Document Text Content
www.kpcb.com
USA Inc.
About USA Inc.
Created and Compiled by Mary Meeker
February 2011
This report looks at the federal government as if it were a business, with the goal of informing the
debate about our nation’s financial situation and outlook. In it, we examine USA Inc.’s income
statement and balance sheet. We aim to interpret the underlying data and facts and illustrate
patterns and trends in easy-to-understand ways. We analyze the drivers of federal revenue and
the history of expense growth, and we examine basic scenarios for how America might move
toward positive cash flow.
Thanks go out to Liang Wu and Fred Miller and former Morgan Stanley colleagues whose
contributions to this report were invaluable. In addition, Richard Ravitch, Emil Henry, Laura
Tyson, Al Gore, Meg Whitman, John Cogan, Peter Orszag and Chris Liddell provided inspiration
and insights as the report developed. It includes a 2-page foreword; a 12-page text summary;
and 460 PowerPoint slides containing data-rich observations. There’s a lot of material – think of
it as a book that happens to be a slide presentation.
We hope the slides in particular provide relevant context for the debate about America’s
financials. To kick-start the dialogue, we are making the entire slide portion of the report
available as a single work for non-commercial distribution (but not for excerpting, or modifying or
creating derivatives) under the Creative Commons license. The spirit of connectivity and sharing
has become the essence of the Internet, and we encourage interested parties to use the slides to
advance the discussion of America’s financial present and future. If you would like to add your
own data-driven observations, contribute your insights, improve or clarify ours, please contact us
to request permission and provide your suggestions. This document is only a starting point for
discussion; the information in it will benefit greatly from your thoughtful input.
This report is available online and on iPad at www.kpcb.com/usainc
In addition, print copies are available at www.amazon.com
www.kpcb.com
USA Inc.
ii
Foreword
George P. Shultz, Paul Volcker, Michael Bloomberg, Richard Ravitch and John Doerr
February 2011
Our country is in deep financial trouble. Federal, state and local governments are deep in debt
yet continue to spend beyond their means, seemingly unable to stop. Our current path is simply
unsustainable. What to do?
A lot of people have offered suggestions and proposed solutions. Few follow the four key
guideposts to success that we see for setting our country back on the right path:
1) create a deep and widely held perception of the reality of the problem and the stakes involved;
2) reassure citizens that there are practical solutions;
3) develop support in key constituencies; and
4) determine the right timing to deliver the solutions.
USA Inc. uses each of these guideposts, and more; it is full of ideas that can help us build a
better future for our children and our country.
First, Mary Meeker and her co-contributors describe America’s problems in an imaginative way
that should allow anyone to grasp them both intellectually and emotionally. By imagining the
federal government as a company, they provide a simple framework for understanding our
current situation. They show how deficits are piling up on our income statement as spending
outstrips income and how our liabilities far exceed nominal assets on our balance sheet. USA
Inc. also considers additional assets – hard to value physical assets and our intangible wealth –
our creativity and energy and our tradition of an open, competitive society.
Additionally, the report considers important trends, pointing specifically to an intolerable failure to
educate many in the K-12 grades, despite our knowledge of how to do so. And all these
important emotional arguments help drive a gut reaction to add to data provided to reinforce the
intellectual reasons we already have.
Second, USA Inc. provides a productive way to think about solving our challenges. Once we
have created an emotional and intellectual connection to the problem, we want people to act and
drive the solution, not to throw up their hands in frustration. The authors’ ingenious indirect
approach is to ask what a turnaround expert would do and what questions he or she would ask.
The report describes how we first stumbled into this mess, by failing to predict the magnitude of
program costs, by creating perverse incentives for excessive behavior, and by missing important
trends. By pointing to the impact of individual responsibility, USA Inc. gives us reason to believe
that a practical solution exists and can be realized.
www.kpcb.com
USA Inc.
iii
Third, the report highlights how powerful bipartisan constituencies have emerged in the past to
tackle great issues for the betterment of our nation, including tax reform, civil liberties,
healthcare, education and national defense. Just as presidents of both parties rose to the
occasion to preside over the difficult process of containment during the half-century cold war, we
know we can still find leaders who are willing to step up and overcome political or philosophical
differences for a good cause, even in these difficult times.
