Skip to main content

Why Nobody Will Fix the Federal Deficit

Opinion · Fiscal Policy

The math is not complicated. The politics are designed to prevent anyone from doing the math.

The federal deficit hit $2 trillion in fiscal 2026. Debt held by the public sits at $32.4 trillion, roughly 100 percent of GDP and double the 50-year average. CBO projects it hitting 120 percent by 2036, which would surpass the World War II peak of 106 percent. Except in 1946 the debt was falling because the war was over. This time it keeps climbing.

Net interest on the debt hit $1.1 trillion in 2026, up from $970 billion the year before. By 2036 it nearly doubles to $2.1 trillion. That money buys zero roads and zero benefits. It is the cost of having borrowed before, and it is now the fastest growing line item in the entire federal budget.

Interest on the debt will cost more than the entire defense budget by 2036. It already costs more than Medicaid.

The Numbers

What 2036 Actually Looks Like

Debt Today

$32T100% of GDP

Debt 2036

$56T120% of GDP

Deficit 2036

$3.1T6.7% of GDP

Net Interest 2036

$2.1TNearly doubles from today

CBO's February 2026 baseline projects debt growing by $25 trillion over the next decade. The One Big Beautiful Bill Act alone adds $4.7 trillion through 2035. New tariffs offset roughly $3 trillion of that over the same window, but the net still adds to the pile. Cumulative deficits from 2026 to 2035 total $23.1 trillion.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office published these projections in their baseline, corrected and reposted in March 2026. The trajectory is not disputed by serious economists on either side. What is disputed is whether anyone will do anything about it.

My read: they will not.

The Incentive Trap

The Federal Deficit Stays Unfixed Because Fixing It Ends Careers

Fixing a $2 trillion annual deficit requires raising taxes or cutting spending. Both are career-ending moves. Not difficult. Career-ending.

Over two thirds of the federal budget is mandatory spending: Social Security, Medicare, veterans benefits, plus interest on existing debt. A politician who proposes touching Social Security benefits loses the most reliable voting bloc in America. Older voters actually show up. A politician who proposes raising taxes gets buried under campaign ads about killing jobs. Both responses are immediate. The benefits of fiscal discipline take a decade to materialize, long after that politician is gone.

So they do nothing. They understand the problem. The system rewards doing nothing and punishes doing something. The debt is a 20-to-30-year structural crisis. House members face election every two years. No rational career politician takes a trade where the pain is immediate and the payoff arrives in 2040.

The Primary Problem

Compromise Gets You Fired

Politicians do not fear losing a general election. Over 80 percent of House seats are safe for one party thanks to gerrymandered districts. The real threat is the party primary, where only the most ideological 10 to 15 percent of voters show up.

A Republican who agrees to raise any revenue gets primaried from the right as a traitor. A Democrat who touches Medicare growth gets primaried from the left as a sellout. The penalty for a small compromise is identical to the penalty for a large one. You take the same bullet either way, which means there is zero incentive to settle for half measures.

And fighting pays better than governing. An angry fundraising email about how the other side is destroying America raises millions overnight. A press release about a sensible 2 percent budget adjustment raises nothing. Outrage has a business model. Fiscal responsibility does not.

Historical Evidence

Congress Has Fixed This Twice in 40 Years

1983. Social Security's trust fund was weeks from insolvency. Checks were about to stop going out. Reagan and Democratic Speaker Tip O'Neill formed the Greenspan Commission and produced a package of gradual benefit changes (retirement age from 65 to 67) and tax adjustments. Both parties took the hit together. It worked because neither side could walk away with checks about to bounce.

1997. A booming economy and sustained public demand forced Clinton and Republican Speaker Gingrich to cap discretionary spending and restrain Medicare growth. The result was four consecutive budget surpluses from 1998 to 2001, the last time this country ran a surplus.

The pattern

Congress does not act on fiscal crises out of foresight. It acts when forced by an imminent deadline (1983) or when economic conditions make it politically safe (1997). Neither condition exists today. The crisis builds gradually, the economy is mixed, and no trust fund is weeks from failing.

Country First

What Each Party Would Actually Have to Do

If Republicans meant "Country First" they would admit that tax cuts do not pay for themselves. The 2017 corporate rate cut is the most recent big test. CBO's post-hoc analysis found it did not come close to fully offsetting its own revenue loss through growth. Saying "we will grow our way out" is not a plan. It is a bumper sticker. Country First for the GOP means accepting that some revenue increases, even if limited to closing loopholes and broadening the base rather than raising rates, are part of any deal that actually bends the curve. It means stop treating every dollar of new revenue as a tax hike and start treating $2.1 trillion in annual interest as the real threat to economic growth.

