United States federal budget

The Budget of the United States Government is a federal document that the President submits to the U.S. Congress. The President's budget submission outlines funding recommendations for the next fiscal year, which begins on October 1st. Congressional decisions are governed by rules and legislation regarding the federal budget process. House and Senate Budget committees each develop budget resolutions, which provide spending limits for the House and Senate Appropriations Committees' subcommittees, which then approve individual appropriations bills to allocate funding to various federal programs. After Congress approves an appropriations bill, it is sent to the President, who may sign it into law, or may veto it. A vetoed bill is sent back to Congress, which can pass it into law with a two-thirds majority in each chamber. Congress may also combine all or some appropriations bills into an omnibus reconciliation bill. In addition, the President may request and the Congress may pass supplemental appropriations bills or emergency supplemental appropriations bills.

Several government agencies provide budget data and analysis. These include the Government Accountability Office (GAO), Congressional Budget Office, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the U.S. Treasury Department. These agencies have reported that the federal government is facing a series of important long-term financing challenges. Expenditures related to entitlement programs such as Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid are growing considerably faster than the economy overall, as the population matures.

Contents 1 Budget principles 1.1 Major receipt and expenditure categories 1.2 Federal budget data 1.3 Federal budget projections 2 Mandatory spending and entitlements 2.1 Social Security 2.2 Medicare and Medicaid 3 Understanding deficits and debt 3.1 Budgetary treatment of Social Security 3.2 Earmarks 3.3 Debt relative to gross domestic product (GDP) 4 Causes of change in CBO forecasts 5 Stimulus and tax policy 5.1 Stimulus packages 5.2 Budgetary implications of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts 5.3 Tax policy 5.4 Can the U.S. outgrow the problem? 6 Military spending 6.1 War funding and the budget 6.2 Overall military spending 7 Interest expense 8 Basic budget terms (based on GAO Glossary) 9 2010 Budget Proposal 10 Total outlays in recent budget submissions 11 See also 12 References 13 External links 13.1 "Chart talk" examples

Budget principles

The U.S. Constitution (Article I, section 9, clause 7) states that "[n]o money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time."

Each year, the President of the United States submits his budget request to Congress for the following fiscal year, as required by the Budget and Accounting Act of 1921. Current law (31 U.S.C. § 1105(a)) requires the President to submit a budget no earlier than the first Monday in January, and no later than the first Monday in February. Typically, Presidents submit budgets on the first Monday in February.

The federal budget is calculated largely on a cash basis. That is, revenues and outlays are recognized when transactions are made. Therefore, the full long-term costs of entitlement programs such as Medicare, Social Security, and the federal portion of Medicaid, are not reflected in the federal budget. By contrast, many business and some foreign governments have adopted forms of accrual accounting, which recognizes obligations and revenues when they are incurred. The costs of some federal credit and loan programs, according to provisions of the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1991, are calculated on a net present value basis.

Federal agencies cannot spend money unless funds are authorized and appropriated. Typically, separate Congressional committees have jurisdiction over authorization and appropriations. The House and Senate Appropriations Committees have 12 subcommittees, which are responsible for drafting the 12 regular appropriations bills, which determine amounts of discretionary spending for various federal programs. Appropriations bills must pass Congress and be signed by the President in order to give federal agencies legal authority to spend. In many recent years, regular appropriations bills have been combined into "omnibus" bills.

Congress may also pass "special" or "emergency" appropriations. Spending that is deemed an "emergency" is exempt from certain Congressional budget enforcement rules. Funds for disaster relief have sometimes come from supplemental appropriations, such as after Hurricane Katrina. In other cases, funds included in emergency supplemental appropriations bills support activities not obviously related to actual emergencies, such as parts of the 2000 Census of Population and Housing. Special appropriations have been used to fund most of the costs of war and occupation in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Budget resolutions and appropriations bills, which reflect spending priorities of Congress, will usually differ from funding levels in the President's budget. The President, however, retains substantial influence over the budget process through his veto power and through his congressional allies when his party has a majority in Congress. The Democratic Party, having won a net increase of seats in both the House and Senate in the November 2006 elections, has had control of Congress since January 2007.

