Will 2025 Be the Year of U.S. Fiscal Sanity?
With inflation risks persisting and entitlement spending surging, the situation cannot be ignored. But we never should have gotten to this point to begin with.

The arrival of a new presidential administration invokes new beginnings and a break from the past. Still, realities from previous administrations remain, such as a fiscal challenge that demands immediate attention. It may weigh on the newcomers even more than they realize today. We can only hope they take it more seriously than their predecessors have done.
The longstanding notion that debt accumulation is benign, based largely on interest rates that for a time fell below growth rates, has proven dangerously misleading. This flawed thinking ignored both human nature and economic reality: Politicians rarely limit borrowing to one-time emergencies (as the theory requires), and interest rates inevitably rise. Today, we face the consequences of these miscalculations.
As economist Hanno Lustig of Stanford University rightly noted on X, "Right now, with the 10 year US Treasury yield trading well above 4.5% and the federal government spending roughly the equivalent of the defense budget just on interest expenses, a fairly broad-based consensus seems to be developing among economists that the fiscal path we're on is in fact not a sustainable one, as [Federal Reserve Chair] Jay Powell pointed out 4 weeks ago."
Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen agrees. She recently said, "Well, I am concerned about fiscal sustainability," adding, "I believe that the deficit needs to be brought down, especially now that we're in an environment of higher interest rates."
With inflation risks persisting and entitlement spending surging, the situation cannot be ignored. So here's hoping Lustig is right that "2024 may also be remembered as the year U.S. fiscal exuberance died."
My complaint, however, is that we got to this point to begin with.
Yes, incentives make politicians eager to spend while letting their successors figure out how to pay. However, encouraging this irresponsible behavior with theories about free lunches and interest rates always being low was always unwise. It was never a secret that spending was set to explode far beyond what the feds raised in revenue, followed eventually by an increase in interest rates.
Politicians who never needed the encouragement went all out for decades and sped spending up during the pandemic without reversing course afterward. Inflation emerged, interest rates went up, interest payments skyrocketed, and now we are on thinner fiscal ice than ever before.
Many people share the blame. Politicians, of course, but also Yellen and Powell, who a few years ago encouraged spending exuberance and cheered the pricey American Rescue Plan.
The situation has reached a critical juncture. Social Security and Medicare costs are projected to rise dramatically as the baby boomer generation keeps retiring, adding further pressure to an already strained federal budget. Politically, it would be easy to extend Donald Trump's 2017 tax cuts without offsetting the lost revenue, which could worsen our fiscal trajectory.
There's also Trump's foolish determination to impose growth-slowing tariffs. Some of the negative effects would be offset if the administration is successful in deregulating the economy, and the energy sector in particular. These reforms would boost productivity and economic growth without requiring additional federal spending, strengthening the economy while maintaining fiscal discipline. However, this will be remarkably hard and slow work.
At the end of the day, reforming entitlement programs is necessary. This includes gradually raising eligibility ages, implementing means-testing for benefits, and introducing market mechanisms to control costs while maintaining essential services.
And while the extensions of existing tax provisions must be offset with some spending reductions, Congress should use the opportunity to boost the economy through long-needed tax reform. This approach should be reinforced through strict budget enforcement mechanisms, including statutory caps on discretionary spending and enhanced pay-as-you-go rules for new legislation.
But above all, politicians must refrain from believing any enablers who claim austerity can wait. Theories about growing out of our future debt aren't credible. Neither are theories about fiscal discipline through the imposition of tariffs, nor theories about achieving fiscal stability without touching entitlement spending.
A credible commitment to fiscal responsibility will yield significant economic advantages. Markets will respond to reduced government borrowing with lower long-term interest rates. Private investment will expand as fewer private projects are crowded out by government borrowing. Uncle Sam will maintain the ability to respond to genuine emergencies while improving intergenerational equity by reducing the burden on future taxpayers.
We have seen the limitations of wishful thinking that debt doesn't matter. The incoming administration should usher in a new day by recognizing reality and acting decisively to address fiscal challenges. Failure risks America's economic stability and prosperity for generations to come.