If Democrats meant "Country First" they would admit that mandatory spending growth is the structural driver. Social Security, Medicare, and veterans benefits make up the majority of federal outlays, and those programs grow on autopilot regardless of who controls Congress. Country First for the Democrats means accepting that modest structural adjustments, phased in over decades for younger workers while protecting current retirees, are not betrayals. An unreformed program that hits insolvency in the mid-2030s is a far bigger threat to beneficiaries than a gradual adjustment made today.

Both parties would have to stop treating compromise as treason. That means structural changes to the primary system itself: open primaries where all voters participate instead of just the most ideological 10 percent, independent redistricting that creates competitive general elections, and fast-track fiscal commissions that give lawmakers cover to vote for a package deal instead of any single politically toxic provision. The 1983 Social Security fix and the 1997 balanced budget both happened because the structure of the negotiation changed, not because politicians suddenly discovered courage.

None of this closes the deficit overnight. A $2 trillion gap built over decades does not get fixed by a single bill or a 10-year plan that the next Congress ignores. Eliminating the deficit by 2036 is not realistic. The goal is to stop making it worse, bend the trajectory, and prove that the political system can take one step in the right direction without collapsing into a fundraising war.

Because no action is not neutral. No action means the interest bill keeps compounding. It means $1.1 trillion this year becomes $2.1 trillion by 2036, and every future Congress inherits a bigger number with fewer options. Doing nothing is the most expensive choice on the table, and both parties have been making it for years.

"Country First" means a willingness to take a primary challenge for the right vote. Until that changes, the tab compounds at 4.6 percent of GDP.

SOURCES: U.S. Treasury, Monthly Treasury Statement, September 2026 (FY2026 deficit, net interest, debt held by public). Congressional Budget Office, The Budget and Economic Outlook: 2026 to 2036, February 2026 (2036 projections, OBBBA scoring). Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget analysis of the February 2026 CBO baseline. Brookings Institution, "An Update on the Federal Budget Outlook," 2026. CBO testimony to the Senate Finance Committee, March 11, 2026. Historical references: 1983 Social Security Amendments and the Greenspan Commission, 1997 Balanced Budget Act. This is a personal opinion essay on fiscal policy, not financial advice.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Monday Myth: Unraveling the Optimal Day for Weekly Investments

This blog post draws inspiration from a thought-provoking article by Rob@MustardSeedMoney, in which he pinpoints Monday as the optimal day for stock market investments. Given my substantial engagement in passive investment and dollar-cost averaging, Rob's assertion piqued my interest. I embarked on a mathematical exploration to assess the validity of designating Monday as the most advantageous day for implementing a weekly dollar-cost averaging strategy. Are you prepared to delve into the findings? By scrutinizing the data and crunching the numbers, I aim to provide a comprehensive assessment of the feasibility and effectiveness of such a strategy. So, let's embark on this journey together and uncover whether Monday truly shines as the premier choice for enhancing the benefits of dollar-cost investing on a weekly basis.

Vanguard's Comprehensive Range of Mutual Funds and ETFs: A Specialized Comparison

I consider myself a passive investor, and my investment portfolio primarily consists of Vanguard's low-cost funds and ETFs. Vanguard offers a wide array of high-quality fund and ETF options, which has been instrumental in shaping my investment strategy. One of the initial decisions I confronted was whether to opt for ETFs or mutual funds. The internet is teeming with abundant resources, providing extensive insights into the advantages and disadvantages of both these investment vehicles. This decision marked a pivotal moment in my investment journey, as it influenced the structure of my portfolio and how I approach passive investing. Vanguard's diverse offerings have empowered me to tailor my investment approach to suit my financial objectives, and their low-cost nature aligns perfectly with my passive investment philosophy. The choice between ETFs and mutual funds represents a critical aspect of my investment strategy, underscoring the importance of thorough research and due di...

Mortgage Payoff : Should I Prepay My Mortgage?

Image: www.investmentzen.com We bought our home on 06/2017. I was able to lock in a 4.0% rate for my 30 year mortgage. Up till now, I have been paying as per the 30 year schedule. I have read online that making additional mortgage payment is the way to go as it reduces interest payment and makes us debt-free early. But, is this really true? In this article, I explore various scenarios and try to identify the best scenario.