[Analytical Perspectives]
[Economic Assumptions and Analyses]
[12. Economic Assumptions]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]



[[Page 169]]

 
                        12. ECONOMIC ASSUMPTIONS

  The U.S. economy completed its sixth consecutive year of economic 
expansion as 2007 drew to a close. \1\ Although some uncertainty exists 
about the short-run outlook, the Administration's economic forecast 
projects sustained growth in the years ahead. Since 2001, the U.S. 
economy has repeatedly demonstrated its resilience to shocks and 
setbacks while benefiting from pro-growth policies, including tax relief 
and ongoing efforts to promote investment in innovative technologies and 
to liberalize international trade. Federal Reserve monetary policy 
actions have also played a constructive role in prolonging the 
expansion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\  Economic performance is discussed in terms of calendar years. 
Budget figures are in terms of fiscal years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
  The economy has successfully overcome a series of shocks, including 
large declines in the stock market and business equipment spending; the 
terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 followed by the onset of the 
Global War on Terror; sharp increases in prices for crude oil; and 
substantial damage and disruptions during the 2005 hurricane season. In 
the last two years a new set of shocks has troubled the economy. A 
housing market slowdown began in 2006 and is continuing into 2008. In 
2007, many high-risk mortgages went into default, causing losses at 
financial institutions. The heightened uncertainty resulting from these 
losses has threatened to curtail credit availability for many borrowers.
  Despite these unfavorable recent events, the U.S. economy continued to 
expand in 2007, with gains in productivity, incomes, and employment. 
More than 8 million net new payroll jobs have been added since August 
2003. The Administration's economic forecast projects that the current 
expansion will continue, providing a solid foundation of sustained non-
inflationary real growth to underlie the Federal budget outlook. 
Nonetheless, facing mixed economic signals and the risk of slower 
economic growth, in January 2008 the President called for the enactment 
of an economic growth package to bolster business investment and 
consumer spending thus promoting growth and job creation.

                       Recent Economic Performance

  At the end of 2007, as the 2009 Budget was being prepared, U.S. real 
gross domestic product (GDP) had been increasing for 24 consecutive 
quarters, at an average annual rate of 2.8 percent. Over the most recent 
four quarters, real GDP also grew 2.8 percent. Increases in employment 
and gains in the productive efficiency of the U.S. workforce have 
combined to generate this sustained growth in real output.
    In labor markets, nonfarm payroll employment has increased 
          by nearly 8.4 million net new jobs since the post-recession 
          low in August 2003, with about 1.3 million of those job gains 
          occurring during the most recent twelve months (through 
          December).
    Reflecting the expanding job market, the unemployment rate 
          was 5.0 percent at the end of 2007, which is up from its low 
          point in March--4.4 percent--but noticeably lower than its 
          average during each of the past three decades.
    Labor productivity gains--the increase in output per hour of 
          labor--were especially strong earlier in the expansion, 
          providing a substantial boost to growth in real GDP. On 
          average, output per hour in the nonfarm business sector has 
          increased at a 2.5 percent rate during the current expansion 
          (since the final quarter of 2001). \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
  \2\ The nonfarm business sector accounts for about three-fourths of 
the value of GDP, with households, nonprofit institutions, and 
government accounting for the remainder. The nonfarm business sector 
serves as the reference standard for productivity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    These productivity gains have extended the strong 
          productivity performance of the previous decade. Since the end 
          of 1995, labor productivity in the nonfarm business sector has 
          increased at a 2.6 percent average annual rate, more than a 
          percentage point higher than the average growth rate from 1973 
          to 1995--1.5 percent.
  Strong growth in labor productivity is a fundamental building block 
for long-term economic performance and is the basis for rising real 
wages and an increasing standard of living for American workers and 
families.
    Reflecting labor gains from stronger productivity growth, 
          real hourly earnings of production workers have risen at an 
          average annual rate of 0.5 percent over the past two years.
    Real disposable personal income per capita is up 11.7 
          percent in the current expansion, compared with 8.6 percent 
          during the equivalent period of the 1990s expansion.
  Other indicators also point to the sustained solid performance of the 
U.S. economy in recent years:
    Through the third quarter, real consumer spending had 
          increased at a 2.6 percent annual rate so far in 2007, 
          following increases of 3.4 percent during 2006 and 2.8 percent 
          during 2005.
    Business investment in nonresidential structures continued 
          to make strong real gains in 2007, rising at a 16 percent 
          annual rate through the third quarter of the year, on track to 
          being the strongest increase in more than two decades.
    Real business investment in durable equipment and software 
          increased at a healthy 3.7 percent annual rate through the 
          third quarter of 2007, following increases of 2.5 percent 
          during 2006 and 7.1 percent during 2005.

[[Page 170]]

