Washington Post Misses the Mark on Federal Credit Accounting

June 4, 2014 at 4:58 pm

A Washington Post editorial today mistakenly implies that policymakers omit from the federal budget some of the costs of government loans by putting them “off-budget.”

In fact, the current accounting method for federal credit programs fully accounts for all the cash flows associated with loans and loan guarantees over their lifetimes.  The budget estimates include all expected defaults, late repayments, changes in interest rates, and other factors that affect a loan’s cost to the government.

The approach that the Post favors — so-called “fair-value accounting” — would add a cost to the budget on top of the actual cash flows.  The add-on would equal the extra amount that private lenders would charge if they, rather than the government, issued the loans or loan guarantees.  It would reflect the fact that private individuals are risk-averse and dislike a loss more than they like an equal gain.

Risk-aversion doesn’t belong in the federal budget because it isn’t a cost that the federal government actually incurs.  It never has to be covered by additional taxes or borrowing.

“Whatever decisions the government makes, its books should reflect their actual costs fully and realistically,” the Post says.  That’s precisely what existing credit accounting already does, as we have explained.  Adding a risk-aversion penalty that represents a cost that the government doesn’t bear would mean that the government’s books would diverge from actual costs.

Former Congressional Budget Office Director Robert Reischauer strongly supports the current approach to credit accounting.  He writes, “A society’s aversion to risk may be an appropriate factor for policymakers to take into account in a cost-benefit assessment of any spending or tax proposal but adding a cost to the budget does not make sense.”

Print Friendly

More About Paul N. Van de Water

Paul N. Van de Water

Paul N. Van de Water is a Senior Fellow at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, where he specializes in Medicare, Social Security, and health coverage issues.

Full bio | Blog Archive | Research archive at CBPP.org

Your Comment

Comment Policy:

Thank you for joining the conversation about important policy issues. Comments are limited to 1,500 characters and are subject to approval and moderation. We reserve the right to remove comments that:

  • are injurious, defamatory, profane, off-topic or inappropriate;
  • contain personal attacks or racist, sexist, homophobic, or other slurs;
  • solicit and/or advertise for personal blogs and websites or to sell products or services;
  • may infringe the copyright or intellectual property rights of others or other applicable laws or regulations; or
  • are otherwise inconsistent with the goals of this blog.

Posted comments do not necessarily represent the views of the CBPP and do not constitute official endorsement by CBPP. Please note that comments will be approved during the Center's business hours. If you have questions, please contact communications@cbpp.org.

+ three = 9

 characters available