S. HRG. 114–247 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE 

BUDGET FISCAL YEAR 2016 

HEARINGS 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON THE BUDGET 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

January 28, 2015-CBO’S BUDGET AND ECONOMIC OUTLOOK: FISCAL 

YEARS 2015-2025 

February 3, 2015-THE PRESIDENT’S FISCAL YEAR 2016 BUDGET 

PROPOSAL 

February 11, 2015-THE COMING CRISIS: SOCIAL SECURITY 

DISABILITY TRUST FUND INSOLVENCY 

February 25, 2015-THE COMING CRISIS: AMERICA’S DANGEROUS 

DEBT 

March 4, 2015-WASTEFUL DUPLICATION IN THE FEDERAL 

GOVERNMENT 

March 11, 2015-BENEFITS OF A BALANCED BUDGET 
CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET FY2016 
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

95–387 2016

S. Hrg. 114–247 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE 

BUDGET FY2016 

HEARINGS 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON THE BUDGET 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

January 28, 2015-CBO’S BUDGET AND ECONOMIC OUTLOOK: FISCAL 

YEARS 2015-2025 

February 3, 2015-THE PRESIDENT’S FISCAL YEAR 2016 BUDGET 

PROPOSAL 

February 11, 2015-THE COMING CRISIS: SOCIAL SECURITY 

DISABILITY TRUST FUND INSOLVENCY 

February 25, 2015-THE COMING CRISIS: AMERICA’S DANGEROUS 

DEBT 

March 4, 2015-WASTEFUL DUPLICATION IN THE FEDERAL 

GOVERNMENT 

March 11, 2015-BENEFITS OF A BALANCED BUDGET 

( 
COMMITTEE ON THE BUDGET 

MICHAEL B. ENZI, WYOMING, Chairman 

CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

MIKE CRAPO, Idaho 

LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina 

ROB PORTMAN, Ohio 

PATRICK TOOMEY, Pennsylvania 

RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin 

KELLY AYOTTE, New Hampshire 

ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi 

BOB CORKER, Tennessee 

DAVID A. PERDUE, Georgia 

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 

PATTY MURRAY, Washington 

RON WYDEN, Oregon 

DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

MARK R. WARNER, Virginia 

JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

TIM KAINE, Virginia 

ANGUS S. KING, JR., Maine 

ERIC UELAND, Republican Staff Director 

WARREN GUNNELS, Minority Staff Director 

(II) 
iii 

C O N T E N T S 

HEARINGS 

Page 

January 28, 2015-CBO’S BUDGET AND ECONOMIC OUTLOOK: FISCAL YEARS 2015-2025 ..................................................................................... 1 

February 3, 2015-THE PRESIDENT’S FISCAL YEAR 2016 BUDGET 

PROPOSAL ......................................................................................................... 71 

February 11, 2015-THE COMING CRISIS: SOCIAL SECURITY DISABILITY TRUST FUND INSOLVENCY ....................................................... 157 

February 25, 2015-THE COMING CRISIS: AMERICA’S DANGEROUS 

DEBT .................................................................................................................... 351 

March 4, 2015-WASTEFUL DUPLICATION IN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT .......................................................................................................... 423 

March 11, 2015-BENEFITS OF A BALANCED BUDGET ............................. 493 

STATEMENTS BY COMMITTEE MEMBERS 

Chairman Enzi .......................................................................... 1, 71, 157, 351, 423, 493 

Ranking Member Sanders ........................................................ 2, 74, 160, 353, 425, 499 

WITNESSES 

Bruce Bartlett, Former Deputy Assistant Secretary for Economic Policy, U.S. 

Department of the Treasury............................................................................ 377, 379 

Mark Blyth, Eastman Professor of Political Economy, Watson Institute for 

International Studies, Brown University ....................................................... 533, 536 

Carolyn W. Colvin, Acting Commissioner, Social Security Administration..................................................................................................................... 173, 175 

Philip R. DeJong, Professor of Economics, Amsterdam School of Economics, 

Univerity of Amsterdam .................................................................................. 285, 288 

Honorable Gene L. Dodaro, Comptroller General of the United States, U.S. 

Government Accountability Office .................................................................. 428, 430 

Honorable Shaun Donovan, Director, U.S. Office of Management and Budget ............................................................................................................................ 76, 78 

Mark G. Duggan, The Wayne and Jodi Cooperman Professor of Economics, 

Standford University......................................................................................... 270-272 

Douglas W. Elmendorf, Director, Congressional Budget Office ............................... 6, 9 

John Engler, President, Business Roundtable, and Former Governor, State 

of Michigan........................................................................................................ 502, 504 

Lawrence J. Kotlikoff, Professor of Economics, Boston University.................. 346, 360 

Kate Lang, Senior Staff Attorney, National Senior Citizens Law Center....................................................................................................................... 291, 293 

Maya MacGuineas, President, Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget ........................................................................................................................ 517, 520 

Heather Pfitzenmaier, Director, Young Leaders Programs, The Heritage 

Foundation ........................................................................................................ 372, 374 
Page

iv 

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS 

Questions and Answers ......................................................................................... 61, 220 
(1) 

CBO’S BUDGET AND ECONOMIC OUTLOOK: 

FISCAL YEARS 2015–2025 

WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 28, 2015 

UNITED STATES SENATE, COMMITTEE ON THE BUDGET, Washington, D.C. 

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:00 a.m., in Room 

SD–608, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Mike Enzi, chairman of the committee, presiding. 

Present: Senators Enzi, Crapo, Portman, Toomey, Johnson, 

Ayotte, Wicker, Corker, Perdue, Sanders, Murray, Stabenow, 

Whitehouse, Merkley, Baldwin, King, and Kaine. 

Staff Present: Eric M. Ueland, Republican Staff Director; and 

Warren Gunnels, Minority Staff Director. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN ENZI 

Chairman ENZI. Good morning. I will call to order the first Senate Budget Committee hearing of the 114th Congress. 

This morning, we will hear testimony from the Congressional 

Budget Office Director, Doug Elmendorf, as he explains CBO’s outlook on critical fiscal issues confronting our country. 

Congress is under new management, and so is this committee. I 

am Mike Enzi. I am a Senator from Wyoming. I was first elected 

in 1996. Budgets matter to me. I am an accountant. I ran a small 

business in Wyoming for many years and kept my books balanced. 

I ran for mayor when I was 29 on a balanced budget platform and 

got elected, and then later got elected as a State legislator on the 

same platform. In both roles, one of my key jobs was making sure 

that the city budget, and then the State budget, balanced every 

year. I did not forget that when I came to the Senate. My first floor 

speech was to support a Constitutional amendment to balance the 

budget. After several years in the Senate, I finally had a chance 

to join this committee and got to be Chairman earlier this month. 

There is some activity across the nation that we should be interested in. There are 24 States that have already passed a Balanced 

Budget Constitutional Convention amendment, and there are ten 

more that are working on it. If 34 states pass it, that makes it happen. 

What could that mean? Currently, we spend 3.9 trillion dollars— 

that does not sound like nearly as much as 3,900 billion dollars, 

which is what we spend. I think that is easier to understand. 

Twenty-eight-hundred billion of those are checks that are automatically written. We do not make any special decisions on them. 

So, that leaves us with 1,100 billion to make the decision. Last 
2 

year, we spent one-and-one-tenths trillion, 1,100 billion. The deficit 

last year was 468 billion. So, we spent almost 50 percent more than 

we took in. 

So, to balance the budget, we would have to make some really 

detrimental decisions. Just trying to balance the budget over ten 

years, which is what we are trying to do in this budget, will be a 

difficult task. Of course, that is all related to the debt and interest. 

It would help if we could stay at a mere one-and-seven-tenths percent interest rate. 

This year, I intend to run a Budget Committee dedicated to the 

proposition that we have to confront spending, bringing the deficit 

to an end and ultimately balancing the budget. We are currently 

receiving more revenues than we have received in the history of 

the United States, but we are still spending a lot more than our 

revenues. 

As the first accountant to handle the gavel, the focus for me will 

always be the numbers. What do we spend? Where does that 

spending go? Where does the money we spend come from? Can we 

afford the spending we have? Where can we find the best value for 

the money that comes to Washington and leaves our Treasury? 

One thing I learned at an early age, while you can lie about the 

numbers, numbers never lie, and so I will always be looking for the 

numbers—looking at the numbers and, hopefully, understanding 

the numbers to be able to explain to colleagues and constituents 

the facts about our budget and our spending. 

Let me give you an example. I hear repeatedly that the Federal 

Government has trust funds to cover a variety of multi-decade commitments our government has. But, these trust funds are like nothing we know of in the private sector. They do not keep resources 

in trust for beneficiaries to claim in the future. Show me the cash. 

Instead, money sent to Washington for trust funds are swapped out 

for Federal bonds, and the cash that you think you can count on 

is instead spent now on present needs. That is why some of our 

greatest so-called trust funds are facing serious difficulties, according to the people responsible for them. Without action, we face the 

prospect of beneficiaries suffering significant harm in just a few 

years. So, be careful. If it is a Federal trust fund, do not trust it. 

Runaway spending habits have bred excessive deficits and incredible debt. As we meet this morning, our Federal debt totals 

over $18 trillion. That means every man, woman, and child—child, 

even if they were born today—owes over $56,000 on that debt. 

Every man, woman, and child owes $56,000 of that debt. I remember about three years ago when I was telling the people in Wyoming what every man, woman, and child owed, and it was over 

$49,000. It was almost $50,000. Now, we are at $56,000. 

Federal spending has hit a record high. Revenues are at an historic height, as well. Yet, every year, we run deficits that are on 

track to hit one trillion dollars. The more deficits we have, the 

more debt we owe, the more we add to the tab for future Americans 

as yet unborn. That just does not seem right to me. Our budget 

process lacks transparency. It seems designed to confuse. It leaves 

the general public unsatisfied that their concerns have been heard 

in Washington. 
3 

Over time, I would like this committee to begin work on addressing problems with the budget framework that exists so it becomes 

more responsive to the people we serve. Working with you and your 

colleagues, Senator Sanders, I think there are good opportunities 

for bipartisanship here. After all, no one likes the budget process 

we currently have. 

The committee has a significant responsibility. We are required 

by law to produce a budget resolution. Congress has not produced 

a budget resolution since 2009, and it has been ten years since the 

House and Senate agreed together on a budget. The law says we 

should get it done by April 15. As of today, there are only 77 days 

before April 15 for us to get our work done. Together with my 

House counterpart, I am dedicated to doing all I can to meet that 

deadline. 

The committee will act on a budget resolution. We will report it 

out. The Senate will consider it. We will negotiate with the House. 

We will pass a common budget resolution. We will write a plan to 

restore common sense and good budgeting to Washington. We will 

act to control the spending, reduce the deficits, and end the debt. 

We will act to restore balance to our budget, certainty to the 

economy, and confidence to our constituents, and in doing so, we 

will take the first necessary step to standing up for Americans so 

that, over time, their share of what we all owe can stop growing 

and start shrinking and people can see more of the American 

dream. They can keep more of what they earn. They can save for 

what they need. They can expect the government to help them 

when it must, while they can accomplish all they dream. Our country needs to act. It is time for us to come off the sidelines and get 

the job done to balance the budget. 

Senator SANDERS. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR SANDERS 

Senator SANDERS. Well, thank you very much, Chairman Enzi. 

Congratulations on your assuming the Chairmanship of this important committee, and we are delighted that Director Elmendorf is 

here with us today. We look forward to his testimony. 

Mr. Chairman, the good news is that our economy has come a 

very long way since President Bush left office in January 2009. At 

that time, we were hemorrhaging some 800,000 jobs a month, our 

financial system was on the verge of collapse, and the deficit was 

$1.4 trillion. Over the last six years, the economy has made substantial progress. During the last reported quarter, we saw very 

strong economic growth of five percent, and last month, the economy created another 252,000 jobs. This is the 58th straight month 

of private sector job growth. 

Further, the Federal deficit has been reduced by more than twothirds since 2008 and Federal deficits over the next decade are estimated to be about $5.5 trillion lower compared to what the CBO 

projected in 2010. That is more than what the Simpson-Bowles Fiscal Commission called for just four years ago. 

All of that good news, however, does not tell the full story of 

what is happening in our economy and what is happening to the 

lives of tens of millions of working families in all of our States. 

While we must continue to focus on the Federal deficit, we must 
4 

also be aware that there are other deficits in our society that are 

causing horrendous pain for the vast majority of the American people. There are deficits in decent paying jobs. There are deficits in 

infrastructure, deficits in income, deficits in equality, deficits in retirement security, deficits in education, and deficits in trade. 

Let me briefly make six points. One, the United States today is 

experiencing more income and wealth inequality than any major 

country on earth and more than any time in our country since 

1929. Today, if you can believe it, the top one-tenth of one percent 

own almost as much wealth as the bottom 90 percent, and one family—the Walton family of Walmart—owns more wealth than the 

bottom 40 percent of Americans. Since 1999, the typical middle 

class family has seen its real income go down by nearly $5,000. 

Meanwhile, since the Wall Street crash of 2008 were then, 95 percent of all new income has gone to the top one percent. In 2013, 

25 hedge fund managers made more income than 425,000 public 

school teachers. The simple truth is that the rich are becoming 

much richer while the middle class continues a 40-year decline. 

This committee, Mr. Chairman, in my view, must address that 

issue. 

Two, while unemployment has fallen significantly over the last 

six years, we must be mindful of the fact that real unemployment, 

which includes those people working part-time when they want to 

work full-time and those people who have given up looking for 

work, is not the official 5.6 percent, but over 11 percent. Further— 

and we do not talk about this—youth unemployment is close to 17 

percent, and African American youth unemployment is close to 30 

percent. In other words, while we have made some progress in reducing unemployment, we still have to create millions of decent 

paying jobs. And, in my view, the fastest way to do that is to rebuild our crumbling infrastructure—roads, bridges, water systems, 

wastewater plants, rail, et cetera—and we can create millions of 

jobs doing that, and that is an issue that this committee must address. 

Three, in a time when millions of Americans are working longer 

hours for low wages, we need to substantially increase wages for 

low- and middle-income workers. Today, the minimum wage after 

adjusting for inflation is about one-third lower today than it was 

in 1968. To equal the purchasing power of what the minimum wage 

was back then, we would have to raise it to $10.88 an hour. Furthermore, we have got to reform our antiquated overtime regulations. There are supervisors at McDonald’s who work 60 hours a 

week and make $27,000 a year and they do not get paid time-anda-half for any overtime. So, I think this is an issue that this committee should address. 

And, four, if we are going to lower our deficit, invest in our economy to create the jobs that we need and bring about more income 

and wealth equality [sic] in our country, we need real tax reform. 

It is unacceptable that each and every year, millionaires, billionaires, and profitable corporations avoid $100 billion in taxes by 

stashing their cash in the Cayman Islands and other offshore tax 

havens. It is unacceptable to me that huge profitable corporations, 

like General Electric, Verizon, Bank of America, and Citigroup, 

have in recent years paid nothing in Federal income taxes, and in 
5 

some cases have even gotten huge rebates from the IRS. That is 

an issue that this committee should be addressing. 

Five, at a time when the United States is engaged in an extremely competitive global economy, it is unacceptable to people 

throughout this country that millions of our young people cannot 

afford to go to college and are leaving school deeply in debt. We 

have got to address the issue of college affordability and make sure 

that in a competitive global economy our kids get the education 

they need. 

And, last but not least, in the midst of the obscene level of 

wealth and income equality that we are experiencing, the United 

States has by far the highest rate of childhood poverty of any major 

country on earth, and I would trust that there is no person on this 

committee who is happy that 20 percent of our kids are living in 

poverty. Further, millions of seniors and disabled people are struggling to put food on the table, and over the last six years, as this 

committee knows, the cost-of-living adjustments for Social Security 

have been incredibly paltry—zero percent, zero percent, 3.6, 1.7, 

1.5, 1.7—not keeping up with inflation that our seniors need. According to some of the most recent statistics, 20 percent of seniors 

live on an average of just $7,600 a year. In 2013, half of all older 

adults lived on less than $21,000 a year. Bottom line: We have got 

to move aggressively to expand benefits for our Social Security 

beneficiaries. 

The bottom line to me, Mr. Chairman, is when we put people to 

work, when we have the best educated workforce in the world, people will be paying more taxes. Our deficit will go down. That is, in 

my view, the way we deal with deficits, and thank you very much. 

Chairman ENZI. Thank you, Senator Sanders. I look forward to 

working with you and having some very spirited debates in the 

years to come. 

Our witness this morning is Dr. Doug Elmendorf, the eighth Director of the Congressional Budget Office. The CBO serves an instrumental role for the Budget Committees. The agency provides 

necessary information important to assessing the budget impact of 

proposals from both the administration and Congress. As well, 

CBO continually examines the state of the economy and the budget 

to keep us apprised of the fiscal context in which we operate. 

Dr. Elmendorf has served as Director of the CBO since 2009, 

coming to this Congressional support organization from previous 

stints at CBO, at the Federal Reserve Board, at the Council of Economic Advisors, at the Treasury Department, and at the Brookings 

Institution. 

This morning, Director Elmendorf will be talking to us about 

CBO’s latest baseline, which is their outlook on the economy and 

the Federal budget over the next ten years. As he revealed on Monday, our annual deficit, already too high at nearly $500 billion, is 

expected to grow to a trillion in just ten short years. The debt is 

expected to grow by nine trillion over the next decade, and that is 

without any new programs and realizing we are already receiving 

more revenues than at any time in our history. The interest costs, 

which we must pay but which provide no services to Americans, 

are expected to cost five-and-six-tenths trillion dollars. It is clear 
6 

that our $18 trillion debt is the anchor which will sink us if we do 

not change course. 

For your information, colleagues, Dr. Elmendorf has let us know 

that he will take about eight minutes with his opening statement 

this morning. Following that, we will turn to questions. 

Welcome, Dr. Elmendorf. Please begin. 

STATEMENT OF DOUGLAS W. ELMENDORF, DIRECTOR, 

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE 

Mr. ELMENDORF. Thank you very much, Chairman Enzi, Senator 

Sanders. My colleagues and I look forward to working with both of 

you and with all the members of the committee in this Congress. 

The Federal budget deficit, which has fallen sharply during the 

past few years, is projected to hold steady relative to the size of the 

economy through 2018. Beyond that point, however, the gap between spending and revenues is projected to grow, further increasing Federal debt relative to the size of the economy, which is already historically high. 

Those projections are based on the assumption that current laws 

governing taxes and spending will generally remain unchanged, 

and they are built upon our economic forecast. According to that 

forecast, the economy will expand at a solid pace in 2015 and for 

the next few years, to the point that the gap between the nation’s 

output and its potential, or maximum sustainable output, will be 

essentially eliminated by the end of 2017. 

Let me address the budget outlook first and then turn to the economic outlook. 

We estimate that the deficit for this fiscal year, 2015, will amount to $468 billion, slightly less than the deficit for 2014. At 

2.6 percent of GDP, this year’s deficit is projected to be the smallest relative to the nation’s output since 2007, but close to the average 2.7 percent of GDP the deficits have averaged over the past 50 

years. 

Although the deficits in our baseline projections remain roughly 

stable as a percentage of GDP through 2018, they rise after that. 

The deficit in 2025 is projected to be $1.1 trillion, or 4.0 percent 

of GDP. And, cumulative deficits over the 2016 to 2025 period are 

projected to total $7.6 trillion. 

We expect that Federal debt held by the public will amount to 

74 percent of GDP at the end of this fiscal year, more than twice 

what it was at the end of 2007 and higher than in any year since 

1950. By 2025, in our baseline projections, Federal debt rises to 

nearly 79 percent of GDP. 

When we last issued long-term projections last summer, we projected that under current law, debt would exceed 100 percent of 

GDP 25 years from now and would continue on an upward trajectory thereafter. That trend could not be sustained. Such large and 

growing Federal debt would have serious negative consequences, 

including increasing Federal spending for interest payments, restraining economic growth in the long term, giving policy makers 

less flexibility to respond to unexpected challenges, and eventually 

heightening the risk of a fiscal crisis. 

Why will deficits and debt increase relative to the GDP under 

current law? In our projections, outlays rise from a little more than 
7 

20 percent this year, which is about what Federal spending has 

averaged over the past 50 years, to a little more than 22 percent 

in 2025. Four key factors underlie that increase: The retirement of 

the Baby Boom generation, the expansion of Federal subsidies for 

health insurance, increasing health care costs per beneficiary, and 

rising interest rates on Federal debt. Consequently, under current 

law, spending would grow faster than the economy for Social Security, for the major health care programs, including Medicare, Medicaid, and subsidies offered through insurance exchanges, and for 

net interest costs. 

In stark contrast, mandatory spending other than that for Social 

Security and health care, as well as both defense and non-defense 

discretionary spending, would shrink markedly relative to the size 

of the economy. By 2019, outlays in those three categories taken together would fall below the percentage of GDP they were between 

1998 and 2001, when such spending was the lowest since at least 

1940, the earliest year for which comparable data have been reported. 

Revenues are projected to rise significantly by 2016, buoyed by 

the expiration of several provisions that reduced tax liabilities and 

by the ongoing economic expansion. In our projections, based on 

current law, revenues equal about 18.5 percent of GDP in 2016 and 

remain between 18 and 18.5 percent throughout the coming decade. Revenues at that level would represent a greater share of the 

economy than their 50-year average of about 17.5 percent of GDP, 

but would still be less than outlays by growing amounts over the 

course of the decade. 

Turning from the budget to the economy, we anticipate that increases in consumer spending, business investment, and residential 

investment will drive the economic expansion this year and over 

the next few years. As measured by the change from the fourth 

quarter of the previous year, we expect that real GDP will grow by 

about three percent in 2015 and 2016, and by 2.5 percent in 2017. 

We construct our forecast to be in the middle of the distribution of 

possible outcomes at the time the forecast is made, but significant 

uncertainty surrounds it and all economic forecasts. 

The difference between actual GDP and our estimate of potential 

GDP, which is the measure of slack for the whole economy, was 

about two percent of potential GDP at the end of 2014. During the 

next few years, we expect actual GDP will rise more rapidly than 

its potential, gradually eliminating that slack. By our projections, 

increased hiring will reduce the unemployment rate from 5.7 percent in the fourth quarter of last year to 5.3 percent in the fourth 

quarter of 2017, which is close to the natural rate of unemployment, that is, the rate arising from all sources except for fluctuations in the overall demand for goods and services. That increased 

hiring will also encourage more people to enter or stay in the labor 

force, boosting the labor force participation rate. 

Our projections beyond the next few years are not based on estimates of cyclical developments in the economy because we do not 

attempt to predict economic fluctuations that far into the future. 

Instead, those projections are based on estimates of underlying factors that affect the economy’s productive capacity. 
8 

For 2020 through 2025, we project that real GDP will grow by 

an average of 2.2 percent per year, a rate that matches our estimate of the potential growth of the economy in those years. Potential output is expected to grow much more slowly than it did during 

the 1980s and 1990s, primarily because the labor force is anticipated to expand more slowly than it did then. Growth in the labor 

force will be held down by the ongoing retirement of the Baby 

Boom generation, by a relatively stable labor force participation 

rate among working age women after sharp increases from the 

1960s to the mid-1990s, and by Federal tax and spending policies 

in current law. 

The elimination of slack in the economy will eventually remove 

the downward pressure on the rate of inflation and on interest 

rates that has existed in the past several years. By our estimates, 

the rate of inflation, as measured by the price index for personal 

consumption expenditures, will move up gradually to the Federal 

Reserve’s goal of two percent, hitting that mark in 2017 and beyond. 

Interest rates on Treasury securities, which had been exceptionally low since the recession, will rise considerably in the next few 

years, we expect, but remain lower than they were, on average, in 

previous decades. Between 2020 and 2025, the projected interest 

rates on three-month Treasury bills and ten-year Treasury notes 

are 3.4 percent and 4.6 percent, respectively. Interest rates, of 

course, are volatile, and those figures represent CBO’s projections 

of the average rates over that period. 

Thank you. I am happy to take your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Elmendorf follows:] 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 

Chairman ENZI. Thank you, Dr. Elmendorf. You know, predictions really are tough, particularly when they are about the future. 

Mr. ELMENDORF. Yes, Mr. Chairman. 

[Laughter.] 

Chairman ENZI. We appreciate all your effort on that. So, we will 

turn to questions, but let me take a minute to explain the process 

for the committee members before we start. 

Each member will have five minutes to question. I will begin 

with myself and then Senator Sanders. And then following the two 

of us, I will alternate questions between the majority and the minority. All members who are in attendance when the hearing began 

will be recognized in the order of seniority. For those who arrived 

after the hearing began, you are on the list in the order of arrival. 

If it comes to your turn on the list to be recognized but you are 

not here, then you will move to the bottom of the list and we will 

turn to the next Senator on that side of the aisle to ask questions. 

When everyone is done—when everyone else is done, then I will 

recognize that person for questions. 

With that, Dr. Elmendorf, thank you for your testimony and I 

have a few questions. I am very concerned about the national debt. 

I wake up in the middle of the night concerned about its effects. 

Am I right to believe that a failure to confront our debt challenge 

with a serious plan to reduce deficits could only worsen our economic and fiscal health? Congress needs to act on deficits sooner, 

rather than later, is that correct? 

Mr. ELMENDORF. I think it is certainly right, Mr. Chairman, that 

the sooner Congress sets a course, decides what sorts of policy 

changes would be appropriate to address the fiscal imbalance, then 

the more gradually those changes can be implemented while still 

achieving whatever particular target for deficits and debt you 

would consider. I think the pace at which particular changes are 

set in motion would depend on your and your colleagues’ judgments 

about how quickly benefit programs or tax policies could be 

changed without being too disruptive to individuals or firms or 

State and local governments. It would also depend on your assessment of economic conditions. 

Chairman ENZI. Thank you. Your analysis finds that the interest 

costs on the national debt will rise dramatically in the next decade, 

from $227 billion this year to $827 billion in 2025. To me, every 

dollar spent on interest is another dollar we will not be able to use 

for government services on an individual in need or another dollar 

that will not be available to a taxpayer for their own needs. Are 

the large and growing interest costs a problem for us? How conservative were you? 

Mr. ELMENDORF. So, Mr. Chairman, the growing interest costs 

are a problem, because, as you say, for any given level of spending, 

they require higher taxes, or for any given level of taxes, they require less of some of the sort of spending. 

We were not conservative in our projection of interest rates, 

though. As I say, we make an effort to have all the elements of our 

projection be roughly in the middle of the distribution of possible 

outcomes at the time we set the forecast. In fact, market readings 

of interest rates have declined since we set this forecast in place 
16 

in early December, but we think there are both upside and downside risks to the interest rates that we project, and we provide in 

an appendix in the report our rules of thumb for you and your colleagues to see how much different outcomes for GDP growth or inflation or interest rates would affect budget outcomes. And, naturally, with a debt as large as our debt is, changes in the interest 

rate that the Treasury pays on that debt can have very large effects on the deficit. 

Chairman ENZI. Thank you. One of my concerns with all of this 

is that when I first came to the Senate, I went on a trip to Korea 

with Senator Lieberman, and it was at a time that Korea was having some tremendous financial difficulties and the International 

Monetary Fund stepped in to help them and they outlined a plan. 

And, it happened to be election time, too, so Senator Lieberman 

and I got to meet with both of the potential leaders for them, and 

our job was to explain to them the need for them to follow the IMF 

plan exactly to get their debt reduced and to stay in line. And, we 

were so persuasive, they immediately went on television and said, 

‘‘If I get elected, I am going to change every one of those articles.’’ 

Their money plunged 18 percent per day for three days and they 

came back on television and said, ‘‘We are going to follow it precisely.’’ 

So, that is some of my background, and you noted my concern 

about the debt and we have discussed the problem of the large and 

growing interest costs. But, what about the debt itself? Is debt at 

the levels projected in the report a danger to the country and my 

grandkids’ future, and could you explain that. 

Mr. ELMENDORF. Yes, Mr. Chairman. Under normal economic 

conditions, when the Federal Government borrows more money, it 

is making it more difficult for other people to borrow money and, 

thus, tends to crowd out some capital investment. And, it is capital 

investment that helps over time to boost GDP and to boost wages 

and incomes. 

So, on an ongoing basis—again, under normal economic circumstances—the high level of debt that we have is reducing wages 

and incomes relative to what they would otherwise be. We are still 

on an upward path of wages and income, but we would—with less 

debt, we would be on a stronger upward path. 

Also, as we have said a number of times, there are risks associated with high levels of debt. You cannot tell just when that risk 

might hit. But, for example, if there were another financial crisis 

or severe recession or international events to which you and your 

colleagues wanted to respond with government resources, the more 

debt you have going into that kind of situation, the harder it is for 

you to respond. Additionally, there is a risk of a fiscal crisis in 

which investors would become unwilling to hold Treasury debt, except at extraordinarily high interest rates. 

There is no way for our economists to predict what level of debt 

might cause such a crisis to occur, and other countries that have 

gotten into that sort of situation have gotten there through a variety of circumstances. So, we do not know of any particular tipping 

point, but we think the risk is higher, the higher the level of debt 

is relative to the size of the economy. 

Chairman ENZI. Thank you, and my time has expired. 
17 

Senator SANDERS. Senator SANDERS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

I think, before we go forward and talk about where we want to 

go, it is important to know how we got to where we are today, because I hear a lot of my Republican friends saying, well, you know, 

we have got this deficit. We are going to have to cut Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, education, nutrition, infrastructure, whatever. But, I think it is important to know how we got to where we 

are. 

Dr. Elmendorf, am I correct in remembering that in January of 2009 [sic], when President Clinton left office, we had a $236 billion 

surplus? 

Mr. ELMENDORF. That sounds right, Senator. 

Senator SANDERS. Okay, and that the CBO projected a ten-year 

budget surplus of $5.6 trillion? 

Mr. ELMENDORF. Yes, Senator. 

Senator SANDERS. Well, I think, Mr. Chairman, we might want 

to figure out how we went from projections of a huge surplus into 

significant deficits. 

Dr. Elmendorf, is it fair to say that one of the reasons we saw 

that transition is that under President Bush, we went to war in 

Iraq and Afghanistan, but we forgot to pay for those wars, that important part? 

Mr. ELMENDORF. Well, the forgetting, I cannot speak to, Senator— 

Senator SANDERS. Well— 

Mr. ELMENDORF. —but relative to CBO’s projections in early 

2001, the high levels of defense spending was a significant factor 

in why the deficit was much— 

Senator SANDERS. Well, I asked that question as maybe the 

major deficit hawk on this committee. See, I did not vote to go to 

that war in Iraq. I did not go to war in Iraq. 

Now, what about the tax cuts that were initiated by President 

Bush? Did they have any impact on the deficit? 

Mr. ELMENDORF. Yes, a very large effect, Senator. 

Senator SANDERS. Oh, they did have to cut education, when families cannot afford to send their kids to college. I think that, frankly, 

that set of priorities does not make sense to me. 

Dr. Elmendorf, given the fact, as I think we all know, that the 

wealthiest people in this country have become much wealthier in 

recent years and their tax rates have gone down, is it not correct 

that if we did nothing more than restore the income and capital 

gains tax rates to where they were in 2000 for the wealthiest two 

percent of Americans earning $250,000 a year or more, that we 

could raise more than $200 billion over the next decade? 

Mr. ELMENDORF. Senator, we have not done an estimate of that 

that I know offhand. I certainly agree that the changes you describe, a significant amount of additional revenue would be collected. But, I think to actually get a specific number, you would 

have to ask for an estimate from the Joint Tax Committee— 

Senator SANDERS. Okay. Let me ask you this. According to a November 2014 CBO report, the income of the wealthiest one percent 

of Americans has risen 200 percent since 1979 at the same time 

that their income tax rates have fallen. Is that a fair statement? 
18 

Mr. ELMENDORF. Yes, Senator. 

Senator SANDERS. Okay. So, I think what the debate that we are 

going to have in this committee, and I think it is going to be a very 

interesting debate, as the Chairman indicates, is one of national 

priorities, and that is that at a time when the wealthiest people are 

doing phenomenally well, when corporate profits are at an all-time 

high, do we ask those people who are doing extremely well to start 

paying their fair share of taxes so that we can invest in our economy and reduce the deficit, or, in fact, do we continue the war 

against the working families of this country and low-income people 

by cutting the programs that they desperately need, and that is a 

strong philosophical division and I look forward to some very interesting debates on that issue. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman ENZI. Thank you. 

Next will be Senator Crapo, and then Senator Stabenow. 

Senator CRAPO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And, just briefly, in response to some of the comments of Senator 

Sanders, back in the time frame he was talking about, did we not 

also have a terrorist attack around 9/11? 

Mr. ELMENDORF. Yes, Senator. 

Senator CRAPO. And, did we not have a stock market crash right 

in that time frame, as well? 

Mr. ELMENDORF. We did, Senator. 

Senator CRAPO. And, were not both of those events, both on the 

spending and the revenue side, pretty significant to our budget circumstances? 

Mr. ELMENDORF. Yes, Senator. As I said, the military response 

in the 2000s was a costly one. We are not in a place to judge the 

strategic effect, but certainly it was costly, as we describe in our 

report. 

Senator CRAPO. I understand. I just wanted to be sure that a little bit more of that picture was painted. 

Let me talk for a minute about the interest issue, which Senator 

Enzi brought up with you. As I understand your report, essentially, 

over the budget window that you are reporting on, the interest 

costs will go from about 6.5 percent today to about 13.5 percent at 

the end of the budget window, is that correct? 

Mr. ELMENDORF. That is—I guess as a share of total spending, 

Senator— 

Senator CRAPO. Yes. 

Mr. ELMENDORF. —that sounds right to me. 

Senator CRAPO. Yes. I think that would be as a share of total 

spending. 

Mr. ELMENDORF. Yes. 

Senator CRAPO. And, just to give that number a little bit of perspective, that means that in about four or five years, the share of 

total spending that interest represents will exceed the share of 

total spending that our defense spending represents, is that correct? 

Mr. ELMENDORF. Yes, Senator. 

Senator CRAPO. And, by the end of the budget window, it will exceed that by a significant amount. 

Mr. ELMENDORF. Yes, Senator, that is right. 
19 

Senator CRAPO. And, as we look at seeing the interest costs alone 

on our debt rising to such an increasing level of our overall spending capacity, does that not crowd out all other, not just defense, but 

all other kinds of spending options that the Congress has? 

Mr. ELMENDORF. Well, it can either reduce other spending or 

lead to higher tax revenue or lead to a larger deficit for some period of time. But, you are right, Senator, that it makes those other 

choices more difficult, so larger— 

Senator CRAPO. So, we either have to raise taxes or cut spending 

elsewhere. 

Mr. ELMENDORF. Yes. 

Senator CRAPO. Or, figure out a way to reduce interest costs, 

which would be where I want to go next. It seems to me that we 

should talk for a minute about the impact of the debt on our GDP. 

Your report indicates that the potential output and GDP growth 

after 2017 will be noticeably less than the average growth of the 

1980s and 1990s, and also that the debt increasing as a percentage 

of GDP in the latter half of the decade to levels—it will increase 

to levels that are higher than they have been since 1950, is that 

correct? 

Mr. ELMENDORF. That is right. 

Senator CRAPO. My question is, what effect does that increasing 

debt have on our economy and our potential output and GDP? 

Mr. ELMENDORF. So, as the economy continues to improve and 

moves along in the second half of the coming decade, that higher— 

that level of debt will lead to lower capital investment and lower 

incomes than would be the case if debt were lower, all else equal. 

Senator CRAPO. The fact is, the debt is a drag on the economy. 

Mr. ELMENDORF. When the economy is functioning normally, 

Senator. As I suggested in my earlier answer, in periods when the 

economy is constrained by shortfall of demand for goods and services like we have had the last several years, then government borrowing is a stimulus to the economy. But, over longer periods of 

time, when the economy tends to be closer to full employment, then 

large debt is a drag on the economy. 

Senator CRAPO. If I am understanding what you are saying, you 

are saying that stimulus spending in the short term can boost economic strength, but in the long term, because it is added to the 

debt, it is not taxed and paid for, then it becomes a drag, is that 

correct? 

Mr. ELMENDORF. Yes. That is right, Senator. 

Senator CRAPO. I guess my question basically is, can we simply 

spend ourselves into prosperity on a continuous basis with borrowed money? 

Mr. ELMENDORF. Umm— 

Senator CRAPO. Can we just continue to drive the debt up and 

use that short-term stimulative impact of borrowed money to keep 

ourselves always in a positive economic posture? 

Mr. ELMENDORF. No, Senator. It is not feasible to continually 

have debt rising relative to the size of the economy, because eventually, people will become more skeptical about the government’s 

ability and willingness to pay that. 

Senator CRAPO. And then we face the question as to whether 

they are willing to buy our debt. 
20 

Mr. ELMENDORF. Yes. That is right, Senator, at some point. 

Senator CRAPO. And there, I know, have been a number of economists who have tried to find that tipping point. You indicated that 

we really do not know when it is. But, can we have any kind of 

general ideas? 

Mr. ELMENDORF. Senator, we really do not know. I think the best 

thing we can say is that the United States has rarely had Federal 

debt as large relative to the economy as it is now and as we project 

it to be over the coming decades under current law, and, thus, we 

are in mostly uncharted territory, and that is part of why there is 

a risk. But, because it is uncharted territory for us, economists just 

do not have much to offer about what might happen when. 

Senator CRAPO. Well, I would just say—I know my time is running out—I am one of those who thinks that the risk is very high 

and that we are in very dangerous uncharted territory. And, we 

continue to get the answer that we cannot take the fiscally responsible steps that we need to take on both the tax and the spending 

side of the budget because we need to continue to stimulate this 

difficult economy with stimulative spending on borrowed money in 

order to make it strong. My point in my questions to you was just 

that there comes a time, and I think the time is here, when we 

have got to recognize that we cannot just continue the stimulative 

spending theory at the cost of continuing to drive up this massive 

debt. Thank you. 

Chairman ENZI. Senator Stabenow. 

Senator STABENOW. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and 

congratulations. I am looking forward to working with you. 

Lots to talk about, and it really does come down to a difference 

in approach about how you grow the economy. I would just say to 

my good friend who just spoke that we really have not been using 

a stimulative approach now for a few years. We have been doing 

sequestration and cutting and not funding infrastructure and 

watching student loan debt go up and not investing in things. So, 

it is an interesting debate. 

I guess what I would say is that we, in real simple terms, we 

should do what works and we should look at the past to know what 

works. I was around in the House of Representatives in the 1990s 

under the Clinton administration when we balanced the budget for 

the first time in 30 years. I had only been there six months, and 

so I thought it was pretty good, after six months, I had balanced 

the budget. But, it was because of an arrangement that asked 

those at the top to pay a little more and also to invest in education 

and innovation and, basically, a middle class economy. 

Then we went to a different approach under the Bush administration, saying, let us give it all to those at the top, two different 

large trickle-down tax cuts to the wealthiest Americans hoping it 

would trickle down to everybody else. In the meantime, we all 

know about the wars that were not paid for. Go to war, do not pay 

for it. The President says, go shopping, because consumer spending 

is obviously very important—if you have a job and money in your 

pocket. A whole range of things happened, including not watching 

Wall Street, the biggest collapse since the Great Depression, and 

we saw what happened. 
21 

So, President Obama comes in and, again, turns around and 

says, we are going to protect American jobs in the auto industry 

and manufacturing and we are going to make sure we do not lose 

making those things in America. We have asked the top to pay a 

little bit more. There was an outcry the world would end. Instead, 

we have brought down the yearly deficit more than two-thirds. The 

economy is growing again. 

And, now, the question is, is everybody going to benefit from that 

or just those at the top, and that goes to the question, I believe, 

of investing in education and innovation and creating a way to stop 

the deficits that, frankly, Senator Sanders talked about, which 

focus on blocking opportunities for people who work hard to get 

into the middle class. 

And, in your report, Director Elmendorf, you talked about, of 

course, consumer spending, and people cannot spend if they do not 

have money in their pocket, and if they do not have a job that pays 

well, they are not going to have money in their pocket. So, my 

question to you goes to a different way of looking at this in terms 

of how do we have resources? How do we make sure we are responsible, we are paying for the things that we are doing as a country, 

but do it in a way that does not hurt folks that are trying very 

hard to get into that middle class. 

One way is to ask those who are abusing the system through tax 

loopholes to pay their fair share for public services, individuals or 

businesses. On the business side, I have a bill called the Bring Jobs 

Home Act that just addresses one small policy, that basically says 

if you pick up and move the factory, the taxpayers are not going 

to pay for the move. It ought to be simple to pose that. We know 

about inversions. We know about other techniques, as well as individuals. 

So, my question to you, Director Elmendorf, is if we actually 

closed those loopholes, both on the individual and the business 

side, so that everyone was contributing to the public services they 

benefit from, like breathing the air and drinking the water and 

driving on the roads and all of the other things that we, as Americans, benefit from, what impact would that have on tax receipts? 

Mr. ELMENDORF. Well, Senator, if you reduced or eliminated certain deductions or exclusions from income or tax credits or other 

tax expenditures, as many of them are known, then that would 

raise revenue, all else equal. How much effect it would have on revenue, of course, would depend on the specifics of the provisions that 

you changed and on whether there were changes in tax rates or 

other elements of tax provisions that were altered. So, the specific 

outcomes would depend on the specific policy choices. 

Senator STABENOW. Taking inversions as an example, or the fact 

that we have seen over the years—when Senator Conrad was here, 

he always showed us the picture in the Cayman Islands, I think, 

it was up to 18,000 businesses that had the same address, in the 

same building. Making sure that they at least had to pick different 

buildings in the United States, what are we talking about in terms 

of savings that we could put into rebuilding our roads and infrastructure and investing in our children’s schools? 

Mr. ELMENDORF. Yes. So, Senator, we highlight the role of tax 

expenditures in the revenue chapter of the outlook, because, as you 
22 

know, they are very large in magnitude but do not necessarily get 

the scrutiny in the budget process that spending programs of comparable magnitude receive. By our estimates, the total tax expenditures for the individual income tax, the payroll tax, and corporate 

income taxes is about $1.5 trillion in 2015 alone. That is almost as 

much money as is collected by the individual income tax. It is a lot 

more than is spent on any of the largest government programs. 

So, there is a tremendous amount of money which is being used 

by the Federal Government to support particular individuals or 

particular activities, and that is up to you and your colleagues to 

decide whether you think all those things are appropriate, just as 

that is the case for other tax provisions and for spending programs 

and so on. But, we did try to bring—make sure that— 

Senator STABENOW. Thank you. 

Mr. ELMENDORF. —people are aware of the magnitude. 

Senator STABENOW. And, Mr. Chairman, I hope we will have 

that— 

Chairman ENZI. Your time— 

Senator STABENOW. Yes. I hope we will have that discussion. I 

am not advocating we close every one of the—change that tax policy, but $1.5 trillion in spending through the tax code seems to me 

a worthy place for us to scrutinize, as well. Thank you. 

Chairman ENZI. Senator Ayotte. 

Senator AYOTTE. Thank you very much. 

I would like to understand the effects of a higher average interest rate on the fiscal state of the country. Including if interest rates 

were one percent higher than in your baseline, what would that do 

to the baseline projected deficit over the period of 2016 to 2025. 

And can you tell us how you estimated the rise in interest rates 

here and whether that was a conservative estimate or not, because 

I think it is important for the American people to understand that 

as interest rates go up, even by one percentage point, the amount 

of money we owe goes up very dramatically. Could you help us with 

that, Dr. Elmendorf? 

Mr. ELMENDORF. Yes, Senator. So, we provide in our report rules 

of thumb to help you and your colleagues understand the effects of 

different economic outcomes, and we estimate that if interest rates 

were one percentage point higher each year throughout the coming 

decade, the deficit would be $1.7 trillion larger. And, conversely, if 

interest rates were one percentage point lower per year, the deficit 

would be $1.7 trillion smaller. 

Our projection of interest rates is not conservative in the sense 

in which I think you mean it. We try to have our projections be 

in the middle of the distribution of possible outcomes, recognizing 

a great deal of uncertainty. But, we try to end up with projections 

for which the upside risks and the downside risks are roughly balanced in all of our projection, on both the economy and the budget. 

So, we think there is a chance interest rates will be higher than 

we project, but also a chance they will be lower, and, in fact, market interest rates in the six weeks since we closed this forecast 

have moved down notably. So, our forecast right now, actually, is 

a little above what the latest reading on market interest rates 

would suggest, although we do not put too much weight in any particular reading because interest rates are so volatile. 
23 

Senator AYOTTE. Obviously, if the interest rates go up one percentage, we owe over a trillion dollars more in terms of the debt. 

In terms of looking at the projected outlook, if you combine spending for Social Security, major health care programs, which would 

include Medicare, Medicaid, the Children’s Health Insurance Program, and subsidies for health insurance purchased through the 

exchanges created by the Affordable Care Act, and net interest on 

our national debt, it accounts for nearly 85 percent of the total increase in outlays over the next decade. Would you agree with that? 

Mr. ELMENDORF. That sounds roughly right to me, Senator. I do 

not have that precise calculation. But, we do show in our report 

that the overwhelming share of the rise in outlays is concentrated 

in just this handful of programs. 

Senator AYOTTE. As we look at putting our country on a fiscally 

sustainable path, I look at your projected outlook where deficits go 

down, but then they go back up to over trillion-dollar deficits in 

2025. And so looking at the fiscal state of the country in the long 

term, is there any way we can put ourselves on a fiscally sustainable path without considering at how we preserve those programs? 

As you know, the Trustees have said, especially for Medicare and 

Social Security, that they will become insolvent. The Disability 

Fund is looking us right in the eye in terms of insolvency. Without 

making some bipartisan reforms to these programs, can we do it 

without looking at those issues? 

Mr. ELMENDORF. I think—I think you and your colleagues will 

need to either make significant changes in those large programs or 

significant changes in our tax code—or both. It is very hard not to 

tackle at least one of those, because, as you know, under current 

law, spending on the other government programs is shrinking relative to the size of the economy to levels that we have not seen in 

our lifetimes. But, whether you would choose to make changes by 

focusing on these large spending programs or by focusing on tax 

revenues— 

Senator AYOTTE. Could you do it— 

Mr. ELMENDORF. —that is really up to you, Senator. 

Senator AYOTTE. If you did it with tax revenues alone, how big 

is the tax increase? 

Mr. ELMENDORF. You would have to do—well, to balance the 

budget, say, in 2025, which the Chairman expressed as his goal, we 

think in 2025 that tax revenues will be about 20 percent smaller 

than spending. You would have to raise— 

Mr. ELMENDORF. You would have to cut spending by 20 percent 

or raise revenues by 20 or 25 percent or some combination— 

Senator AYOTTE. But, my point is, even as we look at balancing 

over the decade, that still does not address the long-term fiscal 

health, issues of Social Security, Medicare, the Disability Fund, 

really, the long-term viability for people who rely on the programs, 

and also the fiscal sustainability for the country. Would you agree 

with that? 

Mr. ELMENDORF. Yes. I think it makes good sense for you to be 

looking further ahead. And, as you know, we provide a long-term 

budget outlook once a year that looks beyond the ten-year window, 

because, as you say, some of the significant—the pressures that are 

happening over the coming decade do not end in the 11th year or 
24 

the 12th year. They intensify over time, because the Baby Boomers 

will continue to retire and health care spending will continue to 

grow. So, the problems are long term in nature, I think that is absolutely right. And, when we look to alternative paths for the budget in our long-term budget outlook, we look not just at changes in 

the first ten years. We extrapolate those over longer periods of 

time. 

Senator AYOTTE. Thank you. 

Chairman ENZI. The Senator—yes. Senator Whitehouse. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you very much, Chairman, and 

welcome to your Chairmanship. I appreciate working with you. 

Mr. Elmendorf, I think it is important, and I agree with my colleagues that we need to address the long-term debt that we carry 

right now. My belief is that solving that problem with cuts while 

in a recession has been proven by experience to be a failed strategy. The President has said it is time to turn the page, and so 

maybe it is time to start to look at not just supporting the economy 

immediately, but also beginning to look at the long-term debt and 

deficit issues. 

But, I would urge my colleagues, if they wish to be taken seriously on the debt and deficit warnings that they make—that this 

is a high-risk proposition, that this is dangerous to the country, 

that this is unsustainable—then their priorities should match the 

warnings. And, when it is a greater priority to protect the folks 

who make millions of dollars a year and who in recent years have 

paid lower tax rates than truck drivers and hospital orderlies and 

brick masons, it is hard to take seriously the warning or the sincerity of the warning. When they are asked whether the—when 

they take the side of the big oil companies to protect their subsidies 

instead of taking serious action against the debt, again, it is a matter of priorities and it makes it hard to take it seriously. 

We have tried to address the problem of the big multinational 

corporations who get tax advantages from offshoring American jobs 

or from offshoring American intellectual property, and we are always stymied and blocked in trying to do that. Again, that would 

help the debt and it would help the deficit. And, the relentless opposition we get, again, is a signal of priorities. 

And, finally, protecting corporations who pay zero or single-digit 

taxes—zero or single-digit tax rates—many of whom are declaring 

enormous revenues—again, if protecting that is a priority above addressing the debt and deficit, it makes it hard to take seriously 

those warnings. 

If discussion of the debt and deficit is nothing more than a leverage point, a fulcrum to attack spending programs that the Republican Party has long opposed, like Social Security and Medicare, we 

are going to have a problem. But, if we are serious about it—and 

we should be, because we have just heard from Director Elmendorf 

that there is $1.5 trillion that we spend through the tax code 

through all these deals, and we have heard from our new Chairman that the actual appropriated spending is only $1.1 trillion, we 

actually spend more out the back door of the tax code than we do 

through appropriations, so if you want to look at this as a serious 

debt and deficit problem, to put on your blinders and say, we are 

only going to look at the appropriated spending side and we are 
25 

never, never, never, never, never, never going to look at the revenue side, first of all, it does not make you look serious, and second 

of all, it drops the major part of the deficit reduction opportunity, 

the $1.5 trillion part, right out of the toolbox. And, I do not think 

that is sensible, and I do not think that is what the American people want, and I do not think that is fair. 

So, one last thing on this. You have said before, Dr. Elmendorf, 

that health care is a very big part of our debt and deficit problem 

going out. Is that still true? 

Mr. ELMENDORF. Yes, Senator. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. And, is it not also true that since the passage of the Affordable Care Act, the projections for Medicare, Medicaid, and other mandatory health programs have fallen by $2 trillion for the coming decade— 

Mr. ELMENDORF. They have fallen quite a bit, Senator— 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. —in your baseline? 

Mr. ELMENDORF. They have fallen quite a bit. I do not have those 

particular numbers— 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. But, $2 trillion is pretty close. If I do not 

have it to the dollar, I am in the right order of magnitude. 

Mr. ELMENDORF. I think that is right. We made a substantial 

downward revision to our projection of Federal health care spending. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Twenty-twenty alone is $122 billion in reduced anticipated spending. 

Mr. ELMENDORF. That sounds right, Senator. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Now, does any of that have anything to do 

with any of the programs that were launched by the Affordable 

Care Act? 

Mr. ELMENDORF. Well, perhaps, Senator. It is hard for us to 

know, right now. So, when the Affordable Care Act was enacted, 

we built into our baseline projections our best estimate of the—at 

that time of the effects of the Affordable Care Act. So, since then, 

various things have happened— 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Since my time has run out, let me jump 

to the next question. Secretary Burwell has just announced new 

programs to change the way payments are made. Do you expect 

that that will have a good effect? 

Mr. ELMENDORF. I have seen the announcement, Senator. We 

have not had time to study it yet. I am sorry. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. When you have, would you let us know? 

Thank you, Chairman. 

Chairman ENZI. Senator Corker. 

Senator CORKER. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will say, I 

have never attended a Budget meeting before, and I assume it is 

only on the first day that people make partisan comments, and 

then after that, we move towards trying to solve the problem. So, 

I am looking forward to that. 

Mr. Elmendorf, in your assumptions, you assume that the extenders, the tax extenders that we keep extending, will not be extended, is that correct? 

Mr. ELMENDORF. That is right. We follow current law, Senator. 

Of course, it is not an assessment by us of the probabilities of 

things happening. We follow current law. 
26 

Senator CORKER. And you also assume that we are actually going 

to enact SGR as it is written? 

Mr. ELMENDORF. Again, we follow current law, in which— 

Senator CORKER. No, I understand. I mean, that is what you are 

supposed to do. 

Mr. ELMENDORF. Yes. 

Senator CORKER. So, in essence, we are probably a trillion dollars, at least, on those two topics, worse off than your projections 

say, is that correct? 

Mr. ELMENDORF. If Congress were to freeze Medicare’s payments 

to doctors, that would raise the deficit by about $130 billion over 

the coming decade. And, if you were to extend all the expiring tax 

provisions, that would add about $900 billion to the deficit directly, 

both of them, and then there will be interest costs alongside of 

that, as well. 

Senator CORKER. So, as a famous Republican politician once said, 

‘‘Deficits do not matter,’’ but they do matter, do they not? 

Mr. ELMENDORF. Yes, Senator, they do. 

Senator CORKER. And, the reason they matter is they, as you 

have mentioned, once you get to a full recovery, they affect economic growth, is that correct? 

Mr. ELMENDORF. Yes. They also affect it in weak conditions, but 

in a rather different way. 

Senator CORKER. And, so, deficits and debt, over time, actually 

directly affect the standard of living of the American people, is that 

correct? 

Mr. ELMENDORF. Yes, Senator. 

Senator CORKER. Very directly. 

Mr. ELMENDORF. I mean, economists, I think, have a very strong 

view about that. Whether people see that, I think, is less clear. 

But, I think, the effect seems to us to be quite strong. 

Senator CORKER. So, our inability to somehow figure out a way 

collectively to solve this problem, and being unwilling, if you will, 

to take the steps that most of us know we have to take, really is 

hurting the standard of living of Americans. 

Mr. ELMENDORF. I think, over time, the standard of living would 

be higher than otherwise if deficits were small— 

Senator CORKER. Thank you. Deficits affect the standard of living 

of Americans. Debt affects the standard of living of Americans. Tell 

me the impact, from your standpoint, of increased taxes on the 

economy and on the standard of living of Americans. 

Mr. ELMENDORF. Well, so the direct effect, of course, if people 

pay higher taxes, they have less after-tax income. And, as you 

know, Senator, if the government cuts benefits to people, then they 

have less income for that reason, as well. That is why this deficit 

problem is a hard one to confront, because people pay taxes and 

they also receive the benefits, and as Senator Ayotte noted, the 

vast majority of the growth in spending on Federal outlays is in 

benefit programs. And, so, you and your colleagues face a difficult 

set of choices, I think. 

Senator CORKER. But, the actual, just the net effect of taxes 

themselves, tell me the effect that it has on economic growth, increased taxes. 
27 

Mr. ELMENDORF. Oh, so higher tax rates on work or on saving 

will tend to discourage work and saving, and that would tend to 

reduce economic growth. And, in our modeling of the effects of 

changes in fiscal policy on the economy, we try to capture the effects of changes in deficits, but also the effects of changes in incentives through the tax code as it affects work and saving, and, in 

fact, transfer programs can have effects on incentives, as well, and 

we try to capture those in our modeling, also. 

Senator CORKER. So, debt and deficits hurt the standard of living 

of Americans by slowing economic growth, and increased taxes on 

work—and I think you are very specific there, on work—affect the 

standard of living of Americans because they also slow economic 

growth. So, we have quite a challenge, do we not? 

Mr. ELMENDORF. Yes, Senator. 

Senator CORKER. I hope we will come together and figure out a 

way of solving that. 

Have we had a situation, and you project in this budget window 

that net interest spending—and someone has already alluded to 

this—will be more than defense spending—have we ever had a situation like that in the history of our country? 

Mr. ELMENDORF. I do not think so, Senator, but I can r budget 

window and you look at the mandatory spending component which 

has been put in place by both sides of the aisle, the issues relative 

to debt and deficits—have we ever faced a situation like this that 

you can remember with more difficult choices? 

Mr. ELMENDORF. No, Senator. I think what is strikingly different 

now from the past discussions of this topic ten, 20 years ago—at 

which point the demographic changes, of course, were foreseen— 

what is different now is that our debt is already more than—equal 

to more than 70 percent of GDP, and that is a level of debt that 

we have only seen in this country for a few years around the end 

of the Second World War, and that makes the situation quite different from other times at which this question has arisen. 

Senator CORKER. So, Mr. Chairman, I know everybody is sort of 

staking out their territory today and sort of taking potshots. I do 

look at this Budget Committee as being a serious committee and 

I hope that over the course of the next two months, we will figure 

out a way to come together and actually deal with these issues in 

a way that is meaningful so that our lack of action does not continue to hurt the American people. Thank you. 

Chairman ENZI. Thank you. 

Next will be Senator King, then Senator Johnson. 

Senator KING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Welcome to the Chairmanship. I look forward to working with you. 

And, Dr. Elmendorf, I just want to thank you for your extraordinary service. I have served on this committee now for going on 

three years and you have done such a great job of giving us unbiased and very thoughtful and thorough advice. I want to thank you 

for that. 

I think we have got universal agreement around this table on 

one thing, and that is the debt is a problem and the interest rate 

is a looming serious problem. We have all made statements about 

how interest rates, if it goes up one—a one percent increase in interest rates costs $180 billion a year, and that is going to sink us, 
28 

and it is money that goes for nothing. It does not buy anything. In 

fact, what it does is buy airports in China, because that is where 

the interest, or a significant amount of the interest, is going. 

So, the question is not is debt and deficit a problem, the question 

is how do we deal with it? There are several ways. One is the 

Budget Control Act and the sequester. My problem with that, and, 

I think, one of the most important charts in your material is on 

page 62 that shows the outlays by types of expenditures over history, and what that shows is that discretionary spending, including 

defense and non-defense, is at virtually an all-time low and headed 

for certainly an all-time low as a percentage of the economy. And, 

yet, most of our budget cutting effort around here seems to focus 

on that relatively small target. 

And, the real increases—on page 17 you have a chart of what is 

driving the increases—the real increases are in health care and in 

other mandatory programs. When we are cutting Head Start or the 

defense budget in order to try to solve this debt and deficit problem, it is like attacking Brazil after Pearl Harbor. It is a vigorous 

reaction, but it is the wrong target. The real growth, if you look at 

your chart, is in mandatory spending, and then there is a fundamental question about revenues. 

You mention that the historic level is 17.5 percent. We are now 

at about 18.5. The question that we have to grapple with as public 

officials here is 18.5 percent or 18 percent or 19 percent, what is 

the right number, given the demographics of America in 2015 

through 2030. We cannot keep the commitments we have made to 

people who are retiring and maintain any level of discretionary 

spending without some additional revenues. The arithmetic simply 

does not work. 

And, I think an interesting debate here would be what is the 

right level? Is it 20 percent of GDP? If you add the numbers together on your projections, it is 22.3 percent. That is 14.2 for mandatory, 5.1 for discretionary, and 3.0 for interest. So, anything 

short of 22.3 percent equals a deficit and the problem continues to 

get worse. 

So, it seems to me we have really got to look at the—and be realistic about what is happening, because if we do not deal with both 

the growth of mandatory spending, which is mostly in health care, 

and look at the revenue side, we are on a path that there is really 

no way out, unless the American people want us to drive discretionary spending, including national security, to zero. That is the 

direction that we are headed. 

So, I would go back to when President Reagan was President. 

Ten percent of GDP was discretionary spending. We are headed for 

5.1, in half of what it was when Reagan was President. The difference, interestingly, in 1990 between discretionary and mandatory was one percent. Nine percent was discretionary, ten percent 

was mandatory. Those two lines are separating dramatically and 

that is the problem. 

But, to think that we can solve it entirely by revenues, I think, 

is unrealistic. To think that we can solve it entirely by cutting programs that are benefitting people who we made commitments to is 

unrealistic. There has got to be—somebody around here has got to 
29 

be saying, here is the arithmetic and here is how we have to solve 

this problem. 

If you can find a question in there, Dr. Elmendorf, you are better 

than I. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator KING. But, would you agree that the overall analysis is 

that we have got to look at—you know, it is Willie Sutton. You 

have got to go where the money is, and the money is in mandatory 

spending and in revenues based upon the change of demographics. 

Mr. ELMENDORF. Yes, Senator, we think—we agree with that, 

that given how low discretionary spending is already on track to 

be relative to our historical experience, there seems no way around 

the country agreeing to either cut some of the large benefit programs relative to the benefits promised under current law, or to increase tax revenues well above the historical share of GDP, or to 

do some combination of those changes. 

Senator KING. But, on the cutting side, I want to emphasize, we 

do not have to necessarily cut. We have to get control of health care 

costs, which we spend twice as much per capita than anybody else 

in the world. And, if we could just control that, it would solve a 

great deal of this problem. It is not necessarily cutting fees to doctors or cutting—you know, saying we are not going to pay as much, 

we have got to get at the underlying structural costs that are driving these extraordinarily high health care costs. 

Mr. ELMENDORF. So, yes, Senator, if there were ways to—when 

I refer to cutting benefits in the programs, I mean cutting the 

spending for those benefits. If there are ways to provide comparable benefit as viewed by a beneficiary at lower cost, then that 

would help. I think there is widespread agreement among analysts 

that our health care system should move in the direction of paying 

for care, not per unit in the way that encourages volume, but by 

paying for keeping people healthy at the lowest possible cost. 

But, once you get beyond that general principle, exactly what 

changes in Federal laws and Federal policies could achieve those 

goals is very unclear, and part of what was put in place in the Affordable Care Act is a collection of specific changes and also some 

mechanisms to experiment with other changes, and those experiments are underway. But, just which ones will pan out and how 

well is very hard to know at this point. 

Senator KING. Thank you, Dr. Elmendorf. I appreciate it. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman ENZI. Senator Johnson. 

Senator JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Let me provide some of the arithmetic. I have passed out a onepage income statement for the United States, for our Federal Government, over 30 years. I think that is—if you are going to solve 

a problem, you have to properly define it. When we keep talking 

about a ten-year budget window problem, I think we dramatically 

understate the problem. And, so, what I have been doing a lot of 

work with is your CBO alternate fiscal scenario. Rather than—that 

is always laid out as a percentage of GDP, so I have turned it into 

numbers, and then I have taken those numbers and put them onto 

a one-page income statement to highlight really what the problem 
30 

is. So, I think you have got a copy of that income statement there 

now. 

Mr. ELMENDORF. Yes, Senator. 

Senator JOHNSON. I have highlighted the areas. It is pretty stark. Over the next 30 years, Social Security will pay out $14.6 

trillion more in benefits than it takes in the payroll tax, according 

to CBO. Medicare will pay out $35 trillion more in benefits than 

it takes in the payroll tax over the next 30 years. And, then, we 

will pay out to our creditors $71 trillion. That all totals up to $121 

trillion. The entire deficit over the next 30 years is $127 trillion. 

Let me just lay out how that occurs by decade. Eight trillion dol- lars the first decade, $31 trillion the second decade, $88 trillion the 

third decade. Now, my little baby girl just turned 31, and I can tell 

you, that went by like that. 

And, just in case people think the alternate fiscal scenario is way 

out there, just way overstates the case, if you compare the percentage of spending to GDP versus our 20-year average for all the entitlements over the last 20 years, it has been about 8.3 percent. Over 

the next 30 years, according to this scenario, it is about 13.5, and 

everybody is pretty much in agreement in terms of the entitlements. Defense, we spent $3.9 trillion over the last 20 years. The 

CBO’s alternate fiscal scenario says we will spend 3.5, so it is actually under the 20-year average. All other spending, we spent about 

6.7. The alternate fiscal scenario is six percent. 

So, if you look at the past and project to the future, even your 

alternate fiscal scenario shows spending less than we have spent 

over the last 20 years. So, I just want you to comment on, is that 

basically your understanding of what the 30-year projection is according to CBO’s alternate fiscal scenario? 

Mr. ELMENDORF. As you understand, Senator, I cannot actually 

absorb or check all these numbers sitting here— 

Senator JOHNSON. No, I understand, but— 

Mr. ELMENDORF. —but the thrust of your remarks, that the big 

pressure on outlays is coming from Social Security and the health 

care programs, and then because the deficit is an accumulating 

debt, interest on the debt, that is right, Senator. 

Senator JOHNSON. And, so, again, that is—again, I am not saying 

these are the numbers, but largely true. Eight trillion dollars the 

first decade, $31 trillion the second, $88 trillion the third, $127 trillion. Quick, put that in perspective. The entire net private asset 

base of America today, every asset held by every household, every 

business large and small, is about $106 trillion. So, there is a problem that is completely unsustainable, but when we are just focusing on a ten-year budget window, somewhere in the $7 to $8 trillion deficit, we are not even beginning to understand the real depth 

of the problem, are we? 

Mr. ELMENDORF. Senator, no. I think that looking over the longer 

term is very important for you and your colleagues to see the real 

challenges, as Senator Ayotte and others have commented. I agree. 

Senator JOHNSON. So, let me focus in on Social Security, because you might be a little bit more familiar with those. The $15 trillion 

in Social Security over the next years, that actually breaks down 

to about $1.5 trillion the first decade, about $4 trillion the second 

decade, about $8 trillion the third. Now, what happens when the 
31 

Social Security Trust Fund runs out of money? By law, what happens? 

Mr. ELMENDORF. By law, then the benefits can only be paid up 

to the amount of money coming into the fund, which would be a 

good deal less than the benefits that are in current law. 

Senator JOHNSON. So, the Disability Trust Fund is going to run 

out, according to your current paper here, about 2017. So, according to current law, unless we do something, according to current 

law, how much would those benefits be reduced by, approximately? 

Mr. ELMENDORF. I think it is around a 20 percent cut in Disability Insurance benefits in early fiscal year 2017, under current 

law. 

Senator JOHNSON. And, then, when the Trust Funds run out of 

the retirement benefits, right now, somewhere around 2033, what 

is the projection in terms of reduction—by law, the reduction in 

benefits when we run out of that Trust Fund? 

Mr. ELMENDORF. Again, Senator, I think the reduction is on the 

order of about 20 percent relative to current law benefits. 

Senator JOHNSON. And, again, I appreciate during the special 

conferences we had last December—was it last December? I think 

so. I appreciate the fact that you were very honest in your assessment of the value of that Trust Fund. It is an asset to the—those 

U.S. Government bonds are assets to the Trust Fund, but they are 

a liability to the Treasury— 

Mr. ELMENDORF. Yes. 

Senator JOHNSON. And, to consolidate the Federal books, that 

nets to zero, right? 

Mr. ELMENDORF. Yes. 

Senator JOHNSON. So, the Trust Fund has no value to the Federal Government, dollar value, correct? 

Mr. ELMENDORF. Yes. As you say, it has legal meaning for the 

Trust Fund, but it is—on the Federal Government, taken on a consolidated basis, which is the way that we focus on the Federal Government, then it nets out to zero. 

Senator JOHNSON. So, of $15 trillion, we really have nothing, 

really, in the Federal Government to pay those benefits even 

through 2033 other than that accounting, bookkeeping transfer 

from the Trust Fund to the Treasury, who then have to go either 

float more bonds or raise more taxes? 

