This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability 
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part 
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every 
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of 
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text 
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the 
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided 
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed 
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic 
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail 
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this 
document to Webmaster@gao.gov. 

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright 
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed 
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work 
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the 
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this 
material separately. 

United States Government Accountability Office: 

21st Century Issues: Challenges and Opportunities

David M. Walker: 
Comptroller General of the United States: 

NASPAA Annual Conference: 
October 14, 2005: 

Composition of Federal Spending: 

[See PDF for image] - graphic text 

3 pie charts with 5 items each. 

1964: 
Defense: 46.0%; 
Social Security: 14.0%; 
Medicare & Medicaid: 0%; 
Net interest: 7.0%; 
All other spending: 33.0%. 

1984: 
Defense: 27.0%; 
Social Security: 21.0%; 
Medicare & Medicaid: 9.0%; 
Net interest: 13.0%; 
All other spending: 30.0%. 

2004: 
Defense: 20.0%; 
Social Security: 22.0%; 
Medicare & Medicaid: 19.0%; 
Net interest: 7.0%; 
All other spending: 32.0%. 

Source: Office of Management and Budget. 

[End of figure] 

Federal Spending for Mandatory and Discretionary Programs: 

[See PDF for image] - graphic text 

3 pie charts with 3 items each. 

1964: 
Discretionary: 67%; 
Mandatory: 26%; 
Net Interest: 7%. 

1984: 
Discretionary: 45%; 
Mandatory: 42%; 
Net Interest: 13%. 

2004: 
Discretionary: 39%; 
Mandatory: 54%; 
Net Interest: 7%. 

Source: Office of Management and Budget. 

[End of figure] 

Fiscal Year 2004 Deficit Numbers: 

On-Budget Deficit; 
-$567 Billion; 
-4.9% of GDP. 

Off-Budget Surplus; 
$155 Billion; 
1.3% of GDP. 

Unified Deficit; 
-$412 Billion; 
-3.6% of GDP. 

* Includes the $151 billion Social Security surplus and a $4 billion 
surplus for the Postal Service. 

March 2005. 

[End of table] 

Surplus or Deficit as a Share of GDP: Fiscal Years 1962-2004: 

[See PDF for image] - graphic text: 

Line/Stacked Bar combo chart with 1 line (Unified) and 43 bars. 

Fiscal year: 1962; 
On-budget: -1%; 
Off-budget: -0.2%; 
Unified: -1.3%. 

Fiscal year: 1963; 
On-budget: -0.7%; 
Off-budget: -0.1%; 
Unified: -0.8%. 

Fiscal year: 1964; 
On-budget: -1%; 
Off-budget: 0.1%; 
Unified: -0.9%. 

Fiscal year: 1965; 
On-budget: -0.2%; 
Off-budget: No data; 
Unified: -0.2%. 

Fiscal year: 1966; 
On-budget: -0.4%; 
Off-budget: -0.1%; 
Unified: -0.5%. 

Fiscal year: 1967; 
On-budget: -1.6%; 
Off-budget: 0.5%; 
Unified: -1.1%. 

Fiscal year: 1968; 
On-budget: -3.2%; 
Off-budget: 0.3%; 
Unified: -2.9%. 

Fiscal year: 1969; 
On-budget: -0.1%; 
Off-budget: 0.4%; 
Unified: 0.3%. 

Fiscal year: 1970; 
On-budget: -0.9%; 
Off-budget: 0.6%; 
Unified: -0.3%. 

Fiscal year: 1971; 
On-budget: -2.4%; 
Off-budget: 0.3%; 
Unified: -2.1%. 

Fiscal year: 1972; 
On-budget: -2.2%; 
Off-budget: 0.3%; 
Unified: -2%. 

Fiscal year: 1973; 
On-budget: -1.2%; 
Off-budget: No data; 
Unified: -1.1%. 

Fiscal year: 1974; 
On-budget: -0.6%; 
Off-budget: 0.1%; 
Unified: -0.4%. 

Fiscal year: 1975; 
On-budget: -3.5%; 
Off-budget: 0.1%; 
Unified: -3.4%. 

Fiscal year: 1976; 
On-budget: -4.1%; 
Off-budget: -0.2%; 
Unified: -4.2%. 

Fiscal year: 1977; 
On-budget: -2.5%; 
Off-budget: -0.2%; 
Unified: -2.7%. 

Fiscal year: 1978; 
On-budget: -2.5%; 
Off-budget: -0.2%; 
Unified: -2.7%. 

