Home
I wonder how accurate the government budget projections are for the next 20 years. You need to look out that far because any reckoning of the national debt will be over a long period. If you don't consider such a long view to the future, there's no way to know how much of a budget deficit is too much today.

Back in my banking days, one of my jobs was "budget guy." I was in charge of forecasting the costs of our individual projects as well as predicting expenses for the department as a whole. I say with all modesty that if there were any correlations between my forecasts and the actual costs of things, it was coincidental. Allow me to explain how budgeting works. There are two rules of budget forecasting:
  1. You must assume that trends continue.
  2. Trends never continue.
Life is a series of shocks and surprises. It's delusional, bordering on superstition, to think you can predict the future more than a few months out. Another problem is that you aren't allowed to budget with any assumption of failure or organizational change, no matter how likely you think those things might be.

For example, can the CBO assume that the U.S. Postal Service shuts down within twenty years? My personal assumption is that by then all letters will be sent by e-mail, and packages will be handled by private companies. It would be insane to keep funding the Post Office twenty years from now. But I doubt the CBO forecasts assume that it goes away. (Do any of you know?)

The budget estimates for defense spending are obviously complete nonsense too. I can't imagine that the guy who handles that part of the forecast for the CBO includes, for example, an assumption that we'll invade at least two smaller countries per decade. I think there would be a lot of pressure on that guy to remove those assumptions, no matter how right he is.

Also, in twenty years our military might be mostly drones and robot tanks. How do you predict a budget for that?

What about population growth? That's a huge assumption in any budget looking out twenty years. It's not certain that the U.S. population will even increase. Japan's population is predicted to DECREASE in coming decades, and it's the same for other industrialized countries. In twenty years we might have the technology and the will to seal our porous borders as effectively as Japan. I don't think one can predict U.S. population growth or even its direction.

Healthcare is another huge wild card. I already do half of my healthcare by e-mail with my doctor (at Kaiser). And they just added the capability to receive digital pictures. I never would have predicted that five years ago. I think most people predicted that we would be doing teleconferencing with our doctors by now. But e-mail is about five times more efficient for the doctor.

Suppose medical technology gets to the point where you can diagnose potential problems, from gene analysis for example, and start treating things before they become expensive? Preventing cancer has to be a lot cheaper than treating it after the fact. How do you forecast a budget for that?

Or perhaps euthanasia will become legal, or at least widely practiced, and the expensive part of healthcare - the last few months of life - suddenly becomes economical. That's a game changer that the CBO can't assume will happen.

Budget-wise, I think it's fair to say we'll run a deficit for the next five to ten years. But in twenty years? It's anyone's guess.

 
Rank Up Rank Down Votes:  +38
  • Print
  • Share
  • Share:

Comments

Sort By:
Apr 2, 2010
You are missing a few key points. First, government is an amoeba. It lives to grow, in power, control and how much of your money it takes. It doesn't ever get smaller.

In case you missed it, the Obama administration (actually, the CBO), is projecting an additional (that means, in case you don't understand the word, "over and above what we have already"), $9.3 trillion will be added to our defecit between now and 2019, based on current programs. That was before Obamacare came into law. It doesn't count anything that isn't law yet, such as cap-and-trade, the costs of amnesty for illegal aliens, etc. The CBO also projected that the annual increase in the deficit will not fall below $500 billion/year for the "foreseeable future." That would put the total defecit at around $17 trillion, well more than double what it is now, and almost 150% of our GDP. God, we're screwed.

As far as the post office goes, it is doubtful it will go away because it is supported by the government. That means it can work anti-economically, such that if demand for its products goes down, it simply raises prices to keep its revenues the same. Moreover, even if you shut it down today, its pension requirements would still be significant for the next twenty years.

So, while trends always change, it appears that this one is going to change only upward. Good luck with that.
 
 
Apr 2, 2010
There is one trend that will always exist. We will always spend more than we should and our debt will continue to grow. That will continue until we crash big time.
 
