[Analytical Perspectives]
[Economic and Accounting Analyses]
[2. Stewardship: Toward a Federal Balance Sheet]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]


                              Introduction
  This chapter presents a framework for describing the financial 
condition of the Federal Government and its performance as a steward of 
publicly owned assets. Although parts of the presentation are similar in 
appearance to a business balance sheet, they are not the same. The 
Government's sovereign powers have no counterparts in the business 
world, and its resources and responsibilities are broader than the 
assets and liabilities found on a typical balance sheet. For this 
reason, it is not possible to judge how well the Government is 
discharging its stewardship obligations simply from an examination of 
its formal assets and liabilities. A review of how national welfare and 
security are faring in light of Government policy is also needed.
  Because of the differences between Government and business, and the 
serious limitations that exist in the available data, the material 
presented below must be interpreted cautiously. The conclusions are 
necessarily tentative and subject to future revision as the estimating 
methods are improved and better data become available.
  The presentation consists of three parts:

     
[[Page 18]]
                                                     Table 2-1.  GOVERNMENT ASSETS AND LIABILITIES*                                                     
                                             (As of the end of the fiscal year, in billions of 1995 dollars)                                            
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               1960       1965       1970       1975       1980       1985       1990       1993       1994       1995  
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                                        
ASSETS                                                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                                        
Financial assets:                                                                                                                                       
  Gold and Foreign Exchange...............         98         69         58        130        322        154        194        171        171        183
  Other Monetary Assets...................         37         53         32         15         38         24         31         39         31         34
  Mortgages and Other Loans...............        122        156        202        202        278        341        276        230        218        193
    Less Expected Loan Losses.............         -1         -2         -4         -9        -16        -16        -18        -24        -26        -22
  Other Financial Assets..................         58         77         64         64         84        108        166        202        190        188
                                           -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Subtotal..............................        314        353        351        403        706        611        648        618        584        576
Physical Assets:                                                                                                                                        
  Fixed Reproducible Capital:                                                                                                                           
    Defense...............................        826        842        839        683        586        694        771        782        780        744
    Nondefense............................        146        175        189        216        248        249        254        251        256        255
  Inventories.............................        252        218        203        181        220        252        219        179        170        168
  Nonreproducible Capital:                                                                                                                              
    Land..................................         87        121        151        234        296        318        315        241        237        235
    Mineral Rights........................        314        291        241        334        607        683        457        388        360        335
                                           -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal............................      1,626      1,646      1,622      1,647      1,958      2,197      2,016      1,841      1,803      1,737
                                           =============================================================================================================
        Total assets......................      1,940      2,000      1,972      2,050      2,664      2,808      2,664      2,459      2,387      2,313
                                                                                                                                                        
LIABILITIES                                                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                                        
Financial liabilities:                                                                                                                                  
  Currency and Bank Reserves..............        220        241        267        272        273        290        348        396        422        437
  Debt held by the Public.................        954        941        800        787      1,019      1,809      2,483      3,072      3,158      3,219
  Miscellaneous...........................         28         29         31         33         44         55         82         59         60         61
                                           -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Subtotal..............................      1,202      1,211      1,097      1,092      1,336      2,153      2,913      3,527      3,640      3,717
Insurance Liabilities:                                                                                                                                  
  Deposit Insurance.......................          0          0          0          0          2          9         67         13          8          4
  Pension Benefit Guarantee Corp..........          0          0          0         41         30         41         40         63         31         19
  Loan Guarantees.........................          0          0          2          6         12         10         14         28         30         27
  Other Insurance.........................         30         27         21         19         26         16         19         18         17         16
                                           -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Subtotal..............................         30         27         23         67         69         76        140        122         86         66
Federal Pension Liabilities...............        734        930      1,104      1,256      1,707      1,693      1,625      1,563      1,541      1,513
                                           =============================================================================================================
      Total liabilities...................      1,966      2,168      2,225      2,414      3,112      3,922      4,678      5,212      5,267      5,296
      Balance.............................        -26       -169       -252       -364       -448     -1,114     -2,014     -2,753     -2,880     -2,983
        Per capita (in 1995 dollars)......       -146       -867     -1,231     -1,686     -1,961     -4,658     -8,034    -10,635    -11,018    -11,312
        Ratio to GDP (in percent).........       -1.1       -5.4       -6.9       -8.7       -9.0      -19.1      -30.4      -39.5      -39.9      -40.7
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*This table shows assets and liabilites for the Government as a whole, including the Federal Reserve System. Therefore, it does not break out separately
  the assets held in Government accounts, such as social security, that are the obligation of specific Government agencies. Estimates for 1995 are      
  extrapolated in some cases.                                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                                        

             THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT'S ASSETS AND LIABILITIES
  Table 2-1 summarizes what the Government owes as a result of its past 
operations, along with the value of what it owns, for a number of years 
beginning in 1960. The values of assets and liabilities are measured in 
terms of constant 1995 dollars. For all of this period, Government 
liabilities have exceeded the value of assets, but until the early 1980s 
the disparity was relatively small, and for many years it deteriorated 
only gradually.
  In the late 1970s, a speculative run-up in the prices of oil, gold, 
and other real assets temporarily boosted Federal asset values, but 
since then they have declined.\2\ Currently, the total real value of 
Federal assets is estimated to be about 20 percent greater than it was 
in 1960. Meanwhile, Federal liabilities have increased by almost 170 
percent in real terms. The sharp decline in the Federal net asset 
position that began in the 1980s was principally due to the large 
Federal budget deficits that began at that time along with the drop in 
asset values. Currently, the net excess of liabilities over assets is 
about $3 trillion or over $11,000 per capita.
  \2\This temporary improvement highlights the importance of the other 
tables in this presentation. What is good for the Federal Government as 
an asset holder is not necessarily favorable to the economy. The decline 
in inflation in the early 1980s reversed the speculative runup in gold 
and other commodity prices. This reduced the balance of Federal net 
assets, but it was good for the economy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Assets

