Budget Justification Example: Fill & Download for Free

I don’t know about posts coming from somewhere in Europe, but we have enough people who believe in Leave making ridiculous posts from the UK.Granted there has been a recent upsurge of stupid posts but they can easily be validated by just checking profiles - most of them do not have any credentials and if they push too hard, I just report them. Everyone should do the same, so that we can waste some Russian or lobbyists’ monies.Anyway, talking about ridiculous posts, following is an unashamed cut-and-paste from another answer, because people should recognise and understand how supporters of Brexit actually think.Question: How would you explain the reasons for Brexit to someone who is a bit thick?This is a challenging question to answer, mainly because to understand the reasons for Brexit, you have to understand a lot of unusual things. And one of them is that Leave voters don’t need a good reason to want Brexit. All they need is faulty logic, a sense of displacement, a touch of self-pity, unwarranted over-optimism, a feeling of being unappreciated/dispossessed of something to which they’re not entitled, disdain towards people who can observe rules and get on with their lives while they feel somehow unsatisfied, and so on. Those are the real reasons for Brexit.Brexit is wanting to watch the UK economy crumble around their ears, because it is minor compared to their self-contrived excuses for unwarranted outrage. And they want Brexit to be a guttural noisily-blown saliva-flecked raspberry for other people perceived as “better off”, both in the EU and the UK.Cost of Brexit vote to families revealed - and that's before we've even leftThe above article states that the UK has lost £23 billion in 2018 due to Brexit. This ties in very closely with a simple arithmetical analysis of the impact of Brexit, which comes in at £21.6 billion (or £415,273,269 per week).(Analysis was done in Oct 2018 in What is the arithmetic of Brexit?)But people who want Brexit still prefer to ignore the fact that none of their leaders can do any similar analysis that shows a benefit for them. They don’t care that everyone they believe in is numerically challenged or lying or both. They don’t want to know that every claimed “benefit” of Brexit is just unrealistic, and they clamp their eyes shut to the total lack of (a) a costs/benefits analysis, (b) a strategy for after 29 March 2019, (c) a planned budget for Brexit-related activities, (d) clear guidelines to businesses/citizens as to how they can take advantage of Brexit, (e) centralised funding/directives to ease the transition issues, (f) re-training/education schemes for people, (g) strategic civil service staffing plans for Brexit, etc, etc.So they also don’t care when they blatantly choose to believe the lie that the UK simply pays money into the EU for nothing. They don’t see that a huge chunk of their benefits come directly from tax revenues raised from working with the EU. Nobody has ever explained to them the following facts:Are Brexit supporters correct or wrong to assume there's no net benefit of paying into the EU?Brexit happens when people are manipulated by lobbyists and ideologues who want to steal our country from under our feet. These lobbyists rely on vast swaths of people never knowing the reality behind who’s paying to grab the UK from its citizens. They rely on people never reading stuff like this:Is Brexit the result of political corruption going back many years?Wanting Brexit is actually wanting the UK to lose more sovereignty but that has been conveniently pooh-poohed away even though it is an inevitable result of chasing trades deals to replace the same trade agreements which we already have. Here is how the UK will lose much more sovereignty after Brexit:At the end of the day, aren't most Brexiteers willing to pay significant economic costs for their right to regain control of British sovereignty?So the outcome is Brexit, which can be summarised as a need to scratch an itch on a national scab caused by successive UK governments, but dexterously blamed on the EU by the constant lies in the press (whose owners don’t even pay their fair share of UK taxes). So Brexit is now this:Is the UK doomed to becoming meaner and angrier no matter how Brexit turns out?And that is Brexit explained to people who are a bit thick. People who want Brexit are incapable of shaking off an odd sense of self-entitlement which dictates that they should have the right to steer the UK onto the rocks without any sensible justifications. Examples of what I mean are:What are your best discussions that you have had with people who support Brexit?

It would be extremely unusual for an individual academic scientist to hire someone just to write a grant proposal for them. In most places, this wouldn't be an allowable expense - the scientist wouldn't be allowed to use an existing grant, or the academic institution's funds, to pay for this kind of service, and the vast majority of academics don't make enough money to pay grant writers from their own pocket. They're very much expected to write their own grants; in fact, this is one of the most important parts of their job.However, some academic departments do hire people like me, who help groups of researchers with all sorts of non-research tasks, including aspects of grant writing. I don't usually write much of the actual scientific proposal (there have been a couple of exceptions in my seven years in this kind of role - I do quite often make suggestions though, for example if I think the professor has missed one of the usual sections), but I do write things like budget justifications, lay language summaries, data dissemination plans, etc. I also edit, proof, and format the whole application before assembling and submitting it. (I also do lots of other non-grant-writing things including project management, manuscript editing, process development, budget tracking, etc).I suppose it's possible that scientists in the private sector sometimes hire grant writers to help them get some external funding for their research, but that's beyond the sphere of my experience!

The American voters through their representatives in the legislative branch, do have insight influence and oversight of the Pentagon. This is accomplished through the budgetary process. For example, the fiscal year 2017 budget has just been released, as the presidents budget or PB. This budget, as the official government position and request for resources is subject two great review and scrutiny.The PB is subject to the normal markup process for both the appropriations and authorization committees. How is this oversight? How do the voters play in this? Well, Every program, project, and activity or PPA, is described in the budget justification materials associated with the appropriation that it is in. There are research and development exhibits, procurement exhibits, and operations and maintenance exhibits that all describe what these activities and programs and projects do.Through the market process you as a voter, can look at the available unclassified portions of the budget justification materials and submit questions or race issues with your congressman. If your congressman is not on the defense subcommittee in appropriations or on the defense authorization committee, as a member of Congress they certainly can ask questions of their fellow members.Please keep in mind, policy is not made at the Pentagon or in the office of the secretary defense, or in the halls of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Nor is policy made in the various Service departments and defense agencies that constitute the department of defense. The executive branch, i.e. The White House will determine what policy shall be and this is articulated in the defense guidance. Such guidance is provided to DoD by The office of management and budget (OMB), to include the fiscal guidance.Congress also develops their version of planning guidance and policy in the form of authorization bills which are the basis for allowing programs projects and activities to exist. The appropriations bills also provide the department of defense policy and guidance, but they are accompanied with a specific resources or total obligation authority.If the citizens have an issue with a policy, for example strategic missile defense, they obviously have the right and duty to petition their government. During the Reagan administration in the 1980s the Department of Defense began a strategic defense initiative that spent significant resources on researching science and technology associated with ballistic missile defense. There were many who disagreed with this policy and the expenditure of resources. Many letters were written to both the strategic defense initiative organization who had cognizance over the money and developmental effort, the office of the secretary of defense and of course two individual congressman and senator's some of which sat on the defense related committees in either one of those bodies.So, if you have an issue with a major acquisition such as the F – 35, my advice is for you to review the public access unclassified budget justification materials, and submit your concerns to your congressman. If you have an operational concern, that is how our for structure is deployed, or where our troops ships and airplanes are being utilized by the military; again write to your representatives. Everything the military does with these resources I've talked about, is governed by title X of the US Code. Thus. The law applies to the department of defense, the Services and Defense Agencies. You do have the right to know what the department of defense is doing! Defense News, armed Forces journal and other periodicals do a great job of covering the activities of the department. I suggest you read, monitor, opine to your representatives and keep an eye on DOD.,