This is the accessible text file for CG Presentation number GAO-07-
848CG entitled 'Transformation Challenges for the Twenty-first
Century' which was released on May 4, 2007.
The Honorable David M. Walker:
Comptroller General of the United States:
The National Association of State Chief Information Officers (NASCIO):
2007 Mid-Year Conference:
May 3, 2007:
GAO-07-848CG:
GAO’s Mission:
GAO’s role is to support the Congress in carrying out its
constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and
assure accountability of government for the benefit of the American
people.
We do this in four fundamental ways:
* Oversight–preventing and detecting fraud, waste, abuse, and
mismanagement;
* Insight–making government more efficient and effective;
* Foresight–examining the role of government;
* Adjudication–bid protest resolution, legal opinions (e.g.
appropriations law).
The Need for Good Governance, Transparency, and Accountability:
Good governance, transparency, and accountability are critical in:
* The private sector, to promote efficiency and effectiveness in the
capital and credit markets, and overall economic growth, both
domestically and internationally.
* The public sector, for the effective and credible functioning of a
healthy democracy, and in fulfilling the government’s responsibility to
citizens and taxpayers.
* Both sectors, to support a health healthy that provides economic
opportunities and benefits to citizens.
Sorting out the needs—as well as the effective and appropriate
governance and accountability mechanisms for different sectors and
types of organizations—will be essential, both on a domestic and
international scale.
Graph:
The Need for More Efficient and Effective Government Federal, State,
and Local Collaboration:
This is a line graph with two lines: Federal Grants as a percent of
State and Local Receipts and Federal Grants as a percent of Federal
Expenditures. The vertical axis of the graph depicts percent from 0 to
30. The horizontal axis of the graph depicts calendar years 1970
through 2005.
Source: GAO analysis of data from the U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Bureau of
Economic Analysis.
[End of graph}
The Case for Change:
The federal government is on a “burning platform,” and the status quo
way of doing business is unacceptable for a variety of reasons,
including:
* Past fiscal trends and significant long-range challenges;
* Selected trends and challenges having no boundaries;
* Additional resource demands due to Iraq, Afghanistan, incremental
homeland security needs, and recent natural disasters in the United
States;
* Numerous government performance/accountability and high risk
challenges;
* Outdated federal organizational structures, policies, and practices;
* Rising public expectations for demonstrable results and enhanced
responsiveness.
Composition of Federal Spending:
[See PDF for image] - graphic text:
There are three pie charts, containing the following compositions of
spending by category:
Year: 1966;
Defense: 43%;
Social Security: 15%;
Medicare and Medicaid: 1%;
Net Interest: 7%;
All Other: 34%.
Year: 1986;
Defense: 28%;
Social Security: 20%;
Medicare and Medicaid: 10%;
Net Interest: 14%;
All Other: 29%.
Year: 2006;
Defense: 20%;
Social Security: 21%;
Medicare and Medicaid: 19%;
Net Interest: 9%;
All Other: 32%.
Source: Office of Management and Budget and the Department of the
Treasury.
Note: Numbers may not add to 100 percent due to rounding.
[End of figure]
Federal Spending for Mandatory Programs Crowds Out Spending for
Discretionary Programs:
This is a stacked line graph with three lines: Net interest, Mandatory,
and Discretionary. The vertical axis of the graph depicts percent of
total outlays from 0 to 100. The horizontal axis of the graph depicts
calendar years 1962 through 2017, with years 2008 though 2017 being
CBO's January 2007 projections. At all points on the graph, the three
spending representations total 100 percent.
Sources: Office of Management and Budget and the Congressional Budget
Office.
[End of graph]
Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid Spending as a Percent of GDP:
[See PDF for image] - graphic text.
This is a line graph with three stacked lines (Social Security,
Medicaid, and Medicare). The vertical axis represents Percent of GDP
and the horizontal axis represents fiscal years 2000 through 2080.
Source: GAO analysis based on data from the Office of the Chief
Actuary, Social Security Administration, Office of the Actuary, Centers
for Medicare and Medicaid Services, and the Congressional Budget
Office.
Notes: Social Security and Medicare projections based on the
intermediate assumptions of the 2006 Trustees’ Reports. Medicaid
projections based on CBO’s August 2006 short-term Medicaid estimates
and CBO’s December 2005 long-term Medicaid projections under mid-range
assumptions.