  The assets in Table 2-1 reflect a comprehensive list of the financial 
and physical resources owned by the Federal Government. The list 
corresponds to items that
[[Page 19]]
would appear on a typical balance sheet, but 
it does not constitute an exhaustive catalogue of Federal resources. For 
example, the Government's most important financial resource, its ability 
to tax, is not reflected.
  Financial Assets: At the end of 1995, the Federal Government's 
holdings of financial assets amounted to about $570 billion. Government-
held mortgages and other loans (measured in constant dollars) reached a 
peak in the mid-1980s. Since then, Federal loans have declined. The 
holdings of mortgages, in particular, have declined sharply over the 
last three years as the holdings acquired from failed Savings and Loan 
institutions have been liquidated.
  The face value of mortgages and other loans overstates their economic 
value because of future losses and the interest subsidy on these loans. 
These estimated losses are subtracted from the face value of outstanding 
loans to obtain a better estimate of their economic worth.
  Over time, variations in the price of gold have accounted for major 
swings in this category. Since 1980, gold prices have fallen, and the 
real value of U.S. gold and foreign exchange holdings have dropped by 
over 40 percent. Last year, for the first time in several years, these 
assets rose in value.
  Reproducible Capital: The Federal Government is a major investor in 
physical capital. Government-owned stocks of fixed capital amounted to 
about $1.0 trillion in 1995. About three-quarters of this capital took 
the form of defense equipment or structures. From 1960 to 1981, the net 
stock of defense capital fell as a share of GDP, but between 1982 and 
1991, the ratio generally held steady. Since 1991, the reduction in 
defense purchases following the end of the Cold War has caused a decline 
in the ratio of these stocks to GDP of about 1\1/2\ percentage point.
  Non-reproducible Capital: The Government owns significant amounts of 
land and mineral deposits. There are no official estimates of the market 
value of these holdings. Researchers in the private sector have 
estimated what they are worth, and these estimates are extrapolated in 
Table 2-1. Private land values are about 20 percent lower than they were 
at the end of the 1980s, although they have risen somewhat since 1993. 
It is assumed here that Federal land has shared in this decline. Oil 
prices have fluctuated but are lower now than they were five years ago. 
These shifts are likely to have pulled down the value of Federal mineral 
deposits.
  Total Assets: The total real value of Government assets has declined 
about 15 percent over the last 10 years, principally because of declines 
in the real prices of gold, land, and minerals. At the end of 1995, the 
Government's holdings of all assets were worth about $2.3 trillion.

Liabilities

  The liabilities listed in Table 2-1 are analogous to those of a 
business corporation. They include public debt, Federal trade credit, 
and Federal pension obligations owed to its workers. Other potential 
claims on Federal resources are not reflected.
  Financial Liabilities: These amounted to about $3.7 trillion at the 
end of 1995. The largest component was Federal debt held by the public, 
amounting to over $3.2 trillion. This measure of Federal debt is net of 
the holdings of the Federal Reserve System. Those holdings exceeded $380 
billion in 1995. Although independent in its policy deliberations, the 
Federal Reserve is part of the Federal Government, and for that reason 
its assets and liabilities are included here in the Federal totals. In 
addition to debt held by the public, the Government's financial 
liabilities include $440 billion in currency and bank reserves, which 
are mainly obligations of the Federal Reserve System, and about $60 
billion in miscellaneous liabilities.
  Guarantees and Insurance Liabilities: The Federal Government has 
contingent liabilities arising from loan guarantees and insurance 
programs. When the Government offers insurance, the initial outlays may 
be small or, if a fee is charged, they may even be negative, but the 
risk of future outlays associated with such commitments can be huge. In 
the past, the cost of such risks was not recognized until after a loss 
was realized. In the last few years, however, techniques have been 
developed which permit estimates to be made of the accruing costs 
arising from these commitments. The estimates are reported in Table 2-1. 
The resolution of the many failures in the Savings and Loan and banking 
industries have helped to reduce the losses in this category by about 
half since 1990.
  Federal Pension Liabilities: The Federal Government owes pension 
benefits to its retired workers and to current employees who will 
eventually retire. The amount of these liabilities is large. As of 1995, 
the discounted present value of the benefits is estimated to have been 
around $1.5 trillion.\3\
  \3\These pension liabilities are expressed as the actuarial present 
value of benefits accrued-to-date based on past and projected salaries. 
The cost of retiree health benefits is not included. The 1995 liability 
is extrapolated from recent trends.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Balance of Net Liabilities

  The balance between Federal liabilities and Federal assets has 
deteriorated over the past 15 years at a rapid rate. In 1980, the 
negative balance was less than 11 percent of GDP. Currently, it is 
estimated to be over 40 percent. The budget deficit has declined since 
1992, however, and this has slowed the rate of decline in the net asset 
position. If the Administration's budget proposals were to be enacted, 
it is likely that the rate of decline in the net asset position would be 
halted and even reversed.
[[Page 20]]
              THE BALANCE OF RESOURCES AND RESPONSIBILITIES
  The data summarized in Table 2-1 are useful in showing the 
consequences of past Government policies, but Government's continuing 
commitments to provide public services are not reflected there, nor can 
the Government's broader resources be displayed in a table limited only 
to the assets that it owns. A better way to examine the balance between 
future Government obligations and resources is by projecting the overall 
budget. The budget offers the most comprehensive measure of the 
Government's financial burdens and its resources. By projecting total 
receipts and outlays, it is possible to examine whether there will be 
sufficient resources to support all of the Government's ongoing 
obligations.
  The Federal Government's responsibilities extend well beyond the five-
year window (or the expanded seven-year window) that has been the focus 
of recent budget analysis and debate. There is no time limit on 
Government's constitutional responsibilities, and programs like social 
security are clearly expected to continue indefinitely.
  This part of the presentation shows some alternative long-run 
projections of the Federal budget that extend through the year 2050. 
Forecasting the economy and the budget over such a long period is highly 
uncertain. Future budget outcomes depend on a host of unknowns--
constantly changing economic conditions, unforeseen international 
developments, unexpected demographic shifts, the unpredictable forces of 
technological advance, and unknown future political preferences. Those 
uncertainties increase the further projections are pushed into the 
future. Even so, long-run budget projections are needed to assess the 
full implications of current action or inaction.
  It is evident even now that there will be mounting challenges to the 
budget after the turn of the century. The huge baby-boom generation born 
in the years after World War II is aging and will begin to retire in 
little more than a decade. By 2008, the first baby-boomers will become 
eligible for social security. In the years that follow there will be 
serious strains on the budget because of increased expenditures for both 
social security and Medicare. Long-range projections can offer a sense 
of the seriousness of these strains and what may be needed to withstand 
them.

  The Long-Range Outlook for the Budget.--Since the Administration took 
office there have been major changes in the long-run budget outlook. In 
January 1993, the deficit was clearly on an unsustainable trajectory. 
Had current policies continued unchanged the deficit would have steadily 
mounted not only in dollar terms, but relative to the size of the 
economy.\4\ The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 (OBRA) changed 
that. Not only did it produce a decline in the near-term deficit, but it 
also brought down the long-term budget deficit as well. The policies in 
OBRA were sufficient to maintain the deficit as a stable share of GDP 
into the next century. This was a marked improvement over the long-term 
outlook that the Administration inherited.
  \4\Over very long periods when the rate of inflation is positive, 
comparisons of dollar values are meaningless. Even the low rate of 
inflation assumed in this budget will reduce the value of a 1995 dollar 
by over 60 percent by 2030, and by almost 80 percent by the year 2050. 
For long-run comparisons, it is much more useful to examine the ratio of 
the deficit and other budget categories to the overall size of the 
economy as measured by GDP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Despite this improvement, the long-run picture for the budget has 
remained threatening. A GAO study released in 1992 concluded that, ``the 
economic and political reality is that the nation cannot continue on the 
current path'' of increasing long-run deficits. More recently, the 1994 
report of the Bipartisan Commission on Entitlement and Tax Reform found 
that there exists a ``long-term imbalance between the Government's 
entitlement promises and the funds it will have available to pay for 
them.'' On a narrower front, the annual trustees' reports for both the 
social security and Medicare trust funds project a long-run actuarial 
deficiency for these programs, and have for some time.

