2015 is drawing to a close and registration for next year is open (see the form on the right hand side of the blog). But what is Patchwork Challenge and. Check out IMDb's full coverage of all the major awards events, including the Critics Choice Awards, Gotham Awards, and more. Visit our Awards Central section. Patchwork enjoyed its World Premiere at the 2015 Screamfest Film Festival as an Official Selection. And things got even better on closing night when it. See the featured quilts and web-exclusive color options and projects from the /American Patchwork & Quilting/ June 2015 issue. Patchwork Show - Dear Handmade Life. Patchwork Show is Dear Handmade Life. All Patchwork shows are free to attend and family friendly. Vendors are selected through a jury process and feature clothing for men, women & kids, handbags, accessories, jewelry, art, ceramics, garden finds, home goods, plushies, crochet & knit items, pet gear, kits & patterns, bath & body goodies and more! Patchwork Show is a rain or shine event.
0 Comments
Banjo- Kazooie, Battletoads, Perfect Dark to Return 'Someday'Share. Lobb added that there is a lot of passion for each of these franchises internally at Microsoft. Lobb emphasized the importance of building games people love by digging back into older IP, while also developing more recent sequels. However, he wants to make sure Microsoft is able to find developers that are passionate about each IP, saying, . According to Lobb, Microsoft secured the trademark because it knows the title holds value.? Does that mean it’ll never come? He did, however, suggest if the series were to return, it would possibly be as a third- person shooter or stealth game. He added he would like to see more of a focus on story and the game's protagonist, Joanna Dark. For more on future Xbox One games, see what Lobb had to say about the upcoming Xbox One exclusive Phantom Dust. Jordan Sirani is a freelance news writer for IGN who hopes to see another Banjo game in the near future. You can follow him on Twitter. Jamming - Workshops - Shows Please mark your calendars now for May 14-17, 2015. E ach year the Sacramento Banjo Band sponsors an annual banjo music festival known as. Order the 2016 Banjo Calendar Now >> The 2016 Banjo Calendar features 12 unique and beautiful banjos made by some of the top banjo makers from around the world.
Watch full length Urfin and His Wooden Soldiers Movie for Free Online. Urfin and His Wooden Soldiers (2016) is an Animation feature film. Categories. The Most Beloved Film of All Time. The Wizard of Oz is a famously iconic Hollywood musical produced by MGM and released by RKO Radio Pictures in 1939, consisting. Urfin and His Wooden Soldiers 2016. Overview; Posters; Shop; Upload poster; Poster 1200*1733 px 2 versions Poster 3465*5000 px 2 2 versions Poster 1470*2100 px 2. Links. The wizard of the Emerald City: Adapted from L. Frank Baum's The wizard of Oz; and, Urfin Jus and his wooden soldiers. By Pablo Leon on February 8, 2016. I libri di Oz (Oz books) sono una serie ambientata a Nonestica, il continente di cui fa parte Oz, luogo fantastico inventato da L. Frank Baum che vi ambientEmerald City is an upcoming Oz TV series that is being developed by NBC. . Урфин Ð”Ð¶ÑŽÑ Ð¸ его деревÑнные Ñолдаты / Urfin and His Wooden Soldiers / Urfin y sus soldados de madera (li. 2016. Urfin. Urfin and His Wooden Soldiers (2016) N/A. REGISTER A FREE ACCOUNT TO WATCH THIS MOVIE IN HD. WATCH ONLINE; Watch: Urfin and His Wooden Soldiers (2016) N/A votes : 0. Also a hard plastic Indian done by Torgano Sarrono in.
Free prepaid credit cards with no fees are an alternative to bank accounts and traditional credit cards. Featured Sign Up Now: Get paychecks or government benefits checks up to 2 days faster* with Direct Deposit. List of Free Prepaid Credit Cards. It is estimated that about 4. Americans do not have a bank account. The reasons for this vary. For many, they are unable to qualify for a bank account because of past bounced checks. Bounce too many checks, and you’ll find yourself in the Chexsystems, which many banks use to evaluate potential new banking customers. For others it’s simply a distrust of the banking system or frustration with limited hours or the hoops one has to jump through to get service. Featured Prepaid Cards*Walmart Money. Card. Track your money 2. ATMs near you with the mobile app. Get access to your money up to 2 days early with FREE Direct Deposit, depending on your payment provider. Limits apply. Get cash off your card for FREE at any Walmart Customer Service Desk or Money. Center, up to $1,0. No hidden fees. FREE Direct Deposit gets you access to your money up to 2 days faster. FREE ATM withdrawals at over 2. ATMs nationwide. FREE Online Bill Pay and money management tools. Enjoy American Express service and security 2. Subject to additional terms, conditions and exclusions. Whatever the reason, the unbanked often turned to expensive check cashing stores to cash their weekly paychecks. Time Magazine wrote about this phenomenon, which costs consumers $1. It’s not at all uncommon for consumers to spend 3% or more to get a paycheck cashed. In addition to high cost, check cashing stores present several other problems to consumers. First, there is the question of security. Taking your paycheck to a check cashing store and walking out with hundreds of dollars in cash is like wearing a bulls eye on your back. Second, there is simply the question of inconvenience. The weekly trip to a check cashing store takes time and gas. For those that can’t get a checking account or simply don’t want one, there is a no cost, convenient, and safe alternative to check cashing stores–a prepaid credit card with no fees or low fees. List of Low Fee and Free Prepaid Cards. The key to finding the right prepaid credit card is to find one that charges no fees or very small fees. All prepaid cards charge various fees, but some of them waive some or all of the fees if you sign up for direct deposit. So here are the top free prepaid cards and low fee prepaid cards to consider. Sign Up Now. Get paychecks or government benefits checks up to 2 days faster* with Direct Deposit. Sign up for Net. Spend Payback Rewards and earn cash back. No late fees or credit card debt because this is not a credit card. Use the Mobile App to manage your account on the go and get real time text message alerts (Message & data rates may apply). Funds availability not guaranteed. Card used is subject to activation and ID verification. Terms and Costs Apply.*Card issued by Meta. Bank. See card site for details. Safer than carrying cash. With the Visa Zero Liability policy your funds are protected if your card is lost or stolen.* See card site for details. Real time activity alerts sent to your mobile phone via text or email.* Standard text message and data rates, fees, and charges may apply. Your funds are protected if your card is lost or stolen thanks to the Visa Zero Liability policy.* See card site for details. Your funds are FDIC- Insured through Meta. Bank. Card accounts are subject to ID Verification. Click on . Track your money 2. ATMs near you with the mobile app. Get access to your money up to 2 days early with FREE Direct Deposit, depending on your payment provider. Limits apply. Get cash off your card for FREE at any Walmart Customer Service Desk or Money. Center, up to $1,0. Deposit checks with your smartphone. Write checks from your card to pay rent and other bills. Use it everywhere Visa debit cards are accepted in the U. S. Click . See card site for details. Safer than carrying cash. With the Visa Zero Liability policy your funds are protected if your card is lost or stolen.* See card site for details. Real time activity alerts sent to your mobile phone via text or email.* Standard text message and data rates, fees, and charges may apply. Your funds are protected if your card is lost or stolen thanks to the Visa Zero Liability policy.* See card site for details. Your funds are FDIC- Insured through Meta. Bank. Card accounts are subject to ID Verification. Click on . Track your money 2. ATMs near you with the mobile app. Get access to your money up to 2 days early with FREE Direct Deposit, depending on your payment provider. Limits apply. Get cash off your card for FREE at any Walmart Customer Service Desk or Money. Center, up to $1,0. See card site for details. Safer than carrying cash. With the Visa Zero Liability policy your funds are protected if your card is lost or stolen.* See card site for details. Real time activity alerts sent to your mobile phone via text or email.* Standard text message and data rates, fees, and charges may apply. Your funds are protected if your card is lost or stolen thanks to the Visa Zero Liability policy.* See card site for details. Your funds are FDIC- Insured through Meta. Bank. Card accounts are subject to ID Verification. Click on . No Chex. Systems Check. No Overdraft fees, ever! Never Pay to Cash Your Paychecks and Get Your Pay Faster. Use it Everywhere Visa Debit Cards are Accepted and Pay Anyone with Pay. Anyone Bill Pay. Shop Online, Rent a Car, Pay Your Rent and More. Easy Mobile Account Access and Text Alerts. Get Your Account Balance, Transaction Details Sent to Your Phone within Seconds. How a Prepaid Card Works. A prepaid credit card works very similar to a bank debit or ATM card. You can add money to the prepaid card and use it anywhere Visa or Master. Card debit cards are accepted. Money can be added to most prepaid cards in one of several ways: Direct Deposit: Most prepaid cards allow you to have your paycheck, government check, or benefits check deposited directly onto the card. As described below, the direct deposit feature is extremely convenient and allows you to obtain a prepaid card for free or for a small monthly fee. Cash Networks: Cash can be added to most prepaid cards through one of several cash networks, including Green Dot, Money. Gram, Western Union, or Visa Money Link. These cash networks are located at many nearby stores, such as CVS, Walmart, Kroger, and UPS. Money Share: Prepaid cards also permit you to transfer funds from one card account to another. This is a convenient way to transfer money to friends and family, and is why many college students carry prepaid cards. Prepaid cards are part of either the Visa or Master. Card debit card network. As a result, prepaid cards can be used anywhere that Visa debit or Master. Card debit cards are accepted (which is just about everywhere). You can also use prepaid cards at ATM machines to withdraw cash. Benefits of a Free Prepaid Credit Card. Prepaid credit cards offer several benefits beyond a simple ATM card. Perhaps the key benefit is direct deposit of paychecks, government checks, and benefit checks. Sean McIntyre in The Three Ages of Sasha (2012) Sean McIntyre in The Three Ages of Sasha (2012). Angel Rivas is top in her class but she just can\'\'t help getting naughty every once in a while. This time she got really horny in class and started sucking her. Watch The Three Ages of Sasha (2012) online. The The Three Ages of Sasha has got a 0.00 rating, of 0 total votes. Watch this on 1ChannelMovie.com. Movies; TV Shows. The DVMPE has been developing a range of original content, such as Comedy show 'The Windy City Rejects' and topical debate show 'Push the Button' with David Vox. Technical documentation Library of management packs for Operations Manager and Service Manager. Find out what is contained in each SCOM/SCSM. Regarder The Three Ages of Sasha (2012). film en français - Vous pouvez regarder le film The Three Ages of Sasha en français dans le câble TV ou cinéma avec. Blowing bubbles, bobbing up and down, going underwater together. Blowing bubbles in the water is a great way to teach your baby to hold his breath if he Смотреть онлайн The Three Ages of Sasha (2012) беÑплатно в хорошем качеÑтве HD 720. Learn how the Windows Server 2012 File Classification Infrastructure feature automates data control and organization. Introductory Notes. In keeping with the practice of the Congressional Budget Office and other federal agencies that deal with budget policy, many of the federal debt, spending, and revenue figures in this research are expressed as a portion of gross domestic product (GDP). This is because debates about the size of government and the effects of its debt are frequently centered upon how much of a nation’s economy is consumed by government. This measure also accounts for population growth, some of the effects of inflation, and the relative capacity of government to service its debt. However, the federal government does not have the entire U. economy at its disposal to service federal debt. The private sector, which produces the goods and services that comprise most of the economy, utilizes some of these resources, and local and state governments also consume some of the nation’s GDP. Hence, this research sometimes expresses federal debt as a portion of annual federal revenues. This is a more direct measure of the federal government’s capacity to service its debt. In keeping with Just Facts’ Standards of Credibility. all graphs in this research show the full range of available data, and all facts are cited based upon availability and relevance, not to slant results by singling out specific years that are different from others. Click here for a video that summarizes some of the key facts in this research. Quantifying the National Debt. * As of January 3, 2017, the official debt of the United States government is $19. Medical Consequences of Drug Abuse. Retrieved, from https://www.drugabuse.gov/related-topics/medical-consequences-drug-abuse. In the social sciences, unintended consequences (sometimes unanticipated consequences or unforeseen consequences) are outcomes that are not the ones foreseen and. Avengers Vs. X-Men: Consequences (2012) #3. Published: October 24, 2012 Added to Marvel Unlimited: April 22, 2013 Rating: Rated T+. The consequences of the event that. Avenue Of Heroes – Consequences (2012) Genre: Melodic Metalcore Origin: Italy 86 mb | Mp3, CBR 320 kbps Facebook. Tracklist: 01. Creatures 02. Home Sweet Home 03. For one of the important consequences of the 2012 election was that Mr. Obama was able to go through with a significant rise in taxes on high incomes. To win, we have to lose. The four-part HBO Documentary Films series, The Weight of The Nation explores the obesity epidemic in America. 9 trillion ($19,935,025,589,393). [1] This amounts to:. $61,469 for every person living in the U. [2].
$158,442 for every household in the U. [3]. 107% of the U. gross domestic product. [4]. 560% of annual federal revenues. [5]. * Publicly traded companies are legally required to account for “explicit” and “implicit” future obligations such as employee pensions and retirement benefits. [7] [8] [9] The federal budget, which is the “government’s primary financial planning and control tool,” is not bound by this rule. [10] [11]. * At the close of the federal government’s 2016 fiscal year (September 30, 2016), the federal government had roughly:. $8. 5 trillion ($8,542,000,000,000) in liabilities that are not accounted for in the publicly held national debt, such as federal employee retirement benefits, accounts payable, and environmental/disposal liabilities. [12]. $29. 0 trillion ($29,038,000,000,000) in obligations for current Social Security participants above and beyond projected revenues from their payroll and benefit taxes, certain transfers from the general fund of the U. Treasury, and assets of the Social Security trust fund. [13] [14]. $32. 9 trillion ($32,900,000,000,000) in obligations for current Medicare participants above and beyond projected revenues from their payroll taxes, benefit taxes, premium payments, and assets of the Medicare trust fund. [15] [16]. * The figures above are determined in a manner that approximates how publicly traded companies are required to calculate their liabilities and obligations. [17] [18] [19] The obligations for Social Security and Medicare represent how much money must be immediately placed in interest-bearing investments to cover the projected shortfalls between dedicated revenues and expenditures for all current participants in these programs (both taxpayers and beneficiaries). [20] [21] [22]. * Combining the figures above with the national debt and subtracting the value of federal assets, the federal government had about $84. 3 trillion ($84,306,000,000,000) in debts, liabilities, and unfunded obligations at the close of its 2016 fiscal year. [23]. * This $84. 3 trillion shortfall is 93% of the combined net worth of all U. households and nonprofit organizations, including all assets in savings, real estate, corporate stocks, private businesses, and consumer durable goods such as automobiles and furniture. [24] [25]. * This shortfall equates to:. $260,382 for every person living in the U. [26]. $670,058 for every household in the U. [27]. 451% of the U. gross domestic product. [28]. 2,370% of annual federal revenues. [29]. * These figures do not account for the future costs implied by any current policies except those of the Social Security and Medicare programs. [30]. * These figures are based upon current federal law and “a wide range of complex assumptions” made by federal agencies. [31] Regarding this:. The Board of Social Security Trustees has stated that “significant uncertainty” surrounds the “best estimates” of future circumstances. ”[32]. The Board of Medicare Trustees has stated that the program’s financial projections “are highly uncertain, especially when looking out more than several decades. ”. The Board of Medicare Trustees has stated that the program’s long-term costs may be “substantially higher” than projected under current law. This is because current law includes the effects of the Affordable Care Act, which will cut Medicare prices for “many” healthcare services to “less than half of their level” under prior law. Per the Trustees:. Absent an unprecedented change in health care delivery systems and payment mechanisms, the prices paid by Medicare for health services will fall increasingly short of the costs of providing these services. … Before such an outcome would occur, lawmakers would likely intervene to prevent the withdrawal of providers from the Medicare market and the severe problems with beneficiary access to care that would result. [33]. Causes of the National Debt. † Social programs include income security, healthcare, education, housing, and recreation. ‡ National defense includes military spending and veterans’ benefits. § General government and debt service includes the executive & legislative branches, tax collection, financial management, and interest payments. # Economic affairs includes transportation, general economic & labor affairs, agriculture, natural resources, energy, and space. (This excludes spending for infrastructure projects such as new highways, which is not accounted for in this graph. [38] ). £ Public order and safety includes police, fire, law courts, prisons, and immigration enforcement. * As detailed in publications of the Congressional Budget Office, the Brookings Institution, and Princeton University Press, the following are some potential consequences of unchecked government debt:. reduced “future national income and living standards. ”[41] [42] [43]. “reductions in spending” on “government programs. ”[44]. “higher marginal tax rates. ”[45]. “higher inflation” that increases “the size of future budget deficits” and decreases the “the purchasing power” of citizens’ savings and income. ”[46] [47]. restricted “ability of policymakers to use fiscal policy to respond to unexpected challenges, such as economic downturns or international crises. ”[48]. “losses for mutual funds, pension funds, insurance companies, banks, and other holders of federal debt. ”[49]. increased “probability of a fiscal crisis in which investors would lose confidence in the government’s ability to manage its budget, and the government would be forced to pay much more to borrow money. ”[50] [51]. * In 2012, the Journal of Economic Perspectives published a paper about the economic consequences of government debt. Using 2,000+ data points on national debt and economic growth in 20 advanced economies (such as the United States, France, and Japan) from 1800–2009, the authors found that countries with national debts above 90% of GDP averaged 34% less real annual economic growth than when their debts were below 90% of GDP. [52]. * The United States exceeded a debt/GDP level of 90% in the second quarter of 2010. [53]. * Per the textbook Microeconomics for Today :. GDP per capita provides a general index of a country’s standard of living. Countries with low GDP per capita and slow growth in GDP per capita are less able to satisfy basic needs for food, shelter, clothing, education, and health. [54]. * In 2013, the Political Economy Research Institute at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, published a working paper about the economic consequences of government debt. Using data on national debt and economic growth in 20 advanced economies from 1946-2009, the authors found that countries with national debts over 90% of GDP averaged:. 31% less real annual economic growth than countries with debts from 60% to 90% of GDP. 29% less real annual economic growth than countries with debts from 30% to 60% of GDP. and 48% less real annual economic growth than countries with debts from 0% to 30% of GDP. [55]. * The authors of the above-cited papers have engaged in a heated dispute about the results of their respective papers and the effects of government debt on economic growth. Facts about these issues can be found in the Just Facts Daily article, “Do large national debts harm economies? ”. Responsibility. * The U. Constitution vests Congress with the powers to tax, spend, and pay the debts of the federal government. Legislation to carry out these functions must either be:. passed by majorities in both houses of Congress and approved by the President; or. passed by majorities in both houses of Congress, vetoed by the President, and then passed by two-thirds of both houses of Congress; or. passed by majorities in both houses of Congress and left unaddressed by the President for ten days. [56]. * Other factors impacting the national debt include but are not limited to legislation passed by previous congresses and presidents,[57] economic cycles, terrorist attacks, natural disasters, demographics, and the actions of U. citizens and foreign governments. [58]. Current Policies. * In 2014, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projected the debt that the U. government would accumulate under current federal policies. [59] The projection used the following assumptions:. Unemployment will incrementally decline from 6. 8% in 2014 to 5. 8% in 2018 and 5. 3% in 2027, where it will remain thereafter. [60] (For reference, the average of the previous 40 years is 6. 5%. [61] ). GDP growth will incrementally decline from an average rate of 3. 4% above the rate of inflation in 2015 to 1. 9% in 2021 and remain constant thereafter. [62] (The average of the previous 40 years is 2. 9%. [63] ). Federal revenues (i. taxes ) will incrementally increase from 17. 4% of GDP in 2014 to 18. 0% in 2024 and remain constant thereafter. [64] (The average of the previous 40 years is 17. 4%. [65] ). Federal spending will incrementally increase from 20. 4% of GDP in 2014 to 23. 6% in 2025 and 31. 8% in 2040. [66] (The average of the previous 40 years is 20. 