COPYRIGHT 2025 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
No grasshopper, it will not.
Indeed. The whole point of the Fed is to make it easier for the government to borrow money, and it would seem silly to borrow money just to stash away for a rainy day.
Stop funding Israel.
Israel can do nothing on its own. It needs useful idiots who think they are the good guys for doing Israel’s dirty work.
Zionists control all western governments and many more. Those they don’t control have joined the South African ICJ genocide case against Israel.
Remember the USS Liberty. LBJ and Israel conspired to kill those Americans and sink that ship blaming the Arabs to bring the US into WW3. It would have worked if they had sunk the ship.
On December 11 2024 Candace Owens interviewed Phil Tourney a surviving sailor and current president of the USS Liberty veterans organization. Earning Ms Owens the coveted antisemite of the year award.
If you consider yourself a US PATRIOT, putting America first, you need to see this interview and WAKE UP!
https://www.lewrockwell.com/political-theatre/candace-owens-interviews-uss-liberty-survivor-phil-tourney/
Israel is nothing but a genocidal terrorist state that can be stopped by simply ceasing the endless flow of funding and armaments.
Our enemy isn’t overseas. It’s the traitors in our governments who put Israel first, like LBJ did. Like 911.
Our own governments need cleaning first to get these Zionist traitors out.
So, who do we fight?
Misek, you're antisemitic trash.
Typical Jew response.
You lie, commit atrocities, when the truth exposes you, you resort to ad hominem tropes.
We see you for what you are.
Truth hurts, dipshit.
Typical Jew response. TJR 🙂
The truth doesn’t hurt fuckwit, it helps everything on earth evolve.
If you ever actually refute anything that is wrong, you’ll know how that really feels.
Until then, you get to feel the sting of your lies being refuted and all you can do is feebly bleat “refuted”
Sucks to be Jew.
Misek, you're a Nazi shit-stain.
Refuted.
""Typical Jew response.
You lie, commit atrocities, ""
A typical "Jew" response is lying? You think liars should be killed. Therefore, you think Jews should be killed?
I'm pretty sure XY isn't commenting atrocities. So you must be referring to Jews as group.
You don't have to be antisemitic to want government funding of Israel to be cut off!
That's true, but when a slimy pile of Nazi shit proposes it, it has nothing to do with "funding".
Fun fact: Replying to charges of antisemitism with "Typical Jew response" is a full admission of antisemitism.
The irony.
Refuted.
Obama gave Iran $4 billion in cash.
Biden gave Iran more money.
When the democrats stop giving a known terrorist state money, then you can whine and snivel about America giving Israel money.
Which US president conspired with Iran to kill American citizens and sink a US military ship to start WW3?
Like LBJ and Israel did.
Will 2025 Be the Year of U.S. Fiscal Sanity?
No.
I'm pretty sure 2025 will be the year we kick the can down the road - using debt to avoid paying our bills. Crazy I know. That used to be called kiting a check
"I'm pretty sure 2025 will be the year we kick the can down the road - using debt to avoid paying our bills. "
I thought that was 2024.
And 2023, 2022,2021,2020,2019,2018,2017,2016, 2015, 2014....
It would be insanity to do anything different
It's 100% fixable. It means some harsh choices, but there is light at the end of the tunnel after committing to them.
Roughly speaking, the government spends about 40% of its money on legitimate government purposes* and 60% on entitlements. Conversely, it collects 60% of the cost of that in taxes to pay for it and borrows the other 40%.
* (assume for sake of argument that "legitimate government purposes" means "things the government needs to run properly" - we know it doesn't, but just run with it.)
I mean, it's simple math. The entitlement spending is a direct path to economic ruin. And no, increasing the taxes - even to 100% - won't cover it. Wouldn't even get us through a single fiscal year.
Eliminating the debt is simple. End any and all entitlement spending - from healthcare to welfare - immediately. Cold turkey. Don't just turn off the spigot - weld the pipe shut. Now - with no change in taxation whatsoever - we're collecting more than enough taxes to cover legitimate government spending* and the surplus can pay down the debt.