Mr. ELMENDORF. Yes, Senator. What our projection is—you 

know, what we focus on is the unified Federal budget, and the 

sources of funds for benefits in a given year is tax receipts in that 

year or borrowing. And, we show this by focusing not on the Trust 

Funds, but on the projections of outlays and revenues, including 

the ones that you used from our alternative scenario. 

Senator JOHNSON. Thank you. That helps define the problem. 

Thank you. 

Chairman ENZI. Senator Baldwin is not here. Senator Murray. 

Senator MURRAY. Well, thank you so much, Chairman Enzi, 

Ranking Member Sanders. Chairman Enzi, as the person who held 

that gavel last year, I wish you luck and I am looking forward to 

working with you. I also want to acknowledge my friend, Senator 

Sanders, who I always enjoy working with and who I know will do 

an excellent job on behalf of working families. 
32 

I want to join in thanking our witness today, Dr. Doug Elmendorf, for joining us, and wanted also to take a minute to thank you 

for your six years of outstanding service to this committee and to 

Congress and to our country. I am especially grateful for the work 

you put in last year to help Chairman Ryan and I reach our twoyear budget deal. You and all of your hardworking staff, which I 

really appreciate, have set a standard of professionalism and trust 

and objectivity, and I cannot tell you how much that meant to all 

of us, especially, I think, in the recent years when the pressure 

could not have been higher. Your work to provide us with the best 

information you could gather, free of politics or partisanship, was 

absolutely critical. 

Mr. ELMENDORF. On their behalf, thank you, Senator. 

Senator MURRAY. Of course. And to paraphrase, actually, Senator 

Moynihan, all of us in Congress are entitled to our own opinions, 

but you made sure that we were all working off the same set of 

facts, so I really appreciate the work of you and all your staff. 

You know, as this committee meets today, our country is in a far 

better position than we were two years ago, if all of us will remember. Two years ago, Tea Party Republicans were pushing us from 

one manufactured crisis to the next and we had debt limit scares 

that were unraveling our businesses and the markets. We had 

senseless automatic across-the-board cuts that were set to kick in. 

We were headed towards a completely absurd and unnecessary government shutdown, and people across this country were really losing faith that their elected officials could not get anything done 

when it came to our budget and to our economy. 

But, when we finally came together at the end of last year, 

Chairman Ryan and I were finally able to work with many of you 

on this committee, and I appreciate it, to reach that two-year budget deal that prevented another government shutdown, restored critical investments in education and research and defense and jobs, 

and reduced the deficit in a balanced and responsible way. 

Because of that deal, we were able to pass our bipartisan spending bills for the last two fiscal years and work together on other 

economic priorities. Senator Isakson and I, for example, passed and 

got signed into law the bill to expand worker training. And, I think 

Congress was really able to reach through the gridlock and dysfunction that was so holding us apart and finally move us away 

from these constant crises that were hurting us and killing jobs 

and really hurting our economy. 

Now, I know we have a lot of work left to do, but I want to remind us that, across the country, businesses have now added 11 

million new jobs over 58 straight months of job growth. The unemployment rate is now under six percent and downward trending. 

The economy grew by over five percent last quarter. Health care 

costs are growing at their lowest rate in almost 50 years. And, we 

have reduced the Federal budget deficit by over two-thirds since 

2009. 

So, I am really hopeful that the new Republican Chairmen in the 

House and the Senate can now build on that bipartisan foundation 

that we set in the last two years and not let it all unravel. We all 

know Republicans control both Chambers of Congress now. I want 

them to know that Democrats are ready to continue to work across 
33 

the aisle on our deficits, fairly and responsibly. And, I know on this 

side, our highest priority remains job creation and economic growth 

that will benefit all of our families, not just the wealthiest few, and 

I am really hopeful that Republicans do invite us to the table to 

work towards that goal and do not revert back to the crises of the 

past. 

So, Dr. Elmendorf, I just have a minute left, but I did want to 

ask you, we are heading towards another debt limit deadline. Many 

of us are going to fight back against any attempts to hold the economy hostage. I am very worried about that. But, I wanted you to 

talk just a little bit to our committee about the value of us in Congress working together to avoid those kinds of ‘‘bad old days,’’ constant manufactured crises. Why is that important for our economy? 

Mr. ELMENDORF. Well, Senator, I think it is uncertainty about 

Federal policies, and particularly uncertainty about whether the 

Federal debt obligations will be paid in the way that the government has committed to, that kind of uncertainty can really hinder 

businesses’ ability to plan for the future and to make the investments in capital equipment and to make the decisions to hire people that they would otherwise make. So, among the considerations, 

I think, as you and your colleagues consider policy changes, I think 

the greater predictability that you can provide to businesses, and 

also to households and to State and local governments, the better 

that would be for economic growth. It is very hard for economists 

to quantify that kind of effect, but we think it is there. 

Senator MURRAY. Yes. I think that is a good reminder to all of 

us as we head into this year and we are facing debt limit deadlines 

and sequestration that one of the things that we saw happen last 

time was the economy really halt because of the uncertainty. So, 

I think it is a cautionary note to all of us to work together and 

come together and find a path forward and bring that certainty 

back again and not go to another manufactured crisis. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman ENZI. Thank you. 

In the order that we have established, I want to welcome our 

newest Senator to the committee and thank him for all the work 

that he has done in the private sector at balancing budgets, and 

so you are next, Senator Perdue. 

Senator PERDUE. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, but I would 

like to correct you on one thing. If I had ever balanced a budget, 

I would have been fired every single time. We had to produce a few 

more dollars on the positive side than the negative side, but thank 

you. I appreciate the comments so far. I appreciate you being here, 

Dr. Elmendorf. 

I was not prepared for the partisan conversation this morning, 

but let me give you another take on my perspective. We have got 

a crisis. This financial crisis, however you look at it, is out of control. Right now, we have the lowest workforce participation we 

have had since 1978. In the last five years alone, we have allowed 

four million women to fall into poverty. Two-thirds of small businesses are not hiring or have stopped hiring or pulled back hiring 

because of the Affordable Care Act. The middle class is worse off 

today than they were five years ago, by any measure. We have $2 

trillion or more stuck in foreign banks because of our archaic tax 
34 

system, and we have $2 trillion on the balance sheets of the Russell 1000 that are stuck there because of the uncertainty coming 

out of this city. We have got a crisis. 

I just have a question, two bookkeeping issues. One, what is the 

total debt today? I understand the net debt is $13 trillion in your 

numbers. Talk to me a little bit about the Trust Fund debt and 

why we do not consider that part of our responsibility in terms of 

talking about total debt that we eventually, over the next 30 or 40 

years, have to make right. 

Mr. ELMENDORF. So, the measure of debt that we focus on, Senator, is debt held by the public, and we focus on that because we 

look at the Federal Government on a unified basis. That was a concept of budgeting that began in the late 1960s. It predates CBO. 

Senator PERDUE. When we had much lower debt, by the way. 

Mr. ELMENDORF. And, by looking at the Federal Government on 

a unified basis, then financial transactions between pieces of the 

government or debts owed between pieces of the government, we do 

not give that priority to. So, in our analysis, we look at the total 

outlays of the Federal Government, the total revenues of the Federal Government, and the amount the Federal Government has to 

borrow from the public to fill the gap between outlays and revenues. So, we focus on Federal debt held by the public, but we also 

do projections of and report to you other concepts of debt, including 

debt held by the public minus financial assets held by the government and gross debt and debt subject to limit, which is quite close 

to gross debt. 

Senator PERDUE. So, the 229 interest payment we have this year, 

what would be the total interest if we were paying the Trust Fund? 

Mr. ELMENDORF. Well, so, as you know, the Trust Fund is paid 

interest. I think our report may have that number, but I do not 

know it offhand. I think about $430 billion. 

Senator PERDUE. So, the $18 trillion, which is the current gross 

debt, grows to about $27 trillion, I think, which is about— 

Mr. ELMENDORF. Yes. 

Senator PERDUE. —it is growing at about the rate the GDP is 

growing over the next ten years. I think that is right. 

Mr. ELMENDORF. A little faster, I think. 

Senator PERDUE. Okay. So, the question then is, if today our interest rates were at a historical average, between five and six percent, today, we would be paying, by my math, over a trillion dollars 

of interest, and that is just not sustainable. So, I would encourage 

the committee to look at the total responsibility we have to our taxpayers in terms of the total payment over the next 30 years. 

The second one is I want to talk about the baseline just a second. 

I understand the baseline budgeting process, but that works on the 

assumption that everything we spent last year is going to get spent 

unless there is a cut coming that has already been adjudicated, is 

that correct? 

Mr. ELMENDORF. So, our baseline projections mostly follow current law, but there are some specific directions to us that are written into the Budget Act of 1985. 

Senator PERDUE. I am sorry. It is law and not policy, right? It 

is the law that— 
35 

Mr. ELMENDORF. It is current law. Again, there are some particular exceptions that are dictated to us by other laws in constructing the baseline projections. But, it is generally current law. 

So, if a tax provision is scheduled to expire, then our projections, 

in general, have that expiring. 

Senator PERDUE. I get nervous when people with numbers talk 

about ‘‘in general,’’ so we will have a one-on-one— 

Mr. ELMENDORF. I am happy to run some of the— 

Senator PERDUE. I know you will. We just do not have time now 

to get into it. 

Is there a possibility, eventually, and what would we have to do 

in this baselining process to actually go in and do a zero-based look 

at this? 

Mr. ELMENDORF. It depends what you mean by that, Senator. So, 

we build up our projections piece by piece, and you can—we can try 

to explain to you where those numbers come from, starting from 

zero. I mean, and if you think about appropriations, for example, 

current law has no appropriations for fiscal year 2016. That has 

not happened yet. But, our baseline takes the level of funding 

under the caps. But, the Congress, when it thinks about appropriations, I think you and your colleagues mostly think about them 

starting from zero and you decide how much you want to provide 

to something or something else. And, I know when CBO makes its 

own budget request to the appropriators, we try to defend the entire $47 million, starting from zero, and the Appropriations Committee can do as it sees fit. 

Senator PERDUE. Thank you. I have ten seconds left, so, just, is 

it possible for us to get what Senator Johnson was talking about, 

a good look at years 11 through 30 on Social Security, Medicare future liabilities, unfunded liabilities with Social Security, Medicare, 

and pension benefits for Federal employees? You make a rough estimate, I know, but can we get a good look at that? 

Mr. ELMENDORF. Yes, Senator. So, we will send you right away 

our last long-term budget outlook, and then we are happy to answer questions about it. 

Senator PERDUE. Great. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman ENZI. Thank you. 

Senator MERKLEY. Senator MERKLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I add my congratulations on your stewardship of this committee. I look forward 

to working with you and to addressing these big issues. 

If we turn to the Appendix and look at the flow of revenues and 

outlays going back through 1965 up through last year, what we see 

is a substantial and dramatic change. In the year 2000, we were 

running a $2.5 billion surplus, or two-and-a-half—yes. And—if I 

have those numbers right. And, then, we are seeing, basically, a big 

change throughout the eight years that follow, and it has often 

been talked about that the impact of the war in Afghanistan and 

the war in Iraq were big factors, but also the cuts that were made 

in basic core tax rates, often benefitting those who are above the 

middle class in a very generous manner. And, now, we are seeing 

a substantial increase in inequality in this country. 

Have you taken and analyzed the impact of the Bush tax cut 

rates on those earning more than $100,000 and their contribution 
36 

to the deficits from year to year and the overall debt, and could you 

give us a little bit of insight on that? 

Mr. ELMENDORF. Yes, Senator. So, we have published—it is 

available on our website—the changes in CBO’s projections of the 

budget surplus from January 2001 through the current day, so for 

the ten-year window that we were making projections for in January 2001. We had projected a surplus at that time over the ten 

years of about $5.5 trillion. The outcomes were a deficit of about 

$6 trillion, so that is a swing of more than $11 trillion. About $2 

trillion of that is attributable to the tax cuts of 2001 and 2003, and 

then to the extension of those cuts in 2010. There was a very large 

effect of higher discretionary spending, and Senator Sanders raised 

the issue earlier about the—and you have—about the spending for 

the wars, and there are other changes in law, and also, of course, 

some errors on our part in projecting the economic conditions and 

technical factors. 

Senator MERKLEY. Certainly, and those errors can swing either 

direction. But, essentially, that $10 trillion swing was the result of 

key policy decisions, not all of it to the tax rates, but a substantial 

amount. 

If we turn to the issue of health care, and there have been several folks who have noted the challenge of the public costs of health 

care, there is also a shift from private costs to public costs under 

the current rules. If we take health care as a whole, what are we 

seeing in terms of core inflation and how does that compare, say, 

to five years ago? 

Mr. ELMENDORF. So, total national health care spending has 

been growing much more slowly of late than it had before that, and 

we can see that in both the private sector and in the Federal programs. 

Senator MERKLEY. And, is it accurate to say it is at a lower rate 

now than it has been over, say, the previous 25 years? 

Mr. ELMENDORF. I think that is right, Senator, but I am not completely— 

Senator MERKLEY. Let me turn to college loans. Many of us are 

very concerned about college loans being a source of profit to the 

government, and in your book here, it is laid out as a current 

source of positive revenue, but that may not capture the full impact. That may be one year’s slice versus an overall picture of a 

loan portfolio. As you analyze a loan portfolio and the likelihood of 

defaults and the interest rates, does it come out as a source of profit to the Federal Government? 

Mr. ELMENDORF. Well, Senator, under the rules of the Federal 

Credit Reform Act in 1990, we make projections of the cost of a 

loan issued in a given year as the present discounted value of all 

the future flows. And, what we have said, though, and maybe this 

is what you are alluding to, is that we do not think that that provides a comprehensive measure of cost, not because it does not capture the future effects, but because it does not incorporate a cost 

of the risk the government has taken on. But, the baseline projections follow, of course, the law established under the Federal Credit 

Reform Act, and under that law, a number of loan programs. 

Chairman ENZI. Senator Portman. 
37 

Senator PORTMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and to Dr. Elmendorf, thank you for being here and for your service. You have got 

a tough job and I appreciate what you do. 

I have been on the Budget Committee in the House and OMB Director, and I do not think I have ever been at a hearing where we 

have had kind of more misinformation out there. So, I was not 

going to do this, but I am going to start by asking you whether I 

am correct in this. I have sat here this morning and heard how we 

have got this huge problem that you just outlined. By the way, I 

stayed up and watched you on C–SPAN the night before last. That 

is how boring my life is. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. ELMENDORF. I am sorry, Senator. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator PORTMAN. Where you presented this, and you might 

have thought it would have put me to sleep, but, in fact, it kept 

me up because it was so troubling. We are talking about unprecedented levels of debt and deficits. You know, we are taking our 

country into a situation where we are going to have a debt as a 

percent of our economy, as you outlined today and as you reported 

on this, that is unprecedented. We have never been there before. 

And, we are sitting here this morning talking about how we can 

spend more and how, gosh, we cannot touch anything. If we do not 

touch anything, we are going to have a devastating impact on the 

people I represent, those middle class families that everybody says 

they care so much about. They are going to have about $160,000 

a family in debt. That will be the amount of debt attributable to 

them. That is just wrong. 

So, everybody is talking today about, okay, we have got this big 

problem, now what do we do about it. Let us look back at what 

happened. How did we get into this problem? And, so, everybody 

has said, including the most recent speaker, my friend, Mr. 

Merkley, he said, I would like you—he said he is glad that you affirmed, and I would quote, ‘‘that the very significant impact on the 

deficit was tax cuts for the rich.’’ Okay, let us talk about that. 

By the way, these tax cuts were supposed to stimulate economic 

growth. That was the idea. It increases savings and investment, including capital gains cuts. But, you are on report—I looked at it, 

I got it out earlier today—when everybody was saying, it is all 

about tax cuts for the rich, that is how we got into this deficit, this 

is your June 2012 report, which I assume you still stand by. This 

is what I get out of that. 

The difference between the projection in 2000 as to what the surplus was going to be and where we ended up, you say 27 percent 

of that difference was because of the economy, basically, the market crash. You say 22 percent was because of other spending increases. Net interest was 12 percent. The stimulus rebates, AMT 

patch, ten percent. 

And then you get down to the wars. People talked about the 

wars. Well, it is all about the wars. Look, we did spend more on 

our military and our homeland security after 9/11. That was 11 

percent of it. So, that was not the reason. Yes, it was part of the 

reason, and we can argue that, you know, whether we are spending 

enough on defense or not. I am one who believes there is a lot of 
38 

waste at the Pentagon and there is room to do more there, even. 

But, the fact is, we made a decision as a country to respond to 

those horrific events. 

People said, well, it is because we did not pay for Part D. That 

was three percent of it. And, for those who do not want prescription 

drug coverage for our seniors, that is fine. You can say you do not 

want Part D. You can say, well, we should have had it, but it 

should have been paid for. We can have that discussion, but it is 

three percent. 

Tax cuts, all the tax cuts, you say—and, this is your report, okay, 

this is not me or some partisan potshot—14 percent of the difference. Fourteen percent. And, by the way, tax cuts for the rich— 

they have been talked about today again and again as the reason— 

how much was that, Mr. Elmendorf? 

Mr. ELMENDORF. I am sorry, the tax— 

Senator PORTMAN. Tax cuts for those over 250,000 bucks a year. 

Mr. ELMENDORF. Right. So, the table shows— 

Senator PORTMAN. It is four percent. 

Mr. ELMENDORF. The table shows— 

Senator PORTMAN. Four percent. 

Mr. ELMENDORF. The point I made— 

Senator PORTMAN. Four percent. 

Mr. ELMENDORF. —was about the—I referred to the tax cuts of 

2001 and 2003 and their extension in 2010. I do not have it in 

hand and this table does not show the breakdown by income, but 

I assume you have gone back to an original estimate from the Joint 

Tax Committee or something. I do not have that— 

Senator PORTMAN. It is about four percent. And, so—and we can 

argue about that. I would guess that of that four percent, there was 

an economic benefit that exceeded that. That is my sense. And, I 

do not know if you have done that analysis. I know you have the 

ability to look at macroeconomic scoring and you do that. Do you 

have any comment on that? 

Mr. ELMENDORF. We have not done that for those tax cuts, to my 

knowledge, Senator. 

Senator PORTMAN. But, if you assume they had any benefit at all 

to the economy, including savings and investment we talked about 

and the reasons it was done, I mean, as you know, after all those 

tax cuts, the percentage that people were paying at the top and the 

burden of taxation increased, not decreased. We did a lot of things, 

including taking about five million people off the tax rolls altogether, middle class families and families that, frankly, today, even 

today, need a break. I totally agree. I mean, this economy has created a situation where wages are not just stagnant, they are going 

down, and where you have the rich are getting richer. That is not 

good. But, to blame it on those tax cuts is just not accurate. Do you 

agree, Dr. Elmendorf? 

Mr. ELMENDORF. Well, Senator, as you have explained at greater 

length than I did, there are a lot of contributing factors, and we 

provide the information so that you and your colleagues can draw 

the conclusions you would draw from them. It is up to all of you 

to decide which of these policies you think were good ones and 

which ones you would like to do differently in the future. I cannot 

speak to that. 
39 

But, we did provide this decomposition, and as you said, there 

were a lot of different factors. It was mistakes on our part and the 

economic and technical aspects of the projections. It was the effect 

of the tax cuts of 2001 and 2003. It was the effect of higher discretionary spending, partly for defense, but not entirely for defense. 

It was the effect of a lot of other changes. 

Senator PORTMAN. I appreciate you providing us whatever update you have on that, but I appreciate you also affirming the numbers that I gave, because those are consistent with your study of 

this issue. And, look, I totally agree with what Senator King said 

earlier, and Senator King talked about what we need to do going 

forward. Senator Corker, I thought, laid it out really well. You 

know, we have got to figure out how to work together as Republicans and Democrats to avoid this coming catastrophe. 

You know, sitting right where you are, we had Erskine Bowles 

a couple of years ago at this committee, and he made the statement 

that is one that I always will remember, which is this is the most 

predictable economic crisis we have ever faced, if we do not do 

something about it. You laid that out earlier, that it has an impact 

on today’s economy because it crowds out other investment and 

savings. That hurts middle class families in America right now, to 

have this huge and growing debt, and, obviously, the interest payments that everyone has talked about that they want to try to 

avoid. 

You also said that this is an issue that does create a risk for us, 

and the risk is that we will have another crisis, and that risk is 

not one that I, personally, think that we ought to put our people 

that we represent through. Instead, we ought to deal with this 

issue and do it in a responsible way. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman ENZI. Senator Kaine. 

Senator KAINE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and to Chairman 

Enzi and Senator Sanders, I have high hopes for the committee. I 

look forward to our work together. 

And, Dr. Elmendorf, great job. It is good to have you back before 

us today. 

Mr. ELMENDORF. Thank you. 

Senator KAINE. So, you gave us a lot of material, and we are all 

focusing on the things that we are interested in. Budgets say a lot 

about what our priorities are. Sometimes our—well, always, our 

budgets speak more loudly than our words in terms of what our 

priorities are. And, the way I look at our priorities, based on your 

testimony, is essentially this. 

Expenditures as a percentage of GDP, so in 2015, we are spending 1.3 percent of GDP on interest payments. That is going to increase. We are spending 3.2 percent of GDP on defense. That is on 

a downward path. We are spending 3.3 percent on non-defense discretionary. That is on a steeper downward path. We are spending 

4.9 percent of GDP on Social Security. That is on an upward path. 

We are spending 5.1 percent on other Federal health care kind of 

combined programs. That is on an upward path. But, the largest 

expenditure item is tax expenditures, and that is 8.1 percent of 

GDP, and that is also likely on an upward path. 
40 

Now, of course, tax expenditures do some good things, just like 

Social Security is good, just like Federal health care expenditures 

are good, or defense or non-defense discretionary. But, it is just my 

hope as we grapple with this budgetary challenge that we do not 

grapple with everything except the largest item of expenditures, 

which is tax expenditures. 

Dr. Elmendorf, there are proposals that have been introduced by 

members of this committee and others to move Federal budgeting 

to a two-year budgeting cycle. I do not know if this question was 

asked before I came in, but you spoke briefly about the values of 

certainty. Would it, in your view, be good for the economy if we 

budgeted on a two-year cycle? 

Mr. ELMENDORF. I am not sure, Senator. That is a fair question. 

I do not—we have not thought hard about what the answer to that 

would be. I think it is—as I said, I think predictability is a good 

thing. Whether the two-year budget cycle would be a lot more predictable than a one-year cycle would depend a bit on how well the 

Congress actually resolved appropriations by the beginning of each 

of the fiscal years when it would have to do that. 

And, I think, from your point of view, the other side of the predictability is whether you and your colleagues would regret not 

having an annual opportunity to shift direction of various programs 

and agencies, and we are not in a position to judge that, either. 

Senator KAINE. I think there are bills now that have a two-year 

budget cycle with one-year appropriations, sort of six of the functional areas of government in one year and six in the next year so 

there are continuous appropriations and oversight. But, I will take 

your answer as you have indicated. 

What would the impact on GDP be, generally, of immigration reform or trade deals of the kind that are being discussed by the administration now, or a major decision by Congress to do an infrastructure investment bill? 

Mr. ELMENDORF. So, on immigration reform, as you know, Senator, we did a careful analysis of the comprehensive immigration 

bill that the Senate took up in 2013 and we thought that bill would 

boost the output of the economy, partly by having more people here 

working, but also over time because those additional people would 

lead to additional capital investment and somewhat faster—slightly 

faster productivity growth. 

On infrastructure investment, an increase in government investment in physical infrastructure or in human capital or in research 

and development would, all else equal, lead to a stronger economy 

over time. The ‘‘all else equal’’ part is important, because if one 

borrows the money to do that investment, then that borrowing has 

a cost itself. So, it would depend how that investment was financed. 

And, I am sorry, the— 

Senator KAINE. And trade. 

Mr. ELMENDORF. And trade. So, we have not done an analysis of 

the specific trade bills that are being discussed today. As a general 

matter, economists usually conclude that freer international trade 

is good for the overall U.S. economy, although not necessarily good 

for every individual in the economy, and even that overall result 
41 

could be different for specific bills, and we just have not looked at 

the ones that are being discussed now. 

Senator KAINE. And then a last question, Dr. Elmendorf, my understanding of the CBO’s projections is you do not factor into future projections any sort of increased expenditures that might be 

necessitated by climate change, is that correct? 

Mr. ELMENDORF. We do not specifically incorporate them, Senator. We were asked this question—I was asked this question at a 

hearing last year. In an answer to the question for the record, we 

talked a bit about what consequences climate change would have. 

We have done work before on the possible effects on the U.S. economy, and then there could be effects on the budget through that. 

It is hard to—in most estimates of the effects of climate change on 

the U.S. economy suggest changes that are fairly small relative to 

the underlying economic growth and very small relative to the uncertainty about how big the economy will be in ten or 20 or 30 or 

40 or 50 years. Obviously, for some other countries that are much 

more vulnerable, the effects could be proportionately larger for 

them. 

In terms of the effects on the budget, there is also the question 

about what you and your colleagues might appropriate funds to address, but we do not really take that on board in our projections 

in any sense. We take a level of funding that you all have agreed 

to recently and we grow that out according to certain algorithms 

without trying to identify exactly what you might choose to spend 

money on or not spend money on in the future. 

Senator KAINE. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman ENZI. Thank you, and I want to thank Senator Corker, 

as one of the new members, for being here for the entire hearing. 

I know that he is very busy because he is the Chairman of Foreign 

Relations, as well, and I appreciate your participation. 

I would mention that Senator Grassley and Senator Sessions are 

not here because they are on the Judiciary Committee and the Judiciary Committee is doing the hearing for the Attorney General. 

The Finance Committee was also meeting, and that is where Senator Toomey is and where Senator Portman was for part of the discussion. 

Dr. Elmendorf, I want to thank you for your testimony today, 

and for your answers to our questions. They are very concise and 

give people a lot more opportunity with their time than we are 

used to. I want to thank you for your professionalism as you served 

in this job and your economic forecasting and your management of 

235 people. It is pretty amazing, with all the reports that we call 

on for you to do. 

As information, all Senators’ questions for the record are due by 

6:00 p.m. today, with hard copy delivered to the Committee Clerk 

in Dirksen 624. Under our rules, Dr. Elmendorf will have seven 

days from receipt of the questions to respond with answers. 

If there is no further business, the hearing is adjourned. 

Mr. ELMENDORF. Thank you. 

[Whereupon, at 11:51 a.m., the committee was adjourned.] 
42 
43 
44 
45 
46 
47 
48 
49 
50 
51 
52 
53 
54 
55 
56 
57 
58 
59 
60 
61 
62 
63 
64 
65 
66 
67 
68 
69 
70 
(71) 

THE PRESIDENT’S FISCAL YEAR 2016 BUDGET 

PROPOSAL 

TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 3, 2015 

UNITED STATES SENATE, COMMITTEE ON THE BUDGET, Washington, D.C. 

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:03 a.m., in Room 

SD–608, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Mike Enzi, chairman of the committee, presiding. 

Present: Senators Enzi, Grassley, Sessions, Crapo, Graham, 

Portman, Toomey, Johnson, Ayotte, Corker, Perdue, Sanders, 

Wyden, Stabenow, Whitehouse, Warner, Merkley, Baldwin, King, 

and Kaine. 

Staff Present: Eric M. Ueland, Republican Staff Director; and 

Warren Gunnels, Minority Staff Director. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN ENZI 

Chairman ENZI. Good morning. I will call this hearing to order. 

Today, we have the testimony from OMB Director Shaun Donovan of the President’s budget plan for the upcoming 2016 fiscal 

year. 

When it comes to the budget, we all know that we have lived for 

too many years with too many blown deadlines, failed submissions, 

heightened crises, and last-second deals. Together, both parties, 

both chambers, and both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue have allowed this way of doing business to become the new normal for how 

we operate. It is long past time to restore regular order to our 

budget process, and that begins with following the budget timeline 

laid out in the law. 

Yesterday, after six years, the President’s budget was released on 

time. My congratulations to Mr. Donovan, who headed up that effort. I appreciate the work you and your team did to make that 

happen. Being on time is a first small step toward restoring regular order on the budget and it can help our constituents understand a little better what is happening in Washington. 

However, our constituents also understand these truths. I know 

it from traveling Wyoming and visiting with people and visiting 

with people around the country. They think we spend too much. 

They think we tax too much. They think we regulate too much, 

that we borrow too much, and their biggest worry is that we owe 

too much. 

Every year since the President took office, he has proposed the 

same approach to the fiscal challenge facing our government. He 

wants to spend more. He wants to tax more. He wants to regulate 
72 

more. He wants to borrow more. And, he wants us to owe more and 

more and more and more. His plans always end up with the Americans holding the tab, stuck with the deficits and debt as far as the 

eye can see. And, incidentally, I do not like that word ‘‘deficit.’’ It 

gets confused with debt. Deficit is our overspending. 

I promised at our first hearing that I would follow the numbers, 

look at the President’s budget, and here is what those numbers 

show. First, the tax man cometh. Under the President’s proposal, 

taxes head higher, a total of two-and-one-tenths trillion dollars 

higher. This boost comes on top of the one-and-seven-tenths trillion 

in taxes he has already imposed during his Presidency, and I can 

tell you that nothing good for individuals ever comes from threeand-eight-tenths trillion dollars in additional taxes. 

Next, spending explodes. The President wants to add $259 billion 

of new spending in the next fiscal year and two-and-four-tenths 

trillion over the next ten years. That is a 65 percent increase in 

ten years. Let us see. Two-and-one-tenths trillion in higher taxes, 

two-and-four-tenths trillion in higher spending. That is still overspending. The President hides what he is doing when he talks 

about reducing the deficit. It sounds like the debt will go down. No, 

the deficit is the overspending that we do. 

Did you ever hear of someone being able to buy something with 

the interest they saved? So, the interest payments skyrocket. Annual interest costs would more than triple, from $229 billion today 

to $785 billion in 2025, and I think that is at a pretty conservative 

interest rate. Interest remains the fastest growing item in the 

budget, but provides little in the way of benefit for our constituents. Did you ever hear of anybody being able to spend the interest 

that they have to pay? At the end of his plan, annual interest costs 

would be larger than the President’s proposed spending for national defense, Medicaid, or the combined total of all non-defense 

agency spending. 

Finally, the President’s plan adds $8.5 trillion to the debt. Over 

the next ten years, cumulative overspending would amount to fiveand-seven-tenths trillion in new debt, with the Federal debt climbing to $26.3 trillion in 2025. Based on projected population figures, 

this would mean every man, woman, and child in America would 

owe almost $76,000 in payments on President Obama’s debt. That 

is compared to $56,000 per person today. That is $20,000 per person more that everybody in America is going to owe. I mean, the 

child that is born today gets figured into that same cost, that same 

debt. 

Altogether, these were not the numbers I was looking for. I 

meant it when I said last week that we must confront spending. 

Bring the overspending to an end and ultimately balance the budget. The President’s proposal fails on all three elements of the mission. I will listen to the administration make its case on why it is 

best to ignore balancing the budget, but with 24 States already 

agreeing that the solution is to gather together to write a balanced 

budget requirement into our Constitution and with more States 

thinking about it, this is a mission we do not dare duck. Yes, 24 

States have already passed a Constitutional Convention to balance 

the budget. More than ten others are in the process of passing that 
73 

same one. Twenty-four plus ten is 34. That is enough to have a 

Constitutional Convention and force us to do it. 

We also cannot fail our constituents. Our nation needs a larger 

and more successful middle class, not a larger, more intrusive and 

fiscally foolish Federal Government. The latest quarterly GDP figures released Friday—and I do not think GDP really means much 

to the rest of the nation, what they are interested in is how much 

we take in and how much we spend and how much more debt that 

results in—but, the latest quarterly GDP figures released Friday 

demonstrate firmly that in the United States, more Federal spending, more Federal overspending, called deficits more interest costs 

and more debt do not yield a robust economy. 

Our economy still bobs in the backwater of too slow growth while 

jobless rate edges down and equity markets head up. The number 

of people who are underemployed or have abandoned looking for 

work continues to be too high. As Senator Sanders says, we have 

a deficit of employment. Wages are stagnant. Household wealth 

has collapsed. Too many worry that the American dream is no 

longer theirs and will not be there for their children and grandchildren. Failure of our economy to recover is the President’s record 

over the last six years. He has left too many Americans behind. 

But, in looking ahead, families and individuals need a Federal 

Government with a fiscal plan that helps create the climate for 

good jobs and good wages. Americans need to have confidence that 

there is work to be had, jobs to be found, and paychecks to be 

earned. Most importantly, they need to know that a strong and 

successful future is theirs again all around the country. 

It is not too late for the President to join us in making the future 

brighter by submitting a new plan that does not mortgage our future to pay for the present. If the President changes course, we can 

work together to ensure that Americans have the strongest possible 

economy, so competition to hire employees drives up wages and 

benefits, so that we have a solid economy and an economy in government. 

I said that people do not understand the GDP. They do understand spending more than we take in. We maxed out our credit 

cards. We do not have a mortgage payment. Maybe we should have 

a mortgage payment where we monthly pay down some of our debt 

and then use the interest we save to pay down even more. That is 

how people buy houses. I looked at the numbers on that. There is 

no possibility of that at the present time. 

We keep coming up with brilliant ideas for new ways to spend 

to fill in gaps in gifts that we have not been giving. We do not really take a look at what we already have and need to weed out 

things that do not work. We pretend everything we do is perfection, 

and with guilty conscience, we try to do more. Instead, we should 

be doing better. 

We have over 250 programs that are no longer in authorization, 

but we continue to spend the money on them, even though we do 

not look at them to see what they do and how they operate and 

what they should be doing and if they even ought to exist anymore. 

That means we have exceeded the time that we guaranteed we 

would pay for them. Last year, we had to vote on eleven-hundred 

billion dollars in spending. I prefer to say ‘‘eleven-hundred bil-
74 

lion’’—I think it is more honest than one-and-one-tenths trillion. 

We spent $468 billion more than the eleven-hundred billion. If you 

overspend what you can control by almost 50 percent, are we not 

buying like it was a department store sale? Colleagues, that is the 

sort of change that Americans really believe in. 

Senator SANDERS. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR SANDERS 

Senator SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. 

The good news is that our country has made substantial economic progress over the last six years since President Bush left office. Instead of losing 800,000 jobs a month, as we were during the 

final months of the Bush administration, we are now creating some 

250,000 jobs a month and are seeing steady job growth over the 

last 58 months. Instead of having a record-breaking $1.4 trillion 

deficit, as we did when President Bush left office in January 2009, 

the Federal deficit has been cut by more than two-thirds. Six years 

ago, the world’s financial system was on the verge of collapse. 

Today, that is certainly not the case. 

While we can be proud of what we have accomplished in the last 

six years, one would be very wrong not to appreciate that there is 

also a lot of very bad news in our economy, especially for working 

families. Most significantly, the simple truth is that the 40-year decline of the American middle class continues. Real unemployment 

is not 5.6 percent, it is 11.2 percent if one includes people who have 

given up looking for work or people who are working part-time 

when they want to work full-time. We do not talk about this issue, 

but youth unemployment today is close to 17 percent, and African 

American youth unemployment is over 30 percent. Real median 

family income has declined by nearly $5,000 since 1999. 

Incredibly, and I ask my colleagues to listen to this, despite huge 

increases in productivity, the median male worker, that man right 

in the middle of the economy, now earns $783 less than he did 42 

years ago, after adjusting for inflation. The median female worker 

now makes $1,300 less than she did in 2007. Shamefully, we continue to have, by far, the highest rate of childhood poverty of any 

major country on earth. 

In the midst of this tragic decline of America’s middle class, 

there is another reality, and this is the main point I want to make 

this morning, and that is that the wealthiest people and the largest 

corporations are doing phenomenally well. The result: The United 

States today has more income and wealth inequality than at any 

time since the Great Depression. Today, incredibly, the top one percent own almost as much wealth as the bottom 90 percent. Let me 

repeat that, because I think what Senator Enzi was talking about 

has got to be put into the broad context, and that is that the top 

one-tenth of one percent today own almost as much wealth as the 

bottom 90 percent. Today, one family, the Walton family of 

Walmart, owns more wealth than the bottom 40 percent of the 

American people, some 120 million Americans. 

In terms of income, what we have seen in recent years is that 

virtually all new income is going to the top one percent. Last year, 

the 25 top hedge fund managers earned more income than 425,000 

public school teachers, and that gap between the very, very rich 
75 

and everyone else grows wider. The fact of the matter is that over 

the past 40 years, we have witnessed an enormous transfer of 

wealth from the middle class to the top one percent. In other 

words, we are witnessing the Robin Hood principle in reverse. We 

are taking from working people and the poor and giving to the 

very, very wealthy. 

From 1985 to 2013, the share of the nation’s wealth going to the 

middle class has gone down from 36 percent to less than 23 percent. If the middle class had simply maintained the same share of 

our nation’s wealth as it did 30 years ago, it would have $10.7 trillion more in cumulative wealth than it does today. 

While the middle class continues to shrink, while millions of 

Americans are working longer hours for low wages, while young 

people cannot afford to go to college, while children in America go 

hungry, we have seen since 2009 that the top one percent has experienced an $11.5 trillion increase in wealth. 

Mr. Chairman, what we are talking about is not just a moral 

issue, it is an economic issue. Seventy percent of our economy is 

based on consumer spending, and when working people do not have 

disposable income, when they are not out buying goods and products, we are not creating the jobs that we need. 

The debate that we are having this morning will have a profound 

impact on the lives of the American people. Many of my Republican 

friends are in favor of cutting Social Security, cutting Medicare, 

cutting Medicaid, cutting nutrition programs for kids, while providing huge tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires. That is 

their idea of moving the economy forward. In my view, on the other 

hand, if we are serious about rebuilding the disappearing middle 

class, reducing income and wealth inequality, and strengthening 

Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, we need a budget that 

creates millions of jobs, raises wages, makes college affordable, and 

demands that the wealthiest people start paying their fair share. 

In all of these matters, the President’s budget begins to move us 

in the right direction. At a time when almost all of the new income 

gains go to the top one percent and when corporate profits are at 

an all-time high, the President’s effort to end egregious tax loopholes that benefit the wealthy and large corporations while providing tax breaks for working families is exactly the right thing to 

do. At a time when real unemployment is over 11 percent, the idea 

of increasing substantially investment in our infrastructure and 

creating hundreds of thousands of jobs is the right thing to do. At 

a time when 20 percent of our kids are living in poverty, the President’s budget triples the Child Care Tax Credit to $3,000 per child 

and makes an additional billion dollars’ investment in Head Start 

exactly the right thing to do. At a time when more Americans are 

unable to go to college, the President proposes the first two years 

of community college to be free, that is exactly the right thing to 

do. 

Let me conclude, Mr. Chairman, by saying this. If we are serious 

about figuring out exactly how we are going to pay for what this 

country needs, we might want to take a hard look at why major 

corporation after major corporation in some years pays absolutely 

zero in taxes. From 2008 to 2013, General Electric made nearly $34 

billion in profit in the United States. Not only did it pay nothing 
76 

in Federal income taxes, it received a tax break of nearly—a tax 

rebate of nearly $3 billion, and the list goes on and on and on. 

There is a lot to be done. Our job is to protect the middle class. 

Let us get to work doing that. 

Chairman ENZI. Thank you, Senator Sanders. 

Our witness this morning is Shaun Donovan, the 40th Director 

of the Office of Management and Budget. Prior to taking the role 

as head of OMB, Director Donovan served as President Obama’s 

first Secretary of Housing and Urban Development. Director Donovan has a long public service career, both in Federal and local 

roles, including Commissioner of the New York City Department of 

Housing, Preservation, and Development, and as Acting Federal 

Housing Administration Commissioner during the transition between President Clinton and President Bush. His private sector experience includes work at the Community Preservation Corporation 

in New York City and as a Visiting Scholar at New York University. Director Donovan holds both Bachelor’s and Master’s degrees 

in public administration and architecture from Harvard. 

Director Donovan, as the architect of the administration’s budget, we look forward to what you have to say. 

For the information of colleagues, Director Donovan will take 

about seven minutes for his opening testimony. 

Director, please begin. 

STATEMENT OF HON. SHAUN DONOVAN, DIRECTOR, U.S. 

OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET 

Mr. DONOVAN. Chairman Enzi, Ranking Member Sanders, members of the committee, thank you for welcoming me here today to 

present the President’s 2016 budget. 

To echo your comments, Mr. Chairman, when I met with so 

many of you over the summer, one of the key themes everyone 

echoed was that we needed to get our budget process back into regular order, and I truly hope that this on-time budget that I am presenting today is the first step toward that regular order. 

The budget comes on the heels of a breakthrough year for America and builds on our fiscal and economic progress, including the 

fastest job growth since the 1990s and the fastest sustained period 

of deficit reduction in 60 years. The budget is a blueprint for the 

President’s vision for middle class economics in the 21st century. 

This means helping working families by making their paychecks go 

further, preparing Americans to earn higher wages, and making 

America the place where businesses decide to innovate, grow, and 

create good, high-paying jobs. 

The budget shows that we do not have to choose between investing in the middle class and being fiscally responsible. First, because we cannot afford a return to mindless austerity, the budget 

proposes to end sequestration, fully reversing it for domestic priorities in 2016, matched by equal dollar increases for defense. By replacing sequestration with a combination of smart spending cuts, 

program integrity measures, and common sense loophole closers, 

the budget makes room for investments in our economy and our 

national security. 

For example, on the domestic side, where sequestration would 

cut R&D to its lowest level since 2002, adjusted for inflation, the 
77 

budget supports cutting edge research like precision medicine, efforts to combat antibiotic resistance, and the BRAIN Initiative, 

which is helping to revolutionize our understanding of the human 

brain. 

Likewise, rather than cutting inflation-adjusted national security 

funding to the lowest level since 2006, the budget makes responsible investments to protect our national security, restoring readiness and the investment in modernization needed to ensure America’s continued technological edge. 

I want to emphasize that every investment in the budget, including both the discretionary investments made possible by reversing 

sequestration and mandatory and tax changes, are more than paid 

for through spending or tax reforms. For example, the budget 

would provide new and expanded tax credits for middle class families and would more than pay for these investments by reforming 

capital gains taxation and making it more costly for the biggest financial firms to finance their activities with excessive borrowing. 

It also uses one-time revenues from pro-growth business tax reform to pay for an ambitious six-year surface transportation proposal that will give States and localities the certainty they need to 

invest in infrastructure that will spur innovation and accelerate job 

growth. 

Meanwhile, the budget also achieves $1.8 trillion in deficit reduction, primarily by focusing on the key drivers of our budget challenges, health care cost growth and inadequate revenue levels in 

the face of an aging population. Building on the historically slow 

rates of health care cost growth in recent years that have already 

significantly improved our fiscal outlook, the budget includes 

roughly $400 billion in health savings which grow significantly over 

time, raising about $1 trillion in the second decade. 

The budget also raises about $640 billion in net revenue for deficit reduction from curbing inefficient high-income tax expenditures. 

And, this year’s budget again reflects the President’s support for 

common sense comprehensive immigration reform along the lines 

of the bipartisan Senate-passed bill. Immigration reform would reduce deficits by almost $1 trillion over two decades while strengthening Social Security and growing the economy. 

As a result of these measures, the budget maintains deficits well 

below the 40-year historical average during every year of the budget window. It meets the key test of fiscal sustainability, putting 

debt as a share of the economy on a downward path, showing that 

investments in accelerating growth and a strong middle class are 

compatible with strengthening the nation’s finances. And, to ensure 

that our country remains strong and prosperous both now and in 

the future, it makes smart investments to give every American the 

chance to contribute to and share in the benefits of growth. 

I look forward to working with Congress and this committee in 

the coming months. Thank you, and I would be glad to take your 

questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Donovan follows:] 
78 
79 
80 
81 
82 
83 
84 
85 
86 
87 
88 
89 

Chairman ENZI. Wow. You did not even come close to seven minutes. 

Mr. DONOVAN. I think I have come under my budgeted time. 

[Laughter.] 

Chairman ENZI. We do appreciate that. Now, we will turn to 

questions. 

Last week, when CBO Director Elmendorf testified, he did a good 

job of simply answering the questions asked by Senators so that 

members on both sides had more questions that they could ask and 

get answers. I hope you will follow that model this morning, Director, so that we can all have as much asked and answered as possible. 

As a reminder, I will alternate recognition between Republican 

and Democratic Senators, following seniority for those who were 

here when the hearing was gaveled to order. After that, I will recognize members based on order of arrival. If you are not here when 

your name is called, I will skip you but pencil you in at the end 

of the question list to be recognized after everyone who was in attendance at the gavel has the opportunity to ask Director Donovan 

questions. 

With that, Director, I will begin with my first question. You testified that stabilizing the debt as a share of the economy and putting 

it on a declining path is a key test of fiscal sustainability. But, debt 

still goes up every year in the President’s budget in dollar terms 

and shows little movement as a share of the economy. And, again, 

that is GDP, and I do not think people understand GDP. They do 

understand that we spend more than we take in, even though we 

are getting record revenue. So, why is it a sufficient goal to merely 

tread water on debt as a share of GDP? 

Mr. DONOVAN. First of all, Senator, I think as any family would 

look at it, their finances are based on what they earn, and a key 

measure of what this country earns— 

Chairman ENZI. Please turn your microphone on. 

Mr. DONOVAN. I am sorry. Thank you. I apologize. I think, like 

any family in America, the key way they think about their finances 

is based on what they earn, and so GDP is really the measure of 

what this country earns. It is the size of our economy. And, most 

economists on both sides of the aisle really think of looking at these 

numbers as a share of GDP as the correct measures. 

The other point I would make is that, as Director Elmendorf no 

doubt testified, under current projections under current law, over 

the next ten years, debt as a share of GDP would grow substantially to—in our baseline, we show it growing to almost 81 percent 

of GDP. And, so, with this $1.8 trillion of deficit reduction that our 

budget would achieve, we actually help to not just stabilize, but 

also begin to bring down the debt by the end of the window, and 

that is a substantial difference from our current path. 

Chairman ENZI. In looking at it, the President’s budget never 

reaches balance. At its low point, in 2017, the overspending is $463 

billion, and that grows steadily from there, reaching $687 billion in 

2025. To secure the middle class and any hope for future generations, we need to pay down the debt, and that is not possible with 

overspending this large. Can we pay down the public debt, that is, 
90 

have the dollar amount of debt outstanding be less than the 

amount in the year earlier without balancing the budget? 

Mr. DONOVAN. Again, Senator, the key metric for fiscal sustainability that is not only the measure that we use in the administration but that is, I think, widely accepted is that deficits below three 

percent of GDP are critical for long-term sustainability. That is a 

measure that we met for the first time this year after record reductions in our deficits, over a two-thirds reduction since the President 

came into office. And, that will keep us in every year of the budget 

window below the 40-year average for deficits that this country has 

faced. And, so, we think we are hitting that key test of sustainability. 

Chairman ENZI. Okay. Most of the people that I deal with think 

that if you spend more than you take in, that you have made a 

mistake. But, the Analytical Perspectives volume of the budget documents has an interesting table on page 32 entitled, ‘‘Trends in 

Federal Debt Held by the Public.’’ That table shows interest costs 

as a percent of total outlays will increase steadily under the President’s budget. Can this trend continue forever without compromising our ability to provide government services? 

Mr. DONOVAN. I think what the long-term fiscal outlook chapter 

shows, in addition to what I have already said, is that we would 

stabilize the debt as a share of the economy not just over the tenyear window, but over the 25-year window, as well. 

And, as I think we all recognize, what we are facing in this country is a real demographic challenge with the aging of the Baby 

Boom. The key thing that we need to do to ensure that we have 

long-run fiscal sustainability is focus on health care costs. We have 

seen the lowest growth in health care costs in 50 years over the 

last few years. We have many, many measures, including over $400 

billion in savings from Medicare and Medicaid proposed in the 

budget that increase over time. 

And, we need to recognize that we need to grow our workforce 

and our economy, and immigration reform is perhaps the single 

most important thing we can do there, and that will add to the sustainability over Social Security over time. And, so, we think we are 

attacking through this budget the key drivers of long-term deficit 

and debt. 

Chairman ENZI. My time has almost expired. I heard your comment about health care costs going down. Last year, I had the 

Head Start folks come to me and complain that their budget was 

being cut seven-and-three-tenths percent instead of two-and-threetenths percent. So, I checked on it and found that they were keeping most of the money in Washington instead of where the kids 

were and it got reversed and they got all of their money. But, what 

they found was their health care costs have gone up so much that 

they still could not add the kids back into the program. So, we have 

got a lot things we need to work on. 

My time has expired. Senator Sanders. 

Senator SANDERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Donovan, in case you have not been made aware, we have 

a philosophical divide on this committee of some degree. Many of 

my Republican colleagues believe that what is best for the country 

in the future is basically to cut, cut, cut, cut, cut Social Security, 
91 

Medicare, Medicaid, nutrition, et cetera, et cetera. Others of us do 

not think that that is what is best for working families in this 

country. So, I want to mention something to you. 

My staff did some research, and what we found is that it turns 

out that major profitable corporation after major profitable corporation not only paid zero in a given year in Federal taxes, but, in 

fact, got rebates from the IRS. Just some examples. From 2008 through 2013, General Electric made nearly $34 billion in profits in the U.S., and what was its tax break—what was 

its tax burden? Zero. In fact, it received a tax refund of nearly $3 

billion. 

Verizon, from that same period of time, made over $42 billion in the U.S. It received tax refunds of $732 million. In other words, 

they did not pay any taxes. They actually got rebates. 

Now, I think the President’s budget begins to address some of 

these issues. Can you talk to us, in your view, about whether or 

not it is appropriate that one large major profitable corporation 

after another pays zero in Federal income taxes? 

Mr. DONOVAN. Well, Senator, I think we could all agree on a bipartisan basis that our current corporate tax code is more complicated than it needs to be, that it has a broad range of loopholes 

that create not just unfairness across companies, but also, frankly, 

make our economy less efficient and hold back economic growth. 

And, so, we do support, and the budget lays this out, reform of 

our business tax system that would not only make it more fair, but 

in the long run would increase economic growth, and we would do 

that by closing a broad range of loopholes and actually lowering the 

basic rate from 35 percent down to 28 percent. 

We think a particularly important piece of this is around international tax reform. The President has spoken out very clearly that 

the trend of inversions of companies, you know, buying small companies overseas and putting a domicile, relocating there, is a serious problem. This budget would not only close those loopholes to 

try to stop to the maximum extent possible companies moving overseas, it also creates more broadly an international tax system 

which would really make it more fair and level the playing field, 

bringing jobs back to the U.S. 

Senator SANDERS. Thank you. Mr. Donovan, there will be, I suspect, a major debate coming forward on Social Security, and I happen to believe not only that we should not cut Social Security, but 

we should expand benefits. I suspect my Republican colleagues disagree. But, the first order of business done by the House Republicans was to pass a rule which could result in a 20 percent reduction in benefits for people who receive disability benefits, laying the 

groundwork for either cuts in disability benefits or, in fact, for Social Security for older people. 

Your budget did not do that. You did what has been done 11 

times in the past. It is what we call readjust. Social Security has 

enough money to pay all benefits for the next 18 years. You simply 

took money from one account and into the other. Why did you do 

that? 

Mr. DONOVAN. Well, as you said, Senator, this small reallocation 

of Social Security taxes is the simplest, most direct way to ensure 

that, on a combined basis, both Social Security Trust Funds have 
92 

reserves available through 2033. This is a step that has been taken 

on a bipartisan basis under Democrats and Republicans. It has actually been done both ways, from Disability to the other Trust 

Fund and back to Social Security. And, so, we think this is the 

most simple and critical way—and remember, these are benefits 

that have been earned by folks paying in over time. We should not 

put them at risk of getting a 19 percent cut in their benefits after 

they paid into the system over their working years. 

Senator SANDERS. Okay. Mr. Chairman, my time is almost out. 

I will yield the floor. 

Chairman ENZI. Senator Grassley. 

Senator GRASSLEY. I think the President’s budget is an ideological statement based on the faith of government making decisions 

as opposed to individuals making decisions. I think it is based on 

a proposition that 535 people here in Congress are a heck of a lot 

smarter than 137 million taxpayers, and that gets to the issue of 

increasing taxes or not. 

Quite frankly, I think the dynamics of the American economy— 

it is going to advance the economy much faster if you have 137 million taxpayers decide whether to spend or save and how to spend 

it and how to save it as opposed to those of us here in the Congress 

of the United States and the President of the United States making 

that decision. 

And, it is not a question of bigger government or smaller government. It is a question of what does the most to expand and grow 

our economy, because what this country needs is not more tax 

rates, or more taxes. We need more taxpayers. And, that is going 

to happen by the capital investment that individuals make, not 

what the government spends. Private investment is going to really 

grow the economy. 

We have a 50-year average that has said that if you have a onedollar tax increase, it gives license to Congress to spend $1.13. 

That is not going to do anything about the deficit. A license to 

spend more money brings us further into the hole. You cannot raise 

taxes high enough to satisfy the appetite of Congress or any President, not just this President, to spend money. If a tax increase 

would go to the bottom line to reduce the deficit, that would be one 

thing. I think we might look favorable upon that. But, that is not 

going to happen. 

And, I think you see that deficits matter. The President’s budget 

speaks to deficits mattering. They have consequences, because the 

President’s own budget shows that the cost of interest is going to 

go up from a little less than $300 billion a year to $800 billion a 

year. 

So, we have a spending problem, not a taxing problem, and I do 

not see in this budget, and I suppose I could say this even about 

Republican budgets, that there does not seem to be a shame in increasing deficits, in this case, under this budget, by $8 trillion over 

a ten-year period of time. 

So, this gets me to what the President has said publicly about 

the middle class. The President seems to believe that we need to 

deficit spend today and for the next ten years in order to, in his 

words, ‘‘invest in initiatives to help the middle class.’’ However, 

CBO has analyzed in great detail the long-term consequences of 
93 

deficit spending. They found that in future years, a growing portion 

of people’s savings will go towards buying government debt rather 

than towards investing in productive capital goods. That crowding 

out of investment would reduce the size of the nation’s productive 

capital resources that produce economic benefits over time. The 

smaller capital stock would result in lower wages and incomes, 

making future generations worse off. Now, that is not my finding, 

that is CBO’s finding. 

So, two questions that you can answer at the same time. Does 

the President think the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office is 

incorrect in stating that future generations will be worse off by taking no action to reduce deficits and debt? And, , would not reducing 

the debt burden of future generations be more prudent than ten 

more years of deficit spending and growing debt? 

Mr. DONOVAN. Senator, we do take the spending and deficits and 

debt seriously. That is why we have taken action over the full six 

years of this President’s time in office and achieved the fastest deficit reduction since immediately after World War II and brought 

deficits down below our 40-year average. In addition, we make further changes in this budget, both on the spending side and in other 

areas, that would reduce our debt by $1.8 trillion—our deficits by 

$1.8 trillion over those ten years. And, so, we do take that seriously. 

But, we also take seriously that this country needs to invest in 

the things that are going to grow our middle class. We cut taxes 

for 44 million families by an average of $600 through this budget, 

and we do ask that where we have places in our tax code that are 

not only unfair but actually discourage economic growth, that we 

make changes to our tax code, as well, whether it is returning to 

the capital gains rate of 28 percent that was effective when President Reagan was in office, or to get rid of inefficiencies like the socalled capital gains stepped-up basis, where we are actually encouraging families, the wealthiest families, to hold assets in unproductive ways, and when an average American would have to pay tax 

on that because they could not hold it until their death, we are allowing the wealthiest families to basically hold those assets and 

never be taxed for capital gains. 

And, so, we do believe that we need to focus on our deficits and 

debt. We do in this budget. We continue to make strong progress 

like we have over the last few years. But, we also recognize that 

we have to invest in our future, as well. 

Senator GRASSLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman ENZI. Senator Wyden is not here. Senator Stabenow. 

Senator STABENOW. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and welcome, Director Donovan. 

Mr. DONOVAN. Thank you. 

Senator STABENOW. I have been on this committee for a while, 

and when I think about since 2009, you guys inherited a very big 

hole and have been stepping forward out of that hole for the last 

six years and I want to congratulate you. I remember when we 

were on this committee talking about the Simpson-Bowles Commission, a bipartisan commission that said we needed to cut $4 trillion 

in order to be able to get a handle on and stabilize the debt as a 
94 

share of the economy, and step by step by step, we are now at $3.3 

trillion of the four. I would suggest that is pretty good. 

And, the fact that we are now looking at less than two-thirds of 

the annual deficit, of what you inherited in 2009—less than twothirds—less than two-thirds—I would suggest that is pretty good, 

too. 

Eleven-point-two million jobs—I would like very much to have 

more—and nearly three million last year. But, I could not agree 

with you more that the only way that works is to stop talking 

about trickle-down economics and actually do something that 

makes sure the next steps are laser focused on the middle class. 

So, before I ask my question, though, I also want to say that we 

talk a lot about debt and about how we should never spend more 

than we have. I would just suggest, I have a mortgage. When something is an important investment, we spend more than we have. 

We have a mortgage for a house. We have a car payment. And, as 

somebody who makes a lot of automobiles, I would welcome more 

people doing that. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator STABENOW. We put our kids through college, unfortunately with too much debt on college. Many, many colleagues here, 

colleagues on the other side of the aisle, felt going to war twice, 

and not paying for it, was a priority. 

So, the issue is really how do we manage our debt and move forward and not have it overwhelm us. But we certainly set priorities 

for when we—for our families—choose to take on debt. So, it is a 

question of how we manage that. 

I would like to move to the topic of health care and, first of all, 

to congratulate you on adding dollars for medical research and the 

BRAIN Initiative. One of the ways that we can bring down costs 

that will save millions of lives is to focus on brain research. One 

out of five Medicare dollars is spent on Alzheimer’s—one out of 

five—one out of five. And, so, I am very encouraged and believe we 

should even be doing more in that area. 

And, I want to talk about health care as part of bringing down 

costs. The latest CBO projections show that more Americans are 

finding full-time work and getting health care coverage. We know 

that fewer Americans are going into bankruptcy because of medical 

bills, a good thing. Tax credits that we passed are helping people 

afford coverage. People who already have insurance are actually 

getting what they are paying for now and cannot get dropped, and 

can get coverage even if they have a preexisting condition. 

But, we are seeing an ongoing debate, and very soon, we will see 

even more of that here in the Senate, to reverse that, stripping insurance coverage from working Americans that will increase the 

debt. The House has voted over 50 times to repeal health reform. 

The Supreme Court is considering whether or not to have a process 

that would put millions of people into health care—without health 

care. So, could you talk about how the health care law has helped 

to drive down Medicare spending as well as the health care costs 

for Americans? 

Mr. DONOVAN. Senator, I appreciate you focusing on this because 

it really is the single most important focus for, if we want to talk 

about long-run deficits, but also a critical thing for middle-class 
95 

families is affordable health care. And, the Affordable Care Act is 

working. We have now more than ten million less—fewer uninsured Americans, and more broadly, millions and millions of Americans who had health care before, health care insurance, but have 

actually seen, whether it is keeping their kids on their plans, not 

being kicked out because of preexisting conditions, and a broad 

range of things. So, we really have made progress. 

On the fiscal side, what we have seen is the lowest health care 

cost growth in 50 years, and that has already improved our longrun fiscal picture dramatically. Just take CBO’s numbers, where 

they say, just from improvements we have seen over the last few 

years, we are going to spend $190 billion less on Medicare and 

Medicaid in the year 2020 thanks to the lower growth in health 

care costs that we have already seen. 

I think we can work together on a bipartisan basis to build on that. We have $400 billion in Medicare and Medicaid savings built 

into our budget. And, for the first time, we are including a permanent SGR, or ‘‘doc fix’’ proposal in our bill, fully paid for. It builds 

on bipartisan legislation and it adds provisions that would go even 

further in terms of what we call delivery system reform, making 

sure that we pay doctors and hospitals based on the quality of care 

that they are providing, not just the quantity of care that we are 

providing. 

So, I think this is an area where we have made a great deal of 

progress. More people are covered. They are getting better coverage. And, in fact, we can build on that through this budget and 

work that we can do on a bipartisan basis this year. 

Senator STABENOW. Thank you. 

Chairman ENZI. Senator Sessions. 

Senator SESSIONS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate your 

leadership and look forward to working with you. 

I agree with Senator Sanders that the middle class is really hurting. Working Americans today are not doing well. Since 2007, the 

median income in America is down $4,000 for income for a family. 

This is catastrophic. This is absolutely one of the most dangerous 

trends we have seen in some time and it has accelerated over the 

last decade. It has accelerated under your President’s, our President’s watch, Mr. Donovan. 

The problem is your policies. Tax more, spend more, borrow 

more, regulate more, Obamacare more, an immigration policy that 

dominates the market with workers from abroad when we do not 

have enough jobs for American workers, pulling down wages of 

Americans. That is what has caused this problem, in my opinion, 

and that is where we disagree, Senator Sanders. We have got a 

problem, but your ideas will not work. They will never work. 

Now, Mr. Donovan, reckless spending endangers the future of the 

republic. As Mr. Elmendorf has told us, we remain on an 

unsustainable debt course. Let me ask you this simple question. 

Does your budget spend more or less than we agreed to with President Obama in the Budget Control Act of 2011? 

Mr. DONOVAN. Our budget overall reduces spending relative to 

current law— 

Senator SESSIONS. I just asked a simple question. You work for 

the taxpayers, Mr. Donovan. I am asking you, on their behalf, a 
96 

simple question. Does your budget spend more money next year 

than the current law of the Budget Control Act allows? 

Mr. DONOVAN. Overall, our budget reduces spending compared to 

current law. 

Senator SESSIONS. Overall, your budget spends $74 billion more 

next year than allowed by current law, is that not true? 

Mr. DONOVAN. I think what you are focused on, Senator, is discretionary spending, and I think that there is broad agreement 

that sequestration— 

Senator SESSIONS. That is what the Budget Control Act covers— 

Mr. DONOVAN. —that sequestration is hurting our military readiness. The Joint Chiefs of Staff testified to that this past week. And, 

it is hurting our ability to invest in the things to grow our economy— 

Senator SESSIONS. You work for the American people, Mr. Donovan. I ask you, do you propose spending more money next year on 

discretionary accounts than was agreed to in the Budget Control 

Act, yes or no? 

Mr. DONOVAN. We are— 

Senator SESSIONS. Can you not answer that question? 

Mr. DONOVAN. I believe I have answered it, Senator. 

Senator SESSIONS. No, you have not answered— 

Mr. DONOVAN. We are proposing to reverse sequestration, and 

our budget fully pays for those increased investments on the discretionary side with mandatory spending reductions and cutting 

wasteful spending in the tax code. 

Senator SESSIONS. Well, one of the ways you fix a budget problem is when you agree to a spending limit, you stick to it. So, I am 

going to ask you one more time, let us just see if we can get this 

straight. The American people need to know. Do we spend—do you 

propose to spend more next year than the Budget Control Act 

would allow? 

Mr. DONOVAN. We propose to lift the sequestration caps, which 

have been harmful to our military readiness, that have been harmful to economic growth. We more than fully pay for those with reductions in spending on the mandatory side and reducing wasteful 

spending in the tax code. 

Senator SESSIONS. So, you intend to spend more than we agreed 

to? That is all I want you to say. Will you say that? 

Mr. DONOVAN. Our budget proposes— 

Senator SESSIONS. Why will you not say that? 

Mr. DONOVAN. —more than 400— 

Senator SESSIONS. What is it about this that allows you to continue in that way? 

Mr. DONOVAN. Senator, I think there is pretty broad bipartisan 

agreement— 

Senator SESSIONS. We are going to discuss— 

Mr. DONOVAN. —that discretionary spending is not driving our 

deficits, and, in fact, our discretionary spending, even with the increases on the discretionary side we propose in our budget— 

Senator SESSIONS. So, you will not give— 

Mr. DONOVAN. —remains— 

Senator SESSIONS. —the American people for whom you work— 

Mr. DONOVAN. —remains— 
97 

Senator SESSIONS. —a simple answer to that question. 

Mr. DONOVAN. It remains— 

Senator SESSIONS. I asked you one— 

Mr. DONOVAN. —at the lowest level as a share of our economy— 

Senator SESSIONS. My time is running out— 

Mr. DONOVAN. —on record. 

Senator SESSIONS. Let me ask you one more question. Under 

your statement that you gave us earlier, you said that the immigration policies of this President would make Social Security more 

sustainable over time. Now, is it not true that everybody in Social 

Security does not pay in enough money to justify the withdrawals 

that they will take over their lifetime, and by adding millions of 

more people unlawfully here to the Social Security rolls, will that 

not make Social Security less sustainable over time than it is 

today, yes or no? 

Mr. DONOVAN. Just yesterday, the Actuary for the Social Security 

Administration confirmed that the President’s executive actions 

that he took late last year would improve the prospects for Social 

Security. 

Senator SESSIONS. Over what period of time? 

Mr. DONOVAN. Over the— 

Senator SESSIONS. Over the life of the individuals? You are not 

counting the times that these individuals would be drawing their 

benefits, Mr. Donovan. You are counting a short-term window in 

which they would pay in, creating a short-term surplus of money 

or additional flow of money, but you are not counting when they 

draw out. It is going to make the Social Security hole deeper. It is 

going to make it harder for us to save Social Security and Medicare 

and you know it. And you are suggesting to the American people 

directly contrary—directly different from that and it is wrong. 

Mr. DONOVAN. Senator, you do not need to take my word for it. 

The Actuary of the Social Security Administration— 

Chairman ENZI. The Senator’s time has expired. 

Mr. DONOVAN. —along with CBO, projects that the actions the 

President took will reduce deficits, not increase them. 

Chairman ENZI. Senator Whitehouse. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you very much, Chairman. 

Director Donovan, good to have you here. 

Mr. DONOVAN. It is good to be here. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Could you please tell us a little bit about 

the part of your budget document that is called ‘‘Federal Budget 

Exposure to Climate Risk’’ and what you see and anticipate in 

terms of costs that the taxpayers will bear from our failure to address the climate change problem. 

Mr. DONOVAN. Senator, what we tried to do for the very first 

time in this budget is to very specifically quantify, as much as possible, what we have seen over a number of years and what we expect to see going forward in terms of direct increased costs. There 

are many other areas that are perhaps more speculative, more indirect costs, but we tried to focus on programs like disaster assistance through FEMA or flood insurance. Crop insurance is another 

area where we have seen substantially increased claims as a result 

of more extreme weather. 
98 

And, I think the basic analysis is that it is foolish for us not to 

act and both take further steps to reduce climate change, reduce 

greenhouse gas emissions, but also to prepare our communities for 

the more extreme weather that we are seeing. Not only will those 

save lives, but they will save dollars, as well. 

FEMA shows that where we invest in protecting our communities, we typically get a four-to-one return in terms of future savings relative to the dollars that we spend today. So, climate change 

is a wise fiscal—focusing on climate change is a wise fiscal policy, 

as well as for other reasons. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Turning to health care, I think most people agree that health care cost is really what is driving our longterm debt and deficits. Do you agree with that? 

