[Budget of the U.S. Government]
[III. Putting the Building Blocks in Place]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


 
               III.  PUTTING THE BUILDING BLOCKS IN PLACE

  ----------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                
  To reclaim our future, we must strive to close both the budget deficit and the investment gap.                
                                                                                                                
                                      Governor Bill Clinton                                                     
                                      Senator Al Gore                                                           
                                      Putting People First                                                      
                                      1992                                                                      
                                                                                                                



                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                
  With regard to Congress, if I could do one thing, I would pass a balanced budget that would open the doors of 
college to all Americans and continue the incremental progress we've made in health care reform.                
                                      President Clinton                                                         
                                      November 10, 1996                                                         
                                                                                                                

  ----------------------------------------------------------------------
  President Clinton has pursued a disciplined but fair budget policy, 
working with Congress to make the tough choices that have dramatically 
cut the deficit while protecting the values that Americans share. He has 
cut wasteful and lower-priority spending while protecting safety net 
programs and investing in the future.
  The results are clear: The deficit has fallen by a whopping 63 
percent--from $290 billion in 1992, the year before the President took 
office, to $107 billion last year. Now, with this budget, the President 
proposes to build on that progress by balancing the budget for the first 
time since 1969.
  Why must we finish the job?

What the Administration Inherited

  Large budget deficits damage the economy, hurting taxpayers and 
discouraging businesses. The sharply higher deficits that began in 1981 
have been a serious drag on the Nation's economic performance ever 
since.

  The Debt and What It Means for the Average Citizen: The budget deficit 
is the annual amount that the Government spends in excess of what it 
receives in revenues. The Federal debt, by contrast, is the total of the 
accumulated deficits that have not been offset by surpluses over the 
years.
  At first blush, deficits may appear painless; they allow the Nation's 
leaders to avoid the hard choices needed to bring spending in line with 
revenues. But the Government must finance the debt that it accumulates, 
and the cost of doing so prevents the Nation from meeting future 
spending needs or cutting taxes.
  The Government finances the deficit mainly by borrowing from the 
public, including foreign investors. The large deficits of the 1980s and 
early 1990s quadrupled the Federal debt. At the end of 1980, Federal 
debt held by the public was $710 billion. By the end of 1992, it had 
grown by $2.289 trillion--to $2.999 trillion.\1\ Because the deficit has 
fallen under this Administration, the debt has risen more slowly, and, 
in fact, the ratio of the debt to our Gross Domestic Product (GDP) has 
declined. But until we balance the budget, the debt will keep growing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ This measure excludes the debt held in Federal trust funds. It 
counts only the debt held directly by private investors and the Federal 
Reserve System.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
  In a sense, today's deficits are the legacy of the much larger 
deficits of the years from 1981 to 1992. The budget would be 

[[Page 22]]

balanced today if not for the interest that we pay on the deficits accumulated in those 12 years.
  The Federal Government paid $241 billion in interest last year--$241 
billion that it could have spent in far more productive ways. If the 
Government were not paying interest at all, it could have used those 
funds to have a balanced budget and still have $134 billion left over--
which equals half of the military budget, or about 40 percent of Social 
Security payments, or about 20 percent of income taxes.

