Balancing the U.S. Federal Budget:
Why It Is SOOOOOO Much Harder than You Think
Disclaimer: Nothing in this essay should be viewed as advocating any ideological or policy position on proper strategies for reducing the federal budget deficit. All I’ve done in this essay is use official data to illustrate the great difficulties, and hard choices, that we will have to make if we are to balance the federal budget. In the interests of full disclosure, however, I should tell you that in general I favor balanced budgets.
The Current Debate over Balancing the Federal Budget
In my last post I pointed out that large numbers of American citizens are concerned about the federal budget deficit. Public opinion polls show large majorities of Americans are in favor of balancing the federal budget. In this election season, both parties – but especially the Republican Party – are promising to reduce the federal budget deficit if elected. And, as we have seen, Tea Party activists and others have mobilized around the idea of reducing the federal budget deficit.
Balancing the federal budget, or even substantially reducing the federal budget deficit, will be extraordinarily difficult. Since budget deficits are caused by revenues that are too low and expenditures that are too high, reducing these deficits will require both raising taxes and cutting expenditures. Moreover, the magnitude of these tax increases and budget cuts are far larger than most citizens realize. How large? Let’s take a look at the data.
A Tale of Two Budgets: Discretionary and Non-Discretionary
Before we begin, it’s important to point out that there are really two federal government budgets. The one we hear about most is the official budget, which includes all (or almost all) federal expenditures. In 2010, the official budget had the US federal government spending $3.72 trillion and running a budget deficit of $1.29 trillion.
Let’s say we want to reduce this budget deficit by cutting spending. It turns out that some federal spending is very difficult to cut, because levels of funding are determined by preexisting formulas or are required to fulfill legal requirements. Examples of this non-discretionary funding include:
· Social Security $721 billion in 2010
· Medicare $457 billion in 2010
· Federal Employee Pensions $121 billion in 2010
· Interest on Federal Debt $425 billion in 2010
It’s not that we can’t reduce these expenditures. It’s just that doing so is very difficult, and can’t be done by simply tinkering with the federal budget. For example, reducing Social Security payments will require a fundamental restructuring of the Social Security system, and this restructuring will have to take place outside of the system for crafting the federal budget. Federal employee pensions are legal obligations, and reducing these pensions faces serious legal obstacles (they are contracts, and the government can’t simply ignore contracts). Reducing interest payments means renegotiating debt payment schedules with the individuals and countries that hold US government debt. Or we could simply default on this debt, plunging the world economy into ruin. Like I said, reducing these expenditures will be very, very tough.
If we’re going to reduce the federal deficit by simply “cutting the federal budget,” rather than by fundamentally restructuring large programs and legal obligations, we’re really talking about cutting the federal discretionary budget, or levels of federal spending that Congress and the President actually decide upon every year. The federal discretionary budget in 2010 is $1.40 trillion. Recall that the federal budget deficit in 2010 is predicted to be $1.29 trillion. So balancing the budget by spending cuts alone will require near complete elimination of all federal discretionary spending. You read that right – balancing the federal budget through spending cuts alone will require eliminating almost all federal discretionary spending.
Stark Choices for Balancing the Federal Budget
Discussing discretionary and non-discretionary budgets probably seems pretty theoretical. Instead, let’s talk about balancing the federal budget in terms of actual federal programs. The discussion here assumes that we want to balance the federal budget in a single year, which is very unrealistic. Still, this simplification helps identify the tough choices we face.
How Much Do We Have Available to Spend?
Before looking at how much we have to cut spending to balance the federal budget, let’s look at the revenue side – how much do we have available to spend? We saw in my first blog post that total federal revenues in 2010 will be equal to 14.8% of GDP (about $2.26 trillion), a 60 year low. A large percentage of this revenue, however, is earmarked for special non-discretionary program. Revenue raised through these sources cannot be used for other federal programs. Some examples include:
· FICA (Social Security)
· Medicare
· Federal fuel taxes (pays for most transportation projects)
When we talk about balancing the federal budget, looking at all federal revenue isn’t too useful, since much of this revenue is unavailable to be spent on most federal programs. Most discretionary federal programs – that is, the programs that Congress and the President choose to fund every year – are funded by personal and corporate income taxes. Here is how much revenue was generated by these taxes in 2010:
· Personal income tax= 6.4% of GDP (roughly $980 billion)
· Corporate income tax= 1.1% of GDP (roughly $168 billion)
So in 2010 personal and corporate income taxes generated revenue equal to about $1.15 trillion, or 7.5% of GDP. This is the revenue that the federal government has to fund most programs.
