January 5, 1987 To the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President of the Senate:
The current economic expansion, now in its 50th month, is already one of the longest of the postwar era and shows promise of continuing to record length. This has not been due simply to chance -- it is the result of successful policies adopted during the past 6 years. Disposable personal income is at an all-time high and is still rising; total production and living standards are both increasing; employment gains have been excellent. Inflation, which raged at double-digit rates in 1980, has been reduced dramatically. Defense capabilities, which had been dangerously weakened during the 1970's, have been substantially rebuilt, restoring a more adequate level of national security. An insupportable growth in tax burdens and Federal regulations has been halted, an intolerably complex and inequitable income tax structure has been radically reformed, and the largest management improvement program ever attempted is in full swing in all major Federal agencies. It has been a good 6 years.
Now in its 5th year, the current expansion already has exceeded 5 of the 7 previous postwar expansions in duration, and leading economic indicators point to continued growth ahead. Our policies have worked. Let me mention a few highlights of the current economic expansion:
In the past 4 years 12.4 million new jobs have been created, while the total unemployment rate has fallen by 3.7 percentage points. By comparison, jobs in other developed countries have not grown significantly, and unemployment rates have remained high.
Inflation, which averaged 10.3 percent a year during the 4 years before I came to office, has averaged less than a third of that during the last 4 years -- 3.0 percent; inflation in 1986, at about 1 percent, was at its lowest rate in over two decades.
The prime rate of interest, and other key interest rates, are less than half what they were in 1981.
Between 1981 and 1986, numerous changes in the tax code, including a complete overhaul last year, have simplified reporting, made the tax law more equitable, and significantly lowered tax rates for individuals and corporations. Six million low-income taxpayers are being removed from the income tax rolls. The inhibitive effect of our tax code on individual initiative has been reduced dramatically. Real after-tax personal income has risen 15 percent during the last 4 years, increasing our overall standard of living.
Our defense capabilities have been strengthened with modernized equipment and successful recruiting and retention of higher caliber personnel; the readiness, training, and morale of our troops has been improved.
After years of unsustainably rapid growth, Federal spending for domestic programs other than entitlements has been held essentially flat over the last 4 years.
Since 1981, the amount of time spent by the public filling out forms required by the Federal Government has been cut by over 600 million hours, and the number of pages published annually in the Federal Register has been reduced by over 45 percent.
Our continuing fight against waste, fraud, and abuse in Government programs has paid off, as the President's Council on Integrity and Efficiency has saved $84 billion in funds that have been put to more efficient use.
Finally, Federal agencies have instituted the largest management improvement program ever attempted to bring a more business-like approach to Government.
The dramatic improvement in the performance of our economy stemmed from steadfast adherence to the four fundamental principles of the economic program I presented in February 1981:
limiting the growth of Federal spending;
reducing tax burdens;
relieving the economy of excessive regulation and paperwork; and
supporting a sound and stable monetary policy.
[In billions of dollars]
Receipts .... 769.1 .... 842.4 .... 916.6 .... 976.2 .... 1,048.3 .... 1,123.2 .... 1,191.2
Outlays .... 989.8 .... 1,015.6 .... 1,024.3 .... 1,069.0 .... 1,107.8 .... 1,144.4 .... 1,178.9@rn,s
Surplus or deficit () .... 220.7 .... 173.2 .... 107.8 .... 92.8 .... 59.5 .... 21.3 .... 12.3
Gramm-Rudman-Hollings deficit targets .... 171.9 .... 144.0 .... 108.0 .... 72.0 .... 36.0 .... 0.0 .... 0.0@rn,s
Difference .... 48.8 .... 29.2 .... 0.2 .... 20.8 .... 23.5 .... 21.3 .... 12.3
Footnote: Note. -- Totals include social security, which is off-budget.
(TABLE END) Need for Deficit Reduction
The foundation has been laid for a sustained era of national prosperity. But a major threat to our future prosperity remains: the Federal deficit. If this deficit is not brought under control by limiting Government spending, we put in jeopardy all we have achieved. Deficits brought on by continued high spending threaten the lower tax rates incorporated in tax reform and inhibit progress in our balance of trade.
We cannot permit this to happen. Therefore, one of the major objectives of this budget is to assure a steady reduction in the deficit until a balanced budget is reached.
This budget meets the $108 billion deficit target for 1988 set out in the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act, commonly known for its principal sponsors as Gramm-Rudman-Hollings. Gramm-Rudman-Hollings committed both the President and Congress to a fixed schedule of progress toward reducing the deficit. In submitting this budget, I am keeping my part of the bargain -- and on schedule. I ask Congress to do the same. If the deficit reduction goals were to be abandoned, we could see unparalleled spending growth that this Nation cannot afford.