Fiscal year: 1979; 
On-budget: -1.5%; 
Off-budget: -0.1%; 
Unified: -1.6%. 

Fiscal year: 1980; 
On-budget: -2.7%; 
Off-budget: No data; 
Unified: -2.7%. 

Fiscal year: 1981; 
On-budget: -2.4%; 
Off-budget: -0.2%; 
Unified: -2.6%. 

Fiscal year: 1982; 
On-budget: -3.7%; 
Off-budget: -0.2%; 
Unified: -4%. 

Fiscal year: 1983; 
On-budget: -6%; 
Off-budget: No data; 
Unified: -6%. 

Fiscal year: 1984; 
On-budget: -4.8%; 
Off-budget: No data; 
Unified: -4.8%. 

Fiscal year: 1985; 
On-budget: -5.3%; 
Off-budget: 0.2%; 
Unified: -5.1%. 

Fiscal year: 1986; 
On-budget: -5.4%; 
Off-budget: 0.4%; 
Unified: -5%. 

Fiscal year: 1987; 
On-budget: -3.6%; 
Off-budget: 0.4%; 
Unified: -3.2%. 

Fiscal year: 1988; 
On-budget: -3.9%; 
Off-budget: 0.8%; 
Unified: -3.1%. 

Fiscal year: 1989; 
On-budget: -3.8%; 
Off-budget: 1%; 
Unified: -2.8%. 

Fiscal year: 1990; 
On-budget: -4.8%; 
Off-budget: 1%; 
Unified: -3.9%. 

Fiscal year: 1991; 
On-budget: -5.4%; 
Off-budget: 0.9%; 
Unified: -4.5%. 

Fiscal year: 1992; 
On-budget: -5.5%; 
Off-budget: 0.8%; 
Unified: -4.7%. 

Fiscal year: 1993; 
On-budget: -4.6%; 
Off-budget: 0.7%; 
Unified: -3.9%. 

Fiscal year: 1994; 
On-budget: -3.7%; 
Off-budget: 0.8%; 
Unified: -2.9%. 

Fiscal year: 1995; 
On-budget: -3.1%; 
Off-budget: 0.9%; 
Unified: -2.2%. 

Fiscal year: 1996; 
On-budget: -2.3%; 
Off-budget: 0.9%; 
Unified: -1.4%. 

Fiscal year: 1997; 
On-budget: -1.3%; 
Off-budget: 1%; 
Unified: -0.3%. 

Fiscal year: 1998; 
On-budget: -0.3%; 
Off-budget: 1.1%; 
Unified: 0.8%. 

Fiscal year: 1999; 
On-budget: No data; 
Off-budget: 1.4%; 
Unified: 1.4%. 

Fiscal year: 2000; 
On-budget: 0.9%; 
Off-budget: 1.5%; 
Unified: 2.4%. 

Fiscal year: 2001; 
On-budget: -0.3%; 
Off-budget: 1.6%; 
Unified: 1.3%. 

Fiscal year: 2002; 
On-budget: -3.1%; 
Off-budget: 1.5%; 
Unified: -1.5%. 

Fiscal year: 2003; 
On-budget: -4.9%; 
Off-budget: 1.5%; 
Unified: -3.5%. 

Fiscal year: 2004; 
On-budget: -4.9%; 
Off-budget: 1.3%; 
Unified: -3.6%. 

Source: Office of Management and Budget and Congressional Budget 
Office. 

[End of figure] 

Estimated Fiscal Exposures (in $ trillions): 

Explicit liabilities (Publicly held debt, military & civilian pensions 
& retiree health, other); 
2000: $6.9; 
2002: $7.8; 
2004: $9.1. 

Commitments & Contingencies: e.g., PBGC, undelivered orders; 
2000: $0.5; 
2002: $0.8; 
2004: $0.9. 

Implicit exposures; 
2000: $13.0; 
2002: $17.8; 
2004: $33.3. 

Implicit exposures: Future Social Security benefits; 
2000: $3.8; 
2002: $4.6; 
2004: $5.2. 

Implicit exposures: Future Medicare Part A benefits; 
2000: $2.7; 
2002: $5.1; 
2004: $8.5. 

Implicit exposures: Medicare Part B benefits; 
2000: $6.5; 
2002: $8.1; 
2004: $11.4. 

Implicit exposures: Medicare Part D benefits; 
2004: $8.1. 

Total; 
2000: $20.4; 
2002: $26.4; 
2004: $43.3. 