Mr. DONOVAN. It is the key measure of what is driving them, yes. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. And, we run a health care system in the 

United States that is grotesquely expensive per capita compared to 

any other industrialized nation. Do you have any expectations 

about what the increases recently announced in Medicare, particularly for the amount of the payments in Medicare that would be 

taken off of wasteful and expensive fee-for-service payments and 

onto more efficient quality-based payments, will result in? 

Mr. DONOVAN. We have not included in the budget specific savings that come out of the delivery system reform improvements 

that— 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. But you expect— 

Mr. DONOVAN. —Secretary Burwell announced. Those—there is 

significant—if you think about it this way, significant potential additional savings, literally hundreds of billions, if not trillions, of 

dollars of long-run savings that could come out of those delivery 

system reforms. Unfortunately, it is just too early at this point to 

be able to reliably include those in the budget. So, we have included over $400 billion of savings that we think is directly quantifiable, but I think you point rightly to the fact that if we keep 

pushing on delivery system reform, the bipartisan SGR, the ‘‘doc 

fix’’ that we have included, we have lots of potential to dramatically 

increase savings and lower cost growth in the future. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. And, finally, with respect to the plan that 

the budget announces to go after offshore parking of funds by corporations to avoid American taxation, so-called repatriation, your 

program appears to have three elements to it. One, it is mandatory. 

Two, it is—there is a 14 percent opportunity to repatriate the 

money. And, future efforts to park revenues offshore as to avoid 

taxation will be faced with a 19 percent tax. Can you explain why 

those are important policy considerations when we go about dealing 

with repatriation. 

Mr. DONOVAN. Absolutely. First of all, you are exactly right. Unlike the voluntary tax holiday that some have proposed, which we 

oppose, we are proposing a mandatory toll charge of 14 percent on 

the roughly $2 trillion of earnings that are overseas and have not 

been taxed. When you do it as a voluntary measure, you encourage 

future offshoring of profits, and, in fact, CBO would likely score 

that with a substantial cost, not revenue. 

Our plan, on the other hand, raises enough money to fund a sixyear reauthorization of the Highway Trust Fund at 40 percent 
99 

higher levels than we are currently funding. So, it is a significant 

opportunity to invest in the middle class and infrastructure. 

Second— 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. My time has expired, I am afraid, so I will 

leave the witness hanging. If there is anything you would just like 

to add by way of response— 

Mr. DONOVAN. I would just say, I think it is critical that we have 

a policy that fixes this system going forward, as well, creates a 

level playing field, and encourages American companies to locate 

here and to bring jobs back here, as well, and our system would 

do that. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you. 

Chairman ENZI. Senator Crapo. 

Senator CRAPO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Mr. 

Donovan, for being here today. 

I want to go back to an issue that the Chairman raised with you, 

which is the question of whether this budget helps to reduce our 

national debt, and I believe your answer to that question was focused on the size of the debt in relationship to the economy, or to 

GDP, which I understand. I understand the argument and I understand the analysis. It is something that we have talked about a lot 

in budget circles over the last few years. 

The question I have, though, is does that really justify a budget 

that continues to, frankly, borrow hundreds of billions of dollars 

every year and to spend that money in an effort to, as you indicated, to stimulate the economy and invest in things that should 

help the taxpayers and the people of America but never balance. 

I think my question is this. Is it possible for us, or any nation, to 

simply spend in deficit every year perpetually, borrowing money 

and never balancing, and to keep ourselves in a prosperous posture? Can we spend ourself perpetually into prosperity on borrowed 

money? 

Mr. DONOVAN. So, Senator, I think that, you know, we have obviously talked a lot about this issue of what the right measure is. I 

think a different way, maybe, to look at it that I think has been 

key for us in looking at this issue, the most important measure of 

a budget is whether it invests in the things that are going to grow 

our economy going forward and meets our obligations to our seniors. I think we do have to recognize that we are facing right now 

an unprecedented demographic challenge in terms of the Baby 

Boom retiring, and I think it is particularly important when you 

look at it in that context that over the next not just ten years, but 

25 years—which our budget does—that the key tests of sustainability is, first, to make sure that debt as a share of GDP is stabilized and is coming down. 

Senator CRAPO. So, are you saying, though, that if we have our 

debt in relationship to GDP going down, that we are in a sustainable budget posture? 

Mr. DONOVAN. I think at a time when we are facing unprecedented demographic challenges, that that is the key fiscal test. 

Second— 

Senator CRAPO. Let me go over—because our time is so short, I 

wanted to go over some numbers with you, just to show you what 

I am looking at in this budget. Using your numbers, as we look at 
100 

non-defense discretionary spending, currently, it is about 14.9 percent of the Federal spending outlays, and that is projected under 

your budget to drop to just ten percent of annual outlays by 2025. 

If you look at defense discretionary spending, which is today about 

15.7 percent of annual outlays, it is projected to drop to about 10.5 

percent of total Federal outlays in 2025. But, if you look at interest 

expenses on our spending, which are today about six percent of 

total Federal spending, they are projected to rise—to double, more 

than double, to 12.7 percent of Federal spending in 2025. 

My point is, we are seeing our defense spending, our discretionary spending being squeezed, and we are seeing the interest on 

the national debt double over the period of this budget window, and 

that dynamic, it seems to me, is one that shows the inability to just 

continue to mount a national debt that will squeeze out the potential spending that you talk about that may be needed in other 

areas. Is that not something that we must address by controlling 

the spending, and, frankly, by balancing the budget? 

Mr. DONOVAN. Well, Senator, I think we agree that it is critical 

that we make progress on the deficit and the debt. We have actually made substantial progress during the President’s time in office. 

I also think it raises the issue that this is something we cannot 

just look to the spending side, for exactly the reasons you just described. We are already at discretionary spending levels as a share 

of the economy that are as low as they have been on record, and 

we think that is where we have to look to the revenue side, as well. 

And, I hope that we can work on a bipartisan basis to have a balanced approach to deficit reduction. 

Since 2011, we have achieved 80 percent. Four out of every five dollars of deficit reduction—and our measure is over $4 trillion of 

deficit reduction thus far—four out of five has come from spending 

reductions. And, even with our budget, three out of five dollars of 

deficit reduction would come from spending reductions, and so— 

Senator CRAPO. Well, thank you— 

Mr. DONOVAN. —we believe we need to look at both sides of this 

equation, as well. 

Senator CRAPO. I understand, and my time is up. I will just say, 

I am a member of the Bowles-Simpson Commission, as you know, 

and worked with others, the Gang of Six and others, to try to find 

a solution here. When we were working on that, the national debt 

was down around $11 trillion. It is $18 trillion today, and under 

the budget window that we are talking about here, it is going to 

go to $26-plus trillion. I just do not see how we can make the argument that as long as the economy keeps growing, we are okay. I 

just do not see that we can avoid trying to balance our budget and 

control this debt. 

Chairman ENZI. Senator Warner. 

Senator WARNER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Mr. Donovan, 

it is great to see you. It looks like you have made a smooth transition from HUD Secretary to OMB Director. 

I want to actually pick up on certain things that Senator Crapo 

said, but maybe with a slightly different tinge. 

First, I want to commend you for getting rid of sequestration, 

which I have always called stupidity on steroids— 

[Laughter.] 
101 

Senator WARNER. —because, as Senator Crapo pointed out, even 

with sequestration—remove domestic discretionary at the end of 

the time period, it is down to ten percent of spend—it would be 

much lower than that without removing the—getting rid of sequestration. And as somebody, again, who still for a few more years can 

pride myself on saying I have been in business longer than I have 

been in politics, investing in business, you never—you invest in 

businesses based on their investment in workforce, plant and 

equipment, and staying ahead of the competition. For government, 

that is education, infrastructure, and research. And, our current 

American business plan is a faulty one, and part of that is driven 

by sequestration. So, I commend you for getting rid of that. 

I would argue, though—and I do acknowledge bringing the deficit 

down as a share of GDP is in the appropriate range. I do not believe 72 percent debt level at the end of ten is sustainable. Again, 

just a few quick factoids, which I know you know, but some of 

these, I think my colleagues might be interested. 

You know, at 18 trillion, 100 basis point, one percent increase in interest rates takes $120 billion a year off the top. That is greater 

than the whole Department of Homeland Security and Department 

of Education combined. 

At the end of ten years, even within this budget window—and 

this is where, I think, our colleagues on both sides may not want 

to be here at that point—we will be spending more on interest than 

we will on total defense or total domestic discretionary. 

And, while I commend—and I believe revenues have to be part 

of the mix. I remember spending a very long New Year’s Eve with 

great colleagues, but they were not necessarily the people I wanted 

to spend New Year’s Eve with—to fight to get $600 billion in revenue so that we did not go over the proverbial fiscal cliff and go 

into unknown financial abyss. I might point out, we fought all that 

for $600 billion. We have had two one-time sources of revenue that 

have more than topped that number. We are at $420 billion in extraordinary profits from the Fed. Now, we can argue about Fed 

policies being good or bad, but I do not think anybody thinks those 

kind of profits are going to be able to be projected forever. And, 

while CBO and OMB count the money differently, a bill that you, 

Senator Crapo, and Senator Corker and many others have worked 

on on the repayments on Fannie and Freddie, $220 billion at this 

point, you booked that as revenue. So, if you get rid of those $650 

billion-plus of extraordinary one-time revenues, our deficits are actually worse than the appearance would look at this point. 

Now, where I would differ with many of my colleagues on both 

sides, one, I do believe entitlements have to be taken on. I think 

that has to be a question. But, you have got to get to the revenue 

side, and this is where I may not agree with all of the methodologies or all of the spending purposes, but revenues have to be part 

of the mix. CBO has recalculated the numbers, and I think Senator 

Enzi understands, you have got to have a reference point, and percent of GDP is what everybody at least agrees is the common area. 

Anybody who says, well, we have got to look back at 50-year 

averages—50-year averages on revenues are 17.4 percent—we have 

never balanced the budget on that. And, no matter what you cut, 

with the demographic bulge you pointed out, you are going to have 
102 

to get revenues up. The only time we balanced the budget in the 

last 50 years has been when revenues under the new calculation 

are between 18.8 and 19.9, and you at the end of ten get to about 

19.3, somewhere in the midpoint. 

So, I think this is a debate that is going to continue. I think we 

have a little bit of breathing room because of hard actions you have 

taken and the Congress has taken. But, anyone that thinks that 

we are going to be able to solve this problem without revenues 

being a significant portion of the mix and that any kind of lookback alone basis is going to get us there, because even with entitlement reform, we have this demographic bulge—so, I am running 

out of time. I wanted to make that statement. 

The quick point I will make is you have raised repatriation as 

a one-time payment for infrastructure. Congressman Delaney and 

Senator Blunt and I are looking at that. I would simply ask you 

to comment on that, as well as there are some more modest proposals. We had a bipartisan five-and-five BRIDGE Act last year 

that also dealt with infrastructure financing. And, do you think we 

need to consolidate those infrastructure financing programs we 

have got in a single place? 

Mr. DONOVAN. So— 

Senator WARNER. Maybe you can take it for the record. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. DONOVAN. Good. I will be happy to do that. 

Chairman ENZI. Thank you for doing that. 

Senator GRAHAM. Senator GRAHAM. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I would expect when we do our budget, and I know we will under 

Senator Enzi’s leadership, that you will probably like our budget 

about as much as we like yours. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator GRAHAM. But, at the end of the day, there seems to be 

some common ground here. The idea that sequestration needs to be 

fixed, I agree with you, Mr. Donovan. At the end of the sequestration as we have it today under the Budget Control Act, what percent of GDP will be spent on defense? 

Mr. DONOVAN. I do not have that number in front of me. If you 

do, you tell me, but— 

Senator GRAHAM. Well, it depends on who you talk to. Between 

2.3 percent and 2.7 percent. In terms of historical averages since 

World War II, what have we been spending on defense? 

Mr. DONOVAN. Significantly higher than that. 

Senator GRAHAM. Yes. So, I think that is the—do you agree that 

the threats in the world do not justify going to 2.7, 2.3 percent? 

Mr. DONOVAN. We fully agree, and this budget makes clear that 

sequestration is a threat to our military readiness and we ought to 

reverse it. 

Senator GRAHAM. Back to Senator Sessions’ questions, you do 

spend more than the Budget Control Act cap. You say you spend— 

you account for it by offsetting and mandatory. I think Senator 

Portman may challenge that a bit. But, there is a desire by some 

of us on the committee to replace sequestration, at least most of it, 

with a revenue component and a mandatory reform component. I 

just want to be in the camp of saying that I am not going to sup-
103 

port a budget that continues to gut the military. And, it is just not 

the military. It is the CDC, the NIH, and a lot of other programs. 

So, I support the idea you are trying to achieve. I just do not know 

if I agree with the methodology. 

About the workforce, how many workers do we have per retiree 

today in the workforce? 

Mr. DONOVAN. Uh— 

Senator GRAHAM. It is three. 

Mr. DONOVAN. Okay. 

Senator GRAHAM. Okay. When I was born in 1955, it was 16. Unless there is a baby boom among 60-year-olds, I think we are in 

trouble. In 20 years, it goes to two. Does that make sense to you? 

Mr. DONOVAN. Absolutely. 

Senator GRAHAM. That we are living longer and having fewer 

children. A lot of Western nations face this problem, is that correct? 

Mr. DONOVAN. Absolutely. 

Senator GRAHAM. Does that not cry out for rational immigration 

reform? Where do the new workers come from? 

Mr. DONOVAN. I could not agree with you more, Senator. 

Senator GRAHAM. So, those who say, on our side or any other 

side, that we are glutted with workers, you are not looking at 

America the way it is, and you are obviously not running a business, because if you are in the business world, you are having a 

hard time getting high-skilled workers. And, if you are in the manual labor world, you are having a hard time getting workers. So, 

I just reject the idea that we do not need workers. We do. We just 

need to pick the workers. We need a rational way of choosing an 

economic-based immigration system rather than just chaos. 

When we talk about America in the future and the challenges we 

face, probably the biggest challenge domestically is the retirement 

of the Baby Boom population. Do you agree with that? 

Mr. DONOVAN. Yes, I do. 

Senator GRAHAM. There are about 80 million of us, and that is 

why you need immigration to replace us in the workforce. But, is 

it fairly accurate that by 2042, if nothing changes, we will be 

spending all the money we collect in taxes just to pay for the Medicare-Social Security bill? 

Mr. DONOVAN. Sounds about right. 

Senator GRAHAM. So, just pause for a second. Unless something 

changes, all the money we are going to collect in taxes in the future, whether it is 17.5 or 19-point-whatever, is going to go to pay 

for two government programs, Medicare and Social Security. There 

will be no money left to invest in infrastructure. There will be 

money left to invest in the military unless you have massive borrowing. Do you agree with me that the challenge of our generation 

is to find a way to change that dynamic, to make Medicare and Social Security sustainable without taking all the revenue? 

Mr. DONOVAN. I guess I would put a few caveats on that. One, 

we need to do that in a way that keeps our promises to those who 

have paid into the system— 

Senator GRAHAM. I agree with that. We are not talking about divesting people. We are talking about long-term structural changes, 

means-testing benefits, adjusting the age of retirement. But, we 
104 

also need revenue. So, what I am willing to do is work with you 

and other members of the committee to find a way to structurally 

adjust these entitlement programs. 

In terms of revenue, if you took all the money the top one percent made, every penny of it, would it balance the budget? 

Mr. DONOVAN. Uh— 

Senator GRAHAM. The answer is no. 

Mr. DONOVAN. I do not think that it would— 

Senator GRAHAM. If you took every penny out of the Defense Department, would it balance the budget? 

Mr. DONOVAN. It would not. 

Senator GRAHAM. Okay. So, you are not going to tax your way 

into prosperity and you are not going to cut your way into prosperity. You eventually have to reform entitlements to sustain an 

America that is not going to become Greece. Does that make sense? 

Mr. DONOVAN. It does, and, in fact, our budget has $400 billion 

of savings in Medicare and Medicaid. And, I could not agree with 

you more that immigration reform is perhaps the single most important thing we can do to improve the solvency of Social Security 

going forward. It saves close to a trillion dollars over 20 years in 

terms of reducing deficits. 

Chairman ENZI. Senator Merkley. 

Senator MERKLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you for your 

presentation, Mr. Donovan. 

If we step back to the central theme of the budget, you are laying 

out a vision in which, right now, under our economy, we have high 

income inequality, high wealth inequality, all new income is going 

to the one percent or a fraction of the one percent, and you are saying, and correct me if I am wrong, because I want to summarize 

this, that we can proceed to invest more in education, ranging from 

early childhood right on through higher education, we can invest 

more in infrastructure, we can invest more in R&D, and that your 

budget presents a way to pay for these so that you actually have 

a net decrease in the deficit from current law. 

Mr. DONOVAN. That is absolutely correct. 

Senator MERKLEY. Well, I want to applaud you and the President 

for laying out a vision that changes the path our nation is on right 

now. Imagine that you have a family, a large family of 100 people, 

and that family is working together, but all the income that comes 

into that family goes to just one member of that family. I think the 

other—the balance of the family would feel that that was not an 

equal opportunity arrangement. Would you agree? 

Mr. DONOVAN. I would. 

Senator MERKLEY. And, it would be an arrangement in which, 

well, that one member of the family would prosper greatly, but everyone else who has basic challenges and hopes and opportunities 

would find those doors or opportunities closing because all the revenue from that family is going to just one member. 

And, I look at the conversation from my constituents who are 

seeing the incredible inflation in tuition for higher education, and 

they are looking at that and they are saying, why is it that our father’s generation, our father and mother’s generation, managed to 

provide lower-cost higher education to us so that we might thrive, 

the middle class might thrive, and that we have been failing in 
105 

that? And, you are saying we need to correct that. We may need 

to open the doors of opportunity to higher education. 

Mr. DONOVAN. Absolutely right. In fact, the President’s proposal 

to make two years of community college free is really based on the 

idea—many thought decades ago that we could not make high 

school universally available. We need to make at least two years 

of community college universally available and this is a critical 

step in terms of doing it, if we are going to prepare our workforce 

for the future. 

Senator MERKLEY. I had a chance to give a commencement 

speech to three community colleges last year and I think that the 

working class families who were represented there, both those who 

were going through college and the families who came to celebrate 

their graduation, would believe that that was a pretty good idea, 

to open those doors of opportunity wider. 

Mr. DONOVAN. Absolutely, and, look, it has to begin, as you know 

well, Senator, from the very beginning, whether it is quality preK programs, ensuring that American families can pay for child 

care. That is why we expand the Child Care Credit up to $3,000 

per family. So, it is a broad range of investments right up through 

college and training and apprenticeships, which are doubled under 

our budget, that are critical. 

Senator MERKLEY. And, let me go back to one part of the plan 

and my family of 100 members that I was speaking of, where one 

member of the 100 is getting all of the new revenue that the family 

is generating. But, also, that one member out of the 100 is getting 

fabulous tax breaks, and you are proposing that some of that 

wasteful spending in tax giveaways needs to be adjusted for a fundamental issue of fairness and to invest those revenues instead in 

a better deal for the middle class. 

Mr. DONOVAN. That is exactly right. As our tax system stands 

today, there is hundreds of billions of dollars each year in capital 

gains that avoid taxation because of this, the current system for 

what we call stepped-up basis in capital gains. 

Similarly, on the capital gains rate, all we are saying is let us 

go back to the 28 percent rate that the country had under President Reagan, and we think that that will establish—those are two 

steps of many that could begin to establish more fairness in the tax 

code. 

Senator MERKLEY. Thank you very much. 

Chairman ENZI. Senator Johnson. 

Senator JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Donovan, welcome back. I want to spend a little bit of time, 

some short answers on things that I think we agree on. You talked 

about economic growth. Senator Sanders did. That is a major component of solving this problem, economic growth, correct? 

Mr. DONOVAN. That is correct. 

Senator JOHNSON. From 2009 to last fiscal year, can you also 

confirm we have actually increased revenue to the Federal Government by $916 billion per year? 

Mr. DONOVAN. I do not have that number— 

Senator JOHNSON. Would you agree it went from $2.1 trillion to $3 trillion, over $900 billion. Eight-hundred-and-seventy-four billion of that was just due to meager economic growth. Only $42 bil-
106 

lion was attributed to that fiscal cliff tax deal. So, I am just trying 

to point out that economic growth really does provide the revenue 

Senator Warner was talking about. We need to concentrate on that. 

To personalize this, look, it is important for us to point out why 

debt is such a problem. If you are a family in debt over your head, 

it is kind of hard to grow your personal economy, is it not, because 

the debt collectors are knocking on the door and anything past subsistence spending is really spent to service the debt, is that correct? 

Mr. DONOVAN. I guess I would say if you are not investing in 

education and other critical things for your family— 

Senator JOHNSON. But, if you are in debt over your head— 

Mr. DONOVAN. —hard to grow your— 

Senator JOHNSON. —you do not even have the money to invest 

in that, as Senator Graham was talking about, because so much of 

your income is being spent just servicing the debt. I mean, is that 

not what happens with a family? And the same thing is true on a 

national basis. 

Let me ask you one other thing. If you are going to solve a problem, is not the first step to solve a problem admitting you have one 

and then properly defining it? Would you agree with that? 

Mr. DONOVAN. I guess I would say our budget does take on the 

key drivers— 

Senator JOHNSON. I am not talking about your budget— 

Mr. DONOVAN. —of the long-term debt— 

Senator JOHNSON. I am just talking about solving your problem. 

You have got to admit you have one and properly define it, correct? 

Mr. DONOVAN. Uh— 

Senator JOHNSON. Let us go to the charts. I would think that we 

do not have just a ten-year budget window problem, although I realize that is what your budget is confined to. We have a 30-year 

demographic problem. You talked about that. The Baby Boom generation, we are retiring 3,000 to 10,000 people today. We have 

made all these promises and we really do not have a way to pay 

for them. 

And, by the way, I have to challenge Senator Sanders. We want 

to save Social Security and Medicare. That is our goal. We want 

to save it and make it sustainable for future generations. 

But, this is a chart of the CBO’s alternate fiscal scenario in 

terms of deficits over the next 30 years. Does this look pretty accurate to you? About $9 trillion—you are saying about $8 trillion in 

the first ten years, which is the budget window we are talking 

about now, but then $31 trillion in the next decade, $87 trillion in 

the third decade, for a whopping total of $126 trillion of deficits 

over the next 30 years. That is pretty accurate according to CBO’s 

alternate fiscal scenario, correct? 

Mr. DONOVAN. Well, I think that is before our policy, which, as 

I said earlier— 

Senator JOHNSON. Well, let us— 

Mr. DONOVAN. —not just over the ten-year window, but over the 

25-year window— 

Senator JOHNSON. Let us talk about the— 

Mr. DONOVAN. —would stabilize debt as a share of GDP, which 

is, again, this does not measure it as a share of the economy. CBO 

says that the right way to measure it is as a share of the economy. 
107 

Senator JOHNSON. So, now, if you take a look at that $126 trillion, that is comprised of about $15 trillion of deficits in Social Security, about $35 trillion of deficits in the Medicare program, and 

then $71 trillion of interest on the debt, okay. So, again, talking 

to, or responding to what Senator Graham was talking about, interest starts dwarfing all the other problems. 

Let me go to the next chart here, because I realize these are projections, so we really have to kind of compare how likely is this, 

and all I really have to go on is history. So, what we have done 

is we have just taken total Federal spending over the last 30 years 

compared to this 30-year alternate fiscal scenario just for reasonableness. So, entitlements over the last 30 years, we spent about 

7.9 percent of GDP on entitlements. We are looking at about $13.3 

trillion, and, by the way, when I was working with Sylvia Burwell, 

the White House figures about $14 trillion. Defense the last 30 

years, about 4.1. The alternate fiscal scenario is 3.5. All other 

spending, 6.4 over the last 30 years. The alternate fiscal scenario 

is six. And then, of course, interest is a plug. To me, if anything, 

the alternate fiscal scenario might be understating the size of the 

problem. 

My question to you, in your budget deliberations, are you looking 

at the 30-year problem? And, if you are, what has the President included in his budget to address the long-term unsustainability of 

both Social Security and Medicare, because those are what drives 

the debts, which does produce $71 trillion of interest payment. 

Mr. DONOVAN. So, the three key things that I think we could all 

agree are really driving these deficits and debt over the long term, 

health care costs, a lack of enough workers, as we talked about earlier, relative to the number of retirees that we have, and having 

adequate revenue, and all of these key things that we attack in our 

budget, the impacts grow over time. And, so, whether it is the capital gains reforms and others that grow substantially in the second 

decade and beyond, immigration reform, which grows from $160 

billion of deficit reduction in the first decade to $700 billion in the 

second decade and more beyond that, or many of the health care 

changes, the $400 billion in the first decade grows to a trillion dollars in the second decade. So, we are absolutely focused on making 

smart choices that would grow in impact over time with a focus on 

the deficit— 

Senator JOHNSON. You are talking about a trillion and we are 

looking at $126 trillion. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman ENZI. Senator Baldwin. 

Senator BALDWIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Mr. Chairman, 

I would ask that I be allowed to offer a longer statement for the 

record, but I wanted to jump— 

Chairman ENZI. In writing? 

Senator BALDWIN. Pardon? 

Chairman ENZI. In writing? 

Senator BALDWIN. Yes. 

Chairman ENZI. Without objection. 

Senator BALDWIN. The writing does not count against the time 

clock here. 
108 

So, thank you, Director Donovan. I am pleased to see that the 

President’s overall budget focuses on an issue that every one of us 

cares about deeply here, which is ensuring that every American 

has a chance to share in the benefits of economic growth in this 

nation. 

Before I get to a couple of specific questions on areas relating to 

that growth, I wanted to outline two areas which I believe fall 

short that have not been given much attention, and I hope that our 

committee will give it great attention as we move forward. 

You know, the Great Lakes are 84 percent of North America’s 

surface fresh water and over 20 percent of the world’s surface fresh 

water, but yet for a second year in a row, the administration has 

recommended cutting funding for the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative, this time by $50 million. I know for myself and many of the 

other Senators who represent the Great Lakes, this is really a nonstarter. We have the warning signs all around us right now, whether it is what we saw last summer in Toledo, the threat of invasive 

species, and the Great Lakes are such an incredibly important 

asset. So, I look forward to working with the committee on that, 

but I feel like this is a way in which the budget has fallen short. 

Another area that I wanted to just quickly touch on is Critical 

Access Hospitals. You know, rural access to—the administration 

has placed a priority on access to health care, yet rural access is 

a major challenge. Many of us represent States with many rural 

areas, and the economics of rural health care are unique. And, the 

cuts that have been proposed for Critical Access Hospitals, I think, 

will create real harm in our communities. 

Now, back to some specifics on ways in which this budget can 

spur economic growth. We have seen the stock market surging 

back in recent years, but wages have remained stagnant, as the 

Ranking Member outlined in his opening remarks, in many cases 

fallen in adjusted dollars. And while this is obviously a huge problem in the aggregate, when you listen to the stories of hard working families who are trying to get ahead, it is heartbreaking. 

In my State, one of the key engines of economic growth, one of 

the key ladders to accessing the middle class is our manufacturing 

economy, our manufacturing sector. And, I was pleased to see that 

there is continued focus in this area in the administration’s budget 

proposal. It was two years ago in this committee that I offered an 

amendment on the issue of Manufacturing Institutes across the 

country. It was accepted on a voice vote and in our last fiscal year 

2015 funding legislation. It is now signed into law, authorizing 

these Manufacturing Institutes across the country. I was proud to 

support that effort. 

You also have an initiative called the American Made Scale-Up 

Fund to help emerging American made advance manufacturing 

technologies reach commercial scale production in the U.S. 

So, I want to talk—I would like you to talk about the seven new 

Institutes that have been proposed in the President’s budget. What 

areas are you going to focus on here? And, secondly, can you explain the American Made Scale-Up Fund? How does the administration envision this coming about, and how do you make sure that 

it is not duplicative of other existing Federal programs? 
109 

Mr. DONOVAN. Senator, thank you for asking about this. This 

really has been a bright spot in our recovery, more growth in manufacturing jobs than we have seen in decades in the U.S. And, specifically, thank you for recognizing the great bipartisan work that 

was done—we were very excited about it—to get these Manufacturing Institutes authorized. 

What this budget would do is provide both discretionary and 

mandatory funding to get up to the full 45 Institutes that the 

President called for initially, and those are the Departments of 

Commerce, Agriculture, Defense, Energy would all be engaged in 

Institutes that are specifically targeted to areas that they are 

working on, whether clean energy, new agricultural advances, and 

others. 

In terms of this Start-Up Fund, what it is really targeted to that 

we have not done in other ways—we do great basic research in this 

country, and, in fact, the budget proposes to scale up our investment in basic research. What is missing, we think, is a public-private effort that would really take the most promising technologies 

and get them to scale where we could really do manufacturing at 

a scale that would create new industries and drive large-scale job 

growth. So, the idea of this Start-Up Fund is to provide a credit 

subsidy, to use the technical term in our budget, that would allow 

us to raise private capital towards these promising technologies 

and scale them up to really put them into practice and create hundreds of thousands of jobs. 

Chairman ENZI. Senator Ayotte. 

Senator AYOTTE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I wanted to ask you, does interest do anything for us? The interest that we pay, does it do anything productive for us? 

Mr. DONOVAN. No. 

Senator AYOTTE. Okay. So, if it does nothing productive for us, 

are you not concerned at all as we look at the budget proposal 

when we get to 2021, which is not too far off, that we are already 

spending more on interest than defense? We have already had the 

discussion previously that as we look at 2025, interest payments 

essentially are exceeding defense and non-defense payments. We 

are in a position where that is a huge chunk of 12 percent that 

does nothing for us, on what we are spending that money? 

Mr. DONOVAN. So, I think the fundamental point you are making 

is that the budget needs to take steps that reduce our debt so that 

interest payments are lower than they would otherwise be, and— 

Senator AYOTTE. But, my question is, are you concerned at all 

when you look at the over-tripling of the interest doing nothing for 

us over the ten-year window, which, as I understand, goes from 

$229 billion we are spending in interest now to $785 billion of 

doing nothing for the American people—no infrastructure, no education, no defending the nation, nothing? 

Mr. DONOVAN. And, that is exactly why our budget focuses on 

and achieves $1.8 trillion in deficit reduction— 

Senator AYOTTE. Well— 

Mr. DONOVAN. —and in the long run, puts debt as a share of the 

economy on a—stabilizes it and puts it on a declining path. 

Senator AYOTTE. Well, let me just make clear for the American 

people that are watching this hearing, that you think that stabi-
110 

lizing in a good scenario is tripling-plus our interest payments over 

ten years, getting us in a position where we are spending more on 

interest than we are defending the nation, getting us in a position 

where we are spending more on interest than we are on education, 

infrastructure, protecting the environment, and all the other things 

that the Federal Government does. You and I just have a disagreement on whether this is a productive way to look at things, and 

I know that the American people will decide themselves on what 

they think about that. 

I wanted to ask you about the solvency—we have talked about 

the demographic problems that we have with Medicare and Social 

Security, and the numbers that I have gotten the demographic 

challenge as we look at it is very immediate. It is more than a demographic challenge when it comes to the Social Security Disability 

Fund, because as I understand it, the Trustees have said that the 

fund will be exhausted in 2016, which is next year. Does the President’s budget do anything to address the structural issues or the 

fact that this Disability Fund is going to be fully exhausted next 

year? And, I am worried because the people who really need this, 

if we ignore this, they will only be able to pay them 81 percent of 

disability benefits. Do you do anything about that in the budget? 

Mr. DONOVAN. We are very concerned, as well. The most simple, 

direct step that we can take, a step that has been taken many 

times before under both parties, is a small reallocation of the payroll tax, and we ought to take that step and make sure that those 

who have earned these benefits get those benefits. In addition— 

Senator AYOTTE. I do not mean to interrupt you, because I do not 

have a lot of time, but I just want to be clear: What you are doing 

is basically ignoring the fact that it is exhausted and transferring 

the money? 

Mr. DONOVAN. Senator— 

Senator AYOTTE. Let us just be honest. When you say ‘‘a small 

reallocation,’’ that is transferring the money, and yet it is a system 

that already, as we look overall, is going insolvent. So, we are 

transferring the money from one pot to another. We are not solving 

the problem. 

Mr. DONOVAN. Senator, if you would let me finish, please. The 

combined funds remain solvent until 2033. But, we are taking 

steps. On the disability side specifically, we have a number of steps 

in the budget that will ensure that those who actually are due the 

benefits get those, and a number of pilots and other efforts that 

will ensure that anyone who can work is able to. And, so, we do 

take steps there. 

And, in the longer run on Social Security, again, the demographic 

challenges, comprehensive immigration reform is one of the most 

important steps that we can take to make sure that Social Security 

is solvent going forward. 

Senator AYOTTE. As I look at this budget, I do not see steps in 

here that are going to solve this problem by 2016 or any real meaningful steps. But since you have just said that they are in there, 

I would like a specific answer to my question for the record. Thank 

you. 

Mr. DONOVAN. Happy to do that. 

Chairman ENZI. Since Senator Kaine is not here, Senator King. 
111 

Senator KING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I would echo a lot of the comments of my colleague from New 

Hampshire and point out that that interest may not do much for 

us, but it is doing great things for the Chinese, who are using it 

to build airports and highways and such. 

I find myself in agreement with both sides of the debate, and I 

would suggest, Mr. Chairman, it would be a useful exercise to convene this committee in a workshop to get us all together to have 

the kind of discussion that we are having in the context of this 

hearing about revenues, debt, deficit, interest, and threats to the 

economy. I think we could all benefit from sharing those views. 

I agree with my colleagues who talk about debt and deficit. We 

cannot ignore interest. And the fact that has been pointed out numerous times today, that even under your projection, CBO projections, interest will exceed defense, interest will exceed—it will almost equal Social Security, it is a gigantic expenditure that really 

does nothing for us and it is going to eat up all the programs that 

everybody likes. Whether you like defense or Head Start or whatever, it is going to crowd those programs out. So, I agree with that. 

I think that is a very—the debt and the deficit is a serious problem, and to me, lowering the deficit is progress, but it is not an answer because the hole is still getting deeper. So, I think we really 

need to think about that. 

On the other hand, as Senator Johnson pointed out, the best way 

to get out of this mess is through economic growth, and there are 

several strategies for economic growth that involve spending 

money. Infrastructure is probably the most important one. Abraham Lincoln at the age of 23, when he first ran for the Illinois legislature, put out a pamphlet talking about investing in roads and 

waterways. There was something called the American Plan in the 

1800s. Henry Clay was a big advocate. And, it was an infrastructure plan, because that is the basis upon which the economy depends, and we are doing a woeful job of underfunding our infrastructure at this time. 

The other big way to grow the economy is through education. The 

biggest economic stimulus program of the Federal Government in 

the history of the United States was the G.I. Bill after World War 

II, which sent millions of people to college for the first time and 

really expanded—it was the basis for the expansion of the middle 

class. Both of those things involve money and expenditures. 

So, how do we get out of the problem? How do we grow the economy, make the expenditures that we have to make, at the same 

time, not digging ourselves deeper into the deficit hole? And, it 

seems to me that there are three or four strategies that we ought 

to put together into a comprehensive strategy. 

One is, we do have to look at Federal expenditures and make 

sure they make sense and that they are not duplicative. The idea 

that every Federal expenditure made is perfect and good and useful 

and effective and efficacious just—you know, that does not pass the 

straight face test. So, we have to look at that. 

Number two, we have to look at the structural health care costs. 

That is one of the biggest drivers of the deficit, is health care costs. 

It is not National Parks. It is not defense. It is the sheer cost of 

health care costs. This fellow Steven Brill has written a whole book 
112 

about how ridiculously expensive it is to be treated in this country, 

twice as expensive per capita as anywhere else in the world. The 

reason health care costs are so expensive is that they are expensive— 

[Laughter.] 

Senator KING. —and we need to focus on structural changes, 

which I know the Affordable Care Act does, at least in some areas 

of pilot programs, but that has to be a national priority. If we just 

continue as we are and let health care costs, fee-for-service, continue to drive the kind of escalation, which, unfortunately, may recover shortly, we will never get out of this hole. 

And, then, the next strategy is some kind of revenues. We cannot 

deal with the demographic problem if we do not look at revenues. 

My concern—and I am interested in a Balanced Budget Amendment. I think that something that puts some constraint makes 

sense. On the other hand, if you add the Balanced Budget Amendment and the No-Tax Pledge, it creates a ratchet effect that you 

will never solve any of these problems and you will eventually 

squeeze out everything else, as you pointed out, payments to the 

elderly. 

There has got to be some relief built into that, and that is where 

I think we need to have some discussion about revenues. And, I do 

not know what the right number is, whether it is 19 percent, 20 

percent, but we have to take account of the fact that we have got 

this pig in the python, which is the retirement of the Baby 

Boomers, and that is going to end at a certain point. By the way, 

somebody said, in the long run—a famous philosopher once said, in 

the long run, we are all dead. But, the demographic reality of the 

next 25 years has got to be dealt with and we cannot just say, well, 

we are going to maintain taxes at historical levels and, therefore, 

meet all the obligations to the national defense and cover the costs 

of our commitments to the elderly. 

So, it seems to me it has got to be a combined strategy of acknowledging the problem, number two, smart reductions in expenditures, health care cost reductions, revenues, probably from tax expenditures, and investments in proven job growth strategy, like infrastructure and education. 

I apologize. There is not a question in there, Mr. Donovan. I did 

want to make one point. Congratulations on getting us a budget on 

time. That has not happened before in recent history, and I think 

you are due some credit for that. Thank you. 

Mr. DONOVAN. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, could I take a moment? Is that— 

Chairman ENZI. His time has expired. You can send us your answer. 

Mr. DONOVAN. Happy to do that. 

Chairman ENZI. Senator Corker. We are going to have a vote 

that we are trying to get everything in before. 

Senator CORKER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I appreciated 

Senator King’s comments. I do want to say, I do not want to volunteer to die quickly to solve the Social Security problem— 

[Laughter.] 

Senator CORKER. —but I know that is a part of the solution. So, 

to our— 
113 

Senator KING. I did not mean it that way. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator CORKER. To our OMB head, thank you for bringing the 

budget in on time. I do think the focus on percentage of GDP, the 

74.2 percent and keeping it steady—what we see happening year 

after year after year is people do not take into account things that 

happened like happened in 2008 and 2009, and so even though that 

is what you project to occur, obviously, that is under somewhat 

rosy circumstances and, likely, things will happen in the interim. 

That is what happens in the world that we govern. 

I happen to think that a balanced budget is one that keeps our 

nation strongest. I think that, you know, the greatest threat to our 

national security today is really our inability to grapple with these 

issues. 

The CBO Director was in here saying that, look, debt and deficits 

harm the standard of living of Americans, and yet as projected in 

your budget, that just continues ad infinitum. It also slows growth, 

especially when you get to where we are in the cycle, where we are 

having an almost full recovery. That hurts the standard of living 

of Americans. 

So, basically, the way this budget is laid out, what we are doing, 

if we were to take this up, is we would be hurting the standard 

of living of Americans over time more and more and more. 

I am a little disappointed that you guys took a powder, if you 

will, on the highway program. Basically, we have not solved one 

single problem since I have been here—not one. You know, we keep 

kicking the can down the road. I have been here eight years. You 

have been here six. We have not solved one single problem. 

And, instead of solving the infrastructure problem, you all took 

some easy money. It probably will not work that way, but I do wish 

that you all had looked at that in a more serious way and put it 

on a steady pattern. And, I think all of us know, putting a lot of 

money quickly into infrastructure, more than it has been in the 

past, usually, candidly, leads to waste and not planning things out 

in an appropriate way. 

Spending has been, over the last 50 years, at 20.1 percent, and 

under current law, mandatory spending will be at 14.2 percent at 

the end of ten years, in your budget 14.8, and that, obviously, as 

everyone has said, creates huge problems. For 50 years, revenues 

have been 17.4 percent and spending has been at 20.1. That has 

been with Republican Congresses, Republican Presidents, Democratic Congresses, Democratic Presidents. 

And, so, I actually agree, we have a revenue problem and a 

spending problem. And, as Senator Johnson mentioned, the best 

way to generate revenues is through robust economic growth. But, 

we certainly have a problem on both sides. It is my belief that we 

need to go through in good periods times of balanced budgets and 

actually surpluses, and then in bad times, there may be a need to 

have some deficits. But, what we continue to do is bank on deficits 

forever. 

So, I just have one question. I know this is, generally speaking, 

sort of the wish list, some people might say an ideological budget. 

I do not want to be pejorative when I say this, but I saw a large 

stack of budget documents on a table this morning on the front 
114 

page of one of the papers and I thought, you know, how sad, wasteful. I mean, those are all going to sort of be in the circular file after 

today. A lot of work, but it is an aspirational budget that is not 

going to be adopted and you know that. It says some things that 

you would like to see happen. 

My question is this. Republicans can pass a budget—have to pass 

a budget, have to pass it in both bodies, and if we do it alone, the 

likelihood is we will nibble at some of these issues but we will not 

solve the problem because the President then will override the 

things that we may put forth. So, for us to really deal with these 

issues with a President who has only two years left and has had 

the opportunity to sort of lay out what he would like to see happen, 

but knows it is not, do you discern any desire on the behalf of the 

administration to sit down with all of us and work towards a budget proposal that is painful to all, but really solves the problem? 

Mr. DONOVAN. Senator, absolutely, and, in fact, we constructed 

our budget building on, really, what was a bipartisan precedent in 

Murray-Ryan, which said we know discretionary spending is too 

low. We know that, in the long run, that our challenges are on the 

mandatory and on the revenue side. And, what we ought to do— 

and this is what our budget does—is more than fully pay for a dollar-for-dollar increase on the defense and non-defense side in discretionary spending with reductions on the mandatory and new 

revenues. 

That is the model that we used. We think it is a model that we 

can build on. It is what got us back to regular order on budgeting. 

It is what helped grow our economy and create more jobs, because 

we got rid of mindless austerity and manufactured crises. And, we 

stand ready, because of the model that we have used in our budget, 

to do exactly that kind of bipartisan discussion this year and use 

it to build on to solve our short-run and long-term challenges. 

Senator CORKER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman ENZI. Senator Perdue. 

Senator PERDUE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Donovan, thank you, as well, for providing this budget on 

time. I am the rookie here, and the benefit of that is I am your last 

Senator. 

Mr. DONOVAN. Me, too, Senator. 

Senator PERDUE. You have run out of Senators here today. 

I would like to submit a couple of questions later, though, in 

writing. 

I just have one question, and that is the severity of this debt and 

your opinion that it is sustainable at about 95 percent of GDP. 

First of all, I personally disagree that GDP should be the denominator. I think revenue should be the denominator. But, I want to 

read you a quote and put this in context, this question. This is a 

quote from President Obama, June 3, 2008. ‘‘The problem is that 

the way Bush has done it over the last eight years is to take a 

credit card from the Bank of China in the name of our children, 

driving up our national debt from $5 trillion for the first 42 Presidents. Bush 43 added $4 trillion by his lonesome, so that we now 

have over $9 trillion of debt that we are going to have to pay back. 

That is $30,000 for every man, woman, and child. That is irresponsible.’’ 
115 

Let me put it in context. In the year 2000, our debt-to-GDP was 55 percent of GDP. In 2010—or 2008, actually—we added $4 trillion to roughly a $6 trillion debt, and since 2008, we have—in the 

last six years, we have added $8 trillion to that debt, and this 

budget takes it up to $26 trillion. You know, the problem is, right 

now, at $18 trillion, if interest rates—and this is the way—I am 

really concerned about the forecast of interest rates, because if you 

look at the sensitivity analysis and you took interest rates just to 

the 30-year average, we would already be paying close to a trillion 

dollars in interest today. I just do not think that is sustainable on 

a $4 trillion revenue source, roughly. 

And, so, when I look at this thing—and that is one problem. The 

second problem is these future unfunded liabilities that Senator 

Johnson highlights so eloquently and we really do not address. You 

commented a couple times that the Social Security-Medicare problem really accelerates in the second decade, and I am really concerned that if you look at this thing, those $100-plus trillion of liabilities added to the $18 trillion we have right now, we can characterize it any way you want to, but if you look at it per household, 

which is really the way things get paid in this country, that is over 

a million dollars per household in America today. Frankly, I do not 

personally think that is sustainable. Social Security, Medicare and 

Medicaid, pension benefits for Federal employees, and our interest 

payments, these are all contributors. We have talked about it. But, 

a million dollars per household brings it home for me and my constituents. 

So, my question is this. Looking at the second decade and the 

third decade and kicking this can down the road, how should we 

look at a debt that is 95 percent of GDP, some five or six times 

our revenue, as being sustainable? 

And, let me give you one little anecdote. You know, it occurs to 

me that this is a national security issue, Mr. Donovan, and I do 

not say that lightly. Right now, we have these treaties with a lot 

of countries around the world. One of those is Taiwan, and that 

treaty says that if the country of Taiwan is invaded by the country 

of China, we have to go to Taiwan and defend Taiwan against 

China. The problem when borrowing this much money every year, 

to do that, we have to borrow the money from China to go to Taiwan and defend Taiwan against China. That is an anecdote that 

is not lost on my constituents and they want to know when we are 

going to balance this budget and how we get after the long-term 

imbalance of these mandatory expenditures coming in the second 

and third decade. 

So, my question is simply this. The word ‘‘sustainability’’ is very 

tricky. I get it. You said this is sustainable at 95 and declining. I 

disagree. I do not think it is sustainable, but I would love to get 

your opinion about why that is sustainable, given the vagaries of 

the capital markets around the world and the volatility of interest 

rates that we have seen over the last 30 years. 

Mr. DONOVAN. So, first of all, Senator, recognize that when we 

came into office, we were facing enormously difficult fiscal circumstances and we have brought down the deficit by more than 

two-thirds with a broad set of steps, and that the steps that we 

have already taken have substantially reduced long-run deficits 
116 

and debt, whether it is bringing down health care costs, a range 

of other steps that we have taken on economic growth. As I said 

earlier, we agree that we need to focus on those long-term steps, 

and reducing the growth in health care costs— 

Senator PERDUE. With the time remaining—I am sorry to interrupt, but would you—you still think that 95 percent of GDP, that 

that debt, that that is sustainable. I am talking in the second and 

third decade out here past our projections in this budget. 

Mr. DONOVAN. Our budget is not at 95 percent of GDP. Under 

current law, it would rise up to 81 percent of GDP. Our budget 

changes that, brings it down in the ten-year window to 73 percent 

and would actually keep it stabilized throughout the 25-year window, which is really, as we talked about earlier, when these demographic challenges are hitting us most strongly. And, that is why 

I say it is sustainable. 

Senator PERDUE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman ENZI. Thank you. 

Senator Portman, who used to be in your position. 

Mr. DONOVAN. As he reminded me at my confirmation hearing. 

Congratulations. You have been nominated to the worst job in 

Washington. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. DONOVAN. But, it is also the best. 

Senator PORTMAN. Exactly, and my worst day was the day you 

are experiencing right now. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator PORTMAN. And, then, let me just start by saying you are 

doing a fine job defending a budget that I think is very difficult to 

defend, because I just do not think it comes close to meeting the 

challenge. And, look, I think you have done a good job defending 

it, but I think we have to set the record straight on a few things. 

This notion that this budget, as you said earlier, is all about— 

in response to Senator Corker’s question—following the Ryan-Murray proposal of less mandatory spending and breaking the caps and 

more discretionary spending. It is not. I think, perhaps because you 

wanted the last few years to look good, this is the reality, and I 

will give you the numbers. I am not really asking you a question 

here, because these are what the numbers are. 

Spending on the discretionary side actually goes from 6.5 percent 

now down to 4.5 percent of GDP. Defense actually goes from 3.5 

percent down to 2.3 percent. And, I know it makes your numbers 

look better after 2022 and 2023 and 2024. So, it is $2 trillion in 

new taxes. It is a trillion dollars in new spending. You said in response to several of the questions, including Senator Sessions, that, 

no, mandatory spending is less. It is more. It is $885 billion more 

in mandatory spending. I am happy to share the charts with you, 

but that is what it shows. 

So, I like your theory that you say you guys are following, but 

the budget does not meet that standard, and I know we are going 

to have some big differences in these two budgets, but we have got 

to figure this out. I mean, I think it is very obvious what the problem is and I think you guys skirt it, and I will ask you a bunch 

of questions. 
117 

One, you are talking about you need to raise more revenue, and you do. You have over $2 trillion in new taxes. Over the first 50 

years—over the last 50 years, is it true that our taxes as a percent 

of GDP have been just under 18 percent? Is that about right? 

Mr. DONOVAN. Roughly right, but as I think it was said earlier, 

at the only time that we balanced our budget, at a time our economy was growing quickly, we actually had revenues that were up 

as high as 20 percent. And, so, particularly with the demographic 

challenges we are facing, we think that the revenue levels that we 

have are the right ones. 

Senator PORTMAN. So, just before we had this recession, 2008, 2009, we had deficits of 1.2 percent of GDP, $161 billion, and we 

had 18 percent in revenue to GDP. And, by the way, this whole notion that you guys have done so much better than you expected to 

do, the CBO baseline that you inherited in 2009, which already 

took into account the recession, as you know—in fact, it included 

all the war funding. In other words, it had much higher levels of 

spending on defense than we have actually had. The baseline there 

that CBO gave you had deficits that were half of what have occurred, $3.4 trillion versus $6.7 trillion. This year’s $468 billion 

deficit is exactly double what CBO projected for 2015 during that 

time. 

So, I mean, I do not think, by the standards that were set by the 

baseline then, again, including the recession taken into account 

and all this war spending, that it is fair to say this has been a 

breakthrough, that everything is going great, we have made all this 

progress. But, look, I think, let us continue on these questions, because I think the problem is pretty obvious, and I know you know 

what it is and we all know what it is and we are not addressing 

it. 

So, you take revenue up to 19.7 percent of GDP. Am I correct 

that discretionary spending, what we call other mandatory spending, are also falling as a percent of the economy over the long 

term? 

Mr. DONOVAN. Well, I— 

Senator PORTMAN. That is a yes or no. It is yes. You know that. 

It is falling. 

Mr. DONOVAN. Well, I think it makes the point that we are finding places, particularly on the mandatory side, where we are reducing spending, and I think— 

Senator PORTMAN. Well— 

Mr. DONOVAN. —I wanted to respond to your earlier point that, 

in fact, we are reducing spending on the mandatory side. We are 

making room on the discretionary side, but with $400 billion of reductions in Medicare and Medicaid, tens of billions of dollars in 

program integrity savings— 

Senator PORTMAN. So, let me just say— 

Mr. DONOVAN. —crop insurance, a broad range of programs— 

Senator PORTMAN. —on all those health care entitlements, 

which, as you know, is the issue, as well as Social Security and interest on the debt, that is where the whole issue is, you take it 

from increasing 105 percent, health care entitlements over the next 

ten years, to increasing 99 percent over the next ten years. I mean, 

obviously that is where the issue is. So, discretionary spending goes 
118 

down. It is 6.5 percent now. For all you on both sides of the aisle 

saying, this is great, we are going to do more discretionary spending, it does not have more discretionary spending. It has less. 

Mr. DONOVAN. I— 

Senator PORTMAN. It has less for both defense and non-defense. 

Health care entitlements do go from 105 percent to 99 percent. But, 

you know, it is 7.8 percent of GDP now. It rises to 9.8 percent. I 

know the discussion earlier was about the 20-year number. That is 

really scary, because it is just unsustainable. 

So, to sum up, we are heading toward record high tax revenues. 

In fact, on individual revenues under your budget, individual tax 

revenues go to their highest level of GDP ever, and, you know, that 

is just what it is. Near record low discretionary levels and falling, 

other mandatory. So, the variables driving the deficit are entirely 

the record levels of debt we are talking about, are entirely these 

incredibly important, vital programs that we have got to save for 

future generations. And, if we do not do that, Mr. Chairman, I am 

afraid we will have let down the people who voted us to represent 

them. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman ENZI. Thank you. 

That, to your relief, concludes our questions for this morning. 

[Laughter.] 

Chairman ENZI. I want to thank you for agreeing to testify this 

morning. We appreciate your time here with us as well as the work 

that you have done to submit a budget to for Congress by the legal 

deadline. And, we now get to work on a budget resolution by the 

legal deadline of April 15, and I look forward to working with my 

colleagues on that. 

I want to remind my colleagues that they can turn in questions 

for Director Donovan, but they are due no later than 6:00 today, 

and they have to be in writing at the Committee Clerk’s office, 

which is Dirksen 624. And, then, I am sure that Director Donovan 

will respond within seven days. 

So, with no further business before the committee, we stand adjourned. 

Mr. DONOVAN. Thank you. 

Chairman ENZI. Thank you. 

[Whereupon, at 12:04 p.m., the committee was adjourned.] 
119 
120 
121 
122 
123 
124 
125 
126 
127 
128 
129 
130 
131 
132 
133 
134 
135 
136 
137 
138 
139 
140 
141 
142 
143 
144 
145 
146 
147 
148 
149 
150 
151 
152 
153 
154 
155 

(157) 

THE COMING CRISIS: SOCIAL SECURITY 

DISABILITY TRUST FUND INSOLVENCY 

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 11, 2015 

UNITED STATES SENATE, COMMITTEE ON THE BUDGET, Washington, D.C. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:01 a.m., in Room 

SD–608, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Michael B. Enzi, 

Chairman of the Committee, presiding. 

Present: Senators Enzi, Grassley, Sessions, Crapo, Graham, 

Toomey, Ayotte, Wicker, Corker, Perdue, Sanders, Stabenow, 

Whitehouse, Merkley, Baldwin, Kaine, and King. 

Staff Present: Eric Ueland, Republican Staff Director; and Warren Gunnels, Minority Staff Director. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN ENZI 

Chairman ENZI. Good morning. I will call this hearing to order. 

I would mention that we had some regular chairs taken out so 

there would be room for wheelchairs. Both Senator Sanders and I 

serve on the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, 

and we know that the disability community is very important and 

needs to be accommodated. And we will try and do that at all the 

hearings, not just this one. 

The intention of this hearing is to have an open, bipartisan discussion on the problems caused once the Disability Insurance Trust 

Fund becomes exhausted. We also want to talk about ideas for how 

Congress and the President might work together to address these 

problems. 

I would mention that I try to get as much information in the 

hearing as possible, and you will note that in the second panel, one 

of the witnesses was a part of the Obama administration, and the 

other is an international expert on disability and comes to us with 

a lot of experience. 

I have to say that I was dismayed to learn from press reports 

and inquiries from off-the-Hill sources and, most importantly, senior citizens who rely on Social Security that the Democrats on this 

Committee released a paper accusing us of wanting to privatize Social Security. That paper and that accusation was not shared with 

me by other staff or by Senator Sanders. I am disappointed in that. 

We share offices that are just across the road from each other, and 

I hope that we can have a little more conversation on some of those 

things. 

But I want to be clear: No one on this Committee is suggesting 

that we privatize Social Security. No one on this Committee would 
158 

support cutting benefits by 19 percent, which is exactly what is 

going to happen if we do not fix the Social Security Disability Insurance Trust Fund. No one supports Social Security going bankrupt. 

The Federal Government’s primary program to assist the disabled will soon be broke, and, regrettably, President Obama is not 

doing anything to ensure that this never, ever happens again. His 

effort to paper over the problem is a classic example of Washington 

ducking a real American need. In this case, disabled Americans 

and workers deserve a long-term solution so that the program does 

not once again flirt with disaster and, more importantly, reflect the 

full ability of the disabled to contribute their talents to our country. 

As Budget Chairman, I have the ability to look closely at the operations, the functions, the programs, the Federal budget. How are 

they working? What is their impact on our budget bottom line? Are 

there ways to fix what does not work or improve the program and 

help our budget? 

One of the most amazing programs we have which touches so 

many Americans in very critical ways and impresses the world is 

what we do to support the disabled. America is a large-hearted 

country, and in reflection of our caring for some of the neediest 

among us, for almost 60 years the Federal Government has operated a Disability Insurance program. The program’s concept is simple: Employed Americans pay a small tax. In the event that they 

ever become disabled, the program provides them support if they 

can no longer work and earn a living. 

This year, the disability program will benefit up to 11 million 

Americans. These beneficiaries are our constituents. They had jobs. 

They paid a tax into the system. Then in some way at some point 

they became disabled; they could no longer work or earn a living 

or support a family. This is where the disability program stepped 

in. It lent an able hand of support so that potential income that 

was lost was in some way offset. 

But now this program is under threat, a threat that it will run 

out of money. And that is not a surprise to anyone except maybe 

the President. The officers of the Government directly responsible 

for the program have been telling the Government for years that 

it will run out of money. In fact, I think they started suggesting 

it in 1994, and they even predicted that it would be 2016 that it 

would run out of money. So this should not be any big surprise. 

Outside analysts of the program have been telling the Government 

for years that it will run out of money. The disabled community 

has been telling the Government for years that it will run out of 

money. 

Maybe I ought to say that one more time. It has been predicted. 

Suddenly the President woke up to the fact this year. Perhaps it 

is because now we know for sure not just that we will run out of 

money but, based on our own Treasury Department’s figures this 

month, when it will be broke. 

Let me put this as clearly as possible. No waffle words, no Washington word games. By December of next year or early January, 

the program will be broke if we do not fix it. And once broke, the 

law governing the program means that benefits for the disabled 

must be cut or delayed. That is just rotten. 
159 

But that is not all the bad news. Once that fund becomes insolvent, our congressional budget experts tell us the program will 

need $352 billion over the next 10 years in order to fully pay disability claims. I have a chart up over there that shows the fund 

with money, coming down to a crossover point where it does not, 

and that crossover point, of course, is next December. That is less 

than a year from that crossover. 

For Wyoming alone, this means 13,900 disabled people would 

lose $3 million in benefits. In Vermont, this means that 24,500 disabled people would have their benefits reduced by $5 million. And, 

Senator Sanders, we represent two of the smaller States. Looking 

around the Committee room, millions of additional Americans from 

all our States could see their benefit cut. 

In the face of this crisis facing 11 million Americans, what does 

the President propose to guarantee a robust and enduring program 

for them and succeeding generations? He proposes a plan that 

seems to be something but actually turns out to be nothing. Instead 

of thinking about how best the disabled—by creating a long-term 

solution, the best values for them and the program, the President 

has suggested that all we need to do is shift payroll tax revenue 

coming in from other programs to cover the shortfall in the disability program. All this does is pass the buck to another Congress 

and another President after Barack Obama leaves office. 

We had a President years ago that said, ‘‘The buck stops here.’’ 

and we need to stop the buck. 

President Obama’s transfer plan runs up the debt we owe to pay 

the retirement benefit Social Security recipients rely on. We call it 

a ‘‘trust fund.’’ Do not trust a Federal trust fund. There are not dollars stashed away anywhere. There are no dollars in the Disability 

Trust Fund, and there are no dollars in the Social Security Trust 

Fund. We actually more accurately ought to call it ‘‘accounts payable’’ because it is further debt. We spent the money. 

Most importantly, it leaves all working Americans and the disabled without certainty about the program and unable to fully live 

out their ability to live the American dream. Why do I say that? 

Well, the ability to tap human potential has changed dramatically 

since the program was first created in 1956. According to a recent 

article in The Economist, the Disability Insurance program’s whole 

design is antiquated. It presumes that people, once disabled, cannot 

work. If they do, they usually lose their benefits. Yet lots of people 

with disabilities can work. Wheelchairs did not stop FDR from becoming President or Gregg Abbott from becoming the Governor of 

Texas. 

On behalf of those who use it, we need to modernize the Disability Insurance program. In the 1950s, when workers were doing 

manual labor and they experienced a debilitating condition, many 

times that was it. They could not work anymore. But the work our 

constituents do has changed as our service and knowledge economy 

has grown significantly during the past six decades. 

Thanks to technology, people are also more likely to work from 

home. They have flexible hours and even start their own businesses. All of these changes have made it easier for those with disabilities to continue working. And studies have shown that those 
160 

with disabilities tend to be happier, healthier, and have higher incomes when they are working. 

I have another chart up here, and it shows in 1982 how many 

people had their own labor income as opposed to now and who have 

just the SSI and SSDI income. So it dropped from 23 percent down 

to 12 percent, and the reliance increased from 14 to 25 percent. 

Unfortunately, as the chart on the screen shows, the disabled 

today are less likely to earn income from working than ever before. 

This is true even after Congress passed the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 mandating changes in the workplace intended 

to facilitate employment for the disabled. Buried deep in the President’s budget are a few programs that might be a grudging acknowledgment there is much more to be done to create a disability 

system that can support the ability of disabled Americans to still 

contribute to our workforce. 

I am encouraged by some of the demonstration ideas proposed in 

the President’s budget to keep those with disabilities in the workforce. However, we need to do more without putting an additional 

burden on our finances. We should be working in partnership along 

with Republicans, Democrats, House and Senate, and the President 

to provide long-term security our disabled deserve and the program 

finances that fit our balance sheet. Together we can do better. To 

protect the most vulnerable among us, we should all agree that political gamesmanship must not get in the way of our commitment 

to help our constituents who need us the most. 

Senator SANDERS. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR SANDERS 

Senator SANDERS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Before I get into my remarks, let me respond briefly to something that you just said about some of us, and I will take that responsibility of suggesting that some of my Republican colleagues 

are looking forward to either cutting Social Security or moving to 

the privatization of Social Security. That is exactly what I said. 

And let me quote to you from the Atlanta Journal Constitution, a 

major newspaper in Georgia, from Tom Price, who, as you know, 

is the chairman—not just any Republican; he happens to be chairman of the House Budget Committee—from a January 15, 2015, 

article. I will just excerpt some of it. But he says: 

‘‘On the issue of Social Security, it has indeed been the third rail 

as Tim Chapman mentioned, and I am hopeful of what the Budget 

Committee will be able to do is to begin to normalize the discussion 

and debate about Social Security.’’ 

Then he goes on to say: ‘‘So all the kinds of things you know 

about—whether it is means testing, whether it is increasing the 

age of eligibility. The kind of choices—whether it is providing much 

greater choices for individuals to voluntarily select the kind of 

manner in which they believe they ought to be able to invest their 

working dollars as they go through their lifetime. All those things 

ought to be on the table and discussed.’’ 

So what he is talking about is looking at cutting benefits or moving toward the privatization of Social Security. 

Now, Mr. Chairman, the Social Security Disability Insurance 

program is a life-and-death program for nearly 11 million Ameri-
161 

cans, including more than 1 million veterans and 1.8 million children. This is a program that American workers have paid into. It 

is an insurance program. This is not charity. When Americans pay 

6.2 percent of their income in the payroll tax, almost 1 percent of 

that amount goes into the Disability Insurance program. The average Disability Insurance benefit is less than $1,200 a 

month, and for 30 percent of the beneficiaries, this is their entire 

income. Nobody is getting rich off of disability benefits. 

Sadly, on the very first day of the new Congress, House Republicans passed a rule that would lay the groundwork for a 19-percent cut in Social Security Disability Insurance benefits. This 

means, if that cut were to go through, that the average benefit of 

approximately $13,980 a year for a disabled person would be cut 

by $2,600 to $11,324. Does anybody on this Committee really believe that a person with a severe disability—maybe they are facing 

a terminal illness, maybe they are paralyzed, maybe they have had 

their legs amputated. Does anybody in this room really believe that 

a disabled person in America should be forced to live on $11,324 

a year? 

Mr. Chairman, in my view, the debate we are having today is 

nothing more than a manufactured crisis which is part of the longterm Republican agenda of trying to cut Social Security. And in my 

view, this is a terrible and dangerous idea. Today Social Security has a $2.8 trillion surplus and can pay out 

every benefit owed to every eligible American for the next 18 years. 

That is not the opinion of Bernie Sanders. That report comes from 

the Social Security Trustees. 

Now, because of an aging population, because of more women in 

the workforce, because of an increase in the retirement age, there 

has been an increase in the number of Americans who are receiving disability benefits. 

Mr. Chairman, this is not a surprise. This is a demographic reality that the Social Security Administration predicted would happen back in 1994. The fact that the Social Security Disability Insurance program is facing a funding shortfall next year is a surprise to absolutely no one. Furthermore, and importantly, shortfalls 

in the Social Security Disability Insurance program or the Social 

Security retirement program are nothing new. It has happened 11 

times in the past and has always been resolved in a simple, noncontroversial way and a nonpartisan way, and that is by the reallocation of funds between the Social Security Retirement Fund 

and the Social Security Disability Fund. 

As this chart shows, reallocation was done in 1968 under President Johnson, in 1970 under President Nixon, in 1978, 1979, and 

1980 under President Carter, in 1982, 1983, and 1984 under President Reagan, in 1994, 1997, and 2000 under President Clinton. 

Interestingly—and this is interesting—the 11 times that funds 

were reallocated from one fund to the other, it turns out that on 

five occasions it was the Disability Fund that was reallocated to 

help the Retirement Fund. 

Mr. Chairman, every major senior citizen organization in this 

country, including the AARP—and I, believe their letter is on the 

desks of everybody in this room—including the National Committee 

to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, the Alliance for Retired 
162 

Americans, and many other organizations representing over 60 million older Americans, all support reallocation and are united in opposition to the rule passed by the House Republicans to make reallocation more difficult. 

Here is what, very briefly, the AARP letter says, and it is up 

there on the chart: ‘‘To prevent any imminent reductions in SSDI 

benefits, we urge you to rebalance the allocation of Social Security 

payroll taxes between the OASI Trust and the DI Trust, as Congress has done with success in the past. Because of the SSDI, millions of disabled Americans are able to live their lives with dignity 

and support their families. The highest priority in the near term 

is to ensure that SSDI beneficiaries, most of whom are older Americans, are not put at risk of a 20-percent benefit cut in the very 

near future.’’ End of quote from AARP. 

I am delighted that President Obama proposed this reallocation 

plan in his budget request. 

Mr. Chairman, the Social Security Trust Fund can pay out every 

benefit owed to every eligible American for the next 18 years. 

There is no imminent crisis. But I do agree with many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle and with many economists that 

it is terribly important that we do better than 18 years to make 

sure that Social Security is there for our kids and for our grandchildren. In my view, the best way to extend the solvency of the 

Social Security Trust Fund over the long term is to eliminate the 

cap that currently exists on taxable income that goes into the Social Security Trust Fund. 

Right now, in the midst of massive wealth and income inequality which we see in our country, a Wall Street CEO who makes $20 

million a year pays the same amount into Social Security as someone who makes $118,500. That is wrong. In 2013, I asked the Chief 

Actuary of the Social Security Administration to estimate how long 

the solvency of Social Security would be extended based on legislation that I authored which would apply the Social Security payroll 

tax on income above $250,000, lift the cap on all income above 

$250,000. His answer was that the Social Security Trust Fund 

would be made solvent, Mr. Chairman, until 2060—45 years from 

today. 

And, Mr. Chairman, I would ask unanimous consent to inset that 

letter into the record. 

Chairman ENZI. Without objection. 

Senator SANDERS. Thank you. 

[The letter follows:] 
163 
164 
165 
166 
167 
168 
169 
170 
171 
172 

Senator SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, we all know that the huge increase in wealth and income inequality in America has seen millions of Americans lose a substantial part of their income. The middle class is shrinking. In fact, while the wealthiest people have become much wealthier, real median family income today is almost 

$5,000 less than it was in 1999. 