How Much Do We Spend? National Security
We’ll begin looking at federal spending by examining national security. Protecting citizens is the fundamental purpose of government, so a good argument could be made that national security spending is essential (I am not making this argument, but it is commonly made by others). Here is how much the US spent on national security related programs in 2010:
· Department of Defense: $692 billion 4.5% GDP
· Civil Defense $54 billion 0.4% GDP
· Veterans Benefits $125 billion 0.8% GDP
· Homeland Security $53 billion 0.3% GDP
A little quick addition will show that federal spending on national security in 2010 was $924 billion, or 6.0% of GDP. To place this number in context, this means that 80% of all federal income taxes – both personal and corporate – are required to fund national security. Personal and corporate income taxes raised $1.15 trillion in 2010, and we spent $924 billion on national security. This leaves only $226 billion, or 1.5% of GDP, to fund everything else government does outside of the earmarked programs discussed above.
How Much Do We Spend? Interest on the Debt
In an earlier blog post I discussed the large federal deficit. Adding up all deficits for all years gives us the national debt. The US has to borrow to cover this debt, and the US government has to pay interest on this borrowed money. This is called debt service, or interest on the debt. This is mandatory spending. The government cannot refuse to pay this debt service, but there is no special tax or fund to pay for this. Debt service must be paid for using revenue from personal and corporate income taxes (we’re ignoring the short-term strategy of paying this interest by borrowing from the Social Security program). In 2010, interest on the national debt was equal to $425 billion, or 2.8% of GDP.
What Do We Need to Cut to Balance the Federal Budget?
Some more quick addition shows that in 2010 federal spending on national security and debt interest equaled $1.35 trillion, or 8.8% of GDP. But remember, total federal revenue from personal and corporate income taxes in 2010 was only $1.15 trillion, or 7.5% of GDP. This means that if the federal government did nothing in 2010 but pay for national security and interest on the debt, we would have run a budget deficit of $200 billion, or 1.3% of GDP. Stated differently, if we eliminated spending on all federal discretionary programs except for national security, we would still not balance the federal budget. In fact, if the federal government ONLY spent money on the Department of Defense and debt service, these expenditures would equal $1.12 trillion. So, if we want to balance the federal budget through cuts in discretionary spending alone, this means eliminating all federal spending except debt service and the Department of Defense. We would even need to eliminate spending on homeland security, civil defense, and veterans benefits.
OK, so maybe we can’t completely balance the federal budget through spending cuts. Can’t we make good progress toward a balanced budget by cutting other government programs? The short answer is, no. Here is how much the federal government spent on several programs in 2010:
· Environmental protection $11 billion
· Education and training $143 billion
· International Aid $24 billion
· Justice and Law Enforcement $30 billion
· Agriculture $21 billion
· Food stamps and food support $99 billion
· Housing assistance $77 billion
· NASA $18 billion
· Energy $19 billion
· Science and Technology $15 billion
· Conservation, Recreation, and Parks $36 billion
· Economic and community development $12 billion
· Cash welfare assistance $30 billion
· Disaster Assistance $17 billion
· Congress and the Courts $13 billion
Federal spending for all of these programs adds up to $565 billion. This may be too much to spend on these programs. I don’t know. Remember that the budget deficit in 2010 is expected to be $1.29 trillion. So, completely eliminating every one of these federal programs would still leave us with a budget deficit of $725 billion. Stated differently, the complete elimination of federal spending for all of these programs would reduce the budget deficit by less than half.
The Take Away
Eliminating the federal budget deficit in the short term will be extraordinarily difficult. Some key points to take away from this essay include:
1. All federal personal and corporate income taxes are consumed by federal spending on the Department of Defense and debt service. If we are going to balance the federal budget using cuts to discretionary spending alone, we will have to eliminate all federal discretionary spending except for these two items.
2. The complete elimination of 14 large (and popular) federal programs, plus the elimination of Congress and the Federal Courts, will reduce the budget deficit by only 44%.
3. If we cut taxes further, as many Congressional candidates recommend, balancing the federal budget deficit will require even greater cuts in federal spending. (And no, tax cuts do not “pay for themselves.” All tax cuts reduce revenues).
4. If citizens are serious about wanting a balanced federal budget, this will require significant increases in federal taxes (which, as we have seen, are at a 60 year low) and very, very large reductions in many popular government programs. In short, to reach a balanced budget, be prepared to make large sacrifices.
5. Any politician that tells you we can make meaningful progress toward a balanced federal budget by simply trimming federal spending is either lying to you or does not know what they are talking about.