Major receipt and expenditure categories

The U.S. Federal Government collected $2.52 trillion in FY2008, while spending $2.98 trillion, generating a total deficit of $455 billion, which was added to the United States public debt. Since 1970, the U.S. Federal Government has run deficits for all but four years (1998-2001)^[1] contributing to a total debt of $10.6 trillion as of January 2009.^[2]

Individual income taxes (45%) and Social Security/Social Insurance taxes (36%) are the primary receipt categories. Social Security, Defense, and Medicare/Medicaid spending are the main categories, at roughly 20% of total expenditures each.

Federal budget data

Several government agencies provide budget data. These include the Government Accountability Office (GAO), Congressional Budget Office, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the U.S. Treasury Department. CBO publishes an economic and budget outlook in January, which is typically updated in August. OMB, which is responsible for organizing the President's budget presented in February, typically issues a budget update in July. GAO and Treasury issue Financial Statements of the U.S. Government, usually in the December following the close of the federal fiscal year, which occurs September 30. The Treasury Department also produces a Combined Statement of Receipts, Outlays, and Balances each December for the preceding fiscal year, which provides detailed data on federal financial activities.

Federal budget projections

CBO calculates 10-year baseline projections, which are used extensively in the budget process. Baseline projections are intended to reflect spending under current law, and are not intended as predictions of the most likely path of the economy. In recent years, OMB has presented 5-year projections. CBO and GAO issue long-term projections from time to time.

Mandatory spending and entitlements

Social Security and Medicare expenditures are funded by permanent appropriations, and so are considered "mandatory" spending according to the 1997 Budget Enforcement Act. Social Security and Medicare are sometimes called "entitlements," because people meeting relevant eligibility requirements are legally entitled to benefits. Some programs, such as Food Stamps, are appropriated entitlements. These aforementioned entitlement appropriations equal 8.4% of the US GDP.^[3] Some mandatory spending, such as Congressional salaries, is not part of any entitlement program. Interest on the national debt is not discretionary. Funds to make federal interest payments have been automatically appropriated since 1847. Mandatory spending accounted for 53% of total federal outlays in FY2007, with net interest payments accounting for an additional 8.6%. Discretionary outlays, which rely on annual appropriations for funding, accounted for 38.2% of total federal outlays in FY2007. Over the past four decades, the proportion of federal outlays spent on mandatory programs has increased on average.

According to CBO projections (The Long-Term Outlook, Alternative Fiscal Scenario), spending on Social Security is projected to reach 6.1% of GDP and Medicare and Medicaid are projected to total 12.5% of GDP in FY2050. By comparison, federal outlays in FY2007 were 20% of GDP and federal revenues were 18.8% of GDP. In other words, spending on those three programs is projected to take up nearly the same proportion of the economy in FY2050 as all federal revenues in FY2007. Unless these long-term fiscal imbalances are addressed by raising taxes or drastic cuts in discretionary programs, the federal government will at some point be unable to pay its obligations.^[4]

As discussed further below, the Medicare Part A (Hospital Insurance) program began to run a deficit in FY 2007 and Social Security follows thereafter in 2017. Both programs are funded by dedicated payroll taxes that do not cover payouts and run increasing deficits for the foreseeable future, placing significant pressure on the budget.^[5]

Social Security

Social Security spending will increase sharply over the next decades, largely due to the retirement of the baby boom generation. The number of workers paying into the program continues declining relative to those receiving benefits. The number of workers paying into the program was 6.1 per retiree in 1960; this declined to 3.3 in 2007 and is projected to decline to 2.1 by 2040.^[6]The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projects that an increase in payroll taxes equivalent to 1.8% of gross domestic product (GDP) would be necessary to put the Social Security program in fiscal balance for the next 75 years. (CBO, The Long-Term Outlook, Dec. 2007)^[7]In other words, raising the payroll tax rate to 14.4% during 2009 (from the current 12.4%) or cutting benefits by 13.3% would address the program's budgetary concerns indefinitely; these amounts increase to around 16% and 24% if no changes are made until 2037. Projections of Social Security's solvency are sensitive to assumptions about rates of economic growth and demographic changes.^[8]