Now, this is a tragedy unto itself, but it has also had a major 

impact on Social Security. If income inequality—and this is really 

an amazing fact. If income inequality remained at the same level 

today as it was in 1983, Social Security would have $1.1 trillion 

more than it does today because workers with higher income would 

have contributed more into the system. If the payroll tax had simply continued to cover 90 percent of all earnings, which it did in 

1983, rather than the 83 percent that it covers today, the Social Security Trust Fund would be able to pay every benefit owed to every 

eligible American, not just for the next 18 years, but for the next 

38 years. 

So the bottom line is, short term, we have to do what has been 

done 11 times in the past. Long term, we have to work together 

to make Social Security solvent for our kids and our grandchildren. 

In the midst of massive wealth and income inequality in this country, we have got to lift the cap on taxable income. 

Thank you. 

Chairman ENZI. Thank you, Senator. 

I just want to have everybody aware that I am keeping track of 

what the House does as well—not that we have to do what the 

House does, but I need to know what they are doing. And I have 

been following their rules, and their rules do not prohibit a reallocation, nor does it call for benefit cuts. It does include a point 

of order against reallocation only if the move is not accompanied 

by policies to improve solvency of the combined Social Security 

Trust Fund. And there are a number of ways to do that. I mentioned that the President has some in his budget. So it will allow 

reallocation as long as it includes savings for the OASDI program, 

however small. Otherwise, the next time that we reach this crisis, 

we will have about three of these funds coming due at the same 

time, and we will not be able to shift the money. So I hope everybody understands that, and I want to thank you for your comments. 

For our first panel, our witness is Carolyn Colvin, and she has 

served as the Acting Commissioner of Social Security since February 14, 2013. Prior to this designation, she served in a number 

of roles at the Social Security Administration under the Clinton administration, including Deputy Commissioner for Policy and External Affairs, Deputy Commissioner for Programs and Policy, and 

Deputy Commissioner for Operations. 

Ms. Colvin has also served in a number of other public positions 

in the District of Columbia and Maryland, including as Director of 

Human Services for the District of Columbia. Ms. Colvin has graduate and undergraduate degrees in business administration from 

Morgan State University. 

For the information of colleagues, Acting Commissioner will take 

about 5 minutes for her opening statement, followed by questions. 

Thank you for being here. 
173 

STATEMENT OF CAROLYN W. COLVIN, ACTING 

COMMISSIONER, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION 

Ms. COLVIN. Good morning. Chairman Enzi, Ranking Member 

Sanders, members of the Committee, thank you for opportunity to 

discuss the status of the Social Security Disability Insurance Trust 

Fund, our efforts to help people with disabilities reenter or stay in 

the workforce, our Continuing Disability Review process, and the 

steps we have taken to ensure the integrity of our disability decisions. My name is Carolyn Colvin, and I am Social Security’s Acting Commissioner. I have served in this position since February 

2013. 

The Social Security DI program provides important financial protection for workers who paid into the system and now need help 

because they have disabilities. Almost 9 million people with disabilities and 2 million of their spouses and children are currently receiving benefits from the DI program. 

Realize that these are very modest benefits, $1,165 average per 

month per worker. Because the program is vital to workers and 

their families, we must take steps to ensure its stability and avoid 

deep and abrupt cuts or cessation of benefits for individuals with 

disabilities. 

To this end, the President’s fiscal year 2016 budget proposes to 

address the near-term DI reserve depletion by reallocating a part, 

0.9 percentage points of payroll taxes, from OASI to the DI Trust 

Fund for just 5 years, 2016 through 2020. 

The temporary reallocation the President proposes will have no 

effect on the overall health of the combined OASI and DI Trust 

Funds, which will remain adequately financed until 2033 on a combined basis. Nor will it result in a change for workers and employers who will continue to pay the same amount of FICA taxes they 

do now. 

The proposal to reallocate existing payroll tax collections between 

the OASI and DI Trust Funds is consistent with past congressional 

action where Congress approved legislation as needed for reallocation from DI to OASI or vice versa. These are earned benefits. 

These two funds provide social insurance for Americans at all 

stages of life. The same worker who becomes disabled today will 

become a retiree in the future. 

To strengthen the DI program and ensure its integrity, we ask 

your support for several initiatives. The Social Security Act includes incentives to encourage disability beneficiaries to return to 

work by allowing continuation of benefits and medical coverage 

while working or pursuing an employment goal. Although these 

have produced modest success, we want to explore new ideas. It is 

essential that we, including Congress, can make evidence-based decisions on innovations to improve the ability of individuals with 

disabilities to succeed in the workforce. Conducting demonstration 

projects is the best way to gather the evidence needed to evaluate 

policy options. 

While our previous demonstrations have shown that interventions after individuals qualify for DI benefits can yield positive outcomes, earlier interventions may prove more effective. Thus, the 

President’s fiscal year 2016 budget provides continued support for 
174 

a multiyear initiative to test strategies to help people with disabilities remain and succeed in the workforce. 

We appreciate Congress’s $35 million appropriation in fiscal year 2015 to begin this effort. The budget requests $50 million in fiscal 

year 2016 and a legislative proposal requesting $350 million over 

the following 3 fiscal years. 

We take very seriously our stewardship of the DI Trust Funds 

and taxpayers’ money. We strive to make the right payment to the 

right person at the right time. We use cost-effective Continuing 

Disability Reviews to determine whether an individual continues to 

be medically qualified. To select cases for these reviews, we use 

predictive models to target cases where medical improvement is 

most likely. 

The President’s fiscal year 2016 budget proposes a dedicated program integrity fund to support 908,000 full medical CDRs, a 15- 

percent increase over fiscal year 2015. We estimate that CDRs conducted in 2016 will yield a return on investment of about $9 on average in net Federal savings over 10 years per $1 budgeted. We use 

a strict, single national definition of disability. When evaluating 

disability claims, every decisionmaker must use the criteria in the 

act and our regulations. 

We have multiple levels of quality reviews to ensure that the 

rules are applied uniformly and correctly. As required by law, we 

review at least a half of initial and reconsideration disability allowances before payment is made. These pre-effectuation reviews allow 

us to correct any errors before we issue a final decision on eligibility. We also extensively train and use tools to enable our adjudicators to follow our policies accurately and consistently such as 

a Web-based Claims Analysis Tool that helps to ensure policy compliance by requiring examiners to follow all the steps in our disability claims evaluation process as well as comparative tools and 

data analytics. 

In conclusion, thank you for the opportunity to discuss the vitally 

important DI program and our continued efforts to improve its administration. I will be happy to answer any questions you have. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Colvin follows:] 
175 
176 
177 
178 
179 
180 
181 
182 
183 
184 
185 
186 
187 
188 
189 

Chairman ENZI. Thank you, and thank you very much for your 

statement, and thank you for meeting separately, of course, with 

myself and Senator Sanders yesterday. Some of these questions we 

will have already covered. I was impressed with your answers yesterday. 

To start out with questions—and we will have 5-minute rounds 

of questions—the President’s budget has proposed reallocating the 

payroll tax to delay the DI Trust Fund insolvency. If there were no 

other changes, does reallocation of the payroll tax worsen the OldAge and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund for Social Security retirement? 

Ms. COLVIN. I am sorry. Say the last part, please? 

Chairman ENZI. Does the reallocation worsen the Old-Age and 

Survivors Insurance Trust Fund for Social Security retirement? 

Ms. COLVIN. I think it is very hard to separate the two funds. 

This is one program. The worker, as you know, pays 6.2 percent, 

and a portion goes to the DI Trust Fund and a portion to OASI. 

So I think we really have to think about that in terms of one program, because the person, if they become disabled, would benefit, 

and then, of course, when they retire they benefit. In fact, many 

simply transfer from the DI program to the—from the OASI program—from the DI program, I am sorry, to the OASI program. 

So I think that it is imperative that we see the reallocation, 

which would give us adequate time to look at long-term solutions 

that we need to take. 

Chairman ENZI. How much are we reallocating? 

Ms. COLVIN. We are reallocating simply 0.9 percent from the 

OASI Fund to the DI Fund, and that will still allow the program 

to be solvent through 2033. 

Chairman ENZI. Instead of a percent, can you give me dollars 

that are being reallocated? 

Ms. COLVIN. I would need to calculate that. I do not have the 

exact amount of dollars. I will give it to you in a minute. 

Chairman ENZI. Okay. The President’s budget proposes several 

program integrity initiatives that could produce savings. Do you 

know how much these initiatives would save the Disability Insurance Fund before it is exhausted? And can you mention any of 

those suggested programs? 

Ms. COLVIN. There are a number of proposals in the President’s 

budget. The one that I want to mention first is the funding for the 

Continuing Disability Reviews. As you know, we should be doing 

reviews every 3 years. When people come on the rolls, we know 

that some are likely to improve. And we need to be able to do those 

reviews to determine if they have, in fact, improved and are no 

longer disabled. We have been able to determine that for every $1 that we spend, we bring back $9 into the program. So I think that is a very effective program. 

We also are looking at a number of programs or initiatives that 

we believe would slow down the number of people coming onto the 

rolls. That would be our early intervention programs where we 

would be able to test whether or not supportive employment and 

other types of services would allow people to stay in the job market 

longer. And, of course, we know that only about 1 percent of our 
190 

population go off the rolls now because the definition is so strict 

and we are serving the most severely disabled. 

Chairman ENZI. So you will have some suggestions for how to do 

that then, I assume? 

Ms. COLVIN. We would certainly look forward to working with 

Congress to come up with solutions that would be bipartisan. I 

think that there have been many proposals proposed. I think we 

do have to be cognizant of the impact on the various demographic 

populations. 

I think one of the things that the President has clearly stated is 

that any proposal really has to strengthen the program. It should 

not reduce benefits. People should be able to expect a robust disability benefit or a retirement benefit when they need it. But we 

would be very happy to work with Congress on any initiatives. 

Let me mention the figure that you asked for. We would be look- ing at $330 billion in savings over a 5-year period, through 2016 

to 2020. So I think—does that answer your question? 

Chairman ENZI. Can you repeat that number for me again? 

Ms. COLVIN. $330 billion over a 5-year period from 2016 to 2020. 

Chairman ENZI. Thank you. And my next question would take— 

we will be submitting questions as well, ones that have more detailed numbers than that. 

Ms. COLVIN. We would be very happy to provide that. 

Chairman ENZI. Okay. 

[The questions of Chairman Enzi follow:] 
191 
192 
193 
194 
195 
196 
197 
198 
199 
200 
201 
202 
203 
204 
205 
206 
207 
208 
209 
210 
211 
212 
213 
214 
215 
216 
217 
218 
219 
220 
221 
222 
223 
224 
225 
226 
227 
228 
229 
230 
231 
232 
233 
234 
235 
236 
237 
238 
239 
240 
241 
242 
243 
244 

Chairman ENZI. I will yield the balance of my time. 

Senator Sanders? 

Senator SANDERS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and 

thank you very much, Madam Secretary, for being with us. In fact, 

you are the Acting Commissioner, are you not? 

Ms. COLVIN. Yes. I have been acting for 2 years. 

Senator SANDERS. You have been acting for 2 years. 

Ms. COLVIN. Yes. 

Senator SANDERS. Well, I would hope very much that we in the 

Senate will move to confirm you and remove the ‘‘Acting’’ from your 

title. 

It is my understanding, Commissioner Colvin, that the average Disability Insurance benefit is around $1,150 a month? 

Ms. COLVIN. That is correct; $1,165 to be exact. 

Senator SANDERS. If, in fact, a 19-percent reduction took place, 

that benefit would be reduced, if my arithmetic is correct, to about 

$11,324. In real human terms, what does this mean to a disabled 

American, maybe somebody with a terminal illness, somebody paralyzed, an amputee? What in real life does this mean to that person? 

Ms. COLVIN. Well, they would really have to think about the inadequacy of the existing benefit. We are talking about 30 percent 

of the individuals on our rolls for disability who have no other income, this— 

Senator SANDERS. No other income. 

Ms. COLVIN. No other income. 

Senator SANDERS. So they would see a 20-percent or a 19-percent 

cut in their income. 

Ms. COLVIN. Well, certainly 19 percent would take them well 

below the poverty level. We are talking about most at the poverty 

level now, and for about 80 percent of the individuals who receive 

this benefit, about 50 percent would be—they would rely on this 

benefit. So they are already at the edge financially, struggling to 

put food on the table, making choices between eating and paying 

their rent. 

I have worked with this population my entire career. This is a 

population that would like to work. Remember, we are talking 

about workers who have paid into a system, who experienced a disability, a severe disability, and find that they are no longer able 

to work. 

Senator SANDERS. Commissioner, let me just ask you this: Is 

where we are today in terms of the Disability Insurance Fund, is 

that a surprise to anybody? That is number one. Or was this projected many years in the past based on demographic trends? And, 

number two, I know you are not necessarily a historian, but you 

do know that time and time again—in fact, 11 times in recent 

years under Republican and Democratic Presidents—this issue was 

resolved quietly, non-controversially, I think a number of times 

under President Reagan, that as you indicated, this is money coming from the worker. Am I correct in saying that this issue was 

dealt with nonpartisanly 11 times in recent years? 

Ms. COLVIN. That is correct. It has been the mechanism to readjust the monies among the trust fund because, in fact, as I said, 

it is the same worker, some portion of their taxes go into the Dis-
245 

ability Trust Fund and a portion to the retirement, but it is the 

same worker. And so it has been adjusted both ways, from DI to 

retirement and from retirement to DI, the last time in 1994. 

Senator SANDERS. Right, and as I understand it, with virtually 

no controversy. Is that correct? 

Ms. COLVIN. That is my understanding. And, again, this has not 

damaged the health of the combined trust funds. The trust funds 

will still be solvent until 2033. 

Senator SANDERS. And, by the way, while we are on that subject, 

am I correct that the Social Security Trustees have said that Social 

Security can pay out every benefit owed to every eligible American 

until 2033? Is that correct? 

Ms. COLVIN. That is correct. 

Senator SANDERS. All right. Let me ask you this: I have proposed 

on different—some of my colleagues have approached the problem 

in a slightly different way, but I asked the Chief Actuary of the Social Security Administration, Mr. Goss, to estimate how long the 

solvency of Social Security would be extended based on legislation 

that I authored which would apply the Social Security payroll tax 

on income above $250,000. Will you confirm with me—and I think 

he is here—that his answer was that Social Security would be 

made solvent until 2060, 45 years from today? Is that correct? 

Ms. COLVIN. That is correct. He is here, but I did see the letter, 

and that is a correct statement. 

Senator SANDERS. Thank you very much for the hard work that 

you are doing on behalf of the elderly and the disabled. 

With that, Mr. Chairman, I would yield the floor. 

Chairman ENZI. Thank you. 

Senator Corker? 

Senator CORKER. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I just 

want to go on the record as saying that I do not think any of us 

here, at least in my observation, would want to trade places with 

someone who happens to be on Social Security disability. I think 

all of us want to make sure that people who are in need have access. I think it is also—I think everyone here knows of the tremendous hardship that people who are living on the minimum benefits, 

if that is their only income, it is very difficult. 

And to the Ranking Member’s comments, the 1983 reforms that 

were put in place were based on 90 percent of income being taxed. 

Today it is at 83 percent. That is a fact. 

And one of the things that Bowles-Simpson, people working in a 

bipartisan way, had put together was raising it to 90 percent, but 

in addition to that, over time gradually increasing the age, because 

people are living longer, using chained CPI, and also adjusting the 

benefits so that the lower-income benefit more fully from growth 

and upper-income less. 

And so I would just say that it seems to me there is a way, an 

appropriate way, to deal with this issue and stand ready to work 

with others to make that happen so that this benefit that is so important to people will be there. 

As a matter of fact, I will just—it is your understanding, 

ma’am—and thank you for your service in this acting position. By 

the way, have you been put up to be the permanent person? 
246 

Ms. COLVIN. My name was submitted in the last session. It will 

be resubmitted this session. 

Senator CORKER. Well, I look forward to that. 

Ms. COLVIN. Thank you. 

Senator CORKER. It is your understanding that the longer we 

wait, even though the program is solvent through for 18 years, the 

longer we wait, it is more difficult to solve the problem, isn’t it? 

Ms. COLVIN. Absolutely. We do need to act promptly. This is a 

very complex problem. I think that changes have to be based on 

scientific evidence, and we certainly have a number of research 

studies that can be made available to you. And so I think that 

through the reallocation, which gives us a temporary reprieve, that 

then gives Congress to find a bipartisan solution to this long-term 

issue. 

Senator CORKER. And I realize that because of the way these 

budgets operate these days, this would sort of normally be the case. 

But it is your understanding that the President’s proposal does not 

lengthen the solvency of the program. Is that correct? 

Ms. COLVIN. That is correct. It simply buys some time for Congress to come up with a bipartisan solution. 

Senator CORKER. And I would hope we would do that. 

It is also your understanding, is it not, that the way the President made this proposal regarding disability, it actually shortens 

the solvency of the program, the other portion of the program for 

old-age retirement benefits. Is that correct? 

Ms. COLVIN. We looked at 2034. We are talking about one year 

less for the OASDI, yes. But you still have 18 years. 

Senator CORKER. That is not very long, is it? 

Ms. COLVIN. Well, I would hope it would not take us 18 years to 

come to a bipartisan solution. 

Senator CORKER. But every year we wait it gets more difficult. 

Is that correct? 

Ms. COLVIN. Absolutely. 

Senator CORKER. So in many ways, if you think about it, by not 

addressing this issue for all of those citizens who work hard all of 

their lives, what this recommendation actually does is lessen those 

people that are never going to collect disability payments, by the 

grace of God, anyway, will never be in a position to have to receive 

those. In many ways, the ones that are working and will only receive their retirement benefits are harmed by this proposal. Is that 

correct? 

Ms. COLVIN. I do not believe that. No, I do not think that is correct. I think that certainly, as we said, we need to take some action 

now, and I would expect that action would be taken well before 

2033. So, in fact, we would be able to come up with proposals that 

would strengthen this program and take away the need to be concerned about what happens in 2033. 

Senator CORKER. But Congress needs to do that pretty quickly. 

Ms. COLVIN. Congress needs to do that. 

Senator CORKER. And it needs to happen fairly quickly to do it 

in a way that is not hugely reshaping. Would you agree? 

Ms. COLVIN. I agree. The President has set forth six principles 

that, if you would let me share it with you, I think it is important. 
247 

Senator CORKER. If you do not mind, I will read those. Thank 

you. 

Ms. COLVIN. All right. Thank you. 

Senator CORKER. I know it is in the budget. 

Ms. COLVIN. Okay. 

Senator CORKER. Let me ask you this question: What has happened recently is when we have had economic downturns, we have 

had a significant increase in the use of disability payments, which 

speaks to something else happening in the program. In other 

words, all of us want people who deserve disability to get it. But 

when people get it that do not deserve it, it actually hurts those 

very people that are in need. So we have seen a change—the economic downturn causes a lot more people somehow to be on the 

disability program. 

We have also seen an appeals process which almost makes it look 

like there are some attorneys that almost create—are creating 

mills, if you will, to cause people to be on the program, again, not 

deserving people in some cases. And my time is up, I know, but do 

you agree that one of the things we need to also do to make sure 

those deserving get the benefits they need is to look at some reforms to make sure that those who may be taking advantage of it 

no longer do that? 

Ms. COLVIN. We are always attentive to ensure that the decisions 

that are made are the right decisions. The definition of disability 

is that you have to have a severe impairment that prevents you 

from being able to do any job in the economy and that that disability is going to last at least 12 months and may eventually result in death. I think there is really a misconception about large 

numbers of people being on our rolls who are not, in fact, disabled. 

The average person is on the rolls for about 10 years. If you come 

on the rolls around 55—and a large number of our people come on 

the rolls around 50—they die within the first 5 years. So it again 

points to the fact that you have severe disability. 

But we focus on quality in the program. We try to make certain 

that our adjudicators are following the act and following the rules. 

We have a stringent review process. We are required to do 50 percent reviews of all of the cases at the DDS level before they even 

go to the point where they are being paid. And we have a 98-percent accuracy rate. 

Senator CORKER. My time is up. It sounds like you do not think 

any reforms are due. 

Ms. COLVIN. I definitely think we need reform. I am not going 

to suggest that. We do need reform. 

Chairman ENZI. Senator Stabenow. 

Senator STABENOW. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and 

Ranking Member. And, Commissioner Colvin, thank you very much 

for your service. 

Let me just start where my friend left off. I think there is a general sense that during the recession more people apply for disability and, therefore, more people are receiving disability. And the 

numbers that I have seen do not show that out. Would you agree 

that more people may apply, but that does not mean they receive 

it? In fact, we have a number of cases of folks who are seriously 

disabled in Michigan that we work with all the time that have 
248 

challenges even getting through the complexity of the system. And 

I notice from the Office of Inspector General that of thousands of 

cases looked at for fraud in 2013, there were only 100 legal cases 

that were brought, that had enough merit to bring them, and that 

was the lowest rate I have seen in any Government program, about 

10 out of a million people. 

But isn’t it true—you may have more people applying, but that 

does not mean you are saying yes. Is that correct? 

Ms. COLVIN. That is correct, Senator. We have many workers 

who are marginal. They have disabilities, and they continue to try 

to work. And when jobs are there, they work even though they can 

certainly meet our definition. They are in and out of the job market. They are often not able to do substantial gainful activity, 

which is a requirement of the disability law. So some of those individuals may go on the rolls. But it is a small number. And if you 

look at our most recent numbers, you will see that the initial applications are going down. 

Senator STABENOW. Thank you. And it is also true—I mean, 

when we look at the fact that we have more veterans coming home, 

veterans who are permanently and totally disabled as a result of 

military service or just as part of the community, they may, in fact, 

be part of those that you are serving. Is that correct? 

Ms. COLVIN. That is correct. And the increase in the disability 

rolls was predicted by our actuaries. We knew that during this period we would see an increase, but it was not due to people who 

should not get on the rolls. It was due to the demographics that 

Senator Sanders talked about earlier. 

Senator STABENOW. And we have more women coming into the 

workforce, and— 

Ms. COLVIN. More women. 

Senator STABENOW. I know, and I am unfortunately going to be 

going to the Finance Committee in a moment and not be able to 

stay for the second panel. But I do notice that we have someone 

in the second panel, I am sure a distinguished individual, talking 

about more mental health cases that are being included as somehow a bad thing. I have to say that as somebody who is a mental 

health advocate, I am glad since the 1980s we recognized that 

there are diseases above the neck as well as below the neck. And 

Senator Roy Blunt and I have been leading the effort to make sure 

that we are doing to more equalize and understand serious mental 

health issues. And so as that is included, I would actually commend you for that as well. 

Mr. Chairman, let me just say that, first of all, Social Security 

is something that is an insurance program that everyone pays into, 

and it is probably the best deal in town. 

Ms. COLVIN. Yes, it is. 

Senator STABENOW. It is a retirement plan; it is a disability plan; 

it is survivor benefits. We are talking about in the short run the 

need to adjust it by less than 1 percent. In my judgment, the short 

term is a phony crisis. We have long-term challenges that we want 

to make sure to keep it strong and strengthen Social Security, and 

I think that there is—it may not be in this Committee. I do not 

know yet, Mr. Chairman, but there certainly is a debate with many 

on the Republican side of the aisle about wanting to privatize or 
249 

fundamentally change the structure, turn it over to Wall Street to 

manage, which, boy, that would have been great back a few years 

ago. 

You know, I guess I would say I am a supporter of the structure 

of Social Security, and I think there are a lot of things happening 

to working people today. They are seeing defined pension plans go 

away. We do not need to see Social Security go away for people in 

terms of fundamental financial security for people. 

I also want to just recognize for the record that tomorrow is the 

day when millionaires in America will stop contributing to Social 

Security. So everybody else, if you earn $50,000, $60,000, $100,000 

a year, working hard every day, you are still paying in all year. 

But there is a certain group of folks that they can still get Social 

Security but they do not pay in anymore. So I think Senator Corker 

had a good idea when he talked about how we need to adjust who 

is certainly paying into that as well. 

So the final thing I would just say is that I agree with the idea 

that we should be focusing on opportunity and job training and creating opportunity for people to work. I think it would be a good test 

of us in the Budget Committee on how those numbers look in terms 

of job security—I mean job training funding coming out of the Committee, certainly appreciate that. But in my judgment, Social Security is a great American success story, and I just want to see it 

strengthened. 

Thank you. 

Ms. COLVIN. Thank you. 

Chairman ENZI. Senator Perdue. 

Senator PERDUE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member. 

Administrator Colvin, thank you for your tireless service to our 

country. You know, this debate, this conversation, is what drives 

people in my State absolutely crazy. I am not from the political 

world, so I am going to be very straight with you this morning. You 

know, the idea that this is a trumped-up, phony crisis is absolutely 

ridiculous, and it is ridiculous to people back home. 

I agree with you on several things. You said this morning that 

we need to move to ensure that nobody loses their disability benefits. I agree 100 percent. But the irresponsibility since 1974 has 

created this situation in 2017, and what we are about to do is going 

to create another crisis in 2033. 

I have no problem—let me make sure I understand the real simple details of this. 

First, the Social Security retirement fund will go from 2034 being 

insolvent to 2033 if we move and reallocate funds to the Disability 

Fund. So the Disability Fund then goes from 2017 to 2033. Frankly, I do not see that as a big deal. What I see as a big deal—and 

this is where this is not a phony crisis, Mr. Chairman—we have 

over $120 trillion of future unfunded liabilities coming at us like 

a freight train. 

In 1994, we kicked the can down the road to 2017. Well, here we 

are. We are about to kick the can down the road to 2033. This 

should not be a partisan issue. I do not think it is a partisan issue. 

We get caught up in debating the wrong problem, and the wrong 

problem right now is what do we do to save this for 2017. That is 
250 

easy. In my opinion, I do not have a problem with that, if the administration, along with all the other budget recommendations 

made, came to us with a well-thought-out, long-term strategy and 

recommendation to how to solve both of these trust funds for the 

future of our kids. I have two kids, two sons in their middle career. 

I have got to look at them, if we do this, and say, ‘‘You know what? 

I am kicking the can down the road. Good luck, pals.’’ In 2033, both 

of these are insolvent. I think that is correct as well. Is that right? 

In 2033, both the trust funds are insolvent as of 2033? 

Ms. COLVIN. Yes, that is correct. 

Senator PERDUE. So what do we do— 

Ms. COLVIN. I should say not insolvent. The reserves will be depleted. When you say insolvent, people think that means that you 

cannot pay anything. It means you would not be able to pay the 

full amount. For instance, in the DI program you would still be 

able to pay 80 percent. 

Senator PERDUE. Right. And as you said before, that is a mean 

amount. That is a very small amount. So that is not what any of 

us want to do. 

Ms. COLVIN. Absolutely. 

Senator PERDUE. So I think the first goal here, in my opinion, 

is to make sure that we can live up to the obligations that we have 

right now. I think everybody in the room so far has said that. And 

I think you have said that, too, correct? 

Ms. COLVIN. Well, I certainly believe we have to satisfy obligations, but I do believe this problem can be fixed, and the administration has clearly indicated its desire to work with Congress to 

come up with a long-term solution. 

Senator PERDUE. And where is that recommendation? That is 

what I am being asked by the people back home, is, okay, the number one crisis we have right now, in my mind, is our ability to fund 

our future unfunded liabilities. Right now we have $18 trillion of 

debt; we have over $100 trillion of future unfunded liabilities coming at us, which is more than $1 million a household. And one of 

the things creating a problem in both these trust funds is the fact 

that today we have about 30 percent of our workforce not participating in the workforce. Most of those want to participate in the 

workforce. Between unemployment, underemployment, and people 

who have dropped out of the workforce, that is a large number. 

And if those people, a large number of those people were working, 

it would not create a solution for this, but it would certainly ameliorate the problem and give us more time to work on it. 

You said that we do not need to kick the can down the road. I 

think your words were this is a temporary reprieve to give us an 

opportunity until 2033 to solve the problem. I think you said that, 

and I agree with that. The question I have is: The longer we wait, 

the harder it is to solve this. How can we move right now—you are 

the person in charge. How can we move right now to address the 

long-term solution and enter into an honest and open debate about 

solving it once and for all? 

Ms. COLVIN. Well, Mr. Perdue, I think we have to address the 

more immediate crisis, which is the 2016 issue right now, and I 

think the President’s proposal on reallocation will do that. And I 

think we need to do that and do that now. 
251 

That does not mean that we cannot then begin to sit down and 

talk about the more long-term issues, but we should not have persons with disabilities wondering whether or not in 2016 they are 

going to still receive a full benefit. 

Senator PERDUE. I agree with that. 

Ms. COLVIN. So I think we need to do that now. We need to address the proposal that is on the table, which will also help to address some of the concerns you have about the program, that we 

can make sure that there is no one on the roll who should not be 

on the roll. 

Senator PERDUE. And my question is: How can you ask me to do 

that—I agree with everything you just said. How can you ask me 

to do that without a bona fide, honest, straight-up proposal to solve 

this thing past 2033? 

Ms. COLVIN. Well, there are various proposals out there. It is 

going to take a lot of discussion to come to a bipartisan— 

Senator PERDUE. What is the President’s proposal, what is the 

administration’s proposal to solve this past 2033? 

Ms. COLVIN. The President’s proposal is to address the immediate problem, which is the— 

Senator PERDUE. Which does not solve the problem past 2033. Is 

that correct? 

Ms. COLVIN. The President has an immediate solution for the 

2016 problem, which is what we should address, but— 

Senator PERDUE. Agreed, but let me—I am sorry to interrupt, 

but there is no proposal from the administration to solve this crisis 

past 2033. Is that correct? 

Ms. COLVIN. Well, he certainly has set forth the principles that 

I wanted to mention earlier that gives you the basis— 

Senator PERDUE. But there is no—there is no—well, let me 

just— 

Ms. COLVIN. —for what a proposal should— 

Senator PERDUE. I understand, but I am really trying to get at 

this. We have had proposals on everything else in this budget. Is 

there no proposal to solve the Social Security catastrophe, impending catastrophe, which happens in 2033, coming from this administration? 

Ms. COLVIN. I do not think it is reasonable to expect that a 2016 

budget is going to have a proposal to solve a problem down the 

road for 2033. That is going to take a lot of bipartisan discussion 

and agreement. And there are many proposals out there that Congress can begin to discuss and look at as long as it follows the basic 

principles. And I will not try to put those forth since I see that you 

are not interested in them, but I think the thing that I try to convey is we need to make sure that we are going to strengthen this 

program, that we are not going to slash benefits, that people are 

going to be able to rely on a robust disability and retirement benefit— 

Senator PERDUE. I can assure you that I care very much about 

each one of those, but I also care about what happens past 2033. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman ENZI. The Senator’s time has expired. 

Senator Whitehouse? 
252 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Welcome, Commissioner. We are delighted that you are here. 

The predicament that Social Security is in some say has something to do with income inequality, that because only the first— 

$108,000, is it?—$118,000 of income is subject to the payroll tax, 

that as more and more people who earn big incomes get richer and 

richer while the middle class goes no place, which has been our recent economic story, that more and more of the salary base of the 

country moves up into that above $118,000 quadrant, and that as 

a result, there is less money being paid into Social Security. Is that 

true? 

Ms. COLVIN. That is true. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. And how does the aging of the population—we had a very well known baby boom after World War II. 

Does that play any role in this? 

Ms. COLVIN. Absolutely. The people who were sort of at the disability-prone years, who are going no the disability rolls, are now 

reaching their retirement years. And so they are moving over into 

the retirement fund. If you are lucky and you are on disability, of 

course, and you live long enough, then you would automatically 

go—if would be seamless to you, but your benefit would begin to 

come out of the OASI retirement fund. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Now, both Social Security and Social Security disability are funded by the payroll tax, correct? 

Ms. COLVIN. By payroll taxes. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. And there is kind of a gate that distributes the payroll tax money between Social Security disability and 

Social Security retirement? 

Ms. COLVIN. That is correct, and it has always been adjusted as 

needed between the two funds— 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Over and over, correct? 

Ms. COLVIN. Eleven times. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. And both ways. 

Ms. COLVIN. Both ways. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. And now what our friends in the House 

have done is they have basically closed that gate in order to precipitate this crisis in—or which will have the effect of precipitating 

this crisis in Social Security disability, correct? If you move the 

gate, the crisis goes way off into the future. 

Ms. COLVIN. That is correct. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. All right. Now, and the amount in question to make Social Security disability whole right now, if we were 

to do it, is about how many billion dollars? 

Ms. COLVIN. The $330 million that I gave before—billion, I am 

sorry, $330 billion. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. But that is over 10 years. 

Ms. COLVIN. Yes. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. So per year— 

Ms. COLVIN. No. Over 5 years. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Five years, okay. And our information is 

that if you did something about the cap on the payroll tax—so right 

now you have got a situation where, if you are a plumber and you 

make $118,000, you pay the exact same amount to support our national Social Security system as the hedge fund billionaire who 
253 

makes $20 million a year. They both pay the exact—not just the 

same rate. They pay the same amount because of that cap. 

Now, if you were to come back in and apply the payroll tax 

again, our information is that if you started at the 10 million and 

first dollar of income, so anybody making less than $10 million 

would pay no additional payroll tax, but if you are making 

$10,000,001, you would pay payroll tax on the $1; if you made $12 

million in a year, you would pay payroll tax on the last $2 million, 

as well as the $118,000, that if we did that, that would completely 

cure this problem. 

So if we wanted to take care of this problem, we could do it in 

one fell swoop, and when we are talking about millionaires and billionaires, people making more than $10 million in one year, to ask 

them to contribute a little bit more of the above $10 million salary 

to Social Security does not seem like asking a lot. And so I would 

ask you to take a look at those numbers and see if the numbers 

work. That could be a question for the record. My information is 

that those numbers do work and that you can fully resolve this 

manufactured Social Security disability crisis that the House rule 

has created by simply going and asking people making more than 

$10 million a year to pay the same fair share that the $118,000 

plumber does, actually net a good deal less because between 

$118,000 and $10 million, they will be Scot free on payroll tax. 

So if you could do that— 

Ms. COLVIN. We will provide those numbers for you. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Will you look at that for me? 

Ms. COLVIN. Absolutely. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Very good. Thank you very much. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. I understand that questions about fraud 

were asked already, that it is basically very, very small numbers 

coming out of— 

Ms. COLVIN. Well, the question was not asked, but I am glad you 

raised it because there is a misperception out there. We have had 

a study done by the Office of Inspector General, and they have 

identified the very minimal amount of fraud, less than 1 percent. 

But I want to go on record and say even one case is too many, and 

we are very aggressive in identifying any type of fraud so that we 

can prosecute. 

We also have programs that detect it in advance— 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Using computer models and so forth. 

Ms. COLVIN. Well, also we established a Cooperative Disability 

Investigative Unit. We have them in 35 States. At least we will 

have them by the end of 2015. I would like to eventually see them 

in all States. But this is the one program that we have that allows 

us to detect or prevent fraud so that we do not pay benefits and 

then have to chase the money. And there are a number of other 

very active, aggressive anti-fraud initiatives we have underway, 

and I would be happy to provide that information if you want it. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Mr. Chairman, my time has expired. I 

thank you. 

Chairman ENZI. Thank you. 

Senator Graham? 

Senator GRAHAM. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 
254 

Conceptually, do you think it should be the Congress’ goal eventually—not in the 2016 budget but eventually—to come up with a 

solvency plan for Social Security, the disability, the retirement 

fund, for 75 years? Would that be a good thing for America? 

Ms. COLVIN. Absolutely. 

Senator GRAHAM. Okay. Now, as we try to accomplish that goal, 

I just want to make sure that I understand what we cannot do. 

Now, Senator Whitehouse is a smart guy, and I am sure the 

math works out, or he would not have presented the analogy of 

taxing people, you know, paying payroll taxes above $10 million to 

fix this problem that is looming today. I just do not want America 

to believe that we can tax our way into solvency. Do you believe 

that to get a 75-year-solvent program we can do it with revenue 

alone? 

Ms. COLVIN. I am not here to advocate for a specific position. I 

think that we would be very happy to work with you to tell you 

what is possible. 

Senator GRAHAM. Yes, ma’am. 

Ms. COLVIN. There are many proposals, and we can help you 

with the analysis and the— 

Senator GRAHAM. Well, when you examine his proposal about 

closing the gap by using payroll taxes above $10 million, could you 

come back and answer my question, if you could? What kind of revenue would you have to generate, what would the tax rates be to 

make Social Security solvent for 75 years with revenue alone? 

Ms. COLVIN. I am sure our Actuary can provide that. 

Senator GRAHAM. Okay. I appreciate that very much. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Mr. Chairman, may I get a copy of that 

as well? 

Senator GRAHAM. Absolutely. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. You can make that both. Thank you. 

Senator GRAHAM. We are not going to sneak up on you at all. 

Ms. COLVIN. And that is what our actuaries do. If you have a 

proposal, the Actuary will cost it out for you. 

Senator GRAHAM. Okay. 

Ms. COLVIN. We will let you know what the impact will be for 

the American public. 

Senator GRAHAM. Absolutely. Now, let us talk about why we 

keep having to do this. In 1956, when the Disability Fund was created, how many workers were there for every retiree in the program? I think it is 16. 

Ms. COLVIN. We will get that for you in a minute. 

Senator GRAHAM. Yes, ma’am. I was born in 1955, and I believe 

that for every Social Security retiree, there were 16 workers paying 

into the system. Check that out. 

Ms. COLVIN. I do not have it before me, but I know my staff has 

it. 

Senator GRAHAM. Yes, ma’am. Check that out. 

Ms. COLVIN. It is in our Trustee report. 

Senator GRAHAM. Thank you. Check that out. 

And today I believe there are three workers for every Social Security retiree. 

Ms. COLVIN. Today, that is correct. 
255 

Senator GRAHAM. Okay. In 20 years, there are supposed to be 

two. Does that make sense? 

Ms. COLVIN. Probably, as we look at the birth rate of the country. 

Senator GRAHAM. Right. We are living longer. Life expectancy is 

at an all-time high. That is good news. Agreed? 

Ms. COLVIN. Yes. 

Senator GRAHAM. We are having fewer workers born—we are 

having fewer workers available to the workforce because of demographic changes, and that is a problem. 

Ms. COLVIN. That is a problem. 

Senator GRAHAM. So the question for the Committee is: How do 

we fix this basic problem? Eighty million baby boomers are going 

to retire in the next 20 years or so, and the number of workers to 

keep this system solvent, Social Security and Medicare, is going to 

be down to two. How do two people pay for these programs without 

it putting us on the road to becoming Greece? 

Can you solve that problem through revenue alone? I would say 

no. Would the proposal the President is talking about for long-term 

solvency include means testing? 

Ms. COLVIN. I do not know what the President’s long-term solution will include. 

Senator GRAHAM. Well, you just told the Senator from Georgia he 

had a proposal. 

Ms. COLVIN. No, I did not. I said that the reallocation proposal 

which is in the budget. I did not speak— 

Senator GRAHAM. I thought you said he had some concepts or— 

Ms. COLVIN. Oh, I talked about the concepts, the principles that 

any reform— 

Senator GRAHAM. Principles, I am sorry. It is my bad. Not proposal. Principles. Is one of those principles means testing? 

Ms. COLVIN. No, it is not. 

Senator GRAHAM. Is one of those principles age adjustment for 

retirement? 

Ms. COLVIN. No. 

Senator GRAHAM. Is one of those principles CPI adjustment? 

Ms. COLVIN. Would you like me to tell you what the six principles are? 

Senator GRAHAM. Yes, ma’am. You have told me what they are 

not, so tell me what they are. 

Ms. COLVIN. All right. The first one is that any reform should 

strengthen Social Security for the future and restore long-term solvency— 

Senator GRAHAM. That is not a principle. That is just a statement. 

Ms. COLVIN. Okay. 

Senator GRAHAM. Number two? 

Ms. COLVIN. The second, the administration will oppose any 

measures that privatize or weaken the Social Security— 

Senator GRAHAM. That is not a principle as much as it is what 

you will not do. Okay. 

Ms. COLVIN. Third, while all measures that strengthen solvency 

should be on the table, the administration will not accept an approach that slashes benefits for future generations. 
256 

Senator GRAHAM. Well, let us—so you have just told me means 

testing is not on the table. Is that consistent with that statement? 

Ms. COLVIN. I can only give you the statements that I have, sir. 

Senator GRAHAM. Okay. I am sorry. Keep going. 

Ms. COLVIN. Current beneficiaries should not see their basic benefits reduced. 

Senator GRAHAM. Okay. These— 

Ms. COLVIN. Reforms should strengthen— 

Senator GRAHAM. Okay. I am sorry. Keep going. 

Ms. COLVIN. —Social Security for the most vulnerable, including 

our low-income seniors, and reforms should maintain a robust disability and survivor benefit structure. 

Senator GRAHAM. That is a set of principles that makes sure we 

do absolutely nothing meaningful. So I just want to say if that is 

the President’s plan, we will never get there. That is not my plan. 

I am willing to stretch myself and my party. I am willing to do revenue to get us to entitlement reform. 

Ms. COLVIN. I am very happy to talk about the President’s plan 

that is in his budget for reallocation. 

Senator GRAHAM. Yes, ma’am, I know you are, and that plan has 

been used in the past. And I do not know how we will fix this problem, but we will. I just want to let you know that I am really tired 

of bailing out water when the boat has got a hole in it a mile wide 

and we are using a very small pail, and somebody someday somehow up here is going to have to do the hard things. And I just want 

to put myself on the record as being willing to do hard things as 

long as they work. And we will fix this problem, but apparently we 

are not going to do much more than that. 

Thank you very much. 

Chairman ENZI. Senator Kaine. 

Senator KAINE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Commissioner Colvin. 

I am going to take my wife out for dinner Saturday for Valentine’s Day, and when I am toasting her, I am going to toast you. 

Ms. COLVIN. Thank you, Senator. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator KAINE. I am going to toast you because you were nominated to be Commissioner on Valentine’s Day— 

Ms. COLVIN. I was. 

Senator KAINE. —2 years ago. 

Ms. COLVIN. Yes. Thanks for remembering that. 

Senator KAINE. And you have been an Acting for 2 years. A 

mayor or Governor insight: Not having confirmed leadership always is weaker than having confirmed leadership. Always. Always. 

When the Senate does not exercise the advise-and-consent function 

to confirm a leader, we create some weaknesses within an organization, despite the best efforts of Actings. But we also send a message. We send a message to the public that we do not think this 

agency is that important; we do not think this agency that provides 

Social Security to the most vulnerable people in our country is that 

important. 

And I have noticed something, Mr. Chairman, as I have been 

here for a couple of years. This happens a lot, and it seems to happen with agencies that are kind of the same. Two years of Acting 
257 

at Social Security, 6–1/2 years of Acting, not a confirmed Administrator, for CMS, the Centers for Medicaid & Medicare Services, the 

single largest line item in the budget of the United States that is 

specifically designed to serve vulnerable people. This is actually a 

bipartisan comment. The first 2 years were—the Democratic Senate did not want to approve an Administrator at the end of the 

Bush administration, and then for 4–1/2 years, the Republican Senators did not want to approve President Obama’s nominee. Six and 

a half years with an Acting in the program that is the largest program—larger than the defense budget. 

FHFA, Federal Housing Finance Agency, 4 years of Acting before 

Mel Watt was finally confirmed, and to do that we had to change 

the Senate rules. 

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, 1–1/2 years of Acting. 

The agencies where we allow Actings and where we do not move 

to confirm dramatically are all in the human services side. They 

are all in the human services side. We do not have an Acting Secretary of Defense. Now, in the Department of Defense, there are a 

lot of questions about contracts and cost overruns and all kinds of 

things. But we do not have an Acting Secretary of Defense. What 

we have is Actings in agencies that serve vulnerable people. 

I am worried about this because I am worried about an old-timey 

term that raises a lot of angst in Virginia: legal nullification, trying 

to nullify the law. If there is an agency that is controversial or 

unliked, and there is not enough votes to get rid of the agency, and 

there is not enough votes to defund the agency, what is the next 

thing that you can do? Not vote to confirm a leader. Not vote to 

confirm a leader. And I am just fascinated by the fact that most 

of these long-term Actings where the Senate will not act to confirm 

a leader cluster in programs that serve the most vulnerable Americans. 

So I am going to toast you on Valentine’s Day, and I am going 

to toast you and hope that that Acting title is removed and that 

the Social Security Administration, which serves vulnerable Americans every day, will be respected enough by the Senate to actually 

have a confirmed leader. 

I want to ask you about anti-fraud efforts. One of our colleagues, 

not on this Committee—the folks on this Committee are far too 

savvy to say something like this. But one of our colleagues said recently, and I quote: ‘‘Over half the people on disability are either 

anxious or their back hurts.’’ That was a comment made by one of 

our Senate colleagues in January. I find that to be a very offensive 

comment, but it is also quite inaccurate. And I want you to tell the 

Committee some of the things that you are doing every day, some 

of the reforms you are putting in place, to take the really low fraud 

rate—very, very low—and make it even lower. 

Ms. COLVIN. Well, first of all, people do not get on our rolls simply because they have a back pain that they allege. That statement 

has to be corroborated by medical evidence, including lab reports. 

I really need to say that. The people on our rolls are the most severely disabled. We have 58 million people in this country who 

have self-identified that they are disabled, and we only have 9 million on the rolls, 7 million who are workers and 2 that are—I mean 

9 million workers who are severely disabled. 
258 

But we take fraud very seriously, and most of the fraud that has 

been detected in our program has been detected by our own staff. 

Our big challenge, of course, is the third-party fraudsters, like doctors and lawyers who facilitate fraud. And in the President’s proposal is a proposal—I mean, in the President’s budget is a proposal 

that would allow us to go after overpayments for those individuals, 

because often they are not— 

Senator KAINE. So in the President’s budget proposal, there are 

additional anti-fraud— 

Ms. COLVIN. There are additional anti-fraud initiatives to— 

Senator KAINE. To help the solvency of this program? 

Ms. COLVIN. Absolutely. That is one. The other is the CDRs that 

I talked about, if we get those fully funded, because we have people 

on the rolls that are entitled to receive a check until we determine 

that they are no longer disabled. So they are not being fraudulent, 

but you would say that you still have that. 

The CDR units that I talked about, when I was here in 1998 

under President Clinton, I established a unit that was a partnership between the Office of Inspector General and law enforcement 

at the local level and us here at the Federal level, and these identify people who are pretending that they are disabled, and we are 

able to then stop them from getting a payment. It has been hugely 

successful. OIG would say that there is probably about a $17 return for every $1 that is spent. We only have 35 of those. When 

I came back after being away for 15 years, we only had 24. I increased five in 2014, and I am doing another five in 2015. So that 

will take that number up. We should have one in every State, but 

it takes funding to do that. 

We also are establishing a centralized fraud unit that is being 

very aggressive in using data analytics. We are working with the 

private sector, and we are doing some benchmarking to look at 

what else we can do to be able to detect the fraud before it occurs. 

Senator KAINE. Commissioner Colvin, I have run over time, and 

I just want to thank you for that answer, and I know that there 

is more on this score that we can talk about. 

Ms. COLVIN. We would be happy to provide more for the record 

if someone wants it. 

Chairman ENZI. Senator Grassley. 

Senator GRASSLEY. Commissioner Colvin, I regularly hear from 

my colleagues on the other side of the aisle contending Republicans 

are attempting to manufacture a crisis in the Disability Insurance 

program where none exists. They argue it has been regularly practiced to simply transfer funds from the Old-Age Fund to the Disability Fund to cover any shortfall. 

However, that understanding appears to not square with reality. 

I use this example. Last year, in response to a question from Chairman Hatch at the Finance Committee hearing, Deputy Commissioner La Canfora testified that she was unaware of any past 

‘‘stand-alone legislation that reallocated payroll tax inflows from 

the OASI Trust Fund to the DI Trust Fund.’’ 

So, Commissioner Colvin, could you confirm previous allocations 

from the Old-Age Fund to the Disability Fund were not done as 

stand-alone legislation? And then, in addition, is there any reason 
259 

that a stand-alone reallocation should be the only option considered 

now? 

Ms. COLVIN. I am not certain I know what you mean when you 

say ‘‘stand-alone.’’ I do not think that the proposal that the President is making is any different than what has occurred in the past. 

We have had 11 reallocations in the past from the DI to the OASI 

and vice versa. So I am not sure that I understand what ‘‘standalone’’ means. I would have to go back and research that and give 

you something for the record. 

Senator GRASSLEY. Okay. You can supplement the record if you 

want to, but the most recent allocation in 1994 included an alteration of eligibility for drug addiction and alcoholism to qualify for 

disability. 

Ms. COLVIN. Okay. 

Senator GRASSLEY. It is generally understood that demographic 

changes have contributed to increased benefits and the projected 

shortfall. But I am also curious as to the contribution of certain 

policy changes. According to the Congressional Budget Office, legislation in the early 1980s increased subjectivity in the determination of policy because it ‘‘allowed symptoms of mental illness and 

pain to be considered in assessing whether a person qualified for 

admission to the DI program, even in the absence of clear-cut medical diagnosis.’’ 

CBO goes on to say that these changes ‘‘led to a substantial expansion in the share of DI beneficiaries with mental and musculoskeletal disorders.’’ 

So, Commissioner Colvin, do you agree with the CBO analysis? 

Is the increased subjectivity in the determination of disability 

something Congress should be concerned about? 

Ms. COLVIN. I do not think that that statement is fully accurate. 

Certainly there is an area of subjectivity, but that is complemented 

by the medical evaluations that I talked about earlier, that no one 

can come on the rolls simply because they allege pain or some 

other medical disability that is not substantiated or corroborated 

by medical records and laboratory results. 

Now, in 1984, when Congress acted to make some changes to the 

law and some would suggest that it was liberalized, you may remember that Congress acted because they felt that the interpretation of the law was very narrow and was not intended to be implemented the way it was implemented. So you had the Medical Improvement Initiative; you had mental health. And coming out of the 

mental health community, I certainly think it was the right thing 

to do. Mental health is an illness, but, again, there is very specific 

criteria that individuals follow in making those decisions. We work 

with the Institute of Medicine and other such organizations to 

make sure that we are staying current with medical science. We 

follow the science. We do not create the medicine, but we interpret 

it based on what is happening in the medical community at the 

time. 

So I do not think that the 1984 laws liberalized the program. I 

think that the increase that you saw was the result of the economic 

and demographic factors that we have talked about: aging of the 

baby boomers, reaching the disability-prone years, more women 

coming into the workforce, those kinds of things. And we do a lot 
260 

of quality review around those subjective areas that you have 

talked about. We give ongoing training. As I mentioned before, 50 

percent of all decisions at the DDS level are reviewed for accurate 

before we make a payment. So I think we have control in those 

areas. 

Senator GRASSLEY. Thank you. 

Chairman ENZI. Thank you. 

Senator King? 

Senator KING. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

I want to go back to Senator Perdue’s questions and what troubles me about this. I am touched by your faith in bipartisanship 

to solve difficult problems, but not fully confident. We are much 

more adept at bipartisan avoidance than we are at bipartisan solutions. And 2033 is not that far off. 

Ms. COLVIN. That is correct. 

Senator KING. I remember 1998. It was not that long ago. 2033 

is going to come, and what I fear is we will have taken a series 

of steps, such as the one proposed here, and then we will be faced 

with exactly the same problem, only much larger, on a much more 

broad scale, involving not only Disability but the Old-Age program, 

and we will have run out of places to hide. 

And let me just state categorically I do not in any way, shape, 

or form want to see cuts in disability benefits. I do not want to see 

any diminution of what is already a fairly modest level of support. 

But what bothers me is the solution, and the solution is avoidance. 

And inevitably—you have used the phrase ‘‘the combined funds actuarially do not change.’’ Well, that is true because one comes down 

and the other goes up. But the Old-Age does come down by a year, 

not a lot, but it is the principle of the thing. And we just keep 

doing this. And I would much rather see some serious discussion 

about, A, does the program need additional funds because more 

people are disabled, more p in the workforce, demographics? And 

are there things that we can do to improve the program and provide the appropriate benefits, but at the same time cut the costs, 

for example, greater back-to-work programs? I mean, one of the 

problems, I am sure you are aware, is the so-called cash cliff where 

there is very little incentive to go back to work. The private sector 

disability insurance, we have a company based on Maine called 

Unum that does a great deal of work with this. They have been 

very successful in getting people back to work. The rate, as I understand it, in this program, in disability, Social Security disability, 

is 1 to 4 percent ever go back to work. 

Ms. COLVIN. That is correct. 

Senator KING. It seems to me that dealing with the cash cliff 

problem, some kind of phasing, greater intervention, working with 

these folks to get them back into the workforce, which I suspect 

they would like to do, would do a lot for the actuarial balance of 

the program. Periodic reviews, demonstration programs to show 

how we can do this, I would like to see that. Re-fund it. You mentioned the $1 for $9 return. We have got to do things like that, 

make those kind of programmatic changes. But it just bothers me 

that we are basically taking from one fund and giving to the other 

and calling that a solution and saying, well, 2033, I think one of 

my colleagues said, is way off into the future. It is not. And actu-
261 

arial numbers do not lie, and it is going to come, and this is just 

another way of making that problem worse when it does come. 

So I commend you for the proposal and for the President’s stepping forward, but I think it is just too easy to say, ‘‘Oh, we are just 

going to do this for 5 years. It is going to make it okay and, you 

know, somebody else will deal with it in 2033.’’ We are dealing with 

problems now because our colleagues 20, 30 years ago did not. And 

it is just going to get worse. Problems put off rarely get easier to 

solve with the passage of time. I am sorry to lecture you, but I just 

had to say I understand the impulse here, but I think it is bipartisan avoidance, not bipartisan solution. 

Do you agree that some of these back-to-work and the cash cliff, 

that those could be effective in dealing with the long-term actuarial 

problems? 

Ms. COLVIN. That is one of the reasons that the President’s budget proposes a number of demonstration projects, so we can see just 

how effective they are. But, clearly, we know that early intervention is the key, Mr. King, because many of the people who come 

on our rolls are not going to be physically able to go back to work. 

We certainly want those who are able to go back to work to go back 

to work, and about 1 percent do. And I think that is terrific considering that the average amount of time on our rolls is about 10 

years. So if you get that 1 percent to go back to work, that is about 

10 percent. 

But I think the key is early intervention to try to get people to 

be able to remain in the workforce before they come out. 

Senator KING. And also the rule that you cannot work at all for, 

what is it, 2 years before you are eligible or— 

Ms. COLVIN. There are some work restrictions, and we are looking at all of those things. I do not want to suggest that within the 

agency we are not looking to see from, you know, the beginning of 

the process to the end if there are things that we want to recommend that would require legislative changes. But I just want to 

reemphasize that anything to fix the program will require congressional action—not administrative action; congressional action. 

Senator KING. I understand that, but I would like to see—and I 

understand that we have got an immediate problem in 2016, and 

we have got to deal with that, and maybe this rebalancing that you 

are talking about is the only short-term solution. But I would only 

support that if I also saw along with that other changes in the program that would increase the actuarial soundness of the overall 

program and leave us where we are in 2033 instead of aggravating 

the problem by just pushing it out a few years. 

Thank you very much, and thank you for your service under very 

difficult circumstances. I associate myself with Senator Kaine’s remarks. We should get you confirmed so you can fully get to work. 

I am a former Governor. I think executives should be able to choose 

the people that they want to work with them, and whatever their 

party, and stand or fall on the quality of their people. 

Ms. COLVIN. Thank you. 

Senator KING. Thank you for your service. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman ENZI. Senator Sessions. 
262 

Senator SESSIONS. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for 

what I think is a very important hearing. Commissioner Colvin, it 

is great to have you here, and we just have to talk about it. Senator King says actuarial numbers do not lie, and we might as well 

face up to the difficulties. 

Commissioner Colvin, is it not fundamentally true that as you 

consider disability an insurance program, we do not have enough— 

each individual that pays into Social Security through their payroll 

taxes for disability actually in effect is paying in less than they are 

drawing out if they become disabled over time as general numbers? 

Ms. COLVIN. I would have to give you those numbers for the 

record. I am not certain that that is fully accurate, because remember that the average amount of time that someone spends on our 

rolls is 10 years, and that for anyone coming on who is 55, they 

die within the first 5 years. So I would like to go back and get the 

data to make sure that is accurate. 

Senator SESSIONS. Well, I think we are running out of money because it is not actuarially sound, is it? I mean, if you are an insurance company, you would have to raise income or cut benefits to 

keep it on a sound path. 

Ms. COLVIN. And those are the things that I hope Congress will 

look at. What is the path— 

Senator SESSIONS. I know. It is our responsibility. It is in law. 

It is not your—we created this, and we have a shortfall, it seems 

to me. And with regard to Social Security, the retirement benefit, 

it is a similar thing. We have created a system that creates a benefit, an increasing benefit when the economy grows, and we do not 

have enough money coming in both overall and per individual. Is 

that correct? 

Ms. COLVIN. Well, we recognize that you have far fewer workers 

paying into the system than you did when the program was created. 

Senator SESSIONS. Right. 

Ms. COLVIN. We celebrated our 80th anniversary this year Social 

Security will have been in existence, but it is a basic financial security system for the workers of this country. And I think it behooves 

us to figure out how to make it financially sound. 

Senator SESSIONS. I agree we need to make it sound, and it is 

not your responsibility. It is ours. I acknowledge that. But as I understand it, a worker turning 65 in 2020 who made average wages 

over their lifetime will pay in $427,000 plus that includes the interest that would be accruing on that into Medicare and Social Security, but they would receive over $100,000 more, $536,000 in benefits. So I am just asking you, this is an actuarially unsound proposition, is it not? 

Ms. COLVIN. I would have to look at your numbers. As I said, we 

recognize that—and we do the Trustee report each year, so we predict what the impact will be each year. 

Senator SESSIONS. Well, let me just ask you this: You are in 

charge of this program. The average person over their lifetime, 

aren’t they going to draw—on average they will draw out more 

than they pay in, including the interest that might accrue? 

Ms. COLVIN. I am not sure of that. I would like to get back with 

the answer for the record on that. I do not know if that is accurate. 
263 

Senator SESSIONS. Okay. Well, thank you. I would like to know 

that. If that is not so, then we have got less of a problem than I 

thought we had. It would be nice if that were so. 

Ms. COLVIN. I really do not know that number. I need to get back 

to you for the record with that. 

Senator SESSIONS. All right. 

Senator SESSIONS. Now, with regard to the disability situation, 

colleagues—and I know Senator Enzi is going to be wrestling with 

this, but the administration has said that we would just take the 

money from the Social Security retirement fund and fix this in the 

interim. I understand that is the solution. I understand the House 

has said that they do not want to do that and there has got to be 

more reforms, which I think should be. Anybody that saw the ‘‘60 

Minutes’’ show on disability and lawyers and judges that are too 

lax and the problems that we have, it is really serious. So I think 

we need to do that. But I do hope that we can work together on 

a bipartisan basis to get some reforms in this system instead of 

just raiding the retirement fund, because it is going kaput, too. It 

is on an unsustainable path, and the more we take from it to fund 

the disability portion, the weaker it becomes. So we are not really 

doing anything but, you know, robbing Peter to pay Paul. 

Mr. Chairman, my time is up. Thank you. I look forward to 

working with you on that, and if you would give me your best estimate on the cash flow of individuals, I would appreciate that. 

Chairman ENZI. Senator Merkley. 

Senator MERKLEY. Thank you very much for your testimony 

today, and thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

It is my understanding that a lot of veterans are on Social Security disability. Is that correct? 

Ms. COLVIN. We have 1 million right now. 

Senator MERKLEY. I have a couple letters I thought I would 

share from veterans back in Oregon. 

Kenneth from Medford wrote: ‘‘All of my disability came from my 

service in Vietnam. I am totally dependent on my Social Security 

disability check. If I do not get paid, I cannot pay the rent. It is 

impossible for me to work because of my disability, so please stop 

this game.’’ He is taking it very personally that people are attacking the veterans on disability. 

And Roberta from Portland, she wrote: ‘‘Dear Senator Merkley, 

my name is Roberta, and I am a 100 percent service-connected disabled veteran. As such, I collect Social Security disability. I own 

my home, but I spent a decade homeless after my discharge for disability from the Navy. I am 55 now. I cannot go homeless again. 

It would be a death sentence.’’ 

For folks who are on disability with these significant, major injuries, what happens if we do not sustain the health of this program? 

Ms. COLVIN. Well, I do not want to be dramatic, but I have 

worked with this population my whole career. I think we give them 

a death sentence. You cannot have people out there who have 

served this country, you cannot have workers who have helped to 

build this country strong, that all of a sudden because of inaction 

we slash their benefits by 20 percent. If you think about it, if you are getting $1,200 a month, you are 

barely surviving. And if you then get a cut there, you are not going 
264 

to be able to survive. Right now these people are making tough 

choices between the things that we take for granted—eating, paying their rent, paying for their medicine. I do not think that this 

country can allow that to happen. These are workers’ benefits. People have paid into the system, and they deserve the comfort and 

certainty that this benefit will continue and it will not be threatened. 

Senator MERKLEY. And you have noted in your testimony that 

just a fraction of those who apply are actually granted disability 

because it is a very rigorous standard. 

Ms. COLVIN. That is correct. At the DDS level right now, there 

is about a 32-percent approval rate. I do not usually focus on approval or disapproval. What I focus on is making certain that we 

make the right decision. But these are people who deserve our support and our help. But they have also earned it. It is an earned 

benefit. 

Senator MERKLEY. You have noted that there are these Cooperative Disability Investigative Units around the country in 35 States, 

and I think I understood you to say that for each dollar invested, 

we get $15 back. 

Ms. COLVIN. I think that the Office of Inspector General says $17. 

Senator MERKLEY. $17 back. Is there any reason that we do not 

just go ahead and put one into another 15 States? 

Ms. COLVIN. Money. When I came back, we only had 24. I have 

already diverted money from customer service, where I should be 

serving the public, to put these units in, trying to balance. So I put 

in 10 more, which gives us the 35. But I do not have the resources 

to do more than that. 

Senator MERKLEY. So if we are getting $17 back for every dollar 

we put in, maybe there would be bipartisan support for that kind 

of smart investment. There has been a lot of concern expressed. 

You have noted it is very difficult to be approved for disability and 

that the fraud rate is minuscule. But certainly having the investigation units is a part of what keeps the solvency, so maybe that 

is a bipartisan conversation we can have for that type of return on 

the investment. 

And then you have also noted these Continuing Disability Reviews, which are basically another fraud control. You go back and 

recheck whether somebody is still disabled, because sometime people heal from a disability. But there is a backlog of 1.3 million 

CDRs, and you are proposing we try to take on some of that backlog. But maybe colleagues on both sides of the aisle could agree 

that we should accelerate the investment for those reviews. 

Do we have a sense of whether those reviews primarily serve a 

preventive service, that is, people knowing that they will go 

through these reviews, it reduces even that small fraction of fraud? 

Or do we find people who have improved and they should be coming off the disability rolls and, therefore, there is a return on these 

reviews? 

Ms. COLVIN. The CDRs are designed to do just that. When people 

come on the rolls, we know that some are likely to improve and 

some will not. For those that are likely to improve, we should go 

back within the time frame to review to see if there is improve-
265 

ment. And when we do not, of course, they continue to get a check 

even though they may no longer be disabled. So that would be important. 

Also, when we do the reviews, we may see some patterns that 

suggest that things are inappropriate that may allow us to see if 

there is fraudulent activity. I think that if you support the President’s 2016 budget where he is asking for a dedicated program integrity budget, we would be able to do many of the things you are 

talking about. That 2016 budget will allow us to do 908,000 CDRs 

versus the 700 that we are doing this year or the 500 we did last 

year. So I would urge— 

Senator MERKLEY. So I will do a summary statement because I 

am out of time. But I think you are saying if we invest in these 

two programs—the investigative units and the CDRs—we will even 

further improve the efficiency and appropriateness of this program. 

That is a win-win. 

Ms. COLVIN. Absolutely. 

Senator MERKLEY. Thank you. 

Ms. COLVIN. Thank you, sir. 

Chairman ENZI. Senator Baldwin? 

Senator BALDWIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member Sanders. I appreciate the opportunity to be here to discuss an 

important social safety net that is available to all working Americans: Social Security Disability Insurance. 

This program allows workers that have paid in with at least 5 

years of work to be insured in the event that they become disabled, 

by disabling injury or illness or other condition. 

Now, if the members of the Committee will indulge me, I would 

like to take a brief moment to brag about the program’s proud origins in the State of Wisconsin. In the State of Wisconsin, we have 

something called ‘‘the Wisconsin Idea,’’ which has actually come 

under attack in recent days by our Governor. But first articulated 

in 1904, the Wisconsin Idea states that the mission of the University of Wisconsin system is to solve problems and to improve people’s lives beyond the classroom, essentially that academicians and 

government experts should work together to solve social problems. 

It was in the spirit of the Wisconsin Idea that President Franklin 

Delano Roosevelt asked two Wisconsin professors, Arthur Altmeyer 

and Edwin Witte, to design the Social Security program and system. 

Now, from the beginning, Altmeyer advocated for a disability insurance program, stating that it might eventually be of even greater need than old-age protection. But he was wary at the time of potential political attacks against such a program, so it took a little 

over two decades for Altmeyer’s Disability Insurance program vision and dreams to actually be realized. 

The program we have today is really due to that vision. However, 

I am very concerned by the politics that brings us to this hearing 

and this moment today, concerned that the Social Security Disability Insurance program has really come under attack by Republicans in the House who are putting up procedural obstacles to the 

way that we have sustained the viability of this program over 

many, many years and setting the stage actually for a battle over 

its future. 
266 

Ms. Colvin, the AARP and every major retirement advocacy 

group opposes this particular House Republican recent action, tactic regarding Social Security Disability Insurance Trust Fund because it puts the whole program at risk. 

Can you tell me if it is true that the only two means available 

other than, of course, transferring money between the Social Security—or into the Social Security Disability Insurance Trust Fund— 

the only means available to restore solvency would be either drastic 

benefit cuts or raising revenues with policies like increasing the 

earnings cap? 

Ms. COLVIN. Well, clearly, any change that you make is going to 

take some time. That is why the President put forth the reallocation proposal. We did not expect the type of reaction because this 

has been done 11 times in the past on a bipartisan basis. In fact, 

five of those times we transferred resources from DI to OASI. 

Clearly, any reform is going to require a combination of the things 

you have talked about, some changes perhaps to benefits and some 

changes to revenue. And there are many proposals out there that 

have been presented by many bipartisan groups as a matter of 

whether or not the country remains committed to providing this 

basic benefit for workers of this country. 

Senator BALDWIN. But, obviously, if we were able to do the transfers that you describe, having been done 11 times before in both 

directions, we do not face the immediate issue of drastic cuts. 

Ms. COLVIN. And then we can have a thoughtful discussion about 

what changes will occur and try to minimize the impact on those 

who receive those benefits. When the President put forth those six 

principles, it was designed to make certain that people would not 

be harmed as we looked at reforming the process. 