  Economic and Demographic Projections.--Long-run budget projections 
must be based on a long-run demographic and economic forecast. 
Otherwise, it is impossible to estimate either future resources or the 
potential claims on them. The forecast used here is an extension of the 
Administration's economic projections described in the first chapter of 
this volume. Inflation, unemployment and interest rates are assumed to 
hold stable at their values in the year 2006. The real rate of economic 
growth is determined by the expected growth of the labor force and labor 
productivity. Productivity is assumed to continue rising at the same 
rate as in the Administration's medium-term projections, approximately 
1.2 percent per year.\5\
  \5\This projection is stated in terms of the new chain-weighted 
measures for GDP introduced by the Bureau of Economic Analysis in 
January. On the unrevised basis, the projected growth rate is about one-
half percentage point higher.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Population growth is expected to slow over the next several decades. 
This is consistent with recent trends in the birth rate and an expected 
decline in the proportion of women in their childbearing years. The 
slowdown is expected to lower the rate of population growth from over 1 
percent per year to about half that rate by the year 2020.\6\ Labor 
force participation is also expected to decline as the population ages. 
Together these trends imply a slowdown in real economic growth beginning 
around the year 2005. The rate of real GDP growth slows to less than 1.5 
percent per year after 2020 because of these trends.
  \6\The population growth assumptions in these projections are based on 
the intermediate assumptions in the 1995 social security trustees' 
report for the period after 2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     


                                     

  The Deficit Outlook.--Chart 2-2 shows three alternative deficit 
projections: a projection based on the policies in place prior to 
enactment of OBRA, the current outlook before incorporating the 
President's proposals to balance the budget, and a projection that shows 
the long-run outlook assuming those proposals are adopted.
[[Page 21]]
The chart clearly illustrates the dramatic improvement 
in the deficit that has 
already been achieved and shows that more is possible, not only in the 
short run but also in the long run. If the budget were balanced by 2002, 
the task of achieving fiscal stability when the demographic bulge hits 
after 2005 would be substantially reduced.
  Along the pre-OBRA baseline, the deficit reaches over 40 percent of 
GDP by the year 2030. OBRA reduced the deficit by extending the caps on 
discretionary outlays; reforming Medicare; changing the rules for other 
entitlement programs; and raising tax rates on upper-income taxpayers, 
among other measures. A strengthening of the economic outlook also 
improved the deficit projection following the enactment of OBRA. In the 
current context, it is notable that OBRA lowered the deficit in the long 
term as well as in the short term. This would require that the 
discretionary savings achieved in 1994-1998 be preserved by holding the 
level of real discretionary spending constant thereafter. A return to 
the prior spending trajectory would partially undo these savings. 
Similarly, the savings in Medicare and other entitlements would need to 
be preserved.
  Despite the improvement in the outlook after the passage of OBRA, 
serious long-run problems remain. Beginning around the year 2010 and 
continuing throughout the next several decades, the deficit would rise, 
eventually reaching unsustainable levels. The initial increase is caused 
by the expected retirement of the baby-boom generation that puts new 
strains on social security and Medicare. By 2030, the deficit reaches 12 
percent of GDP, and by 2050, it is 26 percent. Table 2-2 shows 
alternative long-range budget projections for the major spending 
categories. The table shows that the entitlement programs are the major 
driving force behind the rise in the deficit in the long run.

                                   Table 2-2.  ALTERNATIVE BUDGET PROJECTIONS                                   
                                                (Percent of GDP)                                                
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   1995    2000    2005    2010    2020    2030    2040    2050 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current outlook without a balanced budget:                                                                      
  Receipts......................................    19.3    19.3    19.2    19.2    19.2    19.4    19.4    19.5
  Outlays.......................................    21.7    21.3    21.2    21.8    25.0    30.9    37.4    45.3
    Discretionary...............................     7.8     6.5     5.8     5.3     4.5     4.0     3.4     3.0
    Mandatory...................................    10.6    11.7    12.4    13.4    16.4    19.7    21.5    22.5
      Social security...........................     4.8     4.7     4.7     4.8     6.0     7.1     7.6     8.0
      Medicare and Medicaid.....................     3.5     4.3     5.2     6.2     8.3    10.7    12.3    13.0
    Net interest................................     3.3     3.1     3.0     3.1     4.1     7.3    12.5    19.8
  Deficit.......................................    -2.3    -1.9    -2.0    -2.6    -5.8   -11.6   -18.0   -25.8
  Federal debt held by public...................    51.4    50.8    49.5    50.5    68.4   121.0   207.8   327.0
                                                                                                                
Presidential policy (balanced budget):                                                                          
  Receipts......................................    19.3    19.4    19.4    19.3    19.4    19.5    19.5    19.6
  Outlays.......................................    21.7    19.7    18.7    18.1    18.5    20.0    20.5    20.6
     Discretionary..............................     7.8     6.0     5.4     4.9     4.2     3.7     3.2     2.8
     Mandatory..................................    10.6    11.1    11.4    12.0    14.0    16.1    16.8    17.1
       Social security..........................     4.8     4.7     4.7     4.8     6.0     7.1     7.6     8.0
       Medicare and Medicaid....................     3.5     3.9     4.3     4.9     6.0     7.2     7.7     7.7
     Net interest...............................     3.3     2.6     1.9     1.2     0.3     0.2     0.4     0.7
  Deficit.......................................    -2.3    -0.3     0.7     1.2     0.9    -0.5    -0.9    -1.0
  Federal debt held by public...................    51.4    47.0    35.6    24.1     6.5     3.7     9.5    14.2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                

  Social security benefits, driven by the retirement of the baby-boom 
generation, rise from around 5 percent of GDP in 2000 to over 7 percent 
in 2030. The rise in Federal health care is even greater. Without the 
President's policies, Medicare and Medicaid together would reach 4 
percent of GDP in 2000 and then continue to rise to 11 percent by the 
year 2030. As entitlement spending rises, if no corrective action is 
taken, the deficit grows rapidly. Initially, the programmatic spending 
is responsible for the increase, but as time passes a vicious spiral 
takes hold in which more 
[[Page 22]]
borrowing leads to higher Federal interest 
payments on the growing debt, which is financed in turn by yet more 
borrowing. The spiral is unstable in that if it continued unchecked it 
would eventually drive the debt and the deficit to infinity. Long before 
that point, a financial crisis would surely be triggered that would 
force some type of action on the Federal Government--action that was 
certain to be drastic and painful.
  The long-run deficit outlook would be much improved if the President's 
budget proposals were enacted. Balancing the budget would set it on a 
solid footing for several decades. There is no justification in these 
projections for the concern sometimes expressed that a balanced budget 
would be a transitory phenomenon, to be followed quickly by a return of 
large and growing deficits. Under the Administration's economic and 
demographic assumptions that would not happen. The additional savings 
projected for the entitlements and the further reduction in 
discretionary spending leave the budget in a much improved position 
compared with the outlook in the absence of these changes. The lower 
level of Federal debt and interest that result from a balanced budget 
also help to maintain a budget surplus in these projections in the 
period beyond 2006.
  Even with the improvements caused by a balanced budget, a very long-
run deficit problem would remain as a result of the expected strains on 
social security and the health programs in the period following the 
retirement of the baby-boom generation. Balancing the budget would 
enable the Government to run a surplus over the following decades 
without further major policy initiatives. Eventually, the surplus would 
dissipate to be followed by a reappearance of the unified budget 
deficit.\7\ By the year 2050, however, the deficit would still be lower, 
as a percentage of GDP, than it was in 1992. To prevent the reemergence 
of a deficit, policies would have to be changed to reform social 
security and check the growth of Medicare and Medicaid.
  \7\These projections assume that any surplus is used to reduce the 
debt. This depends on political choices in future years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

