Testimony: Dr. Schultze strongly recommended against adopting a capital budget. He asserted that the major issue before the Commission is whether the Federal government's net investment outlays should be financed by borrowing. He believes adopting this rule would be a mistake at any time--but especially under the current economic and political circumstances. He elaborated on the following three issues to prove his point:
He said the borrow-for-investment rule leads to a political "struggle for investment identity." This struggle creates constant procedural battles over budget rules, reversing the painfully won current budget discipline. He agreed with Federal Reserve Governor Edward Gramlich's testimony that the rule would further complicate already arcane budget rules.
Dr. Schultze advanced two reasons why State and local capital budgets are not relevant to the Federal budget. First, unlike State and local governments, the Federal government can "print money and buy its securities when things get tough," which eliminates a powerful self-limiting device. Second, the Federal government need worry far less than State and local governments about individual taxpayers and businesses' fleeing the jurisdiction if tax bills build-up.
Questions from the Commissioners: Questions were on the nation's State of economy, effects of budgetary caps and tradeoffs between public and private investments.
Q. You said when the economy is at full utilization
of resources, borrowing reduces private investment, hence, GDP. How often
in the past has the economy been in full utilization?
Q. Due to caps on budget authority and outlays, does
it really matter whether the Federal government funds capital investments
from current revenues or borrowing?
Q. Do you believe we don't need that much more capital
President and First Lady | Vice President and Mrs. Gore