/debate-club/does-the-united-states-need-a-balanced-budget-amendment/balanced-budget-amendment-would-have-prevented-current-mess. Mikesell, J. L. (2014). Fiscal administration: Analysis and applications for the public sector (9th ed.). Boston, MA: Wadsworth. Mitchell, D. (2005). The impact of government spending on economic growth. The Heritage Foundation. Retrieved from http://www.heritage.org/budget-and-spending/report/the-impact-government-spending-economic-growth. Piketty, T. (2014). Capital in the twenty-first century (A. Goldhammer, Trans.). Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. Primo, D. (2011). Act now to prevent a debt crisis. US News. Retrieved from https://www.usnews.com/debate-club/does-the-united-states-need-a-balanced-budget-amendment/act-now-to-prevent-a-debt-crisis. Rivin, A.M., & Sawhill, I.V. How to balance the budget. (2005). Brookings. Retrieved from https://www.brookings.edu/research/how-to-balance-the-budget/. Rubin, D.B., Singh, S.R., & Jacobson, P.D. (2013). Evaluating hospitals’ provision of community benefit: An argument for an outcome-based approach to nonprofit hospital tax exemption. American Public Health Association (APHA), 103(4). Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3673262/. Scheck, A. (2005). Sustainable budget policy: Concepts and approaches OECD Journal on Budgeting 5(1), 107-126. Retrieved from https://www.oecd.org/gov/budgeting/43481125.pdf.