  How Deficits Have Damaged the Economy: The economy did not perform as 
well from 1980-1992 as before, partly due to the rise in Federal debt 
that marked the period. As this experience shows, persistent deficits 
reduce saving, raise interest rates, stifle investment, and cut the 
growth of productivity, output, and incomes.
  During recessions, when private consumption and investment declines, 
Government borrowing to finance unemployment and other benefits and to 
make up for reduced income taxes maintains demand and helps to turn the 
economy around. But if deficits become ``structural''--that is, they 
persist even in good times--they can cause harm. That's what happened in 
the 1980s.
  A structural deficit--especially when sustained for a long time, as in 
the 1980s--depletes the Nation's pool of saving. Saving provides the 
resources to build the new factories and machinery that generate 
tomorrow's incomes. National saving has two components:
  private saving (by individuals and businesses--the net result 
          of millions of savings decisions); and
   public saving (by Federal, State, and local governments, 
          which save when they run surpluses and dis-save when they run 
          deficits). \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
  \2\ Recently, the Commerce Department's Bureau of Economic Analysis 
modified the national income accounts to measure more accurately how 
government at all levels contributes to saving.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
  If the Government taps the savings pool to finance its deficit, that 
borrowed saving is not available to make productive private investments. 
With its massive deficits in the 1980s, the Government drained much of 
the pool. Worse, as Federal deficits were rising, private saving was 
falling, exacerbating the overall saving problem.
  In each year of the 1960s, net national saving \3\ totaled at least 10 
percent of GDP (see Chart III-1). Since then, net saving has fallen 
substantially. After averaging about eight percent of GDP in the 1970s, 
the net national saving rate fell to five percent of GDP in the 1980s, 
and hit a low point of just 2.4 percent of GDP in 1992.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
  \3\ That is, gross saving minus depreciation of the Nation's capital 
stock.



  With less saving, interest rates remained high in the 1980s, choking 
off demand for private investment. Why? Because lower saving shrinks the 
pool of available funds. The Federal Government taps the pool first by 
selling its bills, notes, and bonds at auction, leaving private 
borrowers to compete for what's left. With so many would-be borrowers, 
and so little left to borrow, the competition forces interest rates 
higher.
  Real interest rates--that is, the portion of the rate that exceeds 
inflation--were markedly higher in the 1980s than in the prior three 
decades. In real terms, short-term rates had actually been negative for 
much of the 1970s, but they averaged almost four percent in the 1980s; 
long-term real interest rates were as much as much as two to three 
percentage points higher than in the prior three decades (see Chart III-
2).



  Under this Administration, saving has rebounded, mainly due to lower 
deficits. In the first three quarters of calendar 1996, net national 
saving averaged 5.4 percent of GDP. In fact, over 90 percent of the 
improvement in the net saving rate in the last four years is 
attributable to lower deficits.
  Higher real interest rates in the early 1980s attracted foreign 
capital into the United States, driving up the dollar in foreign 
exchange markets. The foreign capital helped offset some of the fall in 
domestic saving and helped to cushion U.S. investment. But it came at a 
price. The higher dollar pushed up the U.S. trade deficit significantly, 
causing competitive problems for American manufac-

[[Page 24]]

turers and industrial workers. The Nation entered the 1980s as the world's largest creditor; it left as the largest debtor.
  Thus, big deficits unsettle potential investors--they raise interest 
rates, increase the risk of ballooning future Government credit demands 
and higher inflation, and create uncertainty in the currency markets. In 
response, business decision makers and other investors will likely buy 
safer, shorter-term securities rather than risk their money in long-term 
commitments for new factories, machines, and other productive 
investments. As a result, investment declines, and the economy is poorer 
for the foreseeable future.
  And, in fact, despite the increase in borrowing from abroad, net 
investment \4\ fell in the 1980s. The share of net private domestic 
investment (including residential and nonresidential spending) fell from 
over seven percent to five percent of GDP (see Chart III-3). By 1992, 
the ratio of net investment to GDP had dropped to just 2.5 percent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
  \4\ That is, gross investment minus depreciation of the Nation's 
capital stock.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
  With the rise in net saving since then, net investment has rebounded. 
Equipment investment, which includes computer purchases, has risen 
especially rapidly--with the increases averaging 11 percent a year in 
inflation-adjusted terms.



  The economy grew much slower in the 1980s than in prior decades, 
partly due to the fall in saving and investment. From the business cycle 
peak in 1960 to the peak in 1980, real economic growth averaged 3.7 
percent a year--compared to 2.6 percent during the business cycle of the 
1980s. By reducing national saving, the 1980s-era deficits held down 
capital formation enough to cut real potential GDP at the end of the 
decade by an estimated 2.5 to 3.5 percent. If incomes had been three 
percent higher in 1996, the average person would have had $600 more in 
disposable income to spend.