Finally, the report makes an important contribution to the question of timing. Momentum will
follow once the process begins to gain support, and USA Inc. should help by stimulating broad
recognition and understanding of the challenges, by providing ways to think about solutions, and
by helping constituencies of action to emerge. As the old saying goes, “If not now, when? If not
us, who?”
With this pioneering report, we have a refreshing, business-minded approach to understanding
and addressing our nation’s future. Read on…you may be surprised by how much you learn. We
hope you will be motivated to help solve the problem!
www.kpcb.com
USA Inc.
iv
Table of Contents
About USA Inc. ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ii
Foreword ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ iii
Summary ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ vii
Introduction ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ 5
High-Level Thoughts on Income Statement/Balance Sheet ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ 25
Income Statement Drilldown ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ 53
Entitlement Spending ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ 72
Medicaid ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ 94
Medicare ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ 100
Unemployment Benefits ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ 121
Social Security ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ 129
Rising Debt Level and Interest Payments ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ 142
Debt Level ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ 145
Effective Interest Rates ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ 161
Debt Composition ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ 168
Periodic Large One-Time Charges ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ 177
TARP ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ 188
Fannie Mae / Freddie Mac ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ 193
ARRA ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ 200
Balance Sheet Drilldown ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ 209
www.kpcb.com
USA Inc.
v
What Might a Turnaround Expert Consider? ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ 221
High-Level Thoughts on How to Turn Around USA Inc.’s Financial Outlook ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ 237
Focus on Expenses ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ 253
Reform Entitlement Programs ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ 255
Restructure Social Security ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ 256
Restructure Medicare & Medicaid ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ 268
Focus on Operating Efficiency ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ 329
Review Wages & Benefits ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ 335
Review Government Pension Plans ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ 338
Review Role of Unions ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ 342
Review Cost Structure & Headcount ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ 345
Review Non-Core 'Business' for Out-Sourcing ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ 349
Focus on Revenues ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ 355
Drive Sustainable Economic Growth ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ 356
Invest in Technology / Infrastructure / Education ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ 366
Increase / Improve Employment ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ 383
Improve Competitiveness ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ 389
Consider Changing Tax Policies ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ 395
Review Tax Rates ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ 396
Reduce Subsidies / Tax Expenditures / Broaden Tax Base ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ 400
Consequences of Inaction ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ 413
Short-Term, Long-Term ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ 415
Public Debt, Net Worth vs. Peers ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ 416
Lessons Learned From Historical Debt Crisis ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ 422
General Motors ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ 431
Summary ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ 437
Appendix ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ 453
Glossary ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ xix
Index
∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ xxvii
www.kpcb.com
USA Inc.
vi
Summary
Imagine for a moment that the United States government is a public corporation. Imagine
that its management structure, fiscal performance, and budget are all up for review. Now
imagine that you’re a shareholder in USA Inc. How do you feel about your investment?
Because 45% of us own shares in publicly traded companies, nearly half the country expects
quarterly updates on our investments. But although 100% of us are stakeholders in the United
States, very few of us look closely at Washington’s financials. If we were long-term investors,
how would we evaluate the federal government’s business model, strategic plans, and operating
efficiency? How would we react to its earnings reports? Nearly two-thirds of all American
households pay federal income taxes, but very few of us take the time to dig into the numbers of
the entity that, on average, collects 13% of our annual gross income (not counting another 15-
30% for payroll and various state and local taxes).
We believe it’s especially important to pay closer attention to one of our most important
investments.
As American citizens and taxpayers, we care about the future of our country. As investors, we’re
in an on-going search for data and insights that will help us make more informed investment
decisions. It’s easier to predict the future if one has a keen understanding of the past, but we
found ourselves struggling to find good information about America’s financials. So we decided to
assemble – in one place and in a user-friendly format – some of the best data about the world’s
biggest “business.” We also provide some historical context for how USA Inc.’s financial model
has evolved over decades. And, as investors, we look at trend lines which help us understand
the patterns (and often future directions) of key financial drivers like revenue and expenses.