This budget shows that eliminating the deficit over time is possible without raising taxes, without sacrificing our defense preparedness, and without cutting into legitimate programs for the poor and the elderly, while at the same time providing needed additional resources for other high priority programs.
Deficit Reduction in 1988
Although the deficit has equalled or exceeded 5 percent of the gross national product (GNP) in each of the past 4 years, each year I have proposed a path to lower deficits -- involving primarily the curtailment of unnecessary domestic spending. Congress, however, has rejected most of these proposals; hence, our progress toward reducing the deficit has been much more modest than it could have been.
This year there appears to be a major turn for the better. The 1987 deficit is estimated to be about $48 billion less than in 1986 and should decline to less than 4 percent of GNP. As the economy expands, Federal receipts will rise faster than the increase in outlays Congress enacted for the year.
However, there is no firm guarantee that progress toward a steadily smaller deficit and eventual budget balance will continue. On a current services basis the deficit will continue to decline over the next 5 years, but this decline is gradual and vulnerable to potential fiscally irresponsible congressional action on a multitude of spending programs. It is also threatened by the possibility of a less robust economic performance than is projected, for that projection is based on the assumption that the necessary spending cuts will be made.
This 1988 budget can deal the deficit a crucial blow. If the proposals in this budget are adopted and if the economy performs according to the budget assumptions for growth and inflation, then for the second consecutive year the deficit should shrink substantially, by $65 billion, and thus decline to less than 2\1/2\ percent of GNP. Reducing the deficit this far would bring it within the range of our previous peacetime experience and bring our goal of a balanced budget much closer to realization.
Moreover, if Congress adopts the proposals contained in this budget, it will ensure additional deficit reductions in future years, because in many cases the savings from a given action, although small in 1988, would mount in later years. Given the good start made in 1987, Congress has an opportunity this year -- by enacting this budget -- to put the worst of the deficit problem behind us.
Adopting the spending reductions and other reforms proposed in this budget would reduce the Federal deficit an average $54 billion annually for the next 3 years. This represents $220 each year for every individual American and about $600 for every household. I believe this is the appropriate way to deal with the deficit: cutting excessive Federal spending rather than attacking the family budget by increasing taxes, weakening our national security, breaking faith with the poor and the elderly, or ignoring the requirements for additional resources for other high priority programs.
A More Competitive, Productive America
The task of deficit reduction is a formidable one -- but it can and should be achieved with serious attention to the effects on America's economy, businesses, State and local governments, social organizations, and individual citizens. Reducing the deficit will reduce the burden the Federal Government places on private credit markets. The specific deficit reduction measures proposed in this budget would also help make our economy more competitive -- and more productive. These objectives have been major considerations in the formulation of this budget.
High priority programs must be funded adequately. Despite the very tight overall fiscal environment, this budget provides adequate funds for maintaining and, in selected cases, expanding high priority programs in key areas of national interest. For example:
essential services and income support for the aged and needy are expanded;
the prevention, treatment, and research efforts begun in my 1987 drug abuse initiative are continued, while resources devoted to drug law enforcement have tripled since my administration began;
the budget allocates $85 million to more intensive health care for those with the highest incidence of infant mortality;
over half a billion dollars is provided for AIDS research and education in 1988 -- a 28 percent increase above the 1987 level and more than double our 1986 effort (an additional $100 million is provided for AIDS treatment and blood screening by the Veterans Administration and the Department of Defense);
building upon the Nation's preeminence in basic biomedical research, the budget seeks funding for the full multiyear costs of biomedical research grants made by the National Institutes of Health;
a $200 million increase over the 1987 level is proposed for compensatory education for educationally disadvantaged children;
current ineffective programs intended to assist dislocated workers are replaced by an expanded billion-dollar program carefully designed to help those displaced from their jobs move quickly into new careers;
a 68 percent increase in funding is provided to permit the Federal Aviation Administration to modernize the Nation's air traffic control system; this includes the procurement of doppler radars capable of detecting severe downdrafts that imperil landings and takeoffs at airports where this is a hazard;
for 1988, $400 million is provided to carry out newly enacted immigration reform legislation;
substantial increases in funding for clean coal technology demonstrations, as well as research on acid rain formation and environmental effects, are provided to address the acid rain problem; and
a new civil space technology initiative, together with previously planned increases to construct a space station, develop a national aerospace plane, and foster the commercial development of space, are provided in this budget.