[End of graph]
Table: Fiscal Year 2005 and 2006 Deficits and Net Operating Costs:
On-Budget Deficit, Fiscal Year 2005 ($ Billion): (494);
On-Budget Deficit, Fiscal Year 2006 ($ Billion): (434);
Unified Deficit[a], Fiscal Year 2005 ($ Billion): (318);
Unified Deficit[a], Fiscal Year 2006 ($ Billion): (248);
Net Operating Cost[b], Fiscal Year 2005 ($ Billion): (760);
Net Operating Cost[b], Fiscal Year 2006 ($ Billion): (450);
Sources: Office of Management and Budget and Department of the
Treasury.
[a] Includes $173 billion in Social Security surpluses for fiscal year
2005 and $185 billion for fiscal year 2006; $2 billion in Postal
Service surpluses for fiscal year 2005 and $1 billion for fiscal year
2006.
[b] Fiscal year 2005 and 2006 net operating cost figures reflect
significant but opposite changes in certain actuarial costs. For
example, changes in interest rates and other assumptions used to
estimate future veterans’ compensation benefits increased net operating
cost by $228 billion in 2005 and reduced net operating cost by $167
billion in 2006. Therefore, the net operating costs for fiscal years
2005 and 2006, exclusive of the effect of these actuarial cost
fluctuations, were ($532) billion and ($617) billion, respectively.
[End of table]
Table: Major Fiscal Exposures ($ trillions):
Explicit liabilities (Publicly held debt, Military & civilian pensions
& retiree health, Other):
2000: $6.9;
2006: $10.4;
Percent increase: 52.
Commitments & contingencies (e.g., PBGC, undelivered orders):
2000: 0.5;
2006: 1.3
Percent increase: 140.
Implicit exposures:
2000: 13.0; (Future Social Security benefits: 3.8; Future Medicare Part
A benefits: 2.7; Future Medicare Part B benefits: 6.5; Future Medicare
Part D benefits: 0).
2006: 38.8; (Future Social Security benefits: 6.4; Future Medicare Part
A benefits: 11.3; Future Medicare Part B benefits: 13.1; Future
Medicare Part D benefits: 7.9).
Percent increase: 197.
Total, 2000: $20.4;
Total, 2006: $50.5;
Percent increase: 147.
Source: 2000 and 2006 Financial Report of the United States Government.
Note: Totals and percent increases may not add due to
rounding.Estimates for Social Security and Medicare are at present
value as of January 1 of each year and all other data are as of
September 30.
[End of table]
Table: How Big is Our Growing Fiscal Burden?
This fiscal burden can be translated and compared as follows:
Total major fiscal exposures: $50.5 trillion;
Total household net worth[1]: $53.3 trillion;
Burden/Net worth ratio: 95 percent.
Burden[2]:
Per person: $170,000;
Per full-time worker: $400,000;
Per household: $440,000.
Income:
Median household income[3]: $46,326;
Disposable personal income per capita[4]: $31,519.
Source: GAO analysis.
Notes: (1) Federal Reserve Board, Flow of Funds Accounts, Table B.100,
2006: Q2 (Sept. 19, 2006); (2) Burdens are calculated using estimated
total U.S. population as of 9/30/06, from the U.S. Census Bureau; full-
time workers reported by the Bureau of Economic Analysis, in NIPA table
6.5D (Aug. 2, 2006); and households reported by the U.S. Census Bureau,
in Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States:
2005 (Aug. 2006); (3) U.S. Census Bureau, Income, Poverty, and Health
Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2005(Aug. 2006); and (4)
Bureau of Economic Analysis, Personal Income and Outlays: October 2006,
table 2, (Nov. 30, 2006).
[End of table]
Potential Fiscal Outcomes Under Baseline Extended (January 2001);
Revenues and Composition of Spending as a Share of GDP.
[See PDF for image] - graphic text.
This is a line/stacked bar graph with one line (revenue) and four
stacked bars containing four spending items (Net interest, Social
Security, Medicare and Medicaid, and All other spending). The vertical
axis represents Percent of GDP and the horizontal axis represents
fiscal years 2005, 2015[a], 2030[a], and 2040[a].
Source: GAO’s January 2001 analysis.
[a] All other spending is net of offsetting interest receipts.