    Real net exports continued to improve during 2007 as real 
          exports grew 9.0 percent at an annual rate through the third 
          quarter, while import growth slowed to just 1.8 percent. For 
          the first time in over a decade, real net exports contributed 
          positively to real GDP growth in 2006-2007.
  Although the overall performance of the U.S. economy has been good and 
the gains have translated into solid growth of income and wealth, the 
economy faces important challenges that have become more serious as 2008 
begins:
     The housing market and residential investment activity 
          began to slow in 2006 and continued to fall throughout 2007, 
          subtracting significantly from real GDP growth. Housing starts 
          peaked at an annual rate of nearly 2.3 million units early in 
          2006, but have since fallen to about 1.0 million units--the 
          lowest level in over a decade. During the first three quarters 
          of 2007, real residential investment spending was on track to 
          subtract about 0.9 percentage point from overall real GDP 
          growth. It now appears that the effects of the housing slump 
          on real GDP growth will persist into 2008, holding down growth 
          and delaying the expected rebound in activity.
     Financial uncertainty has increased as the effects of the 
          housing slump spread to the subprime segment of the mortgage 
          market, and then to financial markets more generally. The 
          Federal Reserve has acted decisively to expand credit and to 
          lower interest rates, and the Department of Treasury has also 
          taken steps to restore confidence. These measures have helped 
          maintain liquidity, but uncertainty remains high. Higher risk 
          premiums on all but the most secure loans may exact a growth 
          penalty in the near term that would be moderated by the 
          President's proposals to promote economic growth.
     Energy prices--notably crude oil and gasoline prices--have 
          increased sharply. The benchmark price for West Texas 
          Intermediate crude oil increased from under $30 a barrel in 
          September 2003 to near $100 a barrel in January 2008. Over the 
          same period, the average retail price of gasoline nationwide 
          rose from around $1.50 a gallon to over $3.00 a gallon. Higher 
          energy prices slow growth, but the recent increase in prices 
          has had a much smaller overall effect on growth than previous 
          oil price shocks in the 1970s and 1980s.
     Large imbalances in U.S. international accounts persisted 
          into 2007 with the current account deficit at 5.1 percent of 
          GDP in the third quarter. Even so, the international 
          imbalances have begun to improve for the first time in several 
          years. A year earlier the current account deficit was 6.6 
          percent of GDP.
  During 2007, the economy continued to grow in the face of these 
challenges. Growth appears to have slowed in the final quarter of 2007 
as the combination of weak housing markets, financial uncertainty, and 
higher energy prices have combined to limit demand. There are positive 
factors, however, that could help offset these negative developments and 
provide a foundation for revived growth by the end of 2008, especially 
if augmented by passage of the President's proposals to promote economic 
growth.
     Inflation has increased along with the rise in food and 
          energy prices, but core inflation, excluding the volatile food 
          and energy components, subsided from around 2.6 percent in 
          2006 to 2.4 percent during 2007. With core inflation under 
          control the prospects are good for a lower inflation rate in 
          the long run when energy prices stabilize.
     Faster economic growth abroad has helped U.S. exports, and 
          contributed to the decline in the current account deficit. The 
          improvement in net exports has been large enough to offset the 
          decline in growth from housing investment over the last four 
          quarters.
     Employment growth slowed in 2007, but gains continued 
          through the end of the year. The unemployment rate crept up 
          from 4.5 percent to 5.0 percent, but unemployment remains well 
          below its average level in earlier periods of slow growth.

                            Policy Background

  The fiscal and monetary policies of the past seven years contributed 
to good economic performance. Looking back, timely tax relief and 
reductions in interest rates promoted the economy's recovery from 
recession and helped the Nation overcome the adverse effects from the 
various shocks it has faced since 2001. Those policies augmented by 
short-term proposals to promote economic growth continue to provide a 
solid foundation for future economic performance.

  Fiscal Policy: Beginning in 2001, the Administration proposed, and the 
Congress enacted, significant tax relief designed to promote recovery in 
output, income, and jobs--and to provide a strong basis for continued 
economic expansion in the long term. Key tax relief legislation 
included:
     The Economic Growth and Tax Relief and Reconciliation Act 
          of 2001 lowered marginal income tax rates; reduced the 
          marriage tax penalty; and created a new, lower 10 percent tax 
          bracket, among other changes.
     The Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 
          lowered income tax rates, reduced the marriage penalty, raised 
          the child tax credit, and raised the exemption amount for the 
          individual Alternative Minimum Tax. The Act also reduced tax 
          rates on dividend income and capital gains and expanded bonus 
          depreciation and small business expensing of equipment 
          purchases.
  Additional legislation of recent years extended tax relief, helping to 
ensure that key provisions would continue and not expire. The quick 
adoption of an effective growth package of broad-based tax relief would 
bolster consumption and investment and help keep instability

[[Page 171]]

and uncertainty from causing additional harm to the overall economy.

  Monetary Policy and Interest Rates: As 2008 begins, the Federal 
Reserve has oriented monetary policy toward sustaining non-inflationary 
real economic growth. Beginning in 2004, as the expansion strengthened, 
the Federal Reserve raised the Federal funds rate in a steady series of 
increases from 1 percent eventually reaching 5.25 percent in 2006. The 
Federal funds rate remained at 5.25 percent for over a year. In 
September 2007, the Federal Reserve announced a fifty basis point 
reduction in its target rate in response to the threats to liquidity 
unfolding in financial markets. This was a preemptive action intended to 
maintain the level of aggregate demand in the economy and sustain the 
recovery. At the time of this action, the Federal Reserve stated:
             
            Economic growth was moderate during the first half of the 
          year, but the tightening of credit conditions has the 
          potential to intensify the housing correction and to restrain 
          economic growth more generally. Today's action is intended to 
          help forestall some of the adverse effects on the broader 
          economy that might otherwise arise from the disruptions in 
          financial markets and to promote moderate growth over time.
  Since then, the Federal Reserve has lowered interest rates further. 
The Administration's forecast for interest rates, presented below, is 
consistent with market expectations for the interest rate outlook at the 
time the forecast was completed in mid-November. It anticipates that 
rates will gradually recover when the current financial situation 
stabilizes. Long-term interest rates, notably the yield on 10-year 
Treasury notes, have been low by historical standards for many years. 
The 10-year rate has been less than 5.0 percent, except for brief 
intervals, for seven years. The forecast anticipates that the yield 
spread between short-term and long-term rates will eventually widen.

