發(fā)布時(shí)間：2018-09-09 20:33

【摘要】：早期的資料論述，把預(yù)算定義為“一種計(jì)劃”，絕少提及其具有法律性。而后期的論述中，有的學(xué)者認(rèn)為預(yù)算具有的最本質(zhì)特性是法律性。美國(guó)早期的憲法中并沒(méi)有關(guān)于預(yù)算制度的規(guī)定，，直到1800年才規(guī)定財(cái)政部應(yīng)向國(guó)會(huì)對(duì)聯(lián)邦財(cái)政收支做出相應(yīng)報(bào)告。在1921年美國(guó)通過(guò)了《預(yù)算審計(jì)法案》，正式規(guī)定總統(tǒng)每年要向國(guó)會(huì)提出預(yù)算報(bào)告。之后又制定了一系列預(yù)算監(jiān)督相關(guān)內(nèi)容的法律。通過(guò)這些法律，美國(guó)建立了一套體系比較完整、職責(zé)比較明確、依據(jù)比較充分的預(yù)算監(jiān)督法律制度。一個(gè)國(guó)家的預(yù)算法，其實(shí)質(zhì)是給政府各部門(mén)所制定的約束和監(jiān)督其行為的規(guī)則。美國(guó)的預(yù)算制度創(chuàng)新具有很強(qiáng)的借鑒意義，是現(xiàn)代各國(guó)預(yù)算制度變遷的典型。 雖然我國(guó)國(guó)情與美國(guó)不盡相同，其預(yù)算監(jiān)督立法經(jīng)驗(yàn)也不能完全照搬，但國(guó)家的預(yù)算監(jiān)督法律制度存在共同特點(diǎn)和其特色之處。在任何一國(guó)的法律中，憲法對(duì)預(yù)算監(jiān)督進(jìn)行了詳細(xì)的規(guī)定，為規(guī)范和約束預(yù)算監(jiān)督活動(dòng)提供了具有最高法律效力的依據(jù)。在憲法的基礎(chǔ)之上，發(fā)達(dá)國(guó)家還制定了專(zhuān)門(mén)法來(lái)對(duì)預(yù)算監(jiān)督進(jìn)一步細(xì)化。例如：美國(guó)制訂了一系列的有關(guān)預(yù)算監(jiān)督的法律，《預(yù)算與會(huì)計(jì)法案》、《國(guó)會(huì)預(yù)算和扣押法案》、《平衡預(yù)算和經(jīng)濟(jì)赤字控制法》、《預(yù)算執(zhí)行法案》、《綜合預(yù)算調(diào)整法案》等，這些法律影響著聯(lián)邦預(yù)算的規(guī)模，指導(dǎo)著預(yù)算程序參與者們的行為，對(duì)我國(guó)預(yù)算監(jiān)督制度改革和完善也具有一定的指導(dǎo)意義。盡管《中華人民共和國(guó)預(yù)算法修正案（草案）》旨在政府預(yù)算公開(kāi)、透明、科學(xué)、完整、健全和監(jiān)督方面都有做出一些改進(jìn)，但離現(xiàn)代意義上的憲政民主政治的立法精神仍有距離。借此論文作者以美國(guó)聯(lián)邦預(yù)算的法律基礎(chǔ)——美國(guó)聯(lián)邦預(yù)算法律體系為借鑒，運(yùn)用歷史考察法及比較分析法，界定了美國(guó)聯(lián)邦預(yù)算法的范圍，回顧了美國(guó)聯(lián)邦預(yù)算法發(fā)展的歷史經(jīng)歷，并總結(jié)了其發(fā)展過(guò)程中的一些基本規(guī)律和特征。希望能對(duì)中國(guó)的預(yù)算法改革有一定的借鑒作用。
[Abstract]:In early references, budgeting was defined as "a plan", with little mention of its legal nature. However, in the later discussion, some scholars think that the most essential characteristic of budget is law. Early U.S. constitutions did not provide for a budget system. It was not until 1800 that the Treasury was required to report federal revenues and expenditures to Congress. In 1921, the United States passed the Budget Audit Act, formally requiring the President to submit annual budget reports to Congress. After that, a series of laws related to budget supervision were formulated. Through these laws, the United States has established a more complete system, clear responsibilities, and a more adequate legal system of budget supervision. The essence of a country's budget law is the regulation that governs and supervises the government's actions. The innovation of American budget system is of great significance and is a typical example of the changes of budget system in modern countries. Although the national conditions of our country are different from those of the United States, and its experience of budget supervision legislation can not be completely copied, the legal system of budget supervision in our country has common characteristics and features. In the laws of any country, the constitution has made detailed provisions on budget supervision, which provides the highest legal basis for the regulation and restraint of budget supervision activities. On the basis of constitutions, developed countries have enacted special laws to further refine budget supervision. For example, the United States has enacted a series of laws on budget supervision, the Budget and Accounting Act, the Congressional Budget and seizure Act, the balanced Budget and Economic deficit Control Act, the Budget Enforcement Act, the Comprehensive Budget Adjustment Act, and so on. These laws affect the scale of the federal budget, guide the behavior of participants in the budget process, and also have certain guiding significance for the reform and improvement of the budget supervision system in our country. Although the Budget Law Amendment (draft) of the people's Republic of China aims to make some improvements in the government budget in terms of openness, transparency, science, integrity, soundness and supervision, However, there is still a distance from the legislative spirit of constitutional democracy in the modern sense. In this paper, the author draws lessons from the United States federal budget legal system, which is the legal basis of the United States federal budget, and uses the historical investigation method and comparative analysis method to define the scope of the United States Federal Budget Law. This paper reviews the historical experience of the development of the Federal Budget Law of the United States, and summarizes some basic laws and characteristics in the course of its development. I hope it can be used for reference to the reform of China's budget law.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：吉林財(cái)經(jīng)大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2012
【分類(lèi)號(hào)】：D971.2;DD912.2

