Last updated 4 days ago. Our resources are updated regularly but please keep in mind that links, programs, policies, and contact information do change.
The United States faces a mounting fiscal challenge that affects every American: a national debt exceeding $37 trillion and growing rapidly. This guide explains the scale of America’s fiscal challenges and the pathways available to address them.
Debt vs. Deficit: The Essential Difference
The national debt represents the total amount the U.S. federal government has borrowed throughout its history to meet financial obligations. To cover expenses that exceed revenues, the government borrows money by selling marketable securities such as Treasury bonds, bills, notes, and Treasury Inflation-Protected Securities.
Think of federal finances like household finances. When a family spends more than it earns in a month, the difference is its deficit. To cover this shortfall, the family might use a credit card. The amount charged that month represents the government’s annual budget deficit. The national debt is the total outstanding balance on that credit card.
Stock vs. Flow Concepts
The distinction between debt and deficit mirrors the difference between water in a bathtub and water flowing from a faucet.
The deficit is a “flow” concept. It measures the shortfall over a specific period, typically one fiscal year running from October 1 to September 30. A deficit occurs when total government spending exceeds total income in that year. For fiscal year 2024, the federal government spent $6.75 trillion while collecting $4.92 trillion in revenue, resulting in a $1.83 trillion deficit.
The debt is a “stock” concept representing the total accumulated amount owed at a single point in time. Each year’s deficit adds to the total national debt. The opposite of a deficit is a surplus, occurring when revenues exceed spending. The U.S. government has run a surplus in only 12 nonconsecutive years since 1933, with the most recent in fiscal year 2001.
Why This Matters
This stock-and-flow dynamic reveals a critical challenge in fiscal policy. To stop the debt from growing, the annual budget must be balanced, meaning the deficit must be zero. To actually reduce total debt, the government must run a surplus.
This explains why policymakers can enact legislation that “reduces the deficit” by a certain amount, yet the national debt continues climbing. A smaller deficit means the government borrows less than it otherwise would have, but it’s still borrowing and adding to total debt.
Measuring the Debt Burden
The raw dollar figure of the national debt can be difficult to contextualize. A more meaningful measurement compares it to the size of the overall economy through the debt-to-GDP ratio.
This metric compares a country’s total public debt to its Gross Domestic Product, which represents the total monetary value of all goods and services produced within the country annually. The debt-to-GDP ratio assesses a nation’s ability to generate the economic output needed to pay back its debts.
For fiscal year 2024, the U.S. national debt of $35.46 trillion exceeded its average GDP of $28.83 trillion, resulting in a debt-to-GDP ratio of 123%. This level is historically high, rivaling the period immediately following massive borrowing to finance World War II.
While no universally agreed-upon threshold exists for when a debt-to-GDP ratio becomes dangerous, some economic studies suggest that levels exceeding 77% for prolonged periods can lead to significant slowdowns in economic growth.
The Debt Ceiling Explained
A recurring feature of U.S. fiscal debate is the debt ceiling, a statutory cap imposed by Congress on the total amount the federal government is authorized to borrow. The United States is one of the few developed nations, along with Denmark, to have such a specific monetary limit on its national debt.
Raising the debt ceiling does not authorize new spending. Rather, it allows the Treasury Department to borrow money needed to pay for financial obligations Congress has already approved in prior legislation. These existing obligations include Social Security and Medicare benefits, military salaries, interest on the national debt, and tax refunds.
Political Tool, Not Economic Tool
The debt ceiling structure creates a unique political dynamic. It establishes high-stakes negotiation over paying for past decisions, transforming what would otherwise be routine administrative function into a point of leverage for political parties.
Failure to raise the debt limit when necessary would mean the U.S. government could not pay all its bills on time, forcing it to default on legal obligations for the first time in history. Economists and financial experts broadly agree such a default would have catastrophic economic consequences, likely triggering financial crisis and severely damaging the U.S. dollar’s role as the world’s primary reserve currency.
Current State of U.S. Debt
As of 2025, the total national debt has surpassed $37 trillion. This figure exceeds the combined annual economic output of the entire Eurozone and China. The pace of debt accumulation has accelerated dramatically, with the nation now adding another trillion dollars approximately every five months.