Senator BALDWIN. You know, I appreciate my colleagues who 

have taken the time to share the stories of their constituents who 

have applied for and are eligible for and receive Social Security 

Disability Insurance benefits, because oftentimes we talk about 

them as a group rather than share their individual stories. But I 

think that if we find ourselves in the policy choice between either 

cutting benefits to the very most vulnerable in our society by some 

reports 20 percent, by your own testimony— 

Ms. COLVIN. That is correct. 

Senator BALDWIN. —20 percent or asking the wealthiest 6 percent in this country to pay the same in Social Security taxes as 

poor and middle-class workers pay, I know which side I am on. 

Chairman ENZI. Senator Ayotte. 

Senator AYOTTE. I want to thank the Chairman, and I want to 

thank you the witness for being here today. As I hear about 11 

years of transfers, whether it is from the Old-Age Fund to the Disability Fund and obviously the immediate issue facing us in 2016, 

we have been here before since 1994 when we transferred money 

from Old-Age to Disability with the goal of buying time to fix the 

program. So we have been doing this for about 20 years with the 

same problem. We know what the problem is. 

And so how do we avoid getting back in the same position next 

year, and the year, after that where we are kicking the can? How 

do we avoid that? Because it seems to me we owe the people who 

really need this fund, and it is important to them that we actually 
267 

try to solve the long-term viability of it. And we have got the longterm viability of the Old-Age Fund, as well. It is wonderful to get 

six principles from the President, but I would also love to know 

what he would support in terms of concrete reforms so we can work 

together. 

Ms. COLVIN. Well, certainly I think it is going to be incumbent 

that Congress sit down and look at the various proposals that are 

out there and determine which ones you can support. This proposal 

that is before us now is to give you the time to be able to do that. 

Senator AYOTTE. See, but here is what I am struggling with: We 

have had so much time on this. We would love to see concrete proposals from the administration. I know that Senator Baldwin referred to a proposal in the House, but what is it the administration 

could support that, rather than just a transfer, would actually reform and preserve the programs so that we can work together to 

figure out on a bipartisan basis how we are preserving this for the 

long term, and we are not having Groundhog Day again? If we 

went back to 1994, I bet you there were Senators asking the same 

question as me here. Can you help me with that? Does the administration have a plan to submit to us that we could look at some 

concrete proposals that they might support? 

Ms. COLVIN. I can only speak today to the proposal that is before 

you, which is the President’s 2016 budget which sets for the reallocation plan as well as numerous legislative proposals and some 

demonstration proposals, et cetera, and I think you have those. I 

can certainly walk through those if you wish. 

Senator AYOTTE. I do. I understand reallocation, but I think that 

is just basically robbing Peter to pay Paul. Let us not kid ourselves. 

And I hope that the administration will actually submit something 

concrete. If they do not like the House proposal, then let us hear 

what the proposals are that they would submit. And I hope other 

people are listening to this and would submit to us some ideas we 

can work on together. 

I got to the hearing a little bit late, and I wanted to understand 

if you testified about the fact that we have seen, going back to 

1994, a significant increase in the number of claims that the Disability Fund has to cover. Could you help me understand what you 

believe is driving that? And what do we have to look at in terms 

of a situation where we see an increasing number of claims, that 

obviously exacerbates the fiscal challenge that we face? All of us 

want to make sure that the people who really need this fund are 

able to access it. So, can you give me a sense of what we are facing? 

Ms. COLVIN. Absolutely. The increase in the disability rolls during this period of time should not have been a surprise. It has been 

projected by the actuaries and the trustees of Social Security since 

1995, and they were right on target. The primary reasons were the 

economic and demographic factors, the fact that the baby boomers 

were reaching the disability-prone years and would be, in fact, coming on to the disability rolls, the fact that more women were working and getting benefit on their own right. In fact, they are now 

on parity with men. 

We knew that this was going to occur. I think the one area that 

may not have been fully projected was the recession, and so cer-
268 

tainly people who were marginally employed, a number of those individuals came on our rolls. 

If you look at data now, you see that those variables are becoming minimal, and so now the number of applications are less. The 

number has significantly decreased. And the actuaries I believe 

projected that decrease will continue to go down and level out, because now you have individuals who were in disability-prone years 

now going into retirement years. Most of your baby boomers will 

be going into the retirement pool. And, of course, the actuarial 

challenges are related to the fact that we have less workers paying 

into the system than when we first started this program. 

So I do not think you should be surprised by the spike, and now, 

of course, we are pleased to see that that spike is decreasing, as 

was projected. 

Senator AYOTTE. I know my time is up but there is one thing I 

do not understand, and perhaps you could help me with this. I understand the baby-boomer issue because it is, frankly, an issue we 

are facing in the Old-Age Fund, Medicare and many other programs. I understand the funding problem in terms of the recession, 

meaning number of people paying in. Maybe I misunderstood your 

testimony, but is there a relationship between when it is a recession more people go to disability, or were you just speaking to the 

funding issue? Because if that is a connection, I am curious why 

that connection would be there. 

Ms. COLVIN. No, I think you have people who were marginally 

employed, they worked part-time, they may have situations where 

they are in and out of the job market, and they really try to hold 

on. During a recession you will see more of those people applying 

for disability, and they, in fact, meet our requirements. People 

want to work, and they try to work as long as they possibly can. 

But in some situations, they are just not able to. That is why you 

have provisions in the statute relative to substantial gainful activity. People who are disability rolls are allowed to earn a certain 

amount. We want to encourage that. 

And so there is a correlation. We would be very happy to meet 

with you privately and share more information with you. 

Senator AYOTTE. I would love more follow-up information for the 

record. 

Ms. COLVIN. We would certainly love to do that. 

Chairman ENZI. Thank you, Senator Ayotte. 

That concludes the questions for the first panel this morning. 

Commissioner Colvin, thank you for agreeing to testify this morning. This is an important topic, and we are going to need to work 

together on a long-term solution to better serve our disabled. That 

prediction that is so accurate from 20 years ago must have understood every demographic change that was going to happen, and yet 

we did not take those factors into consideration to come up with 

a solution. So I am hoping that we do not just kick the can down 

the road. I am hoping that the President will take an active role 

in this. And one of the main reasons is, in 2033, we are not going 

to be able to do any transfer from Old-Age or the Disability Fund 

or the Medicare HI Fund, Part A. They are all going to be in the 

same shape come 2033, so a reallocation will not be possible. So I 

hope we do not kick the can down the road. 
269 

Thank you very much for testifying. 

Senator SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, if I could, just very briefly, I 

think at the end of the day there is pretty clear agreement. I would 

hope that nobody here is going to be supportive of the 19-percent 

cut for some of the most vulnerable people in this country. 

But also I think there is widespread recognition that w have a 

serious problem that has to be addressed. So my solution or suggestion is let us deal with this, let us do what the President said, let 

us do what has been done 11 times. Let us sit down and figure out 

how we do not kick the can down the road. 

Chairman ENZI. Thank you. 

The next panel, while we are setting up for the panel I will introduce the three witnesses who we are honored to have before the 

Committee this morning. We have talked about the problem. Now 

I am hoping we get the solutions. 

First we will hear from Dr. Duggan. Dr. Duggan is the Wayne 

and Jodi Cooperman Professor of Economics at Stanford University 

and a leading expert on Federal disability programs. Prior to joining Stanford, Dr. Duggan held faculty positions at the University 

of Pennsylvania, the University of Maryland, and Harvard University. He also was an economist with President Obama’s Council of 

Economic Advisers in 2009 and 2010. Dr. Duggan has written extensively on the causes of the rise in disability insurance over the 

last 30 years. Along with his co-author David Autor of Harvard 

University, he proposed reforming the disability system using 

front-end interventions focused on rehabilitation upon the onset of 

a disability to keep workers in the labor market. 

Second, we will hear from Dr. de Jong, who is a professor of economics at the University of Amsterdam and managing partner at 

APE, a research firm in the Netherlands. He is an expert on European disability programs and is considered by many to be the father of disability reform in Holland. He has published widely on 

Social Security and disability insurance. He has also advised the 

European Union, the OECD, the World Bank, and many countries 

confronting disability issues. 

Finally, we will hear from Ms. Lang. Ms. Lang is a staff attorney 

at the National Senior Citizens Law Center where she works on 

issues related to Social Security Disability Insurance and Supplemental Security Income. Prior to joining the National Senior Citizens Law Center, Ms. Lang was an attorney at the Legal Aid Bureau in Maryland and has worked for a variety of other legal services for low-income people. Ms. Lang has an undergraduate degree 

from Oberlin College, a law degree from Fordham University, and 

a master’s degree in teaching English to speakers of other languages from the University of Pennsylvania. 

For the information of colleagues, each witness will take 5 minutes for their opening statements followed by questions. 

Dr. Duggan, please begin. 
270 

STATEMENT OF MARK G. DUGGAN, THE WAYNE AND JODI 

COOPERMAN PROFESSOR OF ECONOMICS, STANFORD UNIVERSITY 

Mr. DUGGAN. Chairman Enzi, Ranking Member Sanders, and 

members of the Committee, it is truly an honor to be here with you 

here today. 

The Social Security Disability Insurance program currently provides insurance against the risk of disability to more than 151 million American adults. The program represents an extremely important part of our Nation’s safety net as it protects workers and their 

families from the risk of a disability that prevents or greatly inhibits a person’s ability to work. 

Nearly 9 million adults received SSDI disabled worker benefits 

in December 2014. SSDI expenditures currently exceed program 

revenues by 26 percent, and as a result the program’s trust fund 

is rapidly being depleted. Current projections from the OASDI 

Trustees suggest that the trust fund will reach zero in late 2016. 

As shown in Figure 1 of my written testimony, enrollment in the 

SSDI program has grown steadily since the late 1980s, from 2.3 

percent of adults aged 25 to 64 in 1989 to 5.0 percent in 2013. In 

my testimony today, I will briefly summarize the factors that are 

responsible for this growth, and in my written testimony, I also 

outline the implications of this growth for the U.S. labor market 

and discuss some prospects for reform of the SSDI program. 

One contributor, as has been discussed already today, to the 

growth in SSDI enrollment has been the aging of the baby-boom 

generation. Individuals in their fifties and early sixties are significantly more likely to receive SSDI benefits than their counterparts 

in their thirties and forties. However, there has also been a significant increase within age groups during this time period. 

Consider individuals in their fifties. In 1989, 4.3 percent of 

adults in this age group were receiving SSDI benefits. By 2013, 

this had almost doubled to 8.3 percent. The increase was also substantial for people in their early sixties or for adults from 25 to 49. 

Because of these age-specific increases, the aging of the population 

explains only about one-fifth of the increase in SSDI enrollment 

from 2.3 percent to 5.0 percent. Put another way, if age-specific 

rates of SSDI enrollment had not changed over this time period, 

SSDI enrollment would have grown from 2.3 to 2.8 percent, not to 

5.0 percent. 

Another factor, as has been mentioned, is the increase in the 

fraction of women who are insured for the program. From 1989 to 

2013, the fraction of women 25 to 64 insured for the program increased from 66 to 75 percent. Taking account of this factor can explain another 12 percent of the growth in SSDI enrollment. So 

about one-third of the growth in SSDI enrollment from 1989 to 

2013 as a fraction of the population is attributable to these two factors. 

Another important determinant of the growth in SSDI enrollment since the 1980s, based on my own previous research with 

David Autor and others, is the liberalization of the program’s medical eligibility criteria that occurred in the mid-1980s. As shown in 

Figure 2, there has been a substantial increase in award rates for 

diseases of the musculoskeletal system and mental disorders, while 
271 

award rates for neoplasms and circulatory conditions have remained roughly constant. This shift is important because, as shown 

in recent research, the employment potential of individuals with 

these sometimes more subjective conditions is substantial, and it is 

often somewhat difficult to verify the severity. 

A fourth contributor to the rise in SSDI enrollment has been the 

reduction in the generosity of OASI retired worker benefits. As a 

result of legislation passed in 1983, the fraction of full benefits that 

a worker can receive at age 62 if they claim retirement benefits has 

fallen from 80 to 70 percent, and as a result, the ratio of SSDI benefits to those early benefits is growing from 25 percent higher to 

43 percent higher. Some of my own previous research shows that 

this has resulted in an increase in SSDI enrollment. 

Another important driver of the rise in SSDI enrollment is the 

sensitivity of the program to economic conditions. As shown in Figure 3 of my testimony, applications to the program are highly responsive to the unemployment rate, with applications rising substantially during economic downturns and falling when the economy improves. Previous research has shown that individuals who 

lose their job or who are unable to find a new job are more likely 

to exit the labor force and apply for SSDI benefits. This is troubling 

when one considers the low exit rate from the program back into 

the labor force. 

There have been other factors that have contributed as well to 

the rise in SSDI enrollment, including changes in replacement rate 

and other factors that I outline in my written testimony. The 

steady rise in SSDI enrollment, though, has started to slow down 

over the last couple of years, and I talk more about that in my 

written testimony. 

While providing valuable insurance to tens of millions of Americans, the SSDI program reduces the incentive to work both for individuals on the program and those applying for SSDI benefits. The 

growth in the program has coincided with a substantial reduction 

in employment rates among individuals with disabilities. For example, from 1988 to 2008, the employment rate of men in their forties 

and fifties who reported a work-limiting disability fell by 12 percentage points. 

One way to improve incentives in the SSDI program is to intervene sooner for individuals with work-limiting conditions so that 

they can continue working, and we have talked a bit—this has already been discussed somewhat here today. 

The payoff to keeping a potential SSDI applicant in the workforce is very high given that the average present value of an SSDI 

award is in the neighborhood of $300,000. 

Increasing employment among individuals with disabilities could 

improve their economic well-being and increase their autonomy 

while also reducing the fiscal strains on the Social Security program. 

Sorry I ran over. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Duggan follows:] 
272 
273 
274 
275 
276 
277 
278 
279 
280 
281 
282 
283 
284 
285 

Chairman ENZI. Dr. de Jong? 

STATEMENT OF PHILIP R. DE JONG, PROFESSOR OF ECONOMICS, UNIVERSITY OF AMSTERDAM - AMSTERDAM SCHOOL OF 

ECONOMICS 

Mr. de Jong. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is an honor for me 

as a Dutchman to address your Committee, but it also restricts myself. I come from a country where the minimum wage, the legal 

minimum wage is at the level of $1,200 per month, the same as 

the average benefit, even under the current euro-dollar transfer 

rates. 

Moreover, I come from a country which is not bipartisan, where 

governments are tripartisan coalitions or even quadripartisan. So 

what I learned here this morning is a lot about U.S. politics, and 

I am sorry to say much less about the solutions of the dooming 

problems with funding disability benefits. A lot of the discussions 

were about funding and much less, with a few exceptions, about 

the system. What I present is a system change, and I am sorry to 

have to use the word which you made use of, privatization, and especially strong incentives for employers, engaging employers. But 

the principle was focus on capacity, not on incapacity, and that is 

something which may be changed if you look at the SSDI system. 

But I feel somewhat awkward to suggest as a foreigner things to 

your political program. 

Anyway, let me start with my testimony. Disability benefit 

schemes are often used as a provision to accommodate social 

change and cyclical ups and downs, as Mark just has evidenced. In 

the Netherlands, the DI scheme supported structural change towards a service-oriented economy, and it mollified the transition of 

Dutch households from a traditional single breadwinner type to a 

modern dual-earner family. 

Similar uses of disability benefit schemes could be seen in Eastern Europe to soften the pains of transition to a market economy 

in the 1990s. In the U.S., too, the pronounced positive relationship 

between the national unemployment rate and the SSDI application 

rate shows that SSDI works as an alternative, and more generous, 

unemployment scheme. It is one of the factors that caused secular 

growth in the U.S. number of disability benefits, as Mark Duggan 

just explained. 

The drawback of using disability benefits as a ‘‘soft’’ unemployment scheme is that it hides the lack of targeted, more cost-effective provisions and postpones their introduction. Meanwhile, huge 

unfunded financial liabilities are created given the long average 

duration of disability benefit dependency. The Dutch case is a good 

illustration both of the size of such liabilities and of the long political road it took to change an entitlement-oriented disability policy 

into an employment-oriented one. 

To give you an example, in 1990 there was no country in the 

world that had more disability beneficiaries per 100 workers than 

the Netherlands. Twelve percent of the labor force was on disability, and the entry rate into disability was 2 percent; 2 per 100 

went each year on disability. 

Under pressure, like which was discussed here, of an aging workforce, the Dutch Government took a series of steps, in fact, from 
286 

1994 onwards. Their success fluctuated, but as of 2002 the steps 

taken were successful in bringing down DI awards, so the entries, 

by 60 percent. I have a figure in my written testimony to show 

that. 

The major element causing the drop in DI inflow is early intervention, fueled by strong financial incentives for firms. In my introduction by the Chairman, he mentioned that I am a partner in a 

consultancy, so I am an employer myself, so I know—I am experienced in what it means to pay—to finance sickness benefits oneself, 

because that is an important part of what the Dutch did. All Dutch 

firms are obliged to pay for sickness benefits themselves, for rehabilitation, for accommodation, and for job mediation during the first 

2 years of disablement. And those 2 years are also the mandatory 

waiting time before you can be awarded a long-term disability benefit, which is a public program. So that means that the coverage, 

the income protection of the first 2 years of disablement is fully 

privatized. Of course, it is based on legal mandates, but firms have 

to provide for it themselves. And, of course, they can insure against 

it, and small firms have to insure against such a liability. But they 

are completely free to do that. 

Moreover, disability benefits, so after 2 years when you are assessed, when you put in a claim and you are awarded a disability 

benefit, these are financed by contributions that are experience 

rated at the level of the individual firm. That means that Dutch 

firms pay substantially higher rates if one or more of their employees enter the disability benefit, the Dutch disability benefit scheme. 

Dutch workers also face stronger incentives. Although sickness 

benefits replace about 85 percent of wages, with a cap, but with a 

very high cap of about 50,000 euros per year, the DI benefits are 

lower and such that they make work pay if someone has a residual 

earning capacity that is more than 20 percent of his previous earnings. I have to explain to you that disability under the Dutch law, 

under the Dutch disability insurance law, is defined in terms of 

earning capacity, so in terms of money. So you compare what you 

still can earn with your limitations with what you used to earn before you became disabled. And that earning capacity loss, that is 

what is insured, what is covered. 

DI benefits are lower—if such partially disability benefits—so 

there is within the disability benefit system in Holland a possibility 

to get partial benefits, which work, in fact, as a wage subsidy. But 

if partially disabled workers do not use their residual capacity, 

they get a much lower benefit. So there is a strong incentive to use 

as much as you can of your residual capacity. 

From 2004 more stringent eligibility standards apply, and these 

standards are strictly administered, which is also important, by the 

DI program administrators because you can put stringent things in 

law but they have to be administrated as well, and that also calls 

for attention for incentives for administrators. The denial rate is 

about 45 percent and went up and down with the cyclical conditions. So it turned out to be robust against the business cycle. Of 

course, applications also in Holland go up under adverse economic 

conditions. But at the same time, denial rates also went up, so 

keep entries at a stable level. 
287 

Reforming a benefit program creates the issue of what to do with 

the current beneficiary population, and I think this is unheard of 

in the U.S. Between October 2004 and December 2007, all 300,000 

DI beneficiaries younger than 45 were reassessed under stricter 

standards, so during the game you change the rules, which is—I 

think would be here very controversial. Anyway, 39 percent of the 

benefits were terminated or reduced, and among this group about 

60 percent were working 3 years after their benefit status was reviewed and they lost the benefit of part of their benefits. But this 

is the only thing you can do to do something about this unfunded 

liability; otherwise, you have inheritance of a lot of people on disability who may be able to work, while your Continuing Disability 

Reviews may take care of that, that I do not know. 

Chairman ENZI. Can I ask you to kind of wrap that up? 

Mr. de Jong. Yes, yes. 

Chairman ENZI. We will have a lot more questions. 

Mr. de Jong. The reformed Dutch disability scheme purports to 

cover only those that have hardly any productive capacity left and 

to provide other workers with disabilities with strong incentives to 

remain active. The results for the first 9 years of the operation of 

the new scheme show that inflow rates have dropped substantially 

to levels that are reasonable by international standards and 

showed to be robust against the deep recession of 2008–13. The incentive structure that steers the behavior of employers and longterm sick workers proves to work. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. de Jong follows:] 
288 
289 
290 
291 

Chairman ENZI. Thank you very much. 

Ms. Lang? 

STATEMENT OF KATE LANG, SENIOR STAFF ATTORNEY, 

NATIONAL SENIOR CITIZENS LAW CENTER 

Ms. LANG. Thank you, Chairman Enzi, Ranking Member Sanders, and Senator Perdue. My name is Kate Lang, and I am an attorney with the National Senior Citizens Law Center. Our principal mission is to protect the rights of low-income older adults. 

I am also a co-chair of the Income Security Committee of the 

Leadership Council of Aging Organizations, or LCAO, a coalition of 

72 national aging advocacy organizations that represent millions of 

older Americans. Members of the coalition include the AARP, the 

National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, and 

the National Council on Aging, among many others. And together 

we work to preserve and strengthen the well-being of America’s 

older population. 

The LCAO believes that Congress should preserve the disability 

benefits of millions of older Americans by reallocating the payroll 

taxes between Social Security’s retirement fund and disability fund 

to equalize the solvency of the two funds and should do so without 

any cuts to Social Security coverage, eligibility, or benefits. 

As we all age, we face an increasing risk of acquiring disabilities 

that may limit our ability to support ourselves through work and 

put us at great financial risk. Fortunately, nearly all Americans 

pay into our Social Security system, a system of earned benefits 

that protect workers and their families in the event of death, disability, and retirement. More than 9 out of 10 American workers 

are insured for benefits that can be a lifeline for their families in 

the event of a qualifying disability. 

And I would like to take a moment today to tell you about one 

of those Americans, who is here with us today, in her green jacket. 

Darlene B. is a 60-year-old woman who 

lives here in Washington, D.C. She worked for many years in a 

variety of jobs in Pennsylvania and here in the D.C. area, but several years ago, Ms. B.’s children, who are now 28 and 30, noticed 

that she was struggling with her memory. She thought it might be 

related to a brain tumor that had been uncovered in her teens, but 

she was, in fact, diagnosed with early-onset Alzheimer’s in her fifties, and she was approved for disability benefits through Social 

Security’s Compassionate Allowances programs. 

Ms. B.’s life has changed a lot as a result of her health problems, 

especially now that her cancer has spread to her spine. She has to 

plan her activities for each day carefully, and she relies on her son 

to keep track of her appointments. He is also her representative 

payee and helps her manage the approximately $900 a month she 

receives. 

Nearly all of her benefits go to pay rent and utilities, and she 

has had to cut back on her expenses now that her income is so limited. If her benefits were cut, she might not be able to afford to continue living in her apartment. And Ms. B. will face a benefit cut 

of about 20 percent, or $180 a month, if Congress does not act in 

the next 2 years. 
292 

The LCAO urges Congress to reallocate Social Security’s payroll 

taxes to ensure continuation of benefits for Ms. B. and millions of 

older Americans with disabilities—and to do so without making 

any accompanying cuts to Social Security coverage, eligibility, or 

benefits. 

So I would quickly like to wrap up with three points: 

First, that most who receive Disability Insurance benefits are 

older adults, age 50 and older, so helping DI helps seniors. Seven 

in ten beneficiaries are age 50 and older, and three in ten are 60 

and older. When disabled workers receive Disability Insurance benefits as they age into their retirement years, these benefits help to 

ensure that they will not fall into poverty in later years. 

The increase in the full retirement age to 67 delays when disabled workers switch to receiving benefits from the retirement 

fund. And in December 2013, more than 450,000 people aged 65 

and 66 received disability insurance benefits. That is over 5 percent 

of the disabled workers receiving disability benefits. Under the 

rules in place until 2003, they would have been receiving retirement benefits instead. This is just one example of how closely the 

retirement and disability components of Social Security are interwoven and how changes to one part impact the other. 

Second, the need for reallocation has been expected for many 

years. When Congress last acted to reallocate payroll taxes in 1994, 

it was predicted that this action would need to be taken again in 

2016. And this is primarily due to a rapid, but temporary, increase 

in the number of disabled beneficiaries as baby boomers passed 

through their fifties and early sixties, when the risk of disability 

is greatest. 

Third, this present situation is nothing new. Congress has rebalanced payroll tax revenues between the two trust funds 11 times 

over the past 50 years, about equally in both directions. This is a 

traditional and usually noncontroversial step, and there should be 

nothing unusual or contentious in taking such a step now. 

In closing, reallocation does not require any increase in tax rates 

and will maintain the solvency of the combined trust funds until 

2033. One of the strengths of our Social Security system is its universality. Most Americans who rely on Social Security Disability 

Insurance are, in fact, older adults, and we reject any attempts to 

manufacture a crisis that pits older adults against people with disabilities. 

Thank you. I welcome any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Lang follows:] 
293 
294 
295 
296 
297 
298 
299 

Chairman ENZI. Thank you, Ms. Lang. I want to thank all the 

panelists for their information and ideas and hope you will be open 

to written questions submitted by people as well. We can go into 

more detail, and you are the three that we are relying on for the 

solutions. We in the earlier panel covered the problem pretty well. 

Let me begin my questions with Dr. de Jong. I want to thank you 

for coming all the way over here, and one of the reasons that we 

wanted you to testify is that when I was in the State legislature, 

I always tried to find some kind of a State that had already done 

what we were talking about doing and seeing what the pitfalls 

were and how they accomplished it. And so you are that on an 

international scale, and I appreciate it. 

You talked about privatization of Disability Insurance as a major 

instrument in helping the disabled people remain in the workforce, 

and you have probably already sense that that is a nasty word 

around here. But what it sounds like you did was get private insurance to pick up the first 2 years. Can you explain how you developed the market for that Disability Insurance for that first 2 years? 

Mr. de Jong. Well, it was not really developed. What you have 

now is that a Dutch employer has to contract—whether he wants 

to insure his financial liabilities towards paying sickness benefits 

for 2 years is something he can decide himself. There is no mandate. But he has to—he is legally mandated to contract occupational health services, because, I mean, normally employers—I can 

speak for myself—are not managers of absenteeism, of sickness absenteeism, so they have to contract company doctors, they have to 

contract people who—so that is all legally mandated, and what you 

normally see is that especially for small firms—and most firms are 

small—is a package that—an insurer offers a package including all 

these occupational health services so that the management of sickness absenteeism is in the hand of professionals that are contracted 

by the firm. 

But the point is that in the end the employer and the sick employee together have their responsibilities, and what their responsibilities are is when sickness lasts longer than 6 weeks, it is laid 

down in law also by what is called a ‘‘gatekeeper protocol,’’ by a 

protocol, where the steps that you have to take and that you have 

to follow promoting work resumption as soon as possible are laid 

down in law. And that sounds like a lot of red tape. I mean, of 

course, you can follow those rules. But in the end, you are judged, 

if it all fails and within those 2 years an employee is not able to 

return to work or to return to the labor market, then he or she has 

to—can claim a disability benefit. But then the public disability 

benefit administrators will test whether or not enough effort has 

been put in that work resumption plan, the ‘‘reintegration plan,’’ as 

it is called. 

So that is how it works. It is not really a market. Of course, 

there are private insurance, some of them you may know, ING, for 

instance, in Holland, and they provide those policies. 

Chairman ENZI. Thank you. 

Dr. Duggan, your research has shown that the Social Security 

Administration’s projections of the growth has consistently been too 

optimistic. Do you believe the SSA’s predictions of the future program growth are too low? And can you explain why? 
300 

Mr. DUGGAN. I served on a technical panel to evaluate the assumptions and methods used by the Office of the Actuary, and I 

want to praise—I think they have—it is an incredibly complicated 

program to examine. There is the Old-Age program, the disabled 

program, and so forth. And I have not studied the most recent 

Trustees report, but from my service on the panel, then my recollection is that in certain respects my projections were—my analysis 

suggested that projections were somewhat optimistic, looking 

ahead to the future, about—optimistic in terms of the program flattening out somewhat more in the future. 

And it is true that—I mean, there are Trustees reports each 

year, and they are—there is an incredible amount of work that go 

into them, and I have gotten to know a lot of the people who work 

in the staff, and they are outstanding. I do think there are years 

in which they were on target with their projections, but more often 

than not, the projections were below in terms of the size of the 

SSDI program, let us say as of today. 

But that is not to say—it is a complicated thing to measure. I 

mean, as you can see from my testimony, the growth in SSDI enrollment has been larger than one would expect based purely on 

the aging of the baby-boom population and the increase in the fraction of women insured for the program. 

So there have been really big changes in the composition of conditions with which people are qualifying for the program. So, for 

example, conditions like stroke and cancer have been relatively flat 

since, let us say, 1989; whereas, conditions like musculoskeletal 

conditions and mental disorders have grown a lot. 

That is not to say that people with—all disability recipients with 

musculoskeletal or mental disorders, that those are not very deserving recipients, but there has been a big change in the composition of the recipient population that is much greater than one 

would have expected based purely on aging and the insured status. 

So I do not envy their task because there are a lot of variables 

that go into it. There is the economy. There is—and many—the age 

distribution and so forth. But I do—you know, so—but I cannot say 

because I have not studied the most recent report how that one 

looks. My preliminary look at it suggests that there have been 

some adjustments since the panel recommendations that I was a 

part of that have gone in certain dimensions in the dimension that 

we as a panel recommended, but I just cannot—I do not remember 

them right now. Sorry. 

Chairman ENZI. Thank you. I will ask some of those in writing, 

and I appreciate all of your expertise, and we will draw on that significantly for all three of you. 

Senator Sanders? 

Senator SANDERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I thank all of 

you for coming here, especially you, Mr. de Jong, coming across the 

ocean to testify, and we appreciate that. 

Let me start off with Ms. Lang. Ms. Lang, you are here testifying 

on behalf of the Leadership Council of Aging Organizations. 

Ms. LANG. Yes, I am. 

Senator SANDERS. Which represents more than 70, as I understand it, senior citizen groups. 

Ms. LANG. That is right. 
301 

Senator SANDERS. And all of those groups, including the AARP 

and the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, I think all told they represent some 60 million Americans. Is 

that about right? 

Ms. LANG. About right, yes. 

Senator SANDERS. And you are here very clearly to tell us that 

you believe we should go forward with the allocation process that 

has taken place 11 times previously. Is that correct? 

Ms. LANG. Yes, it is. 

Senator SANDERS. Why? Why do groups representing 60 million 

Americans think that we should make sure there are not major 

cuts in the disability programs? 

Ms. LANG. Well, as I mentioned in my testimony, 70 percent of 

the current disability beneficiaries are, in fact, older adults, so any 

reduction in the program would harm them. 

I am sorry to see that Senator Sessions and Senator Ayotte have 

left, because they made the comment about robbing Peter to pay 

Paul, and the money is not actually taken out of the Old-Age or 

retirement fund. It is reallocating the payroll taxes that go into 

each fund. So I do not think it is accurate to characterize the situation as stealing from retirees to pay benefits to people with disabilities. It is merely reallocating the percentage of the payroll taxes 

that go to each fund, and it is very important to make sure that 

those older Americans who meet the very strict disability standard 

for receiving these benefits are able to continue receiving the income that they need as they age into their retirement years. 

Senator SANDERS. Ms. Lang, I happen to believe that at the end 

of the day, despite what the Republicans did in the House, we are 

going to reach an agreement, and I do not think anybody here really wants to see a 19-percent cut in disability benefits. That is what 

I think. 

But you also worked as an attorney representing low-income people with disabilities. Just very briefly, what would a 19-percent cut 

in benefits mean to people who are barely making it today? 

Ms. LANG. I would say for my clients, I represented dozens of 

people applying for disability benefits over several years, and for 

those who did meet the very strict standard and were able to get 

on benefits, it was a fairly low amount of money. So any sort of cut 

for them would really, I think, mean homelessness for many of— 

Senator SANDERS. How does a person with a disability survive 

out on the street when the weather gets, in my State, 10 below 

zero? 

Ms. LANG. I do not know. And, quite frankly, many shelters for 

homeless people are not equipped to accommodate people with disabilities and serve them. So it really can be a death sentence for 

many individuals with disabilities to face homelessness. 

Senator SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I love the idea that we brought 

somebody from Europe to be with us today. I think that is a great 

idea, and I think we should do more of it. It is called best practices. 

You know, Vermont can learn from Wyoming, and Wyoming can 

learn from California, and we can learn from Europe and so forth 

and so on. 

But what is interesting to me is that when we talk about the 

United States and Europe, I think what we should begin with is 
302 

appreciating that the social safety net that we have here is quite 

minimal compared to Europe. I would just for a moment, if I could 

ask Dr. de Jong, in this country we have 40 million people who 

have no health insurance. We have many more who are underinsured, large co-payments. How many people in Holland do not 

have any health insurance? 

Mr. de Jong. Well, only those that refuse to—well, no, everybody 

has health— 

Senator SANDERS. Everybody has health insurance, so maybe we 

should have a hearing here as to how that works, and my guess 

is you end up spending far less per capita on health care than we 

do in the United States. 

In this country, we have large numbers of people who cannot afford to go to university or college. Others graduate deeply in debt. 

What is the cost of a college education in Holland? 

Mr. de Jong. Well, you mean the tuition fees? 

Senator SANDERS. Yes. 

Mr. de Jong. That would be around 2,000 euros per year. 

Senator SANDERS. But it is my understanding also for many it 

is free. Is that correct? For lower-income people it might be free? 

Mr. de Jong. Yeah, they get grants. They get grants. 

Senator SANDERS. Okay. Now, let me ask you this about the reason that you are here, which is disability benefits. Let us hypothesize that you have two people who have suffered the same exact 

accident on the job—one is in the United States, and one is in Holland—and they needed disability benefits. Correct me if I am 

wrong, but my understanding is that for someone who is fully disabled in Holland, they would receive benefits equivalent to about 

85 percent of what their previous income was. Is that correct? 

Mr. de Jong. Yeah, during the first 2 years, on average, and that 

is including collectively bargained supplements, so that is— 

Senator SANDERS. Yes, they have a strong union. 

Mr. de Jong. So there is 70 percent legal base, you could say, and 

all workers have supplements that are from collectively bargained 

arrangements. But that is only for the first 2 years. 

Senator SANDERS. Okay, right. My understanding—and, Ms. 

Lang, you correct me if I am wrong, or anybody up there, correct 

me if I am wrong—is that while for the first 2 years 85 percent of 

a worker’s benefits goes to disability. In this country, Ms. Lang, do 

you know what the number is? 

Ms. LANG. It is less than 50 percent replacement rate, and probably 40, 45 percent replacment rate. 

Senator SANDERS. So I think, Mr. Chairman, another point we 

may want to continue this discussion and see if we in the United 

States can move toward where Holland is in their very generous 

benefits for some of the most vulnerable people in their country. I 

think it would be an interesting discussion. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman ENZI. Thank you. 

Senator Perdue? 

Senator PERDUE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Along with yourself and the Ranking Member and Senator 

Whitehouse, I have sat here this morning and listened to every 

question and every ounce of testimony because I think this is at 
303 

the core of our financial crisis—not the disability and what we are 

about to do to solve that problem for 18 years. To me, that is the 

wrong thing we should be debating. I think we have agreed on two 

things today, or at least I have. The Ranking Member earlier this 

morning accused a friend of mine in the House—or misinterpreted, 

I think, comments made there. But there are two things that I 

agree with the Ranking Member on. One is that we have got to 

move to ensure that benefits are not reduced, period. Two, we have 

got to solve the long-term crisis. 

I have been saying this for quite a while. I believe this is not a 

debate over what we do between now and 2017 relative to 2033 

with the Disability versus the Old-Age Fund. But I disagree on 

that this is a manufactured crisis. I have heard several people this 

morning mention that, and I take offense about that. I think this 

is our irresponsibility over the last really 30 years, but certainly 

since 1994, across three Presidents, 11 different Congresses, we 

have kicked this ball down the court. 

I think the only hesitancy I have personally about doing this is 

that I would like to see some long-term—or a debate about a longterm solution. That is really what my concern is, Mr. Chairman: 

What do we do for the beneficiaries past 2033? 

Ms. Lang, you talk about stealing from Peter to pay Paul. I disagree with your characterization of it. The one thing I am sure of 

is that by doing this, all we are doing is stealing from the future 

to make sure we do not have a problem for the next 18 years. That 

I will not be comfortable with. We have got to debate that. If we 

are going to move toward a responsible budget in this country, we 

have got to solve the long-term Social Security, and then eventually 

the Medicare program as well, which is an even bigger problem. 

I have a question for Dr. Duggan. You mentioned that about a 

third, I think you said—and correct me if I am wrong—about 15— 

I am sorry, about a fifth, about 20 percent of the increase—and I 

think the number of people participating in the DI program has almost tripled since 1984, in the last 30 years. About a fifth of that 

was age-related, and I think you said about 12 percent was due to 

spouses coming into the workforce. Help me understand with some 

granularity what the other two-thirds represent. 

Mr. DUGGAN. So there has been a large increase in the likelihood 

that—so, yeah, about a third combined between those two factors, 

the aging of the baby-boom generation and the increase in the fraction of women who are insured for the SSDI program. And the 

numbers differ a bit depending on what exact base year you use, 

but it is in the neighborhood of one-third from, let us say, 1989. 

And the increase, the rest of the increase is attributable to a greater likelihood that a person with certain characteristics will be on 

the program. So I gave one example, and the increase has been 

larger for women than for men because of this growth in the share 

insured, partly because of that. But take men, for example, 50 to 

59, so men in their fifties, 25 years ago, 5.8 percent of them were 

receiving SSDI benefits, and now 8.8 percent of them are receiving, 

so basically an increase from almost 6 percent to almost 9 percent 

during that time period. And that is, you know, that sort of increase has been—has existed at other ages as well. 
304 

And so if we look at—so where is that coming from? So if one 

looks at the composition of conditions with which people are qualifying—and this comes from Figure 2 of my testimony, and I tried 

to distill the complexity into just a few figures. There is a lot 

more—you can drill down at a much finer level. But there has been 

a change in the composition of conditions with which people are 

qualifying. Musculoskeletal conditions, for example, the award rate 

for those has increased by a factor of about 6 since just prior to the 

liberalization that we have talked about in 1984; whereas, during 

that same time, the award rate—and when I say the ‘‘award rate,’’ 

I mean here number of awards divided by number of people insured for the program. So you can see that in Figure 2. 

And if you look at the corresponding change for people, let us 

say, cancer or with circulatory conditions like stroke, those have 

been pretty flat. So there has been a big change in the characteristics of the people flowing onto the program. And so that is where 

it has come from. 

Senator PERDUE. Thank you. I just have one last comment. Dr. 

de Jong, your indictment of our partisanship is well deserved this 

morning, and I appreciate your comments, and Ms. Lang as well. 

Thank you for being here. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman ENZI. Senator Whitehouse. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you, Chairman. 

Let me first ask each of the witnesses, starting with Dr. Duggan, 

would you recommend an across-the-board benefit cut in Social Security Disability Insurance in the neighborhood of 20 percent under 

any circumstances? 

Mr. DUGGAN. I would not recommend that, no. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Because? 

Mr. DUGGAN. Well, I have not evaluated the facts of that specific 

proposal, but it would clearly—as has been talked about earlier 

today, SSDI provides benefits to many of the Nation’s most vulnerable citizens, and that would inflict significant hardship on a very 

large number of people. So I certainly would not— 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Dr. de Jong, how about you? 

Mr. de Jong. My answer would be—thank you for asking this 

question. My answer would be more bold. I would be very strongly 

against it, but maybe the—what I know of the SSDI system is that 

it focuses much more in incapacity than on capacity. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. But irrespective of that, with respect to 

my exact question, which was: Would you recommend a near 20- 

percent cut? 

Mr. de Jong. No, I would— 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. You would not. 

Mr. de Jong. I would be more selective. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Okay. Ms. Lang? 

Ms. LANG. No, I would not. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Okay. Dr. Duggan, you have looked—you 

appear to have looked pretty closely at this question. You appear 

also to have focused pretty much on the expenditure side. Do you 

have a view as to how the recent changes in income inequality, the 

extent to which higher incomes have exploded in this country, has 

changed the percentage of income that is above the $118,000 pay-
305 

roll cap and has, therefore, been a factor in the current Social Security imbalance? 

Mr. DUGGAN. So I personally have not evaluated that specific 

thing, but I recall from reading reports by the actuaries and by 

CBO and others that the fraction of income that is within that cap 

has declined over time. 

It is also true that the rise in inequality has affected benefits for 

people at the lower end of the income distribution because the bend 

points—we have this benefit formula, essentially the same benefit 

formula used for Social Security retired worker benefits. It is a 90– 

32–15 benefit formula, and the points where that formula bends 

from 90 to 32 and from 32 to 15, those are indexed to average wage 

growth in the economy. And so some of the first research that I did 

on this program showed that because of slower wage growth at the 

lower end of the distribution, lower-income workers were replacing 

more of their income at that 90 percent rate than at the 32 percent 

rate, basically because the bend point was moving faster than their 

incomes were. So at some level, the formula has helped cushion 

somewhat that change. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. That might cushion it for individual workers, but as a program, the effect has been to forgo what otherwise 

would have been revenue and has added to the deficit. Correct? I.e., 

if income inequality had not changed from, let us say, 1990 to now, 

if that were a constant, there would have been more income subject 

to payroll tax and there would be more revenue coming into Social 

Security, and we would have less of a deficit. That is kind of mathematics, isn’t it? 

Mr. DUGGAN. It just depends a little bit on the assumptions that 

you—like at what rate will those things grow. But, in general, the 

spirit of what you are describing seems plausible to me. It just depends on—I do not mean to—it depends a bit—the devil is in the 

details a little bit on what you assume would have happened to 

those— 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Let me try it this way: You have got a 

chunk of American salary that is under $118,000. 

Mr. DUGGAN. Right. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. And it contributes revenue to Social Security. You have got a chunk of American salary that is over 

$118,000, and it does not contribute to Social Security. 

Mr. DUGGAN. Right. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. If the second chunk gets bigger relative to 

the first chunk instead of staying even, that means less money for 

Social Security. Isn’t that pretty simple? 

Mr. DUGGAN. Like I said, it just depends on the assumption. Are 

you going to bring it into balance by raising the— 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. No, no. I am not asking out-year assumptions. I am just asking if what I have said is accurate. 

Mr. DUGGAN. It is the case that—I do not know if it 90 to 83 percent. I think someone here earlier said that. But that— 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. It is the case that if less of America’s income is subject to taxation than otherwise would be, the revenues 

for the program are less than they otherwise would be. Right? 
306 

Mr. DUGGAN. It seems plausible, once again, but there are behavioral responses that one needs to take into account. So if you 

change the— 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Oh, all right. Well— 

Mr. DUGGAN. I am not— 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you, Dr. Duggan. 

Chairman ENZI. The Senator’s time has expired, and I want to 

thank everyone for their participation today. That concludes the 

questions for the second panel this morning, but— 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Oh, Mr. Chairman? 

Chairman ENZI. —I would hope that they would— 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. May I offer an exhibit for the record? 

Chairman ENZI. Without objection, sure. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you. 

Chairman ENZI. And people can submit statements, too, if they 

wish. 

We appreciate the time here for all of our witnesses and hope 

that they will be open to answering questions. Sometimes the questions can be more specific in writing, but mostly because ones with 

numbers kind of put the people in the back to sleep, and that is 

not very exciting. 

I want to remind my colleagues that questions for the record are 

due no later than 6:00 p.m. today, filed in writing with the Committee clerk in Dirksen 624, and we hope the witnesses will respond within 7 days. 

With no further business to come before the Committee, we 

stand adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:46 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 
307 
308 
309 
310 
311 
312 
313 
314 
315 
316 
317 
318 
319 
320 
321 
322 
323 
324 
325 
326 
327 
328 
329 
330 
331 
332 
333 
334 
335 
336 
337 
338 
339 
340 
341 
342 
343 
344 
345 
346 
347 
348 
349 
350 
(351) 

THE COMING CRISIS: AMERICA’S DANGEROUS 

DEBT 

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 25, 2015 

UNITED STATES SENATE, COMMITTEE ON THE BUDGET, Washington, D.C. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:30 a.m., in Room 

SH–216, Hart Senate Office Building, Hon. Michael B. Enzi, Chairman of the Committee, presiding. 

Present: Senators Enzi, Grassley, Sessions, Crapo, Johnson, 

Ayotte, Wicker, Perdue, Sanders, Wyden, Stabenow, Whitehouse, 

Warner, Kaine, and King. 

Staff Present: Eric Ueland, Republican Staff Director; and Warren Gunnels, Minority Staff Director. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN ENZI 

Chairman ENZI. I will call this hearing to order. Good morning, 

colleagues, and welcome to this hearing. 

We gather together facing the biggest debt our country has ever 

owed. That debt endangers our Government, hurts our economic 

potential, and threatens our children and grandchildren. Moreover, 

if you like your country to be able to stand up to enemies like ISIL, 

help its seniors with programs like Social Security, and help us all 

get from here to there with a good transportation infrastructure, 

then you will not like where America is headed. 

Our increasing national debt threatens these functions of Government and much more. If we do not stand up to our debt and 

stop overspending, we will ruin what so many generations before 

us worked to build and the hopes of the generations to come. Unfortunately, our President’s budget plan just makes matters worse. 

I will refer you to the chart. 

How large is the dangerous debt that we face? The President’s 

chronic overspending will make debt boom. As you can see on the 

screen, with the debt already at over 18,000 billions owed, the 

President’s runaway overspending plan in his budget will push the 

debt to 26,000 billion owed. I like to call it ‘‘26,000 billion’’ instead 

of $2.6 trillion, because that sounds like a smaller number. We get 

to work in billions. We are finally understanding what billions are, 

so 26,000 billions owed in just 10 years. 

They are incredibly large numbers, and that is why I do break 

them down by the amount every man, woman, and child will owe 

on it over the next 10 years. As you can see on the screen, under 

the President’s plan, the amount every American will owe on the 

debt over the next 10 years will march steadily upward. At the end 
352 

of last year, each American’s share of the debt stood at $55,683. In 

just 10 years, it will be $75,610—$20,000 more. 

These are big numbers, and they are bad enough. But the staggering amount of what we owe is not the only thing that the numbers show. Take a look at the screen again. The debt threatens to 

overwhelm the size of our economy as well. According to CBO, just 

15 years ago, the debt held by the public was one-third the size of 

our economy. Today the accelerating debt is 74 percent of our economy. In 2028, it will be the same size as our economy, and in just 

two short generations, by 2050, our debt will be more than twice 

the size of our economy. 

Colleagues, dive a little deeper into the debt forecast. If you look 

again at the video screens, you will see a comparison of the CBO 

forecast for the economy, the blue bars, between now and 2050, and 

the publicly held debt, the red bars. CBO expects debt to rise three 

times faster than the economy over the next 35 years. 

After 2050, CBO will not make public what could happen. They 

simply report that the debt will be greater than 250 percent of the 

GDP. You know you are in a lot of trouble when your own accountant refuses to tell you exactly how bad your financial condition is 

because they cannot calculate a number that big. 

These millions of retirees are a significant element of CBO’s high 

debt forecast, but there is another factor as well. CBO assumes 

that Congress and the President will not tackle our overspending, 

and CBO is probably right. 

However, entitlements are not the only reason that the debt of 

the United States is growing so fast and so large. There are two 

other features with long-term consequences for the pace of the Federal debt growth. 

First, President Obama’s policies have created the slowest economic recovery since World War II. More debt is on our books with 

a weak and anemic economy. Let me explain. 

If you will look again at the video monitors, this chart shows how 

slowly labor markets recovered from the Great Recession. It took 

over 6 years, until the spring of 2014, for total employment to get 

back to its level when the recession started in December of 2007. 

That is the blue line. 

Compare that to the equally severe recession of 1981. The unemployment rate was worse in that recession, but total employment 

recovered in 27 months as opposed to 76 months, or a little over 

2 years. 

One of the reasons for so many suffering for so long was our 

debt. Economists who studied the interaction of debt and economic 

growth point out that the large debt leads to slow economic growth. 

Recent studies from the World Bank, the International Monetary 

Fund, from Ken Rogoff and Carmen Reinhart, the International 

Bank of Settlement, and the European Central Bank all connect 

high and growing debt to slower growth. For the average American, 

this means that an exploding debt could result in fewer job opportunities, longer unemployment, and a more uncertain future. 

Second, this slow growth has delayed the launch of the millennial generation, which worsens our ability to slow the growth of future debt. For the estimated 65 million young people between the 

ages of 16 and 29 in 2012, economically slow times have been very 
353 

bad news. This large group of Americans is crucial for our economic 

and fiscal future, and they suffered extensively during the recovery. Unemployment among the 16-to-19 age group averaged 22 percent. Among the older 20-to-24 age group, it averaged 13.6 percent. 

Lack of job opportunities has forced millions to delay beginning 

their lives, earning and saving. 

Professor Lawrence Katz of Harvard University recently estimated that one of five males have been idle since the recovery 

started. They are not working. Idleness among young women is almost as high. Lack of job opportunities caused incomes to stall and 

fall to levels last seen in the late 1970s among all working households and especially the young. Instead of launching the next generation of workers and entrepreneurs after the crisis of 2008 and 

2009, we launched the debt-paying generation. 

Let me say that again. We launched the debt-paying generation. 

I see several out in the audience who are in the debt-paying generation. 

Rapidly growing debt will press down on their dreams and opportunities throughout their life. In the meantime, the steady march 

to a larger debt will continue. When it comes to the dangerous 

debt, our President can and should do and will have to do better. 

Senator Sanders? 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR SANDERS 

Senator SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for holding this important hearing, and I thank our guests and panelists 

for being with us today. 

I think when we talk about debt and deficit, it is also important 

to understand how we got to where we are today. And it might be 

useful to remember that when President Clinton left office in 2001, 

the Federal Government enjoyed a healthy surplus of $236 billion, 

and the national debt was on track to be eliminated by the year 

2009. Economists were telling us we were looking at surpluses into 

the foreseeable future. 

What happened? Well, let me give you some examples of what 

happened. Some of my so-called deficit hawk friends went to war 

in Afghanistan and Iraq, and they forgot to pay for those wars. We 

do not know exactly what those wars will cost, but the guess is 

they may end up costing something like $6 trillion by the time we 

take care of the last wounded veteran. 

So I find it a little bit strange that some of my deficit hawk 

friends who want to cut Social Security or Medicare or Medicaid 

forgot to pay for two wars. 

Under President Bush, my Republican colleagues passed huge 

tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires and some of the most 

profitable corporations in this country. But they forgot to offset or 

pay for those tax breaks. 

Under President Bush, my Republican colleagues passed an overly expensive Medicare prescription drug program written by the insurance and drug companies, which, among other things, does not 

allow Medicare to negotiate drug prices with the pharmaceutical 

industry. 

And, finally, Mr. Chairman, what I would say in that regard is 

that for all of those people who believe in the virtues of deregula-
354 

tion, well, in a bipartisan manner—not just Republicans—that happened, and we deregulated Wall Street. And as a result of the illegal and reckless behavior on Wall Street, we were plunged into the 

worst recession in the modern history of this country, which obviously had a huge impact on our deficit and our national debt. 

Now, having said that, there is some good news, and that is that 

when President Obama came into office, he inherited a recordbreaking $1.4 trillion Federal deficit and a growing national debt, 

and the good news is that, in fact, the Federal deficit has been reduced by more than two-thirds while more than 11 million private 

sector jobs have been created over the past 58 months. So some 

progress is being made. 

Point number two that I want to make: When we look at the 

budget, it is important that we look not only at our national debt, 

but that we take a serious look at what is happening in the economy and how the American people are doing. Today millions of 

Americans are working longer hours for low wages. We have the 

highest rate of childhood poverty of any major country on Earth. 

And we have more income and wealth inequality than we have had 

in this country since 1929. 

It seems to me, Mr. Chairman—and I respectfully request that 

we could do a hearing on this issue—that we take a look at the grotesque level of income and wealth inequality, because this is not 

just a moral issue. It, in fact, becomes an economic issue, which 

touches on the issues that you and I and our Committee are discussing today. 

Today the top one-tenth of 1 percent of Americans own nearly as 

much wealth as the bottom 90 percent, and the top 1 percent earn 

more income than the bottom 50 percent. This has not only hurt 

our economy, but it has increased our debt and harmed the solvency of Social Security. 

The fact of the matter is that over the last 40 years, under 

Democratic and Republican leadership, we have witnessed an enormous transfer of wealth from the middle class and the poor to 

multimillionaires and billionaires. This is the Robin Hood principle 

in reverse. We take from the poor and we give to the very, very 

rich. 

In 1985, the share of the Nation’s wealth going to the bottom 90 

percent was 36 percent. In 2013, it went down to below 23 percent. 

If the bottom 90 percent had simply maintained the same share of 

our Nation’s wealth as they did 30 years ago, they would have 

$10.7 trillion more in wealth than is currently the case today, 

which would have profound implications on debt and deficit, not to 

mention the well-being of the middle class. 

Meanwhile, the share of the Nation’s wealth going to the top onetenth of 1 percent has gone up from 10 percent in 1985 to 22 percent in 2013, which means they have accumulated, the top onetenth of 1 percent, $8 trillion more. So what you are seeing is a 

collapse in wealth in the middle class and almost all of that going 

to the top one-tenth of 1 percent. 

Mr. Chairman, if that massive transfer of wealth and income did 

not take place, Social Security would be in much better financial 

shape, the middle class would be more secure, and our national 

debt—the issue of today’s discussion—would be much lower. And I 
355 

really do hope that we could have a hearing to discuss the implications of this huge transfer of wealth from the middle class to the 

top one-tenth of 1 percent. 

The third point I want to make, Mr. Chairman, is that while we 

are here talking about the national debt, I have the feeling that in 

a couple of weeks, when we begin to talk about the deficit—now, 

I may be wrong on this, so I am speculating, and maybe you will 

suggest that I am wrong here. But I have a feeling that the budget 

that your Committee majority will bring forth in order to deal with 

the debt is to say to the American people, ‘‘Yeah, we forgot to pay 

for the war in Iraq; therefore, we are going to cut Medicaid, we are 

going to cut education, we are going to cut food stamps, we are 

going to cut nutrition programs. And, by the way, we are going to 

give more tax breaks to the very, very rich and to the large multinational corporations.’’ 

I may be wrong. I have not seen your budget yet. My guess is 

that it will emulate what the Ryan budget was, and it will not be 

good for working families. 

The last point that I want to make is that if we are serious about 

deficit reduction, then we have to take a look at such facts as the 

reality that from 2008 to 2013, not only did a company like General 

Electric pay nothing in Federal income taxes, it received a huge tax 

break from the IRS of nearly $3 billion. If we are serious about 

dealing with the deficit, you know what we are going to have to do? 

We are going to have to look at revenue. We are going to have to 

ask why the wealthiest, some of the largest and most profitable 

corporations in this country pay nothing in Federal income tax, 

while the effective tax rate for hedge fund millionaires is in some 

cases lower than it is for truck drivers or nurses. 

So, Mr. Chairman, there is a lot to discuss, and I look forward 

to this hearing. 

Chairman ENZI. Thank you, Senator Sanders. And one thing I 

am trying to change, we talk about deficit and we talk about debt, 

and people are kind of confusing the two. So I am trying to change 

deficit to our amount of overspending, because that is our annual 

amount of overspending— 

Senator SANDERS. Well, or it could be— 

Chairman ENZI. —that adds to the debt. 

Senator SANDERS. Well, that is one way of looking at it. 

Chairman ENZI. It has been reduced by two-thirds, but our debt 

has not been reduced by two-thirds, and some people are confusing 

that. And I would like to keep from getting that confusion. 

Senator SANDERS. Well, the answer is spending is one cause of 

deficit, but not raising revenue is another cause of deficit. 

Chairman ENZI. Okay. Now we will turn to the witnesses. The 

capacity of this Government to accumulate more debt ultimately is 

limited by financial and moral factors. If those individuals and organizations that buy our debt begin to wonder if we can effectively 

manage our financial affairs and solve problems that threaten our 

financial help, then we will need to pay people for the greater risk 

to hold our debt. As a result, interest rates could rise even further 

than currently forecasted, thus worsening even more our financial 

condition. 
356 

The other factor is moral. How long can this Government continue to pass ever higher debts to the next two generations? With 

higher and higher debt comes the possibility of higher Federal 

taxes and lower Federal benefits for Americans who today are 

under 30, many of whom are not old enough to vote. How long can 

Congress authorize the enormous deficits and, thus, greater levels 

of debt without a financial plan to reduce and eliminate overspending and stop the growth of debt? 

I cannot help but believe that elected officials ultimately will pay 

a heavy political price for their indifference to the next two generations. So today’s witnesses will speak to us about these and other 

dimensions of the fiscal future. Let me introduce at this time. 

Our first witness is Dr. Larry Kotlikoff. Dr. Kotlikoff is widely 

viewed as the leading expert on the economic effects of debt and 

its intergenerational costs. He is the William Fairfield Warren Professor at Boston University, a professor of economics at Boston 

University; a fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences; 

a fellow of the Econometric Society, a research associate of the National Bureau of Economic Research; president of Economic Security Planning, Incorporated, a company specializing in financial 

planning software; and the director of the Tax Analysis Center. On 

this subject he is best known for his best-selling book, ‘‘The Coming 

Generational Storm: What You Need to Know about America’s Economic Future,’’ written in 2005. 

Our next witness is Heather Pfitzenmaier, the director of the 

Young Leaders Program at the Heritage Foundation. She works 

closely with the millennial generation on a broad range of public 

policies. In December of 2012, Forbes Magazine named her one of 

the 30 Under 30 young Americans who are making the greatest impact on law and policy. She serves on several boards of organizations focused on young Americans and is a graduate of the University of Michigan. 

Our final witness is Bruce Bartlett. Mr. Bartlett has served in 

several capacities in Government, perhaps most notably as the 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Economic Policy in the Treasury 

Department during the administration of George H.W. Bush. 

I welcome all of the witnesses, and we will begin with you, Dr. 

Kotlikoff. 

You will have to push the button to get the microphone to work. 

Mr. KOTLIKOFF. Sorry. Let us see. 

Chairman ENZI. Thank you. 

Mr. KOTLIKOFF. Still not working? Is that better? 

Chairman ENZI. Yes. It has to be pointed at you. 

Mr. KOTLIKOFF. Okay. Sorry. 

Chairman ENZI. Thanks. 

STATEMENT OF LAURENCE J. KOTLIKOFF, PROFESSOR OF 

ECONOMICS, BOSTON UNIVERSITY 

Mr. KOTLIKOFF. Senator Enzi and Senator Sanders and other distinguished members of the Senate Budget Committee, it is an 

honor to speak to you about the Nation’s fiscal position. 

The last time I had a conversation with Senators, I was testifying at the request of Senator Bradley back in 1990 to the Senate 

Finance Committee, and we were focused on the same questions we 
357 

are focused on today. Unfortunately, the situation has gotten much 

worse, fiscally speaking. 

I mention that in part to reference what has changed through 

time, but also to mention that I was invited at that point by a 

Democrat; today I was invited by a Republican. I am not political. 

I am coming as an economist. I think economics has something to 

say that is independent of politics, and the best economists are neither Republicans nor Democrats. They are just focused on what 

economic science tells us, and that is what I am here to try and 

relate to you today. 

The first point I want to get across is that our Nation is broke. 

Our Nation is broke, and it is not broke in 50 years or 75 years 

or 30 years, 10 years or 5 years. It is broke today. Just like Detroit 

is broke today in terms of looking at all the obligations it has to 

pay and all the revenues it has to collect, that it projects to collect, 

it is an entity that is broke, and it is not broke in the future. It 

is really broke today. 

And that is the case for the U.S., and that analysis is not based 

on looking at what Congress declares to be its official liabilities 

but, rather, by looking at all the liabilities that the U.S. Government faces, and those include not just official servicing of what is 

called the ‘‘official debt,’’ but also paying for Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, defense spending, paying for the President’s lunch, 

for the Supreme Court members’ salaries, for fixing up the highways. But those are the obligations into the future that are projected by the CBO, and that is also assets which are the present 

value of all the taxes that are being projected. 

And economics tells us that we need to focus on not a subset of 

the obligations that have to be paid, not the payment for principal 

and interest on what is called ‘‘official debt,’’ but we have to look 

at all the obligations, regardless of what it is called, because Congress has enormous leeway, indeed infinite leeway in terms of 

classifying certain payments that it has to make as repayment of 

principal plus interest versus repayment of—versus transfer payments. And that leeway means that the official debt is really not 

a well-defined economic concept, and that is the thrust of my testimony today, that we are kind of tracking our fiscal position based 

on a non-measure of fiscal solvency. 

And what economics says and what economists as a group are 

saying is that we need to study and look at the fiscal gap, the infinite horizon fiscal gap, which is the present value, the value in the 

present, of all the expenditure commitments, no matter what they 

are called, whether they are called Social Security or defense 

spending or paying—servicing what is called the official debt, less 

the present value of all the projected tax receipts. 

Now, that fiscal gap calculation has been endorsed by over 1,200 

economists. If you go to theinformact.org, there is a bill, a bipartisan bill, that was introduced last year. I hope it will be passed 

this year. It is a bill to require the CBO, the GAO, and the OMB 

to do fiscal gap accounting on a routine basis and to put everything 

on the books, to stop this Enron-type accounting that has been 

going on for decades under both parties. 

The fiscal gap which is being recommended as the basis for our 

budgetary analysis, it is not just being endorsed by 1,200 econo-
358 

mists from every top department in the country, people that are on 

both sides of the political aisle—you have got Jeff Sachs, who is 

viewed as left of center; you have got Glenn Hubbard, who is 

viewed as right of center; you have got former Secretary of State 

and Secretary of Treasury and the head of the Commerce Department and the Director of OMB. I am talking about George Shultz. 

He is also endorsing this bill. There are also 17 Nobel Prize winners in economics. The majority of these folks are Democrats, as 

far as I can tell, starting with Ken Arrow,, who is probably the 

leading economist after Paul Samuelson of the post-war period. All 

of these folks have endorsed the fiscal gap analysis. We have a $210 trillion fiscal gap at this point, so we are not talking about $13 trillion of obligations in the hands of the public. 

That is the official debt. But we are talking about a $210 trillion 

fiscal gap, and as my testimony indicates, the longer we wait to 

start dealing with and paying off this fiscal gap, the bigger the 

problem will be. We have to immediately and permanent raise 

taxes, all Federal taxes, by 58 percent to come up with $210 trillion 

in present value. So we are 58 percent underfinanced. In contrast 

or comparison, Detroit was about 25 percent underfinanced at the 

time it declared bankruptcy. So the country is in far worse shape 

than Detroit, fiscally speaking. 

The other alternative to raising taxes is to cut spending, and if 

you cut all the spending, apart from servicing the official debt, you 

would have to have an immediate and permanent 38-percent cut in 

every expenditure. Defense spending, gassing up Air Force One, 

transfer payments of all kinds—all would have to be cut 38 percent. 

Now, this calculation of this enormous fiscal hole is coming right 

out of the CBO’s July—I think it was around July 30th—projection 

of long-term expenditures and taxes called their ‘‘Alternative Fiscal 

Scenario.’’ 

Now, what economic science tells us is that if governments take 

from young people and give to old people and then promise young 

people future transfer payments, what is going to happen is that 

the old people will consume more, the young people will not consume anything less; they might actually consumer more themselves. The Nation as a whole will consume less, and we will have 

less national saving, and we will likely have less national investment. 

Now, I refer you to the charts in the testimony which show that 

there has been an enormous increase in consumption as a share of 

national income, so that in 1950, we had a national saving rate of 

15 percent. Today we have a national saving rate of around 4 percent. It has just gone straight downhill. With some gyrations, over 

time our national saving rate has gone down. If you simulate the 

policy we have been running under both parties in the post-war, 

one administration after the next taking from the young, giving to 

the old, we have what you find occurring in reality, and the computer models show a decline in national saving and investment. 

And sure enough, that is what we see in the data, and you see this 

in Chart 2. 

Chairman ENZI. I will have to ask you to kind of summarize at 

this point. 
359 

Mr. KOTLIKOFF. I will just finish up. And you also see in Chart 

3 an enormous increase in the absolute and relative consumption 

of the elderly. 

So we have a huge hole. We have, in effect, been engaging in a 

war against our children. So I agree, Senator Sanders, that we 

have a big problem of inequality within a generation between the 

rich of a given age and the poor of a given age. And I am very concerned about that, too. It is not that that is not a big concern of 

mine and other economists. But we also have a big concern about 

how we are treating poor kids in the future versus poor kids today 

and rich kids in the future versus rich kids today. There is an enormous generational redistribution going on. I do think we have to 

address this. We have to pass the INFORM Act, and we have to 

do that immediately and be honest with our children about what 

kind of fiscal burdens we are leaving them. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Kotlikoff follows:] 
360 
361 
362 
363 
364 
365 
366 
367 
368 
369 
370 
371 
372 

Chairman ENZI. Thank you. 

Ms. Pfitzenmaier? 

STATEMENT OF HEATHER PFITZENMAIER, DIRECTOR, YOUNG 

LEADERS PROGRAM, THE HERITAGE FOUNDATION 

Ms. PFITZENMAIER. Thank you Chairman Enzi, Ranking Member 

Sanders, and the distinguished members of the Budget Committee 

for the invitation to speak here today. 

My name is Heather Pfitzenmaier, and I am the director of the 

Young Leaders Program at Heritage. Before I begin, the views in 

my testimony are my own and should not be construed as representing any official position of The Heritage Foundation. 

Heritage is a 501(c)(3) research and educational institute, and 

our mission is to formulate and promote public policy based on key 

principles of limited government, individual freedom, traditional 

values, free enterprise, and a strong defense. The vision is to build 

an America where freedom, opportunity, prosperity, and civil society flourish. 

In my role as director of the Young Leaders Program, I have the 

privilege of overseeing our internship program, campus outreach, 

and other programs which connect with young Americans every 

day. I have the opportunity to hear from these young Americans 

about their aspirations, challenges, and hopes for the future. 

I am here today to be a voice for these young people and to say 

that I do not want my generation to be doomed as the debt-paying 

generation. If Congress does not act to reduce the spending, deficits, and debt, that is exactly what my generation and subsequent 

generations will be: saddled with debt. 

Think about young people you know, like Kimberly. She is coming of age in a weak economy, where for many it has been hard 

to find a job. She already knows she will graduate from college 

with a huge personal debt. Now she must also think ahead to the 

future and the massive public debt that is coming to her and other 

young people. According to publicly available information, by 2028, 

when millennials will be in their mid-to late thirties, the public 

debt per capita is estimated to reach $66,000. It is jarring to think 

of having a mortgage this size but with no asset of a house. 

If Congress does not act, my generation and the generations to 

come will face many unpleasant consequences. Some will be felt 

immediately, others much later in life. 

Higher debt threatens opportunity and stifles growth. Not only 

will these student loans be more difficult to pay off for those who 

chose to go to college, but it will mean less money available for 

more education, for savings, for retirement, for health care. Maybe, 

like Jeff, they still live at home with their parents because they 

cannot yet afford to live on their own. 

Countless other young people are underemployed, perhaps with 

a college degree and not working in their professional field, or even 

worse, not employed at all. Individuals cannot get those years back. 

Those earnings they could have made cannot be recouped. Those 

job opportunities and experiences are gone. 