And obviously this gets even easier once we start looking at "legitimate government purposes" and yanking the reigns on that nonsense too. A good start would be anything Environmental, LGBT, or DEI. Let's hope DOGE steps up to that plate.
In a decade, maybe two, we could get out of the red, into the black, and then all take a nice well-deserved tax cut.
But so long as entitlements and special interests are allowed to leech off the American taxpayer - our economy will be a bucket that leaks faster than it can be filled.
Or they could all quit and go home, no hard feelings.
One scheme is impractical and unlikely. The other is unlikely and impractical.
I'll wait until tomorrow morning until after you've sobered up.
Well, here it is, tomorrow morning. Let's see your brilliant plan now.
With the Trump circus in town, “sanity” will be non-existent.
Because it's been in town for the last four years with our dementia patient and God knows who (Zelensky) actually running the country?
We're heading for the cliff with the pedal to the floor. It's too late to hit the brakes. I'm glad I'm not young.
The biggest problem is that the government has put the citizens in a position they can't afford to call on government to stop the spending. Stop welfare today and in two weeks there will be people starving and fires in every city, because we've created massive dependency on welfare. We paid for SSI for our entire lives, more people than ever are dependent on it because we're being kept alive far longer and the government took 13% of every paycheck by force to supply us with guaranteed old age income, now we're supposed to figure out how to support ourselves when we're too old to work and just give up the millions we paid in? We involuntarily paid in 8% of every paycheck for medicare. The government insured that politicians would have a steady spending source for themselves while promising us income and health care and food without telling us we'd only get it (and it would be mediocre to terrible) until the ponzi scheme collapsed. How many Americans will vote for the politician who tells us they can't give us what we forked out over 20% of every paycheck to have. It was said that democracies only last until the populace realizes it can vote itself largess and charity, then it is destroyed by bankruptcy. We traded our republic for a democracy and are now seeing the truth in that.
What you say is sad but true.
From the article...
"At the end of the day, reforming entitlement programs is necessary. This includes gradually raising eligibility ages, implementing means-testing for benefits..."
I have seen other Reason writers writing similar things, and it makes me angry, these hints of Reason supporting "rich people who don't need Social Security should get less or none." Grasshopper and the ant... Those of us who worked hard AND SAVED OUR MONEY will be punished, compared to those who partied hard, pissed away their money, and snorted lots of coke! Where is the "justice" in such an approach? This idea just turns Social Security into yet another welfare program, and NOT a retirement program!
Of course you will be punished for saving. What do you think taxes are? SSI was SOLD as a retirement program. It isn't one. Anyone who depends on it is a moron or an unfortunate.
I'd prefer to eliminate it completely. Let the unsympathetic poor starve. I'll settle for means testing it and letting the well to do have a little less than they would have.
SSI is a HORRIBLE, EVIL, ABOMINATION. It is the worst sort of government program. It gives extra money to people who don't need it and NOT ENOUGH money to people who do need it.
How have other countries been managing similar problems?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pensions_in_Chile
Has worked well in Chile last time I read up on it...
The Chileans are unhappy with it because it's not a welfare program like in Canada and the USA.
"Democracy" and "republic" are synonyms. You may try to true-Scotsman your way out of this, equivocate all you want, but the solutions are not in the meaning of the words.
Democracy and Republic are two different things. You can have democracy without having a republic and you can have a republic without democracy or vice versa. We are a democratic republic, we do use democracy to a limited extent, but it's only required under the constitution for a limited number of things, all federal. States and cities and counties can choose their leaders by any means they desire, they don't even have to allow elections at all other than for certain federal posts like representative, for governor of the state or mayor of the city they can actually just make the candidates do rock paper scissors if that's how the citizen want to do it. And it's the states who elect the president, not the people, that's what the electoral college is all about. Because we allow the people of the states to vote for their state's electors don't make them the peoples personal electors, that's just how the citizens of the states prefer to choose them.
Everybody is talking about the spending side, and that is fine.
But what about the revenue side...Might we 'drill baby drill' and use the proceeds to pay down the national debt while freezing or reducing spending?
