« Larry Summers watch | Main | The Queen »

When should the government report future liabilities?

The FASAB has asked that the United States government start including future Medicare and Social Security liabilities in current budget deficit figures:

Monday, the Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board released a proposal in which the government would have to account for the cost of future Social Security payments year by year as people build up entitlements.

Seen in advance of its release by the Financial Times, the switch in accounting practices would be an international accounting anomaly, as most other governments treat social insurance as a political commitment to pay future benefits rather than a financial liability, the newspaper said.

The FASAB is made up of six independent members who support the proposal and three opposing members from the U.S. Treasury, the White House Office of Management and Budget and the Government Accountability Office.

Here is an FASAB press release.  Here is a longer story.  Of course the reported deficit would go up by hundreds of billions of dollars a year.

Under rational expectations, this purely nominal change should be neutral.  In the abstract, more transparency in government is desirable.  Over the longer run, government would treat promises of future benefits more like expenditures and subject them to greater critical scrutiny.   

More practically, if these benefits are counted in the current budget as liabilities, it will be politically harder to cut them in the future.  However it might not be harder to tax them, which is one but not the only way of cutting them.

If you think that tax hikes are the way to address our crushing future financial burden, you should favor this proposal.  If you prefer spending cuts, it is a harder call. 

I don't doubt that financial markets would quickly adjust to the new levels for announced deficits.  Most voters might not ever know the difference -- how many of them could name the size of the deficit right now?  But this change would draw the attention of the informed public to our future fiscal and demographic problems.  How much faith should we have in these people, relative to what our government will do on its own?

I am inclined to take a chance on this one, but I don't think it is a simple call. 

By the way, the government is not obliged to accept this directive, but there is a great deal of precedent for following FASAB recommendations.

Posted by Tyler Cowen on October 23, 2006 at 09:12 PM in Economics | Permalink

Comments

Bad idea, much better to cut benefits through retirement age increases, benefit cuts for the wealthy, etc.

Posted by: Matthew Cromer at Oct 23, 2006 10:36:54 PM

it'll be fun to watch the AMT debate...
http://macroblog.typepad.com/macroblog/2006/10/what_is_the_rig.html

http://research.stlouisfed.org/publications/review/06/07/Kotlikoff.pdf
http://research.stlouisfed.org/publications/review/06/07/Thakor.pdf

Posted by: Bill Cristal at Oct 23, 2006 11:15:51 PM

Social security payout has a formula, so can be calculated like a inflation protected securities. But I don't see how you can calculate 20 of 30 year in the future medicare libilities.

Posted by: joan at Oct 23, 2006 11:44:15 PM

They're not real liabilities, but rather promises that are unenforceable except by political means. A real liability is a future expense which the liable party is not authorized to walk away from when it comes due. Since it remains well within the legitimate authority of Congress to alter or abolish Social Security at any time it chooses to do so (and let's all pray it chooses to do so _soon_!) and thereby nullify any expense to the taxpayer for the payment of benefits, computing its future costs as if they were true liabilities would not be correct.

Politically there might be some "transparency" benefit to the change...perhaps it could even have positive effects on policy. But I'm wary of any move which would imply that abolishing Social Security is not a legitimate and legal option, and I think that this would be such a move.

Posted by: Matt at Oct 24, 2006 1:47:52 AM

Most voters might not ever know the difference -- how many of them could name the size of the deficit right now?

Those are the ones who will be looking at a chart four years from now saying, "Look at how much the deficit has gone up starting in 2007! We need to do something now!" Same as the people who quote the "Americans are getting fatter" numbers without noticing the much broadened 1999 redefinition of "obese".

Posted by: Noumenon at Oct 24, 2006 6:00:35 AM

If the deficit is to include accrued liabilities, then accounting standards shwould be adjusted so as to not fully expense capital expenditures in the year that they are incurred. No prifNo private business builds a new building and then counts the entire expense in the year it is incurred. Yet the federal government does this with roads, military equipment, buildings etc. If there is to be honesty in accounting, let's go the full way.

Posted by: Paul D at Oct 24, 2006 9:19:44 AM

If they make the change they should make the calculations for at least each of the last 20 years for context. Otherwise it's just another useless number that will only cloud debate and useful only for simple political opportunism.

Posted by: David Young at Oct 24, 2006 10:06:52 AM

Gotta go with Matt on this one -- albeit reluctantly, as i would like people to know how big these 'promises' are. But that's just it, they're promises, not contracts.