Excessive debt also hinders businesses trying to get a loan to 

start a business or expand and grow. Some young people want to 

launch a startup. Others, many of whom just started a family, 
373 

want to sell something on Etsy and work flexible hours that work 

for them. 

Higher debt also increases the likelihood of inflation. Higher debt 

can lead to higher interest rates. What about the young person 

thinking through whether they can afford college? Or starting that 

business? Or buying a new home for their growing family? What 

is our outlook for the future? 

Higher debt can lead to higher taxes, and higher taxes eventually means less money going into the pockets of young people when 

they need it and are growing their families and looking to the future. For many in my generation, it will mean less choice about the 

size of our families. Many will buy their first home later in life, 

others perhaps not able to afford one. 

My generation does not want to be the first generation in living 

memory to have a poorer future than our parents did. One of the 

things that is so great about our country and Americans has been 

that each generation desires to leave our Nation and world a better 

place than they found it. At least that is how it worked in the Sexton and the Pfitzenmaier families. 

How long can we pass higher and higher levels of debt along to 

the next generation? I am here to ask you to make the necessary 

changes and be part of the solution. I am fortunate to be here, to 

have the opportunity to speak to all of you. Many in my generation 

do not. Many are not even old enough to vote yet. Is it right to 

leave all this debt and its real consequences to a generation that 

has not had a role in making these decisions? 

Individuals in their twenties and thirties should be launching 

our lives, building for our future. Instead, we and those younger 

than us are burdened by this ever-growing and looming debt and 

the impact it currently has and will have on our earning potential 

and lives. 

This is no longer just a fiscal moment, as you have already 

heard. It is a moral one. Young professionals starting a family do 

not deserve to be bearing the burden of all of this debt. Students 

finishing high school and college do not deserve reduced economic 

mobility and opportunity. Our Nation deserves action. Americans 

deserve solutions. We all deserve an America where there is opportunity for all and favoritism to none. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Pfitzenmaier follows:] 
374 
375 
376 
377 

Chairman ENZI. Thank you. 

Mr. BARTLETT. 

STATEMENT OF BRUCE BARTLETT, FORMER DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR ECONOMIC POLICY, U.S. DEPARTMENT 

OF THE TREASURY 

Mr. BARTLETT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am just going to 

make a few sort of random points about the debt, simply because 

I seldom hear these mentioned in conversations, including those we 

have already heard from. 

One is that we need to understand that the debt is a stock, and 

it is not a flow. The flow associated with the debt is interest on the 

debt. And so when we talk about, for example, the debt as a share 

of GDP, we are comparing apples and oranges. We should compare—I mean, Mr. Enzi, you told me you are an accountant, so we 

are comparing a balance sheet item to an income statement item. 

We ought to have an apples-to-apples comparison, so we should 

look at the debt as a share of our assets. 

Now, we do not really know what the Federal Government’s assets are. The financial statement of the United States Government 

takes a stab at that, but, of course, almost everything is carried at 

historical cost, so the numbers are worthless. 

But the number that I think is important is interest as a share 

of GDP, and that number is 1.3 percent. It was as high as 3.2 percent just a few years ago. So by any meaningful standard, the burden of the debt is about a third of what it was just a few years 

ago. It has not been rising. It has been falling. 

Also, I think that is important to understand, especially to members of this Committee, that budget conventions overstate the Government’s interest cost because it treats the Federal Reserve as if 

it is part of the general public when, in fact, of course, it is part 

of the Federal Government. The Fed right at the moment owns 

about $2.5 trillion of Treasury securities that, for all intents and 

purposes, are the same as, for example, those held in the trust 

funds for the Social Security Administration. And although Treasury pays the Fed interest on that debt, last year paid $116 billion 

in interest, the Fed subtracts some percent for its costs, but then 

it gives it all back, or almost all of it. Ninety-nine billion dollars 

was simply a gift from the Federal Reserve to the Treasury of the 

interest that the Treasury had previously paid to the Fed. 

Now, in my own personal opinion, we ought to adjust our financial account so that that money is subtracted from the net interest 

cost in order to make more accurate the true burden of interest in 

the budget, because I think that is the one number that really matters. 

I would just like to make a point that Professor Kotlikoff made 

because it is not often mentioned, which is that tax cuts increase 

the burden of debt because it is the difference—the annual increment to the debt, the deficit, is the difference between income and 

outgo. And I presented a table in my testimony that I think is 

quite interesting because it is based on projections that the CBO 

made in January of 2001, before President Bush even took office, 

and looked at the projections of the debt at that time, and at that 

time the debt was about $6 trillion, and the CBO was projecting 
378 

a budget surplus of $6 trillion over the next 10 years. If we had 

simply done nothing, we would have paid off the entire national 

debt by now. But we did not do nothing. We started wars, we enacted huge tax cuts, we enacted new entitlement programs. And 

the result of all that is that we went from instead of having zero 

debt to having a $12 trillion debt. So we, in essence, added $12 trillion to the debt during that 10-year period. 

I would like to make the point that capital investments are not 

netted out. We do not have an operating budget and a separate 

capital budget. I think that would be a good idea. All the States, 

we always talk—many people talk about how important it is that 

the States balance their budgets. We should do so, too. The States 

only balance their operating budgets. They do not balance their 

capital budgets. And I think it would be a good idea to shield capital investments in vital national infrastructure from across-theboard budget cuts. I think that is penny-wise, pound-foolish. 

There has been a lot of talk about the burden of the debt on future generations. It is seldom noted that future generations inherit 

all the assets as well. It is true that they inherit the burden of paying interest on the debt, but they get the bonds. They receive the 

bonds themselves. If all of the national debt was owned by Americans, we would literally owe it to ourselves, and the money would 

just circulate around and go from one group of people to another. 

There would be no net burden in the aggregate. 

We sometimes worry about the debt held by foreigners. They own 

about half of the debt these days. But the only reason countries 

like Greece and Argentina have ever gotten into trouble in this 

area is because their debt was not denominated in their own currency. One hundred percent of the United States’ debt is denominated in dollars. We can always raise whatever revenue we need 

to pay those bonds. We do not have to raise foreign exchange. We 

do not have to get gold to pay those debts. And if worse comes to 

worse, we can just print the money. So there is never a danger that 

the United States Government will default. 

I will simply stop there. You can read my statement. But I do 

think that the net of this conversation we are having here is to 

grossly overexaggerate whatever the real economic costs of the debt 

are. I mean, debt as a share of GDP was well over 100 percent, 

much higher than it is right now, when I was born. And if I were 

sitting at a panel like this one in 1951, I would be hearing how terrible the future would be. But, in fact, the future was quite good. 

The 1950s and 1960s were two of the greatest decades we have 

ever had despite this horrible burden of debt that we inherited 

from World War II, which was very, very large. 

So I think it is not—it does not really make sense to take every 

single thing that is wrong with our economy, such as the lack of 

wages and income distribution and things like that, and just automatically attribute it to the debt. I think that is not—that does not 

really make sense. We need to do a deeper analysis and look more 

carefully at the situation. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Bartlett follows:] 
379 
380 
381 
382 
383 
384 

Chairman ENZI. Thank you. And as one of the two accountants 

on this panel, I want to thank both of you for your comments about 

some additional budgeting that we need to do. I have tried to get 

a capital budget since I got here and some more honest numbers 

and the fiscal gap accounting. Wow. I am not sure what complications that would provide because it would be better numbers, and 

I am not sure that we are prepared for better numbers yet. 

Dr. Kotlikoff, I have heard it is argued that the U.S. need not 

worry about its fiscal imbalances and level of public debt since we 

can just print more money and issue more debt. Somehow that 

does not sound right to me. As the other economist, what do you 

think? And, also, if our debt continued to rise rapidly, as some appear to want, what effect would this have on private investment 

and savings? 

Mr. KOTLIKOFF. I am a little perplexed by some of what Bruce 

has said here. If it was just so simple we could print money to pay 

for everything, why should we have any taxes whatsoever? Why 

don’t we just pay for everything, pay off the official debt, $13 trillion that is in the hands of the public, print $13 trillion today, pay 

for all the Social Security benefits and Medicare benefits, everything else, discretionary spending, just by printing money and do 

it forever? Now, what would that mean? 

Well, it would mean hyperinflation. We have tried this experiment in other parts of the world. Argentina is trying it today. Germany tried it. There were 20 hyperinflations in the last century. 

They were disastrous for the country. 

Our obligations are almost entirely real. The Medicare benefits 

are going to be real. So if inflation takes off, they are going to have 

to be increased to pay the doctors’ real salaries. The same thing 

with the military. So you really cannot make much money by printing money in real terms. I think it is just a ridiculous notion. It 

is—I am aghast. I do not think any of the 1,200 economists who 

have endorsed the fiscal gap accounting would find that an intelligent response to this $210 trillion fiscal gap. 

Chairman ENZI. Thank you. I want to ask you another question, 

though, because you made a strong case for adopting a different 

way to measure our current fiscal position. You advocate going to 

a fiscal imbalance measure that uses an infinite horizon calculation. How would you proposed to implement the changes in fiscal 

accounting? And what difference would it make to our policy debates? 

Mr. KOTLIKOFF. Well, it would put everything on the books. It 

would stop this Enron-type accounting where you put certain 

things—where Congress gets to choose what to put on the books 

and what not. 

Let me try and illustrate this concretely. You folks are all referencing the debt, the official debt, and, frankly, I have no idea 

what the word ‘‘debt’’ means, because I can make it whatever I 

want to make it just by changing language. So let me just give you 

an illustration. 

Suppose you wanted to get rid of the official debt today. Suppose 

you offered to everybody who holds Treasury bonds and bills the 

opportunity to swap those for future higher Social Security benefits. They could just turn those in for higher Social Security benefit 
385 

commitments by the Government, and maybe you made that an attractive swap. Well, you would have no debt on the books tomorrow. And, therefore, would we have no problem? Would we have no 

fiscal issues? We could have a world where there is a balanced 

budget all the time, where we use words so that there is never any 

debt showing up on the books. But we can still drive our kids 

broke. 

And here is how it works. You take young people. Let us suppose 

you folks on the right here are young, and you are old. You take 

young people, and you take money from them. You call it taxes. 

Give it to the old people. They get to consume more. You tell the 

young people, ‘‘Don’t worry. When you are old, we will give you 

twice what you paid us. That is more than interest on what you 

paid us.’’ 

You become old. You are sitting over here. We come to the next 

set of young people. We have to take more from them. Taxes are 

equaling expenditures. There is no deficit. Take more from them, 

give it to them, tell those young people, ‘‘Don’t worry. We are going 

to give you twice as much as you gave us.’’ 

We keep doing this. What is the problem with this? Well, the 

problem with this is that we come to a point where those young 

people that are sitting there do not have anything to give. You take 

everything that they have earned, and you give it to the old people, 

and that is the end of the game. That is game over. That is what 

we have been running in this country. We have been hiding the— 

we have been taking most of the money from the young and giving 

it to the old and giving promises to the young in the form of commitments that are off the books. 

My mom is 95. She gets checks every so often from the—well, 

every month from Social Security and every so often from the 

Treasury for Treasury bonds. They look the same. But the Treasury bond checks, the only thing that is different is the amount on 

the check. But the present value of the money that is coming in 

Treasury bonds is put onto the books. The present value of her Social Security benefits, which are safer because they are indexed 

against inflation, and they also have not the full faith and credit 

banking, not those words backing those checks, but the AARP 

backing those checks, the political power of 50 million people backing her payments. So that is a much stronger liability. It is not on 

the books. 

So you folks are having conversations about numbers that do not 

matter, that are not real numbers. The entire economics profession, 

with the exception of people on the extreme wings here—Paul 

Krugman and Art Laffer are not on the list of 1,200 economists, 

neither is Bruce Baker, who have endorsed the INFORM Act. But 

you have people on the far right and the far left, mostly are Democrats—the majority of the economists there I think have voted 

Democratic, and they are saying that we have to measure what we 

really owe, which is the fiscal gap. That is expenditures minus the 

taxes all valued in the present. And it is saying that we have to 

do this immediately. And in terms of the cost of doing this, it takes 

me about 5 minutes to take the CBO numbers in Excel and 

produce the fiscal gap. I have to extend those into the future. That 

is easy to do. And the reason we need the CBO to start focusing 
386 

on that is that that will focus your attention on the fiscal gap, and 

we will start budgeting on the basis of the fiscal gap. 

In terms of capital budgeting, the fiscal gap does not say you 

cannot make investments that will pay for themselves. If you think 

that educational investments, increasing the expenditures will 

produce in the future more tax revenues and more than pay for 

themselves or highway investments or any type of R&D, the fiscal 

gap analysis will not say that is a bad thing. It will say that is a 

good thing. But it is a conversation that makes sense. 

Chairman ENZI. Thank you. My time has expired, and I will have 

questions for the other two of you. Senator Sanders. 

Senator SANDERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Dr. Kotlikoff believes that we are taking from the young to give 

to the old. I think the history of the last number of decades is that 

we have taken from the middle class and the working families of 

this country and given to the super rich. But I wanted to start off 

with a question for Dr. Bartlett, and I must confess that this is unusual for me because I am introducing somebody who worked for 

Ronald Reagan, who worked for the first President Bush, who 

worked for Congressman Jack Kemp, and worked for Ron Paul. He 

is my witness, not yours, so this is a little bit surprising. But I 

want to ask you, you used to be—you worked very hard with Republicans to advance supply-side economic policies, many of the 

same policies that my colleagues here today advocate. Today that 

is not your view. It is my understanding that you believe that the 

lack of aggregate demand, not the debt, is the biggest challenge 

that the economy faces, and you have supported policies to significantly increase spending on our Nation’s infrastructure, among 

other things. 

It is my understanding that you also believe that we should substantially increase revenue mainly by closing tax loopholes that 

benefit the wealthy. 

Why years ago were you an advocate of supply-side economics? 

Why have you changed your views today? 

Mr. BARTLETT. Well, first of all, Senator, thank you for the honorary Ph.D., but I do not have one. Thanks—unless it is from the 

School of Hard Knocks. 

But everything you said is exactly correct, and, in fact, I worked 

with Larry Kotlikoff in years past, with conservative organizations, 

and I have not actually changed my fundamental philosophy, despite what a lot of people think. It is just what has happened is 

that circumstances have changed. I still think that the Reagan tax 

cut, which evolved from something called the ‘‘Kemp-Roth tax 

bill’’—I drafted that legislation when I worked for Jack Kemp. I 

still think that was very good policy in 1981. I think it helped the 

economy. But I do not think that the nature of our economic problem today will be helped by tax cuts. 

I think our basic problem has to do with the problem of very low 

interest rates. The ‘‘zero bound,’’ as economists call it, makes it 

very hard for monetary policy to be functional. I think, you know, 

several years ago, when the Federal Reserve greatly increased the 

money supply by well over $2 trillion, every single conservative 

economist I know of was predicting hyperinflation. They were all 

saying, ‘‘Buy gold. We are going to go bankrupt.’’ But none of that 
387 

happened because they were not looking at the particular economic 

circumstances that are quite different today from any time in our 

history except the Great Depression. 

Now, if you go back to that era— 

Senator SANDERS. Let me interrupt you, if I can, because I have 

a limited amount of time. 

Mr. BARTLETT. Sure. I am sorry. 

Senator SANDERS. Does it concern you that when we talk about 

deficits and national debts, my Republican colleagues are not forthcoming in asking large corporations that pay nothing in Federal income taxes now to start paying their fair share of taxes or that 

hedge fund managers have an effective tax rate lower than truck 

drivers and nurses? Is that an issue of concern? 

Mr. BARTLETT. Yes. I think the carried interest loophole is the 

most egregious—perhaps the most egregious loophole in the entire 

Code, utterly unjustified, a huge giveaway to hedge funds. The 

problem of large multinational corporations storing—I do not know 

what the number is—perhaps $2 trillion of earnings in other jurisdictions, where in many cases it is not taxed at all. It is not a question of double taxation because they get a credit for any taxes they 

pay in foreign jurisdictions. But they are able to move this money 

around in such a way that nobody pays any taxes on it. And it does 

not even benefit the shareholders. 

Senator SANDERS. Let me ask you this: Am I correct that you 

also understand that in an economy where 70 percent of our GDP 

is based on consumer demand, that when we have millions and 

millions of people who have literally no disposable income, it is 

going to be hard to grow the economy in the way we would like? 

Is that true? 

Mr. BARTLETT. Yes, I agree completely. I think the problem of inequality that you pointed to is a problem. A number of organizations that are—for example, the Standard & Poor’s Company put 

out a report just a few months ago worrying about the economic effects of growing income inequality because it said that if the people 

who spend do not have money to spend and the people who are getting the income are people who tend to save most of it, you are 

going to have too little spending and an excessive amount of saving 

for what the economy needs. And as you know, we have extremely 

low interest rates. That is evidence that we have more saving than 

we need, and, therefore, I think that if it were up to me, I think 

we desperately need a massive infrastructure program that would 

put people to work, that would get money mobilized, that would 

make Fed policy more effective. 

I really think it is a tragedy that we cannot even get the Highway Trust Fund taken care of properly. 

Senator SANDERS. Let me just—last question, Mr. Chairman. 

And I am going to mispronounce your name. Ms Pfitzenmaier? 

Ms. PFITZENMAIER. Yes. 

Senator SANDERS. Okay. You talk about the burden on younger 

people and the shift—the burden on younger people while protecting the elderly. Does it concern you that we have seen a massive shift in income and wealth inequality in this country so that 

we have the highest proportion of inequality in the world? Is that 

a concern of yours? 
388 

Ms. PFITZENMAIER. I think all Americans are concerned with 

making sure that our neighbors and everyone in our communities— 

I heard Detroit mentioned. I actually grew up about a half-hour 

outside Detroit. And I think the question is looking at things like 

mobility. How are those opportunities going to get those people who 

are in need to be able to climb up the ladder? 

My colleague at Heritage, David Azerrad, has written a wonderful piece that I would happy to submit for the record to really look 

at that. 

I look a lot on school choice, giving those kids— 

Senator SANDERS. No, I just asked you a question. There has 

been a transfer of wealth, trillions of dollars, from the middle class 

to the top one-tenth of 1 percent. Is that an issue of concern? 

Ms. PFITZENMAIER. I think we need to look at all different things 

of concern, and I am not a budget expert on this, but I think absolutely we need to look at really are there those opportunities to 

move up and help every American from every corner, from Detroit 

to California. 

Senator SANDERS. Thank you. 

Chairman ENZI. Senator Grassley. 

Senator GRASSLEY. Yes, thank you all very much for participating. I am going to start with Dr. Kotlikoff. 

I appreciate the work that you have done on studying 

generational debt. When OMB Director Donovan testified before 

our Committee a few weeks ago, I asked him about the debt burden of future generations and the impact President Obama’s budget will have on future generations. The Congressional Budget Office has said that in future years a growing portion of people’s savings would go towards buying Government debt rather than towards investing in productive capital goods. That crowding out of 

investment would reduce the size of the Nation’s productive capital 

resources that, as you know, produce economic benefits over time. 

The smaller capital stock would result in lower wages and incomes, 

making future generations worse off. 

My first question: To what extent will future generations be 

worse off by taking no action to reduce the deficit and debt in the 

near term? I assume that you feel that reducing the debt burden 

of future generations would be more prudent than 10 more years 

of deficit spending and growing debt, as the President’s budget proposes. 

Mr. KOTLIKOFF. Senator Grassley, thank you for the question. 

Again, the debt is not something that economics defines. Our mathematics can make the debt, the official debt, be anything we want 

with the words we want to use to label receipts and payments. So 

we are kind of having an ‘‘Emperor’s New Clothes’’ discussion here. 

Every time you folks talk about the debt, I say I do not have any 

idea what you mean, because I can make the debt whatever number you want just by going back in time historically and relabeling 

things, calling things different things. 

So the only real thing we can look at that makes sense, that is 

independent of what labels we chose, is the fiscal gap. The fiscal 

gap in the U.S., we do not have a long time series, but in 2003 it 

was $60 trillion. Today it is $210 trillion. Those are the numbers 

you need to be focusing on. That is what our profession—that is 
389 

what the people with the Ph.D.s actually say to look at. That is 

what George Shultz, 17 Nobel Prize winners—can you imagine 

what it takes to get 17 Nobel Prize winners from both political parties in terms of their orientation—but let me get back to your question— 

Senator GRASSLEY. Well, let me take your approach, however you 

want to define it. My question is about making future generations 

worse off. 

Mr. KOTLIKOFF. We are in a fiscal war against our children, and 

this does not undercut the issue that you are concerned about, Senator Sanders, about within a generation are we being too generous 

to the rich versus the poor. I have the same concerns, absolutely 

the same concerns on that score, the degree of intragenerational 

progressivity, intragenerational accounting. But we are absolutely 

at war with our kids. We are leaving them a bill that is going to 

entail at least a 58 percent higher set of taxes, if we do this all 

through taxes, all the correction through taxes, through the rest of 

their life. Every Federal tax, FICA, Federal income taxes, corporate 

taxes, have to be 58 percent higher to come up with $210 trillion 

in present value. If you wait longer, then you see in Table 2 that— 

or Table 1 that delaying requires even higher adjustments later on. 

The longer we wait, the bigger the burden is on Heather and her 

generation. 

So, absolutely, we have a generational moral question here, and 

in terms of the impact— 

Senator GRASSLEY. I think you have answered my question. 

Mr. KOTLIKOFF. Okay. 

Senator GRASSLEY. And I would like to go to Ms. Pfitzenmaier, 

and I would like to make a suggestion. I think that the points you 

make for young people are very good points, and I wish that in the 

99 counties I go to every year in Iowa, I wish the young people 

would come and make as much concern about the debt as older 

people make. I think it would make a very important point. So if 

you can spend your time getting young people to talk to Members 

of Congress about how they resent the debt that we are leaving to 

them, I think your time would be better used. And that does not 

denigrate what you are doing right now. 

As an advocate for future generations, how will this forecasted 

growth in debt affect the economic well-being of future generations? 

Ms. PFITZENMAIER. Thank you for the question, Senator, and encouragement. One of the favorite parts of my job is getting the opportunity to travel around the country and speak with students 

and talk to them about their concerns. I know I have a short time, 

so I think covered a lot of that in my remarks as well as the testimony, but I think it all comes down to just the potential for lower 

quality of life. And that is what is really on the minds of young 

people, and that is what I hope that we can resolve when we look 

at these issues, is making sure that our generation can be better 

off than the one before, and then we can leave a better future for 

our children and our grandchildren. 

Senator GRASSLEY. Thank you. 

Chairman ENZI. Senator Stabenow. 
390 

Senator STABENOW. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

I appreciate your having a University of Michigan graduate on the 

panel, so, Ms. Pfitzenmaier, thank you. 

Let me ask you—you talked about a young woman who had massive student loan debt. Do you think we should do something about 

that? 

Ms. PFITZENMAIER. Well, thank you, Senator, and thanks for the 

plug for our Wolverines. I absolutely think that student loan debt 

and the whole higher education is another issue that is on the forefront of a lot of young people. I am not an expert on that. Lindsey 

Burke at Heritage is. But I know she has done wonderful work 

looking at the accreditation process, looking at some of these open 

online courses that can come, because I think that is absolutely a 

big source, and the ability—I know my parents were able to work 

and pay for their college, and I think that that is not really the 

ability for many young people today. So I think that is absolutely 

a topic to look at, and I am glad to hear that it is something you 

are passionate about. 

Senator STABENOW. I am passionate about it. I would suggest 

that because we have a value of supporting education as a country, 

it does involve the public sector. We do not bring those costs down 

unless we as a country decide to also invest. 

Mr. Bartlett, you talked about assets as well as liabilities. I appreciate that very much. I believe that educated people are a great 

asset for us, and that does involve our coming together on public 

investments, like other countries are doing as well, education innovation. 

Mr. Bartlett, I very much appreciate the fact that you are looking 

from a practical standpoint about what works and what doesn’t 

work, where we are today. And I think we are missing that in so 

many of these ideological discussions about debt. I come at this as 

a person who is in debt with a mortgage—a couple of them—who 

has put children through college who have had student loan debts, 

who has a car loan. We all go into debt. Businesses go into debt. 

But hopefully if you are smart about it, you do not go into too much 

debt. So it is based on our values. We want a roof over our heads 

for our families. We want to be able to drive a car. We care about 

our children; we want them to go to college. So we all—I mean, this 

whole notion that somehow—you know, this is all about values and 

decisions about how much, what we do, what is important. That is 

what this is about. 

What I get frustrated about is that we see things that have 

worked during the Clinton years, asking folks to pay a little bit 

more, we balanced the budget, 222 million jobs created. There were 

some cuts that were made, but it was kind of done in a way that 

was balanced. We go into the next 10 years, and, Mr. Bartlett, you 

were talking about $12 trillion in debt. We would be out of debt 

right now, $12 trillion, because different priorities. We heard, unfortunately, during the second President Bush’s years that deficits 

did not matter when we were going to war; deficits did not matter 

when we were doing not one, but two rounds of high-end tax cuts 

for the wealthiest Americans, increasing the gap between working 

Americans and those at the top. 
391 

So folks use deficits and debt for all kinds of things. I agree that, 

you know, it means all kinds of things. In the end, it really is about 

our values as a country in this great country and how we are going 

to all be in it together. 

I also want to just say—and I am talking more than asking a 

question, but when we talk about Detroit, I just want to say on behalf of the people of Detroit and Michigan, this is not about tax 

rates in Detroit. This is about jobs; it is about infrastructure, about 

investments and quality of life. What people in Detroit want to 

know is that there are public lights that work and roads that work 

and schools that work and safe neighborhoods so that police and 

fire come when you call. And that does involve accountability on 

public money, but it does involve people contributing to public services. It is not just about tax rates. If it was about tax rates, Detroit 

would have been able to fix it. It is about much more than that in 

terms of our investing in people and the quality of our life. 

So I am just about out of time here, but I just want to say that, 

whether it is—I know, Dr. Kotlikoff, one of the things that you suggest is eliminating the corporate income tax altogether and instead 

helping to pay for that by an additional tax on workers’ wages. I 

am sorry. I do not get that. 

Mr. KOTLIKOFF. Can I just correct that? 

Senator STABENOW. Yes. 

Mr. KOTLIKOFF. That is not at all what I proposed. What I proposed was that we eliminate the corporate tax and that we impute 

the corporate income of the shareholders, no matter what corporations they hold, whether U.S. corporations or foreign corporations, 

onto their personal income taxes, so there is no way in which I 

have suggested that we put that burden onto workers. What I have 

said is quite the opposite, that doing this kind of integration would 

lead companies to invest a whole lot more in the U.S. to improve 

jobs in Detroit and other places and raise the wages of workers. 

What I said was that this is in this paper—and, please, it is on my 

website. Please take a look at it. I have said nothing like that. You 

have to—I know you think that— 

Senator STABENOW. Well, if I was wrong, I apologize. That was 

the information that was given to me. 

Mr. KOTLIKOFF. I mean, I am over here maybe on this side of the 

table because I was invited by the folks on this side of the table. 

But I am not political. I am an economist. Okay? 

Senator STABENOW. I very much appreciate that, and I am out 

of time. I do not mean to be rude, but I understand that. I would 

just argue this is more than about numbers, and right now what 

I am most concerned about—we have eliminated two-thirds of our 

annual deficit in the last few years. What I am most concerned 

about is the middle-class jobs deficit and education deficit and infrastructure deficit in our country. The annual budget deficit has 

gone down by two-thirds, and the deficits in the other areas that 

relate to the quality of our country, the strength of our country, 

have gone up. And that involves all of us together doing our fair 

share. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman ENZI. Senator Perdue. 

Senator PERDUE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 
392 

You know, Ms. Pfitzenmaier, I agree with you, but I am on the 

other side of that generational gap. I do not want to be the member 

of the first generation that has to tell your generation that my generation is leaving your generation an America that is worse off. 

And yet that is what all the numbers say today, in my opinion. 

The problem is a lot worse than you said, though, and, Dr. 

Kotlikoff, I agree with you. We can make the number—you can 

pick a time period and get a number. It is $150, $200 million. Pick 

a number. But you get it back to households. The responsibility to 

pay this back over time is about $2 million per household. It is not 

$60,000. It is about $2 million a household. We all have car payments. We all have mortgages. That is unmanageable. 

And, Dr. Kotlikoff, I have a question I want to get to, but I honestly think this is the biggest crisis we face. It threatens our national security. It threatens the ability to talk about this gap. The 

gap we could talk about. 

And, Mr. Chairman, I am sorry. The conversation in this Committee that I have watched the last three times, that conversation 

does not serve the American people. This partisanship that is in 

here, this should be like Foreign Relations, should be like Armed 

Services, should be like the Intelligence Committee, where we are 

talking in a bipartisan way to try to get at the solution to this 

thing. How we got here, there are no innocent parties up here. I 

have said this for 2 years. I have not been in politics. I am an outsider looking at this thing, and I can tell you what. People out 

there hear what we say in here, and it does not make any sense 

to them. And it does not make any sense to me. I could argue all 

day long that the crisis in 2009 started in 1998 when we changed 

the homeownership rules about mortgage qualification. 

But I want to get to a question today that relates to what do we 

do to get out of this. I think we all realize that the problem that 

we have is today we are facing a problem by April 15th, we have 

to put a budget together. OMB, the President, wants $4 trillion. 

Right now in that budget there is something like $229 billion in interest payments. There is another $95 billion in accrued interest 

that goes to Social Security in terms of the other $4 trillion of debt. 

So we have $18 trillion that we talk about today. 

In just simple math, if interest rates were at their 30-year historical average, somewhere around 6 percent, we would already be 

having a request in here on that budget for $1 trillion of interest. 

Personally, I can debate all day long about whether it is $200 trillion or not. But the one thing that we cannot argue is that next 

year we are going to have to make X number of dollars of interest 

payments, and if interest rates get back to a 30-year average of 6 

percent, I just do not see, frankly, how we can pay that. 

The question I have, Dr. Kotlikoff, is: Have we already passed 

this tipping point years ago? This is not a partisan question. It is 

a question of how—what do we do now to get out of here? And I 

want a follow-up question behind that. 

Mr. KOTLIKOFF. Well, we are in very deep water. I have proposed—you asked what we can do. I have proposed at 

www.thepurpleplans.org reforms of the tax system, reform of the 

Social Security system, reform of the health care system, reform of 

the banking system, reform of the energy treatment, energy policy, 
393 

which many, many economists, including many Nobel Laureates, 

have endorsed these bills, these proposals. Each one of them is a 

postcard in length, so I would encourage you to take a look at 

www.thepurpleplans.org. It is purple because it is a combination of 

red and blue. It is supposed to interest both parties. 

Those proposals could dramatically reduce, if not eliminate, the 

fiscal gap, and they really, I think, meet the concerns of the Republicans and the Democrats. These are what economists would say 

will get us out of this hole and help our kids and also produce more 

equality, I believe, for—within a generation, more equity, more progressivity, because we have such a complicated fiscal system. We 

have something like 25 major fiscal programs from the earned income tax to the alternative minimum tax, that getting a picture of 

the overall progressivity of the system is quite difficult. But I think 

that, on balance, these things would improve progressivity. 

Senator PERDUE. I am sorry. I have one more question, but my 

time is almost up— 

Chairman ENZI. Microphone. 

Senator PERDUE. I am sorry. It should be on now. Sorry. 

You mentioned to solve this problem, you can increase taxes 58 

percent, you could cut spending 37 percent— 

Mr. KOTLIKOFF. 38. 

Senator PERDUE. 38 percent. But we did not talk about growing 

the economy, and the numbers we are being given by OMB, if we 

grow the economy one GDP point, 100 basis points in GDP, that 

is $4 trillion over 10 years. 

Mr. KOTLIKOFF. Right. 

Senator PERDUE. The question I have is, you know, this gridlock 

that we have watched in Washington for the last 15 years under 

several administrations, 11 different Congresses, we are not getting 

anywhere. That gridlock is not going—I just do not see how we are 

going to solve this without growing the economy. We talk about the 

earning gap, and I agree there is an earning gap. But we can talk 

about how 30 percent of the people who are not working today are 

contributing to that. We have created an environment out there 

where we just do not have the economy working. In the last 6 years 

alone, 4 million women have fallen into poverty, and the middle 

class is getting whipsawed by the economic policies. Obamacare 

alone has got two-thirds of small businesses have either stopped 

hiring or cut back employment. 

So the question is: Can we get the debate about how to get the 

economy going into this conversation about dealing with this budget issue? 

Mr. KOTLIKOFF. Okay. So one of the problems, Senator, is that 

we have less investment going on. If you look at this chart of the 

national saving rate and the domestic investment rate, you see that 

all this financing of higher consumption through these pay-as-yougo Ponzi scheme policies we have been running, some of which are 

very important, but, you know, Medicare Part D is an example. 

President Bush imposed a $15 trillion addition to the fiscal gap in 

that measure. Now, do we need health insurance for drugs for the 

elderly? Absolutely. But should all the elderly have been left off the 

hook in paying for it? Absolutely not, especially the rich elderly. 
394 

So we do need to have Government involvement in a lot of areas, 

including social insurance. The purple plans say this, but they also 

say you need to make sure we do not kill off our kids in making 

them pay for all our bills. 

And so one way to get things turned around is to get investment 

up, and that means to get saving up, and that means to get consumption down actually as a share of national income, and, absolutely, getting the burden off of our small businesses. 

So what about rationalizing our health care system? We now 

have Medicare and Medicaid, Obamacare, employer-based health 

care. The Government is involved in all four of these programs. We 

have got four different programs trying to provide basic health insurance to everybody. The Purple Health Plan provides a voucher 

plan, individually risk adjusted so it is actually highly progressive, 

that would provide a basic insurance plan for everybody in the 

country. I have talked o Congressman Ryan and people on the left 

as well. I think that is the way to go, and most economists do. This 

would eliminate all that paperwork that you are concerned about 

that employers are now facing. 

Chairman ENZI. Senator Whitehouse. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you very much, Chairman, and I 

can say that there is nothing that I would be more pleased with 

than a nonpartisan conversation about the debt and the deficit. But 

when we open up with blaming the Obama administration for debt 

levels that relate back to a war he did not start, tax cuts he actually tried to overrule, and an economic downturn that caused him 

to take office at a time when the economy was losing 800,000 jobs 

a month, that is not exactly a signal that we are involved in that 

nonpartisan discussion. 

It is also, I think, significant that debt should be the real target 

of our conversation. If the debt is just a stalking horse for an attack on social programs—on Medicare, on Social Security, on other 

things—and if it is defined, as it has been defined in this very 

hearing, as an overspending problem, and my colleagues refuse to 

look at the revenue side of the equation, again, hard to believe that 

is not a partisan discussion. I mean, this is a longstanding divide. 

The Democrats have stood up for Social Security and Medicare for 

generations, and Republicans have attacked them for generations. 

If you want to relitigate that through the debt discussion, we can 

do that. But I do not think that is very helpful. And it is particularly not helpful when there is more money going out the back door 

of the Treasury through tax credits and favors and deductions and 

so forth than there is actually being spent through the discretionary accounts. And ignoring that I think is mathematically not 

sensible and morally not fair, particularly when you have favored 

groups that are getting very special attention here. 

I know that the oil companies have huge clout around here. They 

do not need subsidies. They do not need subsidies. They are making more money than any corporations in the history of the universe, and yet it is almost as an act of political fealty, ‘‘Yes, we are 

going to show up and do what you want, guys. We love you. Here 

is some more money.’’ If that is more important than the debt, then 

we are not having a serious discussion about the debt. 
395 

Hedge fund managers get a tax benefit that the witnesses have 

already condemned through the carried interest exception, and as 

a result, in the recent years they have had tax rates that are lower 

than the tax rates for Rhode Islanders who were hospital orderlies, 

who were brick masons, and who were truck drivers, if you go back 

over the 3 years. 

When we try to change that, we have a war on our hands: ‘‘No, 

that is an unmentionable. We cannot possibly not help our hedge 

fund buddies.’’ While that is happening, while that is the conversation, we are not having a nonpartisan, legitimate discussion about 

the debt. 

And we know a lot of American companies love to offshore. That 

is a huge loss to our economy in a lot of ways. But Senator Levin 

fought very hard to try to get these offshoring restrictions put in, 

to try to protect against that offshoring. Every single time he had 

a war from the other side of the aisle on that. 

So please do not paint me into the corner of being an obstructionist or partisan about doing something about the debt when you 

have taken the biggest part of the problem and ruled it off limits. 

That just is not fair. And the math is not proper. Just none of that 

makes sense in any way. 

The third point that I will close with is we are making some 

progress on the spending side. The debt is—the deficit is coming 

down. And what most people have said in this hearing room, when 

they have talked about the long-term out-year projections, is that 

the biggest and scariest piece of it is health care. That has been 

a bipartisan opinion that we have heard over and over again. And 

there are ways to address our health care problem that we should 

be seriously attending to, because we have a health care system 

that costs about 50 percent more than all of our industrialized competitors and produces health care outcomes, at least as measured 

in life expectancy, that are equivalent to Greece and Croatia. I 

mean, there is a great area for us to be working together, and I 

hope that is an area that we can focus on rather than have these 

exercises in kicking social programs and kicking the President all 

under the guise of a conversation about the debt. It is a serious 

problem. It deserves better, in my view. 

Chairman ENZI. Senator Sessions. 

Senator SESSIONS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for 

your expertise and leadership in this Committee. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Mr. Chairman, I am sorry. May I ask 

unanimous consent to have a document put into the record that 

supports what I was saying? I apologize for interrupting the Senator. 

Chairman ENZI. Without objection. 

Senator SESSIONS. I do not know, Mr. Bartlett, if you were part 

of the group that said deficits do not matter. I never felt real comfortable with that idea. 

Mr. BARTLETT. I worked for the first President Bush. 

Senator SESSIONS. Deficits do matter. 

Well, I guess I will just say on a political basis, I do believe the 

President of the United States has failed to look the American people in the eye and tell them we are on an unsustainable financial 

path. I think a President of the United States has a lot of duties, 
396 

and one of them is not to misrepresent the danger that we face. 

So I think he deserves to be criticized for that. And to suggest that 

the reduction in deficits that we have seen somehow fixes the problem is really dangerous and really misleading and takes the heat 

off us to try to fix things. And without Presidential leadership, it 

is hard. But I think Congress forced the Budget Control Act and 

made some progress, as others have said, and there are more 

things that we need to do. 

Dr. Kotlikoff, the way I understand your position and what you 

are trying to have us hear is that a better way to look at where 

we are financially rather than debt is the fiscal gap, and the fiscal 

gap is relatively easily ascertainable and that we should judge ourselves on whether or not we are reducing the fiscal gap or not. Is 

that what you are saying? 

Mr. KOTLIKOFF. Absolutely, exactly what I am saying. And it 

goes beyond that. It is that the debt is not a well-defined economic 

measure. It is not defined by our math. Our equations do not say 

how to label the terms in our equations. They do not say what 

words to use to discuss our equations. So the debt is actually not 

well defined mathematically. Just like time and distance is not a 

well-defined mathematical thing in physics. It is a concept. It is 

how you are moving through space, at what speed, will determine 

what you say the time is right now and what the distance of this 

table is. 

So there are a zillion different measures of time and distance. 

They are equally useless in physics in terms of understanding anything. 

The fiscal gap, the infinite horizon fiscal gap, is the only measure 

that is label free. So no matter what convention you use in terms 

of your labeling, as long as it is internally consistent, you will get 

the same fiscal gap. This is why the entire profession has endorsed 

fiscal gap accounting. They are, in effect, saying that you guys are 

looking at the wrong numbers on a routine basis. And so that is— 

you know, I think that you have to start thinking about the fiscal 

gap. You have to pass the INFORM Act. You have to start—I know 

you are focused so much on these partisan fights, but there is a 

way around this to get to a safe place for our kids and for the poor 

versus the rich within a generation, and that is these purple plans, 

because they are big ideas. We need big solutions now. We need big 

bipartisan solutions. And I think if you just start looking at those 

and discussing those plans, which have been endorsed by a slew of 

economists, I think you will stop the bickering over small stuff and 

get to the big picture. And it does not undermine the social insurance programs that we have. It is saying let us do the social insurance programs efficiently so we do not leave Heather in bankruptcy. 

Senator SESSIONS. Thank you for sharing actual ideas about how 

to fix the problem, number one. I just think it is absolutely true 

that we have enjoyed more benefits today by creating debt, which 

is requiring our next generation to pay for the extra benefits we 

choose today. So, Ms. Pfitzenmaier, I think you are on the right 

track. And I agree with Senator Grassley. We do need to get our 

young people to better understand that, and I am sure we would 

be effective with it. 
397 

But we see the deficits increasing relentlessly in the years to 

come. The Congressional Budget Office has told us we are on an 

unsustainable path. Those words have grave meaning to them. It 

creates the likelihood of a fiscal crisis, or if we have a financial crisis, it creates, does it not, Dr. Kotlikoff, greater difficulties in working our way out of it and creating more danger? So the greater debt 

we have—I saw an article recently in a financial magazine trying 

to counsel people on their investments saying we have recessions 

every 10 years, about two every 10 years, more than one a decade. 

So we have another recession, and we are carrying this much debt. 

Does it not make it more difficult for us to work our way out of 

a future crisis if we have an unsustainable and growing debt? 

Mr. KOTLIKOFF. Yes, and I am very concerned about the monetary policy, because if we have seen what the Federal Reserve has 

been doing for the last 8 years, it has been printing money like 

crazy. Now, they call this ‘‘quantitative easing,’’ but it is really easing the burden on Congress to pay for its bills, for what the Government spends. There has been an increase of something like a 

factor of five in our base money creation. If that money gets out 

into the bloodstream of the economy, if the banks start lending it 

out—they are holding a lot of excess reserves—we could see inflation take off, and that could put the economy into recession and 

cause more problems., 

So we have to start understanding where we are going, and, you 

know, Ben Bernanke says it is in order to lower interest rates. You 

know, that is a lot of, to me, frankly, B.S. for what is really going 

on, which is just printing money to pay for bills. And that is not 

going to be a solution into the future. And increasing the money 

supply by a factor of five is one of the most irresponsible things you 

could do as a Fed Chairman. 

Senator SESSIONS. Thank you. 

Chairman ENZI. Senator Warner. 

Senator WARNER. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to 

thank the panel for being here. I apologize about the fact that we 

all feel fairly strongly on some of these issues, and I appreciate, Dr. 

Kotlikoff, you put out some ideas. And, Mr. Bartlett, I think you 

have raised some very valid points as well, particularly in relation 

to the circular flow on things like the Fed interest rates. 

I do need to, I think, point out what I—and I have been, perhaps 

as anybody on this panel, more engaged in efforts of trying to bring 

the Simpson-Bowles—not a perfect plan, but a plan that led us 

with shared responsibility out of some of these challenges. 

I do, though, need to, I think, correct some of the record. You just 

cannot get away from the facts that the deficit has been cut by twothirds under this President. You cannot get away from the fact that 

the President, much to the chagrin of the Ranking Member and 

others, suggested changes to our entitlement system that I supported, things like chained CPI. But there was not a willingness 

from our friends on the other side, at least from a leadership level, 

to meet halfway. 

So there clearly is blame on both sides here, and anyone who 

tries to assess this was started on one side or the other is just not, 

I do not believe, accurate. 
398 

I do think the thing in the—and the Chairman raised this point. 

I think we do need to recognize the issue is now growing the debt, 

but the deficit is actually within historic means a relatively manageable basis. But because of irresponsible actions of the preceding 

40 years, the total aggregate debt is not sustainable. We can pick 

our accounting methods or our time frames, but we all live with the 

referee, the CBO, 10-year windows. Probably not the most appropriate way, but that is what we have got to play with. 

And the CBO right now has just plain data that says a 100- basis-point increase in interest rates adds $120 billion on an annual payment off the top to the debt payments. That is bigger than 

our whole debate now about the Department of Homeland Security. 

That takes precedence over everything else. 

The current CBO projection says that at the end of 10, debt payments alone will totally exceed defense, a national priority, or totally exceed our domestic discretionary. Right now domestic discretionary is already at historic lows. I for one, as one who has spent 

more time in the private sector than the public sector, believe 

strongly in the free enterprise system. But I do believe there is incredibly valuable commitments made by the public sector, in education, in infrastructure, in research. And as a venture capitalist, 

I would not invest in an enterprise right now that is spending less 

than 10 percent of its revenues on investments in those three categories. That is a bad business plan for America. 

And if you look at the actions since the crisis, the ratio of cuts 

to revenue is 4:1. Simpson-Bowles had a 60:40 ratio. 

So I guess what I would—and I apologize. Again, I may make it 

to a question or I may not, but I just think it is important to put 

some of these facts out on the table. You know, historic revenues, 

we are running at 17.5 percent of GDP. That is close to the 17.4 

percent 50-year average. Anybody who says we ought to go back to 

the 50-year average cannot read a balance sheet. And I know the 

Chairman is an accountant and understands that, because we 

never balanced the budget when it was at 17.4. You got to get revenues—you got to get spending down, but you got to get revenues 

between basically 18.5 and 19.5. 

Now, how we can get it, whether it is a purple plan or whether 

it is tax reform, but there is no way you can run this enterprise 

or anything close to it on the revenue stream we have got right 

now. 

And I think Mr. Bartlett’s point that in many ways the deficit— 

we spent a rather tiresome New Year’s Eve a few years back all 

together where I am sure we probably did not want to spend it together where we avoided perhaps fiscal apocalypse for $600 billion 

in one-time revenues or 10-year revenues. We have got to do more 

on the entitlement side. I will take those hits and have laid out 

plans that have gotten me a lot of criticism from my colleagues on 

this side of the aisle. But you cannot get there without revenues. 

You know, we are actually in a worse position than currently because we have spent that $600 billion on revenues; yet because we 

have gotten $420 billion in extraordinary one-time revenues from 

the profits from the Fed—and the way OMB books—you have got 

to go back to your accounting methodology The way OMB books return of the Fannie and Freddie profits, that is another 220. So we 
399 

have got one-time revenues in excess of what we almost brought 

the Government to the brink of an abyss. And those are not going 

to be coming on a going-forward basis. 

So, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member, Senator Sanders, you 

know, the debt has to be dealt with because it is unsustainable. 

But I would just ask in the spirit of what our panel has suggested 

that we both have to come out of foxholes. We have seen improvements in health care. We do have to recognize entitlements, and 

the mandatory has to be part of this. But any notion that we can 

get there with anything close to what the American public is expecting from the Federal Government without revenues in the mix 

is just not possible. 

My apologies to the panel for not getting to a question. 

Mr. BARTLETT. Senator, could I make a brief point about that? 

Senator WARNER. Yes, please. 

Mr. BARTLETT. I do agree with you about revenues, and one point 

that may be in the interest of bipartisanship, we used to have a 

principle that partisanship stopped at the water’s edge. And as I 

pointed out, one could argue that our national debt is essentially 

the accumulated legacy of the costs of all previous wars. 

Now, in World War II we raised taxes very substantially. Before 

the war, only 3 percent of American people paid any income taxes 

at all. By the end of the war, it was up to 30 percent. We increased 

taxes very substantially during the Korean War. During the Vietnam War, we had a 10-percent surtax that applied to all income, 

so if you owed $1,000 of taxes, the next year you owed $1,100. And 

Richard Nixon extended that tax. 

I was working for President George H.W. Bush when, in 1990, 

in an act of what I think was great bravery, he raised taxes because he knew we needed the revenue to pay for the first Iraq War. 

Now, over the last 10 years or 12 years, whatever, for some reason 

we have decided that we are not going to pay for wars. And a great 

many of our fiscal problems result from the fact that we launched 

the Iraq and Afghanistan operations without asking the American 

people to pay, to share in the sacrifice of our soldiers. And I think 

it was irresponsible not to put on some kind of tax specifically dedicated to that war. And the reason I bring it up is because we are 

talking about another military operation, and maybe we can agree 

this time to put on some tax to pay for this new operation so that 

everybody is in this together, me and everybody else. 

Senator WARNER. Mr. Bartlett—and Mr. Chairman, I will only 

take 10 more seconds with your—10 more seconds. I do believe absolutely what this country desperately needs is all in this together, 

whether it is for payment for the cost of defending our country or 

a debt surcharge, because I do believe Heather’s comments are absolutely appropriate. It is unfair. We are making a massive wealth 

transfer from your generation to increasingly my generation. Poverty, because of good work of people like Senator Sanders, has dramatically decreased among seniors over the last 50 years because 

of commitments we have made. Poverty is at 9 percent. Unfortunately, poverty among children today is 24 percent. That is not a 

progressive system for our country, and I think this all-in-it-together concept is one that needs further exploration. 

Thank you for the extra time, Mr. Chairman. 
400 

Chairman ENZI. Senator King. 

Senator KING. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you for calling 

what I think is a very important hearing on a topic which we need 

to discuss at further depth. 

Tom Brokaw wrote a book a couple of years ago called ‘‘The 

Greatest Generation,’’ and it was the generation of the Depression 

and World War II. And I want to take off on what you just said, 

Mr. Bartlett. That generation fought World War II, paid for World 

War II. If you look at the charts of debt, there is a great burst of 

debt right in the late 1940s, early 1950s. They paid it off. They 

built the Interstate Highway System. They taxed themselves to pay 

for it. They paid for the Korean War, as you pointed out. And now 

we cannot keep the potholes filled. They built the Interstate Highway System, and we cannot keep the potholes filled. 

I think if Tom Brokaw wrote a book about our generation, it 

would be called ‘‘The Great Skedaddle’’ after the first Battle of Bull 

Run, where our generation has skedaddled from its responsibilities 

to pay its bills. It is pretty straightforward. And we talk about an 

unsustainable path. We have been on an unsustainable path for 

about 40 years. Sometime in the 1960s, we decided we did not have 

to pay our bills as a generation, and what we are doing is simply 

passing them on to our children. 

I had a very formative experience with a hardware store clerk in 

Brunswick, Maine. When I asked him in 2003 or so, ‘‘What do you 

think of the Bush tax cuts?’’ he said, ‘‘There have not been any 

Bush tax cuts.’’ I said, ‘‘Of course there have.’’ He said, ‘‘No, there 

were no tax cuts.’’ I said, ‘‘What do you mean there were no tax 

cuts? Don’t you watch the news?’’ He said, ‘‘Listen, if you cut taxes 

when you are in a deficit situation and borrow to make up the difference, all you are really doing is shifting that tax to the next generation.’’ 

I thought that was a very interesting insight. Those kids are 

going to have to pay for that. Our children are going to have to pay 

for that. 

Doctor, I understand you talk about debt and the fiscal difference. I call it ‘‘unfunded liabilities.’’ You are putting together the 

unfunded liabilities of Social Security. I agree, that is an appropriate way to look at it. 

We all agree around this table that we have got a problem. The 

question is: How do we deal with it? And do we start to deal with 

it in a serious way? And it seems to me there are only three ways 

to deal with it: one is revenues, two is cuts, and three is economic 

growth. And that is where Senator Sanders comes in, because I 

think inequality is costing us economic growth. You talked about 

one point of GDP. If 70 percent of the U.S. economy is driven by 

consumer spending and consumers, the vast middle class, do not 

have money to spend, by definition you are going to have slower 

economic growth. So inequality is an issue. 

But we have got to look at all three, and we have also got to look 

at the demographics of where we are now as a society. We cannot, 

as Senator Warner said, we cannot support the commitments we 

have made to seniors given the retirements of the baby boomers at 

the current level of revenues unless we are just going to wipe everything else out. 
401 

And then the final point, I think, Mr. Chairman, that I know you 

are worried about is interest, and the point has been made several 

times here. Interest rates are going to kill us. We are in a fantasy 

land of interest rates right now, of 1.5 to 2 percent. Interest rates, 

as has been pointed out, go back to historical norms of 5 or 6 percent. That would virtually equal what we are now arguing about 

is the entire discretionary budget of the United States Government. 

And it is going to crowd out everything that both sides of the aisle 

value, whether it is battleships or Head Start slots or student 

loans. 

And so we have really got to be thinking about that, and I think 

we have got to be thinking about—yes, we need to think about the 

unfunded liability. Let us put that aside for a minute and talk 

about the $18 trillion debt. And I think we have got to be thinking 

about how to bring that down. Yes, the deficit is lower. The deficit 

is lower. But it is still a deficit. We are still digging the hole deeper 

to the tune of half a trillion dollars a year. 

You found a question in there. I compliment you. 

Mr. KOTLIKOFF. Could I interject just a second here? I am trying 

to get across that we do not have a well-defined measure of the 

debt, so you guys keep talking—gentlemen and Senators keep talking about the deficit. The true deficit is $5 trillion between last 

year and this year, because the fiscal gap in the chart you will see 

went from $205 trillion to $210 trillion. So— 

Senator KING. I understand that. I am trying to distinguish—you 

are lumping together what I call ‘‘unfunded liabilities’’ with the 

public debt. 

Mr. KOTLIKOFF. Economic theory does not know what the public 

debt is. It is just a matter of word games. You guys are engaged 

in a word game and have been for decades. That is why—you 

know, again, my mom’s Social Security check is a debt. It is not 

on the books. 

Senator KING. I agree. 

Mr. KOTLIKOFF. So what you call interest is a matter of your language. What you call the deficit this year is a matter of your language. 

Senator Warner said that we can all choose our accounting method. Economists, 1,200 strong, 17 Nobel Prize winners, are saying 

you cannot all choose your accounting method. There is only one 

accounting method you can use. It is the infinite rise in the fiscal 

gap method, because that is what the theory says. That is the only 

method that is independent of your choice of words. 

Senator Kaine along with Senator Thune have cosponsored the 

INFORM Act. Pass it. It requires you to do fiscal gap accounting, 

put everything on the books, and it does not undermine the investments that you need to make to improve in R&D and education 

that will cost money but also get back hopefully taxes which will 

exceed what it costs in present value. So it is a framework for capital budgeting as well. 

Senator KING. I agree, and I agree we need to have the clearest 

picture we can have. I do not mean to imply that we do not. But 

the question still is: What do we do? And, Mr. Chair, I think we 

ought to have a capital budget. There are things we should be borrowing for. The problem is now we are borrowing to pay park rang-
402 

ers, and that does not make sense. So that should be part of our 

discussion. 

Senator KING. I agree. 

Mr. KOTLIKOFF. And do not take my forcefulness as really fundamentally disagreeing with you or your values, because we agree 

100 percent on those things. 

Senator KING. Well, I just think we have got to do something 

about this, and we have got to do it in a comprehensive way, and 

we have got to start—every year we wait to do it, it is going to get 

harder. And, fundamentally, to me, it is our generation being unwilling to pay our own bills. And we are borrowing from our kids, 

and at some point they are not going to be able to carry this burden. And it also saps any flexibility we have to deal with a legitimate crisis. 

Mr. KOTLIKOFF. Right. 

Senator KING. If we are running huge deficits at a time of relative non-crisis and then when we have a legitimate crisis, we do 

not have any well to go to. So I commend all of you for bringing 

this to our attention. I do think it is something that we have to 

work on. But it is not going to be able to be solved painlessly on 

either. 

Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

Chairman ENZI. Senator Wyden. 

Senator WYDEN. Thank you very much, Chairman Enzi and Senator Sanders. I think this has been an important hearing, and I 

wish I could have been here for more. But as you know, there are 

a few things going on at the Finance Committee right now that are 

time-sensitive. 

I want to get into the question of health care costs for a moment. 

I understand there has been some discussion, but what is striking 

is some of the tangible progress that has been made in reducing 

the growth of health care costs. And I was particularly struck by 

the Congressional Budget Office analysis. That is a substantial bit 

of progress in terms of moderating health care costs. And having 

heard you on this subject before, Dr. Kotlikoff, I know you agree, 

and I am happy to have all of you here today. 

What I wanted to get into is the question of dealing with the 

structural challenge in terms of health care, because I think it is 

well understood that 10,000 people are going to turn 65 every day 

for years and years to come. And, in effect, so much of the debate 

seems to be, well, for the structural challenge you really have two 

choices: you can cut people’s benefits, or you can just kind of do 

business as usual. And I feel very strongly that there is a third 

path, that there is a path to better care and lower costs. 

Senator Sanders, my colleague here, his House compatriot, Peter 

Welch, is part of a bipartisan effort with myself and Senator 

Isakson and Erik Paulsen to focus on the challenge that, frankly, 

both political parties have missed in the past, and that is chronic 

disease. 

Medicare today is no longer primarily about broken ankles. You 

know, back when I was co-director of the Gray Panthers, that is 

what we often talked about. But there would not be any political 

debate today that Medicare was about broken ankles. Medicare 

today is about cancer, it is about diabetes, it is about heart disease, 
403 

it is about stroke. That consumes 90 percent of the Medicare budget, and yet my view is that both political parties have not adequately addressed this issue. 

So perhaps we might start with you, Dr. Kotlikoff, but any of you 

who would like to get into this. It seems to me that the centerpiece 

of what is done particularly in Medicare is to refocus so as to put 

the primary attention of the program on those with chronic disease, 

those with very often multiple chronic conditions, who are the most 

costly individuals, and that will make sense for Medicare. As we 

get into the issues, as we have sought to do in this bipartisan bill, 

we must also consider the population that is under 65, because 

there will be a greater focus on prevention. 

So let me just go right down the table roster and start with you, 

Dr. Kotlikoff, what you think of that analysis. 

Mr. KOTLIKOFF. Well, I think that certainly the Government has 

a big role in research and development in the area of health care, 

and it may be that we are underfunding NIH in these areas and 

that we need to— 

Senator WYDEN. I am talking about coordinating care. I mean, 

for example, the bulk of the program today, where there is not 

Medicare Advantage and, you know, fee-for-service medicine, you 

cannot get a collective payment if a doctor, a physician assistant, 

or maybe a pharmacist want to team up. And it just seems to me 

we have got to coordinate these services to get better care and 

lower costs. 

Mr. KOTLIKOFF. Senator, my reform proposal—I wrote a book 

called ‘‘The Healthcare Fix’’—is one of the purple plans, it is called 

‘‘The Purple Health Plan.’’ It has been endorsed by, I think, five 

Nobel Laureates. It is right there on the website, the 

purpleplans.org. It would say we should give everybody a voucher 

that is based on their pre-existing condition, whether they have 

cancer or diabetes, and that everybody would take that voucher to 

an insurance company to buy a single basic plan that would cover 

the things that were set by a panel that would be covered subject 

to a global budget so that the costs of all the vouchers would never 

exceed 10 percent of GDP. 

Now, if you go to that kind of a system, you start giving the insurance companies—you make the basic health insurance plan a 

commodity, just like apples. And then you get them competing to 

provide that, and so they are going to go to the most efficient delivery system. So you are going to have Kaiser Permanente, for example, trying to figure out what is the most—how can we internally 

coordinate care for people with these chronic diseases so as to minimize costs? Because we are just getting their voucher—that is all 

it is—and we are not allowed to turn anybody down, but we are 

happy to have somebody who is diabetic because they are going to 

have a bigger voucher because they have—we are going to base it 

on medical records. There are electronic medical records proposed 

in this proposal. This is going to mean that they are going to come 

to us with a bigger voucher, so they are a good customer, too. And 

we solve—so we need to, I think, rely on the private sector to do 

this coordination of care, and they have to have the incentive. And 

the way to do that I think is to make the health insurance industry 

hyper-competitive and turn basic health insurance into a com-
404 

modity, a simple commodity like apples. And beyond that, people 

could buy supplemental policies if they want to have insurance to 

get an angioplasty at 98, they would buy— 

Senator WYDEN. Why don’t we do this—because I am over my 

time. Let us go to Mr. Bartlett. I think we in the Congress have 

not had a very good history with vouchers or saying that health 

care is like apples, because it is a very different set of considerations. I think there ought to be a role for the private sector, but 

I think the idea of just handing somebody a voucher and saying 

health care is like an apple, that is not what our bipartisan group 

is all about. We are about choice, but not vouchers. 

Mr. Bartlett? 

Mr. BARTLETT. I am disinclined to think that getting the private 

sector more involved in health is going to help our problems because we are already spending something like $300 billion a year 

of unnecessary administrative overhead because of the complexity 

of our health system. And I think it is quite—the most relevant 

statistics that I am familiar with about health is the fact that the 

next country most like ourselves, the OECD, with the heaviest 

health spending spends half of GDP of what we spend. If we spent 

no more—we could have the health system that the British have— 

which is actually on balance a better system than we have. They 

have better health outcomes over a lifetime. We could have that, 

and if we spent the same amount they spend, which is a little over 

10 percent of GDP, we would have the equivalent of the payroll tax 

to give away for nothing. All Americans would be better off by the 

amount of money they now pay for the payroll tax that they could 

spend on anything. Their standard of living would be massively 

higher, and their health would be no worse than it is in Britain, 

which is better than ours. 

So I think we missed a chance in 2009 to examine foreign operations and see what we could have learned from their experience 

instead of just reinventing the wheel, as we always do. 

Senator WYDEN. You are spot on, as you often are, on this question of driving down administrative costs. I mean, driving down administrative costs is the heart of this. And, of course, that is one 

of the most appealing features of Medicare, is that Medicare, of 

course, has done it. The question is: Can we now get Medicare to 

focus on the future, which is really chronic disease? And I know my 

time is up, and I thank you and look forward to working with you, 

Mr. Chairman, and Senator Sanders on these issues. 

Mr. KOTLIKOFF. Senator Wyden, can I make a quick correction? 

Chairman ENZI. We are running way behind. 

Mr. KOTLIKOFF. Sorry. 

Chairman ENZI. Senator Kaine has been here from the beginning, and as I understand it, he is the cosponsor of your plan. 

Mr. KOTLIKOFF. Absolutely. 

Senator KAINE. Indeed, I am a big supporter of the INFORM Act, 

a big supporter, and I appreciate the testimony of all of you. 

I want to ask you each just one question, and it deals with the 

title of the hearing, ‘‘America’s Dangerous Debt.’’ How much debt 

is dangerous, is what I want you guys to tell me. 

Here is my observation. I was a mayor, and I was a Governor, 

and we had a philosophy in my city hall and we had a philosophy 
405 

in my State for managing debt. And I have worked with some pretty dysfunctional folks, I do not mind telling you. My city council, 

five of my colleagues in 8 years were criminally prosecuted and 

four of them went to jail. Very dysfunctional, and very bipartisan, 

but we had a philosophy— 

Senator SANDERS. The Democrats and Republicans going— 

[Laughter.] 

Senator KAINE. It was a bipartisan tradition. We had a philosophy about how to manage debt. It was, you know, debt service as 

a percentage of the city budget. We were always issuing debt and 

retiring debt, total outstanding debt, had some ratio relation to, 

you know, city assets. 

At the State level, the same thing. I had two Republican Houses 

who fought with me on everything, but we had a bipartisan compromise whether the Democrats or Republicans were Governor, 

whether the Democrats or Republicans were in majority in the legislative branches, about a debt management philosophy. Debt service payment as a percentage of State outlays and total debt as a 

percentage of, in this case, State GDP. 

The thing that surprised me here, coming here, is—I mean, I 

know, you know, the way you bring down debt is the three things 

that Senator King mentioned: more taxes or cut spending or grow. 

But there is no consensus here about what level of debt is appropriate. We are going to have debt. What level of debt is dangerous? 

I tend to agree with Dr. Bartlett that nominal debt is irrelevant, 

just the number. We never used the number as the danger zone in 

city hall. We never used the number as the danger zone in a State 

budget. It was always a ratio. It was a ratio of total debt to assets 

or a ratio of debt service payments to total State budget. 

So I am assuming that the measure of what is appropriate 

debt—and we are going to have appropriate debt—and what is dangerous debt is some ratio rather than just a finite number. And I 

just would like to ask each of you—I mean, I have been kind of trying to determine what your answers will be based on your testimony. But I would just like to ask each of you, forget about how 

we solve it, that is on us to do, but what would your professional 

advice be as to an appropriate Federal debt management metric? 

What should we, you know, paint as our bull’s eye and try to manage to? 

Mr. KOTLIKOFF. Senator, if you are asking me, the answer is that 

the fiscal gap has to be zero. It cannot be 10.5 percent of the 

present value of GDP. Another way of saying that is that it is 10.5 

percent of GDP that we need additionally to collect, either in the 

form of lower spending or higher taxes through ever. So the fiscal 

gap has to be zero; otherwise, you have got an economy that is trying to consumer more than it actually has in resources in terms of 

labor and income coming into the future and also current net 

wealth. And our country is trying to consumer more than it can. 

You see this in the national saving rate diagram— 

Senator KAINE. Can I—I mean, I hear your answer, and I want 

to make sure the other two answer within my time. But you would 

say forget debt, forget— 

Mr. KOTLIKOFF. It is not a well-defined— 
406 

Senator KAINE. —debt service payment. You would say we 

should not even be having a hearing about dangerous debt; we 

should be having a hearing about the fiscal gap. 

Mr. KOTLIKOFF. Because I have no idea, as an economic scientist, 

what the word ‘‘debt’’ means. It is not define. 

Senator KAINE. All right. Let me go to you, ma’am. 

Ms. PFITZENMAIER. Well, since I am not here as an economic scientist, I do not think I can really put a measure, but I think it is 

something that I am glad we are having this discussion about, because I think it can really affect the quality of life of all Americans, 

as I mentioned in my remarks. 

Senator KAINE. Mr. Bartlett? 

Mr. BARTLETT. Well, let me make a bit of a technical point, since 

I worked at the Treasury and I kind of think of debt in the way 

the Treasury thinks about it. I think the structure of the debt 

makes a huge difference. Whatever the amount is, I mean, we all 

know that we can adjust our backpacks in such a way to make the 

same weight more easily carryable. And, you know, looking at the 

debt right now, we are paying literally two basis points on Treasury bills, and 88 basis points on 3-year, 1.81 percent on 10-year, 

and 2.39 on 30-year. So a penny-wise, pound-foolish kind of approach to the debt would say, well, let us just sell everything in Tbills and, you know, not worry about the future. But it seems to 

me that if you take the attitude that interest rates eventually are 

going to rise to a more normal level, you know, years from now we 

may look back and say, God, we should have been selling every single bit of 30-year bonds at 2.39 that we possibly could. I mean, you 

are old enough to remember the era of double-digit Treasury interest rates, as I am, and I think that we—it might be in the interest 

of the Treasury to sell more long-term bonds now, even though it 

will in the short run add to the Treasury’s interest cost, because 

down the road within that 30-year time period that those bonds are 

going to be out there, rates are undoubtedly going to be much higher, and we will come out ahead in the long run. And it would help 

to use Professor Kotlikoff’s type of analysis where you are looking 

over the long term to make these kinds of judgments. 

Senator KAINE. It is probably not a fair question to ask you without giving you the heads up, but the difference up here is not just 

because of partisanship. The difference is in the profession there is 

not an agreed-upon metric about debt. 

Mr. KOTLIKOFF. Senator, there— 

Senator KAINE. I mean, you say debt is a meaningless concept. 

You say nominal debt is— 

Mr. KOTLIKOFF. No, no, Senator, can I— 

Senator KAINE. So I just think that the—you know, we can talk 

about legislation to pass; we can talk about selling T-bills; we can 

talk about all kinds of things. But if we are having a hearing about 

what debt is dangerous and nobody has a metric by which to measure it— 

Mr. KOTLIKOFF. No, Senator, let me just— 

Senator KAINE. —that is one of the reasons why these discussions are so difficult. 

