The Retirement of the National Debt: Will It Increase the Economic Size of the Federal Government?

The Retirement of the National Debt: Will It Increase the Economic Size of the Federal Government?

Order Code RS20656
August 17, 2000
CRS Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
The Retirement of the National Debt:
Will It Increase the Economic Size
of the Federal Government?
Marc Labonte
Economist
Government and Finance Division
Gail Makinen
Specialist in Economic Policy
Government and Finance Division
Summary
Measuring the economic size of the federal government can be an elusive goal.
Over the past 40 years, for example, the total outlays of the federal government have
ranged between 17% and 23.5% of Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Yet, an alternative
measure based on the government’s consumption of goods and services, suggests a much
smaller economic size: for over the past 40 years, this measure has ranged between 6%
and 13% of GDP. The disparity between these two measures is accounted for by outlays
that transfer income from some Americans to other Americans. One major transfer is
interest on the national debt. The current and prospective budget surpluses suggest that
the publicly held debt could be effectively retired with the coming decade. This will
reduce (and eventually eliminate) future interest outlays. The government is then free
to used this saved revenue for further debt reduction, other transfer payments, increased
spending on goods and services, or tax cuts. If the spending option is chosen, it will
increase the government’s consumption of goods and services, and the share of GDP
accounted for by government even though the outlays as a percentage of GDP will
remain constant. A transfer payment will have been converted into an outlay that will
increase the percentage of GDP consumed by the federal government. Depending on
which measure of size is used, the economic size of the federal government could
increase. This report will updated as events warrant.
The Federal Government and the Economy
During 1999, the total outlays, or spending, of the federal government were $1703
billion, equivalent in size to about 18% of Gross Domestic Product. Over the past 40
years these outlays, as shown in Figure 1, have varied between 17% and 23.5% of GDP.
While this is one measure of the economic “size” of government, economists are often
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

CRS-2
interested in an alternative measure of “size” and it comes from the data on GDP. These
data show that during 1999, the federal government’s consumption of goods and services
was about $569 billion and, that as a result, it consumed about 6% of GDP. Over the past
40 years, this federal share of GDP has varied between 6% and 13%.
These alternative measures of economic size are quite different and raise the question
of whether some type of creative accounting is being used. This is most assuredly not the
case. The reason for the disparity is that government outlays fall into two groups: those
for the consumption of goods and services and those that transfer income between groups.
Only the former type of outlays enters the GDP accounts. The latter do not because the
resources involved are not consumed by the federal government. Despite passing through
the government’s hands, they are ultimately consumed by the recipient of the transfer.
These transfers include outlays for social security, unemployment compensation, interest
payments on the national debt, grants to state and local governments, and the like. The
amounts of outlays used for transfers are equivalent in size to between 6% and 14% of
GDP over the past 40 years.
Source: National Income and Product Accounts, Bureau of Economic Analysis (Washington, DC:
Figure 1: Government Outlays and Consumption
(By Fiscal Year, As a Percentage of GDP)
July 2000); Historical Tables, Office of Management and Budget (Washington, DC: 2000).
Note: Government consumption is measured according to NIPA definitions.
Curiously, the current and prospective budget surpluses and the alternative uses for
them, raise the possibility that what had been a transfer payment could be turned into an
increase in the government’s consumption of goods and services. Thus, while one
measure of the “size” of government could remain unchanged, the alternative measure of
“size” could increase.

CRS-3
Budget Surpluses and Future Transfer Payments
In 1998, the federal government began to run budget surpluses as its receipts
exceeded its outlays. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) now forecasts that budget
surpluses will continue through 2010, the end of its forecast period. This sequence is
shown on Table 1. CBO assumes that the budget surpluses are used to retire the publicly
held debt.1 These surpluses are forecast to be large enough that by 2007 a major portion
of the national debt will be effectively eliminated.2 The debt will be effectively eliminated
because the Treasury will be unable to retire a small portion of the debt that the public will
be unwilling to sell. CBO projects that this non-redeemable sum will be quite large –
between $1081-830 billion from 2007-2010.
Table 1: Projected Budget Surpluses and Debt
(By Fiscal Year, in Billions of Dollars)
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
On-Budget Surplus
84
102
126
143
154
169
222
260
288
332
377
Off-Budget Surplus 149
165
186
202
215
232
247
263
278
293
307
Total Surplus
232
268
312
345
369
402
469
523
565
625
685
Interest Payments
224
218
201
174
151
126
101
81
72
64
59
As a % of GDP
2.3
2.1
1.8
1.5
1.2
0.9
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.4
Publicly Held Debt 3409 3158 2854 2522 2165 1774 1315 1081
989
887
830
As a % of GDP
34.9
30.7
26.4
22.3
18.3
14.3
10.2
8.0
7.0
6.0
5.4
Source: CBO, Budget and Economic Outlook, (Washington, DC: June 2000)
Paying down the debt, however, has an effect on federal transfer payments since it
reduces federal outlays for interest.3 And, as can be seen from Table 2, interest payments
are currently a major outlay item in the federal budget. During 1999, they amounted to
$230 billion, a sum equivalent to 2.5% of GDP and about one-ninth of all government
outlays. By 2007, interest payments are forecasted to be $149 billion lower than they were
in 1999. To put this amount in perspective, consider that this reduction is larger than the
federal budget surplus in 1999.
1 These CBO forecasts are based on the assumption that both the tax system and the benefit
structure of entitlements remain unchanged and that discretionary spending grows at the rate of
inflation. The assumption implies that no new tax or spending proposals, including those already
under consideration, become law.
2 Debt owed to the trust funds are ignored because they simply represent an IOU from the Treasury
to the trust funds. It is debt held by the public in the form of Treasury bonds that affects the
economy.
3 For a discussion of other major effects of retiring the debt, see CRS Report RL30614. What if
the National Debt Were Eliminated? Some Economic Consequences. By Marc Labonte. July 14,
2000.