The complexity of USA Inc.’s challenges is well known, and our presentation is just a starting
point; it’s far from perfect or complete. But we are convinced that citizens – and investors –
should understand the business of their government. Thomas Jefferson and Alexis de
Tocqueville knew that – armed with the right information – the enlightened citizenry of America
would make the right decisions. It is our humble hope that a transparent financial framework can
help inform future debates.
In the conviction that every citizen should understand the finances of USA Inc. and the plans of
its “management team,” we examine USA Inc.’s income statement and balance sheet and
present them in a basic, easy-to-use format. We summarize our thoughts in PowerPoint form and
in this brief text summary at www.kpcb.com/usainc. We encourage people to take our data and
thoughts and study them, critique them, augment them, share them, and make them better.
There’s a lot of material – think of it as a book that happens to be a slide presentation.
www.kpcb.com
USA Inc.
vii
There are two caveats. First, we do not make policy recommendations. We try to help clarify
some of the issues in a straightforward, analytical way. We aim to present data, trends, and facts
about USA Inc.’s key revenue and expense drivers to provide context for how its financials have
reached their present state. Our observations come from publicly available information, and we
use the tools of basic financial analysis to interpret it. Forecasts generally come from 3rd-party
agencies like the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the nonpartisan federal agency charged
with reviewing the financial impact of legislation. Second, the ‘devil is in the details.’ For US
policy makers, the timing of material changes will be especially difficult, given the current
economic environment.
By the standards of any public corporation, USA Inc.’s financials are discouraging.
True, USA Inc. has many fundamental strengths. On an operating basis (excluding Medicare
and Medicaid spending and one-time charges), the federal government’s profit & loss statement
is solid, with a 4% median net margin over the last 15 years. But cash flow is deep in the red (by
almost $1.3 trillion last year, or -$11,000 per household), and USA Inc.’s net worth is negative
and deteriorating. That net worth figure includes the present value of unfunded entitlement
liabilities but not hard-to-value assets such as natural resources, the power to tax or mint
currency, or what Treasury calls “heritage” or “stewardship assets” like national parks.
Nevertheless, the trends are clear, and critical warning signs are evident in nearly every data
point we examine.
F2010 Cash Flow = -$1.3 Trillion; Net Worth = -$44 Trillion
With a Negative Trend Line Over Past 15 Years
USA Inc. Annual Cash Flow & Year-End Net Worth, F1996 – F2010
$400
$15,000
Annual Cash Flow ($Billion)
$0
-$400
-$800
-$1,200
One-Time Expenses*
Cash Flow (left axis)
$0
-$15,000
-$30,000
-$45,000
Year-End Net Worth ($Billion)
Net Worth (right axis)
-$1,600
-$60,000
F1996 F1998 F2000 F2002 F2004 F2006 F2008 F2010
Note: USA federal fiscal year ends in September; Cash flow = total revenue – total spending on a cash basis; net worth includes unfunded future liabilities from
Social Security and Medicare on an accrual basis over the next 75 years. *One-time expenses in F2008 include $14B payments to Freddie Mac; F2009
includes $279B net TARP payouts, $97B payment to Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac and $40B stimulus spending on discretionary items; F2010E includes $26B
net TARP income, $137B stimulus spending and $41B payment to Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac. F2010 net worth improved dramatically owing to revised
actuarial estimates for Medicare program resulted from the Healthcare reform legislation. For more definitions, see next slide. Source: cash flow per White
House Office of Management and Budget; net worth per Dept. of Treasury, “2010 Financial Report of the U.S. Government.”
www.kpcb.com
USA Inc. | Summary
www.kpcb.com
USA Inc.
viii
Underfunded entitlements are among the most severe financial burdens USA Inc. faces.
