Politicians Need To Stop Pretending the National Debt Is Sustainable
The reality raises questions about the kind of future we want to leave for the next generation.

Over the years, I've offered many explanations about why the trajectory of the national debt is deeply troubling. At this point, though, my worry isn't rooted in a dogmatic adherence to the principles of a balanced budget. Nor does it come from my desire for a smaller government. Instead, I'm alarmed by politicians' unwillingness to look at the numbers and have a serious discussion about changing course.
When I first started paying close attention, the U.S. was essentially carrying a credit card balance of 40 percent of America's gross domestic product (GDP). Today, according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), that balance hovers around 98 percent. Imagine credit card debt equal to your yearly salary, interest costs piling up, and more inevitable debt coming your way. Congress doesn't seem to mind, which partly explains why even optimistic scenarios project the debt to soar to a staggering 180 percent within 30 years.
Many politicians would rather pretend there's nothing to fear; that the U.S. is such a powerhouse that there will always be people paying our bills. But even for a financial powerhouse of sorts, this reality raises questions about the kind of future we want to leave for the next generation. Further down the path we are on lies a point where interest payments alone consume such a large portion of the budget that government will be unable to fund essential programs and respond to unforeseen crises. We also risk inflation skyrocketing again, which makes the debt-to-GDP look more sustainable on paper as it worsens Americans' standard of living. We also face the prospect of tax increases at a time when economic growth is slowing down.
Still, some would have us believe these are mere theoretical possibilities. That perspective requires the real imagination. The retirement of 75 million baby boomers is not a speculative event. Their exploding health care cost is also a reality happening now, and the obligation is set in law. As a result, the government's deficits are ballooning, adding to our debt and interest costs. Even if interest rates remain low, deficits are undermining the very foundation of our fiscal stability. In 2021, the Manhattan Institute's Brian Riedl wrote a comprehensive report warning of the folly of assuming interest rates will remain indefinitely low. His concerns have since been validated by higher rates further straining the budget.
CBO scenarios, in which the government never pays more than 4.4 percent interest rates for the next 30 years, seem increasingly pollyannaish. Rates above and beyond that are likely, and even a single percentage point will add trillions to the debt over the next few decades.
The pushback against what you've just read often comes from those who believe interest rates can remain perpetually low. That belief was the foundation of the fashionable but short-lived theory of "R versus G"—the relationship between real financing costs and economic growth. According to this theory, if economic growth ("G") outpaces the debt's financing costs ("R"), there's little to worry about. Unfortunately, things fall apart as soon as R goes up, as we've seen in the last few years.
The main mistake behind the R-G theory has been believing that because interest rates had been declining and relatively low for years, they would always stay low. Many of these same people also believed that because we'd had no real inflation since the 1980s, inflation was somehow defeated.
Keep politicians' propensity for wishful economic thinking in mind when, for example, someone argues that we can handle a debt-to-GDP ratio of 200-300 percent like Japan does. Japan is not a model we should emulate. Relative to America, Japan is poor and its economy stagnant, the victim of decades of slow economic and wage growth.
Let's stop confusing the speculative with the imminent and tangible.
If we can finally clear that up, we can address the urgent need to find pragmatic solutions and get our national debt under control. This involves making difficult decisions, including, yes, reforming entitlement programs—especially Social Security and Medicare. And while some reform of the tax code is needed, we must also acknowledge that we cannot solely tax our way out of this situation. Raising taxes on the wealthy, while politically appealing to some, would not only fail to close the gap but also dramatically slow the same economic growth which was supposed to keep us ahead of the debt burden.
To accomplish all of that, we first need politicians who will stop pretending we can continue down this fiscal path.
COPYRIGHT 2024 CREATORS.COM.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
It’s only numbers on paper.
The DEBT is not the DEFICIT. And the DEFICIT is not the DEBT. They are separate problems.
Government BORROWING drives up the debt, not government SPENDING.
The solution to our debt problem is simple: STOP ISSUING DEBT-BASED MONEY! Begin issuing pure “unbacked” fiat money to fund the deficit, rather than going further into debt. The inflationary impact of unbacked dollars is no worse than the inflationary impact of the same amount of debt-backed dollars. Issuing unbacked dollars will halt the increase in the national debt and its crushing $900 billion+ in annual interest. Paying off part of the maturing debt each year and rolling over the rest will eventually bring the national debt (and its taxpayer-financed interest payments) down to zero. See http://www.fixourmoney.com .
I see you're a completely unhinged, delusional moron. In the absence of that backing, why would anybody with 2 brain cells use your proposed "currency"?
For the answer to your question, See http://www.fixourmoney.com . For an example of a viable unbacked “currency”, investigate Bitcoin, which is a lot more successful than the “backed” U.S. dollar.