 
0 Rank Up Rank Down
Apr 2, 2010
Our 10 year economic predictions have never been right. So take a pill about Obama. Nobody's 10, 209 or 30 year plans have ever worked out. See Chaos theory. Or what ever they are calling it now.
 
 
0 Rank Up Rank Down
Apr 1, 2010
Oh, about the USPS: although they argue that they are entirely self-sufficient (relatively true; they occasionally receive some funding, but often have costs imposed by Congress that outweigh the meager subsidy), but it isn't true to assume that their finances don't impact the budget. They both pay into government retirement funds and are included in the unified budget. So when the Postal Service decreases payments into the retirement funds or runs a deficit, this still has a negative impact on the total Federal budget, even though the USPS is technically considered off-budget. In the end, closing the USPS would reduce the US deficit even if they received no funding at all.
 
 
+2 Rank Up Rank Down
Apr 1, 2010
First, the CBO doesn't do budget forecasting, they do legislative forecasting. The Federal Government's budget projections are produced by OMB.

Second, out-year budget forecasts are usually more accurate than short-term forecasts. The reason is that while we don't know when a recession or boom will hit, we can make pretty good long-term economic assumptions because short-term fluctuations will naturally smooth out. Guessing the GDP growth rate for any given year would be a crap shoot, but you could come pretty close for any given 15-year stretch, even better than that for a 30-year period. Social Security is a good example. Everyone was surprised that it went into deficit this year as that was only projected to happen in 2016, but the overall trend was never in doubt. Right now the difference matters, but our 50-year projections are still the same.

The budget surpluses of the late 90's are another example. They were good, technically, but they didn't materially affect the long-term budget picture. The deficit was/is scheduled to balloon out of control in the coming decades regardless of the short-term budget picture. Running a surplus of that size wouldn't help, and spending it on tax cuts didn't hurt. That is just minutiae to the long-run budget; it's only useful as a political cudgel.

When it comes to Federal spending, you don't need to know exactly which items the government will spend its money on in 2035 to make good assumptions about the total amount spent. If the government finds a way between now and then to save money by shutting down the Postal Service, that money will simply be "repurposed" for something else. You wouldn't expect federal expenditures to drop, would you?

So Federal budget forecasts really only come down to a few estimates. What will the overall growth be for the period in question? What will be the taxpayer's taxation tolerance? What will the global market for US debt look like (assuming you are forecasting deficits). With that you could make some pretty good forecasts, irrespective of actual policy changes.

Lastly, the real purpose of Federal budgeting isn't to predict the future, it is to give politicians ample warning of the approaching problems caused by current policy, like SS or Medicare funding, so they can estimate how much time they can spend dithering.
 
 
0 Rank Up Rank Down
Mar 31, 2010
Sounds like the stock market or currency trading...'The trend is your friend'. But trends change quickly and often, so how are you supposed to know when the trend is at its peak before moving the other direction? And what if it only reverses briefly and then continues its previous direction?
Yes, I know there are indicators (MacD, Fibonacci, etc.) that are designed to help, but if they were infallible there would be no traders crying into their otherwise-dry martinis, lamenting their lost millions when gold spiked and they were caught on the short side.
 
 
-1 Rank Up Rank Down
Mar 30, 2010
The future is NOW. Who could've forseen this booby trap?...
http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/03/25/al_qaeda_goes_hollywood

 
 
+2 Rank Up Rank Down
Mar 30, 2010
I've always liked this quote from Eisenhower: "In preparing for battle I have always found that plans are useless, but planning is indispensable." The correllary here is that while there may be some value in the budgeting process, the actual budget itself is a joke - and should probably be discarded as soon as it's "finished".
 