Restoring our national security also has been one of my highest priorities over the past 6 years due to the serious weakness arising from severe underfunding during the middle and late 1970's. Nonetheless, defense and international programs have not escaped the effects of fiscal stringency. The defense budget actually has declined in real terms in each of the past 2 years. This trend cannot be allowed to continue. I am proposing in this budget a 3 percent real increase over last year's appropriated level. This request -- some $8 billion less than last year's -- is the minimum level consistent with maintaining an adequate defense of our Nation.
Likewise, my request for our international affairs programs is also crucial to our effort to maintain our national security. I urge Congress not to repeat last year's damaging cuts, but rather to fund these programs fully.
The incentive structure for other Federal programs should be changed to promote efficiency and competitiveness. One of the problems with many Federal programs is that they provide payments without encouraging performance or efficiency. They are perceived to be ``free'' and, therefore, there is potentially unlimited demand. This has to be changed -- and this budget proposes creating needed incentives in critical areas.
Our farm price support programs, under the Food Security Act of 1985, are proving much too costly -- half again as costly as estimated when the bill was enacted just one year ago. The $25 billion being spent on farm subsidies in 1987 is 14 percent of our total Federal deficit and equivalent to taking $415 of each nonfarm family's taxes to support farmers' incomes -- over and above the amount that price supports add to their grocery bills. Some of the provisions of the Act encourage farmers to overproduce just to receive Federal benefits. Other provisions give the greatest benefits to our largest and most efficient agricultural producers instead of to those family farmers most in need of help. My administration will propose amendments to the Food Security Act to focus its benefits on the full-time family farmer by placing effective limitations on the amount paid to large producers and removing the incentive for farmers to overproduce solely to receive Federal payments.
Reform of the medicare physician payment system is also proposed. Under the proposals, medicare would pay for radiology, anesthesiology, and pathology (RAP) services based on average area costs instead of inflationary fee-for-service reimbursements. The current fee-for-service payment distorts incentives and induces inappropriate billing for unneeded services. This initiative would remove the distortions caused by medicare's current reimbursement rules, eliminating a key barrier preventing the restoration of traditional arrangements between RAP physicians and hospital staffs.
The budget proposes continued increases in federally supported basic research that will lead to longer term improvements in the Nation's productivity and global competitiveness. For example, the budget projects a doubling within 5 years of the National Science Foundation's support for academic research. I also propose to increase support for training future scientists and engineers, and to foster greater technology transfer from Government to industry.
Another way of attaching a ``value'' to Government-provided services -- and an incentive to use them only as needed -- is to charge user fees where appropriate. Those who receive special Federal services -- not the general taxpayer -- should bear a greater share of the costs of those services. Accordingly, this budget imposes fees for Federal lending activities, for meat and poultry inspection, for National park and forest facilities, for Coast Guard services, for Customs inspections, and for many other services.
The Government should stop competing with the private sector. The Federal Government interferes with the productivity of the private sector in many ways. One is through borrowing from the credit markets to finance programs that are no longer needed -- as in the case of the rural housing insurance fund, direct student financial assistance, urban mass transit discretionary grants, vocational education grants, the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation fund, sewage plant construction grants, justice assistance grants, the Legal Services Corporation, and rural electrification loans. I am proposing in this budget that we terminate these programs and rely instead on private or State and local government provision of these services.
The budget also proposes that a number of programs that have real utility be transferred back to the private sector, through public offerings or outright sales. Following our successful effort to authorize sale of Conrail, I am now proposing the sale of the Naval Petroleum Reserves, AMTRAK, the Alaska Power Administration, the helium program, and excess real property. In addition, I am proposing legislation to authorize study of a possible divestiture of the Southeastern Power Administration. These ``privatization'' efforts continue to be a high priority of my administration and, I believe, will result in increased productivity and lower total costs of providing these services. The Federal Government needs to provide essential services that are truly public in nature and national in scope. It has no business providing services to individuals that private markets or their State or local governments can provide just as well or better.
The Federal Government should depend more on the private sector to provide ancillary and support services for activities that remain in Federal hands. The budget proposes that the work associated with over 40,000 Federal positions be contracted out to the private sector as yet another way to increase productivity, reduce costs, and improve services.
Federal credit programs should operate through the private markets and reveal their true costs. The Federal Government provides credit for housing, agriculture, small business, education, and many other purposes. Currently, over a trillion dollars of Federal or federally assisted loans are outstanding. Including lending of Government-sponsored enterprises, federally assisted lending amounted to 14 percent of all lending in U.S. credit markets in 1985.
