In 2008, the federal government’s receipts were 17% of GNP, and its expenditures including transfer payments were 21.4% of GNP (implying the budget deficit was 4.4% of GNP). If State and Local taxes and expenditures are added to those numbers, they become 30.5% and 35.2% of GNP, respectively. For many reasons, however, government’s reach is wider than reflected in those numbers. Government does not just spend its own tax revenue; it spends other people’s money as well.
For just one example, consider environmental regulations. I have not seen a recent estimate of the total costs of environmental protection, so I will rely on some older numbers. Note, however, than none of this discussion is meant to imply that the environment should not be protected! Maybe protections should be more limited, or expanded. The point is just that measured dollar expenditure by government does not accurately reflect its true size.
In “The Cost of Clean”, the U.S. EPA in 1990 estimated that the total private cost of required environmental protection was approximately $115 billion (in 1990 dollars) or 2.1% of GNP. By the year 2000, they said the value could approach 2.8% of GNP. If I assume the same rate of growth through 2008, then these private costs of environmental protection could be as high as 3.5% of GNP by 2008, a figure that would be $514.0 billion, or 21.6% of non-defense federal expenditures.
This cost of environmental protection comes mainly in the form of mandates imposed on firms. Examples of mandates include the forced adoption of best practices pollution abatement technology or binding emission rates (e.g. limits on pollution per unit of output). However, these mandates are just like taxes in two respects. First, the government imposes these costs on private firms. Second, the mandates provide “public goods” like clean air and water that we all can enjoy.
In other words, if these costs to private firms were converted into an equivalent tax program with direct government expenditures, then U.S. discretionary spending would appear to be 21.6% higher. These expenditures do not appear explicitly in the federal budget, so they merit further study. How do we divide our limited resources between private or public consumption, versus private or public investment? How much of that environmental spending is in each category? What are we getting for these outlays? How can we measure the value of the improved environment? Do these expenditures provide environmental benefits now, or are they investment in the future?
In order address these questions, a full “environmental budget” would need to show each cost, including the cost of complexity created by mandates. In addition, some environmental protection programs are required by state and local governments (just like taxes). Each of the programs has implicit transfers from one state to another, and from one income group to another (just like taxes). Why are these programs not evaluated just like taxes?