Projected Growth
Projections from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office indicate that if current laws governing taxes and spending remain generally unchanged, the national debt will exceed $52 trillion by fiscal year 2035. Looking further ahead, the CBO projects debt held by the public will reach 116% of GDP by 2034 and a staggering 172% of GDP by 2054.
Interest Payments: The Growing Crisis
One of the most direct consequences of high and rising national debt is the cost of servicing it. Interest payments are now the fastest-growing part of the federal budget. The United States currently spends over $2.6 billion on interest payments every single day.
In fiscal year 2024, the government’s net interest expense (the total interest paid on government debt minus interest income the government receives) totaled $879.9 billion, representing 13% of all federal expenditures – the highest share in a quarter-century. This amount exceeded the entire budget for national defense ($873.5 billion) and total spending on Medicare ($874.1 billion).
Interest on the debt is now the government’s third-largest spending category, behind only Social Security and healthcare services.
The Interest Rate Factor
This explosive growth in interest costs results from two factors: the enormous size of the underlying debt and a sharp increase in interest rates. For much of the past two decades, the federal government benefited from historically low interest rates, which helped keep interest payments manageable even as total debt grew.
That era has ended. In response to high inflation, the Federal Reserve began raising its policy rate in 2022, which increased borrowing costs for the Treasury. The average interest rate on all federal debt more than doubled, climbing from 1.556% in January 2022 to 3.352% by July 2025.
The Feedback Loop
This dynamic creates a dangerous feedback loop. Higher debt levels lead to higher interest payments. Because interest payments are mandatory federal spending, they increase the annual deficit. A higher deficit requires more borrowing, which adds to total debt. This leads to even higher interest payments in the future, creating a cycle that becomes increasingly difficult to break.
Who Owns the Debt
A common misconception is that U.S. debt is primarily owned by foreign countries like China. While foreign entities are significant holders, the majority is actually owned by domestic individuals and institutions.
The national debt divides into two categories:
Debt Held by the Public
This portion is sold on the open market to investors. As of December 2023, this amounted to about $26.5 trillion. The ownership is diverse:
Domestic Holders: Roughly two-thirds of this debt is owned domestically, including private investors, mutual funds (holding nearly $4.5 trillion), banks ($1.9 trillion), public and private pension funds ($956 billion), and state and local governments ($1.7 trillion). The U.S. Federal Reserve System holds about $4.6 trillion in Treasury securities.
Foreign Holders: About one-third of publicly held debt is owned by foreign individuals, governments, and central banks. As of May 2025, the largest foreign holder was Japan (over $1.1 trillion), followed by the United Kingdom ($809.4 billion) and China ($756.3 billion).
Intragovernmental Holdings
This portion represents debt the government essentially owes to itself. As of December 2023, this was about $12.1 trillion. This debt arises when government-administered trust funds collect more revenue than needed to pay out in a given year.
By law, these surpluses must be invested in special, nonmarketable Treasury securities. The largest holdings belong to:
- Social Security Trust Funds: Nearly $2.7 trillion
- Military Retirement Funds: More than $2.2 trillion
- Medicare Trust Funds: A combined $425.3 billion
The Trust Fund Reality
The concept of intragovernmental debt can be confusing. It represents a real legal obligation to pay future benefits to retirees, veterans, and Medicare recipients. However, the cash from those trust fund surpluses has already been borrowed by the Treasury and used to fund general government operations.
When these trust funds need to redeem their bonds to pay benefits, the Treasury must find the necessary cash by raising taxes, cutting other spending, or borrowing more money from the public. The “trust fund” is not a locked box of cash but a collection of IOUs the government must honor through future fiscal actions.
Key Federal Financial Metrics
| Metric | Figure | Fiscal Year |
|---|---|---|
| Total National Debt | ~$37.4 Trillion | 2025 (Daily) |
| Debt-to-GDP Ratio | 123% | 2024 |
| Annual Budget Deficit | $1.83 Trillion | 2024 |
| Total Federal Spending | $6.75 Trillion | 2024 |
| Total Federal Revenue | $4.92 Trillion | 2024 |
| Net Interest Costs | $879.9 Billion | 2024 |
How America Reached This Point
The current state of U.S. debt is not the result of a single event or policy but the culmination of decades of decisions, crises, and evolving demographic and economic trends.