[[Page 25]]

  Growth has improved in the past four years, compared to 1988-1992. In 
fact, private-sector GDP has grown since 1992 faster than in either of 
the two previous Administrations. Because the government component of 
GDP is shrinking now, whereas it rose rapidly in the 1980s, the overall 
numbers do not fully reflect this strength.
  Still, several factors continue to hold the economy back. First, the 
stagnant saving and low investment of the 1980s and early 1990s are 
still having an effect. Only years of higher investment will offset the 
capital that was not put in place over the preceding 12 years. Second, 
the labor force is growing more slowly. And third, the recent slow 
growth of the major European economies and Japan has constrained the 
exports of even the newly revitalized and competitive U.S. economy.

What the Administration Has Accomplished

  When the President took office, the deficit was high and rising. It 
had reached almost five percent of GDP in 1992, and projections 
suggested that it would not fall below four percent of GDP even during 
the anticipated economic recovery over the following four years. Then, 
according to the projections, the deficit would rise again, and continue 
rising without limit in the future.
  The President took action.

  The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 (OBRA 1993): Upon taking 
office, the President proposed a five-year deficit reduction program 
that was largely enacted later that year as OBRA 1993.
  The law was designed to cut projected deficits from 1994 to 1998 by a 
total of $505 billion, cutting spending and raising revenues about 
equally. Of the spending cuts, about $100 billion came in entitlement 
programs, mostly in health care programs (although expanded health 
coverage offset some of the savings); other cuts came in discretionary 
spending and interest costs. All income tax rate increases fell on the 
top 1.2 percent of families. At the same time, the plan cut taxes for 15 
million working families by expanding the Earned Income Tax Credit.
  But, largely because the economy has performed better than expected, 
the Administration now projects that the plan will cut the 1994-98 
deficits by $924 billion (see Chart III-4). Specifically, the plan 
helped cut interest rates and spur growth, thereby generating more 
Federal revenues and less spending on unemployment compensation and 
other social benefits. Lower interest rates also helped to cut Federal 
costs for deposit insurance and for servicing the debt. Meanwhile, the 
Administration's push for health care reform helped to slow the rise in 
health care inflation, thus helping to slow the growth in Medicare and 
Medicaid.

                                     


  While cutting the deficit, the President's plan also shifted resources 
toward Administration priorities in education and training, the 
environment, science and technology, and law enforcement. These 
investments were intended to raise living standards and the quality of 
life, both now and in the future.

  Budget Cuts Since OBRA 1993: The President has continued to cut the 
budget the right way--eliminating wasteful and lower-priority spending 
while preserving key investments. The President and Congress have 
scrapped over 200 programs and projects entirely, while cutting hundreds 
more. Spurred by the Vice President's National Performance Review, 
departments and agencies also have cut their workforces, streamlined 
programs, reduced paperwork, and overhauled their procurement systems.
  The Economic Benefits: The President's success in cutting the deficit 
is paying huge dividends.
  Falling deficits enabled the Federal Reserve to hold short-term 
interest rates low in 1993. In addition, the markets also reacted 
favorably, cutting long-term rates. Just as rising deficits increase 
investor uncertainty about credit demands, inflation, and currency 
fluctuations, the prospect of continually falling deficits into the 
future eases uncertainty, prompting investors to risk their money on the 
new factories and equipment that enhance productivity and, thus, make 
the economy grow.
  Short-term rates stayed low through the President's first year in 
office. As for long-

[[Page 26]]

term rates, the yield on 10-year Treasury notes fell 
below six percent in 1993--the first time since 1972 that the rate was 
this low. Lower long-term rates helped to stimulate investment in 
housing and business equipment, spurring the recovery.
  Interest rates later rose somewhat as the economy expanded, but they 
remained at very low levels for a rapidly growing economy with such low 
unemployment. In fact, the last time the economy had unemployment as low 
as today, the rate on the 10-year Treasury bond was about two percentage 
points higher.
  Future interest rates likely will depend on the success of efforts to 
balance the budget over the next five years. A bipartisan agreement this 
year would greatly foster chances of further cuts in both short- and 
long-term rates.
  What have we learned? That, contrary to some views, deficit cutting 
can go hand-in-hand with economic growth--if the deficit cutting allows 
the Federal Reserve to maintain low interest rates, and if it's credible 
in the financial markets. In the months between the announcement and 
enactment of the President's 1993 economic plan, economic activity 
picked up. As shown in the monthly employment reports, job gains 
accelerated, and over the next four years, the economy created over 11 
million new jobs--about 93 percent of them in the private sector (see 
Chart III-5).