And because some of the most underfunded programs are intended to help the nation’s
poorest, the electorate must understand the full dimensions of the challenges.
F2010 USA Inc. Revenues + Expenses At A Glance
Unfunded Entitlement (Medicare + Social Security) + Underfunded
Entitlement Expenditures (Medicaid) =
Among Largest Long-Term Liabilities on USA Inc.'s Balance Sheet
Corporate
Income Tax
$191B
F2010
Revenues =
$2.2T
Other
$208B
10%
9%
41%
Individual
Income Tax
$899B
Discretionary
One-Time Items
$152B
Non-Defense
Discretionary
$431B
F2010 USA Inc. Expenses =
$3.5T
12%
20%
Net Interest
Payment
$196B
6%
4%
20%
Entitlement
Programs
22%
Social
Security
$707B
All
Other
Federal
Employee
Benefits
$1.6T $2.1T
Veteran
Benefits
USA Balance Sheet Liabilities Composition, F2010
Federal
Debt
Unfunded
Social
Security
$3.7T $9.1T $7.9T
Unfunded
Medicare
$22.8T
Medicaid*
$35.3T
40%
Social
Insurance Tax
$865B
www.kpcb.com
Defense
$694B
16%
Medicare +
Federal
Medicaid
$724B
Unemployment Insurance
+ Other Entitlements
$553B
Note: USA federal fiscal year ends in September; *individual & corporate income taxes include capital gains taxes. Nondefense
discretionary includes federal spending on education, infrastructure, law enforcement, judiciary functions…
Source: White House Office of Management and Budget.
USA Inc. | Summary
www.kpcb.com
Note: Medicaid funding is appropriated by Congress (from general tax revenue) on an as-needed basis every year, therefore,
there is no need to maintain a contingency reserve, and, unlike Medicare, the “financial status” of the program is not in question
from an actuarial perspective. Here we estimated the net present value of future Medicaid spending through 2085E, assuming a
3% discount rate. Data source: Dept. of Treasury, Dept. of Health & Human Services Center for Medicare & Medicaid Services.
USA Inc. | Summary
Some consider defense outlays – which have nearly doubled in the last decade, to 5% of GDP –
a principal cause of USA Inc.’s financial dilemma. But defense spending is still below its 7%
share of GDP from 1948 to 2000; it accounted for 20% of the budget in 2010, compared with
41% of all government spending between 1789 and 1930. The principal challenges lie
elsewhere. Since the Great Depression, USA Inc. has steadily added “business lines” and, with
the best of intentions, created various entitlement programs. They serve many of the nation’s
poorest, whose struggles have been made worse by the recent financial crisis. Apart from Social
Security and unemployment insurance, however, funding for these programs has been woefully
inadequate – and getting worse.
Entitlement expenses amount to $16,000 per household per year, and entitlement spending far
outstrips funding, by more than $1 trillion (or $9,000 per household) in 2010. More than 35% of
the US population receives entitlement dollars or is on the government payroll, up from ~20% in
1966. Given the high correlation of rising entitlement income with declining savings, do
Americans feel less compelled to save if they depend on the government for their future savings?
It is interesting to note that in China the household savings rate is ~36%, per our estimates
based on CEIC data, in part due to a higher degree of self-reliance – and far fewer established
pension plans. In the USA, the personal savings rate (defined as savings as percent of
disposable income) was 6% in 2010 and only 3% from 2000 to 2008.
www.kpcb.com
USA Inc.
ix
Millions of Americans have come to rely on Medicare and Medicaid – and spending has
skyrocketed, to 21% of USA Inc.’s total expenses (or $724B) in F2010, up from 5% forty
years ago.