Sources: Consolidated Financial Statements. 

Note: Estimates for Social Security and Medicare are PV as of January 1 
of each year as reported in the Consolidated Financial Statements and 
all other data are as of September 30. The 2005 Trustees Reports issued 
in March of this year show that the Social Security and Medicare 
exposures have increased as follows: Social Security increased to $5.7 
trillion, Medicare Part A increased to $8.8 trillion, Medicare Part B 
increased to $12.4 trillion and Part D increased to $8.7 trillion. 
Totals may not add due to rounding. 

[End of table] 

How Big is Our Growing Fiscal Burden? 

Our total fiscal burden can be translated and compared as follows: 

Total fiscal exposures: $43.3 trillion; 
Total household net worth: $48.5 trillion: 
* Burden/Net worth ratio: 89 percent. 

Burden: 
Per person: $147,000; 
Per full-time worker: $350,000; 
Per household: $383,000. 

Income: 
Median household income: $44,389; 
Disposable personal income per capita: $29,475. 

Note: Net worth and income data are calendar year 2004 levels. 

Sources: Federal Reserve Board for household net worth; Census Bureau 
for median household income; and the Bureau of Economic Analysis for 
disposable personal income per capita. 

[End of table] 

Composition of Spending as a Share of GDP Under Baseline Extended: 

[See PDF for image] - graphic text: 

Line/Stacked Bar combo chart with 4 groups, 1 line (Revenue) and 4 bars 
per group. 

2004; 
Net interest: 1.4%; 
Social Security: 4.4%; 
Medicare & Medicaid: 3.8%; 
All other spending: 10.4%; 
Revenue: 16.3%. 

2015; 
Net interest: 1.8%; 
Social Security: 4.7%; 
Medicare & Medicaid: 5.3%; 
All other spending: 8.1%; 
Revenue: 19.5%. 

2030; 
Net interest: 2.8%; 
Social Security: 6.4%; 
Medicare & Medicaid: 8%; 
All other spending: 8.1%; 
Revenue: 19.5%. 

2040; 
Net interest: 5.7%; 
Social Security: 6.9%; 
Medicare & Medicaid: 9.7%; 
All other spending: 8.1%; 
Revenue: 19.5%. 

Notes: In addition to the expiration of tax cuts, revenue as a share of 
GDP increases through 2015 due to (1) real bracket creep, (2) more 
taxpayers becoming subject to the AMT, and (3) increased revenue from 
tax-deferred retirement accounts. After 2015, revenue as a share of GDP 
is held constant. 

Source: GAOs March 2005 analysis. 

[End of figure] 

Composition of Spending as a Share of GDP Assuming Discretionary 
Spending Grows with GDP after 2005 and All Expiring Tax Provisions are 
Extended: 

[See PDF for image] - graphic text: 

Line/Stacked Bar combo chart with 4 groups, 1 line (Revenue) and 4 bars 
per group. 

2004; 
Net interest: 1.4%; 
Social Security: 4.3%; 
Medicare & Medicaid: 3.8%; 
All other spending: 10.4%; 
Revenue: 16.3%. 

2015; 
Net interest: 2.8%; 
Social Security: 4.7%; 
Medicare & Medicaid: 5.2%; 
All other spending: 9.7%; 
Revenue: 17.4. 

2030; 
Net interest: 7.7%; 
Social Security: 6.7%; 
Medicare & Medicaid: 8%; 
All 
other spending: 9.7%; 
Revenue: 17.4%. 

2040; 
Net interest: 15.7%; 
Social Security: 7.9%; 
Medicare & Medicaid: 9.7%; 
All other spending: 9.7%; 
Revenue: 17.4%. 

Notes: Although expiring tax provisions are extended, revenue as a 
share of GDP increases through 2015 due to (1) real bracket creep, (2) 
more taxpayers becoming subject to the AMT, and (3) increased revenue 
from tax-deferred retirement accounts. After 2015, revenue as a share 
of GDP is held constant. 

Source: GAOs March 2005 analysis. 

[End of figure] 

Current Fiscal Policy Is Unsustainable: 

The Status Quo is Not an Option: 

* We face large and growing structural deficits largely due to known 
demographic trends and rising health care costs. 

* GAOs simulations show that balancing the budget in 2040 could 
require actions as large as: 

- Cutting total federal spending by about 60 percent or
- Raising taxes to about 2.5 times today's level. 