Since recommendations of the Greenspan Commission were adopted in the early 1980s, Social Security payroll taxes have exceeded benefit payments. In FY2008, Social Security received $180 billion more in payroll taxes and accrued interest than it paid out in benefits. This annual surplus is credited to Social Security trust funds that hold special non-negotiable Treasury securities, although it is borrowed and spent by the government for other purposes. The total balance of the trust funds was $2.4 trillion in 2008 and is estimated to reach $3.7 trillion by 2016. At that point, payments will exceed payroll tax revenues, resulting in the gradual reduction of the trust funds balance as the securities are redeemed against other types of government revenues. By 2037, the trust funds will be exhausted. Under current law, Social Security payouts would be reduced by 24% at that time, as only payroll taxes are authorized to cover benefits.^[9]

The present value of unfunded obligations under Social Security as of January 1, 2009 was approximately $5.3 trillion. In other words, this amount would have to be set aside today such that the principal and interest would cover the shortfall over the next 75 years. The estimated annual shortfall averages 1.9% of the payroll tax base or 0.7% of gross domestic product.^[10]

Medicare and Medicaid

Spending on Medicare and Medicaid is projected to grow dramatically in coming decades. While the same demographic trends that affect Social Security also affect Medicare, rapidly rising medical prices appear a more important cause of projected spending increases. The CBO has indicated that: "Future growth in spending per beneficiary for Medicare and Medicaid—the federal government’s major health care programs—will be the most important determinant of long-term trends in federal spending. Changing those programs in ways that reduce the growth of costs—which will be difficult, in part because of the complexity of health policy choices—is ultimately the nation’s central long-term challenge in setting federal fiscal policy." Further, the CBO also projects that "total federal Medicare and Medicaid outlays will rise from 4 percent of GDP in 2007 to 12 percent in 2050 and 19 percent in 2082—which, as a share of the economy, is roughly equivalent to the total amount that the federal government spends today. The bulk of that projected increase in health care spending reflects higher costs per beneficiary rather than an increase in the number of beneficiaries associated with an aging population."^[11]

President Obama stated in May 2009: "But we know that our families, our economy, and our nation itself will not succeed in the 21st century if we continue to be held down by the weight of rapidly rising health care costs and a broken health care system...Our businesses will not be able to compete; our families will not be able to save or spend; our budgets will remain unsustainable unless we get health care costs under control."^[12]

The present value of unfunded obligations under all parts of Medicare during FY 2007 is approximately $34.1 trillion. In other words, this amount would have to be set aside today such that the principal and interest would cover the shortfall over the next 75 years.^[13]

Understanding deficits and debt

The annual budget deficit is the difference between actual cash collections and outlays during a given fiscal year, which runs from October 1 to September 30. The national debt represents the outstanding obligations of the government at any given time, comprising both public and intra-governmental debt, which was $10.9 trillion as of March 1, 2009.^[14] While intuitively the deficit and annual change in debt amounts would be equal, there are key structural differences in the two measures. These include Social Security, special appropriations, and earmarks.

These differences can make it more challenging to determine how much the government actually spends relative to tax revenues. The increase in the national debt during a given year is a helpful measure to determine this amount. From FY 2003-2007, the national debt increased approximately $550 billion per year on average. For the first time in FY 2008, the U.S. added $1 trillion to the national debt.^[15]In relative terms, from 2003-2007 the government spent roughly $1.20 for each $1.00 it collected in taxes.

Budgetary treatment of Social Security

Social Security trust fund amounts have been borrowed and spent and are a component of the national debt. Further, payroll tax receipt surpluses are considered part of the total tax revenue base of the federal government, effectively reducing the reported budget deficit relative to what it would be if social security were accounted for separately. Social Security payroll taxes and benefit payments, along with the net balance of the U.S. Postal Service are considered "off-budget." Administrative costs of the Social Security Administration (SSA), however, are classified as "on-budget."