[End of graph]
Discretionary Spending Grows with GDP After 2007 and All Expiring Tax
Provisions Extended through 2017 (Thereafter Revenue Returns to
Historical Average of 18.3% of GDP plus Deferred Revenue):
[See PDF for image] - graphic text.
This is a line/stacked bar graph with one line (revenue) and four
stacked bars containing four spending items (Net interest, Social
Security, Medicare and Medicaid, and All other spending). The vertical
axis represents Percent of GDP and the horizontal axis represents
fiscal years 2006, 2015, 2030, and 2040.
Source: GAO’s August 2007 analysis.
[End of graph]
Health Care Is the Nation’s Top Tax Expenditure in Fiscal Year 2006:
[See PDF for image] - graphic text.
This is a bar graph with the vertical axis representing estimated
dollars in billions, and the horizontal axis depicting bars indicating
the amount of expenditures in five categories.
Estimated dollars in billions, Exclusion of employer contributions for
medical insurance premiums and medical care: 125[a];
Estimated dollars in billions, Deductability of mortgage interest on
owner-occupied homes: 68.3;
Estimated dollars in billions, Net exclusion of pension contributions
and earnings: defined benefit plans: 49[b];
Estimated dollars in billions, Capital gains except agriculture,
timber, iron ore, and coal): 48.6;
Estimated dollars in billions, Deductability of nonbusiness states and
local taxes other than on owner-occupied homes: 43.1.
Source: GAO analysis of OMB, Analytical Perspectives, Budget of the
United States Government, Fiscal Year 2008.
Note: “Tax expenditures” refers to the special tax provisions that are
contained in the federal income taxes on individuals and corporations.
Treasury does not include forgone revenue from other federal taxes such
as Social Security and Medicare payroll taxes.
[a] If the payroll tax exclusion were also counted here, the total tax
expenditure for employer contributions for health insurance premiums
would be about 50 percent higher or $187.5 billion.
[b] This tax expenditure does not include $40.8 billion in revenue
losses due to defined contribution plans.
[End of graph]
Current Fiscal Policy Is Unsustainable:
* The “Status Quo”is Not an Option:
- We face large and growing structural deficits largely due to known
demographic trends and rising health care costs.
- GAO’s simulations show that balancing the budget in 2040 could
require actions as large as:
* Cutting total federal spending by 60 percent or;
* Raising federal taxes to 2 times today's level.
* Faster Economic Growth Can Help, but It Cannot Solve the Problem:
- Closing the current long-term fiscal gap based on reasonable
assumptions would require real average annual economic growth in the
double digit range every year for the next 75 years.
- During the 1990s, the economy grew at an average 3.2 percent per
year.
- As a result, we cannot simply grow our way out of this problem. Tough
choices will be required.
The Way Forward: A Three-Pronged Approach:
1. Improve Financial Reporting, Public Education, and Performance
Metrics.
2. Strengthen Budget and Legislative Processes and Controls.
3. Fundamentally Reexamine & Transform for the 21st Century (i.e.,
entitlement programs, other spending, and tax policy).
Solutions Require Active Involvement from both the Executive and
Legislative Branches.
The Objective of Transformation:
To create a more positive future by maximizing value and mitigating
risk within current and expected resource levels.
Key National Indicators:
* What: A portfolio of economic, social, and environmental outcome-
based measures that could be used to help assess the nation’s and other
governmental jurisdictions’ position and progress;
* Who: Many countries and several states, regions, and localities have
already undertaken related initiatives (e.g., Australia, New Zealand,
Canada, United Kingdom, Oregon, Silicon Valley (California) and
Boston);
* Why: Development of such a portfolio of indicators could have a
number of possible benefits, including:
- Serving as a framework for related strategic planning efforts;
- Enhancing performance and accountability reporting;
- Informing public policy decisions, including much needed baseline
reviews of existing government policies, programs, functions, and
activities;
- Facilitating public education and debate as well as an informed
electorate.
* Way Forward: Consortium of key players housed by the National
Academies domestically and related efforts by the OECD and others
internationally.
Key National Indicators:
Where the United States Ranks:
The United States may be the only superpower, but compared to most
other OECD countries on selected key economic, social, and
environmental indicators, on average, the U.S. ranks 16 out of 28.
OECD Categories for Key Indicators (2006 OECD Factbook):
* Population/Migration;
* Energy;
* Environment;
* Labor Market;
* Education;
* Public Finance;
* Science & Tech.;
* Quality of Life;
* Macroeconomic Trends;
* Economic Globalization
* Prices.