Plus, what is the present value of the 'government's ability to tax'? It's pretty large, and that goes on the asset side of the balance sheet. It's a tricky business when you start valuing these things; that's why accountants are reluctant to do it in the private sector accounting.

Posted by: GAAP at Oct 24, 2006 10:30:31 AM

As deceptive as federal accounting is, I'm not certain this is exactly
the answer.

The FASB does not exactly have a sterling record anyway.

We need to do something about the "trust fund" farce, because it is
approaching a $2 trillion hole that will require tax increases on my
children and grandchildren to fill.

Posted by: save_the_rustbelt at Oct 24, 2006 11:01:05 AM

What about this: It seems to me that if SS obligations count as a liability, then ANY reduction of benefits counts as a default for purposes of determining credit rating of T-bills. Would it be good or bad for any benefit reduction to be coupled to higher interest rates on new government debt?

Posted by: Person at Oct 24, 2006 11:45:44 AM

Assuming that treating expected future expenditures
as desired by FASB, wouldn't one also have to include
future expected tax revenues? Why include the expenditures
but not hte revenue? Just asking.

Posted by: Donald A. Coffin at Oct 24, 2006 11:52:56 AM

Social Insurance is an evolving program. Over the next fifty years changes
will be made to Social Security, probably on both the outlay and receipt
side, as the size of the economy and the
distribution of income become more clear. Those changes will not be made
until there is more of a public consensus on how redistributive over time
and within cohort the public wants Social Security to be. Putting the current
liability on the books would require putting receipts on the books as well
and would provide a false sense of certainty.

Medicare growth is a function of overall medical spending. Whether society
wants medical spending to reach 25% of GDP or not and if not how the rate
of growth of private spending is reduced will be a major factor determining
if, how and to what extent Medicare spending is reduced. Implying an
obligation to provide the current projected nominal level of Medicare
spending would be particularly unfortunate because it implies a guarantee
of income to the medical community.

Posted by: Sonia at Oct 24, 2006 1:04:11 PM

"What about this: It seems to me that if SS obligations count as a liability, then ANY reduction of benefits counts as a default for purposes of determining credit rating of T-bills. Would it be good or bad for any benefit reduction to be coupled to higher interest rates on new government debt?"

If you renegotiate a debt (for example, with your banker), the amount of the reduction is recognized as a "Gain" on the income statement, not a default.

Posted by: bristlecone at Oct 24, 2006 2:30:32 PM

bristlecone: If you unilaterally decide not to pay a debt, that is a default. Renegotiating the payment schedule with interest and penalities is renegotiating, not default. In the case of the federal government, the "bank" (creditor) is the Social Security beneficiary to whom the benefits are promised. It may *also* count as a gain in income (and I am certainly fond of my Railroad Tycoon II days of funneling my corporation's bond proceeds into my pocket and then declaring bankruptcy to boost its net book value), but it is still a default.

Posted by: Person at Oct 24, 2006 2:51:48 PM

This might make some sense only in the context of REALLY treating the trust
fund like a trust fund, and calculating a balance sheet only for Social
Security.

This would allow a calculation of the net present value of the revenue
stream versus the net present value of the benefit stream.

But that would only be a wild guess depending on the imputed earnings rate.

Hey though, maybe politicians would have to stop using the "unifed budget" fraud.

Do we smell politics in the FASAB?

Posted by: save_the_rustbelt at Oct 24, 2006 7:45:05 PM

If you're going to do expenditure on an accrual basis, surely you have to do revenues on the same basis. But then you're into an exercise in generational accounting - useful in itself, but surely not the purpose of a current budget statment.

Posted by: derrida derider at Oct 25, 2006 1:50:24 AM

Social Security and other related items are becoming big issues today in society. I agree with the ones who say that
these are just not liabilities but these are promises. These are promises whether or not they will or will not be kept.
Sociality is especially something that I feel should not be done away with. Not everyone is blessed with great
retirement plans and not everyone becomes wealthy before they reach old-age. I can understand why certain people may be
opposed to this idea of keeping social security and other related issues because it could possibly raise taxes. I agree
that raising taxes is bad, however, I believe a possible solution to this is for the Gov't to come up with a plan for
social security and medicare and other things such as these to collect funds without raising taxes all the time. The
Gov't could possibly figure out a way for there to be a set price for this and that money to go straight to this and to
nothing else. I guess I can possibly see why Gov't officials are opposed by this plan because it may seem like a contract
to them because money will have to dished out from now on for these issues, but social security, medicare and other Gov't
funding should not be done away with mainly because it is just what many people depend on and I believe that the Gov't
doesn't realize just how many people there are out there who truly depend on these.