  Alternative Scenarios.--Budget projections are uncertain, and long-run 
projections are especially so. Therefore, it is essential to study how 
such projections can vary under reasonable variations in assumptions. A 
number of such alternative scenarios have been developed for these 
projections. Each alternative focuses on one of the key uncertainties in 
the outlook. Generally, the scenarios highlight negative possibilities 
rather than positive ones to show the risks in the outlook.
  1. Discretionary Spending. The projections assume that discretionary 
spending is held constant in real terms once budget balance is reached. 
This is a strong assumption in a long-run context, although it is the 
usual assumption when current services projections are made, and 
currently discretionary spending is only half as large as a percent of 
GDP as it was 30 years ago. What makes it questionable is the fact that 
with real economic growth occurring and population rising, the public 
demand for Government services--more national parks, better 
transportation, additional Federal support for scientific research--
might be expected to increase as well. It also assumes that the Nation's 
real defense needs will not vary from the proposed levels at the end of 
the current budget period. Alternative assumptions that allow for these 
programs to grow with population or overall economic activity are shown 
in Chart 2-3. These alternative assumptions worsen the deficit outlook.
                                     


  2. Health Spending: The most volatile element of recent budgets has 
been Federal health spending. Expenditures for Medicare and Medicaid 
have grown faster than other entitlements, and even after the reforms 
[[Page 23]]
in the President's budget, which go a long way toward 
reining in their growth, they continue to rise more 
rapidly. In the long-run projections, 
the growth of real per capita spending for Medicare, following the 
Medicare trustees' assumptions, is assumed to slow down gradually. Per 
capita Medicaid spending is constrained by the proposed cap on per 
capita spending. The beneficiary populations vary with the demographic 
assumptions. The alternative scenario shows what would happen instead if 
faster trends in spending for these programs resumed after 2006. Chart 
2-4 shows the resulting deficit outlook from such assumptions.


  3. Productivity: The slowdown in productivity growth in the U.S. 
economy that began in 1973 is responsible for much of the weaker 
performance of U.S. income growth since that time. Indeed, over the long 
run, productivity gains are the principal source of higher incomes, so 
slower growth of productivity necessarily means a slower rise in living 
standards. Productivity can be affected by changes in the budget 
deficit, but many other factors influence it as well. Educational 
achievement, R&D, energy prices, regulation, changes in business 
organization, and competition all affect productivity. The alternative 
scenarios illustrate what would happen to the budget deficit in the long 
run if productivity growth were higher or lower. A higher rate of growth 
would make the task of preserving a balanced budget much easier; a lower 
growth rate would have the opposite effect. Chart 2-5 shows how the 
deficit varies with changes of one-half percentage point of average 
productivity growth.


  4. Population: In the long-run, demographics dominate the projections. 
Changes in population growth feed into real economic growth through the 
effect on labor supply and employment. Changes in demographics also 
affect spending under the entitlement programs. Much of the long-run 
problem that remains even with a balanced budget is due to expected 
demographic shifts. Chart 2-6 illustrates how important these are by 
showing what would happen to the deficit under the alternative 
demographic assumptions used by the social security trustees in their 
most recent report.
                                     


  Conclusion.--OBRA improved the long-run deficit outlook dramatically, 
but even so the deficit is still projected to increase beginning around 
the year 2010, and to rise to unacceptable levels by mid-century. The 
President's current budget proposals would not only balance the budget, 
but go some distance toward resolving the long-run deficit problem as 
well. The long-run budget problem is not the result of irresponsible 
discretionary spending, and while it is necessary to control 
discretionary spending, and while it is necessary to 
[[Page 24]]
[[Page 25]]
control discretionary spending, doing this alone will not 
be enough to solve the long-run problem.
  Actuarial Balance in the Social Security and Medicare Trust Funds.--
Because of the critical role of the social security and Medicare 
programs to the long-range budget outlook, it is worthwhile to examine 
the status of these programs more closely. Table 2-3 shows the changes 
in the 75-year actuarial balances of the social security and Medicare 
Trust Funds since 1994. There was only a small change in the 
consolidated balance for the OASDI Trust Funds which combines the 
separate funds set up for retirement and disability insurance. 
Legislation to shift resources from the retirement fund to the 
disability fund prevented the latter from becoming insolvent. The 
combined OASDI fund is not projected to become depleted until 2030. In 
1995, the trustees for the Hospital Insurance Trust Fund projected that 
under intermediate assumptions, the HI trust fund would be insolvent in 
2002, one year later than projected in 1994. More recent data has shown, 
however, that outlays exceeded income in 1995, sooner than was expected. 
In addition, baseline spending for HI has slightly increased from Mid-
Session Review baseline estimates, primarily to reflect anticipated 
growth in home health spending. The trustees are expected to revise the 
projected exhaustion date for HI later this Spring in their 1996 Report. 
Because the trustees' analysis considers a wide range of factors, 
including additional experience in the current fiscal year, new analyses 
of the factors affecting HI benefit growth during fiscal years 1990-95, 
updated projections of HI payroll tax income and current interest rate 
expectations, it is not possible to accurately predict the exhaustion 
date until the Report is completed. Furthermore, the trustees' estimates 
do not take account of possible legislative changes, such as those 
proposed in this budget, that would postpone the date at which the fund 
is depleted.
[[Page 26]]
     TABLE 2-3.  CHANGE IN 75-YEAR ACTUARIAL BALANCE FOR OASDI AND HI TRUST FUNDS (INTERMEDIATE ASSUMPTIONS)    
                                        (As a percent of taxable payroll)                                       
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                            OASI       DI       OASDI      HI   
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Actuarial balance in 1994 report........................................     -1.46     -0.66     -2.13     -4.14
Changes in balance due to changes in:                                                                           
  Valuation period......................................................     -0.06     -0.01     -0.07     -0.10
  Economic and demographic assumptions..................................      0.13      0.01      0.14      0.01
  Disability assumptions................................................      0.00     -0.05     -0.05      0.00
  Legislation...........................................................     -0.40      0.40      0.00      0.00
  Methods...............................................................     -0.06     -0.01     -0.07      0.00
  Hospital costs........................................................      0.00      0.00      0.00      0.64
  Other.................................................................      0.00      0.00      0.00      0.07
                                                                         ---------------------------------------
    Total changes.......................................................     -0.40      0.35     -0.05      0.62
Actuarial balance in 1995 report........................................     -1.87     -0.31     -2.17     -3.52
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                

                       NATIONAL WEALTH AND WELFARE
  Unlike a private corporation, the Federal Government routinely invests 
in ways that do not add directly to its own assets. For example, Federal 
grants are frequently used to fund capital projects by State or local 
Governments for highways and other purposes. Such investments are 
valuable to the public which pays for them with taxes, but they are not 
owned by the Federal Government.