Faster Economic Growth Can Help, but It Cannot Solve the Problem: 

* Closing the current long-term fiscal gap based on responsible 
assumptions would require real average annual economic growth in the 
double digit range every year for the next 75 years. 

* During the 1990s, the economy grew at an average 3.2 percent per 
year. 

* As a result, we cannot simply grow our way out of this problem. Tough 
choices will be required. 

The Sooner We Get Started, the Better: 

* Less change would be needed, and there would be more time to make 
adjustments. 

* The miracle of compounding would work with us rather than against us. 

* Our demographic changes will serve to make reform more difficult over 
time. 

FY2004 GAO Audit Report -- Emphasis of a Matter: 

"...it seems clear that the nation's current fiscal path is 
unsustainable and that tough choices by the President and the Congress 
will be necessary in order to address the nation's large and growing 
fiscal imbalance." 

The Way Forward: 

* New accounting and reporting approaches and new budget control 
mechanisms; 

* Develop new metrics for measuring the impact of policies and 
decisions over the long term; 

* Reexamine the base-question existing programs, policies and 
activities. 

21st Century Challenges Report: 

Provides background, framework, and questions to assist in reexamining 
the base. 

Covers entitlements & other mandatory spending, discretionary spending, 
and tax policies and programs. 

Based on GAO's work for the Congress. 

Issued February 16, 2005. 

Generic Reexamination Criteria and Sample Questions: 

Relevance of purpose and the federal role: 

Why did the federal government initiate this program and what was the 
government trying to accomplish? 

Have there been significant changes in the country or the world that 
relate to the reason for initiating it? 

Measuring success: 

Are there outcome-based measures? If not, why? 

If there are outcome-based measures, how successful is it based on 
these measures? 

Targeting benefits: 

Is it well targeted to those with the greatest needs and the least 
capacity to meet those needs? 

Affordability and cost effectiveness: 

Is it using the most cost-effective or net beneficial approaches when 
compared to other tools and program designs? 

Best practices: 

Is the responsible entity employing prevailing best practices to 
discharge its responsibilities and achieve its mission? 

Twelve Reexamination Areas: 

MISSION AREAS: 

* Defense; 
* Education & Employment; 
* Financial Regulation & Housing; 
* Health Care; 
* Homeland Security; 
* International Affairs; 
* Natural Resources, Energy & Environment; 
* Retirement & Disability; 
* Science & Technology; 
* Transportation. 

CROSSCUTTING AREAS: 

* Improving Governance; 
* Reexamining the Tax System. 

Themes: 

* Changing Security Threats; 
* Increasing Global Interdependence; 
* Demographic Shifts-Aging Population; 
* Promoting Growth in a Knowledge-Based Economy; 
* Governance Challenges. 

Illustrative 21st Century Questions: 

National Defense: 

* How should the historical allocation of resources across services and 
programs be changed to reflect the results of a forward-looking 
comprehensive threat/risk assessment as part of DOD's capabilities-
based approach to determining defense needs? 

Homeland Security: 

* What criteria should be used to target federal funding for homeland 
security in order maximize results and mitigate risk within available 
resource levels? 

Health Care: 

* How can industry standards for acceptable care be established and 
payment reforms be designed to bring about reductions in unwarranted 
medical practice variation? 

Retirement and Disability Policy: 

* How can federal disability programs, and their eligibility criteria, 
be brought into line with the current state of science, medicine, 
technology, and labor market conditions? 

Natural Resources, Energy, & the Environment: 

* To what extent are federal energy policies and incentive structures 
adequately preparing the nation, to satisfy its energy needs over the 
long term? 

International Affairs: 

* Do we need to reexamine the U.S. force structure used for nation 
building and peacekeeping activities by the United Nations, NATO, and 
other international institutions? 

Education & Employment: 

* How can the United States balance immigration policies such as worker 
and student visa programs to address employers' need for particular 
skills, the nation's need to maintain global leadership in areas such 
as science and higher education, and the nation's homeland security 
requirements? 

Transportation: 

* How narrowly or broadly should the federal role and interest in the 
nation's transportation system be defined? 

Financial Regulation & Housing: 

* To what extent do the tools and incentives increase spending on 
housing rather than promote affordable housing? 

Scientific & Technological Innovation: 

* How can the United States better develop a world-class technical and 
scientific domestic workforce that is not as dependent on large inflows 
of international students and researchers? 

Governance: 

* Is the federal government effectively informed by a key national 
indicator system about the position and progress of the nation as a 
whole as a guide to helping set agency and program goals and 
priorities? 