For example, what stops a POTUS Trump from having the Fed govt extract oil/gas offshore and selling it on the world market. That is how Norway built a sovereign wealth fund.
The key to lowering inflation and lowering prices is dramatically lowering the cost of energy.
Revenue isn't the answer because for every new dollar that the federal government brings in, Congress spends a buck twenty five. Spending is the problem.
""for every new dollar that the federal government brings in, Congress spends a buck twenty five.""
It's an unwritten rule on the hill.
Exactly. Federal tax revenues went up 20% in the 5 years after the Trump tax cuts. But spending went up 50%.
"Revenue isn't the answer because for every new dollar that the federal government brings in, Congress spends a buck twenty five."
Personally, I think you are being overly optimistic. It's probably closer to $2 in new spending for every $1 in new revenue.
"...For example, what stops a POTUS Trump from having the Fed govt extract oil/gas offshore and selling it on the world market...
The constitution.
No.
Oh yeah. Fuck you, cut spending.
Cut spending drastically.
Get ready. Articles like this are what we have to look forward to for the next four years minimum. The clowns at Reason are butthurt that Trump won the election. So all we are going to see are articles criticizing the Republicans no matter what they do. These articles were scarce when the scam that is the Biden Administration was in office. I'll go back to what I've said previously. Trump could save a toddler from being eaten by a lion and Reason's headline would be "Trump Cruel to Animals. Denies a Lion Food."
These articles were scarce when the scam that is the Biden Administration was in office.
That's why I say "This article doesn't exist because it defies the narrative" or something similar when tReason writes and article critical of Democrats.
The first thing to do in any such discussion (as concerns the USA at least; possibly similar in some other countries) is to separate out any consideration of social security (incl. Medicare). Unless FICA is to be put explicitly on-budget — which would be a big deal, a game changer, and generally a bad development (albeit with possibly the salutary effect of abrogating any idea of there being anything "owed" or "committed" by it) — it needs its own reform into fiscal sanity, separate from the rest of federal income and expenditures.
Then we have to consider what would be likely spending initiatives. Here we can be optimistic, and assume there won't be any significant ones. In that case the budget gets into the black fairly easily. Even interest rates go down if there's less pressure to borrow. Or we can be pessimistic and assume that any chance they get to spend, they will, lest the Republicans be accused of being too cheap compared to the Democrats.
Drags out Magic 8 Ball, gives it a shake....
"Signs Point to No"
"Will 2025 Be the Year of U.S. Fiscal Sanity?"
No.
Fiscal sanity is not a part of the House of Representatives or the Senate's vocabulary as history has shown time and again.
Although there is a notable difference with the last [D]-trifecta running a standard deficit 3-TIMES that of the last [R]-trifecta and that trend is almost 100% throughout all of history.
Why Leftards are stupid 101.
You can't LEARN if your Political Bias Blame-Shifting won't let you LEARN.
Subject analysis Veronique de Rugy.....
WE are in a real mess after the Biden Administration and [D]-trifecta.
.....but It's all Trumps Fault.
As every Leftard continues on doing by blaming the FDR-Great Depression on the previous [R], the 08 Recession on the previous [R] well every disaster to ever hit the USA (It's not us; It's always your fault!)
To be fair, the Great Depression was largely the fault of the earlier administrations. The length of the Depression (until 1949) was completely the fault of FDR.
Indeed. I'd peg it as mostly a consequence of the Federal Reserve Act (also a [D] pitched/supported bill). And there's certainly enough RINO blame to go around something Democrats don't ever do (blame their own). If they did they might have to identify-as Lefty-Libertarians.
Will 2025 Be the Year of U.S. Fiscal Sanity?
Hey, Veronique, do you know where I can buy what you've been smoking?
"The longstanding notion that debt accumulation is benign, based largely on interest rates that for a time fell below growth rates, has proven dangerously misleading. "
Simplified: When the economy has real growth of 2.5% and the interest on debt is 3% of the economy, there is no way out. The situation is unstable.
Either the economy will shrink until it complete implodes or the money supply will be expanded until the economy collapses.
Quoting Clubber Lang: "My prediction is pain".