                                                               TABLE 2-4.  NATIONAL WEALTH                                                              
                                            (As of the end of the fiscal year, in trillions of 1995 dollars)                                            
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               1960       1965       1970       1975       1980       1985       1990       1993       1994       1995  
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                                        
ASSETS                                                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                                        
Publicly owned physical assets:                                                                                                                         
  Structures and Equipment................       2.0        2.3        2.8        3.4        3.7        3.7        3.9        4.0        4.0        4.1 
    Federally owned or financed...........       1.1        1.2        1.3        1.3        1.4        1.5        1.6        1.6        1.6        1.6 
      Federally owned.....................       1.0        1.0        1.0        0.9        0.8        0.9        1.0        1.0        1.0        1.0 
      Grants to State & Local.............       0.1        0.2        0.2        0.4        0.5        0.5        0.6        0.6        0.6        0.6 
    Funded by State and local Governments.       0.9        1.1        1.5        2.1        2.4        2.2        2.3        2.4        2.4        2.5 
  Other Federal assets....................       0.7        0.7        0.6        0.9        1.4        1.4        1.1        0.9        0.9        0.9 
                                           -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Subtotal.........................       2.7        3.0        3.5        4.3        5.2        5.1        5.0        4.9        4.9        4.9 
Privately Owned Physical Assets:                                                                                                                        
  Reproducible Assets.....................       5.4        6.2        7.9       10.2       13.0       13.6       15.0       15.3       15.8       16.2 
    Residential Structures................       1.9        2.2        2.7        3.6        4.9        4.9        5.4        5.7        5.9        6.1 
    Nonresidential Plant and equipment....       1.9        2.3        3.0        4.0        5.0        5.6        6.0        6.0        6.1        6.3 
    Inventories...........................       0.7        0.7        0.9        1.1        1.3        1.2        1.3        1.2        1.2        1.3 
    Consumer Durables.....................       0.9        1.0        1.3        1.5        1.7        1.9        2.3        2.4        2.5        2.6 
  Land....................................       1.9        2.3        2.6        3.4        5.1        5.9        5.9        4.5        4.5        4.4 
                                           -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Subtotal..........................       7.3        8.5       10.5       13.6       18.1       19.4       20.9       19.8       20.3       20.7 
Education Capital:                                                                                                                                      
  Federally Financed......................       0.1        0.1        0.2        0.3        0.4        0.5        0.7        0.8        0.8        0.8 
  Financed from Other Sources.............       6.1        7.9       10.6       12.3       15.0       18.1       22.8       25.0       25.9       26.7 
                                           -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Subtotal..........................       6.1        8.0       10.8       12.6       15.4       18.6       23.5       25.8       26.7       27.5 
Research and Development Capital:                                                                                                                       
  Federally Financed R&D..................       0.2        0.3        0.5        0.5        0.6        0.7        0.8        0.8        0.8        0.9 
  R&D Financed from Other Sources.........       0.1        0.2        0.3        0.4        0.4        0.6        0.8        0.9        1.0        1.0 
                                           -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Subtotal..........................       0.3        0.5        0.7        0.9        1.0        1.3        1.6        1.8        1.8        1.9 
                                           =============================================================================================================
          Total assets....................      16.5       20.1       25.5       31.3       39.7       44.4       51.0       52.3       53.7       55.0 
                                                                                                                                                        
LIABILITIES:                                                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                                        
  Net Claims of Foreigners on U.S.........      (0.2)      (0.2)      (0.2)      (0.2)      (0.5)      (0.2)       0.3        0.6        0.7        0.9 
                                                                                                                                                        
          Balance.........................      16.7       20.3       25.7       31.5       40.2       44.6       50.7       51.7       52.9       54.1 
Per capita (thousands of 1995 dollars)....      92.2      104.4      125.5      145.8      176.1      186.5      202.1      199.7      202.6      205.1 
                                                                                                                                                        
ADDENDA:                                                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                                        
  Total Federally funded capital..........       2.1        2.3        2.6        3.0        3.8        4.1        4.2        4.1        4.1        4.1 
  Percent of national wealth..............      12.3       11.3       10.2        9.5        9.4        9.1        8.2        8.0        7.8        7.6 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                                        

  The Federal Government also invests in education and research and 
development (R&D). These outlays contribute to future productivity and 
are in that sense analogous to investments in physical capital. Indeed, 
economists have computed stocks of human and knowledge capital to 
reflect the accumulation of such investments. Nonetheless, these capital 
stocks are not owned by the Federal Government, nor would they appear on 
a business balance sheet.
  Table 2-4 presents a national balance sheet. It includes estimates of 
total national wealth classified in three categories: physical assets, 
education capital, and R&D capital. The Federal Government has made 
contributions to each of these categories, and these contributions are 
also shown in the table. Data in this table are especially uncertain 
because of the assumptions needed to prepare the estimates. Overall, the 
Federal contribution to the current level of national wealth is about 
7\1/2\ percent, which is down from around 8 percent at the end of the 
1980s, and from over 12 percent in 1960.

Physical Assets

  These include stocks of plant and equipment, office buildings, 
residential structures, land, and Government's physical assets such as 
military hardware, office buildings, and highways. Automobiles and 
consumer appliances are also included in this category. The total amount 
of such capital is vast, amounting to around $26 trillion in 1995; by 
comparison, GDP was about $7 trillion.
  The Federal Government's contribution to this stock of capital 
includes its own physical assets plus $0.6 trillion in accumulated 
grants to State and local governments for capital projects. The Federal 
Government has financed about one-quarter of the physical capital held 
by other levels of Government.

Education Capital

  Economists have developed the concept of human capital to reflect the 
notion that individuals and society invest in people as well as in 
physical assets. Investment in education is a good example of how human 
capital is accumulated.
  For this table, an estimate has been made of the stock of capital 
represented by the Nation's investment in education. The estimate is 
based on the cost of replacing the years of schooling embodied in the 
U.S. population aged 16 and over. The idea is to measure how much it 
would cost to reeducate the U.S. workforce at today's prices.
  This is a crude measure, but it can provide a rough order of 
magnitude. According to this measure, the stock of education capital 
amounted to $28 trillion in 1995, of which about 3 percent was financed 
by the Federal Government. The total exceeds the Nation's stock of 
physical capital. The main investors in education capital have been 
State and local Governments, parents, and the students themselves who 
forgo earning opportunities in order to acquire education.
  Even broader concepts of human capital have been considered. Not all 
useful training occurs in school, or formal training programs at work. 
Much informal and yet invaluable learning occurs within families or on 
the job. Labor compensation amounts to about two-thirds of national 
income. Therefore, it is conceivable that the total value of human 
capital might be as large as three times the estimated value of physical 
capital. Thus, it can be seen that the estimates offered here are in a 
sense conservative, because they reflect only the costs of acquiring 
formal education.
[[Page 27]]
Research and Development Capital