Tax System: 

* Which tax incentives need to be reconsidered because they fail to 
achieve the objectives intended by the Congress, their costs outweigh 
their benefits, they duplicate other programs, or other more cost-
effective means exist for achieving their objectives? 

Three Key Ingredients Needed for These Challenging and Changing Times: 

* Courage; 
* Integrity; 
* Innovation. 

GAO's Strategic Plan: 

[See PDF for image] - graphic text: 

Serving the Congress and the Nation: 

GAO's Strategic Plan Framework: 

Mission: 

GAO exists to support the Congress in meeting its constitutional 
responsibilities and to help improve the performance and ensure the 
accountability of the federal government for the benefit of the 
American people. 

Themes: 

* Long-term Fiscal Imbalance; 

* National Security; 

* Global interdependence; 

* Changing Economy; 

* Demographics; 

* Science and Technology; 

* Quality of Life; 

* Governance; 

Goals and Objectives: 

Provide Timely, Quality Service to the Congress and the Federal 
Government to Address Current and Emerging Challenges to the Well-Being 
and Financial Security of the American People related to: 

* Health care needs and financing; 

* Education and protection of children; 

* Work opportunities and worker protection; 

* Retirement income security; 

* Effective system of justice; 

* Viable communities; 

* Natural resources use and environmental protection; 

* Physical infrastructure; 

Respond to Changing Security Threats and the Challenges of Global 
Interdependence involving: 

* Emerging threats; 

* Military capabilities and readiness; 

* Advancement of U.S. interests; 

* Global market forces; 

Help Transform the Federal Government's Role and How It Does Business 
to Meet 21st Century Challenges by assessing: 

* Roles in achieving federal objectives; 

* Government transformation; 

* Key management challenges and program risks; 

* Fiscal position and financing of the government; 

Maximize the Value of GAO by Being a Model Federal Agency and a World-
Class Professional Services Organization in the areas of: 

* Client and customer service; 

* Strategic leadership; 

* Institutional knowledge and experience; 

* Process improvement; 

* Employer of choice; 

Core Values: 

* Accountability; 

* Integrity; 

* Reliability; 

Source: GAO. 

GAO Strategic Plan 2004-2009. 

[End of strategic plan framework] 

GAO's Core Values Help to Maintain Trust in the Public Sector: 

* ACCOUNTABILITY--describes the goal of GAO's work: to enhance the 
economy, efficiency, effectiveness, and credibility of the federal 
government. 

* INTEGRITY--describes the high standards GAO sets for itself and its 
people: to do work that is professional, objective, fact-based, non- 
partisan, non-ideological, fair, and balanced. 

* RELIABILITY--describes GAO's goal for how its work is received: to 
produce reports and other products that are timely, accurate, useful, 
clear and candid. 

GAOs High-Risk List: 2005: 

Addressing Challenges in Broad-based Transformations: 

High-Risk Areas: Protecting the Federal Government's Information 
Systems and the Nation's Critical Infrastructures; 
Year Designated High Risk: 1997. 

High-Risk Areas: Strategic Human Capital Management[A]; 
Year Designated High Risk: 2001. 

High-Risk Areas: U.S. Postal Service Transformation Efforts and Long- 
Term Outlook[A]; 
Year Designated High Risk: 2001. 

High-Risk Areas: Managing Federal Real Property[A]; 
Year Designated High Risk: 2003. 

High-Risk Areas: Implementing and Transforming the Department of 
Homeland Security; 
Year Designated High Risk: 2003. 

High-Risk Areas: Establishing Appropriate and Effective Information- 
Sharing Mechanisms to Improve Homeland Security; 
Year Designated High Risk: 2005. 

High-Risk Areas: DOD Approach to Business Transformation[A]; 
Year Designated High Risk: 2005. 

High-Risk Areas: DOD Approach to Business Transformation[A]: DOD Supply 
Chain Management (formerly Inventory Management); 
Year Designated High Risk: 1990. 

High-Risk Areas: DOD Approach to Business Transformation[A]: DOD Weapon 
Systems Acquisition; 
Year Designated High Risk: 1990. 

High-Risk Areas: DOD Approach to Business Transformation[A]: DOD 
Business Systems Modernization; 
Year Designated High Risk: 1995. 

High-Risk Areas: DOD Approach to Business Transformation[A]: DOD 
Financial Management; 
Year Designated High Risk: 1995. 

High-Risk Areas: DOD Approach to Business Transformation[A]: DOD 
Support Infrastructure Management; 
Year Designated High Risk: 1997. 