Under current treatment, loan guarantees appear to be ``free''; they do not affect the budget until and unless borrowers default. Direct loans are counted as outlays when they are made, but as ``negative outlays'' when they are repaid; thus, direct loans seem ``free'' too, inasmuch as it is presumed they will be repaid. But neither direct loans nor loan guarantees are free. Besides the better terms and conditions a borrower gets from the Government, there is the matter of default. When a borrower does not repay a direct loan, the negative outlay does not occur, and this is a subsidy implicit in the original loan transaction. When a borrower defaults on a guaranteed loan, the Government has to make good on repayment -- also a program subsidy.
Since these effects are poorly understood and lead to grave inefficiencies in our credit programs, we will ask Congress to enact legislation whereby the true cost to the economy of Federal credit programs would be counted in the budget. By selling a substantial portion of newly made loans to the private sector and reinsuring some newly made guarantees, the implicit subsidy in the current practice will become explicit. This reform will revolutionize the way Federal credit activities are conducted.
The private sector will also be increasingly involved in the management of our huge portfolio of outstanding loans and loan guarantees. Delinquent Federal borrowers will be reported to private credit bureaus, and private loan collection agencies will be used to help in our collection efforts. The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) will expand its ``offsetting'' of refunds to pay off delinquent Federal debts, and Federal employees who have not paid back Federal loans will have their wages garnished.
Increased role for State and local governments. Over the past 6 years I have sought to return various Federal services to State and local governments -- which are in a much better position to respond effectively to the needs of the recipients of these services. To me, this is a question of reorganizing responsibilities within our Federal system in a manner that will result in more productive delivery of the services that we all agree should be provided. Thus, this budget phases out inappropriate Federal Government involvement in local law enforcement, sewage treatment, public schools, and community and regional development. Transportation programs will be consolidated or States will be given greater flexibility in the use of Federal funds for highways, mass transit, and airports.
Federal regulations must be reduced even further to improve productivity. My administration will continue the deregulation and regulatory relief efforts that were begun in 1981. The Task Force on Regulatory Relief, headed by the Vice President, has been reinstated. In the past, excessive Federal regulations and related paperwork have stifled American productivity and individual freedom. We must continue our efforts to streamline the regulatory process and to strike the proper balance between necessary regulation and associated paperwork on the one hand, and the costs of these requirements on the other.
Federal activities should be better managed. The American people deserve the best managed Federal Government possible. Last year, I initiated the Federal Government Productivity Program, with the goal of improving productivity in selected areas by 20 percent by 1992. A substantial portion of total direct Federal employment falls within the program, including such activities as the Department of Agriculture meat and poultry inspection, Navy aircraft maintenance and repair, social security claims processing, National Park maintenance, operation of Federal prisons, and IRS processing of tax returns.
Credit reform, privatization, productivity improvement, and other proposals will be described in more detail in the Management Report to be issued this month. It will also identify further measures to reduce waste, fraud, and abuse; to improve management of the Government's $1.7 trillion cashflow; to institute compatible financial management systems across all Federal agencies; and other initiatives to improve the management of Government operations. These ambitious management reform undertakings, called ``Reform '88,'' constitute the largest management reform effort ever attempted.
The budget also proposes a new approach to paying Federal employees who increase their productivity. I ask that Congress approve a new plan to transform the current system of virtually automatic ``within-grade'' salary increases for the roughly 40 percent of employees eligible each year for these 3 percent hidden pay raises to one that is ``performance-oriented''. This will give Federal employees stronger incentives to improve service delivery.
I include with this budget my recommendations for increases in executive level pay for the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the Federal Government. The Quadrennial Commission report submitted to me on December 15, 1986 documented both the substantial erosion in the real level of Federal executive pay that has occurred since 1969 and the recruitment and retention problems that have resulted, especially for the Federal judiciary. The Commission is to be commended for its diligent and conscientious effort to address the complicated and complex problems associated with Federal pay levels.
Every one of the Quadrennial Commissions that have met over the past 18 years has recognized that a pay increase for key Federal officials was necessary. Each Commission concluded that pay for senior Government officials fell far behind that of their counterparts in the private sector. They also understood that we cannot afford a Government composed primarily of those who are wealthy enough to serve. Unfortunately, the last major Quadrennial Commission pay adjustment was in 1977 -- a decade ago.