5%. [67] ). Payments for Medicare services will undergo scheduled reductions that would likely cause “severe problems with beneficiary access to care. ”[68] [69]. * Combining these projections with historical data yields the following results:. † To measure the entirety of the national debt, it would be preferable to show “gross” debt instead of “publicly held” debt, but this data is not presented in this report. Nonetheless, it would make little difference because the excluded debt primarily resides in federal government trust funds that dwindle and become insolvent during the projection period. [71] Facts regarding why and how the federal government keeps its books in this manner are covered in the section of this research entitled “Government Accounting. ”. * Per CBO, postponing action to stabilize the debt will:. punish younger generations of Americans, because most of the burden would fall on them. reward older generations of Americans, because “they would partly or entirely avoid the policy changes needed to stabilize the debt. ”. “substantially increase the size of the policy adjustments needed to put the budget on a sustainable course. ”[73] [74]. * The following Ph. economists and political scientists have claimed that the level of national debt during World War II is a good reason to not be overly concerned about the modern national debt:. Paul Davidson, editor of the Journal of Post Keynesian Economics and author of The Keynes Solution: The Path to Global Economic Prosperity :[75]. Rather than bankrupting the nation, this large growth in the national debt [during World War II] promoted a prosperous economy. By 1946, the average American household was living much better economically than in the prewar days. Moreover, the children of that Depression–World War II generation were not burdened by having to pay off what then was considered a huge national debt. Instead, for the next quarter century, the economy continued on a path of unprecedented economic growth and prosperity…. [76]. Douglas J. Amy, professor of politics at Mount Holyoke College:[77]. Conservatives are also wrong when they argue that deficit spending and a large national debt will inevitably undermine economic growth. To see why, we need to simply look back at times when we have run up large deficits and increased the national debt. The best example is World War II when the national debt soared to 120% of GDP—nearly twice the size of today’s debt. This spending not only got us out of the Great Depression but set the stage for a prolonged period of sustained economic growth in the 50s and 60s. [78]. Paul Krugman, Nobel Prize-winning economist and Princeton University professor:[79]. Right now, federal debt is about 50% of GDP. So even if we do run these deficits, federal debt as a share of GDP will be substantially less than it was at the end of World War II. Again, the debt outlook is bad. But we’re not looking at something inconceivable, impossible to deal with; we’re looking at debt levels that a number of advanced countries, the U. included, have had in the past, and dealt with. [80]. federal spending as a percent of GDP averaged 42% lower than the last year of the war. [81]. publicly held debt as a percent of GDP decreased by 72 percentage points. [82]. * In 2010, around the time when the statements above were written, the Congressional Budget Office projected that under current policy and a sustained economic recovery over the next 40 years:. federal spending as a percent of GDP will average over 78% higher than in the four decades that followed World War II. [83]. publicly held debt as a percent of GDP will rise by 277 percentage points. [84]. Alternative Policies. * As alternatives to the CBO’s current policy projections detailed above, the CBO also ran projections for scenarios such as these:. Federal revenues will incrementally increase from 17. 6% of GDP in 2014 to 18. 0% in 2020, 19. 9% in 2044, and 23. 5% in 2084. [86] [87] At this point, federal revenues (i. taxes ) will be 35% higher than the average of the previous 40 years. [88]. Federal spending on all government functions will incrementally increase from 20. 4% of GDP in 2014 to 21. 5% in 2020, and 26. 0% in 2040. [89] At this point, spending will be 27% higher than the average of the previous 40 years. [90]. Payments for Medicare services will undergo reductions that will likely cause “severe problems with beneficiary access to care. ”[91] [92]. 2) Republican Congressman Paul Ryan’s 2014 budget resolution, called the “The Path to Prosperity”:[93]. Starting in 2024, Medicare beneficiaries will have a choice to enroll in private plans paid for by Medicare or remain in the traditional Medicare program. [94] Also starting in 2024, the eligibility age for Medicare benefits will incrementally rise to correspond with Social Security’s retirement age. [95] Compared to the projections under the current policy scenario, Medicare spending will be 0. 5% lower in 2016, 2% lower in 2020, and 4% lower in 2024. [96]. Federal Medicaid spending will be converted to an “allotment that each state could tailor to meet its needs, indexed for inflation and population growth. ”[97] The expansion of Medicaid manadated by the Affordable Care Act (a. Obamacare) will be repealed. [98] Compared to the projections under the current policy scenario, Medicaid spending will be 9% lower in 2016, 19% lower in 2020, and 24% lower in 2024. [99]. All federal spending related to Obamacare’s exchange subsidies will be repealed. [100]. Spending on all government functions except for interest payments on the national debt will incrementally decline from 18. 9% of GDP in 2015 to 16% in 2025 before increasing to 16. 4% in 2035. [101] (The average of the previous 40 years is 18. 3%). [102]. Revenues will increase from 18. 2% of GDP in 2015 to 18. 4% in 2025, 19% in 2032 and stay constant thereafter. [103] (The average of the previous 40 years is 17. 4%. [104] ). * Combining historical data on the national debt with CBO’s projections for current policy, current law, and the Ryan plan yields the following results:. Public Opinion. * A poll conducted by NBC News and the Wall Street Journal in February 2011 found that:. 80% of Americans are concerned “a great deal” or “quite a bit” about federal budget deficits and the national debt. if the deficit cannot be eliminated by cutting wasteful spending, 35% of Americans prefer to cut important programs while 33% prefer to raise taxes. 22% think cuts in Social Security spending will be needed to “significantly reduce the federal budget deficit,” 49% do not, and 29% have no opinion or are not sure. 18% think cuts in Medicare spending will be needed to “significantly reduce the federal budget deficit,” 54% do not, and 28% have no opinion or are not sure. [107]. * Other than interest on the national debt, most of the long-term growth in federal spending (as a percent of GDP) under the CBO’s current policy and current law scenarios stems from Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, the Children’s Health Insurance Program, and Affordable Care Act (a. Obamacare) subsidies. [108]. * A poll conducted in November 2010 by the Associated Press and CNBC found that:. 85% of Americans are worried that the national debt “will harm future generations. ”. 56% think “the shortfalls will spark a major economic crisis in the coming decade. ”. when asked to choose between two options to balance the budget, 59% prefer to cut unspecified government services, while 30% prefer to raise unspecified taxes. [109]. * A poll conducted in July 2005 by the Associated Press and Ipsos found that:. 70% of Americans were worried about the size of the federal deficit. 35% were willing to cut government spending. 18% were willing to raise taxes. 1% were willing to cut government spending and raise taxes. [110]. * During the first session of the 113th Congress (January–December 2013), U. Representatives and Senators introduced 168 bills that would have reduced spending and 828 bills that would have raised spending. [111]. * The table below quantifies the costs and savings of these bills by political party. This data is provided by the National Taxpayers Union Foundation:. * In February 2001, Republican President George W. Bush stated:. Many of you have talked about the need to pay down our national debt. I listened, and I agree. We owe it to our children and grandchildren to act now, and I hope you will join me to pay down $2 trillion in debt during the next 10 years. At the end of those 10 years, we will have paid down all the debt that is available to retire. That is more debt, repaid more quickly than has ever been repaid by any nation at any time in history. [115]. * From the time that Congress enacted Bush’s first major economic proposal (June 7, 2001[116] ) until the time that he left office (January 20, 2009), the national debt rose from 53% of GDP to 74%, or an average of 2. 7 percentage points per year. [117]. * During eight years in office, President Bush vetoed 12 bills, four of which were overridden by Congress and thus enacted without his approval. [118] These bills were projected by the Congressional Budget Office to increase the deficit by $26 billion during 2008–2022. [119]. * In February 2009, Democratic President Barack Obama stated:. I refuse to leave our children with a debt that they cannot repay—and that means taking responsibility right now, in this administration, for getting our spending under control. [120]. * From the time that Congress enacted Obama’s first major economic proposal (February 17, 2009[121] ) until September 30, 2016, the national debt rose from 74% of GDP to 105%, or an average of 4. 0 percentage points per year. [122]. * As of November 4, 2016, President Obama has vetoed twelve bills, one of which has been overridden by Congress and thus enacted without his approval. [123] This bill is projected by the Congressional Budget Office to “have no significant effect on the federal budget. "[124]. Government Accounting. Trust Funds and the Two Main Categories of Debt. * Some federal programs (such as Social Security) have “trust funds” that are legally separated from the rest of the federal government. [125]. * When these programs spend less than the federal government allocates to them, their surpluses are loaned to the federal government. This creates a legal obligation for the federal government to pay money and interest to these programs, thus adding to the national debt. [126] [127] [128] [129] [130]. * The federal government divides the national debt into two main categories:[131] [132]. Money that it owes to federal entities such as the Social Security program. Money that it owes to non-federal entities such as individuals, corporations, local governments, and foreign governments. [133] Also, money owed to the Federal Reserve is classified under this category, even though the Federal Reserve is a federal entity. [134] [135]. NOTE: Just Facts has identified numerous instances in which politicians and journalists have used terms that technically refer to the overall national debt, when in fact, they are only referring to a portion of it. In order to clear up some of the confusion this has created, below are common terms for the national debt categorized by their proper meanings:. Overall national debt: gross debt, federal debt, public debt[136]. Portion of the national debt owed to federal entities: debt held by government accounts, government-held debt, intragovernmental holdings[137] [138] [139]. Portion of the national debt owed to non-federal entities: debt held by the public, publicly held debt[140] [141]. * On September 30, 2016, the national debt consisted of:. $5. 4 trillion owed to federal entities. $14. 2 trillion owed to non-federal entities. $19. 6 trillion owed in total[142]. * The federal law that governs the repayment of the national debt draws no distinction between the debt owed to federal and non-federal entities. Both must be repaid with interest. [143]. * The White House Office,[144] [145] Congressional Budget Office,[146] and other federal agencies[147] sometimes exclude the debt owed to federal entities in their reckonings of the national debt because this portion of the debt “represents internal transactions of the government and thus has no effect on credit markets. ”. * Federal programs to which this money is owed, such as Social Security and Medicare, include this money and the interest it generates in their assets and financial projections. [148] [149] [150]. * In the 2000 presidential race, the Gore-Liebermann campaign released a 192-page economic plan that contains over 150 uses of the word “debt. ” In none of these instances does the plan mention or account for any of the debt owed to federal entities. [151] The same plan includes the debt owed to federal entities in the assets of the Social Security and Medicare programs. [152]. “Deficits” and “Surpluses”. * During the federal government’s 2010 fiscal year (October 1, 2009 to September 30, 2010[153] ), the national debt rose from $12. 0 trillion to $13. 6 trillion, thus increasing by $1. 6 trillion. [154]. * The White House,[155] USA Today ,[156] Reuters,[157] and other government and media entities reported that the 2010 federal “deficit” was $1. 3 trillion. * The difference between the national debt increase of $1. 6 trillion and the reported deficit of $1. 3 trillion is attributable to the following accounting practices:. When calculating the reported deficit, the federal government merges the finances of all federal programs into what is called the “unified budget. ” Hence, the deficit does not account for the intergovernmental debt that arises when programs such as Social Security loan their surpluses to the federal government. [158]. When the federal government lays out money for programs such as TARP and student loans, the outgo is not fully counted in the deficit. The deficit reflects only what the government expects to lose or gain on these loans. [159] [160]. * PolitiFact, a Pulitzer Prize-winning project of the Tampa Bay Times to “help you find the truth in politics,”[161] has stated that there were “several years of budget surpluses” during Bill Clinton’s presidency. This same article cites the rise in “national debt” during the tenure of George W. Bush. [162]. * Using the same criterion PolitiFact applied to Bush’s presidency (change in gross national debt), the national debt rose every year of Clinton’s presidency:. * Per the White House Office of Management and Budget (2016):. During most of American history, the Federal debt was held almost entirely by individuals and institutions within the United States. In the late 1960s, foreign holdings were just over $10 billion, less than 5 percent of the total Federal debt held by the public. Foreign holdings began to grow significantly starting in the 1970s and now represent almost half of outstanding [publicly held] debt. [168]. * Ownership of U. government debt by foreign creditors as of August 31, 2016:. * Foreign purchases of U. government debt increase the demand for this debt, thus putting downward pressure on U. interest rates. Conversely, foreign sales of U. government debt place upward pressure on U. interest rates. [170] [171]. * Per a 2008 Congressional Research Service report, a “potentially serious short-term problem would emerge if China decided to suddenly ” sell its holding of U. government debt. Possible effects could include:. “a more general financial reaction (or panic), in which all foreigners responded by reducing their holdings of U. assets”;. “a sudden and large depreciation in the value of the dollar”;. “a sudden and large increase in U. interest rates”;. a stock market fall; and/or. “a recession. ”[172]. * The same report states:. The likelihood that China would suddenly reduce its holdings of U. securities is questionable because it is unlikely that doing so would be in China’s economic interests. First, a large sell-off of China’s U. holdings could diminish the value of these securities in international markets…. Second, such a move would diminish U. demand for Chinese imports…. A sharp reduction of U. imports from China could have a significant impact on China’s economy…. [173]. * During a visit to China in February 2009, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said:. By continuing to support American Treasury instruments [i. buy U. government debt] the Chinese are recognizing our interconnection. … We have to incur more debt. It would not be in China’s interest if we were unable to get our economy moving again. … The U. needs the investment in Treasury bonds to shore up its economy to continue to buy Chinese products. [174]. * In August 2007 during a currency dispute between the U. and China, two leading officials of Chinese Communist Party bodies suggested that China use the threat of selling U. debt as a “bargaining chip. ”[175]. * In February 2009 during a dispute over U. arms sales to Taiwan, a Chinese general made the following statements in the state-run magazine Outlook Weekly :. Our retaliation should not be restricted to merely military matters, and we should adopt a strategic package of counterpunches covering politics, military affairs, diplomacy and economics to treat both the symptoms and root cause of this disease. … [W]e could sanction them using economic means, such as dumping some U. government bonds. [176]. * One month later while appearing before China’s parliament, the head of China’s State Administration of Foreign Exchange said:. the U. Treasury market is important to us. … This is purely market-driven investment behavior. I would hope not to see this matter politicized. [177]. Debt Owed to Federal Entities. * Ownership of intergovernmental debt as of September 30, 2016:. * In April 2011, journalists reported on a $38 billion federal budget cut agreement with the following headlines and phraseology:. “New Cuts Detailed in Agreement for $38 Billion in Reductions”; “deep budget cuts in programs for the poor, law enforcement, the environment and civic projects” - Los Angeles Times [179]. “Congress Sends Budget Cut Bill to Obama”; “cutting a record $38 billion from domestic spending” - Associated Press[180]. “Budget Deal to Cut $38 Billion Averts Shutdown”; “Republicans were able to force significant spending concessions from Democrats…. ” – New York Times [181]. * None of these articles reported that this figure of $38 billion in cuts was primarily relative to a portion of the budget called “discretionary non-emergency appropriations. ”[182] Relative to the entire federal budget, this cut left a projected spending increase of $135 billion from 2010 to 2011. This equates to an inflation-adjusted increase of $49 billion or 0. 1 percentage points of GDP:[183]. * None of the articles quoted above contains a budget-wide frame of reference for the cuts. A spending reduction of $38 billion equates to 1. 0% of the estimated 2011 budget or 2. 7% of the projected deficit:. Now, please understand that the Bush tax cuts are the single largest part of the black hole that is the federal budget deficit. [186]. * In 2010, the Bush tax cuts lowered federal revenues by about $283 billion. [187] [188] This was equivalent to 8% of the federal budget or 22% of the deficit. [189]. * Per the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), “Most parameters of the tax code are not indexed for real income growth, and some are not indexed for inflation. ” Thus, if tax cuts are not periodically implemented, average federal tax rates “increase in the long run. ”[190]. * In 2000, the year before the first Bush tax cuts were passed,[191] the federal government collected revenues equal to 20. 4% of the nation’s gross domestic product (GDP), the highest level in the history of the United States. [192] Over the previous 30 years, federal revenues averaged 18. 3% of GDP. [193]. * In 2000, the stock market “dot. com” bubble burst,[194] the NASDAQ lost 39% of its value,[195] and profits for nonfinancial corporations fell by 18%. [196] In the first quarter of 2001, the nation’s GDP contracted and a recession began. [197] [198]. * In June 2001 and May 2003, Congress passed and President Bush signed laws that implemented various tax cuts. [199] [200]. * After the Bush tax cuts were fully implemented, federal revenues were 17. 8% of GDP in 2005, 18. 5% in 2006, and 18. 6% in 2007. [201] Average federal revenues for the 30 years preceding the Bush tax cuts were 18. 4%. [202]. * The Great Recession began in December 2007,[203] and federal revenues declined to 17. 7% of GDP in 2008. [204]. * In February 2009, Congress passed and President Obama signed a law that implemented various tax cuts. [205]. * Federal revenues declined to 15. 7% of GDP in 2009 and 16. 4% in 2010. [206]. * Federal spending rose from 21. 0% of GDP in 2007 to 26. 5% in 2010. [207] Average federal spending for the 30 years preceding the Great Recession was 21. 8%. [208]. The “Do Nothing” Plan. * In April 2011, Ezra Klein of the Washington Post posted a graph of spending and revenue projections based upon CBO’s “current law” scenario and wrote that it:. shows what happens if we do … nothing. The answer, as you can see, is that the budget comes roughly into balance. [209]. * Klein’s graph and commentary omitted the interest and outcome of the national debt under this plan. [210] In the “do nothing” scenario, outlays were projected to exceed revenues every year through 2084, and the publicly held debt was projected to increase from 62% of GDP in 2010, to 74% in 2030, 90% in 2050, and 113% in 2084. [211]. * In the same commentary, Klein wrote that the “current law” scenario is “a pretty good plan” that contains:. a balanced mix of revenues, through returning tax rates to Clinton-era levels and implementing the taxes in the Affordable Care Act, and program cuts … in Medicare…. [212]. * Under this scenario:. Certain elements of the tax code are not indexed for inflation or wage growth. Consequently, taxpayers are shifted over time into higher tax brackets. According to the Congressional Budget Office, by 2020 revenues “reach higher levels relative to the size of the economy than ever recorded in the nation’s history. ”. Revenues as a portion of GDP continue climbing through 2084, rising 69% higher than the average of the past 40 years and 47% higher than ever recorded in the history of the United States. [213] [214]. As a portion of GDP, federal spending without interest on the national debt rises by 2084 to 68% higher than the average of the past 40 years. [215]. * Without mentioning the role of Congress in taxes, spending, or the national debt,[216] [217] PolitiFact (in the same article cited above ) wrote that the national debt increased by $5. 73 trillion “under” George W. Bush whereas there were budget surpluses “at the end of the Clinton administration. ”[218]. * Below are the fluctuations in national debt organized by the tenures of recent presidents and congressional majorities:. [13] The following points provide important context for understanding the data and calculation in the next footnote:. The past participants wash out of the calculation below, because their benefits have already been paid. The general fund of the U. Treasury is “used to carry out the general purposes of Government rather than being restricted by law to a specific program…. ” [“Internal Revenue Manual. ” Internal Revenue Service. Accessed January 11, 2011 at <www. irs. gov >. Part 1, Chapter 34, Section 1 (<www. irs. gov >)]. Social Security’s “closed group unfunded obligation” represents “the financial burden or liability being passed on to future generations. ” [Textbook: Fiscal Challenges: An Interdisciplinary Approach to Budget Policy. Edited by Elizabeth Garrett, Elizabeth A. Graddy, and Howell E. Jackson. Cambridge University Press, 2009. Chapter 6: “Counting the Ways: The Structure of Federal Spending. ” By Howell E. Jackson. Page 207: “The measure featured here is the ‘closed-group liability’ for each program. This measure reflects the financial burden or liability being passed on to future generations. ”]. Prior to 2012, the Social Security Trustees Report provided an explicit “closed group unfunded obligation” for the Social Security program. Since this figure is not provided in later reports, Just Facts has calculated it using the methodology provided in the 2011 Report [“2011 Annual Report of the Board of Trustees of The Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance and Disability Insurance Trust Funds. ” United States Social Security Administration, May 13, 2011. <www. ssa. gov >. Page 66: “The present value of future cost reduced by future non-interest income over the next 100 years for all current participants 1 equals $21. 