So you’re not interest in trading me physical gold for Fuddbucks?
The idea that debt-backing is any better is laughable. All debt-backing means is that the government will someday destroy the money it's printed (paying back the debt to the Federal Reserve), and therefore make the remaining currency more valuable. But everyone knows that's never going to happen, so the impact it has on the dollar's value is negligible.
Really, switching to unbacked money would make no difference except making it harder to keep track of.
No, switching to unbacked money will make a BIG difference. Taxpayers will not be paying $1 TRILLION a year interest on the national debt. See http://www.fixourmoney.com .
Five years before a $USD collapse is iffy. Within ten years almost certain.
Agreed.
Question is, does the Euro fall first.
The $USD is in the worst shape on the planet. Except for all other currencies.
Hey dumbass, your dollars lost 20% of their value in under three years.
Must have been a slow news day? So I'll focus on my pet peeves:
"Politicians Need To Stop Pretending the National Debt Is Sustainable" Obviously, they do NOT "need to" or they wouldn't do it. We may need them to, but that's a whole 'nuther problem!
"The reality raises questions about the kind of future we want to leave for the next generation." No, Veronique. WE do not have any questions about the kind of future WE want to leave for the next generation. WE have a problem with the kind of future the politicians are going to leave for the next generation.
When the problem is lack of clear thinking on the part of the politicians and the idiots who elect them, the solution is not lack of clear thinking on the part of the op-ed writers trying to correct that problem!
“Politicians Need To Stop Pretending the National Debt Is Sustainable” Obviously, they do NOT “need to” or they wouldn’t do it. We may need them to, but that’s a whole ‘nuther problem!
That's like someone saying "That guy needs to stop beating his wife" and responding with "Obviously he doesn't need to or he would have stopped. She might need him to, but that's whole 'nuther problem!"
Also, you contradict yourself when you say "WE have a problem with the kind of future the politicians are going to leave for the next generation" and "When the problem is lack of clear thinking on the part of the politicians and the idiots who elect them".
We are leaving this to the next generation because we elect the politicians who are doing this on our behalf. Politicians do what voters want them to do, or they don't get elected. So this is what the electorate wants. "Gimme mine now and fuck the future."
Politicians do what voters want them to do
LOL
How else do the same politicians keep getting reelected?
Look up revealed preferences and public choice theory. You might learn something.
"How else do the same politicians keep getting reelected?"
The two-party duopoly, media censorship and corporate financing of incumbents might have a little something to do with it. Look up limited options and public lack-of-choice theory.
Voters have revealed their preference that an annual deficit of 1 to 2 trillion dollars won't cost a Congressperson his or her job.
Politicians do what voters want them to do
We the people have already decided what kind of future we are leaving to subsequent generations, by not getting rid of politicians who routinely overspend by trillions of dollars every year.
Look at the author blaming Social Security and Medicare when the real problem is immigrants. No surprise because the author defends immigration as well as free trade, and criticized Trump on both. That makes her a deranged leftist, which means she's wrong about everything!
/JesseAz
Were you under some delusion that mass-immigration and tax-free foreign trade was going to balance the budget?
UR the "idiots who elect them".
I'm not throwing a red herring with "immigration" painted on it to distract from the elephant with "Social Security" on one side and "Medicare" on the other.
240B, 10% of the current deficit, is a red herring? Ill add that to the list.
Yeah. Just like the left tossing a red herring with “tax the rich” on one side and “cut the military” on the other while yelling “Forget Social Security and Medicare! Look over there!”
You’re just like them.
Bookmark that.
How am I like that? I’ve talked about all spending on entitlements for decades. Are you drunk again?
Youre the one justifying spending on illegals because other areas spend more. Lol.
I can bookmark your lie if you want me to though. Takes 2s. Meh.
I’ve talked about all spending on entitlements for decades.
I've never seen it. All I've seen is hate against anyone who criticizes Trump, hate against anyone who doesn't hate immigrants, and hate against anyone who doesn't hate China.
Sure you have, drunky. Your pickled brain can’t retain anything.
Maybe it’s because you decided that if you can’t say something mean, you can’t say nothing at all. As a matter of principle. So even if I tried to participate in one of these imaginary discussions of yours, you’d either attack or ignore.
Bookmark this for the first time you don’t attack or ignore, and acknowledge that I’m right and we’re in agreement, without claiming credit.
Do your side bets now. I won't hold my breath.
That's either a lie or Russian disinformation to drum up anti-immigrant hate. There is very little federal spending on immigrants to the US. There may be some impact on border states, but they're quite used to it.