  Research and Development can also be thought of as an investment, 
because R&D represents a current expenditure for which there is a 
prospect of future returns. After adjusting for depreciation, the flow 
of R&D investment can be added up to provide an estimate of the current 
R&D stock.\8\ That stock is estimated to have been about $1.9 trillion 
in 1995. Although this is a large amount of research, it is a relatively 
small portion of total National wealth. About half of this stock was 
funded by the Federal Government.
  \8\R&D depreciates in the sense that the economic value of applied 
research and development tends to decline with the passage of time which 
leads to movement in the technological frontier.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Liabilities

  When considering the debts of the Nation as a whole, the debts that 
Americans owe to one another cancel out. This does not mean they are 
unimportant. The buildup in debt largely owed to other Americans was 
partly responsible for the sluggishness of the recovery from the 1990-
1991 recession in its early stages. Indeed, the debt explosion in the 
1980s may have helped to bring on the recession in the first place.
  However, these debts do not belong on the national balance sheet. If 
they were included, there would have to be offsetting entries. Only the 
net debt that is owed to foreigners belongs on the national balance 
sheet. America's foreign debt has been increasing rapidly in recent 
years, as a consequence of the U.S. trade deficit, but the size of this 
debt is small compared with the total stock of assets. It amounted to 
about 1\1/2\ percent of the total in 1995.
  Most of the Federal debt held by the public is owned by Americans, so 
it does not appear in Table 2-4. Only that portion of the Federal debt 
held by foreigners is included. Even so, it is of interest to compare 
the imbalance between Federal assets and liabilities with national 
wealth. The Government will have to service the debt or repay it, and 
its ability to do so without disrupting the economy will depend in part 
on the wealth of the private sector. Currently, the Federal net asset 
[[Page 27]]
imbalance, as estimated in Table 2-1, amounts to about 5\1/2\ percent of 
total U.S. wealth as shown in Table 2-4.
                        Trends in National Wealth
  The net stock of wealth in the United States at the end of 1995 was 
about $55 trillion. Since 1980 it has increased in real terms at an 
annual rate of 2.2 percent per year--about half the 4.5 percent rate it 
averaged from 1960 to 1980. (All comparisons are in terms of constant 
1995 dollars.) Public capital formation slowed down markedly between the 
two periods. The real value of the net stock of publicly owned physical 
capital was actually lower in 1995 than in 1980--$4.9 trillion versus 
$5.1 trillion in the earlier year. Since 1980, Federal grants to State 
and local governments for capital projects have grown less rapidly, 
while capital funded directly by State and local governments has grown 
at an average rate of only 0.1 percent per year.
  Private capital formation in physical assets has also grown more 
slowly since 1980. The net stock of nonresidential plant and equipment 
grew 1.6 percent per year from 1980 to 1995 compared with 4.9 percent in 
the 1960s and 1970s, and the stock of business inventories actually 
declined. Overall, the stock of privately owned physical capital grew at 
an average rate of just 0.9 percent per year between 1980 and 1995.
  The accumulation of education capital, as measured here, also slowed 
down in the 1980s, but not nearly as much. It grew at an average rate of 
4.7 percent per year in the 1960s and 1970s, about the same as the 
average rate of growth in private physical capital during the same 
period. Since 1980, education capital has grown at a 4.4 percent annual 
rate. This reflects the extra resources devoted to schooling in this 
period, and the fact that such resources were rising in relative value. 
R&D stocks have grown at about the same rate as education capital since 
1980.
               Other Federal Influences on Economic Growth
  Many Federal policies have contributed to the slowdown in capital 
formation shown here. Federal investment policies obviously were 
important, but the Federal Government also contributes to wealth in ways 
that cannot be easily captured in a formal presentation. Monetary and 
fiscal policies affect the rate and direction of capital formation. 
Regulatory and tax policies affect how capital is invested, as do the 
Federal Government's credit assistance policies.
  One important channel of influence is the Federal budget deficit, 
which determines the size of the Federal Government's borrowing 
requirements. Smaller deficits in the 1980s would have resulted in a 
smaller gap between Federal liabilities and assets than is shown in 
Table 2-1. It is also likely that, had the $3 trillion in added Federal 
debt since 1980 been avoided, a significant share of these funds would 
have gone into private investment. National wealth might have been 2 to 
4 percent larger in 1995 had fiscal policy avoided the buildup in the 
debt.
                            Social Indicators
  There are certain broad responsibilities that are unique to the 
Federal Government. Especially important are the Government's role in 
fostering healthy economic conditions, promoting health and social 
welfare, and protecting the environment. Table 2-5 offers a rough cut of 
information that can be useful in assessing how well the Federal 
Government has been doing in promoting these general objectives.
  The indicators shown here are only a limited subset drawn from the 
vast array of data available on conditions in the United States. In 
choosing indicators for this table, priority was given to measures that 
were consistently available over an extended period. Such indicators 
make it easier to draw valid comparisons and evaluate trends. In some 
cases, however, this meant choosing indicators with significant 
limitations.

