President George W. Bush's fiscal year
(FY) 2005 budget proposes cutting the budget deficit in half over
five years. Yet lawmakers are under intense pressure to enact a
budget resolution that balances the budget within the 2005-2014
period. This paper provides a menu of spending targets to
accomplish that objective.
The Model
Before assessing the spending requirements
of a balanced budget, it is necessary to calculate a revenue
projection. Revenues are projected by beginning with the January
2004 Congressional Budget Office (CBO) baseline and then
incorporating President Bush's FY 2005-2014 tax proposals, such as
making the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts permanent, reforming the
alternative minimum tax, and creating tax-free savings accounts.
Two
different revenue projections emerge:
- The first is based on revenues using a
dynamic score of the President's tax cuts. Dynamic scoring
acknowledges that tax relief strengthens incentives to work, save,
and invest, and that the resulting economic growth and tax revenues
offset a portion of the original revenue loss.
- The second is based on revenues using a
static score of the President's tax cuts. Static scoring assumes
that tax policy does not affect economic behavior or growth. While
very few economists would agree with static assumptions, lawmakers
require the CBO to use them when projecting future tax revenues.
(See the Appendix for spending and tax calculations.)
Using the CBO 2004 baseline estimate of
$896 billion in discretionary outlays and $1,242 billion in
mandatory outlays, it is possible to calculate the effects of
various annual spending growth rates--both discretionary and
mandatory. Table 1
shows which rates of discretionary spending and mandatory spending
would combine to balance the budget under dynamic scoring. Table 2
shows the results for balancing the budget under static
scoring.


Results
Table 1 details the spending patterns that
can balance the budget by 2014, assuming that tax revenues are
scored dynamically. For example, a budget that expands
discretionary spending by 3 percent annually and mandatory spending
by 4 percent annually would achieve balance by 2014. Two
observations are immediately evident:
- Most scenarios to balance the budget by
2014 require annual spending growth of approximately 4 percent or
less.
- The CBO baseline shows mandatory spending
growing by 6 percent annually over the next decade. Yet Table 1
shows no scenario to balance the budget by 2014 with 6 percent
annual mandatory spending growth. This confirms that any plan to
balance the budget must reform runaway entitlements, such as the
2003 Medicare drug bill and the 2002 farm bill. Furthermore,
without reform, the growth rate of mandatory spending will
accelerate in coming decades.
Lawmakers will likely seek a budget
resolution that balances the budget by 2014 even when revenues are
scored statically. Table 2 shows the spending options to achieve
the objective. Most combinations require mandatory and
discretionary spending to grow by 3 percent or less per year.


Difficult Decisions Required
By
comparison, discretionary spending has averaged 10 percent annual
growth and mandatory spending has averaged 7 percent annual growth
over the past five years. (See Charts 1 and 2.)
Bringing spending growth all the way down
from these high levels will require difficult decisions. However,
recent spending hikes actually translate into more opportunities
for savings. The 39 percent increase in discretionary spending
since 2001 has left many agencies awash in cash, and they can
afford to go for a few years without another major spending
increase.
Mandatory spending is now at 11 percent of
the gross domestic product ($11,144 per household) for the first
time in American history. Many of these bloated programs can
afford much-needed reforms. Lawmakers can begin to move toward a
balanced budget by settling on a lean spending course and then
reforming the budget process to lock in those spending
ceilings.
Brian M. Riedl is Grover M. Hermann
Fellow in Federal Budgetary Affairs in the Thomas A. Roe Institute
for Economic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation.
Show references in this report