  Trade and Regulatory Policies and Competitiveness Initiatives: The 
Administration has sought to advance a comprehensive set of policies to 
promote the short- and long-term performance of the U.S. economy, 
including trade and regulatory policies and initiatives aimed at 
boosting competitiveness in domestic and international markets. 
Expanding opportunities in international trade and investment has been 
one of the Administration's top priorities. Efforts to negotiate and 
implement bilateral, regional, and multilateral agreements to promote 
international trade and investment with countries around the world are 
intended to create and expand markets for U.S. exports and strengthen 
the U.S. economy while also creating new economic opportunities for our 
trading partners. These policies will also help to alleviate poverty in 
the developing world and promote democratic reform. The Administration's 
American Competitiveness Initiative is targeted at advancing U.S. 
competitiveness through promoting technological innovation, opening new 
markets, increasing research in the physical sciences and engineering, 
and protecting intellectual property. Efforts also continue to 
streamline and simplify Federal regulations that can hinder economic 
growth and job creation.

                          Economic Projections

  The Administration's economic projections are summarized in Table 12-
1. The assumptions are based on information available as of mid-November 
2007 and are close to those of the Congressional Budget Office and the 
consensus of private-sector forecasters, as shown in Table 12-2 and 
discussed in more detail below. 

  Real GDP, Potential GDP, and Unemployment Rate: Real GDP, which is 
estimated to have increased 2.7 percent during 2007 on a fourth quarter-
over-fourth quarter basis, is also projected to increase 2.7 percent 
this year. This is somewhat below the economy's potential growth rate 
and reflects the growth penalty exacted by the housing slowdown and the 
energy price runup. As a result, the unemployment rate is projected to 
average 4.9 percent in 2008, up from 4.6 percent in 2007. In 2009, the 
rate of growth is projected to recover to 3.0 percent, and the 
unemployment rate to settle in on its long-run level of 4.8 percent, 
which is near the center of the range thought to be consistent with 
stable inflation. Beyond 2009, growth slows gradually as slower labor 
force growth lowers the economy's potential growth rate.
  The main sources of growth in demand in coming years are likely to be 
net exports, business investment, and, to a lesser extent, consumer 
spending. The contributions to overall growth from residential 
investment and the government sector are expected to be modest, although 
beyond 2008, housing should cease to be a negative influence on growth.
  Potential growth of real GDP (including the government sector) is 
projected to be about 3.0 percent over the next two years, trending down 
to 2.8 percent by 2013, because of an expected slowing in labor force 
growth. The labor force is projected to grow about 0.9 percent per year 
on average from 2006 through 2009, slowing to about 0.6 percent per year 
on average during 2009-2013 as increasing numbers of baby boomers 
retire.
   Trend productivity growth in the nonfarm business sector is assumed 
to be 2.5 percent per year. This is equal to the average pace of 
productivity growth so far in the current expansion, which began in the 
final quarter of 2001, and equal to the average pace of growth from 1995 
through 2000. It is also not far from the average growth rate throughout 
the post-World War II period since the end of 1948--2.2 percent.

  Inflation: Inflation was volatile in 2007, in large part because of 
fluctuations in energy prices. With the projected easing of these 
prices, inflation is likely to be lower. On a year-over-year basis, the 
CPI is projected to have increased 2.8 percent in 2007 and to increase 
by 2.7 percent this year but to settle down at a 2.3 percent rate in 
2010 through 2013. This infla

[[Page 172]]




                                                          Table 12-1.  ECONOMIC ASSUMPTIONS \1\
                                                      (Calendar years; dollar amounts in billions)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                             Projections
                                                                    Actual  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     2006       2007       2008       2009       2010       2011       2012       2013
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gross Domestic Product (GDP):
  Levels, dollar amounts in billions:
    Current dollars.............................................   13,195     13,837     14,480     15,215     15,987     16,782     17,603     18,462
    Real, chained (2000) dollars................................   11,319     11,573     11,886     12,245     12,615     12,982     13,351     13,727
    Chained price index (2000=100), annual average..............    116.6      119.6      121.8      124.2      126.7      129.3      131.8      134.5
  Percent change, fourth quarter over fourth quarter:
    Current dollars.............................................      5.4        5.1        4.8        5.1        5.0        5.0        4.9        4.9
    Real, chained (2000) dollars................................      2.6        2.7        2.7        3.0        3.0        2.9        2.8        2.8
    Chained price index (2000=100)..............................      2.7        2.3        2.0        2.0        2.0        2.0        2.0        2.0
  Percent change, year over year:
    Current dollars.............................................      6.1        4.9        4.6        5.1        5.1        5.0        4.9        4.9
    Real, chained (2000) dollars................................      2.9        2.2        2.7        3.0        3.0        2.9        2.8        2.8
    Chained price index (2000=100)..............................      3.2        2.6        1.9        2.0        2.0        2.0        2.0        2.0

Incomes, billions of current dollars:
    Corporate profits before tax................................    1,806      1,896      1,920      1,971      1,970      1,947      1,950      1,981
    Wages and salaries..........................................    6,018      6,405      6,710      7,057      7,434      7,824      8,217      8,623
    Other taxable income \2\....................................    2,858      3,053      3,247      3,450      3,630      3,776      3,917      4,102

Consumer Price Index: \3\
    Level (1982-84=100), annual average.........................    201.6      207.3      212.8      217.3      222.3      227.4      232.6      238.0
    Percent change, fourth quarter over fourth quarter..........      2.0        3.9        2.1        2.2        2.3        2.3        2.3        2.3
    Percent change, year over year..............................      3.2        2.8        2.7        2.1        2.3        2.3        2.3        2.3