Together, Medicaid and Medicare – the programs providing health insurance to low-income
households and the elderly, respectively – now account for 35% of total healthcare spending in
the USA. Since their creation in 1965, both programs have expanded markedly. Medicaid now
serves 16% of all Americans, compared with 2% at its inception; Medicare now serves 15% of
the population, up from 10% in 1966. As more Americans receive benefits and as healthcare
costs continue to outstrip GDP growth, total spending for the two entitlement programs is
accelerating. Over the last decade alone, Medicaid spending has doubled in real terms, with
total program costs running at $273 billion in F2010. Over the last 43 years, real Medicare
spending per beneficiary has risen 25 times, driving program costs well (10x) above original
projections. In fact, Medicare spending exceeded related revenues by $272 billion last year.
Amid the rancor about government’s role in healthcare spending, one fact is undeniable:
government spending on healthcare now consumes 8.2% of GDP, compared with just
1.3% fifty years ago.
Total Government* Healthcare Spending Increases are Staggering –
Up 7x as % of GDP Over Five Decades vs. Education Spending Only Up 0.6x
8%
USA Total Government Healthcare vs. Education Spending as % of GDP, 1960 – 2009
8.2%
Spending as % of GDP
6%
4%
2%
1.2%
Total Government (Federal + State + Local) Spending on Healthcare
Total Government (Federal + State + Local) Spending on Education
0%
1960 1964 1968 1972 1976 1980 1984 1988 1992 1996 2000 2004 2008
www.kpcb.com
Note: *Total government spending on healthcare includes Medicare, Medicaid and other programs such as federal
employee and veteran health benefits; total government spending on education includes spending on pre-primary through
tertiary education programs. Source: Dept. of Education, Dept. of Health & Human Services.
USA Inc. | Summary
The overall healthcare funding mix in the US is skewed toward private health insurance due to
the predominance of employer-sponsored funding (which covers 157MM working Americans and
their families, or 58% of the total population in 2008 vs. 64% in 1999). This mixed private-public
funding scheme has resulted in implicit cross-subsidies, whereby healthcare providers push
www.kpcb.com
USA Inc.
x
costs onto the private market to help subsidize lower payments from public programs. This
tends to help drive a cycle of higher private market costs causing higher insurance premiums,
leading to the slow erosion of private market coverage and a greater enrollment burden for
government programs.
The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, enacted in early 2010, includes the biggest
changes to healthcare since 1965 and will eventually expand health insurance coverage by
~10%, to 32 million new lives. Increased access likely means higher spending if healthcare
costs continue to grow 2 percentage points faster than per capita income (as they have over the
past 40 years). The CBO sees a potential $143B reduction in the deficit over the next 10 years,
but this assumes that growth in Medicare costs will slow – an assumption the CBO admits is
highly uncertain.
Unemployment Insurance and Social Security are adequately funded...for now. Their
future, unfortunately, isn’t so clear.
Unemployment Insurance is cyclical and, apart from the 2007-09 recession, generally operates
with a surplus. Payroll taxes kept Social Security mainly at break-even until 1975-81 when
expenses began to exceed revenue. Reforms that cut average benefits by 5%, raised tax rates
by 2.3%, and increased the full retirement age by 3% (to 67) restored the system’s stability for
the next 25 years, but the demographic outlook is poor for its pay-as-you-go funding structure. In
1950, 100 workers supported six beneficiaries; today, 100 workers support 33 beneficiaries.
Since Social Security began in 1935, American life expectancy has risen 26% (to 78), but the
“retirement age” for full benefits has increased only 3%.
Regardless of the emotional debate about entitlements, fiscal reality can’t be ignored – if
these programs aren’t reformed, one way or another, USA Inc.’s balance sheet will go
from bad to worse.
Federal Government Spending Had Risen to 24% of GDP in 2010,
Up From an Average of 3% From 1790 to 1930
Federal Government Spending as % of GDP, 1790 – 2010
40%
35%
Federal Spending as % of GDP
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
3% Trendline Average
1790-1930
24% in 2010
5%
0%
1790 1810 1830 1850 1870 1890 1910 1930 1950 1970 1990 2010
www.kpcb.com
Source: Federal spending per Series Y 457-465 in "Historical Statistics of the United States, Colonial Times to 1970, Part II“ and per
White House OMB. GDP prior to 1930 per Louis Johnston and Samuel H. Williamson, "What Was the U.S. GDP Then?"