   The job gains occurred without an increase in inflation, which has 
been remarkably stable for several years. Although the Consumer Price 
Index (CPI) rose a bit more last year, the increase was due to faster 
increases in volatile food and energy prices, which experts do not 
expect to see again this year. If anything, the underlying rate of 
inflation has fallen (see Chart III-6).



[[Page 28]]

  Family Incomes, Poverty, and Inequality: More jobs, low inflation, and 
steady growth can foster a widely shared rise in living standards, as 
witnessed by the last two years. After many years of, at best, modest 
gains in median family income, 1995 witnessed one of the largest real 
gains in two decades--1.8 percent. Moreover, people in all kinds of 
households gained. Poverty fell for the second straight year (see Chart 
III-7), and groups at the bottom of the income distribution actually 
enjoyed larger percentage gains than those at the top.



  The stronger investment climate also sent stocks much higher. The Dow-
Jones Industrial Average has risen an average of 18 percent a year from 
December 1992 to December 1996--more than half again as fast as in the 
prior 12 years. Corporate profits, the underpinning for the value of 
stocks, also have soared. Just as important, the profit gains have not 
come at the expense of wages, which have risen in this period, but are 
mainly due to falling corporate interest payments and a slowdown in 
employers' health insurance costs.
  To be sure, the strong economy is not due to the President's budget 
policy alone. But just as surely, his policies have contributed to a 
stronger financial climate, enabled the Federal Reserve to maintain low 
interest rates, released extra saving for private investment, and showed 
skeptics that the Nation's leaders could cut the deficit. These 
successes have played their part in revitalizing the economy in the last 
four years.

What Remains To Be Done

  The best way to preserve and strengthen the current economic expansion 
is to cut the deficit further. This budget reaches balance in 2002--a 
goal widely shared by Congress and the public. The President is 
committed to achieving it, and his previous success in cutting the 
deficit puts it well within reach.
  But the goal of reaching balance is not without controversy. Some 
observers would 

[[Page 29]]

balance the budget every year--no matter what the 
circumstances; they even would enshrine the goal in the Constitution by 
passing an amendment to that effect. Others argue that further deficit 
cutting is unnecessary, if not economically harmful. Both of these 
visions are misguided.

  A Balanced Budget Requirement: A requirement to reach balance every 
year is potentially harmful. Virtually all taxes, and many spending 
programs, respond automatically to changing economic conditions. That 
is, when the economy is weak and incomes fall, income tax revenues fall 
as well; unemployment compensation and other benefits also cushion the 
effect of the downturn on consumer buying power. Without these 
``automatic stabilizers,'' economic downturns would be much worse.
  Consider what could happen under a balanced budget amendment. A weak 
economy would mean fewer tax revenues and more spending on unemployment 
and other programs. As a result, a balanced budget requirement could 
force a tax increase or spending cuts--or both--in the middle of a 
recession. Those steps would make a weak economy even weaker.
  Nor are any ``escape hatches'' from the budget-balancing requirement--
for times of economic distress--guaranteed to work. One reason is that 
economists are notoriously slow to recognize economic downturns. 
Consequently, by the time they saw the slowdown and Congress acted to 
ease the balanced-budget requirement, the economic damage would be done. 
The better practice is to aim for balance, but to adjust budget policy 
according to circumstances.