Unemployment rate, civilian, percent:
    Fourth quarter level........................................      4.5        4.8        4.9        4.8        4.8        4.8        4.8        4.8
    Annual average..............................................      4.6        4.6        4.9        4.9        4.8        4.8        4.8        4.8

Federal pay raises, January, percent:
    Military \4\................................................      3.1        2.7        3.5        3.4         NA         NA         NA         NA
    Civilian \5\................................................      3.1        2.2        3.5        2.9         NA         NA         NA         NA

Interest rates, percent:
    91-day Treasury bills \6\...................................      4.7        4.4        3.7        3.8        4.0        4.1        4.1        4.1
    10-year Treasury notes......................................      4.8        4.7        4.6        4.9        5.1        5.2        5.3        5.3
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NA = Not Available.
\1\ Based on information available as of November 15, 2007.
\2\ Dividends, rent, interest and proprietors' income components of personal income.
\3\ Seasonally adjusted CPI for all urban consumers.
\4\ Percentages apply to basic pay only; percentages to be proposed for years after 2009 have not yet been determined.
\5\ Overall average increase, including locality pay adjustments. Percentages to be proposed for years after 2009 have not yet been determined.
\6\ Average rate, secondary market (bank discount basis).




tion rate projection extends the generally well-contained inflation 
experience of the last decade. The GDP price index is projected to have 
increased 2.6 percent in 2007, and to moderate to 2.0 percent by 2009, 
slightly less than the projected rate of CPI inflation, which is the 
usual pattern.
  The low inflation projection reflects the low core rate of inflation 
in 2007, well-contained inflation expectations, and the maintenance of 
low inflation in the long run consistent with Federal Reserve monetary 
policy objectives.

  Interest Rates: Interest rates declined sharply in the second half of 
2007. Short-term rates are projected to remain below 4 percent for the 
next two years and then to rise to 4.1 percent in 2011. The yield on the 
10-year Treasury note has also fallen as investors have sought the 
security of Treasury debt during the recent period of heightened 
financial uncertainty. In the projection period, long-term rates rise 
again as financial concerns are alleviated and a more normal historical 
relationship is restored. The 10-year rate is projected to increase to 
5.3 percent by 2012.
  These forecast rates are historically low, reflecting lower inflation 
in the forecast. After adjusting for inflation, the projected real 
interest rates are close to their historical averages.

  Income Shares: The share of labor compensation in GDP was low by 
historical standards in 2007 and is expected to increase, while the 
share of corporate profits is projected to decline from the unusually 
high levels it has reached. So far in the current expansion, the growth 
of hourly compensation adjusted for inflation has lagged the growth of 
productivity. During the projection period, however, real hourly labor 
compensation is expected to exceed productivity growth, which would 
raise the labor share in GDP back closer to its historical average, 
while constraining profits.
  While the overall share of labor compensation is expected to increase 
by about 1 percentage point of GDP, the wage share is expected to rise 
proportionately less

[[Page 173]]

than the share of supplements to wages and salaries. Rising health 
insurance costs will put upward pressure on the share of supplements 
while holding down the expected rise in the cash wage share.
  Corporate profits before tax have risen sharply as a share of GDP 
since their recent low point in 2001. Profits have benefited from lower 
interest rates and moderate wage growth. The sharp increase in 
productivity growth in 2001-2003 also gave a boost to profits. More 
recently, corporate earnings overseas have helped raise the profits of 
American corporations. Some of these factors are not likely to continue 
at the same pace in future years, and profits relative to GDP are 
expected to moderate over the forecast period, ending much closer to 
their historical average in 2013.

            Comparison with CBO and Private-Sector Forecasts

  In addition to the Administration, the Congressional Budget Office 
(CBO) and many private-sector forecasters also make economic 
projections. CBO develops its projections to aid Congress in formulating 
budget policy. In the executive branch, this function is performed 
jointly by the ``Troika'' consisting of the Department of Treasury, the 
Council of Economic Advisers, and the Office of Management and Budget. 
Private-sector forecasts are often used by businesses for current 
decision-making and in long-term planning, and the ``consensus'' or 
average serves as a useful benchmark for comparison. Table 12-2 compares 
the 2009 Budget assumptions with projections as of January 2008 by CBO 
and by the Blue Chip Consensus, an average of about 50 private-sector 
forecasts.
  The three sets of economic assumptions are based on different 
underlying assumptions concerning economic policies. The Administration 
forecast generally assumes that the President's Budget proposals will be 
enacted. In contrast, the CBO baseline projection assumes that current 
law as of the time the estimates are made remains unchanged. The 50 or 
so private forecasters in the Blue Chip Consensus make differing policy 
assumptions. Despite these differences, the three sets of economic 
projections, shown in Table 12-2, are fairly close. The similarity of 
the Budget's economic projections to both the CBO baseline projections 
and the Consensus forecast underscores the conservative nature of the 
Administration forecast.