Posted by: William I. at Oct 25, 2006 7:39:24 PM


liqingchao 07年8月21日

google排名
google排名
wow gold
wow gold
powerleveling
powerleveling
wow gold
wow gold
powerleveling
powerleveling
wow powerleveling
wow powerleveling
wow power leveling
wow power leveling
wow power level
wow power level
world of warcraft powerleveling
world of warcraft powerleveling
world of warcraft power leveling
world of warcraft power leveling

china tour
china tour
hongkong hotel
hongkong hotel
beijing tour
beijing tour
翻译公司
翻译公司
上海翻译公司
上海翻译公司
北京翻译公司
北京翻译公司
北京搬家公司
北京搬家公司
鼓风机
风机
风机
货架
光盘刻录
光盘刻录
光盘制作
光盘制作
光盘印刷
光盘印刷
红外测温仪
红外测温仪
超声波测厚仪
超声波测厚仪

超声波探伤仪
超声波探伤仪
频闪仪
频闪仪
涂层测厚仪
涂层测厚仪
电火花检测仪
电火花检测仪
google排名
仓库
仓库
仓库出租
仓库出租
物流园区
物流园区
集团电话
集团电话
四环素牙
口腔常识
口腔常识
口腔医生
口腔医生
网站设计
网站设计
多媒体
监控
监控
监控系统
监控系统
门禁
门禁
门禁系统
门禁系统
搬家公司
搬家公司
条码打印机
条码打印机
牙周炎
牙周炎


Posted by: wslmwps at Aug 21, 2007 2:21:28 AM

吴尊
阿穆隆
林志玲
尚雯婕
大人物
王睿
Mac DVD Ripper
火狐浏览器
Firefox浏览器
吴尊
阿穆隆
林志玲
尚雯婕
大人物
王睿
Mac DVD Ripper
火狐浏览器
Firefox浏览器
吴尊
阿穆隆
林志玲
尚雯婕
大人物
王睿
Mac DVD Ripper
火狐浏览器
Firefox浏览器
吴尊
阿穆隆
林志玲
尚雯婕
大人物
王睿
Mac DVD Ripper
火狐浏览器
Firefox浏览器
吴尊
阿穆隆
林志玲
尚雯婕
大人物
王睿
Mac DVD Ripper
火狐浏览器
Firefox浏览器
吴尊
阿穆隆
林志玲
尚雯婕
大人物
王睿
Mac DVD Ripper
火狐浏览器
Firefox浏览器
吴尊
阿穆隆
林志玲
尚雯婕
大人物
王睿
Mac DVD Ripper
火狐浏览器
Firefox浏览器
吴尊
阿穆隆
林志玲
尚雯婕
大人物
王睿
Mac DVD Ripper
火狐浏览器
Firefox浏览器
吴尊
阿穆隆
林志玲
尚雯婕
大人物
王睿
Mac DVD Ripper
火狐浏览器
Firefox浏览器
吴尊
阿穆隆
林志玲
尚雯婕
大人物
王睿
Mac DVD Ripper
火狐浏览器
Firefox浏览器
吴尊
阿穆隆
林志玲
尚雯婕
大人物
王睿
Mac DVD Ripper
火狐浏览器
Firefox浏览器
吴尊
阿穆隆
林志玲
尚雯婕
大人物
王睿
Mac DVD Ripper
火狐浏览器
Firefox浏览器
吴尊
阿穆隆
林志玲
尚雯婕
大人物
王睿
Mac DVD Ripper
火狐浏览器
Firefox浏览器
吴尊
阿穆隆
林志玲
尚雯婕
大人物
王睿
Mac DVD Ripper
火狐浏览器
Firefox浏览器
吴尊
阿穆隆
林志玲
尚雯婕
大人物
王睿
Mac DVD Ripper
火狐浏览器
Firefox浏览器
吴尊
阿穆隆
林志玲
尚雯婕
大人物
王睿
Mac DVD Ripper
火狐浏览器
Firefox浏览器
吴尊
阿穆隆
林志玲
尚雯婕
大人物
王睿
Mac DVD Ripper
火狐浏览器
Firefox浏览器
吴尊
阿穆隆
林志玲
尚雯婕
大人物
王睿
Mac DVD Ripper
火狐浏览器
Firefox浏览器
吴尊
阿穆隆
林志玲
尚雯婕
大人物
王睿
Mac DVD Ripper
火狐浏览器
Firefox浏览器
吴尊
阿穆隆
林志玲
尚雯婕
大人物
王睿
Mac DVD Ripper
火狐浏览器
Firefox浏览器
吴尊
阿穆隆
林志玲
尚雯婕
大人物
王睿
Mac DVD Ripper
火狐浏览器
Firefox浏览器
吴尊
阿穆隆
林志玲
尚雯婕
大人物
王睿
Mac DVD Ripper
火狐浏览器
Firefox浏览器
吴尊
阿穆隆
林志玲
尚雯婕
大人物
王睿
Mac DVD Ripper
火狐浏览器
Firefox浏览器
v