4 trillion. Subtracting the current value of the trust fund gives a closed group unfunded obligation of $18. 8 trillion, which represents the shortfall of lifetime contributions for all past and current participants relative to the cost of benefits for them. … 1 Individuals who attain age 15 or older in 2011. ”]. [14] Calculated with data from the “2016 Annual Report of the Board of Trustees of The Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance and Disability Insurance Trust Funds. ” United States Social Security Administration, June 22, 2016. <www. ssa. gov >. Page 7: “Table II. B1. —Summary of 2015 Trust Fund Financial Operations (In billions). … OASDI … Assets at the end of 2015 … $2,812. 5”. Table VI. F2. —Present Values of OASDI [Social Security] Cost Less Non-interest Income and Unfunded Obligations for Program Participants, Based on Intermediate Assumptions [Present values as of January 1, 2016; dollar amounts in trillions] …. [P]resent value of future cost for current participants [=] 62. 5 …. [P]resent value of future dedicated tax income for current participants [=] 30. 6 …. [P]resent value of future general fund reimbursements over the infinite horizon a [=] c …. a Distribution of general fund reimbursements among past, current, and future participants cannot be determined. c Less than $50 billion. CALCULATION: $62. 5 present value of future cost for current participants – $30. 6 present value of future dedicated tax income for current participants – > $0. 05 present value of future general fund reimbursements over the infinite horizon – $2. 813 current value of the trust fund = $29,038 closed group unfunded obligation. [15] The following points provide important context for understanding the data and calculation in the next footnote:. Federal general revenues are “used to carry out the general purposes of Government rather than being restricted by law to a specific program…. ” [“Internal Revenue Manual. ” Internal Revenue Service. Accessed January 11, 2011 at <www. irs. gov >. Part 1, Chapter 34, Section 1 (<www. irs. gov >)]. Medicare Part A (a. HI or Hospital Insurance) covers hospital inpatient services, skilled nursing facility care (not custodial care), and hospice care. This part of Medicare is funded by dedicated revenues (not general revenues), and the law does allow for the transfer of general revenues to cover projected shortfalls. [“2013 Annual Report of the Boards of Trustees of the Federal Hospital Insurance and Federal Supplementary Medical Insurance Trust Funds. ” Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, May 31, 2013. <www. cms. gov >. Page 202: “There is no provision under current law to cover the shortfall [of Medicare Part A]. In particular, transfers from the general fund of the Treasury could not be made for the purpose of avoiding asset exhaustion without new legislation. ”]. Medicare Parts B and D (a. SMI or Supplementary Medical Insurance) cover physician, hospital outpatient, prescription drug, and other healthcare services. The law specifies that these parts of Medicare are automatically funded with general revenues to cover any shortfalls between dedicated revenues and expenses. [“2013 Annual Report of the Boards of Trustees of the Federal Hospital Insurance and Federal Supplementary Medical Insurance Trust Funds. ” Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, May 31, 2013. <www. cms. gov >. Page 44: “[B]oth the Part B and Part D accounts of the SMI trust fund will remain in financial balance for all future years because beneficiary premiums and general revenue transfers will be set at a level to meet expected costs each year. ”]. “Medicare also has a Part C, which serves as an alternative to traditional Part A and Part B coverage. Under this option, beneficiaries can choose to enroll in and receive care from private ‘Medicare Advantage’ and certain other health insurance plans. Medicare Advantage and Program of All-Inclusive Care for the Elderly (PACE) plans receive prospective, capitated payments for such beneficiaries from the HI [Part A] and SMI Part B trust fund accounts; the other plans are paid on the basis of their costs. ” [“2013 Annual Report of the Boards of Trustees of the Federal Hospital Insurance and Federal Supplementary Medical Insurance Trust Funds. ” Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, May 31, 2013. <www. cms. gov >. Page 1. Medicare’s “closed-group population … includes all persons currently participating in the program as either taxpayers or beneficiaries, or both. ” [“2013 Annual Report of the Boards of Trustees of the Federal Hospital Insurance and Federal Supplementary Medical Insurance Trust Funds. ” Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, May 31, 2013. <www. cms. gov >. Page 251. Medicare’s “closed-group unfunded obligation” represents “the financial burden or liability being passed on to future generations. ” [Textbook: Fiscal Challenges: An Interdisciplinary Approach to Budget Policy. Edited by Elizabeth Garrett, Elizabeth A. Graddy, and Howell E. Jackson. Cambridge University Press, 2009. Chapter 6: “Counting the Ways: The Structure of Federal Spending. ” By Howell E. Jackson. Page 207: “The measure featured here is the ‘closed-group liability’ for each program. This measure reflects the financial burden or liability being passed on to future generations. ”]. Previous Medicare participants wash out of the calculations below, because their taxes and benefits have already been paid. [16] Calculated with data from the “2016 Annual Report of the Boards of Trustees of the Federal Hospital Insurance and Federal Supplementary Medical Insurance Trust Funds. ” United States Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, June 22, 2016. <www. cms. gov >. Page 11: “Table II. B1. —Medicare Data for Calendar Year 2015 … Assets at end of 2015 …Total [=] $263. 2”. Page 218: “The first line of table V. G2 [which displays unfunded Part A obligations] shows the present value of future expenditures less future taxes for current participants, including both beneficiaries and covered workers [i. taxpayers]. Subtracting the current value of the HI [Hospital Insurance or Part A] trust fund (the accumulated value of past HI taxes less outlays) results in a “closed group” unfunded obligation of $10. 1 trillion. ”. Page 221: “Table V. G4. —Unfunded Part B Obligations for Current and Future Program Participants through the Infinite Horizon [Present values as of January 1, 2016; dollar amounts in trillions] … Equals unfunded obligations for past and current participants … General revenue contributions [=] 16. 7”. Page 223: “Table V. G6. —Unfunded Part D Obligations for Current and Future Program Participants through the Infinite Horizon [Present values as of January 1, 2016; dollar amounts in trillions] … Equals unfunded obligations for past and current participants … General revenue contributions [=] 6. ”. CALCULATION: $10. 1 trillion in closed-group unfunded obligations for Medicare Part A + $16. 7 in closed-group unfunded obligations for Part B + $6. 1 in closed-group unfunded obligations for Part D = $32. 9 trillion in closed-group unfunded obligations for the Medicare program. [17] See here. here. and here for details regarding the manner in which publicly traded companies are required to calculate their debt and obligations using accrual-based accounting. The following two footnotes show that the federal budget, in contrast, is calculated on a cash basis. These next two footnotes also show that accrual-based accounting is used in the “Financial Report of the United States Government,” which was originally the source for all of the shortfall figures cited above. However, in 2009, the Financial Management Service of the U. Treasury, which produces the Financial Report of the U. Government, stopped providing individual values for the “closed group” shortfalls of the Social Security and Medicare programs. Since that time, the report has only shown a “closed group” total for all social insurance programs combined. For the 2009 and 2010 reports, Just Facts requested and received the components of this total from the U. Treasury. For the 2011 report, the U. Treasury refused to provide these figures despite repeated requests from Just Facts. Thus, Just Facts now calculates these figures using data from the Social Security and Medicare Trustees Reports. [18] “2008 Financial Report of the United States Government. ” U. Department of the Treasury, 2008. <www. fiscal. treasury. gov >. Each year, the Administration issues two reports which detail the financial results for the Government. The President’s Budget (Budget), the Government’s primary financial planning and control tool, describes how the Government spent and plans to spend the money it collects. By comparison, the accrual-based Financial Report of the United States Government (Report) includes the cost of operations, the sources used to finance those costs, how much the Government owns and owes, and the outlook for its social insurance programs. Accrual accounting, which is also used by private business enterprises, is the basis for U. generally accepted accounting principles for federal government entities. It is intended to provide a complete picture of the federal government’s financial operations and financial position. The federal government primarily uses the cash basis of accounting for its budget, which is the federal government’s primary financial planning and control tool. The accrual basis of accounting recognizes revenue when it is earned and recognizes expenses in the period incurred, without regard to when cash is received or disbursed. The federal government, which receives most of its revenue from taxes, nevertheless recognizes tax revenue when it is collected, under an accepted modified cash basis of accounting. [20] “2008 Financial Report of the United States Government. ” U. Department of the Treasury, 2008. <www. fiscal. treasury. gov >. The [social insurance] estimates are actuarial present values 2 of the projections and are based on the economic and demographic assumptions representing the trustees’ best estimates as set forth in the relevant Social Security and Medicare trustees’ reports and in the relevant agency performance and accountability reports for the RRB and the Department of Labor (Black Lung). …. 2 Present values recognize that a dollar paid or collected in the future is worth less than a dollar today, because a dollar today could be invested and earn interest. To calculate a present value, future amounts are thus reduced using an assumed interest rate, and those reduced amounts are summed. Participants for the Social Security and Medicare programs are assumed to be the “closed group” of individuals who are at least age 15 at the start of the projection period, and are participating as either taxpayers, beneficiaries, or both, except for the 2007 Medicare programs for which current participants are assumed to be at least 18 instead of 15 years of age. Page 105 (in pdf):. The present values of future expenditures in excess of future revenue are the current amounts of funds needed to cover projected shortfalls, excluding the starting trust fund balances, over the projection period. They are calculated by subtracting the actuarial present values of future scheduled contributions and dedicated tax income by and on behalf of current and future participants from the actuarial present value of the future scheduled benefit payments to them or on their behalf. [21] Report: “Social Security and Medicare Trust Funds and the Federal Budget. ” By James Duggan and Christopher Soares. Office of Economic Policy, U. Department of Treasury, March 2008. <www. treas. gov >. Page 16: “The resulting present value is the amount that would have to be put in the bank today at the assumed interest rate to fund the future cash flows. ”. [22] “2008 Financial Report of the United States Government. ” U. Department of the Treasury, 2008. <www. fiscal. treasury. gov >. NOTE: In addition to the “closed group” projections, the annual Financial Report of the United States Government also contains projections for the “open-group” and “infinite horizon. ” Details are below. Page 10: “ ‘Closed’ Group and ‘Open’ Group differ by the population included in each calculation. From the [Statement of Social Insurance], the ‘Closed’ Group includes: (1) participants who have attained eligibility and (2) participants who have not attained eligibility. The ‘Open’ Group adds future participants to ‘Closed’ Group. ”. Current participants in the Social Security and Medicare programs form the “closed group” of taxpayers and/or beneficiaries who are at least age 15 at the start of the projection period. For the 2007 Medicare projections, current participants are at least 18 years of age at the beginning of the projection period. Since the projection period for the Social Security, Medicare, and Railroad Retirement social insurance programs consists of 75 years, the period covers virtually all of the current participants’ working and retirement years, a period that could be more than 75 years in a relatively small number of instances. [W]hen calculating unfunded obligations, a 75-year horizon includes revenue from some future workers but only a fraction of their future benefits. In order to provide a more complete estimate of the long-run unfunded obligations of the programs, estimates can be extended to the infinite horizon. The open-group infinite horizon net obligation is the present value of all expected future program outlays less the present value of all expected future program tax and premium revenues. …. In comparison to the analogous 75-year number in Table 5, extending the calculations beyond 2082, captures the full lifetime benefits and taxes and premiums of all current and future participants. The shorter horizon understates financial needs by capturing relatively more of the revenues from current and future workers and not capturing all of the benefits that are scheduled to be paid to them. [24] Calculated with data from the footnote above and the report: “Financial Accounts of the United States: Flow of Funds, Balance Sheets, and Integrated Macroeconomic Accounts, Third Quarter 2016. ” Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, December 8, 2016. <www. federalreserve. gov >. Page 138: “B. 101 Balance Sheet of Households and Nonprofit Organizations … Billions of dollars; amounts outstanding end of period, not seasonally adjusted … [Line] 40 Net worth … 2016 Q3 [=] 90,196. 1”. NOTE: Household assets detailed in this table include items such as real estate, corporate equities, mutual funds, equity in noncorporate businesses, life insurance, pension fund reserves, and consumer durable goods. Liabilities detailed in this table include items such as home mortgages and consumer credit. Nonprofit organizations are explicitly named in the title of this table because their assets are not considered household property, whereas assets of for-profit entities are considered household property. CALCULATION: $84,306 in federal debts, liabilities, and Social Security/Medicare obligations / $90,196. 1 net worth of households and nonprofit organizations = 93%. [25] Webpage: “Updated PPI Commodity Weight Allocations to Stage-of-Processing Indexes. ” Bureau of Labor Statistics. Last modified February 18, 2009. <www. bls. gov >. “SOP 3130 - Consumer Durable Goods: contains nonfood products, ready for final consumption, with a life expectancy of more than three years. Examples of durable goods include furniture, passenger cars, and appliances. ”. [26] Dataset: “Monthly Population Estimates for the United States: April 1, 2010 to December 1, 2017. ” U. Census Bureau, Population Division, December 2016. <www. census. gov >. “Resident Population … October 1, 2016 [=] 323,778,180”. CALCULATION: $84,306,000,000,000 / 323,778,180 people = $260,382/person. [27] Dataset: “Average Number of People per Household, by Race and Hispanic Origin, Marital Status, Age, and Education of Householder: 2016. ” U. Census Bureau, November 2016. <www. census. gov >. “Total households [=] 125,819,000”. CALCULATION: $84,306,000,000,000 / 125,819,000 households = $670,058/household. [28] Dataset: “Table 1. Gross Domestic Product. ” U. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis. Revised December 22, 2016. <www. bea. gov >. “[Billions of dollars] Seasonally adjusted at annual rates … Gross Domestic Product … 2016Q3 [=] 18,675. 3”. CALCULATION: $84,306,000,000,000 / $18,675,300,000,000 GDP = 451%. [29] Dataset: “Table 3. Federal Government Current Receipts and Expenditures. ” U. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis. Revised December 22, 2016. <www. bea. gov >. “[Billions of dollars] Seasonally adjusted at annual rates … Total receipts … 2016Q3 [=] 3,556. 7”. CALCULATION: $84,306,000,000,000 / $3,556,700,000,000 receipts = 2,370%. [30] “2008 Financial Report of the United States Government. ” U. Department of the Treasury, 2008. <www. fiscal. treasury. gov >. Page 28 (in pdf): “The SOSI [Statement of Social Insurance] provides additional perspective on the Government’s long term estimated exposures and costs. However, it should be noted that the Government’s financial statements do not reflect future costs implied by any current policy, such as national defense, the global war on terrorism, and disaster relief and recovery. ”. [31] “2010 Financial Report of the United States Government. ” U. Department of the Treasury, December 21, 2010. <www. fms. treas. gov >. Page 5: “Further, the long-term nature of these costs and their sensitivity to a wide range of complex assumptions can, in some cases, cause significant fluctuation in agency and Governmentwide costs from year to year. … At VA and other agencies that administer postemployment benefit programs, these fluctuations are attributable to an array of assumptions and variables including interest rates, inflation, beneficiary eligibility, life expectancy, and cost of living. ”. Page 131: “Assumptions are made about many economic and demographic factors, including gross domestic product (GDP), earnings, the CPI, the unemployment rate, the fertility rate, immigration, mortality, disability incidence and terminations and, for the Medicare projections, health care cost growth. ”. [32] “2014 Annual Report of the Board of Trustees of The Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance and Disability Insurance Trust Funds. ” United States Social Security Administration, July 28, 2014. <www. ssa. gov >. Page 8: “The intermediate assumptions reflect the Trustees’ best estimates of future experience. Therefore, most of the figures in this overview present only the outcomes under the immediate assumptions. Any projection of the future is, of course, uncertain. For this reason, the Trustees also present results under low-cost and high-cost alternatives to provide a range of possible future experience. ”. Page 18: “Uncertainty of the Projections … Significant uncertainty surrounds the intermediate assumptions. ”. NOTE: For a detailed explanation of Social Security’s finances, visit Just Facts’ research on this issue at <www. justfacts. com >. [33] “2014 Annual Report of the Boards of Trustees of the Federal Hospital Insurance and Federal Supplementary Medical Insurance Trust Funds. ” Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, July 28, 2014. <www. cms. gov >. STATEMENT OF ACTUARIAL OPINION …. In past reports, the Board of Trustees has emphasized the virtual certainty that actual Part B expenditures will exceed the projections under current law due to further legislative action to avoid substantial reductions in the Medicare physician fee schedule. Current law would require a physician fee reduction of almost 21 percent on April 1, 2015—an implausible expectation. Since lawmakers have overridden these scheduled reductions each year since 2003, the Trustees have changed the basis of their projections of Part B expenditures from current law to a projected baseline, which includes an assumption that the physician payment updates will equal the increase averaged over the last 10 years. This change results in a far more reasonable expectation of Medicare expenditures than occurs under current law. The projected baseline estimates are summarized throughout the main body of this report, while current-law estimates are included in appendix C. The Affordable Care Act is making important changes to the Medicare program that are designed, in part, to substantially improve its financial outlook. While the ACA has been successful in reducing many Medicare expenditures to date, there is a strong possibility that certain of these changes will not be viable in the long range. Specifically, the annual price updates for most categories of non-physician health services will be adjusted downward each year by the growth in economy-wide productivity. The ability of health care providers to sustain these price reductions will be challenging, as the best available evidence indicates that most providers cannot improve their productivity to this degree for a prolonged period given the labor-intensive nature of these services. Absent an unprecedented change in health care delivery systems and payment mechanisms, the prices paid by Medicare for health services will fall increasingly short of the costs of providing these services. By the end of the long-range projection period, Medicare prices for many services would be less than half of their level without consideration of the productivity price reductions. Before such an outcome would occur, lawmakers would likely intervene to prevent the withdrawal of providers from the Medicare market and the severe problems with beneficiary access to care that would result. Overriding the productivity adjustments, as lawmakers have done repeatedly in the case of physician payment rates, would lead to substantially higher costs for Medicare in the long range than those projected in this report. Credit for bringing this fact to our attention belongs to Alex Adrianson of the Heritage Foundation. [Commentary: “What If Things that Have No Chance of Happening Happen? Asks Medicare’s Actuaries. ” By Alex Adrianson. InsiderOnline, August 12, 2010. <www. insideronline. org >]. Cuts in Medicaid prices under the Affordable Care Act affect “hospital, skilled nursing facility, home health, hospice, ambulatory surgical center, diagnostic laboratory, and many other services. ” [“2013 Annual Report of the Boards of Trustees of the Federal Hospital Insurance and Federal Supplementary Medical Insurance Trust Funds. ” Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, May 