Table:
Where the United States Ranks on Selected Health Outcome Indicators:
Outcome: Life expectancy at birth (U.S. = 77.8 years in 2004);
Rank: 23 out of 30 in 2004.
Outcome: Infant Mortality (U.S. = 6.8 deaths in 2004);
Rank: 26 out of 30 in 2004.
Outcome: Potential Years of Life Lost (U.S. = 5,066 in 2002);
Rank: 23 out of 26 in 2002.
Source: OECD Health Data 2006 and 2007.
Notes: Data are the most recent available for all countries. Life
expectancy at birth for the total population is estimated by the OECD
Secretariat for all countries, as the unweighted average of the life
expectancy of men and women. Infant mortality is measured as the number
of deaths per 1,000 live births. Potential years of life lost (PYLL) is
the sum of the years of life lost prior to age 70, given current age-
specific death rates (e.g., a death at 5 years of age is counted as 65
years of PYLL).
[End of table]
Growth in Health Care Spending: Health Care Spending as a Percentage of
GDP:
[See PDF for image] - graphic text.
This is a bar graph of the percent of health care spending as a
percentage of GDP with the vertical axis representing percent from 0 to
25 and the horizontal axis representing years 1975, 1985, 1995, 2005,
and 2015.
Year: 1975;
Health care spending: 8.1.
Year: 1985;
Health care spending: 10.4.
Year: 1995;
Health care spending: 13.7.
Year: 2005;
Health care spending: 16.0.
Year: 2015;
Health care spending: 19.2.
Source: The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Office of the
Actuary.
Note: The figure for 2015 is projected.
[End of graph]
Issues to Consider in Examining Our Health Care System:
* The public needs to be educated about the differences between wants,
needs, affordability, and sustainability at both the individual and
aggregate level.
* Ideally, health care reform proposals will:
- Align Incentives for providers and consumers to make prudent
decisions about the use of medical services;
- Foster Transparency with respect to the value and costs of care, and;
- Ensure Accountability from insurers and providers to meet standards
for appropriate use and quality;
* Ultimately, we need to address four key dimensions: access, cost,
quality,and personal responsibility.
GAO Criteria for Evaluating Social Security Reform Proposals:
Reform proposals should be evaluated as packages that strike a balance
among individual reform elements and important interactive effects.
Comprehensive proposals can be evaluated against three basic criteria:
* Financing sustainable solvency;
* Balancing adequacy and equity in the benefits structure;
* Implementing and administering reforms.
Table: GAO's High-Risk List 2007:
Addressing Challenges in Broad-based Transformations:
* Strategic Human Capital Management[a]: Year Designated: 2001;
* Managing Federal Real Property[a]: Year Designated: 2001;
* Protecting the Federal Government’s Information Systems and the
* Nations’ Critical Infrastructures: Year Designated: 1997;
* Implementing and Transforming the Department of Homeland Security:
Year Designated: 2003;
* Establishing Appropriate and Effective Information-Sharing Mechanisms
to Improve Homeland Security: Year Designated: 2005;
* DOD Approach to Business Transformation[a]: Year Designated: 2005;
- DOD Business Systems Modernization: Year Designated: 1995;
- DOD Personnel Security Clearance Program; Year Designated: 2005;
- DOD Support Infrastructure Management; Year Designated: 1997;
- DOD Financial Management; Year Designated: 1995;
- DOD Supply Chain Management; Year Designated: 1990;
- DOD Weapon Systems Acquisition; Year Designated: 1990;
* FAA Air Traffic Control Modernization; Year Designated: 1995;
* Financing the Nation’s Transportation System[a] (New); Year
Designated: 2007;
* Ensuring the Effective Protection of Technologies Critical to U.S.
National Security Interests[a] (New): Year Designated: 2007;
* Transforming Federal Oversight of Food Safety[a] (New): Year
Designated: 2007;
Managing Federal Contracting More Effectively:
* DOD Contract Management: Year Designated: 1992;
* DOE Contract Management: Year Designated: 1990;
* NASA Contract Management: Year Designated: 1990;
* Management of Interagency Contracting: Year Designated: 2005;
Assessing the Efficiency and Effectiveness of Tax Law Administration:
* Enforcement of Tax Laws[a]: Year Designated: 1990;
* IRS Business Systems Modernization: Year Designated: 1995;
Modernizing and Safeguarding Insurance and Benefit Programs:
* Modernizing Federal Disability Programs[a]: Year Designated: 2003;
* Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation Single-Employer Pension
Insurance Program: Year Designated: 2003;
* Medicare Program[a]: Year Designated: 1990;
* Medicaid Program[a]: Year Designated: 2003;
* National Flood Insurance Program[a]: Year Designated: 2006.