Posted by: hoojk at Dec 2, 2007 9:01:57 PM

吴尊
阿穆隆
林志玲
尚雯婕
大人物
王睿
Mac DVD Ripper
火狐浏览器
Firefox浏览器
吴尊
阿穆隆
林志玲
尚雯婕
大人物
王睿
Mac DVD Ripper
火狐浏览器
Firefox浏览器
吴尊
阿穆隆
林志玲
尚雯婕
大人物
王睿
Mac DVD Ripper
火狐浏览器
Firefox浏览器
吴尊
阿穆隆
林志玲
尚雯婕
大人物
王睿
Mac DVD Ripper
火狐浏览器
Firefox浏览器
吴尊
阿穆隆
林志玲
尚雯婕
大人物
王睿
Mac DVD Ripper
火狐浏览器
Firefox浏览器
吴尊
阿穆隆
林志玲
尚雯婕
大人物
王睿
Mac DVD Ripper
火狐浏览器
Firefox浏览器
吴尊
阿穆隆
林志玲
尚雯婕
大人物
王睿
Mac DVD Ripper
火狐浏览器
Firefox浏览器
吴尊
阿穆隆
林志玲
尚雯婕
大人物
王睿
Mac DVD Ripper
火狐浏览器
Firefox浏览器
吴尊
阿穆隆
林志玲
尚雯婕
大人物
王睿
Mac DVD Ripper
火狐浏览器
Firefox浏览器
吴尊
阿穆隆
林志玲
尚雯婕
大人物
王睿
Mac DVD Ripper
火狐浏览器
Firefox浏览器
吴尊
阿穆隆
林志玲
尚雯婕
大人物
王睿
Mac DVD Ripper
火狐浏览器
Firefox浏览器
吴尊
阿穆隆
林志玲
尚雯婕
大人物
王睿
Mac DVD Ripper
火狐浏览器
Firefox浏览器
吴尊
阿穆隆
林志玲
尚雯婕
大人物
王睿
Mac DVD Ripper
火狐浏览器
Firefox浏览器
吴尊
阿穆隆
林志玲
尚雯婕
大人物
王睿
Mac DVD Ripper
火狐浏览器
Firefox浏览器
吴尊
阿穆隆
林志玲
尚雯婕
大人物
王睿
Mac DVD Ripper
火狐浏览器
Firefox浏览器
吴尊
阿穆隆
林志玲
尚雯婕
大人物
王睿
Mac DVD Ripper
火狐浏览器
Firefox浏览器
吴尊
阿穆隆
林志玲
尚雯婕
大人物
王睿
Mac DVD Ripper
火狐浏览器
Firefox浏览器
吴尊
阿穆隆
林志玲
尚雯婕
大人物
王睿
Mac DVD Ripper
火狐浏览器
Firefox浏览器
吴尊
阿穆隆
林志玲
尚雯婕
大人物
王睿
Mac DVD Ripper
火狐浏览器
Firefox浏览器
吴尊
阿穆隆
林志玲
尚雯婕
大人物
王睿
Mac DVD Ripper
火狐浏览器
Firefox浏览器
吴尊
阿穆隆
林志玲
尚雯婕
大人物
王睿
Mac DVD Ripper
火狐浏览器
Firefox浏览器

Posted by: hoojk at Dec 2, 2007 9:02:23 PM

資金を増やそうとするのに不動産投資をするのが手っ取り早い。日本で不動産で東京 賃貸をさがすのはきわめて難しくシステム開発は日本の会社が良い。

Posted by: 不動産投資 at Jul 18, 2008 12:59:39 AM

出会い
チャットレディ
出会い

Posted by: masinn at Dec 17, 2008 2:08:25 AM

Weight loss is easier than you think!

Adipex
Phentermine

Posted by: adipex at Mar 6, 2009 3:42:36 PM

Last chaos Gold
Buy Last Chaos Gold
Cheap Last Chaos Gold

Posted by: aion kina at Mar 21, 2009 12:53:09 AM

Post a comment