  A Reversal of Course: Allowing the deficit to begin rising again would 
be economically damaging. Admittedly, as some analysts argue, continued 
economic growth and low interest rates could keep Federal debt growing 
more slowly than the economy as a whole, and that would help to keep 
Federal interest costs under control. The problem is, the Nation faces 
some important challenges in the not-so-distant future for which we 
should begin to prepare. A balanced budget would be a good first step.
  Today, the Nation is benefitting from its demography. Its largest 
population group--the ``baby-boom'' generation, born between 1946 and 
1964--is entering its highest-earning years. They pay much more to the 
Government than they receive in direct benefits. But the situation will 
begin to change in about 12 years.
  At that point, the oldest baby-boomers will become eligible for early 
retirement under Social Security. Because the next generation of 
taxpayers is smaller in size, they will contribute relatively less to 
the Government in revenues, making it harder to support the baby-boomers 
in their retirement. The President has already called for a bipartisan 
process to address that problem. But if we don't balance the budget 
beforehand, the challenge of supporting the baby boomers will only grow 
larger.
  A balanced budget by 2002 will add a margin of safety into the budget 
to absorb the coming demographic burden--and any unforeseen problems 
before then. As illustrated in Chart III-8, if Congress enacts the 
President's budget and continues his proposed limits on Medicaid while 
controlling discretionary spending beyond 2002, the Government should be 
able to avoid an explosion of debt when the baby-boomers retire. (See 
Chapter 2 of Analytical Perspectives for a full discussion of the 
methodology underlying these projections.)



The Administration's Economic Assumptions

  This budget, like the Administration's previous budgets, is based on 
prudent assumptions about economic growth, interest rates, inflation, 
and unemployment for the foreseeable future. As with the previous 
budgets, the assumptions are close to the consensus among private 
forecasters. While the Administration believes that, with sound 
policies, our economy can do even better, we also believe that we should 
use prudent, mainstream economic assumptions for budget planning.
  The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) also prepares economic 
assumptions with which to evaluate budget proposals. In the past four 
years, CBO's assumptions generally have 

[[Page 30]]

been quite close to this Administration's, although small differences can generate large gaps in budget projections over five to seven years.
  In recent years, the economy generally has performed somewhat better 
than either the Administration or CBO had projected, showing faster 
growth and lower unemployment and inflation.
  The Administration's assumptions include the following:
  Growth: Real growth will dip slightly below the trend for the 
          next two years, averaging two percent on a fourth quarter over 
          fourth quarter basis. Later, real GDP growth will average 2.3 
          percent per year--the Administration's estimate of its 
          potential growth rate.
  Interest rates: If Congress enacts the President's budget 
          plan, interest rates will fall as the budget approaches 
          balance. The yield on 10-year Treasury notes, 6.3 percent at 
          the end of 1996 and higher earlier in the year, will decline 
          to 5.1 percent and then stabilize; on a discount-basis, the 
          90-day Treasury bill rate will drop to four percent, from 
          around 5.1 percent. The long-term real rate will be about 2.5 
          percent, and the short-term real rate about 1.5 percent. These 
          real interest rates are consistent with U.S. experience during 
          past periods of steady growth and low inflation.
  Inflation: Inflation will remain fairly stable. The CPI will 
          rise an average of 2.7 percent a year from 1997 through 2002, 
          down slightly from the 3.3 percent increase in 1996 (which was 
          aggravated by special factors). The price index for GDP 
          (measured on a chain-weighted basis) will rise at a 2.6 
          percent annual rate--somewhat faster than in 1996. The gap 
          between these two measures of inflation, which has been large 
          in the past, will narrow due to recent and forthcoming changes 
          to the methodology underlying both indexes--including improved 
          measures of health care 

[[Page 31]]

          inflation (due later this year) and an 
          update of the CPI market basket (effective in 1998).
  Unemployment: Civilian unemployment will be 5.5 percent by the 
          start of 1998, very near the current rate, and the average 
          level will remain there.
  The Administration does not forecast the economy's cyclical pattern 
beyond the next few quarters; within that horizon, it sees no sign of an 
impending downturn. If the economy continues to grow for the entire 
forecasting period, the current expansion would become the longest in 
this century.
  In some years, growth may exceed 2.3 percent; in others, it may fall a 
bit short. But, the Administration's assumptions should be, on average, 
close to correct for this period, and should provide a sound basis for 
reaching balance by 2002.
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------