                                 Table 12-2.  COMPARISON OF ECONOMIC ASSUMPTIONS
                                                (Calendar years)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Projections
                                          ------------------------------------------------------------  Average,
                                             2008      2009      2010      2011      2012      2013     2008-13
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GDP (billions of current dollars):
  2009 Budget............................  14,480    15,215    15,987    16,782    17,603    18,462
  CBO January............................  14,330    14,997    15,812    16,651    17,453    18,243
  Blue Chip Consensus January \2\........  14,448    15,150    15,906    16,705    17,551    18,428

Real GDP (chain-weighted): \1\
  2009 Budget............................       2.7       3.0       3.0       2.9       2.8       2.8        2.9
  CBO January............................       1.7       2.8       3.5       3.4       2.9       2.6        2.8
  Blue Chip Consensus January \2\........       2.2       2.7       2.8       2.9       2.9       2.8        2.7

Chain-weighted GDP Price Index: \1\
  2009 Budget............................       1.9       2.0       2.0       2.0       2.0       2.0        2.0
  CBO January............................       1.9       1.8       1.8       1.8       1.9       1.9        1.8
  Blue Chip Consensus January \2\........       2.1       2.1       2.1       2.1       2.1       2.1        2.1

Consumer Price Index (all-urban): \1\
  2009 Budget............................       2.7       2.1       2.3       2.3       2.3       2.3        2.3
  CBO January............................       2.9       2.3       2.2       2.2       2.2       2.2        2.3
  Blue Chip Consensus January \2\........       2.9       2.3       2.3       2.3       2.3       2.3        2.4

Unemployment rate: \3\
  2009 Budget............................       4.9       4.9       4.8       4.8       4.8       4.8        4.8
  CBO January............................       5.1       5.4       5.1       4.8       4.8       4.8        5.0
  Blue Chip Consensus January \2\........       5.0       5.0       4.8       4.8       4.8       4.8        4.9

Interest rates: \3\
  91-day Treasury bills:
    2009 Budget..........................       3.7       3.8       4.0       4.1       4.1       4.1        4.0
    CBO January..........................       3.2       4.2       4.6       4.7       4.7       4.7        4.3
    Blue Chip Consensus January \2\......       3.4       3.9       4.5       4.5       4.5       4.5        4.2

  10-year Treasury notes: \3\
    2009 Budget..........................       4.6       4.9       5.1       5.2       5.3       5.3        5.1
    CBO January..........................       4.2       4.9       5.2       5.2       5.2       5.2        5.0
    Blue Chip Consensus January \2\......       4.3       4.8       5.2       5.2       5.2       5.2        5.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sources: Congressional Budget Office; Blue Chip Economic Indicators, Aspen Publishers, Inc.
\1\ Year-over-year percent change.
\2\ January 2008 Blue Chip Consensus forecast for 2008 and 2009; Blue Chip October 2007 long-run extension for
  2010-2013.
\3\ Annual averages, percent.



[[Page 174]]

  The biggest differences in the forecasts are for real GDP growth in 
2008. The Administration, CBO, and the Blue Chip Consensus all 
anticipate slow to moderate growth this year, but the Administration 
projects 2.7 percent growth on a year-over-year basis, while the 
Consensus projects 2.2 percent growth, and CBO forecasts a 1.7 percent 
growth rate. For calendar year 2009, the forecasts are closer. The 
Administration forecasts 3.0 percent real growth, while the Consensus 
forecast is for 2.7 percent and CBO expects 2.8 percent. In 2010-2011, 
the Administration expects growth to average 3.0 percent, while the 
Consensus projects an average of 2.9 percent. For this period, CBO is 
the outlier, expecting a relatively sharp bounce-back that pushes up the 
growth rate to an average of 3.5 percent. In the final two years of the 
forecast period, the Administration expects growth to slow with the 
decline in the potential growth rate as the baby-boom cohort begins to 
retire in large numbers. CBO also expects the growth rate to decline for 
this reason (and because they assume a negative effect from the current-
law expiration of the 2001-2003 tax cuts), but so far the Consensus has 
not incorporated the likely demographic slowdown in its long-range 
projections. Over the six-year span as a whole, the Administration, CBO, 
and the Consensus all project average annual growth rates in a narrow 
range of 2.7 to 2.9 percent, with the Administration forecast being the 
highest.
  The three inflation forecasts are much closer. All three forecasts 
anticipate a slowdown in inflation in 2008-2009 followed by continued 
low inflation in the range of 1.8 to 2.1 percent as measured by the GDP 
price index and between 2.2 and 2.3 percent as measured by the CPI. CBO 
has a lower forecast than the Administration and the Consensus. The 
three unemployment rate projections are also similar with projected 
rates converging on 4.8 percent following somewhat higher unemployment 
over the next 2 to 3 years. All three forecasts recognize the sharp 
decline in Treasury interest rates at the end of 2007. All three 
forecasts anticipate that long-term rates will rise between 2008 and 
2009 and converge on a higher level in 2011 and beyond. That long-term 
stable value is 5.2 percent for CBO and the Consensus and 5.3 percent 
for the Administration. There are more differences in the forecasts of 
short-term interest rates. The Administration expects lower short-term 
rates to persist for some time before rising to 4.1 percent. CBO and the 
Consensus expect short-term rates to rise to 4.7 percent and 4.5 
percent, respectively, within three years. This would elevate real 
short-term interest rates above their historical average and in 
combination with the long-term interest rate forecasts would generate a 
tightly compressed yield curve. The Administration forecast anticipates 
a gradual restoration of a more normal yield curve spread.

                     Changes in Economic Assumptions

  The economic assumptions underlying this Budget for 2009 are similar 
to those of the 2008 Budget, as shown in Table 12-3.
  Real GDP growth is now expected to be 2.2 percent in 2007, 2.7 percent 
in 2008, and 3.0 percent in 2009 on a year-over-year basis, moderating 
gradually to 2.8 percent by 2012 and 2013. In comparison, last year's 
Budget projections implied 2.6 percent real growth for 2007, 3.0 percent 
growth in 2008, 3.1 percent in 2009, and moderating to 2.9 percent by 
2012. The lower real growth forecast in this year's budget combined with 
a slightly lower inflation forecast lowers the projected level of 
nominal GDP compared with the 2008 Budget projection.