 
Mar 30, 2010
Focussing on a tiny piece of your post, I really enjoyed a recent article describing how Japanese toilets can now analyse and report to their owner's GPs any bowel problems, presumably by some kind of auto stool analysis. Nice facility - that's not something you want to be taking pictures of and storing on your PC, just in case the FBI or whoever decide to investigate you.
 
 
Mar 30, 2010
The trick to forecasting is not to get it right, but to have a ready supply of excuses when it all goes wrong (and believe me, it will be wrong). The reason I know it will go wrong is that we work backwards from what we want the forecasts to show and then find a set of assumptions that fit with the projections. The sky is purple in forecastland and the forest is full of unicorns.

Me, I work in property. Assuming that property prices were going to rise exponentially for ever and ever proved not to be quite right, apparently, but hey. The closest version of the truth was probably tucked away in an alternate run ("Downside Sensitivity (iv).xls")

Nationally, it pays to line up the excuses beforehand too: "Who'da thought the Iraqis would have got quite so uppity about being carpet bombed?", "Old people want WHAT now?", etc etc. Also, the other thing I can rely on is the CFO (or scapegoat, if you prefer) changing every couple of years- we can tape any bad assumptions to his back as he walks out the door. I believe presidents serve a similar role at the national level.

If you want to know the most likliest scenario for your economy ask your government to show you their "Downside Sensitivity (iv)". I bet it's not pretty.
 
 
Mar 30, 2010
I think that we'll run a deficit for the next 20 years only because I don't see anyone in either party willing to make the budget cuts and the tax increases necessary to balance the budget. IMO it's going to take the national economy to totally collapse to do anything that drastic. Another possibility is another huge boom-bust cycle which would be just as bad.
 
 
-1 Rank Up Rank Down
Mar 30, 2010
I'm not a financial genius by far. In fact, it took me 3 trys to get out of Algebra 1 in high school. (Would have helped if I had actually gone to class too, but that's another story...)

The whole world of budgets blows my mind. Personally, I think they are artificial. Example: I work on a cost-plus US govt contract in the Middle East. This means that the government re-imburses our company for its expenses, and pays a little extra so the company can make a profit. Simple, huh? However, our company has recently instituted budgets.

What?

If we are paid by how much work we do, then it would stand to reason that if we budget ourselves, we are actually holding down the amount of work, and reducing how much we are paid -- which is shooting ourselves in the foot. I've never met a company manager who favors "restrictive budgets". I can imagine the board meeting:

"Boss! Here is the new budget! It limits how much work we will do, and saves the US Govt money! We won't be paid as much!"

"Great idea, Johnson! Let's go out on my yacht, and I'll show you how an anchor works!"

Something else that blows my mind completely: The National Debt. Will someone explain how this works? We all know it has to do with borrowing and placing the money in bonds, and paying interest, etc. But, how does it REALLY work? The National Debt was Alexander Hamilton's baby. Unfortunately, he's long dead with bullet through his heart, so it's going to be hard to ask him.

During the Clinton administration, a big deal was made about how Bill the Cigar Man turned the budgets around gave us surpluses. Wouldn't that mean that our National Debt had been eliminated as well? It stands to reason that, if you are running a budget surplus, then you have more money than your are spending. Your debt should be zero, right? Yet, after George W was elected, all of the sudden there were no more budget surpluses, and the doomsayers were pounding the National Debt again. As if, several trillion dollars in debt miraculously reappeared. I don't know. It all seems like such a scam.

I recently read that the Federal Reserve earned between $30-40 billion last year in interest on its investments. Is this being applied to paying down the National Debt? Again, I don't know. It all seems so suspicious. We are making billions in interest. We owe trillions in debt. How can we make interest on money we don't have?

I'm treading into dangerous waters here. I may have stumbled across the government's dark secret. I have a feeling I will soon be carted off to a quiet village and renamed "The New Number Two"...

Here comes Rover....
 