Mr. KOTLIKOFF. Let me— 

Senator KAINE. Thank you all— 
407 

Mr. KOTLIKOFF. Can I just interject on that point? The profession 

has been very clear—at theinformact.org—you cannot come up with 

1,200 better economists, okay? These are all Ph.D.s from the top 

universities and other small places, but we have 17 Nobel Prize 

winners. There is no question in our math. There is no question 

among the economists as a profession what it is we need to measure. It is the fiscal gap. 

It is true that Bruce Bartlett does not sign onto it, or Paul 

Krugman or Art Laffer. That does not mean that the profession is 

not clear as to what to do or that the math is not clear. It is absolutely clear. 

Chairman ENZI. Thank you. And all of you can submit extra comments if you want to. I would like to thank all the witnesses for 

agreeing to testify this morning. We appreciate your time with us 

and your thoughts as we work on this critical issue. And we have 

asked that you be willing to answer any questions that come in 

writing. There are some people who were not able to be here, some 

that were here that were limited on the number of questions that 

they could ask. I had some more questions. So questions should be 

turned in for the record no later than 6:00 p.m. today to the Committee clerk in Dirksen 624, and we would hope that you would respond to any of those questions within 7 days. 

Chairman ENZI. With no further business to come before the 

Committee, we stand adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:27 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 
408 
409 
410 
411 
412 
413 
414 
415 
416 
417 
418 
419 
420 
421 

(423) 

WASTEFUL DUPLICATION IN THE FEDERAL 

GOVERNMENT 

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 4, 2015 

UNITED STATES SENATE, COMMITTEE ON THE BUDGET, Washington, D.C. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:30 a.m., in Room 

SD–608, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Michael B. Enzi, 

Chairman of the Committee, presiding. 

Present: Senators Enzi, Sessions, Johnson, Ayotte, Corker, 

Perdue, Sanders, Warner, Kaine, and King. 

Staff Present: Eric Ueland, Republican Staff Director; and Warren Gunnels, Minority Staff Director. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN ENZI 

Chairman ENZI. Good morning, and welcome to everyone that is 

here. I will call this hearing to order. 

This should be one of our more bipartisan hearings during the 

year. We have all had some involvement in causing the problem. 

I have been looking at this for a long time, and it appears as 

though everybody comes up with an idea for a project, and the easiest way to pass it is to call it a demonstration project and to have 

it instituted in five places across the country and, you know, to see 

if it will work and to see if it is so spectacular that the local communities will take it over. So far every one of them has been spectacular, and so far the local communities have not taken it over. 

But since it was so spectacular, we nationalize it and do it for everybody, and that involves a lot of employees, too. So anytime that 

there is duplication and we are interested in ending the program, 

the employees fight for their job and send us the examples of the 

20 people across the country that absolutely were helped, and we 

reinstitute the program. 

So what Government does too little of is to make any credible attempt to ensure that taxpayers are getting the best deal for their 

money. It spends too little time guaranteeing that the taxes they 

send to Washington are spent in the best and most efficient way. 

We spend too little time ensuring that when duplication is discovered, it is addressed. That is why I called this hearing today. One 

of the ways our chronic overspending problem could be improved 

is with a commitment to rooting out the needless duplicative 

spending in our Government. 

We will hear this morning from the head of the Government Accountability Office. The GAO has outlined tens of billions of dollars 

in savings that can be achieved through various efficiency meas-
424 

ures. Ensuring that spending programs do not duplicate each other 

protects the taxpayer; as well, reforming and consolidating programs can ensure that they focus on the real needs and be managed with an eye on real results. 

The Federal Government has grown so large and complex that no 

one seems to know how many Federal programs exist. Even the executive branch cannot tell how many programs it administers. I am 

not kidding. Let me explain. 

Several years ago, Congress passed a law requiring the administration to publish a list of all Federal programs on a central governmentwide website, along with related budget and performance 

information. Unfortunately, when the program lists were put online, GAO reviewed the information and discovered that the inventory, in their words, was ‘‘not a useful tool for decisionmaking.’’ 

Why was that? Well, each Federal agency uses a different definition of what constitutes a ‘‘program’’ in making its contribution to 

the inventory. GAO reported that because agencies used different 

approaches, similar programs across agencies would not be identifiable. So we do not know how many Federal programs there are. 

But even if the Government cannot answer that question, we can 

find strong evidence that the number is on the rise. 

One way to assess program proliferation is through the Catalog 

of Federal Domestic Assistance, CFDA, a governmentwide compendium of Federal programs that provide assistance or benefits to the 

American public. We have a slide that shows how the number of 

programs in the catalog have grown over time. 

In 1967, when the CFDA was first published, it contained 459 

programs. What our chart shows is that the list grew to 1,390 by 

1995; and by 2005, it had increased to 1,580; and today there are 

2,292 programs outlined in the CFDA. That is a five-fold increase 

in the past half-century. 

But this snapshot of numerous programs is just the beginning of 

the problem. The CFDA uses a narrow definition of ‘‘program’’ that 

excludes many activities and initiatives not specifically designated 

in law. This is important because now in this administration, new 

initiatives are spawned internally by Federal agencies and have 

been by other administrations, too. So not only are we spending 

much more money, not only are the number of programs that we 

directly appropriate for growing, now the executive branch is busy 

creating all sorts of new programs on their own through an increasingly byzantine web. 

It stands to reason that as Federal spending and the number of 

Federal programs grow, both overlap and duplication become harder to avoid. Fortunately, Congress has required GAO to investigate 

and report on duplicative programs. Pursuant to law, GAO has 

published a series of four annual reports chronicling the spending 

with duplicative goals and activities both within agencies and 

across the Government. 

The extent of spending program duplication is staggering. Take 

a look again at the video screens, colleagues. What has GAO found 

so far? Among their discoveries, GAO has outlined 209 STEM education programs across 13 Federal agencies. This number was reduced to 158 after GAO’s initial findings were released. 
425 

GAO has also found nearly 700 renewable energy initiatives 

being administered by 23 agencies and their 130 sub-agencies. 

GAO in these reports also identifies opportunities for agencies or 

Congress to reduce, eliminate, or better manage fragmentation, 

overlap, or duplication, and achieve cost savings. Such savings 

would benefit our constituents. 

So what have we done with all of GAO’s good work? GAO has 

maintained a running tally of its recommendations and how many 

have been addressed. So far it has made 440 separate recommendations, but, unfortunately, fewer than one-third of their recommendations have been fully implemented by Congress and the 

executive branch. That is highly disappointing. It is long past time 

to take these recommendations on spending seriously. Taking 

GAO’s advice, we can begin almost anywhere, but regardless, we 

ought to begin. 

For example, by using strategic sourcing, we can reduce duplicative IT investments by Federal agencies. The Federal Government 

spends about $80 billion annually on purchasing and upgrading 

software and hardware, so trimming even a few percent off of the 

cost would yield billions in savings. And by consolidating Federal 

data centers, we can save $3 billion over 10 years. 

Fortunately, there is the possibility of progress this Congress. 

Our committees in the House and Senate should be empowered to 

focus on consolidating duplicative programs, and our budget should 

facilitate that. 

As well, our colleague Senator Ayotte deserves support from this 

Committee for her Duplication Elimination Act that she introduced 

with Senator Joe Manchin, and Senator Warner and Senator 

Ayotte should be congratulated for the work that they have done 

on Government Performance and Results. That was in effect in 

1987 when I came, and I spent a lot of time looking at that. It was 

not enforced, and hopefully the new initiative will be. That Duplication Elimination Act is designed to ensure implementation of the 

recommendations in GAO’s annual duplication reports. I think 

Members of Congress share considerable common ground in wanting to ensure that we and the executive branch do a better job addressing spending duplication. And it is my hope that Congress will 

take strong action this year on the problem. We have gone too long 

in Washington letting things continue as they are. I guess one of 

the things we will have to do is craft a definition of ‘‘program’’ so 

that they know what we are talking about. 

So in light of the chronic overspending and dangerous debt, we 

should act to consolidate duplicative spending programs that 

sprawl too far across our Government and in so doing save taxpayers billions of dollars. 

Senator SANDERS. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR SANDERS 

Senator SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, thank you. And, Mr. Dodaro, 

thank you very much for being with us. 

I think, Mr. Chairman, that on a lot of issues there will be strong 

philosophical and ideological differences, but I suspect on this issue 

you are right, there should be a nonpartisan approach. I am not 
426 

sure that anybody, no matter what their political views may be, 

should be tolerant of waste or fraud or duplicative services. 

As you know, every year, as you have indicated, since 2001, the 

GAO has issued a report on opportunities to reduce fragmentation, 

overlap, and duplication, and achieve other financial benefits, and 

this time they have found 188 areas where Federal agencies and 

Congress can take action to improve Federal programs. The administration and Congress have worked together to address GAO’s concerns by finding ways to reduce fragmentation and overlap through 

better data systems and to improve the management of Federal 

programs. Clearly, every branch of Government can and must be 

more efficient and effective, and we all have a responsibility to reduce waste in every branch of Government. 

Let me use this opportunity to make three points. 

As Willie Sutton famously indicated, he robs bank because that 

is where the money is. Well, we could go on for hours talking about 

waste and fraud in all kinds of Government agencies, but the truth 

is when we speak about discretionary spending, the money is in the 

Defense Department. That is more than half of our discretionary 

spending, and I think it is appropriate—and the GAO has taken a 

hard look at defense spending. Not to say that that is the only 

agency, but that is where a lot of money is. 

At a time when the U.S. spends more on the Pentagon than the 

next nine countries combined, and when over half of our discretionary spending goes to the Pentagon, we have got to pay close attention to this issue. 

Mr. Chairman, GAO has identified over 100 needed reforms at 

the Defense Department to increase efficiency and reduce waste. 

But, sadly, only one-third of these proposed reforms have been implemented to date. 

Further, every two years, at the beginning of the new Congress, 

GAO produces a list of agencies and programs that are at high risk 

of waste, fraud, and abuse. Since GAO began this exercise in 1990, 

the Pentagon has made the list each and every time. 

In addition, GAO has found that almost one-third of the Department of Defense’s $1.5 trillion acquisition portfolio—now we are 

talking about real money here, $1.5 trillion—is attributable to cost 

overruns. That is cost growth above and beyond what was originally estimated by defense contractors. 

So I think when we talk about waste, this is clearly an issue 

which should be at the top of our list. How does it happen that almost a third of the Department of Defense’s $1.5 trillion acquisition 

portfolio, or $448 billion, is attributable to cost overruns? That is 

real money. 

In my view, these cost overruns are a prime example of wasteful 

spending that only benefits the bottom lines of some of the largest 

defense contractors in this country. Many of these defense contractors have paid billions of dollars in fines and settlements for misconduct and fraud over the past two decades while raking in hundreds of billions of dollars in Government contracts over the same 

period. Just a few examples: 

Since 1995, Lockheed Martin has been fined over $600 million 

for misconduct. Northrop Grumman has been fined more than $850 

million for misconduct. And Raytheon has been fined more than 
427 

$479 million for misconduct. This is an issue that needs serious 

discussion. 

With respect to financial management, according to GAO, the 

Pentagon’s inability to manage its finances affects its ‘‘ability to 

control costs, ensure basic accountability, anticipate future costs 

and claims on the budget, measure performance, prevent and detect fraud, waste, and abuse, and address pressing management 

issues.’’ 

Mr. Chairman, this situation has become so absurd—and now we 

are talking about the largest discretionary fund in the Government. 

The situation has become so absurd that the Pentagon is unable to 

even account for how it spends its money. Now, we can argue about 

whether you need this weapons system or that weapons system or 

the size of the Pentagon. But I would hope there is no disagreement that at least we should have an understanding of how the 

Pentagon spends its money. 

Time and time again, the GAO has said that it is simply unable 

to audit the Pentagon. In fact, the GAO has reported that it has 

been unable to conduct a review of the Pentagon’s financial records 

due to, and I quote, ‘‘serious financial management problems at the 

Department of Defense that made its financial statements 

unauditable.’’ And this is clearly an issue that we have got to address. 

So the first point that I want to make—and I will wrap up in 

a second here—is that we can talk about a lot of things, and we 

should talk about a lot of things. And I do not think you and I will 

have much disagreement on that. But I do think we should go 

where the money is and take a hard look at an agency which is 

unable to even audit itself and give us the kind of information that 

elected officials deserve. 

The second point that I would make is that when we look at 

wasteful spending, wasteful spending is not only what we spend, 

it is what we do not collect. And as I have said previously, I believe 

that Members of Congress should take a hard look and ask questions why from 2008 to 2013 companies like General Electric paid 

not a penny in Federal income taxes and, in fact, received significant rebates. We are talking about GE, Verizon, Citigroup, 

JPMorgan, and other large corporations. So it is not only wasteful 

spending, but the absurdity that a truck driver is paying his taxes 

and some of the largest corporations in America are not. 

So, with that, Mr. Chairman, I look forward to hearing the testimony of the GAO, and thank you for holding this hearing. 

Chairman ENZI. Thank you for your comments. 

One of my irritations is that IRS agents have not been paying 

their taxes and have been getting bonuses besides. So I appreciate 

your comments. 

Senator SANDERS. Well, let me pick up on that just briefly. That 

is true. But the other thing, what we know is when you invest in 

the IRS—and they can do the audits—we bring in significant 

amounts of money for every dollar we spend in funding the IRS. 

Chairman ENZI. Okay. Our witness this morning is Gene Dodaro, 

the head of the Government Accountability Office. Mr. Dodaro testifies frequently before Congress, but, frankly, I think we should 

have him appear more often before this particular Committee. GAO 
428 

has done great work over the years in identifying waste, fraud, and 

abuse in Federal spending. We need to wield their work as a tool 

as we fashion the Federal budget. The GAO is the auditor of the 

Federal Government, and we should use the work of our auditor to 

inform our budgeting. As Chairman then, I look forward to this 

Committee having a productive relationship with Mr. Dodaro and 

GAO. 

Mr. Dodaro is the eighth Comptroller General of the United 

States. He was confirmed in December of 2010 after serving as Acting Comptroller General since March of 2008. He has been with the 

GAO for more than 40 years. He served 9 years as the Chief Operating Officer, the number two leadership position at the agency. 

Prior to that, he headed GAO’s Accounting and Information Management Division, which specialized in financial management, computer technology, and budget issues. 

For the information of colleagues, he will take about 5 minutes 

for his opening statement, followed by questions, and we do have 

a vote at 11:30 today. 

Mr. Dodaro? 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE GENE L. DODARO, COMPTROLLER GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES, U.S. GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE 

Mr. DODARO. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Good morning to you, Ranking Member Senator Sanders, members of the 

Committee. I am very pleased to be here today to talk about GAO’s 

work for improving the efficiency and effectiveness of the Federal 

Government. 

As the Chairman mentioned, in the last 4 years we have made 

over 440 recommendations in 180 areas across Government to address fragmentation, overlap, and duplication, as well as outlining 

areas for cost savings and, as Senator Sanders mentioned, revenue 

collection as well. 

So far, as of November last year, 29 percent of the recommendations have been fully addressed, 44 percent have been partially addressed, and 23 percent have not been addressed at all, either by 

the executive branch or the Congress, and we have a scorecard on 

both the executive branch and Congress in terms of the actions 

taken on our recommendations. 

As a result of actions taken to date, I would note that $20 billion 

has already been saved and about another $80 billion will be saved 

in future years. However, much remains on the table, and a number of the issues and recommendations we have mentioned and 

much money remains to be saved by acting on our additional recommendations. The recommendations span the entire Federal Government from defense to health care. They include better management of leveraging the Government’s purchasing power by using 

strategic sourcing objectives; eliminating wasteful information technology acquisitions and operations; and also we have recommendations to stem the tide of tax fraud through identity theft and to increase collections for the Government. 

Now, one area in particular that I wanted to point out this morning is also the issue concerning improper payments in the Federal 

Government. These are payments that should not have been made 
429 

at all or were in incorrect amounts. Last year, for 2014, the executive branch estimated the amount of improper payments as $124 

billion. That is about a $19 billion increase from 2013. This is a significant problem that needs to be addressed. There are over 100 

Federal programs with improper payments across the Government, 

so it is not an isolated program. There are three programs in particular, though, that account for 75 percent or more of the total 

$124 billion: Medicare, about $60 billion in overpayments last year; 

Medicaid, $17 billion in improper payments; and the earned income 

tax credit at IRS, another $17 billion. 

We have many recommendations to help improve this situation 

in these cases. I am very concerned about this improper payment 

issue because the highest programs with improper payments are 

also the fastest growing payments in the Federal Government. I 

have said for the past couple years I think unless we get on top 

of this problem and the executive branch improves their efforts, 

this problem is going to get worse before it gets better over time. 

So we have a lot of recommendations in this area as well. 

Congress has passed legislation in this area, three bills in the 

last 10 or 12 years, increasingly requiring better reporting, better 

estimating. I would make the point that even the $124 billion is 

not yet a complete estimate. For example, estimates are not being 

made yet in the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program 

because HHS says it needs additional statutory authority to collect 

the information from the States. 

So I am very pleased—Mr. Chairman, you mentioned having a 

productive relationship with GAO. I look forward to appearing before this Committee as often as you would like and to have our 

work support this Committee as it takes its important responsibilities of preparing a budget resolution and guiding the fiscal path 

of our Federal Government in the future. 

So thank you again for the opportunity to be here this morning, 

and I would be happy to answer questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Dodaro follows:] 
430 
431 
432 
433 
434 
435 
436 
437 
438 
439 
440 
441 
442 
443 
444 
445 
446 
447 
448 
449 
450 
451 
452 
453 
454 
455 
456 
457 
458 
459 
460 
461 
462 
463 
464 
465 
466 
467 
468 
469 
470 
471 
472 
473 
474 
475 
476 
477 
478 
479 

Chairman ENZI. Thank you for your information and even more 

so for all the information you collect that there would not be time 

for you to share with us here. But we have some people that are 

anxious to ask some questions, so I appreciate your brief comments. 

We will be recognizing the members in their order of arrival after 

the gavel, so I get to start the questions. 

We created a Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection which 

added another entity to the cluster of Federal agencies, although 

they are under the Federal Reserve and not technically under us, 

and we have no control over them whatsoever. In 2012, GAO recommended a prioritization and consolidation of the financial literacy programs and activities that are taking place in 14 different 

agencies. Last spring, GAO reported that the prioritization had yet 

to take place. 

The CFPB is using its Civil Penalty Fund to pay for financial literacy programs. I believe GAO recently reviewed that fund and its 

expenditures. Has the CFPB appropriately documented the rationale for its expenditures on financial literacy programs? And do we 

know whether these new programs duplicate other programs being 

administered by the Federal agencies? 

Mr. DODARO. First, with regard to our report on the Civil Penalty 

Fund, we found that the programs that were authorized under that 

fund were not properly documented. We made recommendations to 

the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. They have adopted 

new procedures, but they have yet to approve any additional programs out of the Civil Penalty Fund, so we do not know how effective those procedures will be. 

We have looked more broadly at the issue of potential duplication 

among the programs. We find a considerable amount of overlap between the programs, and for that reason, we suggest that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and Treasury, who are the 

Chair and Co-Chair of the financial group that oversees these literacy programs, prioritize the funding and look for opportunities to 

consolidate the programs. Those two recommendations have yet to 

be implemented. 

Chairman ENZI. Okay. Thank you. 

Switching over to the STEM education programs, we found that 

two-thirds have not undergone an evaluation between 2005 and 

2011. How do we know how to consolidate the programs if we do 

not know which ones work and which ones do not? And are there 

other areas where we lack the data to determine whether the Federal programs are working? 

Mr. DODARO. This is a very significant problem. In undertaking 

the work over the past 4 years, we found many Federal programs 

across a wide range of areas that really were lacking in evaluation 

to know what programs were working and what were not. STEM 

is one, as you mentioned. The programs for economic development, 

we found over 80 programs there, many of which were never evaluated to determine how effective they were. 

In the teacher quality area, improving teacher quality, we found 

82 programs at 10 Federal agencies. Many of them were too small 

to really be effectively evaluated. And we found problems in domestic food assistance. There were 18 programs there. The 7 largest 
480 

ones had some good evaluations, but 11 of the other ones did not. 

We recommended that the Agriculture Department look at consolidating some of these smaller programs into those areas. 

So this is a very significant area. You mentioned, Mr. Chairman, 

there is not a good definition consistently applied to programs. 

There is really not a lot of good information about specific funding 

aligned with those programs and activities available, and even still 

we are lacking in the type of performance information that would 

enable Congress to make an informed decision. 

However, there are some things that could be done. As you mentioned, in the STEM area they have begun consolidating particularly the smaller programs. I think you can do it and still provide 

effective coverage. 

But I think the real question here is: Why would Congress want 

to continue funding programs that do not have a demonstrated 

track record of improving their objectives, achieving their objectives 

and having proper performance? 

Chairman ENZI. I will change topics a little bit again, because in 

the 2011 and 2012 reports by your agency, you identified 94 Federal initiatives to promote green buildings in the non-Federal sector and recommended that agencies collaborate to identify inefficient or costly duplication. 

Have the agencies made progress in that area? And do you have 

any idea the amount of funds that are allotted to those programs? 

Mr. DODARO. Yes, they have taken some very limited steps to try 

to study the reporting in the non-Federal sector, but I am not satisfied that they are taking this very, very seriously and have come 

up with a plan to coordinate the Federal Government’s activities in 

this area and to establish goals and performance metrics. In twothirds of the 94 programs we looked at, they had no specific goals 

and metrics for the program, so we are kind of lacking in that. And 

there is no effective coordinating mechanism as there is on the 

Federal side. So this scenario I think warrants congressional attention and direction to the agency to implement our recommendation, 

and we really do not know how much money has been spent. We 

made an attempt to do this. Part of what is proposed with the 

green buildings, first, their definition of ‘‘green buildings’’ is a little 

loose, but also they fund it out of larger programs and really do not 

track specifically how much money goes to this particular area. Another opportunity, I think, for Congress to provide some direction. 

Chairman ENZI. Thank you. My time has expired. 

Senator Sanders? 

Senator SANDERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Let me focus briefly on two areas. One is where in terms of discretionary spending we spend the most money, and I want to talk 

about money that we should be collecting that we are not. 

Mr. Dodaro, according to a GAO analysis, $448 billion in cost 

overruns have been added to the Department of Defense’s $1.5 trillion acquisition portfolio. That is a lot of money. In 2001, Secretary 

of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, not one of my favorite Secretaries of 

Defense, said—and he said this literally the day before 9/11, never 

got a whole lot of attention. But he spoke—I think it was at the 

Pentagon—and he said that the Pentagon could not account for 

some $2.3 trillion in transactions. Even here in D.C. that is a lot 
481 

of money. And yet 14 years later, the Pentagon still cannot pass 

an audit. 

Now, explain to me what goes on when the agency that receives most of the discretionary spending, close to $600 billion, cannot 

give us an audit, has huge cost overruns, and then comes before 

us and tells us, gee, we need even more money? I was a mayor for 

eight years. That did not happen when I was a mayor. You hold 

people accountable. So we talk about accountability a lot. Tell me 

about accountability in the DOD and tell me about these huge cost 

overruns. Why do they happen? What do we do to end that practice? 

Mr. DODARO. First, with regard to financial management at 

DOD, we put them—you mentioned our high-risk list. We put them 

on our high-risk list for financial management in 1995. The Congress passed legislation—before 1996, there was not a requirement 

to prepare financial statements and have them audited across the 

Federal Government. So in 1996, 6 of the 24 largest departments 

and agencies in the Federal Government were able to pass the test 

of an independent audit. Now virtually all the 24 agencies can pass 

the test of an audit except for the Defense Department. For many 

years, they did not focus a lot on this activity. They are focused 

now on auditing their budget numbers, and some of their attempts 

to audit budget numbers for multiple years have not been successful, so now they are trying to audit budget numbers for one fiscal 

year, which I agree with—we have to start somewhere—and also 

to identify the completeness and existence of their assets. They 

have a long way to go. 

Senator SANDERS. If somebody is watching this on TV, might 

they think it is a little bit absurd that the agency that has most 

of the discretionary spending cannot give us an audit? Is that a fair 

statement? 

Mr. DODARO. Well, it is definitely a problem. I have pointed it 

out many times, and, actually, last week we issued our annual— 

we have a requirement to audit the consolidated financial statements of the Federal Government, and for 17 years we have not 

been able to give an opinion largely because the Department of Defense has not been able to— 

Senator SANDERS. Thank you. What I would say to my colleagues—thank you—is we can argue about what the size of the 

Pentagon budget should be. That is going to be a debate. I would 

hope that there is no argument and that some people take issue 

with the fact that when folks want more and more money—you 

talk about this issue in a different context. People want more and 

more money, and we do not even know how they are spending their 

money right now. I do not think that should make sense to anybody in this Committee. 

Mr. DODARO. On that point, Senator, the Congress has required 

they state that they are auditable by 2017, so we are tracking their 

progress. 

Senator SANDERS. Let me switch gears. 

Mr. DODARO. Okay. 

Senator SANDERS. We are talking about wasting money here. 

Now let’s talk about the acquisition of money, money coming in. 

The IRS has estimated that each and every year about $350 billion 
482 

in taxes go uncollected. This has been referred to as the ‘‘tax gap.’’ 

The Department of Treasury estimates that for every $1 spent on 

IRS enforcement, $6 is gained in increased revenue. But, meanwhile, in the last several years, the ability for the IRS to collect 

taxes has been severely hampered because its budget has been reduced by 10 percent in the last five fiscal years. 

In your judgment, does it make sense to cut back on those people 

who can enforce tax law and bring in needed revenue? 

Mr. DODARO. First, I would say I agree that the tax gap is a very 

significant problem. The estimates that I have seen—the most recent estimate is a net tax gap of $385 billion, and it ranges across 

the different types of taxpayers. 

We have had on our high-risk list since 1990 some form of tax 

enforcement responsibilities. The latest we— 

Senator SANDERS. But my question is— 

Mr. DODARO. But on the revenue side, definitely revenue directed 

toward enforcement is productive. But whatever Congress decides 

on funding, they need to also take into account our recommendations that IRS could do a better job with the funding that they do 

have. You know, we have found that they do not have good return 

on investment measures. Overall it works out, but for specific enforcement programs—like, for example, we found if they shifted 

$124 million from field exams to correspondence audits, they would 

likely collect an additional $1 billion. 

Senator SANDERS. Good. But bottom line is spending money on 

enforcement will bring in a lot more money than we are spending— 

Mr. DODARO. Well, and also I think you have got to be concerned 

about level of service over time and the effect on voluntary compliance. Voluntary compliance right now is about 84 percent, so we 

have about—and if the people are not getting their questions answered by the IRS on the phone, they are waiting longer on the 

lines, I am concerned that over time there could be a cumulative 

effect on compliance issues, that even if you throw more people at 

it, you are not going to solve it. 

Senator SANDERS. Fair point. 

All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman ENZI. Senator Ayotte—oh, Senator Perdue, I am sorry. 

Senator Perdue is next. 

Senator PERDUE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Dodaro, I have been a fan of yours since you took this office, 

and even before I got into politics, I have been a student of your 

output. Besides killing trees, there is a lot of information in here. 

I agree with the Ranking Member that what we are talking about 

today really is not a partisan issue. This is about getting a return 

on our investment, making sure the money is spent where it needs 

to be spent. 

I have just got a real question, and that is, after reading through 

this and being a student for several years, I have a problem getting 

to the bottom line. What is the potential? And you gave us some 

numbers and percentages of what has been done. You have identified what has been done, what is in process, and what is open. Can 

you give us a little more detail about that? And break it, if you can, 

by DOD and other. 
483 

I agree with the Ranking Member that there is no sacred cow 

here. Everywhere we spend money has got to—we have got to get 

a return on that. But speaking of the IRS and collection, I would 

like to make sure that we are getting a return on what we are already spending, to your point, before we spend any more money. 

But the bigger question is: Help us understand what the starting 

point is about what the potential is as we look at this opportunity. 

Mr. DODARO. Yes, there is definitely potential. As I mentioned, 

$20 billion has been saved already, and another $80 billion is in 

the works, that Congress has already approved, that will be saved 

over the next several years. There are tens of billions of dollars 

more in that area. There is a lot of room in defense and health 

care, which is where the money is. 

Senator PERDUE. I am sorry. Could I interrupt you on that? 

Mr. DODARO. Sure. 

Senator PERDUE. So the 20 and the 80, is that just on discretionary, or is that overall in the total budget? 

Mr. DODARO. That is overall. That is overall. 

Senator PERDUE. Okay. So it is both discretionary and mandatory. 

Mr. DODARO. Yes, yes. Yes, we have pointed out areas, for example, in the Medicaid area, we are very concerned that HHS is approving demonstrations in States without ensuring that it is budget neutral to the Federal Government. It ends up costing the Federal Government tens of billions of dollars, and, you know, Congress has no visibility. 

Senator PERDUE. So the $80 billion that is open, that is still out 

there— 

Mr. DODARO. No, no, no. That is already solved. 

Senator PERDUE. All right. So the 80— 

Mr. DODARO. We have got about—you can look at it, there are 

$100 billion in the bank. Okay? 

Senator PERDUE. Got it. So what is left? What is the remaining 

potential that you have identified bottom line? 

Mr. DODARO. It is tens of billions. I have not put a final figure 

on it. 

Senator PERDUE. Could you do that for us? 

Mr. DODARO. Well, I do not know if we could do it. It depends 

on what the Congress does based upon what our recommendations 

are in those areas. We have a number of areas where CBO has already scored what would happen if our recommendation was implemented. Those are noted in our testimony. We can add those up for 

you and give you those numbers and then say, well, here is the potential for the rest. 

Senator PERDUE. Well, what I am really interested in is what the 

potential is by discretionary and mandatory. 

Mr. DODARO. Okay. 

Senator PERDUE. And by priority as well. 

Mr. DODARO. Yes. 

Senator PERDUE. You know, the 80/20 rule I am sure applies 

here as well, that 20 percent of the potential areas will give us 80 

percent of the results. But I am not sure of that here. The question 

is: If you can give us that potential, that would be very helpful. 
484 

Mr. DODARO. Yes. I am just informed by my team that CBO has already scored at least $25 billion that could be saved, but there 

is more. 

Senator PERDUE. Well, we would be very anxious to get that. 

Mr. DODARO. Okay. 

Senator PERDUE. The next thing, when you look at who is responsible—I think you mentioned 29 percent had been fully addressed. 

Mr. DODARO. Right. 

Senator PERDUE. Who addressed that? 

Mr. DODARO. We broke it out in the table in our testimony. It 

is roughly around—you know, 28, 29 percent was addressed both 

by the executive branch and by the Congress. But the partially addressed, the executive branch addressed them more, because to 

score a partial in our scoring on the Congress, the executive agency—Congress addressed 26 percent of what we addressed to Congress; the executive branch, 30 percent of what we addressed to 

them. But to get it partially addressed for the Congress, there has 

to be a bill introduced and actually reported out of Committee as 

a starting point. Just a bill being introduced, we are counting that 

as not addressed. 

Senator PERDUE. Well, I understand the scoring. Mr. Chairman, 

I think it would be great—and, Mr. Dodaro, thank you for your testimony. I think it would be great if we could get a summary of 

that, even if it is bracketed by estimates, educated estimates. I realize that it depends on how we score it and what we do legislatively. 

Mr. DODARO. Right. 

Senator PERDUE. But as a budgeting matter, I would really love 

to see your idea of what that potential might be. 

Mr. DODARO. Okay. We will do what we can. 

Senator PERDUE. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman ENZI. Thank you. 

Senator Warner, and then Senator Ayotte. 

Senator WARNER. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Dodaro, 

good to see you again, as always, and let me just say that for particularly Senator Perdue, who, like me, comes from the business 

sector, you know, this is a challenging area. And, unfortunately— 

and Senator Johnson and I have worked on this; Senator Ayotte 

and I have worked on these issues together. You know, there is 

some progress, and I want to go through in my couple of minutes 

some of the progress we have made, because this is not an area 

that is very sexy or keeps people’s attention very long. 

The challenge sometimes is making sure we just have commonality of terms. One of the things that we passed a few years 

back was the GPRA bill, which says, you know, traditionally what 

happens, every administration comes in, they set a whole new set 

of management objectives, and they last for a few years until the 

next administration comes in. For the first time ever, we have said 

agencies actually have to identify their strategic goals, limit those 

goals—anybody who has done business knows if you have got 30 

goals, you do not have any goals. Limit it to two or three, report 

on them on a quarterly basis. You have been very supportive of 
485 

this effort, and for the first time ever, agencies actually have to 

identify not only their great performing programs but their three 

worst performing programs. 

We have got OMB that comes up with an annual list, but if you 

do not have actually the agencies, the people running these programs themselves, identifying where their problems are, we are not 

going to get to the bottom of it. And in this year’s fiscal year 2016 

budget, for the first time ever, we have got some of that data. 

Last year, this Committee worked together, and we passed the 

DATA Act, and I think, again, you called it, Mr. Dodaro, one of the 

most single biggest things you could do to help find and fix wasteful programs, because one of the challenges is—and the Ranking 

Member has talked about the Defense Department, but this is everywhere—there is no common definition of what a program is. So 

somewhere in our budget, something appears as a grant, somewhere else it appears as an expenditure, and the DATA Act does 

not go as far as some of us would like. But it really is the first time 

ever that there has been an effort to try to start some level of consolidation. The Ranking Member should know, you want to really 

get a good talking point, there are over 250 separate financial reporting systems just inside the DOD. How do you ever compare apples to apples if you have got different financial reporting systems? 

Again, I am going to come back and get you a question on this 

one. An item that Senator Kaine and I have worked with, with 

Congressman Whitman over on the House side, the Chesapeake 

Bay Accountability Act. We have got a slew of programs, Federal, 

State, and local, around the Chesapeake Bay. This is the first time 

ever we have tried to say let us do a cross-cutting budget analysis 

of all these programs and actually try to evaluate where we get the 

most value for our dollars. And a small area, a small segment, but 

even within the Chesapeake Bay there are literally dozens of programs, State, Federal, and local, and this will be the first time we 

try to analyze this on a cross-cutting basis. 

And one that Senator Ayotte and I have worked on got us some 

good attention, maybe not fully transformative, but we spent a slew 

of time perusing reports of agencies that nobody ever looks at. So 

we started with your good work. When it finally got through the 

sausage-making process of each committee re-evaluating, we only 

ended up with—I think they identified 300 reports. We got about 

50 reports eliminated. But this literally is thousands and thousands of man hours and hundreds of thousands if not millions of 

dollars spent on activities that could be more usefully spent. 

So action is needed, and it is one of the reasons why under Senator Ayotte’s leadership this task force that continues to focus on 

areas of Government performance, efficiency, duplication I really 

think, Mr. Chairman, needs to continue, and under Senator 

Ayotte’s leadership I know it can continue to do good things, because this is an area that, unless you stay focused on it, it tends 

to always get pushed aside. 

If you could comment for a moment, Gene, on the DATA Act, we 

have got a fairly aggressive timeline. You might want to give us 

an update on how you are helping OMB and Treasury get the program definitions right and what you want to share with us in 

terms of metrics we ought to look at going forward. 
486 

Mr. DODARO. Yes, I think the DATA Act is very important, but 

it has to be implemented effectively. So we are working to monitor 

what Treasury and OMB are doing to implement it. 

The first big milestone is coming up in May. In May 2015, they 

have to produce data standards for the agencies to implement. So 

we are monitoring what they are doing. They got off to a pretty 

good start. They are supposed to consult with people. But they are 

working now to come up with those data standards. 

Even though the law does not require GAO to report on progress 

in the DATA Act until 2017, I am going to report this year on the 

progress so that Congress has a good idea where things stand and 

whether the data standards developed are comprehensive, whether 

they are going to be clear enough. 

They have also decided that they are going to link the definition 

of ‘‘program’’ under the Government Performance and Results Act 

with implementation of the DATA Act, which has some intellectual 

merit to it, but it has to be done properly; otherwise, you are not 

going to have the good definition. We have suggested that they use 

web-based technology so that a lot of this information can be sorted. GPRA requires it to be linked to the program activity accounts 

in the budget submission, but that has not yet happened. 

So the bottom line is they got off to a decent start. I am cautiously optimistic. There is a lot that needs to be done. GAO will 

be involved early and advising the Congress. 

Senator WARNER. Mr. Chairman, last, just one—30 seconds. 

Chairman ENZI. Your time has expired. We have got a vote at 

11:30, so I do have to move on. You can submit it in writing. 

Senator Ayotte? 

Senator AYOTTE. Thank you, Chairman. 

I wanted to first of all thank you for your important work. I appreciate your being here. And, you know, I think as Senator Warner said, I have been glad to work with him on the Budget Performance Task Force. And one of the things that I am interested 

in getting at as well is—and you and I have talked about this in 

the past. As I understand your testimony, only 29 percent of the 

issues raised by GAO have actually been fully addressed—29 percent. 

Mr. DODARO. Right. 

Senator AYOTTE. And so a lot of these reports sit on the shelf. 

You know, I have got a bill with Senator Manchin that the Chairman referenced called the Duplication Elimination Act, and it is 

really what I like to call a bill that kicks all of us where we need 

to be kicked to act, the executive branch actually take up the work 

that you are doing and provide recommendations to Congress, and 

then provides an expedited process for Congress to act so we can 

really move these recommendations either affirmatively or negatively and really act on them. 

What else do you think we should do to ensure that your recommendations are fully addressed? Because you do such important 

work, and my colleagues have already talked about some of it today 

that needs to be addressed. 

Mr. DODARO. One of the things in particular this Committee is 

poised to do that other committees would not, a lot of the areas 

that we suggest be addressed span jurisdiction of multiple commit-
487 

tees in the Congress, and as a result, unless there is action by multiple committees, there is really not going to be much progress in 

those areas. I am not optimistic based on the track record that that 

would— 

Senator AYOTTE. So our jurisdiction becomes fragmented as well. 

Mr. DODARO. Yes. Yes, and the same thing happens in the executive branch. The departments and agencies are in their lanes, and 

OMB is the only one that can look across the agencies, like we 

have made recommendations that some of the loan programs we 

believe between Agriculture and HUD can be merged. You would 

have a more efficient structure and better service to the public. But 

nobody is taking the initiative within the executive branch when 

there are multiple agencies involved very often. 

So I think that is going to be the pivotal point and whether that 

29 percent is really going to move much or not in the future. 

Senator AYOTTE. So this is a great bipartisan opportunity we 

have here in the Senate Budget Committee because we cross jurisdictions. 

Mr. DODARO. Yes. 

Senator AYOTTE. Excellent. Great. And I look forward to working 

with the Chairman and the Ranking Member because I think this 

is something we all can agree on, and all of our constituents, it 

drives them crazy, for good reason, when they look at your—when 

we talk with them about your reports on duplication and fraud, 

and they say, ‘‘Well, that is our money going there.’’ So I hope we 

can work together on that with this Committee’s jurisdiction. 

I wanted to ask you about a particular area, and that is STEM 

education. STEM education is so important. In 2010, you found 209 

STEM education programs, and as I understand, based on your recommendations, they have been consolidated to 158. The President’s 

2016 budget proposes to eliminate another 20 STEM programs. 

Here is my interest in this. We happen to have in New Hampshire an inventor named Dean Kamen, who came up with a brilliant basically public-private partnership in FIRST Robotics that is 

across this country that actually keeps metrics about kids going in 

STEM, learning how to build a robot, and then going back into the 

field. 

So of the 138, assuming that we eliminate the 20 the administration has asked for, of the 138 that are left, that still seems like 

quite a bit. And I know that the National Science and Technology 

Council has developed a 5-year strategic plan. But help me understand. Are we measuring what these programs are doing? Because 

it seems like we have a bipartisan interest in improving STEM 

education in this country. And how good are we measuring whether 

these 138, even from the progress we have made, are actually helping improve STEM education and getting more of our kids ready 

for the jobs of the 21st century? 

Mr. DODARO. First, I am encouraged that the 5-year plan and the 

guidance that the National Technology Council has put out provides some guidelines on what should be evaluated. But the last 

time we looked at this—now, admittedly, we looked at the larger 

set of STEM programs—we found very few of them had been evaluated. In fact, 66 percent had not been at that time. 
488 

Now, I do not know how many of the remaining 136—we can go 

back and take a look at it, but based on what our prior experience 

would be, there is—you know, not enough of them are getting evaluated in order to know what effectively works or not, and that 

should be something that the Congress—I mean, it is already required under the Government Performance and Results Act, but 

nobody is enforcing it. 

Senator AYOTTE. Right. 

Mr. DODARO. And I think the Congress could do a lot to require 

that. 

Senator AYOTTE. I think this is an issue across programs, so we 

have got these—it is required, but we are not really measuring 

whether they are getting results out of where we are putting in 

programs. 

Mr. DODARO. Right. Well, I think that, you know, until the Congress starts saying, ‘‘Look, we are not going to fund you unless you 

tell us and demonstrate that you are effective and the money we 

are going to give you is going to be invested well,’’ there is no incentive for the agencies to change what they have been doing. 

Senator AYOTTE. Right, I agree with you. And I am hoping even 

just a measure like Joe Manchin and my bill might just at least 

get people knowing that we are not going to let these reports sit 

on the shelf, that we are going to say, ‘‘What are you doing with 

the taxpayer dollars?’’ I think that would be helpful. And I know 

my time is up. My clock is not moving, but I am assuming it is up 

soon. I wanted to ask a specific request, if you would be able to provide a list of—we cannot find the STEM programs. Like we cannot 

get a list of what is left. 

Mr. DODARO. Okay. 

Senator AYOTTE. So if you can help us with that, because we are 

very interested in it, I would appreciate it. 

Mr. DODARO. Sure. 

Chairman ENZI. Senator Kaine. 

Senator KAINE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Mr. 

Dodaro, for your testimony. 

You gave some statistics about the degree to which your advice 

is being followed, and I was kind of curious. I saw a piece—I think 

it was in Government Executive, a publication in the middle of 

February—that begins—it says, ‘‘Reports and congressional testimony from the GAO often note Federal agencies’ failure to act on 

past recommendations. But a unique study using data analytics 

shows that agencies ultimately have acted on more than four-fifths 

of the recommendations from Congress’ top watchdog over the past 

quarter-century.’’ And this was a study that was done by Deloitte 

Public Sector Research. I am assuming that you are familiar with 

the report. 

Mr. DODARO. Yes. 

Senator KAINE. How does that differ—they are sort of analytic— 

differ from your calculation on the numbers? I am just curious. 

Mr. DODARO. Well, actually their study basically verifies the statistics that we have reported to Congress every year. If you look 

at all of GAO’s work collectively, 80 percent is implemented over 

a 4-year period of time. The 29 percent and the 44 and 23 that I 

report are just for the overlap, duplication, and fragmentation area. 
489 

Senator KAINE. I see. 

Mr. DODARO. You know, that is a subset of our reports. 

Senator KAINE. I think that is—I mean, it is important because 

it says to me two things. One is you are doing good work if they 

are accepting that many of your recommendations. If they are accepting 80 percent of your recommendations, that must mean they 

know you are right and you are pointing out things that they need 

to fix. 

Mr. DODARO. Right. 

Senator KAINE. And, secondly, if they are fixing 80 percent of the 

recommendations you make, essentially, that also says some good 

things about the folks out there who want to improve. And so I was 

pleased to see that. 

I want to ask you, since you have been at GAO for such a long 

time, I am kind of curious about your thought about how to build 

in a culture of improvement. So, you know, one way to improve is 

when you send a report from the GAO and you point out things 

that are wrong, then, oh, gosh, GAO says it is wrong, I guess we 

better fix it. But you would obviously want to build in a culture of 

improvement that, even if they were not getting that report from 

you, there is an effort systemwide to look at duplication or look at, 

gosh, we do not have any data that says this program or performance is working, it should not take a GAO report to convince an 

agency, a Cabinet Secretary, the entire Government, to kind of 

build a culture of improvement. 

What kinds of things have you seen in your GAO career that you 

think are good examples? I remember Vice President Gore did the 

Reengineering Government Commission. I guess this is supposed to 

be part of OMB’s charter, to kind of perennially—on the management side of OMB, perennially improve better management. But 

what strategies are good strategies for driving down duplication 

and driving on, you know, getting value and measuring outcomes? 

Mr. DODARO. Part of the problem is you have perverse incentives 

in place in a lot of agencies in the culture. For example, on weapons systems acquisition, you know, we find time and time again 

that when we have got Defense to put in their policies best practices, where we have done studies in the private sector and other 

areas, but they do not get executed properly. There are still requirements not developed in some of the programs. I mentioned improper payments of $124 billion. The culture and the incentives 

were to pay quickly and worry about later finding out whether everybody was eligible or did we pay the right amount or whatever. 

So the incentives are skewed right now, and they need to be directed. 

Unfortunately, the only major management improvements that 

have worked successfully over the years have actually been those 

that have a statutory underpinning in the Congress because that 

provides continuity over time. And every time you change an administration, you have 3,000 new political appointees come in. 

There are a lot of acting people. Average tenure is about maybe a 

year and a half, 2 years. And so there is a lot of churn in the leadership in the agencies, and it is hard to change these incentives so 

that they work effectively over time and people get properly rewarded. 
490 

The budget and appropriations process makes people make decisions too early in the process sometimes, and the preparation of it. 

If you save money, you do not get to keep it. You have a smaller 

budget at the end of the day, so it does not get reinvested. 

Senator KAINE. Right. That is a bad incentive. 

Mr. DODARO. Yes. 

Senator KAINE. What is an example—you mentioned the best 

ones have a statutory underpinning because there is a continuity. 

Mr. DODARO. Right. 

Senator KAINE. What is your opinion of the best thing Congress 

has done statutorily to push a culture of improvement in performance? 

Mr. DODARO. The passage of the Chief Financial Officers Act and 

the Management Reform Act, which required for the first time the 

preparation of financial statements and audits. Right now—I mentioned earlier that that first started in 1996. Well, first of all, the 

Federal Government required State and local governments to have 

financial audits. The private sector has had it following the stock 

market crash. The Federal Government was very late to the party 

to implement that. Six of 24 agencies when we first started could 

get clean opinions. Now routinely 22 of 24 get clean opinions. So 

that culture has changed, and it is a result of Congress and a lot 

of hard work by the agencies. 

Senator KAINE. I would love to ask more, but my time is up. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to you, Mr. Dodaro. 

Chairman ENZI. Thank you. 

Senator King? 

Senator KING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

First, I want to thank you for your testimony and your amazingly good work. What you are doing is good and very important 

work, particularly given the size of the enterprise that we are discussing here. Do you have sufficient staff and authority to continue 

doing this work? Do you need more? I mean, I just think we are 

dealing with such a large enterprise and what you are doing is so 

crucial, I just wonder if you are—I realize everybody says, ‘‘I always need more people,’’ but give me your thoughts on that. 

Mr. DODARO. Yeah, well, I was concerned. From 2010 to 2013, we 

lost 15 percent of our staff. We were subject to the sequester just 

like everybody else. So we were at our lowest staffing level since 

1935. Obviously— 

Senator KING. Which is crazy, considering the growth of the size 

of— 

Mr. DODARO. Well, the Federal Government is a little bigger 

than it was then at that time. And our results, I mean, 80 percent 

of our recommendations that I mentioned are implemented over 

time, but last year, our work resulted in $54 billion in financial 

benefits to the Government. So we get about $100 return for every 

dollar invested in GAO. 

Fortunately, with the Bipartisan Budget Act, in 2014 and 2015, 

that offset the sequester, we have been able to gain back some of 

those staff resources, but we are not at our optimum level yet, 

which I think should be around 3,250 people. I have submitted a 

request to continue incrementally, you know, recognizing our deficit 

and debt situation. You know, I audit the financial statements of 
491 

the Federal Government, so I know very well what our fiscal dilemma is right now. We are not on a long-term sustainable path. 

So we could use a little bit more resources, and I would invest 

them in this tax gap and improper payments areas, is what I have 

told our appropriators. 

Senator KING. I want to follow up on that in minute. But what 

you are saying is that the sequester would diminish your capacity 

to find savings in the Federal Government, which would be the ultimate Catch-22. 

Mr. DODARO. Yes. 

Senator KING. One more reason to try to do something—not try 

but do something about the sequester. 

I was going to ask you about overpayments. You identified a lot 

of money there. Is that an area that is worth its own special focus? 

Do you have a division, a directorate, or a department that focuses 

on that? That seems like a ripe area for work. 

Mr. DODARO. Yes, we have a GAO-wide plan. We have our specialists in each program area who are working on it, but we have 

a coordinated plan across GAO. I wanted to make sure we did that. 

But, you know, we do not—you know, the problem is growing, and 

we do not have enough resources to do what I would like to do, 

which is get at root causes in a lot of places. So that is one where 

we could—I am planning to invest more resources if the Congress 

responds. 

Senator KING. I would urge you to be specific about what you 

need and where those resources would go so we can help you. 

Again, I think the investment is so powerful that we should pursue 

that. 

Finally, I have inquiries about evaluation. We do all these different things, and as you point out, sometimes they are evaluated 

and sometimes they are not. What about a neutral body—maybe it 

is you, maybe it is part of GAO, maybe it is somebody else—to 

evaluate Federal programs and also at the same time to evaluate 

tax expenditures? Tax expenditures are essentially Federal programs. They are equal in dollar value to the entire discretionary 

budget, over $1 trillion. And yet I just would—I think it would be 

helpful to all of us in making policy to know what is working and 

what is not working. And should we pass a kind of general, generic 

evaluation statute? And I hate to talk about creating a new bureau, 

but an Office of Evaluation, because I am not—I am a little suspicious of an agency evaluating its own performance. Of course, all 

their programs are working beautifully. Thoughts on that? 

Mr. DODARO. Yes, first, we have recommended for years that the 

Congress and OMB start evaluating tax expenditures in any one 

year that it is more than the entire discretionary spending and revenue foregone. But we have not gotten very much traction on that. 

I think it needs to be done. It ought to be part of the regular budget process and you have routine scrutiny, just like you do with discretionary spending. 

Secondly, I think evaluating the programs is a fundamental management responsibility of the agencies running the programs. They 

have been required by law to do this since 1993, but nobody is following— 
492 

Senator KING. But is it realistic to expect an agency to evaluate 

its own programs? 

Mr. DODARO. I think it has to start there to be a management 

responsibility. You can have—a lot of times we are asked to look 

at whether the evaluation by the agency is done properly. Sometimes the Congress will require us to consult with the agency to 

make sure it is done properly. I think that—I mean, that is where 

all the money is right now, you know, in terms of running the programs. And if you set up something separate, it would take a lot 

of time and years to do what should be done as a normal part of 

management. You can have independent scrutiny of the evaluations, but if they are not done by the managers, there is no incentive to improve either. I mean, they will just have—they will fight 

the evaluation— 

Senator KING. Unless the managers know that somebody is going 

to be coming in and looking over their shoulder. 

Mr. DODARO. Yeah, I mean— 

Senator KING. I am just trying to think of a structural way to 

get at this problem of lack of evaluation. 

Mr. DODARO. Yeah, I do not think it is a structural problem. I 

think it is a discipline problem on the part of the agencies in following the law Congress said and Congress following—requiring 

the agencies to do what they have already asked them to do and 

use the results. Even when evaluations are made, I am not sure 

they are always used effectively. 

Senator KING. Do most statutes that create programs require 

evaluation? 

Mr. DODARO. I would have to go back and we will give you an 

answer, but there is a general statute that requires it across the 

Federal Government, the Government Performance and Results 

Act, and there was a modernization passed in 2010 that not only 

requires it now for agencies, but on cross-cutting governmentwide 

priorities. 

Senator KING. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

Chairman ENZI. Thank you. I want to thank our witness. I am 

always fascinated by this evaluation prioritization, and the only 

thing I have ever found that would get an agency to do their evaluation is to ask them for a list of what they would cut if they had 

to cut 2 percent, if they had to cut 4 percent, if they had to cut 

6 percent, if they had to cut 8 percent. If it shows up on all the 

lists, it is not that important to them. But, otherwise, there is a 

tendency by the agencies to say all of them are spectacular. 

So I want to thank the witness for agreeing to testify this morning, for all the information you have shared with us, for all of the 

questions that are still pending. 

I want to remind colleagues that questions can be given to the 

record for the Comptroller General by 6:00 p.m. today. And we 

would hope that you would respond within 7 days because we are 

going to be getting close to our budget markup by that time. 

Mr. DODARO. Okay. 

Chairman ENZI. So with no further business to come before the 

Committee, we stand adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:34 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 
(493) 

THE BETTER WAY: BENEFITS OF A 

BALANCED BUDGET 

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 11, 2015 

UNITED STATES SENATE, COMMITTEE ON THE BUDGET, Washington, D.C. 

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:30 a.m., in Room 

SD–608, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Mike Enzi, chairman of the committee, presiding. 

Present: Senators Enzi, Sessions, Crapo, Johnson, Wicker, 

Perdue, Sanders, Stabenow, Whitehouse, Warner, Merkley, Baldwin, and King. 

Staff Present: Eric M. Ueland, Republican Staff Director; and 

Warren Gunnels, Minority Staff Director. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN ENZI 

Chairman ENZI. I call this hearing to order. Good morning, everyone. 

Hard-working taxpayers deserve a government that is efficient, 

effective, and accountable to them. Washington should spend your 

tax dollars wisely and responsibly and give you freedom and control to pursue your future the way you choose. That is what every 

American deserves and that is what I am committed to here today. 

We must all face the truth. America’s budget is at a crisis. We 

did not get there overnight and we will not fix it overnight, but we 

can begin to solve this crisis if we act now. We must take responsibility to act with integrity in an open, honest way to solve this 

problem and start at once. This will deliver the healthy economy 

that hard-working taxpayers deserve, a healthy economy that creates real opportunity for all, where job creators can grow, where if 

you work hard and play by the rules, you have a shot at the financial independence you deserve and the peace of mind you need. 

That is why I was so disappointed in the administration’s recent budget. After adding $7.5 trillion in debt since taking office, this 

administration proposes to add five-and-seven-tenths trillion more. 

That is actually $5,700 billion more in debt. 

Take a look at the screen. Over the past six years, we have 

learned that wasteful Washington spending does not solve problems, it sidesteps them. We need to eliminate deficits instead of exploding them. Hmm— 

Senator SANDERS. That is not what the screen says. 

Chairman ENZI. Yes, I know. 

[Laughter.] 

Chairman ENZI. Well, I want you to imagine that. 
494 

[Laughter.] 

Chairman ENZI. There. A little help with the—now you can see 

clearly what I am saying. 

Senator SANDERS. Oh. 

Chairman ENZI. I am glad my description was so good. 

You can see the little blue hatched parts up there. That is actually each year’s deficit through the next ten years, the little kind 

of blue cross-hatched, kind of a purple, kind of a combination red 

and blue, because it is everybody’s fault. 

But, what the red bars are is the cumulative amount of that, and 

you can see that it adds up over time. 

What are the long-term consequences of this approach? It means 

higher interest rates for consumers, because government is borrowing more, and it means higher taxes for every American to pay 

for more overspending. It also means more waste and unaccountable spending that puts an anchor on our economy, costing us stable, good-paying jobs. 

Look at this chart. Because of the President’s budget, interest 

costs will more than triple. Let me say that one more time. The interest costs will triple. In ten short years, we will be spending 

$785,000—$785 billion on interest every year. That spending will 

do nothing to help hard-working taxpayers meet the costs and challenges of everyday life. Interest does not build anything. In fact, it 

will make it even harder. 

The administration’s budget sends a very clear message. In this 

economy, with fewer jobs and less opportunity than ever, taxpayers 

may have to learn to do more with less, but so far, Washington 

does not have to. That is simply wrong, and it only deepens the distrust, the skepticism, and the cynicism our citizens feel about their 

government and this Congress. 

Americans have worked hard, harder than we can imagine, to 

claw back from the Great Recession and its aftermath. It is time 

for Congress to work just as hard to protect them. By spending responsibly, by making taxes fairer, simpler, and more straightforward, by putting our fiscal books in order in a balanced, responsible way, there are three significant benefits. 

First and most importantly, we can restore the trust that we 

have broken with the American people. According to Gallup last 

month, only 20 percent of those surveyed approve of how we, their 

elected representatives, are doing their job. Sadly, that poor number is an improvement over the 12 percent who approved in February of last year. The biggest reason for this broken trust is because of our failure to do what voters have long demanded, to 

eliminate wasteful Washington overspending, to make government 

truly more efficient, more effective, and more accountable to them, 

to improve the programs that protect our most vulnerable and 

strengthen the health and retirement security of our seniors. They 

see trillions in waste, fraud, and abuse, and ask why we do not do 

what obviously must be done. We must be committed to rebuilding, 

to truly earning the trust of the American people. 

This leads me to the second benefit. A responsible, balanced 

budget requires us to actually set priorities and stick to them. We 

live in an age when everything is a priority. As we know from life, 

when everything is a priority, nothing is. The Comptroller General 
495 

of the United States, Gene Dodaro, who appeared here at our last 

hearing, came before us and presented a catalog of inefficient, ineffective, and duplicative programs. Why do they still exist? It is long 

past time for every program to be evaluated and prioritized. If they 

are not delivering results, we should improve them. If they are not 

needed, we should eliminate them. If they are being done by multiple offices, we should streamline them. 

Getting our budget balanced and staying there, except for extraordinary circumstances, means a constant examination of what 

needs funding and what does not. A responsible balanced budget 

ensures that we actually prioritize and demand results. Hard-working taxpayers, along with every business in America, do this every 

day. We must play by the same rules in Washington. 

Finally, a responsible balanced budget demonstrates that Washington is doing its part to deliver a healthy economy for everyone. 

A government that is more efficient, more effective, and more accountable is absolutely essential for strong economic growth and 

job creation. This will help build the opportunities that so many 

people deserve. In the real world, this means investors can find 

new opportunities, and most importantly, it means every American 

who wants to find a good paying job and a fulfilling career has the 

opportunity to find it. That is what a balanced budget can deliver 

and that is what the American people deserve. 

I want to mention a letter that I got. One of the people I was 

interested in having as a witness was Mitch Daniels, who is with 

Purdue University right now. He just finished speaking at the National Academy of Engineers, and in that he said, ‘‘In my view, the 

nation’s transcendent problem, the one that endangers our entire 

position as the leading country in the world, is also the single biggest danger to the future of our historically dominant scientific research enterprise. I refer to our national debt, which I have elsewhere labeled the ’red menace,’ this time consisting not of militarily aggressive Soviet imperialism, but in perhaps the more dangerous red ink in which our national finances are drowning.’’ 

I would ask unanimous consent to have the letter in its entirety 

appear in the record. Without objection. 

[The information of Chairman Enzi follows:] 
496 
497 
498 
499 

Chairman ENZI. Working together, we can deliver real solutions, 

real results, and real progress if we look for the common ground 

and cooperate to get things done. A responsible balanced budget 

that makes government more efficient, more effective, and more accountable is not only possible, it is doable. 

Senator SANDERS. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR SANDERS 

Senator SANDERS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and 

thanks for holding this important hearing. 

For most Americans, the economic reality of today is pretty clear. 

For the last 40 years, the American middle class has been disappearing while the people on top, the wealthiest people, have been 

doing better and better and better. Today, real median family income is almost $5,000 less than it was in 1999. The typical male 

worker, despite huge increases in productivity, made $783 less last 

year than he did 42 years ago, after adjusting for inflation. The 

typical female worker is making $1,300 less than she did in 2007. 

Despite the modest gains of the Affordable Care Act, 40 million 

Americans continue to have no health insurance, and more people 

are living in poverty today than almost any time in the modern history of America. 

Despite a significant improvement in the economy since President Bush left office, real unemployment is not 5.5 percent, it is 11 

percent, counting those people who have given up looking for work 

or are working part-time when they want to work full-time. Youth 

unemployment, the future of our nation, is 17 percent, and African 

American youth unemployment is far higher than that. 

Throughout this country, a significant number of young people 

have given up the dream of going to college because of the high 

cost of tuition, while millions of others are struggling with the yoke 

of excessive debt around their necks, and I am sure that every 

member of this committee has talked to young people who are trying to figure out how they deal with $50,000, $80,000 of debt for 

the crime of having gone to college. 

The Federal minimum wage today of $7.25 an hour is a starvation wage, and half the kids in public schools are eligible for free 

or reduced-price school lunches. 

And, while the middle class disappears, the people on top and 

the largest corporations have never had it so good, and any serious 

discussion of deficit and debt has to take that into consideration. 

Today, the top one percent earns more income than the bottom 50 

percent. And since the Wall Street crash of 2008, over 99 percent 

of all new income goes to the top one percent. Corporate profits are 

soaring, and CEOs now earn over 270 times what their average 

employee makes. 

Today, incredibly, the top one-tenth of one percent owns almost 

as much wealth as the bottom 90 percent. And the wealthiest family in this country—one family—owns more wealth than the bottom 

42 percent of the American people. 

The fact of the matter is that over the last 40 years, we have witnessed an enormous transfer of wealth from the middle class and 

the poor to multi-millionaires and billionaires. Between 1985 and 

2013, the bottom 90 percent of the people in our country lost $10.7 
500 

trillion in wealth that it otherwise would have had if the distribution of wealth had remained at the same level as it was in 1985. 

Meanwhile, the top one-tenth of one percent experienced an $8 trillion increase in wealth as the distribution of wealth became increasingly unequal. 

And today, we are going to hear testimony from our Republican 

friends, invited witnesses that I can only refer to their testimony 

as the Robin Hood principle in reverse—we are going to hear from 

witnesses who suggest that in the midst of this massive income 

and wealth inequality, that we cut programs that the elderly, the 

children, the sick, the poor, and working families desperately depend upon, and then at the same time they want us to give more 

tax breaks to the rich and large corporations. 

And, unless I am very mistaken—and if I am, I owe you an apology, Mr. Chairman—that is exactly what the Republican budget 

will be doing, taking from the working people and the poor and giving to the wealthy and large corporations. And, that is exactly what 

the Ryan budget did last year when it was passed by the Republican House. 

Further, we will hear testimony today from one of our Republican witnesses about the need to make major cuts in Social Security and Medicare. In other words, not only do some of my Republican colleagues want to provide huge tax breaks for the wealthy, 

not only do they want to make cuts in health care, nutrition, education, heating assistance, Food Stamps, Meals on Wheels, and affordable housing, they also want to cut Social Security benefits for 

elderly seniors in Vermont and throughout this country struggling 

to survive on $14,000 or $15,000 a year or less, and, by the way, 

also cut back on benefits for disabled veterans. 

That is wrong. That is terribly wrong. Frankly, it is almost 

laughable that this advice that cuts Social Security and Medicare 

comes from the Business Roundtable, an organization representing 

the CEOs of many of the largest corporations and Wall Street financial institutions in this country. 

While these people tell us that we should cut Social Security for 

a senior in Vermont who today does not have the funds to heat her 

home or pay for her medicine, a study from the Institute for Policy 

Studies tells us that the CEOs of these major corporations in the 

Business Roundtable can expect a monthly retirement check of 

$88,576 a month. So, we have people who are getting a retirement 

benefit of over $88,000 a month coming here telling us that we 

should cut Social Security benefits for elderly people in Vermont 

who are trying to live on $14,000 a year. I thank you for your advice, but that is advice that this Senator will not accept. 

Further, when we talk about the deficit and debt, which is the 

focus of this hearing, I find it interesting that some of my colleagues seem to ignore the fact that we have major corporation 

after major corporation, including many in the Business Roundtable, that pay virtually no taxes at all in the United States. To 

name just three companies in the Business Roundtable, General 

Electric, Verizon, and Boeing, and there are many others. These 

are enormously profitable corporations that in some recent years 

have paid zero in Federal income taxes. And today, we are going 
501 

to be lectured about how we have to cut programs for working families to balance the budget. This country is losing approximately $100 billion a year in revenue because American companies and the wealthy are stashing 

their profits in the Cayman Islands, Bermuda, and other tax havens. The situation has become so absurd that one five-story office 

building in the Cayman Islands is the home of more than 18,000 

corporations. Maybe, if we are serious about deficit reduction, rather than cutting Social Security or Medicare, we might want to examine that reality. 

Last point. If we are serious about lowering the deficit and the 

debt, the best way to do that is not by developing an austerity program which increases suffering for those already hurting. The best 

way forward is to create a full employment economy with jobs that 

pay good wages. When people work and when people have jobs, 

they pay taxes. When people have jobs that pay them a livable 

wage, they no longer need government programs, in my view. The 

best way to do that is to rebuild our crumbling infrastructure, to 

put millions of people back to work. And I would all remember— 

all of us hope to remember—that the last time we eliminated a deficit, from 1998 to 2001, we had a full employment economy. 

And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield. 

Chairman ENZI. Thank you. 

It is important for my colleagues to appreciate the concept of a 

balanced budget is not new or untried. Most of the States have long 

abided by balanced budget requirements. It is a rich record of fiscal 

success and failure in the States and we should draw heavily on 

it. 

I just noticed that 24 States have already passed a Balanced 

Budget Constitutional Convention Amendment. Ten more are considering it, while I know of one more that has already passed it, 

so we are at 25 now. If we get to 34, we have to balance the budget. 

Last year, we spent $1,100 billion, so we have got to make decisions on $468 billion we spent more than that, which would be 

about a 50 percent cut, and I do not think we can do that. 

So, that is why we are doing a hearing to try and talk about 

some of these things, so to guide us to a better understanding of 

the benefits for moving toward a balanced budget, we have three 

exceptional witnesses. Let me introduce each in the order they will 

offer testimony. 

First, we have Governor John Engler. Governor Engler was the 

46th Governor of Michigan, from 1991 to 2003. He is currently the 

President of the Business Roundtable, an association of chief executive officers of leading U.S. corporations that produce seven-andfour-tenths trillion in annual revenues and employ more than 16 

million people. During Engler’s tenure as Governor of Michigan, he 

signed 32 tax cuts into law, saving Michigan taxpayers some $32 

billion, and helped create more than 800,000 new jobs, taking the 

State’s unemployment rate to a record low. 

Our second witness is Maya MacGuineas. Maya MacGuineas is 

the President of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. 

There probably are few in this town who have served on as many 

fiscal commissions and task forces than Ms. MacGuineas, with the 
502 

probable exception, of course, of Pete Domenici. Senator Domenici, 

of course, used to chair this committee for many years. Ms. 

MacGuineas has worked at the Brookings Institution and on Wall 

Street. She serves on the boards of a number of national nonpartisan organizations and received a Master’s in Public Policy 

from the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University. 

Our third witness is Dr. Mark Blyth. Dr. Blyth is the Eastman 

Professor of Political Economy in the Watson Institute for International Studies at Brown University, where he has taught since 

2009. He has published extensively on topics in international relations, comparative politics, and recently on fiscal questions. 

Welcome to all of you. Governor Engler, we will start with you. 

I hope that all the witnesses will kind of condense their presentation to five minutes so that we can have questions. There will be 

more showing up for questions. So, Governor Engler. 