  The long-run unemployment rate projection is unchanged from the 2008 
Budget at 4.8 percent. The 3-month Treasury bill rate is expected to 
remain well below last year's forecast for most of the projection period 
but to end at the same place, 4.1 percent. The 10-year Treasury note 
rate is again projected to rise to 5.3 percent.

                    Structural and Cyclical Balances

  An alternative budget measure called the structural balance provides a 
useful perspective on the stance of fiscal policy compared with the 
unadjusted budget balance. The unadjusted balance is affected by the 
cyclical performance of the economy. When the economy operates below 
potential, the unemployment rate exceeds the long-run sustainable 
average consistent with price stability. As a result, receipts are lower 
and outlays for unemployment-sensitive programs (such as unemployment 
compensation and food stamps) are higher than they would be if all the 
resources were employed at their normal levels; and the deficit is 
larger (or the surplus smaller) than if the unemployment rate were at 
its sustainable long-run average. The portion of the deficit (or 
surplus) that can be traced to this factor is called the cyclical 
component. The remaining portion of the deficit is then called the 
structural deficit (or structural surplus). It represents the deficit 
that would prevail if all resources were employed at their normal long-
run levels. The structural balance provides a gauge of the surplus or 
deficit that would persist if the economy were operating at the 
sustainable level of unemployment.
  Estimates of the structural balance are based on the historical 
relationship between changes in the unemployment rate and real GDP 
growth, known as ``Okun's Law,'' as well as relationships of 
unemployment and real GDP growth with receipts and outlays. These 
estimated relationships take account of the major cyclical changes in 
the economy and their effects on the budget, but they do not reflect all 
possible cyclical relationships. For example, the sharply rising stock 
market during the second half of the 1990s boosted capital gains-related 
receipts and pulled down the deficit. The subsequent fall in the stock 
market reduced receipts and added to the deficit. Some of this rise and 
fall was cyclical in nature, but economists have not been able to pin 
down the cyclical component of the stock market exactly, and for that 
reason, all of the stock market's

[[Page  175]]


                  Table 12-3.  COMPARISON OF ECONOMIC ASSUMPTIONS IN THE 2008 AND 2009 BUDGETS
                                  (Calendar years; dollar amounts in billions)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     2007     2008     2009     2010     2011     2012     2013
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nominal GDP:
  2008 Budget assumptions \1\....................   13,903   14,665   15,458   16,265   17,094   17,946   18,840
  2009 Budget assumptions........................   13,837   14,480   15,215   15,987   16,782   17,603   18,462

Real GDP (2000 dollars):
  2008 Budget assumptions \1\....................   11,623   11,975   12,346   12,718   13,100   13,484   13,878
  2009 Budget assumptions........................   11,573   11,886   12,245   12,615   12,982   13,351   13,727

Real GDP (percent change): \2\
  2008 Budget assumptions........................      2.6      3.0      3.1      3.0      3.0      2.9      2.9
  2009 Budget assumptions........................      2.2      2.7      3.0      3.0      2.9      2.8      2.8

GDP price index (percent change): \2\
  2008 Budget assumptions........................      2.5      2.3      2.2      2.1      2.0      2.0      2.0
  2009 Budget assumptions........................      2.3      2.0      2.0      2.0      2.0      2.0      2.0

Consumer Price Index (percent change): \2\
  2008 Budget assumptions........................      2.1      2.6      2.5      2.4      2.3      2.3      2.3
  2009 Budget assumptions........................      2.8      2.7      2.1      2.3      2.3      2.3      2.3

Civilian unemployment rate (percent): \3\
  2008 Budget assumptions........................      4.6      4.8      4.8      4.8      4.8      4.8      4.8
  2009 Budget assumptions........................      4.6      4.9      4.9      4.8      4.8      4.8      4.8

91-day Treasury bill rate (percent): \3\
  2008 Budget assumptions........................      4.7      4.6      4.4      4.2      4.1      4.1      4.1
  2009 Budget assumptions........................      4.4      3.7      3.8      4.0      4.1      4.1      4.1

10-year Treasury note rate (percent): \3\
  2008 Budget assumptions........................      5.0      5.1      5.2      5.3      5.3      5.3      5.3
  2009 Budget assumptions........................      4.7      4.6      4.9      5.1      5.2      5.3      5.3

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Adjusted for July 2007 NIPA revisions.
\2\ Year-over-year.
\3\ Calendar year average.


contribution to receipts is counted in the structural balance.
  No two business cycles are alike and some factors unique to the 
current economic cycle also appear to affect the deficit in ways not 
reflected in the usual cyclical adjustments. The fall-off in labor force 
participation, from 67.1 percent of the U.S. population in 1997-2000 to 
66.1 percent in 2004-2007, may be at least partly cyclical in nature. 
Since the official unemployment rate does not include workers who have 
left the labor force, the conventional measures of potential GDP, 
incomes, and Government receipts understate the extent to which 
potential work hours have been under-utilized in the current expansion 
because of the decline in labor force participation.
  Another factor in the current cycle is the fall-off in the wage and 
salary share of GDP, from 49.2 percent in 2000 to 46.0 percent in 2007 
(through the third quarter). This change may also be at least partly 
cyclical. Since Federal tax collections depend heavily on wage and 
salary income, the decline in the wage share of GDP suggests that the 
true cyclical component of the deficit could be understated for this 
reason as well.
  There are also lags in the collection of tax revenue that can delay 
the impact of cyclical effects beyond the year in which they occur. The 
result is that even after the unemployment rate has fallen, receipts may 
remain cyclically depressed for some time until these lagged effects 
have dissipated.
  For all these reasons, the current estimates of the level of the 
cyclical deficit are probably understated. The current unemployment gap 
is near zero, and the Administration forecasts that it will rise only 
slightly and temporarily, but in the broader sense discussed above, the 
cyclical gap is likely to be larger.