                                                                           Table 2-5.  ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL INDICATORS                                                                           
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   General categories                         Specific measures                        1960     1965     1970     1975     1980     1985     1990     1991     1992     1993    1994\1\    1995 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Economic:                                                                                                                                                                                       
   Living Standards.....  Real GDP per person (1992 dollars).......................   12,512   14,792   16,521   17,896   20,252   22,345   24,559   24,058   24,447   24,728    25,335   25,591
                          Average annual percent change............................      0.4      3.4      2.2      1.6      2.5      2.0      1.9     -2.0      1.6      1.2       2.5      1.0
                          Median family income (1994 dollars):                                                                                                                                  
                            All families...........................................   25,866   30,147   35,407   36,177   37,857   38,200   40,087   39,105   38,632   37,905    38,782       NA
                            Married couple families................................   27,030   31,482   37,735   39,204   41,671   42,835   45,237   44,607   44,249   44,106    44,959       NA
                            Female householder, no husband present.................   13,660   15,305   18,276   18,048   18,742   18,814   19,199   18,163   17,984   17,890    18,236       NA
                          Income share of middle three quintiles (%)...............     54.0     53.9     53.6     53.5     53.4     52.0     51.2     51.4     51.0     43.9      49.0       NA
                          Poverty rate (%)\2\......................................     22.2     17.3     12.6     12.3     13.0     14.0     13.5     14.2     14.8     15.1      14.5       NA
                          Economic security inflation and unemployment:                                                                                                                         
                            Civilian unemployment (%)..............................      5.5      4.5      4.9      8.5      7.1      7.2      5.5      6.7      7.4      6.8       6.1      5.6
                            CPI-U (year over year % change)........................      2.0      1.3      4.3      6.8      8.9      5.5      4.0      4.2      3.0      3.0       2.6      2.8
   Employment prospects.  Increase in total payroll employment (millions, Dec. to       -0.5      2.9     -0.5      0.4      0.2      2.5      0.3     -0.9      1.2      2.8       3.5      1.7
                           Dec.).                                                                                                                                                               
                           Managerial or professional jobs (% of civilian                 NA       NA       NA       NA     22.2     24.1     26.0     26.5     26.5     27.1      27.5     28.3
                           employment).                                                                                                                                                         
   Wealth creation......  Net national saving rate (% of NNP)......................     11.4     13.3      9.3      6.8      7.3      6.2      4.2      4.1      2.7      2.8       3.9      4.7
   Innovation...........  Patents issued to U.S. residents (thous.)................     42.0     53.6     50.1     51.4     40.8     43.4     53.0     57.8     58.7     61.1      64.2     64.4
                          Multifactor productivity (average percent change)........      1.1      3.2      1.1      1.3      0.7      0.6      0.3     -1.0      1.4      0.5       0.8       NA
Social:                                                                                                                                                                                         
   Families.............  Children living with a single parent (% of all children).      9.2     10.2     12.9     16.4     18.6     20.2     21.6     22.4     22.8     23.3      23.1       NA
   Safe communities.....  Violent crime rate (per 100,000 population)\3\...........      160      199      364      482      597      557      732      758      758      746       716       NA
                           Murder rate (per 100,000 population)....................      5.1      5.1      7.8      9.6     10.2      7.9      9.4      9.8      9.3      9.5       9.0       NA
                           Juvenile crime (murders per 100,000 persons age 14-17)..       NA       NA       NA       NA      8.2      7.1     15.8     17.3     17.5     18.6        NA       NA
   Health and illness...  Infant mortality (per 1,000 live births).................     26.0     24.7     20.0     16.1     12.6     10.6      9.2      8.9      8.5      8.4       7.9       NA
                           Low birthweight (<2,500 gms) babies (%).................      7.7      8.3      7.9      7.4      6.8      6.8      7.0      7.1      7.1      7.2        NA       NA
                           Life expectancy at birth (years)........................     69.7     70.2     70.8     72.6     73.7     74.7     75.4     75.5     75.8     75.5      75.7       NA
                           Cigarette smokers (% population 18 and oover)...........       NA     42.4     39.5     36.4     33.2     30.1     25.5     25.6     26.5     25.0        NA       NA
                           Bed disability days (average days per person)...........      6.0      6.2      6.1      6.6      7.0      6.1      6.2      6.5      6.3      6.7        NA       NA
                          National health expenditures (% of GDP)..................      5.2      5.8      7.2      8.1      9.0     10.4     12.1     12.8     13.1     13.5        NA       NA
   Learning.............  High school graduates (% of population 25 and older).....     44.6     49.0     55.2     62.5     68.6     73.9     77.6     78.4     79.4     80.2      80.9       NA
                           College graduates (% of population 25 and older)........      8.4      9.4     11.0     13.9     17.0     19.4     21.3     21.4     21.4     21.9      22.2       NA
                          National assessment of educational progress\4\...........                                                                                                             
                             Mathematics...........................................       NA       NA       NA      304      298      302      305       NA      307       NA        NA       NA
                             Science...............................................       NA       NA      305      296      283      288      290       NA      294       NA        NA       NA
   Participation........  Voting for President (% eligible population).............     62.8       NA       NA       NA     52.6       NA       NA       NA     55.2       NA        NA       NA
                           Voting for Congress (% of eligible population)..........     58.5       NA     43.5       NA     47.4       NA     33.1       NA     50.8       NA      36.0       NA
                          Individual charitable giving per capita (1994 dollars)...      199      238      286      304      331      349      427      423      422      419        NA       NA
                                                                                                                                                                                                
Environment:                                                                                                                                                                                    
   Air quality..........  Population living in counties with ozone levels exceeding                                                                                                             
                           the standard (millions).................................       NA       NA       NA       NA       NA       76       63       70       43       51        50       NA
   Water quality........  Population served by secondary treatment or better              NA       NA       NA       NA       NA      134      155      157      159      162       164      166
                           (millions).                                                                                                                                                          
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Data are preliminary for infant mortality and life expectancy.                                                                                                                               
\2\The poverty rate does not reflect noncash government transfers such as Medicaid or food stamps.                                                                                              
\3\Not all crimes are reported, and the fraction that go unreported may have varied over time.                                                                                                  
\4\Dates shown in table for the national educational assessments are approximate.                                                                                                               

  The individual measures in this table are influenced in varying 
degrees by many Government policies and programs, as well as by external 
factors beyond the Government's control. They are not outcome 
indicators, because they do not measure the direct results of Government 
activities, but they do provide a quantitative measure of the progress 
or lack of progress in reaching some of the ultimate values that 
Government policy is intended to promote.
  Such a table can serve two functions. First, it highlights areas where 
the Federal Government might need to modify its current practices or 
consider new approaches. Where there are clear signs of deteriorating 
conditions, corrective action might be appropriate. Second, the table 
provides a context for evaluating other data on Government activities. 
For example, Government actions that weaken its own financial position 
may be appropriate when they promote a broader social objective.
  An example of this occurs during economic recessions when reductions 
in tax collections lead to increased Government borrowing that adds to 
Federal liabilities. This deterioration in the Federal balance sheet 
provides an automatic stabilizer for the private sector. State 
Government, local government and private budgets are strengthened by 
allowing the Federal budget to run a deficit. More stringent Federal 
budgetary controls could be used to hold down Federal borrowing during 
such periods, but only at the risk of aggravating the downturn.
  The Government cannot avoid making such trade-offs because of its size 
and the broad-ranging effects of its actions. Monitoring these effects 
and incorporating them in the Government's policy making is a major 
challenge.
                   An Interactive Analytical Framework
  No single framework can encompass all of the factors that affect the 
financial condition of the Federal Government. Nor can any framework 
serve as a substitute for actual analysis. Nevertheless, the framework 
presented above offers a useful way to examine the financial aspects of 
Federal policies. Increased Federal 
[[Page 28]]
support for investment, the reduction in Federal absorption 
of saving through deficit reduction, and 
other Administration policies to enhance economic growth are expected to 
promote national wealth and improve the future financial condition of 
the Federal Government. As that occurs, the efforts will be clearly 
revealed in these tables.
        TECHNICAL NOTE: SOURCES OF DATA AND METHOD OF ESTIMATING
                 Federally Owned Assets and Liabilities

Assets

  Financial Assets: The source of data is the Federal Reserve Board's 
Flow-of-Funds Accounts. Two adjustments were made to these data. First, 
U.S. Government holdings of financial assets were consolidated with the 
holdings of the monetary authority, i.e., the Federal Reserve System. 
Second, the gold stock, which is valued in the Flow-of-Funds at a 
constant historical price, is revalued using the market value for gold.

Physical Assets

  Fixed Reproducible Capital: Estimates were developed from the OMB 
historical database for physical capital outlays. The database extends 
back to 1940 and was supplemented by data from other selected sources 
for 1915-1939. The source data are in current dollars. To estimate 
investment flows in constant dollars, it is necessary to deflate the 
nominal investment series. This was done using BEA price deflators for 
Federal purchases of durables and structures. These price deflators are 
available going back as far as 1940. For earlier years, deflators were 
based on Census Bureau historical statistics for constant price public 
capital 
[[Page 30]]
formation. The capital stock series were adjusted for 
depreciation on a straight-line basis, assuming useful lives of 46 years 
for water and power projects; 40 years for other direct Federal 
construction; and 16 years for major nondefense equipment and for 
defense procurement.
  Fixed Nonreproducible Capital: Historical estimates for 1960-1985 were 
based on estimates in Michael J. Boskin, Marc S. Robinson, and Alan M. 
Huber, ``Government Saving, Capital Formation and Wealth in the United 
States, 1947-1985,'' published in The Measurement of Saving, Investment, 
and Wealth, edited by Robert E. Lipsey and Helen Stone Tice (The 
University of Chicago Press, 1989).
  Estimates were updated using changes in the value of private land from 
the Flow-of-Funds Balance Sheets and in the Producer Price Index for 
Crude Energy Materials. The Bureau of Economic Analysis is in the 
process of preparing satellite accounts to accompany the National Income 
and Product Accounts that will report on changes in mineral deposits for 
the Nation as a whole, but this work is not yet completed.