However, I recognize that we are under mandated efforts to reduce the Federal deficit and hold down the costs of Government to the absolute minimum level. In this environment, I do not believe it would be appropriate to implement fully the Quadrennial Commission recommendations.
Accordingly, I have decided to propose a pay increase, but have cut substantially the recommendations made by the Quadrennial Commissioners in their report to me last month. Moreover, I have decided to establish a Career Manager Pay Commission to review and report to me by next August on appropriate pay scales for our elite corps of career Government managers. The pay increases I am proposing to Congress, plus the results of this new Commission, should place Government compensation on a fairer and more comparable footing.
Peace Through Strength
I have become convinced that the only way we can bring our adversaries to the bargaining table for arms reduction is to give them a reason to negotiate -- while, at the same time, fulfilling our responsibility to our citizens and allies to provide an environment safe and secure from aggression.
We have built our defense capabilities back toward levels more in accord with today's requirements for security. Modest and sustained growth in defense funding will be required to consolidate the real gains we have made. Because of severe fiscal constraints, we are proceeding at a slower pace than I originally planned, and the budget I propose provides the minimum necessary to ensure an adequate defense.
I am also submitting, for the first time, a two-year budget for National Defense. This will permit greater stability in providing resources for our defense efforts and should lead to greater economy in using these resources.
Budget Process Reform
The current budget process has failed to provide a disciplined and responsible mechanism for consideration of the Federal budget. Budget procedures are cumbersome, complex, and convoluted. They permit and encourage a process that results in evasion of our duty to the American people to budget their public resources responsibly. Last year Congress did not complete action on a budget for 8 months and 2 weeks -- 2 weeks past the statutory deadline. Except for the initial report of the Senate Budget Committee, Congress missed every deadline it had set for itself just 9 months earlier. In the end, Congress passed a yearlong, 389-page omnibus appropriations bill full of excessive and wasteful spending. Because Congress had not completed action on the annual appropriations bills, at one point I was compelled by law to initiate a shutdown of Federal Government activities. Such abrogation of a responsible budget process not only discourages careful, prudent legislation -- it encourages excessive spending and waste.
Furthermore, since I, as President, do not have a line-item veto, I had to ignore the many objectionable features of the omnibus appropriations legislation and sign it to avoid a Federal funding crisis. I am sure that many Members of Congress do not approve of this method of budgeting the Federal Government.
Last Fall's funding crisis and its slap-dash resolution are only one of the most obvious manifestations of the flaws in the system. Congress passes budget resolutions (without the concurrence of the President) based on functions; it considers 13 separate, but related, appropriations bills based on agencies, not functions; it develops a reconciliation bill; it passes authorizing legislation, sometimes annually; and it enacts limits on the public debt. The words alone are obscure and confusing; the process behind it is chaotic. The process must be streamlined and made more accountable.
Shortly, I will outline specific reforms designed to make the process more efficient and increase accountability, so that we can give the American people what they deserve from us: a budget that is fiscally responsible and on time.
Looking back over the past 6 years, we can feel a sense of pride and satisfaction in our accomplishments. Inflation has been brought under control. Growth and investment are up, while interest rates, tax rates, and unemployment rates have all come down substantially. A foundation for sustained economic expansion is now in place. Our national security has been restored to more adequate levels. The proliferation of unnecessary and burdensome Federal regulations has been halted. A significant beginning has been made toward curbing the excessive growth of domestic spending. Management of the Government is being improved, with special emphasis on productivity.
Important tasks, however, still remain to be accomplished. The large and stubbornly persistent budget deficit has been a major source of frustration. It threatens our prosperity and our hopes for continued economic growth.
Last year, the legislative and executive branches of Government responded to this threat by mandating gradual, orderly progress toward a balanced budget over the next 4 years. The proposals outlined here achieve the 1988 target while preserving legitimate programs for the aged and needy, providing for adequate national security, devoting more resources to other high-priority activities, and doing this without raising taxes.
This budget presents hard choices which must be faced squarely. Congress must not abandon the statutory deficit targets of Gramm-Rudman-Hollings. Honoring the provisions and promises of this legislation offers the best opportunity for us to escape the chronic pattern of deficit spending that has plagued us for the past half century. We must realize that the deficit problem is also an opportunity of a different kind -- an opportunity to construct a new, leaner, better focused, and better managed Federal structure supporting a more productive and more competitive America.
January 5, 1987
Note: Identical messages were sent to Jim Wright, Speaker of the House of Representatives, and George Bush, President of the Senate. Included in the budget submission was a request for a $4,514,949,000 supplemental appropriation for fiscal year 1987.