[a] Legislation is likely to be necessary, as a supplement to actions
by the executive branch, in order to effectively address this high-risk
area.
Source: GAO.
[End of table]
2007 High-Risk Changes:
Two areas removed from list:
* U.S. Postal Service Transformation Efforts and Long-Term Outlook;
* HUD Single-Family Mortgage Insurance and Rental Housing Assistance
Programs.
Three new areas added:
* Transforming Federal Oversight of Food Safety;
* Ensuring the Effective Protection of Technologies Critical to U.S.
National Security Interests;
* Financing the Nation’s Transportation System.
Twenty-first Century Challenges Report:
* Provides background, framework, and questions to assist in
reexamining the base.
* Covers entitlements & other mandatory spending, discretionary
spending, and tax policies and programs.
* Based on GAO’s work for the Congress.
{Source: GAO.]
Twelve Reexamination Area:
Mission Areas:
* Defense;
* Education & Employment;
* Financial Regulation & Housing;
* Health Care;
* Homeland Security;
* International Affairs;
* Natural Resources, Energy & Environment;
* Retirement & Disability;
* Science & Technology;
* Transportation.
Crosscutting Areas:
* Improving Governance;
* Reexamining the Tax System.
Illustrative Twenty-first Century Questions: Scientific and
Technological Innovation Challenges:
* How can the federal government develop a more coordinated and
targeted approach to setting the U.S. research agenda that also ensures
the best return on investment?
* Are different kinds of federal incentives needed to encourage greater
private sector collaboration and nurture interdisciplinary research and
development approaches that can enhance U.S. competitiveness and
productivity?
* How can the United States better develop a world-class technical and
scientific domestic workforce that is not as dependent on large inflows
of international students and researchers?
* Do current workforce retraining programs provide adequate incentives
to help the United States develop lifelong learning strategies and
proactive training programs that will meet the needs of a rapidly
changing technological environment?
* How can the federal government effectively utilize advanced
technologies to further enhance homeland security while also protecting
the privacy of U.S. citizens?
* What cyber-security technologies can be applied to protect critical
infrastructures from attack given current threat assessments and what
implementation challenges, such as effective information sharing among
key public and private stakeholders, will have to be addressed?
Three Suggested Areas of Congressional Oversight: Illustrative Examples
Related to IT:
* Targets for near-term oversight:
- Enhancing computer security and deterring identity theft;
* Policies and programs that are in need of fundamental reform and re-
engineering;
- Ensuring a strategic and integrated approach to prepare for, respond
to, recover, and rebuild from catastrophic events;
* Governance issues that should be addressed to help ensure an
economical, efficient, effective, ethical, and equitable federal
government capable of responding to the various challenges and
capitalizing on related opportunities in the 21st century;
- Reviewing the need for various budget controls and legislative
process revisions in light of current deficits and our long-range
fiscal imbalance.
Key Topics Needing Congressional Oversight Related to Information
Technology:
* Establishing accountability measures for implementing effective
information security programs at federal agencies, including effective
policies and practices for detecting, responding, and reporting
information on security incidents;
* Determining the extent to which relevant federal and state
organizations consider risk-based factors when making management and
resource decisions related to catastrophic events;
* Reviewing agencies’ delivery of information technology to improve
mission performance by determining whether major provisions of the
Clinger-Cohen Act are being effectively addressed (e.g., capital
planning and investment control processes, enterprise architecture,
information technology leadership and human capital).
Key Leadership Attributes Needed for These Challenging and Changing
Times:
* Courage;
* Integrity;
* Creativity:
* Stewardship:
* Partnership.
[End of presentation]
Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cghome.htm]:
Contact:
Susan Becker, Acting Managing Director, Public Affairs:
Beckers@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4800:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7149:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Copyright:
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. The published product may be
reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further permission
from GAO. However, because this work may contain copyrighted images or
other material, permission from the copyright holder may be necessary
if you wish to reproduce this material separately.