Liabilities

  Financial Liabilities: The principal source of data is the Federal 
Reserve's Flow-of-Funds Accounts.
  Contingent Liabilities: Sources of data are the OMB Deposit Insurance 
Model and the OMB Pension Guarantee Model. Historical data on contingent 
liabilities for deposit insurance were also drawn from the Congressional 
Budget Office's study, The Economic Effects of the Savings and Loan 
Crisis, issued January 1992.
  Pension Liabilities: For 1979-1994, the estimates are the actuarial 
accrued liabilities as reported in the annual reports for the Civil 
Service Retirement System, the Federal Employees Retirement System, and 
the Military Retirement System (adjusted for inflation). Estimates for 
the years before 1979 are not actuarial; they are extrapolations. The 
estimate for 1994 is a projection.
                       Long-Run Budget Projections
  The long-run budget projections are based on long-run demographic and 
economic projections. A model of the Federal budget developed at OMB 
computes the budgetary implications of this forecast.
  Demographic and Economic Projections: For the years 1996-2006 the 
assumptions are identical to those used in the budget. As always, these 
budget assumptions reflect the President's policy proposals, in this 
case that the budget be balanced. The long-run projections extend these 
budget assumptions by holding inflation, interest rates, and 
unemployment constant at the levels assumed in the budget for 2006. 
Population growth and labor force participation are extended using the 
intermediate assumptions from the 1995 social security trustees' report 
and Bureau of Labor Statistics projections. The projected rate of growth 
for real GDP is built up from the labor force assumptions and an assumed 
rate of productivity growth. The assumed rate of productivity growth is 
held constant at the average rate of growth implied by the budget's 
economic assumptions. The economic forecast used to project the budget 
in the absence of the President's balanced budget proposals is altered 
to reflect the higher interest rates and lower profits that would be 
expected to prevail under these circumstances.
  Budget Projections: For the years 1996-2006, the projections follow 
the budget. After 2006, receipts are projected using simple rules of 
thumb linking income taxes, payroll taxes, excise taxes, and other 
receipts to projected tax bases derived from the economic forecast. 
Outlays are computed in different ways. Discretionary spending grows at 
the rate of inflation. Social security, Medicare, and Federal pension 
outlays are projected using the most recent actuarial forecasts 
available at the time the budget was prepared (April 1995 for social 
security). These projections are repriced using Administration inflation 
assumptions. Other entitlement programs are projected based on rules of 
thumb linking program spending to elements of the economic and 
demographic forecast such as the poverty rate.
                       National Balance Sheet Data
  Publicly Owned Physical Assets: Basic sources of data for the 
federally owned or financed stocks of capital are the investment flows 
computed by OMB from the budget database. Federal grants for State and 
local Government capital were added together with adjustments for 
inflation and depreciation in the same way as described above for direct 
Federal investment. Data for total State and local Government capital 
come from the capital stock data prepared by the BEA.
  Privately Owned Physical Assets: Data are from the Flow-of-Funds 
national balance sheet. Preliminary estimates for 1995 were prepared 
based on net investment from the National Income and Product Accounts.
  Education Capital: The stock of education capital is computed by 
valuing the cost of replacing the total years of education embodied in 
the U.S. population 16 years of age and older at the current cost of 
providing schooling. The estimated cost includes both direct 
expenditures in the private and public sectors and an estimate of 
students' forgone earnings, i.e., it reflects the opportunity cost of 
education.
  For this presentation, Federal investment in education capital is a 
portion of the Federal outlays included in the conduct of education and 
training. This portion includes direct Federal outlays and grants for 
elementary, secondary, and vocational education and for higher 
education. The data exclude Federal outlays for physical capital at 
educational institutions and for research and development conducted at 
colleges and universities because these outlays are classified elsewhere 
as investment in physical capital and investment in R&D capital. The 
data also exclude outlays under the GI Bill; outlays for graduate and 
post-graduate education spending in HHS, Defense and Agriculture; and 
most outlays for vocational training.
  Data on investment in education financed from other sources come from 
educational institution reports on 
[[Page 31]]
the sources of their funds, published 
in U.S. Department of Education, Digest of Education Statistics. 
Education capital is assumed not to depreciate, but to be retired when a 
person dies. An education capital stock computed using this method with 
different source data can be found in Walter McMahon, ``Relative Returns 
To Human and Physical Capital in the U.S. and Efficient Investment 
Strategies,'' Economics of Education Review, Vol. 10, No. 4, 1991. The 
method is described in detail in Walter McMahon, Investment in Higher 
Education, 1974.
  Research and Development Capital: The stock of R&D capital financed by 
the Federal Government was developed from a database that measures the 
conduct of R&D. The data exclude Federal outlays for physical capital 
used in R&D because such outlays are classified elsewhere as investment 
in federally financed physical capital. Nominal outlays were deflated 
using the GDP deflator to convert them to constant dollar values.
  Federally funded capital stock estimates were prepared using the 
perpetual inventory method in which annual investment flows are 
cumulated to arrive at a capital stock. This stock was adjusted for 
depreciation by assuming an annual rate of depreciation of 10 percent on 
the outstanding balance for applied research and development. Basic 
research is assumed not to depreciate. The 1993 Budget contains 
additional details on the estimates of the total federally financed R&D 
stock, as well as its national defense and nondefense components (see 
Budget for Fiscal Year 1993, January 1992, Part Three, pages 39-40).
  A similar method was used to estimate the stock of R&D capital 
financed from sources other than the Federal Government. The component 
financed by universities, colleges, and other nonprofit organizations is 
based on data from the National Science Foundation, Surveys of Science 
Resources. The industry-financed R&D stock component is from that source 
and from the U.S. Department of Labor, The Impact of Research and 
Development on Productivity Growth, Bulletin 2331, September 1989.
  Experimental estimates of R&D capital stocks have recently been 
prepared by BEA. The results are described in ``A Satellite Account for 
Research and Development,'' Survey of Current Business, November 1994. 
These BEA estimates are lower than those presented here primarily 
because BEA assumes that the stock of basic research depreciates, while 
the estimates in Table 2-4 assume that basic research does not 
depreciate. BEA also assumes a slightly higher rate of depreciation for 
applied research and development, 11 percent, compared with the 10 
percent rate used here.
                            Social Indicators
  The main sources for the data in this table are the Government 
statistical agencies. Generally, the data are publicly available in the 
President's annual Economic Report and the Statistical Abstract of the 
United States.