Historical Pattern of Borrowing
The United States has carried public debt since its beginning, starting with over $75 million borrowed to finance the American Revolutionary War. For most of the nation’s history, the debt-to-GDP ratio followed a predictable pattern: sharp spikes during major national emergencies followed by gradual decline during subsequent periods of peace and economic growth.
Major events that caused these spikes include:
The Civil War: The debt grew over 4,000%, from $65 million in 1860 to nearly $3 billion by 1865.
World War I: Financing U.S. involvement pushed the debt to roughly $22 billion.
The Great Depression and World War II: This period saw the most dramatic increase. The combination of economic collapse and massive war mobilization pushed the debt-to-GDP ratio to its historical peak of 106% in 1946.
Breaking the Historical Pattern
Following World War II, the U.S. entered a long period of fiscal consolidation. Strong economic growth and relatively restrained spending caused the debt-to-GDP ratio to fall rapidly, reaching a low point in 1974. However, in recent decades, this historical pattern has broken down.
Instead of declining during noncrisis periods, the debt has risen steadily, with sharp accelerations tied to specific events:
The 1980s and early 1990s: A combination of significant tax cuts and increased military spending under the Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations led to a sharp rise in deficits and debt.
The 2008 Great Recession: The financial crisis led to a steep drop in tax revenues and a surge in spending on economic stimulus and safety net programs, causing deficits to soar.
The COVID-19 Pandemic: The federal government responded with trillions in economic relief, including stimulus payments, expanded unemployment benefits, and business loans. This massive spending, coupled with revenue drops, caused federal spending to increase about 50% from FY 2019 to FY 2021 and pushed the debt-to-GDP ratio to an all-time high of 132.8% in the second quarter of 2020.
The Structural Spending Problem
While crises have accelerated debt growth, the fundamental driver of the modern debt problem is a long-term, structural mismatch between federal spending commitments and revenue collections. Unlike crisis-driven borrowing of the past, today’s deficits are caused by predictable, built-in factors that ensure spending will continue to outpace revenues for the foreseeable future under current law.
Primary Drivers
Demographics and an Aging Population: The large baby-boom generation is moving into retirement years. With roughly 10,000 people turning 65 every day, the number of Americans eligible for Social Security and Medicare is surging. Combined with increasing life expectancy, this means more people are collecting benefits for longer periods.
Rising Healthcare Costs: The cost of healthcare per person in the United States has consistently grown faster than the overall economy. This trend puts immense pressure on budgets for Medicare and Medicaid, two of the largest federal programs. The CBO has identified healthcare spending per beneficiary as the primary long-term fiscal challenge.
Insufficient Revenue: The current federal tax system is not designed to generate enough revenue to pay for spending the government has promised its citizens. This gap between promises made and revenues collected is at the heart of the structural deficit.
Autopilot Trajectory
This structural problem means the debt is on an “autopilot” trajectory. The largest and fastest-growing budget components – Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and interest on the debt – are all forms of mandatory spending. Their growth is determined automatically by demographic trends, healthcare costs, and existing debt size, not by annual Congressional votes.
The portion of the budget actively debated each year, known as discretionary spending, is not the primary driver of long-term debt projections. This creates a disconnect where the most intense political battles are often fought over a part of the budget least responsible for the underlying fiscal imbalance.
Federal Spending Breakdown
Federal spending divides into three main categories:
Mandatory Spending
This category makes up the largest share of the budget, typically around two-thirds. It’s called “mandatory” because spending levels are determined by existing laws based on eligibility criteria, not by the annual appropriations process. This category is dominated by major entitlement programs:
Social Security: Provides retirement, disability, and survivor benefits.
Medicare: Provides health insurance for seniors and some younger people with disabilities.
Medicaid: Provides health insurance for low-income individuals and families.
The CBO projects that spending on these programs will continue to grow significantly faster than the economy, driving future deficits.
Discretionary Spending
This portion of the budget is decided by Congress each year through 12 separate appropriations bills. It accounts for less than one-third of total spending and roughly splits into two subcategories:
Defense Spending: Funds the Pentagon, military operations, and weapons systems.
Nondefense Discretionary Spending: Funds government functions including education, transportation, scientific research, national parks, federal law enforcement, and international affairs.
While this category is often the focus of budget debates, the CBO projects that discretionary spending as a share of the economy will actually decline over the long term under current law.