STATEMENT OF JOHN ENGLER, PRESIDENT, BUSINESS 

ROUNDTABLE, AND FORMER GOVERNOR, STATE OF MICHIGAN 

Mr. ENGLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I could tell from the 

opening comments there will be questions, so I am delighted to 

have an opportunity to be here, and Ranking Member Sanders, 

members of the committee, Senator Stabenow from my home State 

of Michigan, my former colleagues, the Governors of Virginia and 

Maine, members, thank you for the opportunity to testify today on 

the benefits of a balanced budget. 

Business Roundtable commends this committee for your work to 

produce a serious budget resolution. Above all, a budget must be 

a blueprint for action, action that restrains spending, modernizes 

entitlements, and fosters the robust economic growth required to 

meet America’s many challenges. Business Roundtable’s CEOs believe achieving robust economic growth is one of our nation’s most 

important priorities. Further, they believe growth is achievable 

through policies like business tax reform, expanded trade, investments in physical and digital infrastructure, a fix for our broken 

immigration system, and a smarter approach to regulations. 

This committee understands very well the costs of inaction. An 

America that remains on a worsening and unsustainable fiscal 

path, as some of these charts indicated. The doubling of annual 

deficits within a decade, more than doubling, in fact, from the $483 

billion in the fiscal year 2014 to $1.1 trillion in fiscal year 2025. 

Soaring Federal debt, another concern, rising from more than $7.6 

trillion over the next decade, representing 79 percent of GDP by 

fiscal year 2025. This would be the highest ratio, by the way, since 

the end of World War II. Federal Government spending itself rising 

from $3.6 trillion today to more than $6.1 trillion by 2025. 

Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and net interest on the debt 

would drive government spending, accounting for about 85 percent 

of the increase in outlays over the next ten years. Interest payments, which the Chairman referred to, on the debt pose a real and 

fiscal economic threat. Interest actually represents the fastest 

growing component of government spending. As a share of the 
503 

economy, interest payments will climb from 1.3 percent of GDP to 

3.0 percent by 2025, and certainly even higher in future years. 

So, the consequences of all of this, the government paying higher 

interest rates to borrow, producing even higher deficits, leading to 

even more expensive future borrowing. 

Balancing budgets is difficult, no question, but doable. And, 

again, as the Chairman mentioned, States can show the way. As 

a new Governor in 1991, Michigan was faced with a $1.8 billion 

deficit. Business as usual, no longer affordable. But, in the 1990s, 

Michigan budgets actually did downsize government, reduced the 

number of State employees, lowered property taxes—Senator 

Stabenow played a role in that—and reformed welfare and made 

education a priority. By the end of the decade, we were able to restore Michigan’s credit to a triple-A rating, something not seen in 

the State of Michigan in 25 years. Investment rose. The State’s 

economy grew. 

Growth makes budgeting a whole lot easier. It brings in revenues 

that allow us to address our nation’s priorities. A CBO report has 

compelling data. A sustained increase in the growth rate of GDP 

of a full percentage point annually reduces the deficit, the budget 

deficit, by $3.3 trillion over a decade. 

And, I want to highlight two priorities from the Roundtable’s 

‘‘Achieving America’s Full Potential’’ report that we believe will 

contribute and produce substantial economic benefit. 

Entitlement reform, been mentioned already. For future generations of American retirees to rely on the assurances of basic retirement security, changes are needed to strengthen and sustain Medicare and Social Security. Business Roundtable supports gradually 

increasing the eligibility age for full benefits, updating the method 

of computing cost-of-living adjustments, as the President has proposed, and implementing means testing for higher-income recipients, and expanding competitive models of care much broader within the Medicare system. 

Pro-growth tax reform is another one. The U.S. corporate tax system does hinder the ability of American companies to compete in 

the global economy. The result is less investment in the U.S. and 

an underperforming economy with fewer job opportunities and, as 

has been mentioned, lower wages. Roundtable CEOs believe business tax reform has the greatest potential for immediate positive 

growth. 

We have identified two reforms that could put the U.S. at the 

forefront of global competitiveness, invigorating economic growth 

and spurring job creation: A competitive corporate rate of 25 percent and a modern international tax system that ends the double 

taxation of U.S. corporations’ foreign earnings and encourages the 

profits to come home to the U.S. of A. I am certainly happy to address these reforms in more detail in the Q and A. 

So, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Sanders, members of the 

committee, thank you again for the opportunity to address the need 

for a balanced budget. It has many benefits, and the pro-growth 

policies will help reinvigorate our nation. We look forward to working closely with you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Engler follows:] 
504 
505 
506 
507 
508 
509 
510 
511 
512 
513 
514 
515 
516 
517 

Chairman ENZI. Thank you, Governor. 

Ms. MACGUINEAS. 

STATEMENT OF MAYA MacGUINEAS, PRESIDENT, COMMITTEE 

FOR A RESPONSIBLE FEDERAL BUDGET 

Ms. MACGUINEAS. Good morning. Chairman Enzi, Ranking Member Sanders, and members of the committee, thank you for inviting 

me here today to talk about this important topic. 

I am going to make several main points today in my remarks. 

The first is that our deficit and debt problems are still far from 

solved. The second is that having a fiscal goal is key to making 

progress. Third, there are many advantages to getting the debt to 

more manageable levels than where it currently is. And, finally, 

policy makers do need to avoid backsliding and adding more to the 

debt than we are already on the path to do. 

So, let me start by saying that I think the United States has the 

potential for a real economic renaissance. We just heard from the 

head of the IMF that we are described as the best economic performer, and that is really remarkable coming out of the terrible, 

terrible economic downturn that we just went through. Still, we are 

nowhere close to being out of the woods, and the fabric of a successful economy will be strong production, good jobs, investment in the 

future, and a growing standard of living. The best solutions will enhance our competitiveness, grow our economy, and make sure that 

the benefits of that growth are spread more broadly. Controlling 

our debt is a key factor to achieving all of these objectives. 

So, let me start by recognizing the good news. The deficit has 

come down by about two-thirds since its peak in 2009, and health 

care cost growth has slowed significantly, leading to a savings of 

a trillion dollars from what we had been projecting. 

That said, our debt situation is still very troubling. Our debt is 

twice the historical average relative to the economy. Interest payments, as the Governor just said, are the single fastest growing 

part of the budget. Our budget favors consumption over investment, and we are dangerously short-sighted in how we budget. 

There also seems to be a near endless list of political reasons not 

to make any changes for getting this situation under control when, 

really, there are no economic reasons for delaying figuring out the 

kind of changes that we are going to put in place. 

Some have pointed to the recent decline in the deficit as a reason 

not to worry about the situation, but keep in mind that the 66 percent decline followed an unprecedented increase in the deficit of 

780 percent. And, the decline is temporary. Deficits are expected to 

hit a trillion dollars again by 2025. 

Moreover, I would argue that the short-term deficit was never 

the primary concern, and it should not have been, given that we 

are still focusing on helping the economy to recover. A much smarter approach would have been to include real reforms of the tax code 

and entitlement reform than the kind of short-sighted and blunt 

tools that were used to bring the deficit down and to have focused 

on controlling the debt for the longer term. 

More troubling, still, is our national debt. At 74 percent of GDP, 

it is currently the highest it has been as a share of the economy 

since World War II, and it is more than double the size of the debt 
518 

as a share of the economy compared to when we went into the national crisis in 2007, and having very low debt levels at the time 

gave us the flexibility to respond. 

So, there is no question that our projected deficits and debt are 

too high, and ideally, what we should do is strive to balance the 

budget over a business cycle, which would allow us to save money 

when times are good and spend more money when the economy is 

in bad shape. 

The first step towards getting towards balance is getting the debt 

on a downward path as a share of the economy, and that comes 

with a number of benefits. Starting with economic benefits, it leads 

to greater investment and economic growth, and from our estimates based off of CBO numbers, getting the budget to balance 

would lead to an increase in the size of the economy of more than 

two percent in 2025 and more than ten percent in 2040. 

That leads to higher income and wages. Again, using CBO’s rule 

of thumb, the increase due to a balanced budget in wages would 

be $6,000 per person per year, or $200,000 in additional income for 

an average worker. 

It also leads to lower interest rates. Under a balanced budget, according to CBO, the interest rates could be roughly one point lower 

than under current law. So, to put that another way, if you think 

about a family with a mortgage of $300,000, that could lead to savings of $60,000 over the life of that mortgage. 

It also would lead to declining interest payments. Right now, we 

are projected to be spending over $800 billion in interest payments 

by the end of the budget window, certainly, that is money that 

could be better spent on many other priorities if we did not have 

such high payments. 

And, the fiscal flexibility that we were allowed when we entered 

the crisis, because our debt levels were low, was instrumental in 

helping us get out of the crisis. Were we to go into another crisis— 

and there will be one sometime—with debt levels as high as they 

are, we would be constrained in a way that we were not before. 

And, finally, getting rid of high debt levels, getting rid of them, 

balancing your budget, reduces the risk of a fiscal crisis. CBO has 

warned that the larger a government’s debt, the greater the risk 

of a fiscal crisis. 

There is a final advantage, also, I think, of getting a balanced 

budget, which is it is an easy, tangible and measurable goal that 

can be easily explained to the American people, and that has been 

shown to help keep plans on track. Right now, there are virtually 

no limits on borrowing, no agreed upon fiscal goal, and if there 

were one, policy makers would be required to show their preferred 

paths for getting there and then we would have a real discussion 

on the budget. We would discuss the various trade-offs of the various plans to achieve that goal, whatever it is. 

Finally, I encourage all of us in this coming year not to take a 

step backwards, and I think there is a very real risk there. Last 

year, lawmakers added $100 billion to the debt beyond what was 

projected from a variety of things that they either did not want to 

pay for or that they used gimmicks to pay for. This year, we will 

face a number of these fiscal speedbumps, from SGR, to highway, 
519 

to tax extenders. Not paying for them could add another $2 trillion 

to the debt. 

So, I want to close by saying that controlling America’s debt is 

a key part of a comprehensive economic growth plan. We need to 

grow our economy. We need to keep our businesses competitive. We 

need to invest in our workers, innovations, and infrastructure. We 

need to ensure that the gains from growth are broadly shared. And, 

we need to control our debt for any of these efforts to be effective. 

To truly tackle our fiscal challenges, we are going to need to reform our tax code, we are going to need to strengthen our entitlement programs, and we are going to need to control and better target our spending. All of those things have to be on the table. 

The payoffs from responsible fiscal policies are immense, and I 

really do think that they are the key to getting this economic 

growth to stick and take off and help American families. 

So, thank you to the committee for hosting this hearing today. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. MacGuineas follows:] 
520 
521 
522 
523 
524 
525 
526 
527 
528 
529 
530 
531 
532 
533 

Chairman ENZI. Thank you. 

Dr. BLYTH. 

STATEMENT OF MARK BLYTH, EASTMAN PROFESSOR OF POLITICAL ECONOMY, WATSON INSTITUTE FOR INTERNATIONAL STUDIES, BROWN UNIVERSITY 

Mr. BLYTH. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member 

Sanders, and members of the committee. It is a real honor for me 

to be here as an immigrant to the United States, so I just want 

to acknowledge that before I begin. 

I am going to show some slides. I am kind of a data-driven guy, 

so if I can have my slides. Can we go to the next slide, please. 

You do not really have a spending problem. You have a revenue 

problem, so I am going to show you why. Next slide. 

You have been cutting taxes on top—on basically everyone, but 

really it is the top end that matters—basically since the 1960s, and 

if you have a look—next slide, please—what you will see there, the 

green line is the United States Federal and State tax take as a percentage of GDP. That is the average of all the other rich countries 

in the world. So, basically, you are massively under-revenuing, if 

you want to make that into a word. Next slide, please. 

That is the United States on the blue line at the bottom. That 

is everyone you compare yourself to and the OECD average. You 

are just not raising revenue. Next slide, please. 

This is an old story. As you can see, taxes have outpaced—revenues have fallen short of taxes all the way through the 1980s, as 

well, actually. It was only briefly in the 1990s it was ever any different. And, the reason you see this large, huge build-up in debt 

and spending is because we bailed the entire global financial system and had a huge recession. So, of course, taxes are going to go 

down as revenues dry up from an already low baseline and spending is going to go up. Your debts become your deficit. It is all quite 

normal why that should happen. And, as you can see, they are 

trending down again to being almost normal. Next slide, please. 

In fact, in comparison to the average of all other countries, the 

United States tax gap is actually smaller than many other countries. So, you are actually even in better shape, comparatively, even 

though you actually spend very little through the government. 

Now, next slide, please. 

If the U.S. was overspending, it would show up in bond deals, because the people holding all of that debt would freak out and would 

want more interest payments. Well, here is the funny thing. It has 

been falling consistently since 2006, right through the financial crisis. You create a giant tsunami of a financial crisis and people 

want to hold your debt. In fact, interest payments keep going down 

in terms of bond yields. If you have a problem in spending, it is 

simply not showing up in the way that investors’ appetite shows 

up in bonds. The 30-year bond, it is rated 2.8 percent. That does 

not even cover inflation over the period. No one can get enough of 

this debt. This is an entirely different story. Next slide, please. 

You cannot really see this, but, basically, what it shows is a regression between the degree of budget tightening, what you want 

to do, on the horizontal axis, and then what happens to your debt, 

and that dot at the top is Greece and the ones in the middle are 
534 

Spain and Ireland and Portugal. And, guess what. The more that 

they tightened, the more debt they got, because the underlying 

GDP got smaller and the same constant stock of debt got bigger 

rather than smaller. So, the more you tighten, the more you shrink 

your economy, the more debt you end up with. It is quite a paradox, but it is a very robust finding. Next slide, please. 

This is the same thing seen the other way. This is basically the 

wonders of austerity, part two. The stronger the budget tightening, 

the sharper the decline in GDP. Again, that is Greece at the bottom. They have cut more than any country in modern history and 

they have lost a third of their economy and their debt has doubled 

despite the cuts, in fact, because of them. Next slide, please. 

This is hardly a surprise, because when you spend all that time 

shrinking your economy by obsessively balancing your budget, you 

build fragilities into the system going forward such that when you 

get hit with an external shock, your economy craters because it is 

much more fragile. And, what we have here are years in which the 

budget was paid down, very long periods, and they are all followed 

by recessions or depressions the minute you get hit with a shock, 

because you have been artificially constricting your GDP growth for 

no good reason. Next slide, please. 

We wonder a lot about—we have heard a bit about interest payments on the debt. One of the other things I find fascinating is this 

idea that we are all in hock to foreigners, right, so, you know, foreigners own our debt. If you look at this slide, you will find that 

most, in fact, 70 percent of U.S. debt is domestically held, and that 

matters for your interest payment story, because although I pay 

taxes which become payments on the debt, pension funds and 

banks use debt very productively. And when you pay them interest, 

that goes back into my pension. We are all borrowers and lenders 

at the same time. The notion that debt interest is some deadweight loss is just simply not true. Next slide, please. 

So, we have a lot of debt, and you can see here two lines. The 

blue line is the United States and the other one is the European 

Union, Eurozone countries, and you can see the effects of the crisis 

going on. Basically, government spending is pretty constant going 

all the way across the decade. There is no orgy of spending. It simply did not happen. Then there is a huge blow-up with the global 

financial crisis. You bail out the banks, and at the same time without recapitalization and so on, you end up constricting the economy. You have a big recession and that is where your debt came 

from. Europe has been tightening. Remember that they have been 

doing the budget cuts that you want so much. They are in exactly 

the same position. Last slide, please. 

However, the story is much worse, because if you look at this another way, there is your spend going on. There is GDP growth. 

There is the effect of the financial crisis going down. Look at the 

blue line. That is America. We did not cut. We grew five times as 

fast as Europe did last year. Look at what happened to Europe. 

The more they cut, that dotted line going down at the end, that is 

20 percent unemployed in the periphery and 12 percent unemployed in the core. They are in a miserable state because they have 

been balancing their budget. 
535 

One last thing I want to end on. You do not have a budget crisis 

now. You did not have it in the past. But you project it into the 

future. Everything I have heard is ten-year projections in the future. These straight-line one-year projections ten years out. One 

thing you can bet on: Knowing your projection ever comes true. 

Imagine you did a ten-year lineal projection in 2004. Do you think 

you would have picked up the financial crisis? Imagine the CBO 

did a ten-year projection in 1987. Do you think they would have 

picked up the cost savings of the end of the Cold War? 

Worlds are non-linear generators. You have no idea what it will 

be like in ten years’ time. But, one thing we do know is the American economy will be much better than it is now. In 2006, it was 

$13 trillion, $13.6. Today, it is $17 trillion. When we go out ten 

years, we will have a much bigger economy on which we will be 

paying back a smaller share of debt. If you start cutting now, you 

will end up in worse fiscal shape than you actually would if you 

just stayed on the course you are on now. Growth cures debt. Cuts 

cause debt. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Blyth follows:] 
536 
537 
538 
539 
540 
541 
542 
543 
544 
545 
546 
547 

Chairman ENZI. Thank you. 

Now, we will turn to questions. As a reminder, I will alternate 

recognition between the Republican and the Democratic Senators, 

following seniority for those who were here when the hearing gavel 

sounded. After that, I will recognize members based on their order 

of arrival. If you are not here when your name is called, I will skip 

you, but pencil you in at the end of the question list. Actually, I 

do not have to pencil you in. We have this nifty little computer 

here now that somebody is keeping track of all these changes for 

me so we will all have a chance to ask questions. 

Some good presentations by all three. It will be interesting to see 

what Europe does now when they have the Euro where they do not 

have the control of their money supply, and with Greece where 

they are about to reverse all of their austerity. That is what their 

new election did. 

But, I will begin with Governor Engler. You ran the State of 

Michigan for 12 years under the constitutional requirement that 

your annual budget be balanced, yet you made significant investments in education, conducted a successful economic growth plan, 

and you reduced income taxes numerous times. You have also successfully run large nonprofits. I have been arguing that a balanced 

budget requirement sharpens the priority setting process. You obviously had your priorities. Am I right in thinking that the process 

of writing a budget becomes more focused on priorities and what 

not to fund under a balanced budget requirement? Can you tell me 

how you did prioritization and wound up with an improvement? 

Mr. ENGLER. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. The question of 

priority setting is one that is never done by a Governor alone. It 

is a collaborative process. In Michigan at the time, we had divided 

government, so we ended up having to have a consensus among 

legislators in both parties. In fact, one of the changes we made in 

the early days of the 1990s, we eliminated general assistance, 

which was cash assistance for single able-bodied adults without 

children. We had Democratic votes to do that. 

We prioritized things like education, what we thought was an investment agenda. And, we tried to reduce those programs that we 

thought were less essential. It was not as though—we were not reducing key investments. Some went up and some went down. I 

mean, sort of in contrast to the sequestration process that has been 

used here, which is kind of a blunt tool that goes the good gets cut 

with bad, you try to eliminate the bad and double-down on the 

good is what a strategy is. 

I would say that if we look across the States, because we all, for 

the most part as Governors, have balanced budget requirements, 

we do not have latitude. So, we just have to set priorities. In the 

case of Michigan, it actually took two years, really, to get the whole 

deficit gone. We could not even get it done in the first year. But, 

we knew that raising taxes, given the unemployment numbers in 

Michigan at the time, was a poor strategy, and so we averted that 

path and stayed on one that ultimately led to an unemployment 

rate that got under four percent. 

Chairman ENZI. Thank you. 

Ms. MacGuineas, you have served on so many budget commissions and work groups that you have provided some suggestions, 
548 

but I know you have more. Adopting a joint budget resolution 

might be a big step forward. We have not done that in six years. 

Beyond that important goal, however, what would be the two or 

three most important reforms to the budget process that we can assure would provide a better debate over priorities and an informed 

budget? 

Ms. MACGUINEAS. Good. So, given where we are right now, I 

think one of the most important things we can do is adopting a fiscal metric. And, so, if we have a goal that is agreed upon, whether 

it is balancing the budget or getting the debt to a certain level of 

the economy by a certain amount of time. That then forces the 

budget process to confront trade-offs. 

So, right now, fiscal responsibility is usually used as people trying to stop the other side from doing what they want to do. But, 

instead, if we agreed we need to get the debt to whatever goal it 

is, we then would put forth a variety of plans of how to get there 

and you look at the different kinds of trade-offs. How much comes 

from revenues? How much comes from spending? What is that 

spending like? How do we make up a budget plan? And that is the 

process that budgeting should confront. 

Second, I do think we need to look at lot more at the long term. 

Right now, our budget process is overly focused on the short term 

when we know that the problems that are really generating our 

concerns deal with demographics, the aging of society, and health 

care, and, again, those growing interest payments. So, when you 

look out in the long term, even though we cannot project sort of 

when the business cycle will hit, demographics is destiny, as they 

say, and so we know that that is going to have a significant effect. 

Finally, I think there is two-thirds of the budget, mandatory 

spending, that really is not budgeted for, and I think finding more 

ways to have oversight and thinking about how much you want to 

spend on various areas and which priorities we want to spend on 

will, again, go back to confronting trade-offs within the budget. 

Chairman ENZI. Thank you. Fiscal metric, long-term planning, 

and looking at the two-thirds that is mandatory. I appreciate that. 

And Governor Engler mentioned increasing the economy. It was 

interesting that the OMB said that if we increased the economy by 

one percent, that that would increase revenues by $4 trillion over 

ten years. 

You also mentioned in your testimony $100 billion in gimmicks. 

We will see if we cannot reach a more honest budget. 

My time has expired. I will have some questions in writing for 

all of you and hope you will respond. Obviously, Dr. Blyth, your 

questions will have a lot more to do with specific numbers, and I 

appreciate the presentation that you made and look forward to 

your answers. 

Senator Sanders, followed by Senator Sessions. 

Senator SANDERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and let me thank 

all of the panelists for their excellent testimony. 

Governor Engler, I want to ask you a question, and I do not want 

to—please trust me and understand that it is not a personal question. I have a hard time hearing a representative of an organization of the largest corporations in America, where the CEOs of 

these corporations will retire with about $88,000 a month, over a 
549 

million dollars a year, in retirement benefits, which is the case, 

coming before the Congress to recommend that we cut Social Security benefits for people who are trying to survive on $12,000, 

$13,000, $14,000 a year. My point here is not to argue the issue. 

I mean, different people have different views on Social Security. 

But, I just want to say, I have a problem with some of the wealthiest people in this country, who have more money than people can 

dream of, coming here and lecturing us about how we have to lower 

Social Security benefits for disabled vets and working people. 

My question to you is—and let me go to Ms. MacGuineas, if I 

could, you used the expression, ‘‘strengthening entitlement programs.’’ I will be introducing legislation that will strengthen Social 

Security. It will make it solvent until the year 2060 by lifting the 

cap on taxable income, which is now at $118,500. Starting at 

$250,000, all people would pay the 6.2 percent. That will strengthen Social Security very significantly. Are you supportive of that legislation? 

Mr. ENGLER. Well, I will start with that. Who do you want to— 

Senator SANDERS. Sure, either one. I was going to start—let me 

start with Ms. MacGuineas, then we will go to you. 

Ms. MACGUINEAS. Yes. I think that that is the kind of thing that 

we need to do to strengthen Social Security, in that right now, 

what we have is promises that have been made that we cannot 

make good on. I think you should go the whole way. I think that— 

I believe that your bill closes about 80 percent, maybe. I know it 

gets to 2061, as you said, but again in 2021—at some point, we 

would have to start confronting that it will be out of balance pretty 

quickly. So, I would recommend putting a full package that gets to 

sustainable solvency, which is normally the goal. 

And, the only issue—I think that looking at lifting, eliminating 

the payroll tax cap makes an awful lot of sense. I think there are 

only so many times we can tax and use that money for different 

places. So, the one thing I think we want to do is think about, holistically, what the biggest priorities in our country are, and I think 

Social Security and maintaining a strong safety net, in particular 

for people who depend on it, clearly is. 

I do think you want to make sure those changes are targeted and 

you do not expand benefits for the well-off at the same time that 

you are making those changes. 

Senator SANDERS. Okay. Governor. 

Mr. ENGLER. Yes. I would certainly look at any legislation that 

is introduced to strengthen the system. That is why we look carefully at President Obama’s recommendations to use the correct calculations on cost of living for Social Security. We are disappointed 

that that did not get any traction in the Congress. So, there are 

a number of changes. 

But, when I talk about strengthening Social Security, I am also 

wanting to make sure the people who need it most have it there 

for them. So, I am not interested in protecting Warren Buffett’s Social Security. I am interested in the people you talk about. 

Senator SANDERS. Well, but I am not talking about Warren 

Buffett. I am talking— 

Mr. ENGLER. Well, you are, because— 

Senator SANDERS. No, I am not. I am talking about— 
550 

Mr. ENGLER. You are. 

Senator SANDERS. All right. Well, we can argue. I am talking 

about maintaining a universal system, and I am talking about lifting the cap right now, which is at $118,500 a year, so that somebody who makes $10 billion a year contributes the same amount 

as somebody who makes $118,500, I think that that is pretty 

wrong. 

All right. Let me ask, Governor, again, and then I am going to 

go to Ms. MacGuineas, as you well know, there are major corporations in this country, including General Electric, PG&E, the American Electric Power, Corning, who have paid zero in taxes in recent 

years, in fact, have received rebates from the IRS. Let me start 

with you, Ms. MacGuineas, and then we will go to the Governor. 

If we are serious about talking about deficit reduction in any way 

that is fair and not simply on the backs of low-income and working 

families, should we not end those loopholes? 

Ms. MACGUINEAS. I think one of the keys to overall tax reform 

is broadening the tax base, which means ending many of the corporate loopholes. I would do the same thing on the individual side, 

as well, and I would try to do it comprehensively. But, yes, I think 

we have to look at all the tax breaks. Right now, you have corporations that are putting money overseas because they have a crazy 

tax system that they have to work within. So, we need to rationalize our tax system, allow us to be more competitive, and I believe, 

as part of a comprehensive debt deal, you are going to have to look 

at both sides of the budget, look at spending and revenues— 

Senator SANDERS. I apologize. Again, my time is short. Let me 

just go back to you, because I am running out of time. Last question, Mr. Chairman. In, as I recall, 1952, corporations contributed 

over 30 percent of the revenue coming into the Federal Government. Today, that number, I believe, is around ten percent. Does 

that concern you, that the collective amount coming into the Federal Government from corporations, in general, have declined precipitously? 

Mr. ENGLER. Well, I think corporations, as we recognize, are tax 

collectors. I mean, corporations collect the taxes from their customers. One of the studies—there are several studies, actually, that 

show that corporate tax burdens fall most heavily upon workers in 

America—I can provide those to the committee—about 75 percent 

of corporate taxes. It is one of the reasons that—that has a negative effect on wages, actually, corporate taxes. But, I— 

Senator SANDERS. Is it a logical conclusion, Governor, that we 

should eliminate corporate taxes? 

Mr. ENGLER. I would think that would be a terrific idea. 

Senator SANDERS. You think we should have zero corporate taxes 

in America? 

Mr. ENGLER. I think that there are proposals that have been in 

Congress to reform the tax structure that come up with very impressive ways to look at how we could make the system more progressive. Today’s system is, in fact, anything but, and, more importantly, going to the point about job creation and wealth that you 

talked about earlier, today’s system—and we released a report just 

today showing that in the last decade, 1,300 companies were needlessly acquired by foreign ownership because of the tax structure 
551 

that we have here. So, I think job creation and wealth creation 

says get that stretch much, much better. Ireland—Britain has cut 

theirs seven points in the last, I think, three years. Ireland is way 

down. 

Senator SANDERS. Am I out of time, I presume? 

Chairman ENZI. Yes. 

Senator SANDERS. I am. Okay. Thank you. 

Chairman ENZI. Senator Sessions, then Senator Stabenow. If she 

is not here, then it goes to Senator Johnson. 

Senator SESSIONS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I look forward to 

us having a budget that passes both houses of Congress that will 

balance. Social Security is not within our purview, so we will not 

be able to lay out plans to fix that, but we will lay out a budget 

under Chairman Enzi’s leadership, I think, that will serve the national interest. 

I just would say, Dr. Blyth, that experts dealing with how to 

solve the fiscal debt crisis around the globe have found through 

careful study that spending reductions are kinder on the economy 

than tax increases. And, I will quote the studies of Alberto Alesina 

at Harvard, Valerie Ramey at UCLA, the World Bank, the European Central Bank, and the International Monetary Fund. You just 

do not—this idea that you can tax the economy and hammer it and 

it is going to produce more growth is, I do not think, defensible. 

I would also note, colleagues, that under President Obama, we 

have already added $2.3 trillion in taxes over the decade, $1.7 on 

Obamacare, another $600 billion at the fiscal cliff. And, his budget 

that he submitted now has got another $2.4 trillion that he wants 

to add. So, I do not think we are going that way. 

Ms. MacGuineas, thank you, and thank you to the Committee for 

a Responsible Budget. I was just looking at some of the names on 

your list of Directors: Kent Conrad, our former Chairman here, 

Paul O’Neill, Leon Panetta, Pete Peterson, Robert Reischauer, Alice 

Rivlin, former Senator Chuck Robb, Paul Volcker. So, I think you 

speak in a good way for the objective evaluation of where we are. 

I want to say to you, first, I totally agree, and it is very important to emphasize that our debt problems have not been solved. 

Years ago—several years ago, we knew the deficits would decline 

to this year, but we also could tell then they were going to start 

going up again to a dangerous level. They are already at a dangerous level, almost a half-a-trillion dollars each year in debt. So, 

you have indicated that. Would you just briefly assert with clarity 

your belief that if we do not do something, that we are on an 

unsustainable path, as the Congressional Budget Office says, and 

we place our country at risk. That is a fundamental question Americans need to know. 

Ms. MACGUINEAS. I absolutely believe that. I believe the fact 

that we are projected to have our debt growing faster than our 

economy is problematic from an economic perspective and it puts 

us at risk. 

Senator SESSIONS. And we know Rogoff Reinhart studies have indicated when debt gets to the level we are at now, you can begin 

to slow economic growth, and the last thing we need to do is have 

another action that slows growth. 
552 

You also said something that is very important, and I think all 

of our colleagues need to hear this. You said a fiscal goal is a key 

part of budgeting. So, we talked with former cabinet members in 

New Zealand and Canada, the former Prime Minister of Canada. 

Both of those faced budget crises and balanced their budget. Both 

have told me personally that you need a clear goal for the people 

of your country and the goal is a balanced budget. Anything else 

becomes so fuzzy that you cannot call people to sacrifice to reach 

the goal. Now, I understood you to say, Ms. MacGuineas, that you 

think that we should have a goal of balancing the budget. 

Ms. MACGUINEAS. Yes. I think that what we have seen in these 

countries that have done fiscal turnarounds is that having an understandable goal by the public is one of the key factors in success. 

And, I do think that balancing the budget—over the business cycle, 

though. I do not think it is important you balance it every year. 

I think when the economy is slow, you need to be running budget 

deficits, and when the economy is strong, you need to be saving so 

that you are able to. I think that is your ultimate goal. And, I 

think, again, what is really troubling is where we are right now, 

where it is projected that our debt will grow faster than the economy. 

Senator SESSIONS. I understood you to say in your opening statement that balancing the budget will have economic growth benefits, 

too, over time. Would you share your thoughts on that. 

Ms. MACGUINEAS. Yes. So, if you look at—there have been a 

number of studies by the Congressional Budget Office, for instance, 

that show putting in place a Simpson-Bowles-like plan would have 

short-term effects where it slows the economy, and I will talk about 

that in one second, and then it has longer-term growth effects, 

where it adds to GDP in perpetuity. That is one of the reasons that 

Simpson-Bowles and other comprehensive plans always did say, 

you need to pick when you start to phase those changes in very 

carefully. You should not phase them in when the economy is slow. 

You phase them in gradually when the economy is getting stronger. 

So, I think there is a big difference between austerity and fiscal 

responsibility. Fiscal responsibility is putting us back on a sustainable path, and that will have effects on the economy, on jobs, on 

wages, and that is why fiscal responsibility—it is not a goal in and 

of itself. It is part of how you have a comprehensive growth plan. 

I do not believe our economy can be strong and that that strength 

and that growth can be shared across the economy, which is a really important priority, unless you have a manageable debt situation. 

Senator SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, maybe Governor Engler will 

give a yes or no to this. You had great success with welfare reform. 

Do you believe it is time for us to have additional welfare reform, 

and properly done, could that translate, or move workers from dependency to work and prosperity? Basically, yes or no. 

Mr. ENGLER. Yes. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator SESSIONS. Thank you. 

Chairman ENZI. In keeping with the alternating of those who 

were here at the sound of the gavel, Senator Merkley would be 

next, then Senator Johnson. 
553 

Senator MERKLEY. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and 

thank you all for your testimony and thoughts. 

Governor Engler, I understood you are making the case corporations should not pay any taxes, and in Oregon, we have a road user 

fee, weight per mile, that affects trucking. Essentially, it is calculated so everyone’s impact on the road is reflected in the fee. So, 

it is a little more sophisticated than a diesel tax. You put an extra 

axle under a truck, you do less road damage, you pay a lower rate. 

If you are a smaller truck, you take up less road space, you are 

using less infrastructure, you pay a lower rate, so on and so forth. 

That concept in which infrastructure costs are paid proportionately to the users made a lot of sense to me, and when I hear you 

say, or as I understood you said when I was out of the room, that 

corporations should not pay any tax, I think, why should a corporation not help pay for the infrastructure that it uses? Why should 

that burden all fall to others? 

Mr. ENGLER. Well, thank you for asking this question, because 

what I—I certainly think corporations—they pay lots of taxes. They 

collect lots of taxes. But, I think all of us as Governors knew that 

our tax rates had an impact on business investment in our State. 

That is why Governor Cuomo, to clarify for our Ranking Member, 

he is advertising all over America, come to New York, no taxes. No 

taxes on business. Tax holidays. That is no corporate tax. Now, 

that does not mean they are not paying franchise taxes or other 

types of taxes, but he is talking about the income tax. 

To Senator Merkley’s question, I think Oregon is to be commended for their kind of innovative approach in looking at this. I, 

as a Governor, signed a gas tax increase, which included taxes on 

diesel fuel, which primarily at the time the trucks bought that. I 

think we are kind of at the end of the gas tax era. There is maybe 

one more hike in there, but I think you are looking down the road. 

It is going go take some—you know, we have got to work out the 

technology, but— 

Senator MERKLEY. So, let me put it this way. If we were looking 

at the use of infrastructure across the country and the amount of 

the Federal budget that went into that, would you support a minimum corporate tax that reflected the amount that companies are 

utilizing that infrastructure? 

Mr. ENGLER. Well, you just asked me about fuel taxes or vehicle 

miles traveled. I mean, those kind of user taxes. There are some 

who, I think, have tried to conflate the issue of the current tax law 

of the U.S. is, of course— 

Senator MERKLEY. Okay. My time is running out. I gather I am 

not going to get your support for that strategy, but I just thought 

it would be an interesting reflection. 

Let me turn to the issue of Social Security. My seniors feel that 

the Consumer Price Index on Social Security should reflect their 

actual baskets of goods, what seniors buy. Dr. Blyth, do you agree 

with my seniors in Oregon? Should the CPI in Social Security reflect what seniors are actually facing in terms of inflation? 

Mr. BLYTH. The CPI tends to measure what we call core inflation, so it strips out a lot of more volatile items. Unfortunately, 

your seniors live in a volatile world, and not just your seniors. If 

we think about this more generally, the cost of health care and the 
554 

cost of education goods are growing far faster than the cost of inflation, and when you have stagnant real wages, that creates a real 

problem. 

So, in terms of supporting seniors through making adjustments 

in the CPI more reasonable— 

Senator MERKLEY. Try to give me the crisp version of this. 

Mr. BLYTH. Yes. 

Senator MERKLEY. Thank you. 

And, Ms. MacGuineas. 

Ms. MACGUINEAS. My recommendation would be to adopt what 

the people who do the calculation of inflation say is the best measure, which is the chained CPI, which, I think, would have effects 

on all parts of the budget—the budget, Social Security, and revenue. I think one of the present— 

Senator MERKLEY. Let me ask you this. Are you aware that 

chained CPI is less accurate in reflecting the costs faced by seniors 

than the current price index and certainly less accurate than CPIE, 

which is designed directly to capture the costs faced by seniors? 

Ms. MACGUINEAS. Well, what I am aware of is that the CPIE, 

which is experimental, has been determined by the people who are 

still putting it together as not being a good, accurate measure yet. 

So, they are continuing to work on it, and I think they should. It 

will be interesting, if we start breaking out inflation so that it applies differently for different groups, how that will look throughout 

the economy. I think we continue to develop it, but right now, 

chained CPI is the one they say is best. 

Senator MERKLEY. Well, ‘‘they,’’ whoever ‘‘they’’ is, may say that, 

but it is really advocating for something that is an accounting trick 

that is less accurate for our seniors. And, quite frankly, our seniors 

are onto that type of strategy, one more attack on people of low income, an attack on our seniors, attack on working America, while 

here I hear a panel that is saying, you know what? Wealthy Americans should not pay the same marginal tax rate that working 

Americans pay. Why not? Why should wealthy Americans not pay 

the same amount per every $1,000 they earn that working Americans earn? And, I am out of time, so if the Chair will indulge me 

and you want to give a crisp response, why should a working person pay a higher marginal tax rate than the rich? 

Ms. MACGUINEAS. They should not. 

Senator MERKLEY. Thank you. 

Mr. BLYTH. 

Mr. BLYTH. They should not. 

Senator MERKLEY. And Governor Engler. 

Mr. ENGLER. The—I thought the President made a reasonable 

proposal. I am surprised that it is now interpreted as an attack on 

seniors and poor people. 

Senator MERKLEY. Well, that was not the question, actually. The 

question was, why should low-income or middle-income Americans 

pay a higher tax rate per $1,000 they earn than the rich? 

Mr. ENGLER. Well, I think—I thought our tax code was progressive. 

Senator MERKLEY. Well, then, you are deeply misinformed and I 

encourage you to read up a little on it. 

Thank you, Mr. Chair. 
555 

Chairman ENZI. Next is Senator Johnson, followed by Senator 

Whitehouse. 

Senator JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Ms. MacGuineas, you mentioned Simpson-Bowles. I just wanted, 

for the record, to make sure everybody understands, we have actually done about 81 percent of Simpson-Bowles. Simpson-Bowles 

asked for about a trillion dollars in tax increases. In our fiscal cliff 

deal, we got about $700 billion. They are looking for about $1.9 trillion in discretionary spending reductions. In our Budget Control 

Act, we got about 2.1. And, then, Simpson-Bowles also had about 

half-a-trillion dollars of some mandatory spending, which we have 

not done. So, Simpson-Bowles, before interest, was looking for 

about $3.4 trillion of deficit reduction. We have done about $2.8 

trillion. 

Now, it has been a pretty messy process, but lest anybody think 

that is a panacea—I mean, it certainly has helped in the short 

term, but we have got a long-term problem which I want to talk 

about. 

I have certainly been trying to point out that we do not have a 

ten-year budget window problem. We really have a 30-year demographic problem. We have all the Baby Boom generation. We are 

retiring at the rate of 10,000 per day. We made all these promises 

and we really do not know how to pay for them. 

So, if you look at the—and I see in your testimony, Ms. 

MacGuineas, you talked about the CBO’s alternate fiscal scenario. 

So, we have actually turned, converted those percentages of GDP, 

which nobody understands, to dollars. Let me just run it by you. 

In the first decade, the deficit is projected, according to CBO’s al- ternate fiscal scenario, to be $8 trillion. The second decade, $31 

trillion. The third decade, $88 trillion. I always like to point out 

that my little baby girl turned 31 and that kind of went by like 

that. Now, the net private asset base of America is $106 trillion. 

So, you talked about—and you related our debt to a family. I 

would just kind of like to have you relate why the nation, a nation 

that is in debt over its head, why it is hard to grow their economy 

when you have this massive debt hanging over their head, massive 

debt service, and is that not pretty similar to a family that is in 

debt over its head, spending all of its money on servicing a debt, 

having the creditors banging on their door? It is kind of hard to 

grow a personal economy, as well. Can you just kind of speak to 

that? 

Ms. MACGUINEAS. Well, I never want to overdo the comparison 

between the government and families, because, clearly, they are 

different. But, there are a number of conclusions that you can 

draw, and one is that you cannot borrow indefinitely. You cannot 

borrow beyond your means. 

You also cannot borrow to spend on consumption rather than investment and have that turn out well for you. So, when families 

are borrowing to send a kid to college or for their worker training, 

that might be a good reason to borrow, whereas borrowing to spend 

a lot of money on consumption is not. The same for the government. And, if you look at how our government spends money right 

now, it is the reverse of what I would think it should be if we had 

a long-term strategy, to your point which you focused on so much 
556 

about the long-term, where the vast majority, probably above 80 

percent of what we spend is on consumption and very little is on 

investment. 

And, if you look at the difference between what Simpson-Bowles 

recommended and what happened, the area that fell short was we 

did not reform any of the entitlement programs. Where the squeeze 

has been is on the investment, the discretionary portion of our 

budget, and that squeeze is going to harm our growth and our 

economy in the long run—in the medium run. 

Senator JOHNSON. Dr. Blyth, I heard your testimony talking 

about we have just got a revenue problem. Does that long-term projected deficit, does that not concern you? 

Mr. BLYTH. It does concern me, but it concerns me in a very different way. Global financial markets, as measured by bond rates, 

have no issue with funding the United States. They simply do 

not— 

Senator JOHNSON. Right. 

Mr. BLYTH. —currently. But, you know, a 30-year shot at 2.8 percent is pretty good. The notion that—and the family analogy is at 

all useful for this, I find very problematic. 

For example, three variables really matter about debt sustainability. One is positive demographics, right. Are you Italy or are 

you the U.S., and the U.S. is positive on this. 

Are you growing? Yes, we are the leader of the pack. The IMF 

is celebrating us. That is kind of awesome. So, your GDP is growing, as well. 

And, then the third one that matters is the rate of growth in the 

debt. Now, you were saying that, basically, we are on an 

unsustainable track. But, if we are the lead performer, I do not see 

how that can be. That is the assumptions built into the model, actually, that does that. So, we are actually in a pretty good place 

to just grow our way into a solvent situation over the long term. 

Now, should we restructure the budget? This is legitimate democratic debate. What should we spend on? I am deeply troubled by 

the fact that the United States spends 17.7 percent of GDP on 

health care. That is not—it is like we are all trying to live forever. 

There is something very strange going on. It is twice all the other 

developed countries. So, we have issues, but we do not have the 

issues that are related to family budgets. 

Senator JOHNSON. Okay. I appreciate that. 

Governor Engler, you were talking about, basically, corporate tax 

reform. Certainly, a number of businesses report their income 

through individual returns, through Subchapter S-es and LLCs, 

and those businesses—that business income is actually taxed at 

those progressive tax rates, which we do have a progressive tax 

system. The maximum marginal tax rate is approaching 40, in 

some instance over 40 percent just on a Federal basis. Then tack 

on property tax and State tax and— 

Mr. ENGLER. Sure. 

Senator JOHNSON. Okay, and payroll tax. So, has the Business 

Roundtable at all explored potentially doing the same thing with 

larger corporations? In other words, rather than make employers 

and consumers pay the tax—because that is really who pays the 
557 

corporate tax. It is not the piece of paper that is the corporate charter— 

Mr. ENGLER. Right. 

Senator JOHNSON. —it is a self-inflicted wound. We are the 

chumps. Has the Business Roundtable explored any options of how 

you make the owners of the large corporations, basically as passthrough entities, and make the owners of the companies pay the 

corporate tax rather than the piece of paper that is the corporate 

charter? 

Mr. ENGLER. Well, in 1986, Senator, everybody went the other 

way. They fled from the corporate status and went to that incorporated pass-through status. 

We are—we think and we talk in terms of business tax reform. 

Obviously, we think we could get the corporate rate 25 percent. 

That would get us to average of the OECD nations. Our effective 

rates today are, according to a World Bank study that was done, 

looked at 185 countries, you know, we have the highest effective 

rate among the G–7 nations. There is a lot of confusion about that. 

You see a lot of different rates tossed around. But, we have got a 

very high effective rate. The 25 percent rate would, I think, make 

us globally competitive, and that is where we ought to be. 

You know, I talk about the States. The States are the—the way 

to understand this, I think, and your question is an excellent one, 

because you look at how the States compete for jobs and we saw 

migration from—Michigan sure saw it from the Midwest down to 

the South. When Indiana went to a Right to Work State, that put 

pressure on your State. Michigan now moved to a Right to Work 

State. They are competing because States have to compete. 

Well, today, unfortunately, that competition is happening among 

nations, and almost everybody has got a kind of a national economic strategy to go out and compete except us, and that is fundamentally the difference, and that is why we have not seen GDP 

growth above nine percent—above three percent in nine years. So, 

it is growth and that is why I was citing growth as such a contributor to solving these budget problems, and that is how people go 

to work and that is how they raise incomes. 

Senator JOHNSON. Thank you, Governor. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman ENZI. Senator Whitehouse, followed by Senator Crapo. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you, Chairman. 

One quick question for Governor Engler. During the time that 

you were Governor, the national unemployment rate fell to a 30- 

year low of 3.8 percent. So, would you give President Clinton and 

his economic policies maybe even a smidgen of credit for— 

Mr. ENGLER. Well, I think that President Clinton and Speaker 

Gingrich and Senator Dole could all take credit as the leaders of 

the respective chambers. But, I will tell you what I give credit to. 

That was a period where people worked together. You know, they 

worked—they got welfare reform done during that period, a Democrat President and a Republican-led House, and— 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Well, let us talk for a minute— 

Mr. ENGLER. —we are not seeing that kind of cooperation today. 

But, I think you have got your finger on something— 
558 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. —about working together, then, because I 

think working together would be a good thing. 

Mr. ENGLER. Yes. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. We hear folks right in this committee and 

out on the floor who talk a really good game on debt and on the 

deficit. It is like people who talk up a good game on religion, but 

on Sunday morning, they are not in the church pew. On Sunday 

morning, they are out playing softball or sitting at the tavern having a cold one and you get a sense of what their real priorities are 

when you see how things relate to one another. Go to church, go 

play softball, or go sit and have a cold one. 

One of the key priorities here is what are we going to do about the $1.2 trillion that goes out the back door of the tax code through 

loopholes, through tax favoritism, through benefits for high-income 

taxpayers that lower-income taxpayers do not share, and when you 

come to that conversation, all the good words and good work on 

debt and deficit from our colleagues come to a screeching halt. And, 

every corporate tax loophole is sacred, and every position in the 

code that gives a high-income, including an amazingly high-income 

taxpayer, a benefit compared to regular working folks, they will defend that to the last trench. 

So, if we, in fact, are going to work together, is it not just eco- nomically necessary to look at the $1.2 trillion in lost revenue that 

adds to the deficit and that is going out the back door of the tax 

code? Let me go right across, Blyth, MacGuineas, and, well, you 

guys are the economists— 

Mr. BLYTH. I will save you some time. Yes. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Okay. 

Ms. MACGUINEAS. Absolutely. That is kind of the shadow part of 

the budget. It is not very good spending. It is not targeted. It is 

not done well. And, it is the key to tax reform. You need to broaden 

the base in order to make us more competitive, simplify the tax 

code, and raise revenues, and you want to reform the tax code. You 

want to bring rates down and you want to collect more revenues 

to close the deficit. Those tax breaks are how you are going to do 

it. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. I would add that, from the political perspective, if you are a lobbyist for a big special interest and you go 

to the Appropriations Committee to get some special deal for your 

client, you have got to fight for that every single year, or at least 

every single year that there is an appropriation. And, so, for the 

lobbyist, that might be good, because you are constantly employed, 

but for the special interest, it is not as sure a thing as if you can 

get something into the tax code for yourself. Then you can walk 

back and you are good for years. 

And, when you see some of the nonsense that gets into the tax 

code through things like conference reports, where nobody will put 

a finger on how it put in there, it has no identity, it is the anonymous deal, you know who it benefits but the whole thing was done 

out of regular order, there is a quality of this just being a very 

seamy and disreputable side of the legislative business, as well. So, 

I hope that we can undo some of that and get to a place where we 

can seriously address the debt and the deficit on both sides of the 

aisle and assure that this conversation is not just being used as a 
559 

stalking horse for benefit cuts and sort of the traditional hobbyhorses of one party. 

I yield back my time. 

Chairman ENZI. Thank you. The first one to finish ahead of time. 

Senator Warner, followed by— 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. I got good, quick answers, Mr. Chairman. 

Everybody agreed. It was terrific from the economists. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator WARNER. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and with 

apologies to the panel, because I have got a series of points, I 

would like to make—surprise, surprise—I actually would wager 

you, Mr. Chairman, that as different the views could be from the 

three panelists, that they could actually come up with a coherent 

plan, because these are not problems that are unsolvable— 

Mr. ENGLER. Right. 

Senator WARNER. And, then, I have got a number of points, in 

my effort to be equal opportunity offender here, let me try to make 

a series. 

One, as a Governor, as well, Governor Engler, and we worked together on things, we balanced our budget. We got a AAA bond rating. But, we also had to deal with revenues, and the States are 

very different. They do not have two-thirds of their budget on a 

mandatory basis. And, while I think the Chairman has had a long 

record of being responsible in terms of having a balanced approach, 

I do find that there are a number of members who use the notion 

of a balanced budget amendment as a fig leaf because they are not 

willing to propose a real plan that is truly balanced on both sides 

of the balance sheet, both in terms of how we deal with spending 

and how we deal with revenue. 

And, candidly, for a nation that does need the opportunity to go 

into debt at appropriate times, I think it is not the appropriate way 

to go. I think we need to make the hard choices that this committee 

or groups like Simpson-Bowles and others have tried to make. 

I think it is also important, as we talk, we have seen corporate 

tax levels go down at State. We have seen it go down nationally. 

But, I do think it is important as we think about this with intellectual honesty, as we point to countries like Ireland and others, it is 

not like their tax rates are lower. They may have taken the corporate tax rate down. But, I think Dr. Blyth’s chart is really essential that everybody looks at. If you look at our competitors, they are 

all at almost ten percent higher percent of GDP in revenues than 

we are, including the Irelands of the world. 

So, the notion that we are going to be able to solve this somehow 

without additional revenues, and the absurdity of people who say, 

you know, 17.4 percent, we need to get to, because that is our historic averages, well, the thing is, at 17.4 percent, we have never 

balanced the budget. And, with an enterprise that we have got now 

with just the demographic bulge, unless we get that revenue line 

up to 18.5, 19, we are just—we are not getting there, even with entitlement reform. 

And, just so I can, again, make sure I am equal opportunity, I 

think Social Security, best program ever. But, I think when some 

of us do not acknowledge the math around Social Security, we 

make a mistake. I, for one, believe the chained CPI, something that 
560 

had been agreed on by both economists on the left and the right, 

makes some sense. I also think the idea that we are going to have 

different forms of inflation measure for different population sectors 

does not make sense. And, I do agree with the Ranking Member 

that raising the cap has to be part of the solution set. 

What bothers me, because Social Security and Medicare have 

been so successful, we have seen poverty rates go for seniors in the 

1960s from mid-20s down, and even though the Ranking Member 

has pointed out they are starting to creep up, thank goodness, because of good advocacy of people like him and others, they are still 

down at only nine percent. 

What bothers the heck out of me, and should bother us all who 

care about America being competitive, is we have got poverty rates 

now amongst kids at 24 to 25 percent. And, unfortunately, all of 

those programs that support those children all come from the discretionary part of the budget and do not get the benefit that Senator Whitehouse mentioned, which I think is a key part of the 

problem, too, you get it into the tax code, you are safe. You get it 

onto a mandatory side, you are safe. And, the investments that we 

need to make for kids somehow are always first on the chopping 

block. 

I would also make the point, and again, with apologies to the 

panel in terms of not asking questions, that there is, I think, sometimes—and as Governors, we know this—we become more competitive. It is not the lowest tax rate that attracts people. It is quality 

of workforce. It is your infrastructure. It is your universities. And, 

unfortunately, America’s business plan right now, we have, as a 

percent of spend, the lowest investment in those domestic discretionary items. We have a lower percentage of spend than we had 

during President Eisenhower. That is not a good budget plan. 

And, unfortunately, at least the Ryan budget plan—and I know, 

Mr. Chairman, you are going to gavel me out here—the Ryan budget plan takes already historic lows, domestic discretionary at about 

16 percent, and cuts it almost in half, down to around eight percent 

over about a 15-year time frame. Just from your background in finance, my background as a business guy, that is not an enterprise 

that I would invest in. 

So, I do hope that we can—I would charge this group, or, frankly, 

any other group to come up with a framework. And, if we are willing to come at this with both sides of the ledger, I do think we can 

get something done. 

Again, my apologies to the panel for not asking a question, but 

this is something that I care very deeply about. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman ENZI. Thank you. 

Senator Wicker, then Senator King. 

Senator WICKER. Well, thank you very much, and I wondered if 

I would even make it for the discussion because I have had to be 

in two other hearings. 

Let me pick up on what the Senator from Virginia said, though, 

about chained CPI. I think everyone is in agreement, if you are receiving a Federal retirement benefit, that benefit should not be 

eaten away by inflation. We all agree on that. The question is how 

to measure that. And, so, the reason that people like Senator War-
561 

ner and I would be willing to embrace chained CPI is it is deemed 

by economists to be the most accurate measure of the inflation rate 

as it affects consumers and, therefore, it would simply be fair. The 

fact that it would help us on the revenue side and help us on the 

expenditure side is an added benefit. But, we would need to first 

make sure that it is, indeed, the most accurate measure of the Consumer Price Index, or the inflation rate, so that a cost-of-living adjustment, a COLA, is, indeed, accurate. 

Now, when I came in Senator Warner was talking about making 

a different rate apply to different individuals. You know, it seems 

to me he makes a point that if we arrive at an accurate measure 

of inflation, that ought to be the measure. However, I will just simply say to my fellow committee members, if it would help us get 

somewhere on an accurate measure of the Consumer Price Index, 

I would be willing to start it at a certain level of higher-income 

earners or higher-income retirement recipients and see if it works 

and see how that can be made to be part of the solution. 

If what we are worried about are the lower-income pensioners 

that might be expecting the higher Consumer Price Index, then we 

could take care of those people. But, try it at some level, and I am 

open to suggestion there. I think, and I will say that Senator Warner was on to something, but I would say that we ought to be flexible and not hide-bound if it will get us to a solution. 

Let me just ask the panel this, and there is no way we can have 

a full discussion of this. This is about the benefits of a balanced 

budget. You know, when I was a freshman back in 1995 in the 

House of Representatives, the idea of actually getting to a balanced 

budget within ten years, it was just so troublesome to Chairman 

Kasich that, I mean, he went back to the Speaker, ‘‘Must I really 

do this?’’ And, so, we finally came up with a plan to have a balanced budget, and lo and behold, it was much earlier than ten 

years or seven years. 

How did—somebody help me out here. How did we get to a balanced budget so quickly after we finally made up our minds to do 

that? Of course, we know when we lost the balanced budget, it was 

September 11, 2001. From that day forward, there has been no 

hope of a balanced budget at the Federal level since then. But, if 

you could talk about what were the factors that actually got us to 

that earlier than expected, and were we going to lose the balanced 

budget anyway and I am just using 9/11 as an excuse, or are there 

things that got put into the budget structurally after 9/11 that we 

just could not get around? 

Mr. ENGLER. I would say that a factor that I think is important 

is the confidence that there was in the U.S. economy. We went 

through that rather catastrophic shutdown, but then after that, we 

got a number of things converging. We got welfare reform done. 

You had split—you had divided control, divided government, but 

people saw people working together. Decisions were being made. I 

think there was an easing of regulatory burden at the same time. 

I just think a number of things combined together. There was confidence in the economy. People were investing. And, a good deal of 

it came from the private sector growth, and that is one of the 

things I am a big advocate of. 
562 

Ms. MACGUINEAS. One of the things that we did that got us 

there is we had three budget deals, in 1990, 1993, and 1997, and 

so a number of real policy choices were made at the time that put 

us back on a track, and also combined with a growing economy and 

in some sectors of the economy bubbles, which did not turn out to 

sustain. 

We then lost the deficit—we lost the surplus because we had a 

huge economic downturn that took away revenues, increased 

spending. There was money to deal with that. And, we also made 

policy choices along the way that spent the surpluses. As soon as 

we had surpluses, it seemed like we were putting in place all sorts 

of new programs, cutting taxes. Spending was growing faster than 

it had. And, it reminds us that surpluses kind of take us off of 

being fiscally more responsible. 

The problem we have now is that with the growth of the—the 

aging of the population and the entitlement programs, it is so much 

harder to do than it was before. The numbers we have is that it 

will be about $5.5 trillion to get us to balance in ten years. And, 

just to put that in perspective, that is eight times the size of the 

fiscal cliff deal, and it is 65 times the size of the Ryan-Murray deal, 

which you will recall none of you—I should not say none of you, 

but we did not stick to for very long. So, it will entail some real 

policy choices to get us to balance or even on that track, and that 

is what it took last time. And this time, the challenges because of 

the growth of the population, the aging of the population, will be 

even more challenging. 

Mr. BLYTH. Going back to what Senator Warner said, and I said 

in my presentation, you also have a revenue problem, and a particular one. The United States tax revenues are particularly susceptible to the economic cycle. What that means is in the late 

1990s, global interest rates fell. Lots of countries did well in that 

period, not just the United States. And, because of that, money was 

cheaper and you ended up with a lot of bubbles, first of all in tech 

stock, and then after 9/11 and we bought them there in 2004, it 

went into mortgages and it went into the housing bubble. And, 

when we have those types of bubbles, revenues go up, but they are 

unsustainable revenues because the base rate of revenue collection 

is so low. 

Senator WICKER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman ENZI. Thank you. 

Senator KING. 

Senator KING. Mr. Chairman, I have to begin with a hilarious 

anecdote, which people are going to find hard to believe, but I just 

looked it up and I was right. 

John Engler, you and I sat with Alan Greenspan in January of 

2001, where he told us, and I remember because I happened to sit 

right next to him, about the grave danger to the country of zero 

budget deficit and the fact that the danger was that the Federal 

Government, because it was running surpluses, would eventually 

pay off all its debt and start going into the equity markets. I just 

found his testimony to the committee in January, January 25, 

2001. So, history is a very strange deal, because here we are talking about the danger of deficits. At that time, Alan Greenspan 

was—he was arguing in favor of the first round of Bush tax cuts, 
563 

saying that it was a danger to have surpluses and to balance the 

budget. Anyway— 

Mr. ENGLER. The danger is gone. 

Senator KING. Yes, long gone. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator KING. I agree with almost everything that has been said 

today, believe it or not, because I believe there is some commonality here. I think long-term debt and deficits are 

unsustainable and are, in fact, burdening future generations and 

the interest rate. What worries me is that we are in a fantasy land 

of interest rates right now, and if the interest rates go from 1.8 or 

two percent to a long-term average five or six percent, just interest 

on the debt will almost equal the entire discretionary budget. 

What worries me—and, so, I am inclined, and I think all politicians are inclined—it is much easier to spend than it is to tax. So, 

deficits are almost hard-wired into the system unless there is a discipline. Every State has the discipline of requiring a balanced 

budget. So, sort of institutionally, I am inclined to support a balanced budget amendment, except the practicality of it—there are 

two practicalities that make it a problem. 

One is that we have spending that is essentially—it is mandatory. That is the word. It means it is uncontrollable. And, that is 

where the rise is. One of you testified 85 percent of the increase 

in future budgets is in that area—Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and interest on the debt. That is where the increase is. 

Discretionary spending, which is what we talk about as the budget, but it is really only a third of the Federal budget, is essentially 

flat or declining as a percentage of GDP, the lowest in 40 years. 

Therefore, if you put a balanced budget amendment on top of 

that situation, with the mandatory rise caused mostly by health 

care and demographics, and that is all you do, you squeeze the 

shortfall down into the discretionary budget and essentially eliminate the Federal Government. We become a collection agent for Social Security, and it squeezes out all of the discretionary programs, 

whether it is defense or Head Start. 

The other piece of—and, I think of it as a vice—and there is another piece that needs to be discussed, has not been mentioned 

here, and that is the ‘‘No Tax Pledge.’’ If you combine a balanced 

budget amendment with the No Tax Pledge, the only place to go 

is to eliminate discretionary spending, because it just cannot work. 

The arithmetic does not work. And, I think of the No Tax Pledge 

as a kind of ratchet that only works in one direction. Taxes go 

down. They could never go back up under different circumstances. 

So, Mr. Chairman, that is the practical problem that I have. I 

theoretically like the idea of a balanced budget amendment, but if 

it is applied in the current situation, as we see it now, with the 

combination of the growth of health care expenditures and the demographic bulge that is coming, it cannot work, or it can work if 

your goal is to eliminate Head Start and the defense budget. So, 

that is the problem that I see now. 

We have to come to grips with this. The question is not whether 

we should balance the budget. I think we should. The question is 

how to do it and over what period of time and what is on the table 

in order to do it. You know, we can argue about what the right tax 
564 

will be for corporations or individuals, but the real number we 

ought to be debating is what is the right percentage of GDP for 

revenues. And, if we are stuck at 17.5 percent, then none of this 

is going to work unless you are going to eliminate, essentially, all 

the functions that we think of as essential to the operation of the 

Federal Government. 

My final point is, Dr. Blyth, I bet you never figured you would 

come from Dundee and have to listen to a guy named Angus talk 

about economics. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. BLYTH. Well, the Scots do secretly run everything, Senator. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. BLYTH. We just do not want them to know. 

Senator KING. I am sorry you let that out of the bag. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. 

Chairman ENZI. Thank you. 

Senator PERDUE. 

Senator PERDUE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I agree with my colleague from Maine, Senator King, in most respects. I differ with just two minor points. I want to get to my 

other point in just a minute, but I want to respond, because he has 

got a great point. We have another option. Let me remind people 

on both sides of the house, I think we all know that the fiscal irresponsibility of the last 30 years cannot continue. It just cannot. 

This is not a partisan question. 

The issue, though, is that we have got the 800-pound gorilla in 

the room that we never talk about. The last time we had a balanced budget in this country, we had a Democratic President and 

we had a Republican Congress. We also had something called a 

dot-com bubble and ten years of good interest rates, but I will not 

go there, either. 

I will say this. It was not our fiscal responsibility in Washington 

that caused that surplus. It was an economy that was growing like 

crazy, and I was participating in that. We have that opportunity 

again, but we are doing so many things in this city to thwart that 

growth to give us an opportunity to dig out of here, because he is 

right. The math does not work. You are not going to solve the future unfunded liabilities unless we get this economy going, and 

even then it is going to take tough, tough decisions up here. 

I would argue that the balanced budget is not the issue. I mean, 

I know that is sort of a first step. I get it. It is sort of the phrase 

of the day. I love the word ‘‘surplus.’’ We do not talk a lot about 

surplus around here, but we have got to have it if you are going 

to pay down $18 trillion. And, by the way, if we get to a balanced 

budget in ten years, we are going to grow the debt by $8 trillion 

minimally between now and 2025, by most estimates. So, at $25 

trillion of debt, if interest rates, as Senator King alluded to just a 

minute ago, go back to their 30-year historic average, that is untenable. We cannot manage that. There is no way to pay for that. You 

cannot tax your way out of here. You cannot cut your way out of 

here, in my view. 

Yes, I think Social Security and Medicare and pension benefits 

for Federal employees all have to be amended, but not by current 

beneficiaries. The numbers have changed dramatically since peo-
565 

ple—since these systems were developed back in the 1930s, most 

of them. Life expectancies have gotten longer. The financial balance 

here of people working versus people in retirement and the demographic slide that we are talking about here, or the growth in the 

retirement-age population. 

So, I just have a question for Ms. MacGuineas. I know you have 

dedicated a lot of years to this, and I have watched your work. I 

hope you will stay involved with this, because I think this is the 

quintessential challenge of our generation. Help me understand the 

long-term implications of this debt. I understand what the benefits 

are of a balanced budget, but we have got to get to a surplus situation so we can start paying down this debt to a certain level. 

And, I want to take just a second real quick. I absolutely believe 

that talking—I disagree on one thing, and this is both sides—I 

think talking about debt and the size of government as a percentage of GDP is an absolute fallacy. Let me give you an example. 

In business, you have fixed expenses. We have fixed expenses in 

the Federal Government. Just because the economy grows three 

percent over ten years does not mean the Federal Government 

needs to grow ten percent over three years. So, I think if we start 

looking at what the real needs are, what the missions are of each 

of our departments and what money we need to spend, we will end 

up developing a more realistic and more financially responsible 

long-term plan. 

I am sorry to take so much time, but I want to get to the question, and that is, Ms. MacGuineas, what is your position relative— 

how do you see the long-term potential, not just getting to a balanced budget in ten years, but past it, because in year 11 to year 

20, Social Security quadruples, Medicare quadruples. I just do 

not—unless we have some type of serious conversation about the 

long-term implications of this demographic issue, I do not see how 

we are going to solve this debt crisis. 

Ms. MACGUINEAS. Yes, Senator. I agree with you. The key to 

helping get us out of this, in addition to the policy choices, is growing the economy, and that is true in the short, medium, and long 

term. And the long term, if we do not get control of the debt, that 

makes growing the economy all the more challenging. 

I also want to add that I agree with Ranking Member Sanders 

that the other key to this is making sure that when we grow the 

economy, that growth is shared in a way that we have not been 

seeing in our economy, and we cannot thrive as a country unless 

we have a thriving, vibrant middle class and we get rid of some of 

the poverty that has been taking— 

Senator PERDUE. I agree. 

Ms. MACGUINEAS. —moving along. So, when I always come here 

and encourage everybody to compromise and work together on the 

budget and the fiscal situation, that is to—I think the economy 

calls for that identical kind of cooperation. That growth and shared 

growth need to be worked out together. I just think taking the debt 

as a separate issue is the wrong way to look at it. I think getting 

control of the debt is an absolutely central component of growing 

the economy and ensuring that it grows in a way that works for 

all of us. 

Senator PERDUE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. 
566 

Chairman ENZI. Thank you. 

I really appreciate the comments by the witnesses, the questions 

by the members of the committee. There is still a chance for people 

to submit questions, usually of the more technical nature that 

would just bore any audience out there, but that are essential to 

making the kinds of decisions that we need to make. So, questions 

for the record are due no later than 6:00 p.m. today, and hopefully, 

the witnesses will respond within seven days. 

A word of caution to all members of the committee. Chained CPI 

is a nasty word across America. Now, if you ask seniors what 

chained CPI is, they have no idea. They just know it is bad. So, 

I really like the way that it was phrased here, that we need a realistic basket of purchases to come up with that Consumer Price 

Index or cost-of-living add-on or whatever. So, think about that. 

Share any other terminology that we can use for that that will not 

generate the kind of instant hate that we have with chained CPI, 

and the reason the President left it out of his last budget. I will 

be around if somebody wants to ask questions about that afterwards. 

But, with no further business to come before the committee, we 

stand adjourned. 
567 

[Whereupon, at 12:10 p.m., the committee was adjourned.] 
568 
569 
570 
571 
572 
573 
574 
575 
576 
577 
578 
579 
580 
581 
582 

Æ