31, 2013. <www. cms. gov >. Page 273. For a detailed explanation of Medicare’s finances, visit Just Facts’ research on this issue at <www. justfacts. com >. [34] For an explanation of the differences between “total” and “current” expenditures, see <www. bea. gov >. [35] Calculated with data from:. [54] Textbook: Microeconomics for Today (Sixth edition). By Irvin B. Tucker. South-Western Cengage Learning, 2010. Page 450: “GDP per capita provides a general index of a country’s standard of living. Countries with low GDP per capita and slow growth in GDP per capita are less able to satisfy basic needs for food, shelter, clothing, education, and health. ”. [55] Working paper: “Does High Public Debt Consistently Stifle Economic Growth? A Critique of Reinhart and Rogoff. ” By Thomas Herndon, Michael Ash, and Robert Pollin. Political Economy Research Institute, April 15, 2013. Revised 4/22/13. <www. peri. umass. edu >. Page 21: “Table 3: Published and replicated average real GDP growth, by public debt/GDP category”. NOTE: An Excel file containing the data and calculations is available here. See the tab entitled “HAP results. ”. [56] Constitution of the United States. Signed September 17, 1787. <justfacts. com >. Article I, Section 7:. [Clause 1] All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills. [Clause 2] Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively. If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law. Article I, Section 8, Clause 1: “The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States…. ”. [57] Report: “A Citizen’s Guide to the Federal Budget: Fiscal Year 2000. ” White House Office of Management and Budget, January 1999. <www. gpo. gov >. • Discretionary spending, which accounts for one-third of all Federal spending, is what the President and Congress must decide to spend for the next year through the 13 annual appropriations bills. It includes money for such activities as the FBI and the Coast Guard, for housing and education, for space exploration and highway construction, and for defense and foreign aid. • Mandatory spending, which accounts for two-thirds of all spending, is authorized by permanent laws, not by the 13 annual appropriations bills. It includes entitlements—such as Social Security, Medicare, veterans’ benefits, and Food Stamps—through which individuals receive benefits because they are eligible based on their age, income, or other criteria. It also includes interest on the national debt, which the Government pays to individuals and institutions that hold Treasury bonds and other Government securities. The President and Congress can change the law in order to change the spending on entitlements and other mandatory programs—but they don’t have to. [58] Report: “GAO Strategic Plan, 2007-2012. ” U. Government Accountability Office, March 2007. <www. gao. gov >. Table 2: Forces Shaping the United States and Its Place in the World. Changing security threats: The world has changed dramatically in overall security, from the conventional threats posed during the Cold War era to more unconventional and asymmetric threats. Providing for people’s safety and security requires attention to threats as diverse as terrorism, violent crime, natural disasters, and infectious diseases. The response to many of these threats depends not only on the action of the U. government but also on the cooperation of other nations and multilateral organizations, as well as on state and local governments and the private and independent sectors. Complicating such efforts are a number of failed states allowing the trade of arms, drugs, or other illegal goods; the spread of infectious diseases; and the accommodation of terrorist groups. …. Economic growth and competitiveness: Economic growth and competition are also affected by the skills and behavior of U. citizens, the policies of the U. government, and the ability of the private and public sectors to innovate and manage change. … Importantly, the saving and investment behavior of U. citizens affects the capital available to invest in research, development, and productivity enhancement. …. Global interdependency: Economies as well as governments and societies are becoming increasingly interdependent as more people, information, goods, and capital flow across increasingly porous borders. …. Societal change: The U. population is aging and becoming more diverse. As U. society ages and the ratio of elderly persons and children to persons of working age increases, the sustainability of social insurance systems will be further threatened. Specifically, according to the 2000 census, the median age of the U. population is now the highest it has ever been, and the baby boomer age group—people born from 1946 to 1964, inclusive—was a significant part of the population. [59] Report: “The 2014 Long-Term Budget Outlook. ” Congressional Budget Office, July 2014. <www. cbo. gov >. Pages 77, 79: “CBO’s extended alternative fiscal scenario is based on the assumptions that certain policies that are now in place but are scheduled to change under current law will be continued and that some provisions of law that might be difficult to sustain for a long period will be modified. The scenario, therefore, captures what some analysts might consider to be current policies. as opposed to current laws. ”. [60] Dataset: “The 2014 Long-Term Budget Outlook. ” Congressional Budget Office, July 15, 2014. <www. cbo. gov >. Tab 2: “Economic Variables Underlying the Long-Term Budget Projections and Projections of GDP and Population. ”. [61] Calculated with the dataset: “Unemployment Rate, LNS14000000. ” U. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. Accessed June 23, 2015 at <data. bls. gov >. NOTE: An Excel file containing the data and calculations is available upon request. [62] Calculated with the dataset: “The 2014 Long-Term Budget Outlook. ” Congressional Budget Office, July 15, 2014. <www. cbo. gov >. Tab 2: “Economic Variables Underlying the Long-Term Budget Projections and Projections of GDP and Population. ”. NOTE: An Excel file containing the data and calculations is available upon request. [63] Calculated with the dataset “Table 1. Percent Change From Preceding Period in Real Gross Domestic Product. ” U. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis. Last revised May 29, 2015. <www. bea. gov >. NOTE: An Excel file containing the data and calculations is available upon request. [64] Dataset: “The 2014 Long-Term Budget Outlook. ” Congressional Budget Office, July 15, 2014. <www. cbo. gov >. Tab 6. “Summary Data for the Extended Alternative Fiscal Scenario, Without Macroeconomic Feedback. ”. [65] Calculated with the dataset: “The 2014 Long-Term Budget Outlook. ” Congressional Budget Office, July 15, 2014. <www. cbo. gov >. Figure 1-3. “Spending and Revenues Under CBO’s Extended Baseline, Compared With Past Averages. ”. [66] Dataset: “The 2014 Long-Term Budget Outlook. ” Congressional Budget Office, July 15, 2014. <www. cbo. gov >. Tab 6. “Summary Data for the Extended Alternative Fiscal Scenario, Without Macroeconomic Feedback. ”. [67] Dataset: “The 2014 Long-Term Budget Outlook. ” Congressional Budget Office, July 15, 2014. <www. cbo. gov >. Figure 1-3. “Spending and Revenues Under CBO’s Extended Baseline, Compared With Past Averages. ”. [68] Report: “The 2014 Long-Term Budget Outlook. ” Congressional Budget Office, July 2014. <www. cbo. gov >. Under its extended alternative fiscal scenario last year, CBO assumed that lawmakers would not allow various restraints on the growth of Medicare costs and health insurance subsidies to exert their full effect after the first 10 years of the projection period. However, this year, after reassessing the uncertainties involved, CBO no longer projects whether or when those restraints might wane. Instead, for those elements of the alternative fiscal scenario, there are now no differences from the extended baseline. For both, CBO projects that growth rates for Medicare costs will move linearly over 15 years (from 2024 to 2039) to the underlying rate that the agency has projected and that the exchange subsidies will do the same. (One exception to that new approach, though, concerns Medicare’s payment rates for physicians’ services. This year, as in previous years, projected spending under the alternative fiscal scenario reflects the assumption that those payment rates would be held constant at current levels rather than being cut by about a quarter at the beginning of 2015, as scheduled under current law. [69] “2014 Annual Report of the Boards of Trustees of the Federal Hospital Insurance and Federal Supplementary Medical Insurance Trust Funds. ” Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, July 28, 2014. <www. cms. gov >. STATEMENT OF ACTUARIAL OPINION …. In past reports, the Board of Trustees has emphasized the virtual certainty that actual Part B expenditures will exceed the projections under current law due to further legislative action to avoid substantial reductions in the Medicare physician fee schedule. Current law would require a physician fee reduction of almost 21 percent on April 1, 2015—an implausible expectation. Since lawmakers have overridden these scheduled reductions each year since 2003, the Trustees have changed the basis of their projections of Part B expenditures from current law to a projected baseline, which includes an assumption that the physician payment updates will equal the increase averaged over the last 10 years. This change results in a far more reasonable expectation of Medicare expenditures than occurs under current law. The projected baseline estimates are summarized throughout the main body of this report, while current-law estimates are included in appendix C. The Affordable Care Act is making important changes to the Medicare program that are designed, in part, to substantially improve its financial outlook. While the ACA has been successful in reducing many Medicare expenditures to date, there is a strong possibility that certain of these changes will not be viable in the long range. Specifically, the annual price updates for most categories of non-physician health services will be adjusted downward each year by the growth in economy-wide productivity. The ability of health care providers to sustain these price reductions will be challenging, as the best available evidence indicates that most providers cannot improve their productivity to this degree for a prolonged period given the labor-intensive nature of these services. Absent an unprecedented change in health care delivery systems and payment mechanisms, the prices paid by Medicare for health services will fall increasingly short of the costs of providing these services. By the end of the long-range projection period, Medicare prices for many services would be less than half of their level without consideration of the productivity price reductions. Before such an outcome would occur, lawmakers would likely intervene to prevent the withdrawal of providers from the Medicare market and the severe problems with beneficiary access to care that would result. Overriding the productivity adjustments, as lawmakers have done repeatedly in the case of physician payment rates, would lead to substantially higher costs for Medicare in the long range than those projected in this report. [70] Constructed with data from:. a) Dataset: “The 2014 Long-Term Budget Outlook. ” Congressional Budget Office, July 15, 2014. <www. cbo. gov >. b) Dataset: “An Update to the Budget and Economic Outlook: Fiscal Years 2014 to 2024. ” Congressional Budget Office, August 2014. <www. cbo. gov >. [71] Report: “The 2014 Long-Term Budget Outlook. ” Congressional Budget Office, July 2014. <www. cbo. gov >. Debt held by the public represents the amount that the federal government has borrowed in financial markets (by issuing Treasury securities) to pay for its operations and activities. 3. 3 When the federal government borrows in financial markets, it competes with other participants for financial resources and, in the long run, crowds out private investment, reducing economic output and income. In contrast, federal debt held by trust funds and other government accounts represents internal transactions of the government and has no direct effect on financial markets. (That debt and debt held by the public together make up gross federal debt. Page 43: “Thereafter, spending for [Medicare] Part A would begin to increase more rapidly than income to the HI [Hospital Insurance] trust fund, CBO projects, and the trust fund would be exhausted sometime around 2030. ”. Page 51: “Another commonly used measure of Social Security’s sustainability is the trust funds’ date of exhaustion. Under CBO’s extended baseline, the DI [Disability Insurance] trust fund would be exhausted in fiscal year 2017 and the OASI [Old Age and Survivors Insurance] trust fund would be exhausted in calendar year 2032. ”. NOTE: For more detail about debt owed to federal trust funds, click here and here. [72] Dataset: “The 2014 Long-Term Budget Outlook. ” Congressional Budget Office, July 15, 2014. <www. cbo. gov >. “Figure 1-1. Federal Debt Held by the Public”. “Figure 6-3. Long-Run Effects of the Fiscal Policies in CBO’s Extended Alternative Fiscal Scenario”. NOTE: These debt projections account for the economic effects of federal debt, taxes, and spending. Per CBO:. The results with economic feedback include the economic effects of the budget policies and the effects of that economic feedback on the budget. Those results are CBO’s central estimates from ranges determined by alternative assessments about how much deficits “crowd out” investment in capital goods such as factories and computers (because a larger portion of people’s savings is being used to purchase government securities) and how much people respond to changes in after-tax wages by adjusting the number of hours they work. [Report: “The 2014 Long-Term Budget Outlook. ” Congressional Budget Office, July 2014. <www. cbo. gov >. Page 76. [73] Report: “The 2014 Long-Term Budget Outlook. ” Congressional Budget Office, July 2014. <www. cbo. gov >. Second, CBO has estimated the amount by which delaying policy changes to reduce deficits would increase the size of the policy adjustments needed to achieve any chosen goal for debt. If the goal was to have the debt equal 74 percent of GDP in 2039 but to wait to implement new policies until 2020, the combination of increases in revenues and reductions in noninterest spending over the 2020–2039 period would need to be 1. 5 percent of GDP, rather than the 1. 2 percent of GDP needed to reach that goal if policy changes took effect in 2015 (see Figure 1-2). If lawmakers waited even longer—until 2025—to take action, the policy changes over the 2025–2039 period would need to amount to 2. 1 percent of GDP. If, instead of aiming to keep debt from rising relative to GDP, lawmakers wanted to return debt to its historical average percentage of GDP—but policy changes did not take effect until 2020—the policy changes would need to amount to 3. 2 percent rather than 2. 6 percent of GDP. Waiting an additional five years would require even larger changes, amounting to 4. 3 percent of GDP. Third, CBO has studied how waiting to resolve the long-term fiscal imbalance would affect various generations of the U. population. In 2010, CBO compared economic outcomes under a policy that would stabilize the debt-to- GDP ratio starting in 2015 with outcomes under a policy that would delay stabilizing the ratio until 2025. 6 That analysis suggested that generations born after about 2015 would be worse off if action to stabilize the debt-to-GDP ratio was postponed to 2025. People born before 1990, however, would be better off if action was delayed—largely because they would partly or entirely avoid the policy changes needed to stabilize the debt—and generations born between 1990 and 2015 could either gain or lose from a delay, depending on the details of the policy changes. 7. 6. See Congressional Budget Office, Economic Impacts of Waiting to Resolve the Long-Term Budget Imbalance (December 2010), <www. cbo. gov >. That analysis was based on a projection of slower growth in debt than CBO now projects, so the estimated effects of a similar policy today would be close, but not identical, to the effects estimated in that earlier analysis. 7. Those conclusions do not incorporate the possible negative effects of a fiscal crisis or effects that might arise from the government’s reduced flexibility to respond to unexpected challenges. [74] Report: “The Long-Term Budget Outlook. ” Congressional Budget Office, June 2010 (Revised August 2010). <www. cbo. gov >. Waiting to close the fiscal gap would make the necessary changes larger. To illustrate the costs of delay, CBO simulated the effects of closing the fiscal gap under the alternative fiscal scenario beginning in 2011, 2015, 2020, or 2025. Those simulations indicate that postponing action would substantially increase the size of the policy adjustments needed to put the budget on a sustainable course. For example, if lawmakers wanted to close the fiscal gap through 2035 but did not begin until 2015, they would have to reduce primary spending or increase revenues over that period by 5. 7 percent of GDP, rather than by 4. 8 percent if they acted in 2011 (see Figure 1-3). If they waited until 2020 to close the fiscal gap through 2035, they would have to cut noninterest outlays or raise revenues over that period by 7. 9 percent of GDP. Moreover, those simulations omit the effects that deficits and debt would have on economic growth and interest rates in the intervening years; incorporating such effects would make the impact of delaying policy changes even more severe. [75] Webpage: “Paul Davidson. ” University of Tennessee Knoxville, 2011. <econ. bus. utk. edu >. [76] Commentary: “Making Dollars and Sense of the U. Government Debt. ” By Paul Davidson. Journal of Post Keynesian Economics. Summer 2010. Pages 663–667. <econ. bus. utk. edu >. CBO’s 10-year and extended baselines are meant to serve as benchmarks for measuring the budgetary effects of proposed changes in federal revenues or spending. They are not meant to be predictions of future budgetary outcomes; rather, they represent CBO’s best assessment of how the economy and other factors would affect revenues and spending if current law generally remained unchanged. In that way, the baselines incorporate the assumption that some policy changes that lawmakers have routinely made in the past—such as preventing the sharp cuts to Medicare’s payment rates for physicians that are called for by law—will not be made again. Page 16: “… the projections incorporate the reduction in Medicare’s payments to physicians scheduled for 2015 and the reductions in Medicare spending specified in the Budget Control Act of 2011, as amended, for 2015 through 2024. ”. [92] “2014 Annual Report of the Boards of Trustees of the Federal Hospital Insurance and Federal Supplementary Medical Insurance Trust Funds. ” Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, July 28, 2014. <www. cms. gov >. STATEMENT OF ACTUARIAL OPINION …. In past reports, the Board of Trustees has emphasized the virtual certainty that actual Part B expenditures will exceed the projections under current law due to further legislative action to avoid substantial reductions in the Medicare physician fee schedule. Current law would require a physician fee reduction of almost 21 percent on April 1, 2015—an implausible expectation. Since lawmakers have overridden these scheduled reductions each year since 2003, the Trustees have changed the basis of their projections of Part B expenditures from current law to a projected baseline, which includes an assumption that the physician payment updates will equal the increase averaged over the last 10 years. This change results in a far more reasonable expectation of Medicare expenditures than occurs under current law. The projected baseline estimates are summarized throughout the main body of this report, while current-law estimates are included in appendix C. The Affordable Care Act is making important changes to the Medicare program that are designed, in part, to substantially improve its financial outlook. While the ACA has been successful in reducing many Medicare expenditures to date, there is a strong possibility that certain of these changes will not be viable in the long range. Specifically, the annual price updates for most categories of non-physician health services will be adjusted downward each year by the growth in economy-wide productivity. The ability of health care providers to sustain these price reductions will be challenging, as the best available evidence indicates that most providers cannot improve their productivity to this degree for a prolonged period given the labor-intensive nature of these services. Absent an unprecedented change in health care delivery systems and payment mechanisms, the prices paid by Medicare for health services will fall increasingly short of the costs of providing these services. By the end of the long-range projection period, Medicare prices for many services would be less than half of their level without consideration of the productivity price reductions. Before such an outcome would occur, lawmakers would likely intervene to prevent the withdrawal of providers from the Medicare market and the severe problems with beneficiary access to care that would result. Overriding the productivity adjustments, as lawmakers have done repeatedly in the case of physician payment rates, would lead to substantially higher costs for Medicare in the long range than those projected in this report. [93] Report: “Budgetary and Economic Outcomes Under Paths for Federal Revenues and Noninterest Spending Specified by Chairman Ryan, April 2014. ” Congressional Budget Office, April 1, 2014. <www. cbo. gov >. Page 2: “The amounts of federal debt and economic output estimated for all of the scenarios in this report are highly uncertain. That uncertainty stems from the difficulties inherent in projecting the effects of federal fiscal policies, especially far into the future. ”. The projections for debt, revenues, spending, and economic output presented in this report are highly uncertain for many reasons. The projections are based on CBO’s central estimates for key parameters of economic behavior—including the extent to which government borrowing crowds out capital investment and the effect that changes in real after-tax wages have on the supply of labor. 