MeasuringWorth, 2010. GDP post 1930 per White House OMB. Neither federal spending nor GDP data are adjusted for inflation.
USA Inc. | Summary
www.kpcb.com
USA Inc.
xi
Entitlement Spending Increased 11x
While Real GDP Grew 3x Over Past 45 Years
USA Real Federal Expenses, Entitlement Spending, Real GDP % Change, 1965 – 2010
% Change From 1965
1200%
1000%
800%
600%
400%
200%
Total Expenses
Entitlement Programs
Real GDP
Entitlement
Expenses
+10.6x
Total
Expenses
+3.3x
Real GDP
+2.7x
0%
1965 1969 1973 1977 1981 1985 1989 1993 1997 2001 2005 2009
www.kpcb.com
Note: Data adjusted for inflation. Source: White House Office of Management and Budget.
USA Inc. | Summary
Take a step back, and imagine what the founding fathers would think if they saw how our
country’s finances have changed. From 1790 to 1930, government spending on average
accounted for just 3% of American GDP. Today, government spending absorbs closer to 24% of
GDP.
It’s likely that they would be even more surprised by the debt we have taken on to pay for this
expansion. As a percentage of GDP, the federal government’s public debt has doubled over the
last 30 years, to 53% of GDP. This figure does not include claims on future resources from
underfunded entitlements and potential liabilities from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the
Government Sponsored Enterprises (GSEs). If it did include these claims, gross federal debt
accounted for 94% of GDP in 2010. The public debt to GDP ratio is likely to triple to 146% over
the next 20 years, per CBO. The main reason is entitlement expense. Since 1970, these costs
have grown 5.5 times faster than GDP, while revenues have lagged, especially corporate tax
revenues. By 2037, cumulative deficits from Social Security could add another $11.6 trillion to
the public debt.
The problem gets worse. Even as USA Inc.’s debt has been rising for decades, plunging interest
rates have kept the cost of supporting it relatively steady. Last year’s interest bill would have
been 155% (or $290 billion) higher if rates had been at their 30-year average of 6% (vs. 2% in
2010). As debt levels rise and interest rates normalize, net interest payments could grow 20% or
more annually. Below-average debt maturities in recent years have also kept the Treasury’s
borrowing costs down, but this trend, too, will drive up interest payments once interest rates rise.
www.kpcb.com
USA Inc.
xii
Can we afford to wait until the turning point comes? By 2025, entitlements plus net
interest payments will absorb all – yes, all – of USA Inc.'s revenue, per CBO.
Entitlement Spending + Interest Payments Alone Should
Exceed USA Inc. Total Revenue by 2025E, per CBO
Entitlement Spending + Interest Payments vs. Revenue as % of GDP, 1980 – 2050E
Total Revenue & Entitlement + Net Interest
Payments as % of GDP
40%
30%
20%
10%
Revenue
Entitlement Spending + Net
Interest Payments
0%
1980 1990 2000 2010E 2020E 2030E 2040E 2050E
Source: Congressional Budget Office (CBO) Long-Term Budget Outlook (6/10). Note that entitlement spending includes federal government expenditures on Social
Security, Medicare and Medicaid. Data in our chart is based on CBO’s ‘alternative fiscal scenario’ forecast, which assumes a continuation of today’s underlying
fiscal policy. Note that CBO also maintains an ‘extended-baseline’ scenario, which adheres closely to current law. The alternative fiscal scenario deviates from
CBO’s baseline because it incorporates some policy changes that are widely expected to occur (such as extending the 2001-2003 tax cuts rather than letting them
expire as scheduled by current law and adjusting physician payment rates to be in line with the Medicare economic index rather than at lower scheduled rates) and
that policymakers have regularly made in the past.