Wrong on both counts, unless NYC is a border city
The approximately $66.4 billion in federal expenditures attributable to illegal aliens is staggering, and constitutes an increase of 45 percent since 2017. This amounts to roughly $3,187 per illegal alien, per year.
https://www.fairus.org/issue/publications-resources/fiscal-burden-illegal-immigration-united-states-taxpayers-2023
Nearly 100,000 asylum seekers have made their way to NYC, and with no end in sight, the city is poised to spend more than $12 billion through Fiscal Year 2025.
https://www.nyc.gov/content/getstuffdone/pages/asylum-seeker-update
You do realize there’s a thousand billions in a trillion, and several trillions in the budget, right?
$66.4 billion is chump change. That’s why you and your fellow haters of immigrants are even less honest (or more stupid, I can never tell) than the leftists who hate soldiers and the rich. What they want to cut is more than your $66B, but still wouldn’t balance the budget. That makes leftists more realistic than you in their delusions!
That’s only NYC, Fatfuck. And the border states are ‘quite used to it? Fuck you.
You should be forced to live in a border town that is under siege.
Six trillion, as in the budget, looks like this.
$6,000,000,000,000
Sixty six billion, what you’re complaining about, looks like this.
$66,000,000,000
Cancel the zeros and you get
6000 and 66.
You’re screaming about $66 out of a $6000 budget.
Find a bigger chunk to complain about. One that will make a difference.
The deficit was $1.2 trillion.
So $1200 of that $6000 was borrowed.
You’re worried about $66.
Was that enough numbers for you?
Well you dumb cunt if you're going to focus on 1 city then you might as well cut SSI and Medicare down to one person and then they don't even show as rounding errors. Are you truly too stupid to not know what an example is?
Yes he is. He’s also intrinsically dishonest. And an alcoholic pussy.
Don't forget "defense" spending.
Seeing as I'm against welfare and want a true cost analysis of SS while pointing out the Medicare problems here for over a decade, you look even stupider.
The fact that your entire argument is that since we spent 1T a year on these programs, who cares if we spend 240B a year who with the democrats wanting asylum for would drive up those SS and Medicare costs even more is even more hilariously ignorant.
Short of Trump getting elected and motivating more Republicans in office to chop more government spending it doesn't appear there is much hesitation right now to just repeat the Venezuelan crisis.
There are good reasons to vote for Trump and I will. But there's no way he can fix this in 4 years.
Trump is not going to be motivated to do much to fix this, even if he recognizes it to be something that requires fixing.
Trump's main efforts if he is elected is to have all those put in jail for trying to put him in jail.
That is an upside.
Kinda hoping for that.
I didn't see a lot of spending "chops" last time Trump won.
How much government spending did Trump chop while adding $8.3 trillion to the national debt?
here
https://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-budget/trumps-2021-budget-would-cut-16-trillion-from-low-income-programs
And P.S. your 8.3T debt figure is just a BS "projected" value including everything till 2029.
Nothing sells deception like leftards.
EdG is stupid, and a liar. He is an example of who needs to be re over from America.
You and all your little socks should have been banned years ago.
That was a PROPOSED budget, which nobody actually takes seriously. He did that to throw a bone to the fiscal conservatives. What did he actually do? How much spending did he actually sign off on? Overall, it's not a pretty picture.
"President Trump signed legislation and approved executive actions costing $7.8 trillion over the decade—compared to $5.0 trillion for President Obama and $6.9 trillion for President Bush, and he enacted these costs in just a single four-year presidential term, compared to his predecessors’ eight years in the Oval Office. The largest drivers were pandemic relief legislation ($3.9 trillion), the 2017 tax cuts ($2.0 trillion), and legislation raising the discretionary spending caps ($1.6 trillion)."
https://manhattan.institute/article/trumps-fiscal-legacy-a-comprehensive-overview-of-spending-taxes-and-deficits
By the way, Trump recently made his true feelings clear about this...
"Under no circumstances should Republicans vote to cut a single penny from Medicare or Social Security."
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-warns-us-house-republicans-not-touch-social-security-medicare-2023-01-20/
And what has been the PROPOSED budget of Biden?
No Trump wasn't/isn't perfect but he has been the Best so far in many aspects and he did motivate the Republican base to be less RINO than before.
“I’m alarmed by politicians’ unwillingness to look at the numbers and have a serious discussion about changing course.”
Just take a look at the reaction to Javier Milei’s nascent efforts to impact the Argentine economy’s 200% inflation rate, among other fundamental problems [crony capitalism and labor unions]; anything that gores anyone’s ox is going to be political suicide. That is why our politicians will not touch this, because the cure is becoming more painful by the day.
Much better to let it run it’s course to disaster, at which point the bums will be thrown out and a new crop of mostly demagogues will be swept into power. You know, they way Hitler “fixed things” in Germany beginning in 1933.
And besides, M[agic] M[oney] T[ree] says it's all gonna be ok.