                                     Table III-1.  ECONOMIC ASSUMPTIONS \1\                                     
                                  (Calendar years; dollar amounts in billions)                                  
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                            Projections                         
                                           Actual --------------------------------------------------------------
                                            1995     1996     1997     1998     1999     2000     2001     2002 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gross Domestic Product (GDP):                                                                                   
  Levels, dollar amounts in billions:                                                                           
    Current dollars.....................    7,254    7,577    7,943    8,313    8,717    9,153    9,610   10,087
    Real, chained (1992) dollars........    6,743    6,901    7,056    7,197    7,355    7,525    7,699    7,877
    Chained price index (1992 = 100),                                                                           
     annual average.....................    107.6    109.9    112.7    115.7    118.7    121.8    125.0    128.2
  Percent change, fourth quarter over                                                                           
   fourth quarter:                                                                                              
    Current dollars.....................      3.8      5.0      4.6      4.7      5.0      5.0      5.0      5.0
    Real, chained (1992) dollars........      1.3      2.8      2.0      2.0      2.3      2.3      2.3      2.3
    Chained price index (1992 = 100)....      2.5      2.3      2.5      2.6      2.6      2.6      2.6      2.6
  Percent change, year over year:                                                                               
    Current dollars.....................      4.6      4.5      4.8      4.7      4.9      5.0      5.0      5.0
    Real, chained (1992) dollars........      2.0      2.3      2.2      2.0      2.2      2.3      2.3      2.3
    Chained price index (1992 = 100)....      2.5      2.2      2.5      2.6      2.6      2.6      2.6      2.6
                                                                                                                
Incomes, billions of current dollars:                                                                           
    Corporate profits before tax........      599      652      676      714      757      796      816      849
    Wages and salaries..................    3,431    3,628    3,808    3,982    4,168    4,374    4,590    4,810
    Other taxable income \2\............    1,532    1,612    1,684    1,748    1,809    1,882    1,967    2,068
                                                                                                                
Consumer Price Index (all urban): \3\                                                                           
    Level (1982-84 = 100), annual                                                                               
     average............................    152.5    156.9    161.2    165.5    170.0    174.6    179.3    184.1
    Percent change, fourth quarter over                                                                         
     fourth quarter.....................      2.7      3.1      2.6      2.7      2.7      2.7      2.7      2.7
    Percent change, year over year......      2.8      2.9      2.7      2.7      2.7      2.7      2.7      2.7
                                                                                                                
Unemployment rate, civilian, percent:                                                                           
    Fourth quarter level................      5.5      5.3      5.4      5.6      5.5      5.5      5.5      5.5
    Annual average......................      5.6      5.4      5.3      5.5      5.5      5.5      5.5      5.5
Federal pay raises, January, percent:                                                                           
    Military............................      2.6      2.6      3.0      2.8      3.0      3.0      3.0      3.0
    Civilian \4\........................      2.6      2.4      3.0      2.8       NA       NA       NA       NA
                                                                                                                
Interest rates, percent:                                                                                        
    91-day Treasury bills \5\...........      5.5      5.0      5.0      4.7      4.4      4.2      4.0      4.0
    10-year Treasury notes..............      6.6      6.5      6.1      5.9      5.5      5.3      5.1      5.1
                                                                                                                
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NA=Not Available.                                                                                               
                                                                                                                
\1\ Based on information available as of mid-November 1996.                                                     
                                                                                                                
\2\ Rent, interest, dividend and proprietor's components of personal income.                                    
                                                                                                                
\3\ CPI for all urban consumers. Two versions of the CPI are now published. The index shown here is that        
  currently used, as required by law, in calculating automatic adjustments to individual income tax brackets.   
  Projections reflect scheduled changes in methodology.                                                         
                                                                                                                
\4\ Overall average increase, including locality pay adjustments. Percentages to be proposed for years after    
  1998 have not yet been determined.                                                                            
                                                                                                                
\5\ Average rate (bank discount basis) on new issues within period.                                             

  ----------------------------------------------------------------------