High-Risk Areas: DOD Approach to Business Transformation[A]: DOD 
Personnel Security Clearance Program; 
Year Designated High Risk: 2005. 

Managing Federal Contracting More Effectively: 

High-Risk Areas: DOE Contract Management; 
Year Designated High Risk: 1990. 

High-Risk Areas: NASA Contract Management; 
Year Designated High Risk: 1990. 

High-Risk Areas: DOD Contract Management; 
Year Designated High Risk: 1992. 

Management of Interagency Contracting; 
Year Designated High Risk: 2005. 

Assessing the Efficiency and Effectiveness of Tax Law Administration: 

High-Risk Areas: Enforcement of Tax Laws[A,B]; 
Year Designated High Risk: 1990. 

High-Risk Areas: IRS Business Systems Modernization[C]; 
Year Designated High Risk: 1995. 

Modernizing and Safeguarding Insurance and Benefit Programs: 

High-Risk Areas: Medicare Program[A]; 
Year Designated High Risk: 1990. 

High-Risk Areas: HUD Single-Family Mortgage Insurance and Rental 
Housing Assistance Programs; 
Year Designated High Risk: 1994. 

High-Risk Areas: Medicaid Program[A]; 
Year Designated High Risk: 2003. 

High-Risk Areas: Modernizing Federal Disability Programs[A]; 
Year Designated High Risk: 2003. 

High-Risk Areas: Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation Single-Employer 
Insurance Program[A]; 
Year Designated High Risk: 2003. 

Other: 

High-Risk Areas: FAA Air Traffic Control Modernization; 
Year Designated High Risk: 1995. 

[A] Legislation is likely to be necessary, as a supplement to actions 
by the executive branch, in order to effectively address this high-risk 
area. 

[B] Two high-risk areas-Collection of Unpaid Taxes and Earned Income 
Credit Noncompliance-have been consolidated to make this area. 

[C] The IRS Financial Management high-risk area has been incorporated 
into this high-risk area. 

[End of table] 

Competency-Based Performance Appraisal: 

Objective of a new system are to provide a: 

* Clear link to our strategic plan, professional standards, protocols 
and core values. 

* Fair, honest, accurate and non-discriminatory ~assessment of 
performance based on standards that are valid, properly applied, and 
transparent to employees. 

* A sound basis for enhancing the performance capacity of all staff, 
rewarding high-performing staff, and dealing with "below expected" 
performers. 

Competency Model: 

Achieving Results; 
Maintaining Client and Customer Focus; 
Developing People; 
Thinking Critically; 
Collaborating with Others; 
Presenting Information Orally; 
Presenting Information in Writing; 
Leading Others. 

Relevant Areas: 

Succession Planning; 
Promotions; 
Recruitment; 
Work Assignments; 
Performance Management; 
Pay Decisions; 
Career Planning; 
Training. 

[End of figure] 

Pay Philosophy: Performance-Oriented and Market-Based: 

Historically: 

* Pay ranges followed the GS schedule; 
* Everyone could advance to the pay cap irrespective of their 
performance not a matter of if, but when. 

New Approach: 

Pay ranges set to be competitive with the labor markets in which GAO 
competes for talent. 

Everyone can advance to the pay cap but they must have performance in 
excess of a certain level to advance beyond a certain point of the pay 
range (e.g., 75th percentile). 

Pay ranges may overlap in upper part of band pay range to adequately 
reward expertise, leadership, and performance. 

Educators Must Deliver the Tools to Address 21st Century Challenges: 

Public affairs educators have a responsibility to ensure that our next 
generation of leaders has the necessary core values and competencies to 
address the problems: 

* Re-focus curricula; 
* Pursue key areas of research; 
* Incorporate outside speakers; 
* Develop classroom exercises; 
* Promote relevant dissertation topics; 
* Raise awareness through op-eds and articles; 
* Participate in Town Hall meetings and other public fora. 

Addressing 21st Century Challenges: An Educator's Toolbox: 

Toolbox Contents: 

* 21st Century Challenges; 
* High Risk Series; 
* GAO Strategic Plan; 
* Understanding the Tax Reform Debate; 
* Social Security Reform: Answers to Key Questions; 
* Comptroller General's Health Care Forum; 
* Motor Fuels: Understanding the Factors That Influence the Retail 
Price of Gasoline; 
* Federal Debt: Answers to Frequently Asked Questions; 
* Comptroller General's NASPAA presentation slides. 

[End of slide presentation]