+1000000 lol.... That's far to much clarity to handle. MMT theory can't just be summarized so well; it needs complications that enable armed-theft to happen.
And the smart people tell us. Especially the ones who win book prizes and McArthur Fellowships; who can argue with that?
You know, they way Hitler “fixed things” in Germany beginning in 1933.
Well, he did make the trains run on time... So he's got that goin' for him...
Well that was Mussolini, but a fascist by any other name stinks just as much.
I believe it only remains to be seen whether the man riding in on horseback with be far left or far right, not that it will make any difference.
Pretty sure the trains to Auschwitz, Dachau, and various other "garden spots" around The Third Reich ran on time too, but I'll accept the correction.
Also, the trains didn't really run on time. It's something of a myth. He took credit for infrastructure improvements that took place after WWI, even though any improvement over the wartime operation of trains was likely to happen. They were still frequently late and in disarray, though he was able to strongarm compliance for visits from big VIPs.
I fear Milei's days are numbered. He will have to be eliminated.
Hopefully the CIA will take him out. He's going to completely destroy an otherwise incredible country.
Holy crap.
The USA is about 12 years away from own Milei.
Our political class of the same elite as the WEF. Not only are they unconcerned about the debt they are actively working to destroy the worldwide economy with climate hysteria and GOF "pandemics". An economic collapse will not affect them personally at all. And starving most of the world's population is a necessary component of their vision. The USD is already past the point of no return and when it's all over our overlords will claim that nobody saw it coming.
The politicians are mostly old so they wont be around when the bill comes due. So they don't care.
Problem is Republicans think the answer to every problem is lower taxes and more defense spending while Democrats want higher social spending.
We do need a balanced budget amendment.
I agree with the author, but Reason should have a serious discussion about the impact of immigration on this problem.
Opening the border to pull in millions of new workers to support the baby boomers is attractive. But the problem is those young workers eventually grow old themselves and will use social security in their old age too. It's just going to create even more debt. Realistically, we need to switch from SS to a 401k type of plan, make serious cuts to both military and social services across the board. Taxing the rich won't solve this, because then the rich will flee to tax havens.
The only other solution is hyperinflation, like what Germany did in the Weimar days, which solved their debt but destroyed the government and led to the rise of people like Hitler.
Voters like subsidies and free shit and bullshit jobs and government contracts and grant money and no risk returns. The academic study of magic, oops Modern Monetary Theory is an economic study to intentionally collapse western civilization.
They're not pretending anything, they're just doing a job. They make no promises as to the long-term viability of what they're doing. You seem to assume that because they're doing it, they think it's sustainable. Actually they're just the distillation of voters' motivations.
Actually they’re just the distillation of
voters’re-election motivations.It’s so fucking easy to solve all this shit by having catastrophic government insurance that kicks in at a percentage of AGI. NO EXCEPTIONS. But the Medicare/medicaid grifter running the country, Zients, wouldn’t like that.
They won’t even allow you to buy catastrophic insurance, they sure as hell aren’t going to supply it.
Future generations? Sounds like their problem. They didn’t get to vote on it? Too bad, they should have been born sooner. You snooze, you lose.
The reality raises questions about the kind of future we want to leave for the next generation.
Spoiler alert. They'll need to know Chinese.
China is an economic, demographic, and social disaster area. They are lucky if they are even around as a nation half a century from now.
And saying that they need to “know Chinese” makes about as much sense as saying that someone needs to “know European”. There is no such language as “Chinese”.
Well, I mean, "The free fall we're in isn't sustainable" is certainly a true thing to say when you've jumped off the top of a skyscraper, and are passing the 20th floor. But I'm not sure that it's really a useful thing to say at this point.
When Gingrich spiked the balanced budget amendment back in '95, instead of making a serious effort to pass it, we probably passed the point where actually preventing a crash was politically possible.
Responding to the 2008 crash by redoubling spending increases probably caused us to pass the point where avoiding the crash was economically possible.
Responding to Covid by turning the borrowing up to 11 was the economic equivalent of the falling guy firing up a rocket backpack and going into a vertical power dive. It probably moved the inevitable crash up by a decade, easy.
At this point, the appropriate topic for discussion is what to do when the crash comes, and how to prepare for it. It's already way too late to avoid.
De Rugy needs to stop pretending that she’s a libertarian or an economist.
Great article, Mike. I appreciate your work, i’m now creating over $35,200 dollars each month simply by doing a simple job online! I Great article, Mike. I appreciate your work, i’m now creating over $35,000 dollars each month simply by doing a simple job online! I do know You currently making a lot of greenbacks online from $28,000 dollars, its simple online operating jobs.
.
.
Just open the link————————————>>> http://Www.work.salary49.Com