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前9條

1 周軍華;楊紅偉;;論美國(guó)國(guó)會(huì)預(yù)算權(quán)的運(yùn)作過(guò)程及功能[J];安徽大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào);2006年02期

2 肖鵬;;美國(guó)聯(lián)邦預(yù)算管理法律體系演變與啟示[J];財(cái)貿(mào)研究;2009年06期

3 王雍君;;《預(yù)算法》修訂中的四個(gè)關(guān)鍵性問(wèn)題探討[J];地方財(cái)政研究;2011年01期

4 方福前;論凱恩斯理論與羅斯�！靶抡钡年P(guān)系[J];經(jīng)濟(jì)理論與經(jīng)濟(jì)管理;1998年03期

5 曲巖;美國(guó)聯(lián)邦政府預(yù)算編制及啟示[J];經(jīng)濟(jì)論壇;2005年07期

6 詹姆斯·L.陳;白彥鋒;;論美國(guó)重大的聯(lián)邦預(yù)算法[J];經(jīng)濟(jì)社會(huì)體制比較;2008年01期

7 李永柱;美國(guó)的財(cái)政法律體系探視[J];遼寧財(cái)稅;2002年03期

8 鄧廷濤;;投票與民主[J];人大研究;2008年10期

9 田素華;;美國(guó)經(jīng)濟(jì)調(diào)整趨向與中國(guó)的政策選擇[J];世界經(jīng)濟(jì)與政治論壇;2006年05期

相關(guān)博士學(xué)位論文 前1條

1 王逸帥;美國(guó)預(yù)算民主的制度變遷研究[D];上海交通大學(xué);2009年

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前5條

1 陳晨;公共財(cái)政建設(shè)下提升財(cái)政透明度的研究[D];天津財(cái)經(jīng)大學(xué);2010年

2 張蕊;論我國(guó)公共財(cái)政預(yù)算的法制監(jiān)督[D];河北大學(xué);2011年

3 龔少華;中美政府預(yù)算的比較研究[D];西南財(cái)經(jīng)大學(xué);2006年

4 朱輝;論杰克遜時(shí)代的美國(guó)民主[D];浙江大學(xué);2008年

5 劉曉明;中國(guó)由稅收國(guó)家向預(yù)算國(guó)家轉(zhuǎn)型對(duì)策研究[D];山西財(cái)經(jīng)大學(xué);2008年

本文編號(hào)：2233494