Net Interest on the Debt
This is the fastest-growing category of spending and a form of mandatory spending, as the government is legally obligated to pay its lenders.
Federal Revenue Sources
The federal government’s income derives from several primary sources:
Individual Income Taxes: The single largest source of federal revenue, accounting for approximately 50% of the total.
Payroll Taxes: The second-largest source, making up about 35% of revenue. These taxes are levied on wages and specifically dedicated to funding Social Security and Medicare trust funds.
Corporate Income Taxes: Taxes on corporate profits provide around 10% of revenue.
Other Sources: The remaining revenue comes from excise taxes (on goods like gasoline and tobacco), estate and gift taxes, customs duties on imports, and miscellaneous fees and receipts.
Spending and Revenue Breakdown (FY 2024)
Federal Spending by Category
- Social Security: ~22%
- Medicare & Medicaid (Health): ~25%
- National Defense: ~13%
- Net Interest on Debt: ~13%
- All Other (Nondefense Discretionary & Other Mandatory): ~27%
Federal Revenue by Source
- Individual Income Taxes: ~50%
- Payroll Taxes: ~35%
- Corporate Income Taxes: ~10%
- Other (Excise, Customs, etc.): ~5%
Solutions: Revenue Options
Addressing the nation’s long-term fiscal imbalance requires difficult choices. No single, easy solution exists. Any comprehensive plan to put the debt on a sustainable path will likely need some combination of increasing federal revenues, reducing federal spending, and promoting stronger economic growth.
The options reveal a fundamental challenge in fiscal reform. Policymakers and the public must navigate a trilemma of competing goals: it’s nearly impossible to simultaneously substantially reduce the national debt, protect all current government benefits and programs from cuts, and keep taxes at current or lower levels. Any serious plan to fix the debt must compromise on at least one of these popular objectives.
Raise Individual Income Taxes
The individual income tax is the largest source of federal revenue, making it a primary focus for efforts to increase government income.
This could be accomplished by raising statutory tax rates for some or all income brackets, creating new, higher tax brackets for the wealthiest earners, or allowing the individual income tax provisions of the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act to expire as scheduled at the end of 2025.
The potential revenue gains are substantial. The CBO estimates that imposing a surtax on individuals’ adjusted gross income could raise between $1.1 trillion and $1.4 trillion over ten years. The Tax Foundation estimates that repealing individual tax changes from the TCJA would raise over $800 billion over a decade.
Proponents argue that raising taxes, particularly on higher incomes, is the fairest way to address the deficit. They contend it can help reduce income inequality while funding essential government services. Historical analysis shows the U.S. economy has experienced periods of strong growth even with significantly higher top marginal tax rates than exist today.
Opponents argue that higher marginal tax rates reduce incentives for individuals to work, save, and invest. This can lead to slower long-run economic growth, ultimately harming the economy. They point to the “income effect,” where some individuals may choose to work less if their after-tax income is reduced.
Raise Corporate Income Taxes
Another major option involves increasing the tax rate on corporate profits from its current level of 21%.
Each one-percentage-point increase in the corporate tax rate would raise an estimated $136 billion in revenue over ten years, according to the CBO.
Advocates argue that corporations should contribute a larger share to the society that enables their success. They believe it would make the tax system fairer, provide funding for critical public investments like infrastructure, and could reduce incentives for U.S. companies to shift profits to low-tax foreign jurisdictions.
Critics argue that the burden of corporate tax doesn’t fall on the corporation itself, but is ultimately passed on to people. Economic research suggests the cost is shared between workers (through lower wages), consumers (through higher prices), and shareholders, including those with retirement accounts. Opponents warn that a higher rate would make the U.S. less competitive in the global economy, potentially driving investment and corporate headquarters to other countries.
Implement a Value-Added Tax
A more fundamental change would be introducing a federal Value-Added Tax. A VAT is a broad-based tax on consumption. Unlike a retail sales tax collected only at the final point of sale, a VAT is levied on the “value added” at each stage of the production and distribution chain.
Over 160 countries around the world use a VAT, but the U.S. doesn’t have one at the federal level. A 5% broad-based VAT could reduce the deficit by between $2.2 trillion and $3.4 trillion over ten years, depending on its design.