                                                        Table 12-4.  ADJUSTED STRUCTURAL BALANCE
                                                         (Fiscal years; in billions of dollars)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       2001     2002     2003     2004     2005     2006     2007     2008     2009     2010     2011     2012     2013
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unadjusted surplus or deficit (-)..    128.2   -157.8   -377.6   -412.7   -318.3   -248.2   -162.0   -410.0   -407.4   -160.0    -94.8     48.0     29.3
  Cyclical component...............     39.4    -85.1   -127.2    -82.1    -32.0     15.0     15.4    -12.6    -12.4     -2.6     -0.1  .......  .......
                                    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Structural surplus or deficit (-)..     88.8    -72.7   -250.3   -330.7   -286.4   -263.2   -177.4   -397.4   -395.0   -157.4    -94.7     48.0     29.3
  Deposit insurance outlays........      1.6      1.0      1.4      2.0      1.4      1.1      1.5      1.9      3.5      5.2      5.4      5.6      5.3
                                    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adjusted structural surplus or          87.2    -71.7   -248.9   -328.7   -285.0   -262.1   -175.9   -395.5   -391.6   -152.3    -89.3     53.7     34.7
 deficit (-).......................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOTE: The NAIRU is assumed to be 4.8%.


[[Page 176]]

  During fiscal year 2001 the unemployment rate appears to have been 
lower than could be sustained in the long run. Therefore, as shown in 
Table 12-4, in that year the structural surplus was smaller than the 
actual surplus, which was enlarged by the boost to receipts and the 
reduction in outlays associated with the low level of unemployment. 
Similarly, in 2006 and 2007 the unemployment rate appeared to be 
slightly lower than the ``natural rate,'' rendering the structural 
deficit for those years slightly higher than the actual deficit. For 
2008-2009, the unemployment rate is slightly higher than the ``natural 
rate,'' and the structural deficit falls slightly below the actual 
deficit.

            Sensitivity of the Budget to Economic Assumptions

  Both receipts and outlays are affected by changes in economic 
conditions. This sensitivity complicates budget planning because errors 
in economic assumptions lead to errors in the budget projections. It is 
therefore useful to examine the implications of possible changes in 
economic assumptions. Many of the budgetary effects of such changes are 
fairly predictable, and a set of rules of thumb embodying these 
relationships can aid in estimating how changes in the economic 
assumptions would alter outlays, receipts, and the surplus or deficit. 
These rules of thumb should be understood as suggesting orders of 
magnitude; they ignore a long list of secondary effects that are not 
captured in the estimates.
  Economic variables that affect the budget do not usually change 
independently of one another. Output and employment tend to move 
together in the short run: a high rate of real GDP growth is generally 
associated with a declining rate of unemployment, while slow or negative 
growth is usually accompanied by rising unemployment. In the long run, 
however, changes in the average rate of growth of real GDP are mainly 
due to changes in the rates of growth of productivity and the labor 
force, and are not necessarily associated with changes in the average 
rate of unemployment. Inflation and interest rates are also closely 
interrelated: a higher expected rate of inflation increases interest 
rates, while lower expected inflation reduces interest rates.
  Changes in real GDP growth or inflation have a much greater cumulative 
effect on the budget over time if they are sustained for several years 
than if they last for only one year. Highlights of the budgetary effects 
of the above rules of thumb are shown in Table 12-5.
  For real growth and employment:
    As shown in the first block, if in 2008 for one year only, 
          real GDP growth is lower by one percentage point and the 
          unemployment rate permanently rises by one-half percentage 
          point relative to the Budget assumptions, the fiscal year 2008 
          deficit is estimated to increase by $16.4 billion; receipts in 
          2008 would be lower by $13.8 billion, and outlays would be 
          higher by $2.6 billion, primarily for unemployment-sensitive 
          programs. In fiscal year 2009, the estimated receipts 
          shortfall would grow further to $28.9 billion, and outlays 
          would increase by $8.2 billion relative to the base, even 
          though the growth rate in calendar year 2009 equaled the rate 
          originally assumed. This is because the level of real (and 
          nominal) GDP and taxable incomes would be permanently lower, 
          and unemployment permanently higher. The budget effects 
          (including growing interest costs associated with larger 
          deficits) would continue to grow slightly in each successive 
          year. During 2008-2013, the cumulative increase in the budget 
          deficit is estimated to be $251 billion.
    The budgetary effects are much larger if the real growth 
          rate is permanently reduced by one percentage point and the 
          unemployment rate is unchanged, as shown in the second block. 
          This scenario might occur if trend productivity were 
          permanently lowered. In this example, during 2008-2013, the 
          cumulative increase in the budget deficit is estimated to be 
          $706 billion.
  For inflation and interest rates:
    The third block shows the effect of a one percentage point 
          higher rate of inflation and one percentage point higher 
          interest rates during calendar year 2008 only. In subsequent 
          years, the price level and nominal GDP would be one percent 
          higher than in the base case, but interest rates and future 
          inflation rates are assumed to return to their base levels. In 
          2008 and 2009, outlays would be above the base by $12.5 
          billion and $20.7 billion, respectively, due in part to lagged 
          cost-of-living adjustments. Receipts would rise by $21.2 
          billion in 2008, but then would rise by $40.9 billion above 
          the base in 2009 due to the sustained effects of the elevated 
          price level on the tax base, and to the temporary effect of 
          higher 2008 interest rates on individuals' incomes and taxes 
          and financial corporations' profits and taxes, resulting in a 
          $20.2 billion improvement in the 2009 budget balance. In 
          subsequent years, the amounts added to receipts would continue 
          to be larger than the additions to outlays. During 2008-2013, 
          cumulative budget deficits would be $114 billion smaller than 
          in the base case.
    In the fourth block, the rate of inflation and the level of 
          interest rates are higher by one percentage point in all 
          years. As a result, the price level and nominal GDP rise by a 
          cumulatively growing percentage above their base levels. In 
          this case, the effects on receipts and outlays mount steadily 
          in successive years, adding $390 billion to outlays over 2008-
          2013 and $793 billion to receipts, for a net decrease in 2008-
          2013 deficits of $402 billion.
    The outlay effects of a one percentage point increase in 
          interest rates alone are shown in the fifth block. The 
          receipts portion of this rule-of-thumb is due to the Federal 
          Reserve's deposit of earnings on its securities portfolio and 
          the effect of interest rate changes on both individuals' in