CRS-4
Table 2: Composition of Federal Government Revenues and Outlays
(In FY1999)
Budget
Billions of
As a % of GDP
Dollars
Revenues
$1827
20%
Outlays
$1703
18.7%
Consumption
$569
6.1%
Transfers
$1134
12.6%
Interest
($230)
2.5%
Others
($904)
10.1%
Surplus
$124
1.4%
Source: CBO, Op cit.; National Income and Product Accounts, Op. cit.
The federal revenue that was being used to cover the outlays for interest, will now
be available for four alternative uses. It can be used to further reduce the national debt,
for outlays on goods and services, for other transfer payments such as grants to state and
local governments, or can be eliminated through tax reductions. CBO’s projections
assume that the revenue will be used for further debt reduction. However, this option is
only available until 2007 when the debt is effectively retired. From that point on, unless
the government is intent on accumulating private sector assets, the revenue will have to
be used for additional outlays, transfer payments, or for tax cuts.
Should the revenue be eliminated through tax cuts, federal tax receipts and outlays
as a percentage of GDP would fall, but the share of GDP accounted for by federal
government consumption would remain unchanged. If the revenue were used for other
transfer payments, then both outlays as a percentage of GDP and government consumption
as a percentage of GDP would remain the same. If the revenue were used to purchase
additional goods and services, the percentage of GDP accounted for by the federal
government would increase, even though the percentage of GDP accounted for by total
outlays would remain unchanged. And this increase could be significant. During 1999,
the purchases of goods and services by the federal government accounted for a little over
6% of GDP while federal interest outlays were about 2.5% of GDP. If the revenue that
is unencumbered by the reduction in interest payments were to be used for additional
purchases of goods and services and if the government’s share of GDP for 1999 remains
intact for 2010, the data in Table 1 suggest that the federal government’s share of GDP
could rise to a little over 8% by 2010. This would be an increase of about one-third from
1999.
Some Second Order Effects
The use of the current and projected surpluses for alternatives such as other transfer
payments, tax reduction, and for goods and services, has a number of second order effects
that should not be neglected, for they can affect the rate of growth of GDP and the
economic well-being of the country over the longer run. Should the surplus be used for
tax reductions, depending on how they are structured, it could affect the incentives of the

CRS-5
private sector to work, save, and invest.4 If the effect on incentives is positive, the medium
term rate of growth of GDP could be enhanced. Alternatively, should the government
substitute expenditures on goods and services for the diminished expenditures on interest,
additional resources would be drawn from private sector use. It is argued by economists
that most often the private sector uses those resources more efficiently than does the
government.5 If it does, then, from an efficiency perspective, there would be negative
consequences for the economy.6 By contrast, since the revenue is currently being used for
transfers to bondholders, like any transfer payment to individuals, the resources remain in
the private sector. There is some loss of efficiency, but it is from different sources: the
administrative cost of government transfers, and the fact that transfers may change
incentives to work, save, and invest. For example, some economists say that the national
savings rate is lower than it otherwise would be because Social Security is structured as
a pay-as-you-go system.7
Finally, there are distributional consequences to consider. Interest payments transfer
resources from taxpayers to bond holders. If the saved revenue is used for tax cuts or
increased government spending, resources will be directed towards the recipients of the
new tax cuts or spending rather than towards bond holders. If the saved revenue is used
for further debt reduction, the revenue will continue to be directed towards bond holders.
Other effects are also possible that may outweigh these considerations, based on the
specific use of the saved revenue.
Summary
The current and projected budget surpluses appear to make it possible for the publicly
held national debt to be effectively retired within the coming decade. Debt retirement
opens the opportunity to shift the composition of federal outlays because it reduces and
may eliminate a large expenditure item in the federal budget: interest on the public debt.
Alternative uses of the unencumbered revenue could have significant effects on the
economy and on the economic “size” of the government. If it is used to increase
government purchases of goods and services, it will, all else held constant, increase the
portion of GDP consumed by the federal government – one measure of the size of the
government – even though federal outlays – an alternative measure of the size of the
4 While the idea that tax cuts affect incentives is uncontroversial, the magnitude of the effect on
incentives is controversial. For an overview of these issues, see Center for the Study of American
Business, The Supply-Side Effects of Economic Policy, (Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis: 1981.)
5 One exception could be if government outlays were used for public investment (since public
investment involves the purchase of capital goods, it would increase government as a percentage
of GDP.) Public investment could be more efficient than if those resources were used by the
private sector. But this statement depends on several caveats. First, the public investment replaces
private consumption, and does not simply substitute for private investment that would have been
undertaken otherwise. Second, that the public investment yields a rate of return equal or higher
than the market rate of return for similar investments.
6 Similarly, should the federal government increase its transfers to state and local governments
such that they could increase their use of resources, it could also be seen by some to negatively
affect the efficiency of the economy.
7 Alan Stockman, Introduction to Macroeconomics, (Fort Worth: Dryden Press, 1999), p. 380.

CRS-6
government – remains unchanged. Should it be used to initiate new or expand existing
transfer programs, both measures of the size of the government – federal outlays as a
percentage of GDP and the percentage of GDP consumed by the government – will remain
the same. Should it be used to reduce federal taxes, it would reduce federal outlays as a
percentage of GDP without having any effect on the percentage of GDP used by the
federal government. In this instance, one measure of the size of the government would fall
while the other remained constant. In addition to these direct effects, there are other
second order effects that could be important over the longer run especially since they
could affect the incentives to work, save, and invest.