The total federal deficit is the sum of the on-budget deficit (or surplus) and the off-budget deficit (or surplus). Since FY1960, the federal government has run on-budget deficits except for FY1999 and FY2000, and total federal deficits except in FY1969 and FY1998-FY2001.^[16]

Using 2008 as an example, the "On-Budget" deficit of $638 billion is reduced by the "Off-budget" surplus of $183 billion to arrive at the "Total" deficit of $455 billion. It is this latter amount that is often reported in the media. The national debt increased approximately $1,017 billion in 2008, which is the $638 billion on-budget deficit plus an additional $379 billion of supplemental appropriations or otherwise non-budgeted expenditures, primarily the Economic Stimulus Act of 2008, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and earmarks.^[17][18]

Earmarks

GAO defines "earmarking" as "designating any portion of a lump-sum amount for particular purposes by means of legislative language." Earmarking can also mean "dedicating collections by law for a specific purpose." ^[19] In some cases, legislative language may direct federal agencies to spend funds for specific projects. In other cases, earmarks refer to directions in appropriation committee reports, which are not law. Various organizations have estimated the total number and amount of earmarks. An estimated 16,000 earmarks containing nearly $48 billion in spending were inserted into larger, often unrelated bills during 2005.^[20] While the number of earmarks has grown in the past decade, the total amount of earmarked funds is approximately 1-2 percent of federal spending.^[21]

Debt relative to gross domestic product (GDP)

GDP is a measure of the total size and output of the economy. One measure of the debt burden is its size relative to GDP. In fiscal 2007, U.S. public debt was approximately $5 trillion (36.8 percent of GDP) and total debt was $9 trillion (65.5 percent of GDP.)^[22] Public debt represents money owed to those holding government securities such as Treasury bills and bonds. Total debt includes intra-governmental debt, which includes amounts owed to the Social Security Trust Funds (about $2.2 trillion in FY 2007)^[23] and Civil Service Retirement Funds. By August 2008, the total debt was $9.6 trillion.^[24]

Based on the 2010 U.S. budget, total national debt will nearly double in dollar terms between 2008 and 2015 and will grow to nearly 100% of GDP, versus a level of approximately 80% in early 2009.^[25] President Obama and multiple government sources including the GAO, Treasury Department, and CBO have said the U.S. is on an unsustainable fiscal path.^[26] As the debt ratio increases, risk of currency devaluation increases. This would be a tacit form of default, by paying back the debt with cheaper currency. Investors (including other governments) may compensate for this risk by demanding higher interest rates, which would slow domestic U.S. growth. Further, this increases interest payments on the debt, which already exceed $430 billion annually as discussed below, or about 15 cents of every tax dollar for 2008.^[27] According to the CIA Factbook, only six other countries have debt to GDP ratios over 100% for 2008, the largest of which is Japan at 170%.^[28]

Historical analysis of government spending or debt relative to GDP can be misleading, according to the GAO, CBO and Treasury Department. This is because demographic shifts and per-capita spending are causing Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid expenditures to grow significantly faster than GDP. If this trend continues, government simulations under various assumptions project mandatory spending for these programs will exceed taxes dedicated to these programs by more than $40 trillion over the next 75 years on a present value basis.^[29] According to the GAO, this will double debt-to-GDP ratios by 2040 and double them again by 2060, reaching 600 percent by 2080.^[30] A GAO simulation indicates that Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid expenditures alone will exceed 20% of GDP by 2080, which is approximately the historical ratio of taxes collected by the federal government. In other words, these mandatory programs alone will take up all government revenues under this simulation.^[31]

Causes of change in CBO forecasts

The U.S. budget situation has deteriorated significantly since 2001, when the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) forecast average annual surpluses of approximately $850 billion from 2009-2012. The average deficit forecast in each of those years is now approximately $1,215 billion. The NY Times analyzed this roughly $2 trillion "swing," separating the causes into four major categories along with their share:

• Recessions or the business cycle (37%);
• Policies enacted by President Bush (33%);
• Policies enacted by President Bush and supported or extended by President Obama (20%); and
• New policies from President Obama (10%).

