“A billion here, a billion there, pretty soon you’re talking real money.”
That famous quote, once attributed to the late Republican Sen. Everett Dirksen in the mid-20th century, is of unknown origin. But when it comes to Congress and spending, the point still holds.
The United States government is shoveling money out the door at a breathtaking pace, well beyond the nation’s means – with a budget of $7.4 trillion for fiscal year 2026 against expected revenue of just $5.6 trillion.
Why We Wrote This
The U.S. government is spending well beyond its means at a breathtaking pace. Members of Congress say they care, but neither party is making deficit reduction a priority.
The major action in the U.S. House last week before summer recess centered on budgeting matters, including advancing the framework of a nearly $95 billion “reconciliation” package: mostly money for the Iran war, plus funds for struggling farmers and election security.
But the bill includes no “pay-fors” or offsetting cuts. That means spending that simply adds to the budget deficit – already projected at close to $2 trillion for fiscal 2026 – and ultimately, the federal debt, which is the accumulation of annual deficits.
At $39.68 trillion, U.S. federal debt has skyrocketed in the last 25 years, up from $5.7 trillion in January 2001. In short, the United States is on an unsustainable fiscal path, economists say. But the point at which it could reach a crisis isn’t clear. And in the meantime, any semblance of concern for fiscal responsibility has been relegated to lone voices in each party. Why has this happened and what are the potential consequences?
“Politicians no longer care about budget deficits because voters no longer care about budget deficits,” says Jessica Riedl, a budget and tax fellow at the Brookings Institution in Washington.
Voters no longer believe that deficits matter, she says, because they haven’t seen a debt crisis and they don’t tie deficits to rising interest rates. “Moreover,” Ms. Riedl continues, “in this age of polarization, both sides claim that they want to reduce deficits, but only on the backs of their political opponents.”
On Capitol Hill last week, as House members scrambled to start their summer recess, the top concern was making sure the federal government is funded beyond Sept. 30, the end of fiscal 2026. With the Nov. 3 midterm elections fast approaching, Republicans don’t want another shutdown on their watch.
But despite polling that shows Americans’ concern about the deficit has risen since last year, the reality is that voters care more about keeping the government programs that benefit them, without cuts or tax hikes.
That’s evident today with both major political parties, neither of which is pushing for deficit reduction. Today’s Republican Party, dominated by President Donald Trump’s populist brand, reflects his preference for tax cuts and government spending, which he insists will spur economic growth.
On the Democratic side, the rise of the left – including adherents of democratic socialism – has also boosted policy goals that would entail massive new government spending, such as “Medicare for all.”
To some, it may now feel like a dream, but in 2001, Democratic President Bill Clinton handed his Republican successor, President George W. Bush, a budget surplus. It was part historical circumstances, part bipartisan collaboration in 1997 between the Democratic President Clinton and Republican House Speaker Newt Gingrich that led to four straight years of surpluses.
Before then, the last time the federal government had run a surplus was in 1969, a generation earlier, as President Clinton noted in his remarks at the 1997 bill signing. By the late 1990s, the end of the Cold War had allowed for big cuts in defense spending. Tax revenue from the dot-com boom also helped the national bottom line.
Today, not only have both parties sidelined the voices of fiscal responsibility, but political norms have changed as well.
In the past, “whenever deficits got too large, both parties knew it. They intervened,” says Maya MacGuineas, president of the bipartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. “They maybe did their talking points, but they got together and they hashed it out.”
In both the 1992 and 1996 presidential races, independent candidate Ross Perot had forced the rising deficits and debt onto the national agenda, Ms. MacGuineas notes. But, she suggests, the two parties would likely have struck a bipartisan deal to address it anyway, as they had many times before.
Today, deficit hawks on Capitol Hill willing to speak out are outliers, and some will be departing at year’s end. GOP Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky lost his primary, after a Trump-backed opponent beat him. Congressman Massie had voted “no” on the president’s big tax-cut bill last year, citing concerns over the debt. Another outspoken fiscal conservative, Republican Rep. Chip Roy of Texas, lost the primary for state attorney general to a MAGA opponent.
When asked, members of Congress agree the ballooning debt is a problem, but without collective action, there’s little any one individual can do, they say.
“We should be thinking about the national debt every day,” says Democratic Rep. Suhas Subramanyam of Virginia. “My concern is that both parties, and particularly this president, talk about wanting to address it, but then don’t actually do so.”
Some members suggest cutting “waste, fraud, and abuse,” but that’s largely a red herring, as most of the spending that’s contributing to the skyrocketing deficits and debt is not discretionary but entitlements like Social Security and Medicare, and interest on the debt.
Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois, the chamber’s No. 2 Democrat, laughs ruefully when asked how the debt can be addressed. “Don’t pass any of the proposals for spending in the administration,” he says.
One fiscal hawk who will still be around come January is Sen. Rand Paul, the libertarian-leaning Republican from Kentucky. He’s got the numbers at his fingertips: $8 trillion of added debt in President Trump’s first term, $8 trillion more under President Joe Biden.
“This four years will be at least $8 trillion,” he says. Asked what can be done, Senator Paul says bluntly: “Voters will have to decide.”
“Inflation comes from deficit spending, the Federal Reserve monetizing the debt,” he says. “And so people, if they’re concerned about high prices, high interest rates, mortgage rates, they have to decide to elect people that are not going to promise to bring them free stuff.”
The federal government’s habit of overspending can likely continue for a while, budget experts say. The U.S. dollar serves as the world’s reserve currency, so it can keep borrowing without triggering a default, as long as Congress keeps raising the debt ceiling – currently at $41.1 trillion. But the overspending can’t last forever, writes Eugene Steuerle, an Urban Institute economist.
Mr. Steuerle cites five reasons the national debt is unsustainable: The debt is growing faster than the nation’s income. Social Security benefits are scheduled to grow faster than workers’ after-tax income indefinitely. Healthcare spending is growing faster than national income. In political terms, tax cuts are allowed but tax increases are not. And government bureaucracy keeps growing. (Cuts last year by the so-called Department of Government Efficiency did little to lower government spending.)
Last month, when Republican Sen. Bernie Moreno of Ohio and Democratic Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts jointly proposed eliminating the Social Security “salary cap” – the taxable maximum of an individual’s salary, currently at $184,500 – the idea landed with a thud.
But Ms. MacGuineas of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget offers a hopeful note.
“Whether you like their solution or not, people coming together and putting forth actual solutions instead of demagoguing – that’s what we need,” she says. “Don’t criticize. Offer an alternative, and let’s get to starting to compare the solutions.”
Staff writers Caitlin Babcock and Victoria Hoffmann contributed to this story.