11 Estimates of those and other economic parameters are uncertain, and analysis using different parameters can produce results that are substantially higher or lower than CBO’s central estimates. [94] Report: “The Path to Prosperity: Fiscal Year 2015 Budget Resolution. ” House Budget Committee, April 2014. <budget. house. gov >. The Medicare reform envisioned in this budget resolution begins with a commitment to keep the promises made to those who now are in or near retirement. Consequently, for those who enter the program before 2024, the Medicare program and its benefits will remain as they are, without change. For future retirees, the budget supports an approach known as “premium support. ” Starting in 2024, seniors (those who first become eligible by turning 65 on or after January 1, 2024) would be given a choice of private plans competing alongside the traditional fee-for-service Medicare program on a newly created Medicare Exchange. Medicare would provide a premium-support payment either to pay for or offset the premium of the plan chosen by the senior, depending on the plan’s cost. For those who were 55 or older in 2013, they would remain in the traditional Medicare system. The Medicare recipient of the future would choose, from a list of guaranteed-coverage options, a health plan that best suits his or her needs. This is not a voucher program. A Medicare premium-support payment would be paid, by Medicare, directly to the plan or the fee-for-service program to subsidize its cost. The program would operate in a manner similar to that of the Medicare prescription-drug benefit. The Medicare premium-support payment would be adjusted so that the sick would receive higher payments if their conditions worsened; lower-income seniors would receive additional assistance to help cover out-of-pocket costs; and wealthier seniors would assume responsibility for a greater share of their premiums. This approach to strengthening the Medicare program—which is based on a long history of bipartisan reform plans—would ensure security and affordability for seniors now and into the future. In September 2013, the Congressional Budget Office analyzed illustrative options of a premium support system. They found that a program in which the premium-support payment was based on the average bid of participating plans would result in savings for affected beneficiaries as well as the federal government. 52. Moreover, it would set up a carefully monitored exchange for Medicare plans. Health plans that chose to participate in the Medicare Exchange would agree to offer insurance to all Medicare beneficiaries, to avoid cherry-picking, and to ensure that Medicare’s sickest and highest-cost beneficiaries receive coverage. While there would be no disruptions in the current Medicare fee-for-service program for those currently enrolled or becoming eligible before 2024, all seniors would have the choice to opt in to the new Medicare program once it began in 2024. This budget envisions giving seniors the freedom to choose a plan best suited for them, guaranteeing health security throughout their retirement years. 52 Congressional Budget Office, “A Premium Support System for Medicare: Analysis of Illustrative Options,” 18 Sept. 2013. [95] Report: “The Path to Prosperity: Fiscal Year 2015 Budget Resolution. ” House Budget Committee, April 2014. <budget. house. gov >. Page 59: “Also starting in 2024, the age of eligibility for Medicare would begin to rise gradually to correspond with Social Security’s retirement age and the fee-for-service benefit would be modernized to have a single deductible and by reforming supplemental insurance policies. ”. [96] Calculated with “Summary Tables for the Path to Prosperity: Fiscal Year 2015 Budget Resolution. ” House Budget Committee, April 2014. <budget. house. gov >. a) Table S-3. “FY2015 House Budget by Major Category (Outlays in Billions) … Medicare (Net) … 2016 [=] $552 … 2020 [=] $684 … 2024 [=] $855. ”. b) Table S-4. “FY2015 House Budget vs. Current Policy by Major Category (Outlays in Billions) … Medicare (Net) … 2016 [=] $-3 … 2020 [=] $-13 … 2024 [=] $-38. ”. [97] Report: “The Path to Prosperity: Fiscal Year 2015 Budget Resolution. ” House Budget Committee, April 2014. <budget. house. gov >. Provide State Flexibility on Medicaid. One way to secure the Medicaid benefit is by converting the federal share of Medicaid spending into an allotment that each state could tailor to meet its needs, indexed for inflation and population growth. Such a reform would end the misguided one-size-fits-all approach that has tied the hands of state governments. States would no longer be shackled by federally determined program requirements and enrollment criteria. Instead, each state would have the freedom and flexibility to tailor a Medicaid program that fit the needs of its unique population. The budget resolution proposes to transform Medicaid from an open-ended entitlement into a block-granted program like SCHIP [State Children’s Health Insurance Program]. These programs would be unified under the proposal and grown together for population growth and inflation. This reform also would improve the health-care safety net for low-income Americans by giving states the ability to offer their Medicaid populations more options and better access to care. Medicaid recipients, like all other Americans, deserve to choose their own doctors and make their own health-care decisions, instead of having Washington make those decisions for them. There are numerous examples across the country where states have used the existing, but limited, flexibility of Medicaid’s waiver program to introduce innovative reforms that produced cost savings, quality improvements, and beneficiary satisfaction. The state of Indiana implemented such reforms through the Healthy Indiana Plan. a patient-centered system that provided health coverage to uninsured residents who didn’t qualify for Medicaid. Enrollees in this program had access to benefits such as physician services, prescription drugs, both patient and outpatient hospital care, and disease management. The Medicaid reforms proposed in the fiscal year 2015 budget provide all states with the necessary flexibility to pursue reforms similar to the Indiana plan. Based on this kind of reform, this budget assumes $732 billion in savings over ten years, easing the fiscal burdens imposed on state budgets and contributing to the long-term stabilization of the federal government’s fiscal path. [98] Report: “The Path to Prosperity: Fiscal Year 2015 Budget Resolution. ” House Budget Committee, April 2014. <budget. house. gov >. Repeal the Medicaid Expansions in the New Health-Care Law. The recently enacted health-care law calls for major expansions in the Medicaid program beginning in 2014. These expansions will have a significant impact on the federal share of the Medicaid program and will dramatically increase outlays. In the face of enormous stress on federal and state budgets and declining quality of care in Medicaid, the new health-care law would increase the eligible population for the program by one-third. For fiscal years 2015 through 2024, CBO projects the new law will increase federal spending by $792 billion. This future fiscal burden will have serious budgetary consequences for both federal and state governments. While the health law requires the federal government to finance 100 percent of the Medicaid costs associated with covering new enrollees, this provision begins to phase out in fiscal year 2016. At that time, state governments will be required to assume a share of this cost. This share increases from fiscal year 2016 through 2020, when states will be required to finance 10 percent of the health law’s expansion of Medicaid. Not only does this expansion magnify the challenges to both state and federal budgets, it also binds the hands of local governments in developing solutions that meet the unique needs of their citizens. The health-care law would exacerbate the already crippling one-size-fits-all enrollment mandates that have resulted in below-market reimbursements, poor health-care outcomes, and restrictive services. The budget calls for repealing the Medicaid expansions contained in the health-care law and removing the law’s burdensome programmatic mandates on state governments. Adopting this option would save $792. 4 billion over ten years. [99] Calculated with “Summary Tables for the Path to Prosperity: Fiscal Year 2015 Budget Resolution. ” House Budget Committee, April 2014. <budget. house. gov >. a) Table S-3. “FY2015 House Budget by Major Category (Outlays in Billions) … Medicaid & Other Health … 2016 [=] $311 … 2020 [=] $343 … 2024 [=] $403. ”. b) Table S-4. “FY2015 House Budget vs. Current Policy by Major Category (Outlays in Billions) … Medicaid & Other Health … 2016 [=] -$31 … 2020 [=] -$80 … 2024 [=] -$124. ”. [100] Report: “The Path to Prosperity: Fiscal Year 2015 Budget Resolution. ” House Budget Committee, April 2014. <budget. house. gov >. Repeal the Exchange Subsidies Created by the New Health-Care Law. According to CBO estimates, the health law proposes to spend $1. 2 trillion over the next ten years providing eligible individuals with subsidies to purchase government-approved health insurance. These subsidies can only be used to purchase plans that meet standards determined by the new health-care law. In addition to this enormous market distortion, the law also stipulates a complex maze of eligibility and income tests to determine how much of a subsidy qualifying individuals may receive. The new law couples these subsidies with a mandate for individuals to purchase health insurance and bureaucratic controls on the types of insurance that may legally be offered. Taken together, these provisions will undermine the private insurance market, which serves as the backbone of the current U. health-care system. Exchange subsidies will undermine the competitive forces of the marketplace. Government mandates will drive out all but the largest insurance companies. Punitive tax penalties will force individuals to purchase coverage whether they choose to or not. Further, this budget does not condone any policy that would require entities or individuals to finance activities or make health decisions that violate their religious beliefs. This budget provides for the repeal of the President’s onerous health-care law for this and many other reasons. Left in place, the health law will create pressures that will eventually lead to a single-payer system in which the federal government determines how much health care Americans need and what kind of care they can receive. This budget recommends repealing the architecture of this new law, which puts health-care decisions into the hands of bureaucrats, and instead allowing Congress to pursue patient-centered health-care reforms that actually bring down the cost of care by empowering consumers. … To be clear, this budget repeals all federal spending related to the health law’s exchange subsidies and related spending. [101] Dataset: “Budgetary and Economic Outcomes Under Paths for Federal Revenues and Noninterest Spending Specified by Chairman Ryan, April 2014. ” Congressional Budget Office, April 1, 2014. <www. cbo. gov >. Figure 9: “Spending Excluding Interest Payments Under Various Budget Scenarios, With Macroeconomic Effects (Percentage of Gross Domestic Product) … Paths for Revenues and Noninterest Spending Specified by Chairman Ryan … 2015 [=] 18. 9 … 2025 [=] 16. 0 … 2035 [=] 16. 4”. [102] Dataset: “The 2014 Long-Term Budget Outlook. ” Congressional Budget Office, July 15, 2014. <www. cbo. gov >. Figure 1-3: “Spending and Revenues Under CBO’s Extended Baseline, Compared With Past Averages (Percentage of Gross Domestic Product). … Spending … Net Interest … Average, 1947 to 2013 [=] 2. 2 … Total Spending… Average, 1947 to 2013 [=] 20. 5”. CALCULATION: 20. 5 – 2. 2 = 18. 3 total spending less net interest. [103] Dataset: “Budgetary and Economic Outcomes Under Paths for Federal Revenues and Noninterest Spending Specified by Chairman Ryan, April 2014. ” Congressional Budget Office, April 1, 2014. <www. cbo. gov >. Figure 11: “Revenues Under Various Budget Scenarios, With Macroeconomic Effects (Percentage of Gross Domestic Product) … Paths for Revenues and Noninterest Spending Specified by Chairman Ryan … 2015 [=] 18. 2 … 2025 [=] 18. 4 … 2032 [=] 19. 0”. [104] Dataset: “The 2014 Long-Term Budget Outlook. ” Congressional Budget Office, July 15, 2014. <www. cbo. gov >. Figure 1-3: “Spending and Revenues Under CBO’s Extended Baseline, Compared With Past Averages (Percentage of Gross Domestic Product). … Revenues … Total Revenues … Average, 1947 to 2013 [=] 17. 4”. [105] NOTE: These debt projections account for the economic effects of federal debt, taxes, and spending. As explained by CBO:. The results with economic feedback include the economic effects of the budget policies and the effects of that economic feedback on the budget. Those results are CBO’s central estimates from ranges determined by alternative assessments about how much deficits “crowd out” investment in capital goods such as factories and computers (because a larger portion of people’s savings is being used to purchase government securities) and how much people respond to changes in after-tax wages by adjusting the number of hours they work. [Report: “The 2014 Long-Term Budget Outlook. ” Congressional Budget Office, July 2014. <www. cbo. gov >. Page 76. [106] Constructed with data from:. a) Dataset: “The 2014 Long-Term Budget Outlook. ” Congressional Budget Office, July 15, 2014. <www. cbo. gov >. “Figure 1-1. Federal Debt Held by the Public”. “Figure 6-3. Long-Run Effects of the Fiscal Policies in CBO’s Extended Alternative Fiscal Scenario”. b) Dataset: “Budgetary and Economic Outcomes Under Paths for Federal Revenues and Noninterest Spending Specified by Chairman Ryan. ” Congressional Budget Office, April 1, 2014. <www. cbo. gov >. [107] Article: “Poll Shows Budget-Cuts Dilemma. ” By Neil King Jr. and Scott Greenberg. Wall Street Journal. March 3, 2011. <www. wsj. com >. [108] Report: “The 2014 Long-Term Budget Outlook. gov >. Spending for the Major Health Care Programs and Social Security. Mandatory programs have accounted for a rising share of the federal government’s noninterest spending over the past few decades, averaging 60 percent in recent years. Most of the growth in mandatory spending has involved the three largest programs—Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. Federal outlays for those programs together made up more than 40 percent of the government’s noninterest spending, on average, during the past 10 years, compared with less than 30 percent four decades ago. Most of the anticipated growth in noninterest spending as a share of GDP over the long term is expected to come from the government’s major health care programs: Medicare, Medicaid, the Children’s Health Insurance Program, and the subsidies for health insurance purchased through the exchanges created under the ACA. CBO projects that, under current law, total outlays for those programs, net of offsetting receipts, would grow much faster than the overall economy, increasing from just below 5 percent of GDP now to 8 percent in 2039…. Spending for Social Security also would increase relative to the size of the economy, but by much less—from almost 5 percent of GDP in 2014 to more than 6 percent in 2039 and beyond…. Those projected increases in spending for Social Security and the government’s major health care programs are attributable primarily to three causes: the aging of the population, rising health care spending per beneficiary, and the ACA’s expansion of federal subsidies for health insurance. [109] Article: “AP-CNBC Poll: Cut services to balance the budget. ” By Alan Fram and Jennifer Agiesta. Associated Press, November 30, 2010. <archive. boston. com >. Eighty-five percent worry that growing red ink will harm future generations—the strongest expression of concern since AP polls began asking the question in 2008. Fifty-six percent think the shortfalls will spark a major economic crisis in the coming decade. …. Asked to choose between two paths lawmakers could follow to balance the budget, 59 percent in the AP-CNBC Poll preferred cutting unspecified government services while 30 percent picked unspecified tax increases. [110] Article: “Experts Warn Debt May Threaten Economy. ” By Robert Tanner. Associated Press, Aug 27, 2005. <ap. org >. The AP/Ipsos poll of 1,000 adults taken July 5–7 found that a sweeping majority—70 percent—worried about the size of the federal deficit either “some” or “a lot. ”. But only 35 percent were willing to cut government spending and experience a drop in services to balance the budget. Even fewer—18 percent—were willing to raise taxes to keep current services. Just 1 percent wanted to both raise taxes and cut spending. The poll has a margin of error of 3 percentage points. [111] “The Tea Is Cooling: The First Session of the 113th Congress. Policy Paper No. 173. BillTally Report 113-2. ” National Taxpayers Union Foundation, July 10, 2014. <www. ntu. org >. Page 2: “During the First Session of the 113th Congress, Representatives authored 496 spending bills and 112 savings bills. Senators drafted 332 increase bills and 56 savings bills. While the number of increases was the lowest seen since the 105th Congress, this is also the first time in several years that there were fewer cut bills introduced compared to the preceding Congress. ”. [112] Appendix C: “BillTally Methodology Rules. ” National Taxpayers Union Foundation. Accessed May 18, 2015 at <www. ntu. org >. In cases where a Member cosponsors the same spending in more than one bill (e. cosponsored more than one universal health care bill), the same spending is offset and thus is not counted twice toward the Member’s total. …. In estimating the cost of reauthorization and appropriation bills, NTUF [National Taxpayers Union Foundation] counts only the net increase or decrease in cost over the prior year’s authorization or appropriation. Sources of Cost Estimates. The estimates contained in the BillTally study are generally obtained from sources outside of NTUF. Where there is more than one estimate available for a given bill, NTUF uses the most credible source. Where NTUF obtains estimates from more than one equally credible source, NTUF uses the least optimistic (largest increase/smallest reduction) estimate. In cases where cost estimates are not readily available from any outside source, NTUF will attempt to calculate an estimate (with the assistance of the sponsor where possible). Generally, these estimates prove to be low compared to the actual cost of the program. The scope and nature of the BillTally cost survey make total precision impossible. To maximize accuracy and ensure fairness, NTUF provides Members of Congress with a significant review period to comment confidentially on the accuracy of their own reports. In response to these comments, NTUF makes appropriate changes to the BillTally database. To the extent that more up-to-date information comes to light, it will be reflected in subsequent reports. However, the comprehensive nature of the database makes it unlikely that errors with respect to individual bills will alter the general findings of this study. [113] “The Tea Is Cooling: The First Session of the 113th Congress. Policy Paper No. 173. BillTally Report 113-2. ” National Taxpayers Union Foundation, July 10, 2014. <www. ntu. org >. This report summarizes data from NTUF’s [National Taxpayers Union Foundation’s] BillTally accounting software, which computes the cost or savings of all legislation introduced in the First Session of the 113th Congress that affects spending by at least $1 million. Agenda totals for individual lawmakers were developed by cross indexing their sponsorship and cosponsorship records with cost estimates for 608 House bills and 388 Senate bills under BillTally accounting rules that prevent the double counting of overlapping proposals. All sponsorship and cost data in this report were reviewed confidentially by each Congressional office prior to publication. Appendix A lists all Members alphabetically, Appendix B lists members by state delegation, and Appendix C gives a thorough explanation of the BillTally methodology. …. In the House, the average Democrat called for net spending hikes of $396. 5 billion—nearly a hundred billion less than in the previous Congress and the lowest since the 107th Congress. This spending would have boosted FY 2013’s total outlays by 11 percent. During the previous Congress, the typical House Republican proposed, on net, a record level of spending cuts: $130. 2 billion. In this current Congress, the amount of cuts receded by over a third, to $82. 6 billion. Relative to FY 2013 total outlays, this would have reduced spending by just over 2 percent. As recently as the 111th Congress (2009), the average Senate Democrat supported legislation that would have increased total spending by $133. 7 billion (which would have represented a 4 percent increase in total budgetary outlays for that year). In this Congress their average net agenda amounted to $18. 3 billion in new spending, which would grow the budget by one half of a percentage point. This marks the Senate Democrats’ lowest recorded net spending agenda since the 104th Congress. As in the previous Congress, the average Senate Republican was a net cutter, but called for a smaller level of reductions. The result was a net agenda that went from -$238. 7 billion to -$159. 1 billion (both net cuts). That amount would have shaved FY 2013 total outlays by 4. 6 percent. …. A Senator’s or Representative’s record of authored and sponsored bills can be viewed as his or her legislative “wish list,” free from the pressure of party leaders that normally comes with the voting process. By tabulating the cost and/or savings of each Member’s agenda, taxpayers can gain a better understanding of the policy interests as well as the guiding budgetary philosophies of their elected representatives. Table 3. House Sponsorship of Legislation in the First Sessions of the Past Twelve Congresses by Party (Dollar Amounts in Millions) … Democrats … 113th Congress … Proposed Increases [=] $406,795 … Proposed Cuts [=] ($10,311) … Net Agendas [=] $396,483 … Percent Change in Fiscal Year Budget Outlays [=] 11. 48 … Republicans … 113th Congress … Proposed Increases [=] $8,633 … Proposed Cuts [=] ($91,280) … Net Agendas [=] ($82,647) … Percent Change in Fiscal Year Budget Outlays [=] -2. 39. Table 4. Senate Sponsorship of Legislation in the First Sessions of the Past Twelve Congresses by Party (Dollar Amounts in Millions) … Democrats … 113th Congress … Proposed Increases [=] $21,530 … Proposed Cuts [=] ($3,233) … Net Agendas [=] $18,296 … Percent Change in Fiscal Year Budget Outlays [=] 0. 53 … Republicans … 113th Congress … Proposed Increases [=] $5,792 … Proposed Cuts [=] ($164,895) … Net Agendas [=] ($159,103) … Percent Change in Fiscal Year Budget Outlays [=] -4. 61. [114] “The Tea Is Cooling: The First Session of the 113th Congress. Policy Paper No. 173. BillTally Report 113-2. ” National Taxpayers Union Foundation, July 10, 2014. <www. ntu. org >. Pages 8–10: “Table 3. House Sponsorship of Legislation in the First Sessions of the Past Twelve Congresses by Party (Dollar Amounts in Millions)” … “Table 4. Senate Sponsorship of Legislation in the First Sessions of the Past Twelve Congresses by Party (Dollar Amounts in Millions)”. [115] Speech: “Address of the President to Joint Sessions of Congress. ” President George W. Bush, February 27, 2001. <georgewbush-whitehouse. archives. gov >. [116] Article: “$1. 35 trillion tax cut becomes law. ” By Kelly Wallace. CNN, June 7, 2001. <www. cnn. com >. “President George W. Bush signed into law Thursday the first major piece of legislation of his presidency, a $1. 35 trillion tax cut over 10 years. ”. [117] Calculated with data from the footnote above and:. a) Webpage: “The Debt to the Penny and Who Holds It. ” Bureau of the Public Debt, United States Department of the Treasury. Accessed November 4, 2016 at <www. treasurydirect. gov >. “Total Public Debt Outstanding … 06/07/2001 [=] 5,672,373,164,658 … 01/20/2009 [=] 10,626,877,048,913”. b) Dataset: “Table 1. Gross Domestic Product. ” U. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis. Last revised October 28, 2016. <www. bea. gov >. “Gross Domestic Product (billions $) … 2001 Q3 [=] 10,639. 5 … 2009 Q1 [=] 14,383. 9”. c) Webpage: “Calculate duration between two dates. ” Accessed November 9, 2016 at <www. timeanddate. com >. “From and including: Thursday, June 7, 2001 … To, but and including: Tuesday, January 20, 2009 … It is 2785 days from the start date to the end date, end date included”. 