A VAT is a powerful and stable source of revenue. Because it taxes consumption rather than income, proponents argue it encourages saving and investment. It’s also considered economically efficient because a broad-based VAT doesn’t distort choices between different types of goods or business investment decisions.
The primary criticism is that a VAT is a regressive tax. It takes a larger percentage of income from low-income households, who must spend a larger portion of their earnings on basic consumption, compared to high-income households who save more. To offset this regressivity, most proposals pair a VAT with protective measures such as direct cash payments to low-income families or exemptions for essential goods.
Implement a Carbon Tax
A carbon tax would levy a tax on the carbon content of fossil fuels, effectively putting a price on greenhouse gas emissions. Emitters would pay for each ton of carbon dioxide they release into the atmosphere.
A tax of $49 per metric ton could raise about $2.2 trillion in net revenues over a decade, according to a 2017 study. The CBO projects that a tax on greenhouse gas emissions could raise between $645 billion and $919 billion over ten years.
The main advantage is its “twin benefit”: it raises substantial revenue while creating a powerful, market-based incentive for businesses and consumers to reduce carbon emissions and invest in cleaner technologies. The revenue generated could be used to reduce other taxes, fund green energy investments, or be returned directly to households as a “carbon dividend.”
Like a VAT, a carbon tax can be regressive, as lower-income households spend a larger share of their budget on energy and transportation. Any viable proposal would likely need a mechanism to compensate these households. Another concern is economic competitiveness – if the U.S. imposes a carbon tax but trading partners don’t, energy-intensive domestic industries could be disadvantaged.
Eliminate Tax Expenditures
This approach focuses on raising revenue not by increasing tax rates, but by broadening the tax base. Tax expenditures are essentially spending programs that operate through the tax code by providing special deductions, credits, and exclusions from taxable income.
Major examples include the deduction for mortgage interest, the deduction for state and local taxes, and the exclusion of employer-provided health insurance benefits from employees’ income.
The potential savings are immense, as tax expenditures collectively cost the federal government over $1.3 trillion per year. The CBO estimates that eliminating all itemized deductions could reduce the deficit by $3.4 trillion over 10 years. Reducing the tax subsidy for employment-based health benefits could save nearly $1 trillion over the same period.
Proponents argue that eliminating tax expenditures is a way to raise significant revenue without raising marginal tax rates. It would simplify the tax code, make it fairer by treating different types of income and spending more equally, and reduce economic distortions caused by tax incentives.
The primary obstacle is political. Every tax expenditure has a powerful constituency that benefits from it and would lobby against its removal. Eliminating long-standing provisions could also cause significant disruption to sectors of the economy that have developed in response to these tax incentives.
Selected Revenue Options (10-Year Impact)
| Policy Option | Estimated Revenue Gain (Billions) |
|---|---|
| Impose a 5% Value-Added Tax | $2,180 – $3,380 |
| Eliminate All Itemized Deductions | $3,424 |
| Impose a New Payroll Tax | $1,282 – $2,540 |
| Impose a Surtax on High Incomes | $1,051 – $1,440 |
| Increase Max Earnings for Social Security Tax | $728 – $1,427 |
| Reduce Tax Subsidies for Health Benefits | $521 – $965 |
| Impose a Tax on Greenhouse Gas Emissions | $645 – $919 |
| Increase Corporate Income Tax Rate by 1% | $136 |
Solutions: Spending Reduction Options
The other side of the budget equation involves reducing government outlays. These options range from reforming large, fast-growing entitlement programs to cutting discretionary spending on defense and other government functions.
Reform Social Security
Social Security is the largest single program in the federal budget and faces a long-term financing shortfall. The Social Security Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund is projected to be depleted in the early 2030s. If Congress does nothing, the law requires an immediate, across-the-board cut in benefits of about 17% to match the program’s incoming revenue.
Raise the Full Retirement Age: The age to receive full retirement benefits is currently 67 for those born in 1960 or later. One proposal is to gradually increase this age to 69 or 70, and then index it to future increases in life expectancy. The CBO estimates that raising the full retirement age would save about $95 billion over the first ten years, with much larger savings accruing in the long run.
Modify the Benefit Formula: The current formula is progressive, replacing a larger share of pre-retirement earnings for low-income workers than for high-income workers. Reforms could make it even more progressive by reducing benefits paid to higher earners. Another option is to establish a uniform, flat benefit for all retirees, set at a level designed to prevent poverty. A uniform benefit could save between $283 billion and $607 billion over ten years.