 
Mar 30, 2010
This is where the famous "hockey stick" graph comes from. Despite flat or falling sales for the last 10 years, next year is going to be great, and give the graph a big upward kick, and look like a hockey stick lying down. Every year the CEO would berate his accountants for producing a realistic budget, so marketing would dream up some silly figures, which the factory would laugh at and ignore. Someone eventualy got sick of the charade, and got some consultants to produce spreadsheets where people had to show how they were going to get the new budget, and what resources were needed. Didn't work though, as the resources never appeared, but at least they knew why.
 
 
Mar 30, 2010
Some friends of mine worked for a large Australian bank, in the late '80s, when they were trying to produce 'the worlds best banking software". At one stage, out of a sense of mischeviousness / evil, they slipped a line entry of "F14 $25million" into the budget.

The amount, believe it or not, was not out of line with others. More importantly, for the purpose of dealing with PHBs etc, it was approved.

So an extra rule of forecasting could be:
3. Be bold in your own line requests
 
 
+3 Rank Up Rank Down
Mar 29, 2010
I can imagine some work-arounds for the kind of problems involved in forecasting, for instance, a couple of small wars every decade. One, you don't have to call a war a war. As I understand it, the Pentagon decides how much money to ask for each year--a reasonable sum to cover their needs--and then the Democrats and Republicans fall over themselves and each other trying to give the Pentagon even more money. Much of this is in the form of jobs and expenditure in the States or districts of said politicians. But that's a whole lot of money the Pentagon hasn't budged for, and which it can spread around to other small projects, such as wars. Some military projects are decades old and have never produced anything besides dead test pilots, for example. I bet you there are ways to suck the money out of them and spend it somewhere else without scaring the accountants.
 
 
Mar 29, 2010
The CBO does not "speculate" about anything. It just addresses what is placed before it. So it would only look at the USPS going out of business in a certain number of years, if there was a proposal presented to that.

In the health care projections, it assumes that if the bill says that Medicare costs, for instance, will be reduced by a future Congress, it has to assume that it will. No matter how unlikely that actually would be.
 
 
Mar 29, 2010
This is totally unrelated, but I had to post this because it was the funniest 'Dilbert moment' I've experienced at work in a while. Anyway, I am a software developer in the financial industry and with the bank and regulatory change-ups of late, our audit department has been working overtime in trying to come up with new policies that will reassure our investors. Reading an article about one particular source code repository that had some security vulnerabilities, our risk department has decided that no developer can keep source code on their desktop.

Leaves me speechless just trying to imagine it.
 
 
+4 Rank Up Rank Down
Mar 29, 2010
I think the most interesting thing is what will happen in the next 20 years that isn't even on our mind right now. It could be something that drastically increases government spending or drastically saves it. But there is likely something we can't even predict.

In 1990 some geeky kinds of people had personal computers. Everyday people used computers at work. Did you think you would be living this much of your life through and around the internet back then?
Did you think you find a use for a personal phone that takes pictures, keeps your daily calendar, allows you to surf the web, read email, watch tv and movies? Do you ever stop to wonder how it happened that we now panic when we forget to carry our cell phones?

 
 
Mar 29, 2010
The real purpose of any budget is to provide analytical support for what management already decided they are going to do. A budget is like a woman. The more attractive it is the more likely are we to believe it not matter how outrageous it's conclusions. This is why spreadsheet software comes with color, font, and chart options. More budgeting rules at http://daysoflivingaimlessly.blogspot.com/2010/02/day-20-tuesday-budget-burlesque.html
 
 
Mar 29, 2010
Stafford Beer, the father of managerial cybernetics, once said that the purpose of planning was to abort the plan. That is, it is better to be on a course than not when it becomes necessary to change course.

Budgets are plans. We should expect them to be changed when !$%*!$%*!$%*! change. It is amazing... well, duh, not really... that people think and act as if they were immutable.

Passing legislation on a hunch is Not The Way Things Are Done, even if it makes more sense to do so.
 
 
 
Get the new Dilbert app!
Old Dilbert Blog