2,785 days / 365. 25 days per year = 7. 62 years. $5,672,373,164,658 debt on June 7, 2001 / $10,639,500,000,000 GDP in 2001Q3 = 53. 3%. $10,626,877,048,913 debt on January 20, 2009 / $14,383,900,000,000 GDP in 2009Q1 = 73. 9%. (73. 9% - 53. 3%) / 7. 62 years = 2. 70% per year. [118] Webpage: “Vetoes by President George W. Bush. ” United States Senate. Accessed March 15, 2011 at <www. senate. gov >. H. 2419: Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008*. H. 6124: Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008*. H. 6331: Medicare Improvement for Patients and Providers Act of 2008. H. 1495: Water Resources Development Act of 2007. * NOTE: “The House and Senate passed H. 2419 over veto, enacting 14 of 15 farm bill titles into law. The trade title (title III) was inadvertently excluded from the enrolled bill. To remedy the situation, both chambers re-passed the farm bill conference agreement (including the trade title) as H. 6124, again over veto. H. 6124, in section 4, repealed Public Law 110-234 and amendments made by it, effective on the date of that Act’s enactment. ” Webpage: “H. 2419: Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008. ” Library of Congress. Accessed November 2, 2016 at <www. congress. gov >. [119] Calculated with data from:. a) Cost estimate: “H. 2419, Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008. ” Congressional Budget Office, May 13, 2008. <www. cbo. gov >. “Relative to CBO’s March 2008 baseline projections, we estimate that enacting H. 2419 would increase direct spending by about $3. 6 billion over the 2008-2018 period, assuming that the legislation would remain in effect throughout that period. JCT and CBO estimate that revenues would increase under the legislation by $0. 7 billion over the same period. On balance, those changes would produce net costs (increases in deficits or reductions in surpluses) of about $2. 9 billion over the 11-year period, relative to CBO’s most recent baseline projections. ”. b) Cost estimate: “H. 6331, Medicare Improvements for Patients and Providers Act of 2008. ” Congressional Budget Office, July 23, 2008. <www. cbo. gov >. “CBO estimates that enacting H. 6331 will increase direct spending by less than $50 million over the 2008-2013 period and by $0. 3 billion over the 2008-2018 period. In addition, the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) estimates that the act will increase federal revenues by $0. 2 billion over the 2008-2013 period and by $0. 4 billion over the 2008-2018 period. In total, CBO estimates that the act will reduce deficits (or increase surpluses) by $0. 1 billion over the 2008-2013 period and by less than $50 million over the 2008-2018 period. ”. c) Cost estimate: “H. 1495: Water Resources Development Act of 2007. ” Congressional Budget Office, September 24, 2007. <www. cbo. gov >. “Assuming appropriation of the necessary amounts, including adjustments for increases in anticipated inflation, CBO estimates that implementing this conference agreement for H. 1495 would result in discretionary outlays of about $11. 2 billion over the 2008-2012 period and an additional $12. 0 billion over the 10 years after 2012. (Some construction costs and operations and maintenance would continue or commence after those first 15 years. )”. CALCULATION: $2. 9 billion (over 2008–2018 for H. 2419) + $0. 1 billion (over 2008-2013 for H. 6331) + $11. 2 billion (over 2008–2012 for H. 1495) + $12. 0 billion (over 2013–2022) = 26. 2 billion over 2008–2022. [120] “Remarks at the Fiscal Responsibility Summit. ” By Barack Obama. Government Printing Office, February 23, 2009. <www. whitehouse. gov >. [121] Transcript: “Obama’s Remarks at Stimulus Bill Signing. ” Washington Post. February 17, 2009. <www. washingtonpost. com >. “The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act that I will sign today, a plan that meets the principles I laid out in January, is the most sweeping economic recovery package in our history. ”. [122] Calculated with data from the footnote above and:. a) Webpage: “The Debt to the Penny and Who Holds It. ” Bureau of the Public Debt, United States Department of the Treasury. Accessed November 2, 2016 at <www. treasurydirect. gov >. “Total Public Debt Outstanding … 01/20/2009 [=] 10,626,877,048,913 … 9/30/2016 [=] 19,573,444,713,937”. b) Dataset: “Table 1. Gross Domestic Product. ” U. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis. Last revised October 28, 2016. <www. bea. gov >. “Gross Domestic Product (billions $) … 2009 Q1 [=] 14,383. 9 … 2016 Q3 [=] 18,651. c) Webpage: “Calculate duration between two dates. ” Accessed November 2, 2016 at <www. timeanddate. com >. “From and including: Tuesday, January 20, 2009 … To and including: Friday, September 30, 2016 … It is 2811 days from the start date to the end date, end date included”. 2,811 days / 365. 25 days per year = 7. 70 years. $10,626,877,048,913 debt on January 20, 2009 / $14,383,900,000,000 GDP in 2009 Q1 = 73. 9%. $19,573,444,713,937 debt on September 30, 2016 / $18,651,200,000,000 GDP in 2016 Q3 = 104. 9%. (104. 9% - 73. 9%) / 7. 70 years = 4. 0% per year. [123] Webpage: “Vetoes by President Barack H. Obama. ” United States Senate. Accessed November 4, 2016 at <www. senate. gov >. [124] Cost estimate: “S. 2040: Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act. ” Congressional Budget Office, January 28, 2016. <www. cbo. gov >. “CBO estimates that implementing S. 2040 would have no significant effect on the federal budget. ”. [125] “2010 Annual Report of the Board of Trustees of The Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance and Disability Insurance Trust Funds. ” United States Social Security Administration, August 9, 2010. <www. ssa. gov >. Page 138: “The Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance (OASI) Trust Fund was established on January 1, 1940 as a separate account in the United States Treasury. The Federal Disability Insurance (DI) Trust Fund, another separate account in the United States Treasury, was established on August 1, 1956. All the financial operations of the OASI and DI programs are handled through these respective funds. ”. [126] Report: “The Debt Limit: History and Recent Increases. ” By D. Andrew Austin. Congressional Research Service, April 29, 2008. <fpc. state. gov >. Summary: “[D]ebt increases when the federal government issues debt to certain government accounts, such as the Social Security, Medicare, and Transportation trust funds, in exchange for their reported surpluses. This increases debt held by government accounts. ”. [127] Webpage: “Debt versus Deficit: What’s the Difference?” United States Department of the Treasury, Bureau of the Public Debt, August 5, 2004. Last updated October 10, 2008. <www. treasurydirect. gov >. “Additionally, the Government Trust Funds are required by law to invest accumulated surpluses in Treasury securities. The Treasury securities issued to the public and to the Government Trust Funds (intragovernmental holdings) then become part of the total debt. ”. [128] “2010 Annual Report of the Board of Trustees of The Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance and Disability Insurance Trust Funds. ” Board of Trustees of the Federal OASDI Trust Funds, August 9, 2010. <www. ssa. gov >. Page 221: “Funds not withdrawn for current monthly or service benefits, the financial interchange, and administrative expenses are invested in interest-bearing Federal securities, as required by law; the interest earned is also deposited in the trust funds. ”. [129] Report: “Federal Debt and Interest Costs. ” Congressional Budget Office, December 2010. <www. cbo. gov >. Because those trust funds and other government accounts are part of the federal government, transactions between them and the Treasury are intragovernmental; that is, the government securities in those funds are an asset to the individual programs but a liability to the rest of the government. The resources needed to redeem the government securities in the trust funds and other accounts in some future year must be generated from taxes, income from other government sources, or borrowing by the government in that year. [130] Report: “Analytical Perspectives: Budget of the U. Government, Fiscal Year 2011. ” White House Office of Management and Budget. <www. whitehouse. gov >. Page 57: “The … Federal social insurance and employee retirement programs … own 93 percent of the debt held by Government accounts…. ”. [131] “The Debt to the Penny and Who Holds It. ” United States Department of the Treasury, Bureau of the Public Debt. Accessed April 5, 2011 at <www. treasurydirect. gov >. NOTE: As shown in this source, the Bureau of the Public Debt breaks down the “Total Public Debt Outstanding” into “Debt Held by the Public” and “Intragovernmental Holdings. ” Forthcoming facts define these terms. [132] Report: “The Debt Limit: History and Recent Increases. ” By D. Andrew Austin. Congressional Research Service, April 29, 2008. <fpc. state. gov >. Total debt of the federal government can increase in two ways. First, debt increases when the government sells debt to the public to finance budget deficits and acquire the financial resources needed to meet its obligations. This increases debt held by the public. Second, debt increases when the federal government issues debt to certain government accounts, such as the Social Security, Medicare, and Transportation trust funds, in exchange for their reported surpluses. This increases debt held by government accounts. The sum of debt held by the public and debt held by government accounts is the total federal debt. [133] Webpage: “Frequently Asked Questions About the Public Debt. ” United States Department of the Treasury, Bureau of the Public Debt. Last updated April 1, 2016. <www. treasurydirect. gov >. What is the Debt Held by the Public. “The Debt Held by the Public is all federal debt held by individuals, corporations, state or local governments, Federal Reserve Banks, foreign governments, and other entities outside the United States Government less Federal Financing Bank securities. Types of securities held by the public include, but are not limited to, Treasury Bills, Notes, Bonds, TIPS, United States Savings Bonds, and State and Local Government Series securities. ”. [134] Paper: “Government Debt. ” By Douglas W. Elmendorf (Federal Reserve Board) and N. Gregory Mankiw (Harvard University and the National Bureau of Economic Research), January 1998. <www. federalreserve. gov >. Page 2: “The figure shows federal debt ‘held by the public,’ which includes debt held by the Federal Reserve System but excludes debt held by other parts of the federal government, such as the Social Security trust fund. ”. [135] Report: “Federal Debt and Interest Costs. ” Congressional Budget Office, December 2010. <www. cbo. gov >. Ownership of Federal Debt Held by the Public …. A significant amount of federal debt is held by the Federal Reserve—the nation’s central bank and an independent entity within the government that is responsible for conducting monetary policy, among other activities. [136] Report: “Analytical Perspectives: Budget of the U. Government, Fiscal Year 2011. ” White House Office of Management and Budget. <www. whitehouse. gov >. Page 125: “The gross Federal debt is defined to consist of both the debt held by the public and the debt held by Government accounts. Nearly all the Federal debt has been issued by the Treasury and is sometimes called ‘public debt,’ but a small portion has been issued by other Government agencies and is called ‘agency debt. ’ ”. [137] Report: “The Debt Limit: History and Recent Increases. ” By D. Andrew Austin. Congressional Research Service, April 29, 2008. <fpc. state. gov >. Summary: “[D]ebt increases when the federal government issues debt to certain government accounts, such as the Social Security, Medicare, and Transportation trust funds, in exchange for their reported surpluses. This increases debt held by government accounts. ”. [138] Testimony: “An Overview of Federal Debt. ” By Paul L. Posner. United States General Accounting Office, June 24, 1998. <www. gao. gov >. Page 2: “[G]overnment held debt is expected to grow due to the large projected increases in trust fund surpluses invested in special Treasury securities. ”. [139] Webpage: “Frequently Asked Questions About the Public Debt. ” United States Department of the Treasury, Bureau of the Public Debt. Last updated April 1, 2016. <www. treasurydirect. gov >. What are Intragovernmental Holdings. Intragovernmental Holdings are Government Account Series securities held by Government trust funds, revolving funds, and special funds; and Federal Financing Bank securities. A small amount of marketable securities are held by government accounts. [140] Report: “Analytical Perspectives: Budget of the U. Government, Fiscal Year 2011. ” White House Office of Management and Budget. <www. whitehouse. gov >. Page 56: “For the purposes of the Budget, ‘debt held by the public’ is defined as debt held by investors outside of the Federal Government, both domestic and foreign, including U. State and local governments and foreign governments. It also includes debt held by the Federal Reserve. ”. [141] “2009 Financial Report of the United States Government. ” U. Department of the Treasury, February 26, 2010. <www. fiscal. treasury. gov >. Page 4: “[T]he largest contributors to the Government’s net cost include … the interest paid on debt held by the public (i. publicly-held debt). ”. [142] Report: “Monthly Statement of the Public Debt of the United States, September 30, 2016. ” United States Department of the Treasury, Bureau of the Public Debt. <www. treasurydirect. gov >. [143] United States Code Title 31, Subtitle III, Chapter 31, Subchapter II, Section 3123: “Payment of obligations and interest on the public debt. ” Accessed April 7, 2011 at <www. law. cornell. edu >. Section (a): “The faith of the United States Government is pledged to pay, in legal tender, principal and interest on the obligations of the Government issued under this chapter. ”. [144] Report: “Analytical Perspectives: Budget of the U. Government, Fiscal Year 2011. ” White House Office of Management and Budget. <www. whitehouse. gov >. However, issuing debt to Government accounts does not have any of the credit market effects of borrowing from the public. It is an internal transaction of the Government, made between two accounts that are both within the Government itself. Issuing debt to a Government account is not a current transaction of the Government with the public; it is not financed by private saving and does not compete with the private sector for available funds in the credit market. While such issuance provides the account with assets—a binding claim against the Treasury—those assets are fully offset by the increased liability of the Treasury to pay the claims, which will ultimately be covered by taxation or borrowing. Similarly, the current interest earned by the Government account on its Treasury securities does not need to be financed by other resources. …. … For all these reasons, debt held by the public and debt net of financial assets are both better gauges of the effect of the budget on the credit markets than gross Federal debt. [145] Report: “Analytical Perspectives: Budget of the U. Government, Fiscal Year 2010. ” White House Office of Management and Budget. <www. whitehouse. gov >. Page 223: “Debt is the largest legally binding obligation of the Federal Government. At the end of 2008, the Government owed $5,803 billion of principal to the individuals and institutions who had loaned it the money to fund past deficits. ”. NOTE: As proof that the statement above excludes the debt owed to federal entities, consider that at the end of fiscal year 2008 (September 30, 2008), the gross national debt was $10,025 billion, which consisted of $5,809 billion of publicly held debt and $4,216 billion of government-held debt. [“The Debt to the Penny and Who Holds It. ” United States Department of the Treasury, Bureau of the Public Debt. Accessed April 4, 2011 at <www. treasurydirect. gov >]. [146] Report: “The Long-Term Budget Outlook. ” Congressional Budget Office, June 2010 (Revised August 2010). <www. cbo. gov >. The most meaningful measure of federal debt for such projections is debt held by the public, which represents the amount that the government is borrowing in the financial markets (by issuing Treasury securities) to pay for federal operations and activities. That borrowing competes with other participants in the credit markets for financial resources and can crowd out private investment. 14. 14 In contrast, debt held by trust funds and other government accounts—which, together with debt held by the public, make up gross federal debt—represents internal transactions of the government and thus has no effect on credit markets. [147] “2008 Financial Report of the United States Government. Department of the Treasury, 2008. <www. fiscal. treasury. gov >. Page 26: “Intra-governmental debt is not shown on the balance sheet because claims of one part of the Government against another are eliminated for consolidation purposes (see Financial Statement Note 11). ”. [148] “2010 Annual Report of the Board of Trustees of The Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance and Disability Insurance Trust Funds. ” United States Social Security Administration, August 9, 2010. <www. ssa. gov >. Page 141: “Another source of income to the trust funds is interest received on investments held by the trust funds. That portion of each trust fund that is not required to meet the current cost of benefits and administration is invested, on a daily basis, primarily in interest-bearing obligations of the U. Government (including special public-debt obligations described below). ”. Page 2: “Total income was $807 billion ($689 billion in tax revenue and $118 billion in interest earnings), and assets held in special issue U. Treasury securities grew to $2. 5 trillion. ”. [149] Table VI. F7: “Operations of the Combined OASI and DI Trust Funds, in Constant 2010 Dollars, Calendar Years 2010-85 [In billions]. ” United States Social Security Administration, Office of the Chief Actuary. Last reviewed or modified August 5, 2010. <www. ssa. gov >. The “combined OASI and DI Trust Funds” comprise the “Social Security Trust Fund. ”. Just Facts has conducted extensive research on Social Security. and all of the Social Security Administration’s solvency projections include the monies owed to the program by the federal government. [150] “Status of the Social Security and Medicare Programs: A Summary of the 2000 Annual Reports. ” Social Security and Medicare Boards of Trustees, April 2000. <www. ssa. gov >. Page 1: “Trust fund operations, in billions of dollars … HI [Hospital Insurance, a. Medicare Part A] … Assets (end of 1999) [=] 44. 8”. [151] “Prosperity for America’s Families: The Gore Lieberman Economic Plan. ” Gore/Lieberman, Inc. September 2000. <www. cnn. com >. NOTE: Just Fact searched this document from cover to cover three times while examining all usages of the word “debt. ” In all such instances, the debt owed to public entities is not mentioned, acknowledged, or included in any of the data. This document uses the phrases “publicly held debt” and “debt held by the public” a total of five times. On more than 150 other occasions, the document uses terms such as “debt,” “federal debt,” and “national debt,” when in fact, it is actually referring only to the debt owed to non-federal entities in many of these cases. [152] “Prosperity for America’s Families: The Gore Lieberman Economic Plan. ” Gore/Lieberman, Inc. September 2000. <www. cnn. com >. Page 12: “But with Social Security projected to become insolvent in 2037* and Medicare in 2025,† they face looming challenges that are just around the corner. ”. * The Social Security program required the money owed to it by the federal government in order to remain solvent until the date given in the Gore-Liebermann proposal. In 2000, Social Security tax revenues were “expected to exceed expenditures until 2015,” but the program was projected to remain solvent until 2037 by collecting on the principal and interest owed by the federal government to the Social Security trust fund. [“2000 Annual Report of the Board of Trustees of The Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance and Disability Insurance Trust Funds. ” Board of Trustees of the Federal OASDI Trust Funds, March 30, 2000. <www. ssa. gov > Pages 3-4: “Under the intermediate assumptions, OASDI [Social Security] tax revenues are estimated to exceed expenditures until 2015 (1 year later than estimated in last year’s report). Total income (including interest earnings on the trust funds) will exceed expenditures through 2024. It is estimated that beginning in 2025, trust fund assets would have to be redeemed to cover the difference until the assets of the combined funds are exhausted in 2037, 3 years later than estimated in last year’s report. ”]. † The same applies here. The Medicare program required the money owed to it by the federal government in order to remain solvent until the date given in the Gore-Liebermann proposal. [“Status of the Social Security and Medicare Programs: A Summary of the 2000 Annual Reports. ” Social Security and Medicare Boards of Trustees, April 2000. <www. ssa. gov > Page 8: “Key Dates For The Trust Funds … HI [i. Hospital Insurance or Medicare Part A] … First year outgo exceeds income including interest [=] 2017 … Year trust fund assets are exhausted [=] 2025”]. For more details about how the Gore Lieberman Economic Plan misleads with regard to the national debt, visit Just Facts’ essay, “The Impact of Social Security on the National Debt. ”. [153] United States Code Title 31, Subtitle II, Chapter 11, Section 1102: “Fiscal year. ” Accessed April 7, 2011 at <www. law. cornell. edu >. “The fiscal year of the Treasury begins on October 1 of each year and ends on September 30 of the following year. ”. [154] “The Debt to the Penny and Who Holds It. ” United States Department of the Treasury, Bureau of the Public Debt. Accessed April 5, 2011 at <www. treasurydirect. gov >. NOTE: The facts contained in this footnote pertain to the differing accounting criteria that PolitiFact applied to Bush and Clinton. Facts regarding the actual figures and the propriety of linking the national debt solely to the president are presented further below. [165] Report: “Monthly Statement of the Public Debt of the United States. ” U. Bureau of the Public Debt, September 30, 2016. <www. treasurydirect. gov >. [166] Paper: “Government Debt. ” By Douglas W. Elmendorf (Federal Reserve Board) and N. Gregory Mankiw (Harvard University and the National Bureau of Economic Research), January 1998. <www. federalreserve. gov >. Page 2: “The figure shows federal debt ‘held by the public,’ which includes debt held by the Federal Reserve System…. ”. [167] Calculated with data from:. a) Report: “Treasury Bulletin. ” U. Department of the Treasury, Financial Management Service, September 2016. <www. fiscal. treasury. gov >. Page 42: “Table OFS-2. —Estimated Ownership of U. Treasury Securities”. b) Webpage: “The Debt to the Penny and Who Holds It. ” Bureau of the Public Debt, United States Department of the Treasury. Accessed November 4, 2016 at <www. treasurydirect. gov >. “12/31/2015 … Debt Held by the Public [=] $13,672,522,257,291. 59 … Intragovernmental Holdings [=] $5,249,656,752,129. 30 … Total Public Debt Outstanding [=] $18,922,179,009,420. 