Change the Cost-of-Living Adjustment: Each year, Social Security benefits are increased to keep pace with inflation. A proposed reform is to switch to the Chained Consumer Price Index, which economists generally believe is a more accurate measure of inflation because it accounts for how consumers substitute goods when prices change. This change would reduce the size of the annual COLA and is estimated to save $278 billion over ten years.
Proponents argue these reforms directly address the long-term solvency of a primary driver of federal spending. Raising the retirement age is seen as a logical adjustment to the reality that people are living and working longer than when the program was created. Modifying the benefit formula to be more progressive would better target resources to those who need them most.
Critics argue all these options represent a reduction in promised benefits for individuals who have paid into the system throughout their careers. Raising the retirement age disproportionately harms lower-income workers and those in physically demanding jobs, who have lower life expectancies and may not be able to continue working into their late 60s. Changing the COLA formula would result in gradual erosion of the purchasing power of benefits over a long retirement.
Reform Medicare and Medicaid
Healthcare spending is the single largest and fastest-growing component of the long-term budget. Driven by the aging population and rising healthcare costs per person, federal spending on Medicare and Medicaid is projected to grow much faster than the economy.
Increase Beneficiary Cost-Sharing: This would require seniors and other beneficiaries to pay a larger share of their healthcare costs. Options include raising premiums (especially for higher-income beneficiaries), increasing deductibles, and raising copayments. The CBO estimates that increasing premiums for Medicare Part B could save $510 billion over ten years.
Change Provider Payments and Program Structure: Policymakers could reduce the rates Medicare pays to hospitals, doctors, and other healthcare providers. Proposals include implementing “site-neutral” payments, which would pay the same amount for a given medical service regardless of whether it’s performed in a more expensive hospital outpatient department or a less expensive doctor’s office.
Establish Spending Caps for Medicaid: The federal government currently matches a percentage of whatever states spend on Medicaid, meaning there’s no limit to the federal contribution. A major structural reform would convert Medicaid funding into either a “block grant” (a fixed dollar amount for each state) or a “per-capita cap” (a fixed amount per enrollee). The CBO estimates such caps could save between $459 billion and $893 billion over ten years.
Proponents argue these options directly target the largest driver of long-term debt growth. Increased cost-sharing could make consumers more sensitive to the price of care, potentially reducing unnecessary utilization. Structural reforms like block grants could introduce more competition and budget discipline to make the healthcare system more efficient.
Critics warn that higher out-of-pocket costs could create barriers to necessary medical care, particularly for the sickest and poorest beneficiaries. Block-granting or capping Medicaid would shift significant financial risk to states, which would likely respond by cutting eligibility, benefits, and provider payments, resulting in reduced access to care for millions of low-income Americans.
Reduce Defense Spending
The defense budget is the largest category of discretionary spending and a frequent target for proposed cuts.
Reductions could come from decreasing the number of active-duty military personnel, canceling or delaying major weapons systems like Ford-class aircraft carriers or the Sentinel intercontinental ballistic missile, retiring older but costly fleets like the B-1B bomber, reducing overseas presence by closing some military installations abroad, and scaling back the scope of military operations.
The potential savings are significant. The CBO estimates that an across-the-board reduction to the Department of Defense’s annual budget could save $959 billion over ten years. Canceling individual weapons programs could save tens of billions over the same period.
Proponents argue the Pentagon budget contains significant waste and inefficiency. They contend the U.S. could maintain strong national defense with a smaller, more modern, and more efficient military force. The savings could be used for deficit reduction or to fund other national priorities.
Opponents warn that significant defense cuts could undermine U.S. national security in an increasingly dangerous world. They argue that a large and technologically advanced military is necessary to deter potential adversaries, respond to global crises, and protect U.S. interests abroad.
Reduce Nondefense Discretionary Spending
This broad category includes all discretionary spending outside of national defense, funding most traditional functions of government including federal support for education, transportation and infrastructure, scientific research, environmental protection, federal courts and law enforcement, international diplomacy, and housing assistance.
The CBO has analyzed numerous options in this area. Reducing federal grants for transportation and education by one-third could save $390 billion over ten years. Cutting the budget for international affairs programs by 25% could save $215 billion over the same period.