[[Page 177]]

          come (and taxes) and financial corporations' profits (and 
          taxes).
    The sixth block shows that a sustained one percentage point 
          increase in the GDP price index and in CPI inflation decreases 
          cumulative deficits by a substantial $444 billion during 2008-
          2013. This large effect is because the additional receipts 
          from a higher tax base exceed the combination of higher 
          outlays from mandatory cost-of-living adjustments and lower 
          receipts from CPI indexation of tax brackets. Outlays for 
          discretionary programs are assumed to be unchanged in spite of 
          the higher inflation rate. The separate effects of higher 
          inflation and higher interest rates in the fifth and sixth 
          blocks do not sum to the effects for simultaneous changes in 
          both in the fourth block. This occurs largely because the 
          gains in budget receipts due to higher inflation result in 
          higher debt service savings when interest rates are assumed to 
          be higher as well (the combined case) than when interest rates 
          are assumed to be unchanged (the separate case).
  The last entry in the table shows rules of thumb for the added 
interest cost associated with changes in the budget deficit, holding 
interest rates and other economic assumptions constant.
  The effects of changes in economic assumptions in the opposite 
direction are approximately symmetric to those shown in the table. The 
impact of a one percentage point lower rate of inflation or higher real 
growth would have about the same magnitude as the effects shown in the 
table, but with the opposite sign.

                                     

                                             Table 12-5.  SENSITIVITY OF THE BUDGET TO ECONOMIC ASSUMPTIONS
                                                         (Fiscal years; in billions of dollars)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                               Total of
                            Budget effect                                2008        2009        2010        2011        2012        2013      Effects,
                                                                                                                                               2008-2013
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                     Real Growth and Employment

Budgetary effects of 1 percent lower real GDP growth:
  (1) For calendar year 2008 only: \1\
    Receipts........................................................       -13.8       -28.9       -32.6       -35.2       -36.2       -38.1      -184.8
    Outlays.........................................................         2.6         8.2        10.5        12.7        15.0        17.1        66.0
                                                                     -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Increase in deficit (-).......................................       -16.4       -37.1       -43.1       -47.9       -51.2       -55.2      -250.9

  (2) Sustained during 2008-2018, with no change in unemployment:
    Receipts........................................................       -14.0       -45.3       -83.8      -128.3      -170.5      -219.2      -661.1
    Outlays.........................................................         0.1         1.0         3.3         7.5        13.4        19.2        44.4
                                                                     -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Increase in deficit (-).......................................       -14.1       -46.3       -87.1      -135.8      -183.8      -238.4      -705.5

                    Inflation and Interest Rates

Budgetary effects of 1 percentage point higher rate of:
  (3) Inflation and interest rates during calendar year 2008 only:
    Receipts........................................................        21.2        40.9        38.0        36.0        36.9        38.8       211.9
    Outlays.........................................................        12.5        20.7        17.4        16.3        15.3        15.2        97.4
                                                                     -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Decrease in deficit (+).......................................         8.7        20.2        20.6        19.7        21.6        23.7       114.5

  (4) Inflation and interest rates, sustained during 2008-2018:
    Receipts........................................................        21.2        64.5       108.3       153.8       197.3       247.6       792.7
    Outlays.........................................................        12.9        38.2        60.3        77.9        92.1       108.9       390.2
                                                                     -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Decrease in deficit (+).......................................         8.4        26.3        48.0        75.9       105.2       138.7       402.5

  (5) Interest rates only, sustained during 2008-2018:
    Receipts........................................................         7.4        19.9        27.0        30.1        33.1        35.7       153.2
    Outlays.........................................................         8.9        24.8        36.4        42.2        45.9        48.5       206.7
                                                                     -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Increase in deficit (-).......................................        -1.5        -5.0        -9.4       -12.1       -12.8       -12.8       -53.5

  (6) Inflation only, sustained during 2008-2018:
    Receipts........................................................        13.8        44.5        81.1       123.4       163.7       211.3       637.9
    Outlays.........................................................         4.1        13.7        24.7        37.4        49.0        64.8       193.7
                                                                     -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Decrease in deficit (+).......................................         9.8        30.9        56.4        86.0       114.7       146.5       444.2

              Interest Cost of Higher Federal Borrowing

(7) Outlay effect of $100 billion increase in borrowing in 2008.....         2.0         4.1         4.5         4.9         5.1         5.3        25.9

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* $50 million or less.
\1\ The unemployment rate is assumed to be 0.5 percentage point higher per 1.0 percent shortfall in the level of real GDP.