89”. c) Report: “Factors Affecting Reserve Balances of Depository Institutions and Condition Statement of Federal Reserve Banks. ” U. Federal Reserve, December 31, 2015. <www. federalreserve. gov >. “Dec 30, 2015 … U. Treasury securities [=] 2,461,554 [millions $] … Federal agency debt securities [=] 32,944”. NOTE: An Excel file containing the data and calculations is available upon request. [168] Report: “Analytical Perspectives: Budget of the U. Government, Fiscal Year 2017. ” White House Office of Management and Budget. <www. whitehouse. gov >. [169] Calculated with the dataset: “Major Foreign Holders of Treasury Securities Holdings at End of Period (in billions of dollars). ” U. Department of the Treasury, October 18, 2016. <ticdata. treasury. gov >. NOTE: An Excel file containing the data and calculations is available upon request. [170] Article: “Experts Warn Debt May Threaten Economy. ” By Robert Tanner. Associated Press, Aug 27, 2005. <ap. org >. “In a very real sense, the U. economy is dependent on the central banks of Japan, China and other nations to invest in U. Treasuries and keep American interest rates down. The low rates here keep American consumers buying imported goods. ”. [171] Report: “China’s Holdings of U. Securities: Implications for the U. Economy. ” By Wayne M. Morrison and Marc Labonte. Congressional Research Service, January 9, 2008. <fpc. state. gov >. All else equal, Chinese government purchases of U. assets increases the demand for U. assets, which reduces U. interest rates. If China attempted to reduce its holdings of U. securities, they would be sold to other investors (foreign and domestic), who would presumably require higher interest rates than those prevailing today to be enticed to buy them. … All else equal, the reduction in Chinese Treasury holdings would cause the overall foreign demand for U. assets to fall, and this would cause the dollar to depreciate. … The magnitude of these effects would depend on how many U. securities China sold; modest reductions would have negligible effects on the economy given the vastness of U. financial markets. [172] Report: “China’s Holdings of U. Securities: Implications for the U. Morrison and Marc Labonte. Congressional Research Service, January 9, 2008. <fpc. state. gov >. A potentially serious short-term problem would emerge if China decided to suddenly reduce their liquid U. financial assets significantly. The effect could be compounded if this action triggered a more general financial reaction (or panic), in which all foreigners responded by reducing their holdings of U. assets. The initial effect could be a sudden and large depreciation in the value of the dollar, as the supply of dollars on the foreign exchange market increased, and a sudden and large increase in U. interest rates, as an important funding source for investment and the budget deficit was withdrawn from the financial markets. The dollar depreciation would not cause a recession since it would ultimately lead to a trade surplus (or smaller deficit), which expands aggregate demand. 28 (Empirical evidence suggests that the full effects of a change in the exchange rate on traded goods takes time, so the dollar may have to “overshoot” its eventual depreciation level in order to achieve a significant adjustment in trade flows in the short run. ) 29 However, a sudden increase in interest rates could swamp the trade effects and cause a recession. Large increases in interest rates could cause problems for the U. economy, as these increases reduce the market value of debt securities, cause prices on the stock market to fall, undermine efficient financial intermediation, and jeopardize the solvency of various debtors and creditors. Resources may not be able to shift quickly enough from interest-sensitive sectors to export sectors to make this transition fluid. The Federal Reserve could mitigate the interest rate spike by reducing short-term interest rates, although this reduction would influence long-term rates only indirectly, and could worsen the dollar depreciation and increase inflation. Some U. officials have expressed doubts that a Chinese sell-off of U. securities would cause liquidity problems or have much of an impact on the U. economy. In January 2007, Secretary of Treasury Henry Paulson was asked at a Senate Banking Committee hearing whether or not he was concerned over China’s large ownership of U. debt. Paulson stated that the daily volume of trade in Treasury securities was larger than China’s total Treasury securities holdings and concluded: “given the size of our debt outstanding and the way it trades and the diversity and so on, that’s not at the top of the list. ”. 28 A sharp decline in the value of the dollar would also reduce living standards, all else equal, because it would raise the price of imports to households. This effect, which is referred to as a decline in the terms of trade, would not be recorded directly in GDP, however. 29 Since the decline in the dollar would raise import prices, this could temporarily increase inflationary pressures. The effect would likely be modest, however, since imports are small as a share of GDP and import prices would only gradually rise in response to the fall in the dollar. [173] Report: “China’s Holdings of U. Securities: Implications for the U. Economy. ” By Wayne M. Morrison and Marc Labonte. Congressional Research Service, January 9, 2008. <fpc. state. gov >. [181] Article: “Budget Deal to Cut $38 Billion Averts Shutdown. ” By Carl Hulse. New York Times. April 8, 2011. <www. nytimes. com >. [182] “Cost estimate for H. 1473, the Department of Defense and Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act of 2011 (Additional Information). ” Congressional Budget Office, April 14, 2011. <www. cbo. gov >. The estimated range provided above is lower than the estimated net change in budget authority (the authority for federal agencies to enter into obligations) for 2011 that would result from enactment of H. 1473 [i. “the $38 billion budget cut”], compared with earlier continuing resolutions. For example, Public Law 111-322, which funded the government’s operations through March 4, provided (on an annualized basis) budget authority of $1,087. 5 billion for nonemergency appropriations for fiscal year 2011—an amount that is relatively close to the funding level for 2010. * In contrast, H. 1473 would provide net new budget authority of $1,049. 8 billion, producing a difference of $37. 7 billion. That difference reflects reductions in budget authority for BOTH regularly appropriated discretionary programs and some mandatory programs. To help sort through the intricacies of this matter, Just Facts queried the legislative director of a U. congressman to identify the proper baselines for these cuts (referenced in this footnote and the one below). Just Facts then double-checked these figures in various ways to ensure continuity. * This figure is $1,089. 7 billion, which equates to a cut of $39. 9 billion relative to 2010. † [Document: “Subcommittee Allocations for FY 11 Continuing Resolution - 302(b)s. ” U. House of Representatives, Committee on Appropriations, February, 3, 2011. <appropriations. house. gov > “The following table outlines the spending limits and cuts announced by Chairman Rogers for each Appropriations Subcommittee for the CR [continuing resolution] … Regular [i. nonemergency] Discretionary only (Budget authority; in millions) … Total Fiscal Year 2010 Enacted [=] 1,089,671”. † CALCULATION: $1,089. 7 billion (enacted budget authority during 2010) - $1,049. 8 billion (budget authority under the 2011 budget cut) = $39. 9 billion differential. [183] Calculated with data from:. a) “Fiscal Year 2012 Historical Tables, Budget of the U. Government. ” White House Office of Management and Budget, 2010. <www. whitehouse. gov >. Page 21: “Table 1. 1—Summary of Receipts, Outlays, and Surpluses or Deficits, 1789–2016”. Page 211: “Table 10. 1—Gross Domestic Product and Deflators used in the Historical Tables, 1940–2016”. b) Report: “An Analysis of the President’s Budgetary Proposals for Fiscal Year 2012. ” Congressional Budget Office. April 2011. <www. cbo. gov >. Page 2: “Table 1-1. Comparison of Projected Revenues, Outlays, and Deficits Under CBO’s March 2011 Baseline and CBO’s Estimate of the President’s Budget (Billions of dollars) … 2011 … Revenues [=] 2,230 … Outlays [=] 3,629 … Total Deficit = -1,399. ”. Page 4: “Table 1-2. CBO’s Estimate of the President’s Budget … Gross Domestic Product … 2011 [=] 15,034 [billions $]”. NOTE: An Excel file containing the data and calculations is available upon request. [184] Same as above. [185] Same as above. [186] Transcript: “Fareed Zakaria GPS. ” CNN, February 14, 2010. <transcripts. cnn. com >. NOTE: Credit for bringing this fact to our attention belongs to NewsBusters [“Fareed Zakaria: Bush Tax Cuts Are Largest Cause of Budget Deficit. ” By Noel Sheppard. February 14, 2010. <www. newsbusters. org >]. [187] Letter: “From Peter R. Orszag (CBO Director) to John M. Spratt, Jr. (House Budget Committee Chairman). ” Congressional Budget Office, July 20, 2007. <www. cbo. gov >. JCT [the Joint Committee on Taxation] estimated the revenue effects of EGTRRA and JGTRRA at the time the acts were considered in 2001 and 2003, respectively. Taken together, those estimates imply a loss of revenues totaling $165 billion in 2007. As you requested, CBO has calculated the debt-service costs that would result in 2007 from the legislation under an assumption that they were financed in full by additional debt rather than offset elsewhere in the budget. On that basis, CBO estimates that the revenue loss in JCT’s projections would lead to additional debt-service costs of $46 billion in 2007, for a total budgetary cost of $211 billion. On the same basis, the agency estimates the total budgetary costs, including interest, for 2008 through 2011 to be $233 billion, $245 billion, $269 billion, and $215 billion, respectively. Per the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ “CPI Inflation Calculator,” $269 billion in 2007 had the same buying power as $282. 90 in 2010. [Accessed April 13, 2011 at <www. bls. gov >]. The projections in this letter are likely overestimates given the ensuing recession’s widespread negative effects on tax revenues. [188] Just Facts has conducted a search of all federal agencies for this data and found that the previous footnote provides the most current federal source for this data. On April 11, 2011, Just Facts sent correspondence to the Congressional Budget Office, White House Office of Management and Budget, and Joint Committee on Taxation asking if they had “published research that quantifies the actual (not projected) revenue effects of EGTRRA and JGTRRA during 2010. ” These acronyms collectively refer to the “Bush tax cuts” and stand for the “Economic Growth and Taxpayer Relief Act of 2001” and the “Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003. ” The Joint Committee on Taxation and White House Office of Management and Budget replied negatively. The Congressional Budget Office did not respond. Just Facts located several estimates by nonprofit organizations but found the methodologies questionable. In 2016, Just Facts conducted another search of CBO and found nothing later than the previous footnote. [189] Calculated with data from the footnote above and “Analytical Perspectives: Budget of the U. Government, Fiscal Year 2012. ” White House Office of Management and Budget. <www. whitehouse. gov >. Page 120: “Table 12–1. Totals For the Budget and the Federal Government (In billions of dollars) … 2010 Actual … Outlays (Unified) [=] 3,456 … Deficit (Unified) [=] 1,293. ”. $282. 90 billion reduced revenue from the Bush tax cuts / $1,293 reported budget deficit = 21. 9%. $282. 90 billion reduced revenue from the Bush tax cuts / $3,456 budget outlays = 8. 2%. [190] Report: “The 2014 Long-Term Budget Outlook. ” Congressional Budget Office, July 15, 2014. <www. cbo. gov >. Page 56: “CBO’s baseline and extended baseline are meant to be benchmarks for measuring the budgetary effects of legislation, so they mostly reflect the assumption that current laws remain unchanged. ”. Most parameters of the tax code are not indexed for real income growth, and some are not indexed for inflation. As a result, the personal exemption, the standard deduction, the amount of the child tax credit, and the thresholds for taxing income at different rates all would tend to decline relative to income over time under current law. One consequence is that, under the extended baseline, average federal tax rates would increase in the long run. NOTE: For more details about this phenomenon, which is known as “bracket creep,” see Just Facts’ research on taxes. [191] Report: “The Budget and Economic Outlook: An Update. ” Congressional Budget Office, August 2011. <www. cbo. gov >. Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 (EGTRRA): This legislation (Public Law 107-16) significantly reduced tax liabilities (the amount of tax owed) between 2001 and 2010 by cutting individual income tax rates, increasing the child tax credit, repealing estate taxes, raising deductions for married couples who file joint returns, increasing tax benefits for pensions and individual retirement accounts, and creating additional tax benefits for education. EGTRRA phased in many of those changes, including some that did not become fully effective until 2010. For legislation that modified or extended provisions of EGTRRA, see Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 and Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010. [192] Calculated with data from:. a) Table 3. 2: “Federal Government Current Receipts and Expenditures. ” United States Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis. Last revised September 29, 2016. <www. b) Table 1. 5: “Gross Domestic Product. ” United States Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis. Last revised September 29, 2016. <www. bea. gov >. This data extends back to 1929. That federal revenues never exceeded 20. 4% of GDP prior to 1929 is ascertained from a 2010 Congressional Budget Office report that (1) projected federal revenues (as a portion of GDP) in 2020 will exceed those in 2000 by one tenth of a percentage point and (2) makes the following statement: “Revenues would also rise considerably under current law; by the 2020s, they would reach higher levels relative to the size of the economy than ever recorded in the nation’s history. ” [Report: “The Long-Term Budget Outlook. ” Congressional Budget Office, June 2010 (Revised August 2010). <www. cbo. gov >]. An Excel file containing the data and calculations is available upon request. [193] Calculated with data from:. a) Table 3. 2: “Federal Government Current Receipts and Expenditures. ” United States Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis. Last revised September 29, 2016. <www. bea. gov >. b) Table 1. 5: “Gross Domestic Product. ” United States Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis. Last revised September 29, 2016. <www. bea. gov >. NOTE: An Excel file containing the data and calculations is available upon request. [194] Transcript: “Inside the Dot. Com Crash. ” CNN Moneyline, December 26, 2000. <transcripts. cnn. com >. “One year ago at this time, Internet stocks were in the midst of an astonishing rally, and their future seemed limitless. But since then, investors have been facing a brutal reality check, watching their shares fall 70, 80, 90 percent from their highs and in some cases disappear completely. ”. [195] Calculated with data from the webpage: “History of The NASDAQ Composite Index. ” FedPrimeRate. com. Accessed September 29, 2012 at <www. fedprimerate. com >. “December 31, 1999 [=] 4,069. 31 … December 31, 2000 [=] 2,470. 52”. CALCULATION: (4,069. 31 - 2,470. 52) / 4,069. 31 = 39. 3%. [196] Calculated with the dataset: “Table 1. 14: Gross Value Added of Domestic Corporate Business in Current Dollars and Gross Value Added of Nonfinancial Domestic Corporate Business in Current and Chained Dollar. ” U. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis. Last revised April 29, 2015. <www. bea. gov >. Line 37: “Nonfinancial corporate business: Profits before tax (without IVA and CCAdj). ”. NOTE: An Excel file containing the data and calculations is available upon request. [197] Dataset: “Table 1. Percent Change From Preceding Period in Real Gross Domestic Product. ” U. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis. Last revised April 29, 2015. <www. bea. gov >. “Gross domestic product … 2001 Q1 [=] -1. 1%”. [198] Report: “US Business Cycle Expansions and Contractions. ” National Bureau of Economic Research, September 20, 2010. <www. nber. org >. Page 1: “Contractions (recessions) start at the peak of a business cycle and end at the trough. ”. Page 2: “Peak [=] March 2001 (I) … Trough [=] November 2001 (IV)”. [199] Report: “The Budget and Economic Outlook: An Update. ” Congressional Budget Office, August 2011. <www. cbo. gov >. Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 (EGTRRA): This legislation (Public Law 107-16) significantly reduced tax liabilities (the amount of tax owed) between 2001 and 2010 by cutting individual income tax rates, increasing the child tax credit, repealing estate taxes, raising deductions for married couples who file joint returns, increasing tax benefits for pensions and individual retirement accounts, and creating additional tax benefits for education. EGTRRA phased in many of those changes, including some that did not become fully effective until 2010. For legislation that modified or extended provisions of EGTRRA, see Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 and Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010. Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 (JGTRRA): This legislation (Public Law 108-27) reduced taxes by advancing to 2003 the effective date of several tax reductions previously enacted in the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001. JGTRRA also increased the exemption amount for the individual alternative minimum tax, reduced the tax rates for income from dividends and capital gains, and expanded the portion of capital purchases that businesses could immediately deduct through 2004. Those tax provisions were set to expire on various dates. (The law also provided roughly $20 billion for fiscal relief to states. [200] Report: “Major Tax Issues in the 111th Congress. ” By Jane G. Gravelle and Pamela J. Jackson. Congressional Research Service, May 6, 2009. <royce. house. gov >. The Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 (EGTRRA; P. 107-16) provided a substantial tax cut that it scheduled to be phased in over the 10 years following its enactment. However, to comply with a Senate procedural rule for legislation affecting the budget (the “Byrd rule”), the act contained language “sunsetting” its provisions after calendar year 2010. Thus, all of EGTRRA’s tax cuts expire at the end of 2010. The most prominent provisions EGTRRA scheduled for phase-in were. • reduction in statutory individual income tax rates;. • creation of a new 10% tax bracket;. • an increase in the per-child tax credit;. • tax cuts for married couples designed to alleviate the “marriage tax penalty”; and. • repeal of the estate tax. In addition, EGTRRA provided for a temporary reduction in the individual alternative minimum tax (AMT) by increasing the AMT’s exemption amount, but scheduled the AMT relief to expire at the end of 2004. Congress has enacted tax cuts in the recent past partly to provide a fiscal stimulus. The Economic Growth and Tax Reconciliation Act of 2001 (EGTRRA; P. 107-16) was enacted partly as a means of boosting an economy that entered recession in March 2001. EGTRRA contained a broad range of tax cuts, but was designed partly to deliver an immediate stimulus, and thus included a rate-reduction tax credit that was mailed to individuals in 2001 as checks from the U. Treasury. 39. 39 U. Congress, Joint Committee on Taxation, General Explanation of Tax Legislation Enacted in the 107th Congress, committee print, 107th Cong. 2nd sess. (Washington: GPO, 2003), p. 8. For an explanation of the credit, see CRS Report RS21171, The Rate Reduction Tax Credit - “The Tax Rebate” - in the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001: A Brief Explanation, by Steven Maguire. Following the September 11, 2001, attacks and in the midst of increased certainty that the economy was in recession, Congress considered additional fiscal stimulus proposals that initially included a tax rebate for individuals. The final stimulus package that was adopted (the Job Creation and Worker Assistance Act of 2002; P. 107-147), however, did not contain a rebate. The act did include temporary “bonus” accelerated depreciation that was aimed at boosting business investment as well as a temporary extension of net operating loss (NOL) carrybacks for businesses. The Jobs and Growth Tax Relief and Reconciliation Act of 2003 (JGTRRA; P. 108-27) provided for the “acceleration” of most of EGTRRA’s scheduled tax cuts—that is, it moved up the effective dates of most of the tax cuts EGTRRA had scheduled to phase-in gradually, generally making them effective in 2003. (The phased-in repeal of the estate tax was not accelerated by JGTRRA. ) Many of JGTRRA’s accelerations, however, were themselves temporary and were scheduled to expire at the end of 2004. Also, JGTRRA temporarily implemented a reduction in the maximum tax rate on dividends and capital gains, reducing the rates to 15% (5% for individuals in the 10% and 15% marginal income tax brackets). The reduction was initially scheduled to expire at the end of 2008. In 2004, Congress thus faced two “expiration” issues related to EGTRRA and JGTRRA. One was a question for the longer term: the scheduled expiration of EGTRRA’s tax cuts at the end of 2010. The second was the expiration of JGTRRA’s accelerations at the end of 2004. In September, Congress addressed the second of these with enactment of the Working Families Tax Relief Act (WFTRA; P. 108-311). WFTRA generally extended JGTRRA’s accelerations of EGTRRA’s tax cuts through 2010—that is, up to the point at which EGTRRA’s cuts are scheduled to expire. WFTRA also extended EGTRRA’s increased AMT exemption for one year. In 2005, TIPRA extended JGTRRA’s dividend and capitals gains rate cuts along with its AMT reduction. The dividend and capital gains cuts were extended through 2010; the increased AMT exemption through 2006. Notwithstanding the various extensions and accelerations, the issue of EGTRRA’s scheduled expiration at the end of 2010 remains and was debated in Congress throughout 2008. The debate over extension of the tax cuts has centered on three broad issues: its likely impact on the federal budget deficit, its possible effect on long-term economic growth, and its results for the fairness of the tax system. [201] Calculated with data from:. a) Table 3. 2: “Federal Government Current Receipts and Expenditures. ” United States Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis. Last revised September 29, 2016. <www. bea. gov >. b) Table 1. 5: “Gross Domestic Product. ” United States Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis. Last revised September 29, 2016. <www. bea. gov >. NOTE: An Excel file containing the data and calculations is available upon request. [202] Calculated with data from:. a) Table 3. 2: “Federal Government Current Receipts and Expenditures. ” United States Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis. Last revised September 29, 2016. <www. b) Table 1. 