Proponents argue many of these functions could be performed more effectively and efficiently by state and local governments or by the private sector. They see this as an area ripe for reducing government waste and inefficiency.
Opponents argue this category represents crucial public investments in the nation’s future. Cutting funding for education, infrastructure, and scientific research could harm long-term economic productivity and competitiveness. Reductions could also disproportionately affect lower-income and vulnerable populations who rely on services like housing assistance, food aid, and job training.
Selected Spending Reduction Options (10-Year Impact)
| Policy Option | Estimated Savings (Billions) |
|---|---|
| Reduce DoD’s Annual Budget | $959 |
| Establish Caps on Federal Spending for Medicaid | $459 – $893 |
| Establish a Uniform Social Security Benefit | $283 – $607 |
| Increase Medicare Part B Premiums | $510 |
| Reduce Transportation & Education Grants by 1/3 | $390 |
| Use Chained CPI to Index Social Security/Other Programs | $278 |
| Reduce International Affairs Programs by 25% | $215 |
| Raise Full Retirement Age for Social Security | $95 |
Economic Growth as a Solution
A third approach to improving the nation’s fiscal outlook focuses on policies designed to accelerate economic growth. A larger, more productive economy expands the tax base, which automatically increases government revenues. Faster GDP growth also directly improves the debt-to-GDP ratio by increasing the denominator of the equation.
While few economists believe the U.S. can simply “grow its way out” of the entire debt problem without any changes to spending or tax policy, stronger growth can make necessary fiscal adjustments smaller and less painful.
Pro-Growth Tax Reform
This approach focuses on restructuring the tax code to maximize incentives for economic activity.
Key proposals typically include significantly lowering marginal tax rates on both individual and corporate income, simplifying the tax code by eliminating deductions and credits, and allowing businesses to immediately deduct the full cost of new investments rather than depreciating them over many years.
The central argument is that a tax system with lower rates and a broader base creates the best environment for economic growth. Lower taxes on wages and investment returns encourage people to work more and save more. Lower corporate taxes and full expensing encourage businesses to invest in new machinery, equipment, and technology, which increases worker productivity and leads to higher wages.
The primary risk is that large, debt-financed tax cuts can worsen the fiscal situation. While tax cuts can stimulate some economic growth, most mainstream economic models find that this growth is not enough to offset the revenue lost from lower rates. Tax cuts generally don’t “pay for themselves.” The resulting increase in government borrowing can raise interest rates, which “crowds out” private investment and can actually slow long-term growth.
Investment in the Future
This approach argues that targeted government spending can be a powerful driver of long-term economic growth.
This strategy involves increasing federal spending on public investments seen as critical for a modern, productive economy. Key areas include physical infrastructure (upgrading roads, bridges, ports, public transit, the energy grid, and expanding broadband access), human capital (investing in education at all levels, from early childhood programs to job training and making college more affordable), and research and development (increasing federal funding for basic scientific and technological research).
Proponents argue that high-quality public investments can significantly boost private sector productivity. Better infrastructure lowers transportation and logistics costs for businesses, while a more educated workforce is more innovative and productive. They see these investments as essential for long-term competitiveness and shared prosperity.
This approach requires more government spending in the short term, which, if financed by borrowing, will add to the national debt. There are ongoing debates about the efficiency of government spending and whether public investment projects are chosen based on sound economic analysis or political considerations. Critics argue the private sector is better at allocating investment capital than the government.
The Path Forward
The U.S. debt challenge represents one of the most significant long-term threats to the nation’s economic prosperity. With debt exceeding $37 trillion and growing rapidly, the window for gradual, manageable solutions is narrowing. Interest payments alone now consume more federal resources than national defense, crowding out investments in infrastructure, education, and other priorities that could enhance long-term growth.
The solutions exist, but they require difficult trade-offs that have proven politically challenging. Whether through raising revenues, reducing spending, or promoting faster economic growth, any effective approach will require policymakers and citizens to make hard choices about the role and size of government.
The longer action is delayed, the more severe the eventual adjustments will need to be. What remains to be seen is whether the American political system can muster the will to address this challenge before it becomes a crisis that forces solutions upon the nation.
Our articles make government information more accessible. Please consult a qualified professional for financial, legal, or health advice specific to your circumstances.