CBO data is based only on current law, so policy proposals that have yet to be made law are not included in their analysis. The article concluded that President Obama's decisions accounted for only a "sliver" of the deterioration, but that he "...does not have a realistic plan for reducing the deficit..."^[32]

Stimulus and tax policy

Stimulus packages

The Economic Stimulus Act of 2008 provided an estimated $170 billion in tax rebates to stimulate the economy. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated that the Act "would increase budget deficits (or reduce future surpluses) by $152 billion in 2008 and by a net amount of $124 billion over the 2008-2018 period."^[33]

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 was passed by the U.S. Congress on 13 February 2009. This nearly $800 billion bill included both spending and tax cuts. The CBO estimates that enacting the bill would increase federal budget deficits by $185 billion over the remaining months of fiscal year 2009, by $399 billion in 2010, by $134 billion in 2011, and by $787 billion over the 2009-2019 period.^[34]

Budgetary implications of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts

A variety of tax cuts were enacted under President Bush between 2001-2003, through the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 (EGTRRA) and the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 (JGTRRA). Most of these tax cuts are scheduled to expire December 31, 2010. Since CBO projections are based on current law, the projections discussed above assume these tax cuts will expire, which may prove politically challenging. CBO has estimated that extending these cuts would cost the U.S. Treasury nearly $1.8 trillion in the following decade, dramatically increasing federal deficits and exacerbating the entitlement-related risks described above.^[35]

Tax policy

The appropriate level and distribution of federal taxes has long been a controversial topic. Since the 1970s, some "supply side" economists have contended that lowering taxes could stimulate economic growth to such a degree that tax revenues could rise, other factors being held constant. However, economic models and econometric analysis have found mixed support for the "supply side" theory.

Some economists have called for using "dynamic scoring models," which incorporate feedback effects of tax cuts. CBO has concluded, however, that standard scoring methods incorporate the most important and immediate feedback effects and that attempting to include other feedback effects would lead to speculative results. CBO^[36], and Gregory Mankiw, a Harvard macroeconomist and former head of the Council of Economic Advisors in the George W. Bush administration, have concluded that cuts in federal taxes could stimulate new economic activity that would generate revenues that offset nearly half the cost of the tax cut, if reduced revenues were matched by spending cuts. Offsets when lost revenues were not matched by spending cuts were much lower.^[37] In 2007, the U.S. Treasury issued an analysis of dynamic scoring models that implied that only 7% of lost revenues would be offset by revenue feedback effects. These studies suggest that federal tax cuts would dramatically increase deficits. ^[38][39]

While total U.S. tax receipts grew from 2004 to 2007 by an average of $189.4 billion per year in current dollars^[40], the studies cited above would conclude that such tax receipts would have been significantly higher had the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts not been made. Income tax revenues in dollar terms did not regain their FY 2000 peak until 2006. Total federal tax revenues relative to GDP have yet to regain their 2000 peak.^[41]

Francis Fukuyama summarized these concepts: "Prior to the 1980s, conservatives were fiscally conservative— that is, they were unwilling to spend more than they took in in taxes. But Reaganomics introduced the idea that virtually any tax cut would so stimulate growth that the government would end up taking in more revenue in the end (the so-called Laffer curve). In fact, the traditional view was correct: if you cut taxes without cutting spending, you end up with a damaging deficit. Thus the Reagan tax cuts of the 1980s produced a big deficit; the Clinton tax increases of the 1990s produced a surplus; and the Bush tax cuts of the early 21st century produced an even larger deficit. The fact that the American economy grew just as fast in the Clinton years as in the Reagan ones somehow didn't shake the conservative faith in tax cuts as the surefire key to growth."^[42]

Can the U.S. outgrow the problem?

Some politicians and economists have argued that the U.S. can "grow its way" out of these fiscal challenges. Their argument is that economic growth (driven by tax cuts, productivity improvements, and borrowing) will generate sufficient tax revenue to offset growing entitlement spending.^[43] However, the GAO has estimated that double-digit GDP growth would be required for the next 75 years to do so; GDP growth averaged 3.2% during the 1990s. Because mandatory spending growth rates will far exceed any reasonable growth rate in GDP and the tax base, the GAO concluded that the U.S. cannot grow its way out of the problem.^[44]

Military spending

War funding and the budget

Much of the costs for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have not been funded through regular appropriations bills, but through emergency supplemental appropriations bills. Some budget experts argue that emergency supplemental appropriations bills do not receive the same level of legislative care as regular appropriations bills. In addition, emergency supplemental appropriations are not subject to the same budget enforcement mechanisms imposed on regular appropriations. Funding for the first stages of the Vietnam War was provided by supplemental appropriations, although President Johnson eventually acceded to Congressional demands to fund that war through the regular appropriations process.

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that the President's FY2009 budget proposals would provide $188 billion in budget authority for FY2008. ^[45] CBO estimates that appropriations for operations in Afghanistan and Iraq since 2001 through February 2008 total $752 billion.^[46] That would be approximately 4% of federal spending over the period.

Budget authority is legal authority to obligate the federal government. For many war-related activities there may be a long lag between the time when budget authority is granted and when payments (outlays) are made by the U.S. Treasury. In particular, spending on reconstruction activities in Iraq and Afghanistan has lagged behind available budget authority. In other cases, the military uses contracts that are payable upon completion, which can create long lags between appropriations and outlays.

In principle, the Department of Defense (DoD) separates war funding from base funding. In most cases, however, funds for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan use the same accounts as other DoD accounts. This raises challenges to attempts to achieve a precise separation of expenditures on operations in Iraq and Afghanistan from the base defense operations.

Overall military spending

During FY 2008, the U.S. government spent nearly $800 billion on defense and homeland security, approximately 32% of tax receipts of $2.5 trillion.^[47]

• Department of Defense: $741 billion
• Homeland Security: $52 billion

The U.S. defense budget (excluding spending for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Homeland Security, and Veteran's Affairs) is around 4% of GDP.^[3]

Democratic Congressman Barney Frank called for a significant reduction in the defense budget during February 2009: "The math is compelling: if we do not make reductions approximating 25 percent of the military budget starting fairly soon, it will be impossible to continue to fund an adequate level of domestic activity even with a repeal of Bush's tax cuts for the very wealthy. I am working with a variety of thoughtful analysts to show how we can make very substantial cuts in the military budget without in any way diminishing the security we need...[American] well-being is far more endangered by a proposal for substantial reductions in Medicare, Social Security or other important domestic areas than it would be by canceling weapons systems that have no justification from any threat we are likely to face."^[48]

Republican historian Robert Kagan has argued that 2009 is not the time to cut defense spending, relating such spending to jobs and support for allies: "A reduction in defense spending this year would unnerve American allies and undercut efforts to gain greater cooperation. There is already a sense around the world...that the United States is in terminal decline. Many fear that the economic crisis will cause the United States to pull back from overseas commitments. The announcement of a defense cutback would be taken by the world as evidence that the American retreat has begun."^[49]

U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates wrote in January 2009 that the U.S. should adjust its priorities and spending to address the changing nature of threats in the world: "What all these potential adversaries -- from terrorist cells to rogue nations to rising powers -- have in common is that they have learned that it is unwise to confront the United States directly on conventional military terms. The United States cannot take its current dominance for granted and needs to invest in the programs, platforms, and personnel that will ensure that dominance's persistence. But it is also important to keep some perspective. As much as the U.S. Navy has shrunk since the end of the Cold War, for example, in terms of tonnage, its battle fleet is still larger than the next 13 navies combined -- and 11 of those 13 navies are U.S. allies or partners."^[50]

In 2009, the US Department of Defense's annual report to Congress on China's military strength offered several estimates of actual 2008 Chinese military spending. In terms of the prevailing exchange rate, Pentagon estimates range between US$105 and US$150 billion,^[51] the second highest in the world after the US.

Interest expense

Budgeted net interest on the public debt was approximately $239 billion in fiscal years 2007 and 2008. This represented approximately 9.5% of government spending. Interest was the fourth largest single budgeted disbursement category, after defense, Social Security, and Medicare.^[52]During 2007, the government also accrued a non-cash interest expense of $194 billion for intra-governmental debt, primarily the Social Security Trust Fund, for a total interest expense of $433 billion.^[53] This accrued interest is added to the Social Security Trust Fund and therefore the national debt each year and will be paid to Social Security recipients in the future.

Basic budget terms (based on GAO Glossary)

Appropriations "Budget authority to incur obligations and to make payments from the Treasury for specified purposes."

Budget Authority "Authority provided by federal law to enter into financial obligations that will result in immediate or future outlays involving federal government funds."

Outlay "The issuance of checks, disbursement of cash, or electronic transfer of funds made to liquidate a federal obligation." The term "outlays" is usually synonymous with "expenditure" or "spending."

The amount of budget authority and outlays for a fiscal year usually differ because budget authority from a previous fiscal year in some cases can be used for outlays in the current fiscal year. Some military and some housing programs have multi-year appropriations, in which budget authority is specified for several coming fiscal years.

2010 Budget Proposal

President Barack Obama proposed his 2010 budget during February, 2009. He has indicated that health care, clean energy, education, and infrastructure will be priorities. The proposed increases in the national debt exceed $900 billion each year from 2010-2019, following a $2.5 trillion increase in the national debt for FY 2009, more than twice the record $1 trillion increase in 2008.^[54]

Tax cuts will be reversed for the wealthiest taxpayers to increase revenues, returning marginal rates to the Clinton levels. The budget does not include overall reductions to Social Security or Medicare entitlement programs, which represent over 40% of budgeted expenditures. Further, the base Department of Defense budget increases slightly through 2014 (Table S-7), from $534 to $575 billion, although supplemental appropriations for the Iraq War are expected to be reduced. In addition, estimates of revenue are based on GDP growth assumptions that exceed the Blue Chip Economists' consensus forecast considerably through 2012 (Table S-8).^[55][56]

Total outlays in recent budget submissions

• 2010 United States federal budget - $3.60 trillion (submitted 2009 by President Obama)
• 2009 United States federal budget - $3.10 trillion (submitted 2008 by President Bush)
• 2008 United States federal budget - $2.90 trillion (submitted 2007 by President Bush)
• 2007 United States federal budget - $2.77 trillion (submitted 2006 by President Bush)
• 2006 United States federal budget - $2.7 trillion (submitted 2005 by President Bush)
• 2005 United States federal budget - $2.4 trillion (submitted 2004 by President Bush)
• 2004 United States federal budget - $2.3 trillion (submitted 2003 by President Bush)
• 2003 United States federal budget - $2.2 trillion (submitted 2002 by President Bush)
• 2002 United States federal budget - $2.0 trillion (submitted 2001 by President Bush)
• 2001 United States federal budget - $1.9 trillion (submitted 2000 by President Clinton)
• 2000 United States federal budget - $1.8 trillion (submitted 1999 by President Clinton)
• 1999 United States federal budget - $1.7 trillion (submitted 1998 by President Clinton)
• 1998 United States federal budget - $1.7 trillion (submitted 1997 by President Clinton)
• 1997 United States federal budget - $1.6 trillion (submitted 1996 by President Clinton)
• 1996 United States federal budget - $1.6 trillion (submitted 1995 by President Clinton)

The President's budget also contains revenue and spending projections for the current fiscal year, the coming fiscal years, as well as several future fiscal years. In recent years, the President's budget contained projections five years into the future. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) issues a "Budget and Economic Outlook" each January and an analysis of the President's budget each March. CBO also issues an updated budget and economic outlook in August.

Actual budget data for prior years is available from the Congressional Budget Office ^[57] and from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) ^[58].

See also

• United States public debt
• United States budget process
• FRED (Federal Reserve Economic Data)
• National debt by U.S. presidential terms - Includes federal spending and GDP
• Supply-side economics
• GAO Citizen's Guide 2007
• Concord Slides
• IOUSA
• American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009

References

External links

• Death and Taxes: 2009 A visual representation of the 2009 United States federal discretionary budget.
• Columbia University selective guide for research on the U.S. Federal budget process
• FederalSpending.org "Federal Contracts and Grants"
• Historical budget statistics
• The Project on Middle East Democracy's May 2008 Report on the President's Budget Request for FY09 for Democracy, Governance, and Human Rights in the Middle East
• FY 2009 Omnibus Budget Passed by the House 25Feb2009
• FY 2010 Budget Proposal Submitted by The President 26Feb2009
• Gale & Auerbach (Brookings) - Analysis of 2010 Budget

"Chart talk" examples

One of the best ways to understand the long-term budget risks is through helpful charts. The following sources contain charts and commentary:

• GAO Fiscal Briefing by David Walker
• Perot Charts
• The Heritage Foundation's "Federal Revenue and Spending Chart Book"
• Peter G. Peterson Foundation Citizen's Guide