5: “Gross Domestic Product. ” United States Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis. Last revised September 29, 2016. <www. bea. gov >. NOTE: An Excel file containing the data and calculations is available upon request. [203] Report: “US Business Cycle Expansions and Contractions. ” National Bureau of Economic Research, September 20, 2010. <www. nber. org >. “ Contractions ( recessions ) start at the peak of a business cycle and end at the trough. Peak [=] December 2007 (IV) … Trough [=] June 2009 (II)”. [204] Calculated with data from:. a) Table 3. 2: “Federal Government Current Receipts and Expenditures. ” United States Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis. Last revised September 29, 2016. <www. bea. gov >. 5: “Gross Domestic Product. ” United States Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis. Last revised September 29, 2016. <www. bea. gov >. NOTE: An Excel file containing the data and calculations is available upon request. [205] Report: “Major Tax Issues in the 111th Congress. ” By Jane G. Gravelle and Pamela J. Jackson. Congressional Research Service, May 6, 2009. <royce. house. gov >. In response to deteriorating economic conditions, Congress enacted a second stimulus bill in February 2009, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, P. 111-5. This package cost $787 billion, and included spending programs, but about 40% of the cost was tax cuts. The elements include the following:. • Temporary income tax cuts for individuals, including $116. 2 billion for a 6. 2% credit for earnings with a maximum of $400 for singles and $800 for couples, phased out for taxpayers with incomes over $75,000 ($150,000 for joint returns); $4. 7 billion for a temporary increase in the earned income credit, $14. 8 to increase refundability of the child credit, $13. 9 billion to expend tuition tax credits and make them 40% refundable (the refundability feature accounts for $3. 9 billion). These provisions are effective for 2009 and 2010, though the associated revenue loss extends over FY2009-FY2011. For 2009 there is also an exclusion for $2,400 of unemployment benefits costing $4. 7 billion, a sales tax deduction for new auto purchases at $1. 7 billion and an extension of the AMT “patch”, mainly a temporary increase in the AMT exemption, at a cost of $70. 1 billion. An extension and revision of the first time homebuyers credit has revenue consequences over a longer period, costing $6. 6 billion over FY2009-2019. Overall, the individual income tax cuts were $230 billion. • Tax provisions for business, which lose revenue in FY2009-FY2010 and gain revenue thereafter, including $37. 8 billion for extending bonus depreciation, $12. 9 billion for the deferral and exclusion of income from the discharge of indebtedness, $4. 1 billion for a temporary five year loss carryback for 2008 and 2009 for small business, and $1. 1 billion for extending small business expensing. Along with a few other minor provisions, there is a revenue gain from enacting legislation to restrict the carryover of losses with an ownership change, reversing a Treasury ruling from 2007. Because these are largely timing provisions the overall revenue loss for FY2009-FY2010 is $6. 2 billion. • A series of provisions relating to tax exempt bonds aimed at aiding State and local governments, which cost $3. 8 billion for FY2009-2010, and $30. 0 billion from FY2009-FY2019. Almost half the revenue loss arises from allowing a taxable bond options which would make bonds attractive to tax exempt investors. Other major provisions measured by dollar cost are qualified school construction bonds, recovery zone bonds, and provisions allowing financial institutes more freedom to buy tax exempt bonds. • A one-year delay in the 3% withholding for government contractors, which costs $5. 8 billion in FY2011, gains most of the revenue in the next year, and costs $0. 3 billion for FY2009-2019. • Energy provisions, some permanent and some temporary, totaling $3. 4 billion in FY2009-FY2011 and $20. 0 billion in FY2009-2019. There is also a provision substituting grants for credits for certain energy projects which shifts benefits to the present. • The proposal also includes a substitution of grants for the low-income housing credit, which shifts benefits to FY2009 ($3 billion), with a negligible effect over the long term. The plan also includes a much smaller provision to substitute grants for certain energy credits. • A minor provision ($231 million for FY2009-2019) would provide incentives for hiring unemployed veterans and disconnected youth. [206] Calculated with data from:. a) Table 3. 2: “Federal Government Current Receipts and Expenditures. ” United States Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis. Last revised September 29, 2016. ” United States Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis. Last revised September 29, 2016. <www. bea. gov >. NOTE: An Excel file containing the data and calculations is available upon request. [207] Calculated with data from:. a) Table 3. 2: “Federal Government Current Receipts and Expenditures. ” United States Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis. Last revised September 29, 2016. <www. bea. gov >. b) Table 1. 5: “Gross Domestic Product. ” United States Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis. Last revised September 29, 2016. <www. bea. gov >. NOTE: An Excel file containing the data and calculations is available upon request. [208] Calculated with data from:. a) Table 3. 2: “Federal Government Current Receipts and Expenditures. ” United States Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis. Last revised September 29, 2016. <www. bea. gov >. b) Table 1. 5: “Gross Domestic Product. ” United States Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis. Last revised September 29, 2016. <www. bea. gov >. NOTE: An Excel file containing the data and calculations is available upon request. [209] Commentary: “The graph all budget discussions should start with. ” By Ezra Klein. Washington Post. April 11, 2011. <www. washingtonpost. com >. [210] Examine the graph available via the hyperlink in the footnote above. [211] Dataset: “The Long-Term Budget Outlook. ” Congressional Budget Office, June 2010. <www. cbo. gov >. Tab: “Summary Extended-Baseline”. [212] Commentary: “The graph all budget discussions should start with. ” By Ezra Klein. Washington Post. April 11, 2011. <www. washingtonpost. com >. NOTE: The graph shows revenues and expenditures, but the vertical axis is unlabeled. Thus, one cannot see that the data represents percentages of GDP, while the text of the piece provides a misleading impression for the scale of the tax increases. [213] Report: “The Long-Term Budget Outlook. ” Congressional Budget Office, June 2010 (Revised August 2010). <www. cbo. gov >. Page 6: “Revenues would also rise considerably under current law; by the 2020s, they would reach higher levels relative to the size of the economy than ever recorded in the nation’s history. … First, ongoing increases in real income would push taxpayers into higher tax brackets. Second, ongoing inflation, even if modest, would cause more people to owe tax under the AMT [Alternative Minimum Tax]. And third, the recently enacted excise tax on certain high-premium health insurance plans would have a growing effect on revenues. ”. Page 13: “[T]he effective marginal tax rate on labor income would rise from 29 percent today to about 38 percent in 2035. … All told, average tax rates (taxes as a share of income) would rise considerably, and people at various points in the income scale would pay a very different percentage of their income in taxes than people at the same points do today. ”. Page 60: “Estate and gift taxes are projected to increase as a share of GDP following the reinstatement of the estate tax after 2010. The dollar amount of an estate that is exempt from taxation will remain fixed at $1 million starting in 2011 and not be indexed for inflation thereafter; as a result, a greater share of wealth would become subject to the tax over time. ”. Page 64: “Over the coming decades, the cumulative effect of rising prices will sharply reduce the value of some parameters of the tax system that are not indexed for inflation. Under the extended-baseline scenario, the estate tax exemption, which will be $1 million in 2011 under current law, would be worth about $600,000 (in 2010 dollars) by 2035…. ”. [214] Calculated with data from:. a) Report: “The Long-Term Budget Outlook. ” Congressional Budget Office, June 2010 (Revised August 2010). <www. cbo. gov >. Page 55: “Over the past 40 years, total federal revenues have ranged from 14. 8 percent to 20. 6 percent of GDP, averaging 18. 1 percent, with no evident trend over time…. ”. NOTE: Using data from the source cited below, Just Facts updated the figure for average federal revenues over the past 40 years to reflect 40-year backward look from 2011 instead of 2010. This changes the figure from 18. 1% to 18. 0%. b) Dataset: “The Long-Term Budget Outlook. ” Congressional Budget Office, June 2010. <www. cbo. gov >. Figure A-1: “Revenues and Primary Spending, by Category, Under CBO’s Long-Term Budget Scenarios, Through 2084 (percentage of gross domestic product). … Extended-Baseline Scenario”. NOTE: An Excel file containing the data and calculations is available upon request. [215] Calculated with the dataset: “The Long-Term Budget Outlook. ” Congressional Budget Office, June 2010. <www. cbo. gov >. Figure A-1: “Revenues and Primary Spending, by Category, Under CBO’s Long-Term Budget Scenarios, Through 2084 (percentage of gross domestic product). … Extended-Baseline Scenario”. NOTE: An Excel file containing the data and calculations is available upon request. [216] Constitution of the United States. Signed September 17, 1787. <justfacts. com >. Article I, Section 7:. [Clause 1] All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills. [Clause 2] Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively. If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law. Article I, Section 8, Clause 1: “The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States…. ”. [217] Report: “The Debt Limit: History and Recent Increases. ” By D. Andrew Austin. Congressional Research Service. Updated April 29, 2008. Page 2: “The debt limit also provides Congress with the strings to control the federal purse, allowing Congress to assert its constitutional prerogatives to control spending. The debt limit also imposes a form of fiscal accountability, which compels Congress and the President to take visible action to allow further federal borrowing when the federal government spends more than it collects in revenues. ”. [218] Fact check of Rahm Emanuel’s statement: “We’ve added, in the last eight years, $4 trillion of debt to the nation’s obligations. ” PolitiFact, January 18, 2009. <www. politifact. com >. At the end of the Clinton administration, there were several years of budget surpluses. …. When Bush took office, the national debt was $5. 73 trillion. When he left, it was $10. 7 trillion. …. … the debt increased greatly under Bush. Theatre And Me`s The Bully (2016) ZootopiaTheatre and Me's the Bully. 1h 41min | Drama | January 2016 (USA) A lighthearted. movie release 2016 a list of 5041 titles created 9 months ago. Theatre and Me's the Bully (2016) Full Cast & Crew. Theatre and Me's the Bully Details. Full Cast and Crew; Release Dates; Official Sites; Box Office/Business. Welcome to Download City, the ultimate destination for movie fans, where one can download any movie! We're one of the most prominent and the coolest websites on the. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell used an obscure rule to silence Senator Elizabeth Warren, after she read a letter by Coretta Scott King in protest against Jeff. Theatre And Me`s The Bully (2016) MovieHappy Healthy Pets 2016; Folsom Life. There’s a lesson to be learned in Sutter Street Theatre’s production of “The Bully†where taunting turns to. L'adresse de votre webmail a chang. N'oubliez pas de mettre . Vous allez maintenant Dear Spacey Kasem, I have been marooned on a planet many light years away from Earth all of my adult life. Travel is impossible for me due to some bad breaks that. L Index of Child Actresses,Child Stars,Child Starlets,Child Celebrities Images/Pictures/Photos/Videos from movies and television. Organisation meets style in the beautiful range of planners at kikki.K, available in a variety of sizes and designs. Be inspired by our range of planners online. Is there a new king of affordable handsets? BLU Life One vs Moto G (2. There has never been a better time to purchase a budget- friendly smartphone than right now. As it turns out, all four major mobile service providers in the United States have almost completely done away with the standard two- year service agreements, this is giving customers more reason to go for inexpensive handsets. And that’s great, too, because low- cost smartphones are getting really good. Hi my love angels I hope you enjoyed my Life Hacks. I think these ideas are awesome to help fix. Is there a new king of affordable handsets? BLU Life One X vs Moto G (2015). Purchase the Alpinestars TZ-1 Reload Leather Jacket at RevZilla Motorsports. Get the best free shipping & exchange deal anywhere, no restock fees and the lowest. No, seriously. Just a few years ago, if you wanted to do anything on your smartphone that was worth doing – playing video games, streaming music, web browsing, etc. There are nearly hundreds of great low- budget smartphones available on the market these days. Related: Best cheap Android phones. Another interesting trend when it comes to budget phones is screen size, with the majority of options packing 5. For some, that’s the perfect size, but it’s not so great for those looking for a device that is easier to use with just one hand. Thankfully, for those that prefer a budget- friendly device that is a bit more compact, there are still some solid options out there. Today we are going to be taking a look at two smartphones that fall in the 5 to 5. BLU Life One X and the Motorola Moto G (2. While the Moto G series has long been considered the “king of affordable handsets”, BLU’s latest phone was officially announced today, packing a pretty powerful punch, a sleek design, and an even cheaper price tag than the Moto G. So has BLU’s new budget darling stolen the crown from Motorola? Let’s jump in and find out. Specifications BLU Life One XMotorola Moto G (2. Display. 5. 2- inch LCD display. Corning Gorilla Glass 3. IPS LCD display. 12. Corning Gorilla Glass 3. Processor. 1. 3. GHz octa- core Media. Tek MT6. 75. 31. 4. GHz quad- core Qualcomm Snapdragon 4. GPUMali T7. 20 GPUAdreno 3. RAM2. GB1, 2. GB (depending on storage option)Storage. GB8, 1. 6GBMicro. SDYes, up to 6. 4GBYes, up to 3. GBDual SIMYes. Yes. Networks. 3G: 8. 50/1. G: 2/4/7/1. 2/1. 7Up to 1. Mbps. GSM (XT1. 54. LTE (2, 4, 5, 7, 1. UMTS/HSPA+ (8. 50, 1. AWS, 1. 90. 0, 2. MHz)GSM/GPRS/EDGE (8. MHz)US Cellular, Virgin Mobile (XT1. LTE (2, 4, 5, 1. 2, 1. CDMA (8. 00, 8. 50, 1. MHz) TD- LTE (4. 1 TD2. Software. Android 5. Lollipop. Android 5. Lollipop. Camera. MP rear- facing camera, Phase Data Autofocus. MP front- facing camera, LED flash. MP rear- facing camera, autofocus, dual- LED (dual tone) flash. MP front- facing camera, auto- HDRBattery. Ah, non- removable. Ah, non- removable. Dimensions. 18. 6. Price$1. 49 ($9. 9 for limited time)$1. Design. From a design perspective, the 2. Moto G is almost identical to the previous two generations. Up front sits a single loudspeaker underneath the 5. The whole front is also covered by Gorilla Glass 3. Motorola has also introduced the Moto G to Moto Maker this year, which means the back plate and colors you choose will depend entirely on whether or not you decide to customize the phone online. The standard back plate is made of a nice rubbery material that’s quite grippy, but not so much so that it will get stuck in your pocket when trying to take it out. And although the device is made to look similar to the Moto X Style (aka Pure Edition) don’t be fooled – the metallic accent that surrounds the device is cheap and plasticky, which makes the device feel more affordable than premium. In contrast, the Life One X is made from a high- quality aluminum that feels great in the hand, largely due to the sand blasted matte finish that makes for an interesting texture. On the front sits a slightly curved 1. Gorilla Glass 3 for an extra layer of protection. Around back the device has a leather pattern that’s coated in a smooth paint layer. The result of this is a grippy, premium feel in the hand that we don’t typically see on smartphones in this price range. Needless to say, if you care at all about “premium looks”, the new BLU Life One X is the champion here. While the Moto G looks fairly good for a “budget device”, the Life One X is a premium- feeling handset that would fool you into thinking it cost at least double its retail price. Display. On the display front, the Moto G has a 5. LCD display with Gorilla Glass 3 and a 1. While the 7. 20p resolution is pretty decent for a screen this size, these days even budget- level handsets are starting to make the leap to 1. Motorola hasn’t caught up with the times. On the other hand, the Life One X not only has a slightly bigger 5. LCD display, it also has a resolution of 1. Processing power and hardware. Starting off with the BLU Life One X, one of the headline features of this device is the 1. GHz octa- core Media. Tek MT6. 75. 3 processor backed by 2 gigabytes of RAM. While we haven’t put the One X through our full review process just yet, in our time with the device we’ve found that this processing package is more than capable when it comes to general day to day tasks, multi- tasking, and gaming. It also has the advantage of a 2,9. Ah battery, which is pretty large for a phone of the size/budget. The Moto G offers a very different processing package from BLU’s offering, with a 1. GHz quad- core Qualcomm Snapdragon 4. GB of RAM, depending on whether you pick the model with 8 or 1. GB of on- board storage. Regardless of which model you choose, you’ll get the same 2. Ah battery, which is a little smaller than we’d like to see. The Media. Tek- powered BLU Life One X outperforms the Moto G in every benchmarking test you throw at it The 4. We didn’t really experience too many performance hiccups in our full review o the device, but we reviewed the higher- end model that runs $2. GB RAM. The lower- end model can be found for a bit cheaper at around $1. GB RAM is just too little for a modern smartphone and so expect a somewhat less impressive experience if you plan to opt for that model. Okay, but which chip is the better one? While Qualcomm has a reputation for being one of the best chip makers in the industry, Media. Tek has really upped the ante over the last year or so. The end result is that the Media. Tek- powered BLU Life One X actually outperforms the Moto G in every benchmarking test you throw at it — as you can see for yourself below. In An. Tu. Tu, the BLU Life One X scored an overall ranking of 3. Moto G. Left: BLU Life One X / Right: Motorola Moto G (3rd gen)Geekbench 3 pained a similar picture with the Life One X achieving a single- core score of 6. Moto G’s 5. 24 and 1. Left: BLU Life One X / Right: Motorola Moto G (3rd gen)Turning to Vellamo, the Chrome browser experience was put to the test, and as you can see, the BLU Life One X had a score of 2. Moto G. Left: BLU Life One X / Right: Motorola Moto G (3rd gen)While we already knew the BLU Life One X had a bigger battery than the Moto G, that doesn’t always equate to better battery life. Thankfully for BLU, in this case it does. According to the Geekbench 3 battery test metric, the BLU Life One X had a battery runtime of 8: 4. Moto G. Left: BLU Life One X / Right: Motorola Moto G (3rd gen)Lastly, both Base. The Weekender Report. March 2. 01. 7Plenty of good reasons to renewfishing and hunting licenses soon. Several fisheries are set to open in the weeks ahead, and the year's first general hunting season isn't far behind. With a new season of outdoor adventures about to begin, Washingtonians might want to consider purchasing 2. Registration Open for GATE 2018 Regular & Weekend Batch starting from 25th Feb. 2017 & 19th March 2017 (ltd.seats) GATE Coaching at Engineers Institute of India - Eii. The Eii GATE Coaching program has. The 2017 Men's Final Four will be held at University of Phoenix Stadium in Phoenix April 1 & 3. Get in on the action in this championship hub. MBK 'Cuse and GA Tech in battle of bubble teams. March 3. 1. The cost of fishing and hunting licenses remains the same as last year, and most annual licenses include a Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) vehicle- access pass. That pass allows people to use and park at more than 7. WDFW water access sites and 3. More information is available at http: //wdfw. See more. Popular outdoor opportunities available in the coming weeks include: :Columbia River spring chinook: The initial season for the popular fishery runs through April 6, before closing for a run assessment. This year's returns are projected to be below average, but the sport fishery will receive a larger share of the catch than in years past. Make sure to check the river conditions before you go. Razor clams: Three razor clam digs are tentatively scheduled this month. For details on the proposed digs, check the department's website at http: //wdfw. Eastern Washington lakes: Fishing opens March 1 at several lakes east of the Cascades, although many are still iced up. Check the regional reports for more information. Sandhill crane viewing: Some of the earliest and easiest migrating birds to watch throughout the state are sandhill cranes, which make feeding and resting stopovers in the Columbia Basin of our northcentral and southcentral regions and in the Vancouver Lowlands of our southwest region. For more information about outdoor activities coming up this month, see the Weekender Regional Reports at http: //wdfw. These reports are updated throughout the month to provide current information about recreational opportunities around the state.
Sample Resume, Resume Template, Resume Example, Resume Builder. Cover Letter for Jobs. Professional Designs. Over 2. 0 resume templates that are polished and popular. Easy to Edit Everywhere. Add, modify, delete sections and content on PC, MAC, tablet, or phone, no Flash needed. Multiple Resumes. List of free sample resumes, resume templates, resume examples, resume formats and cover letters. Resume writing tips, advice and guides for different jobs and companies. Psychological tricks and tactics to use to scam people out of their hard earned money. Industry information at your fingertips. Over 200,000 Hollywood insiders. Enhance your IMDb Page. Create, save, duplicate and manage multiple resumes. Instant Download or Print. How To Get a Virgin in Thailand. I recently received the below email: I am from India i will be visiting Thailand shortly. I want a virgin, what will the charges be. Save as Office Word, PDF, text format, or print directly. Import Current Resumes. Get resume grade and tips to improve. Automatic import to resume builder. Resume & Examples. Use those winning sample resumes & resume examples to help you start your own. Share, Send & Track. Send your resume to any one or job postings. Track your resume status. Web Sharing & Statistics. Make your resume, public, private, or password protected. See who links, and views your resume! |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |