The U.S. national debt has reached $37 trillion. To keep the federal government from exceeding its congressionally mandated debt ceiling and continue to pay its bills, the U.S. Department of Treasury is using what it calls “extraordinary measures” (also known as accounting manipulations) to prevent the government from falling over its fiscal cliff. Without congressional action, it may occur in late summer.
The recently proposed spending bill by the House (labelled the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act”) does nothing to address the budget deficits that have plagued our nation for decades. Members of both parties are culpable for such irresponsibility. If the U.S. government were a private-sector company, it would have filed for bankruptcy long ago to wash away its debt. But bankruptcy is not an option for sovereign nations, and “default” is an ugly word. And the Treasury can always print money to pay the government’s bills, although that runs the risk of creating inflation problems that the Federal Reserve has worked diligently to avoid.
If the U.S. is to get its fiscal house in order, cutting federal spending alone is not the answer. Any such cuts must be accompanied by investments to increase gross domestic product, currently around $29 trillion annually, such that it exceeds the national debt. One challenge in doing this is that government spending represents 23 percent of the GDP; hence any cuts in federal spending will also reduce the GDP unless offset by private-sector growth.
A deep dive into the federal budget shows that Social Security, Medicare, interest on debt, health, and national defense spending are the biggest spending categories. With interest rates that have increased significantly over the last five years, interest payments have become one of the largest components of government spending, and are likely to be so for the foreseeable future. That is why President Trump continues to criticize the Federal Reserve for keeping interest rates at their current levels, since lower interest rates would reduce these borrowing costs. In contrast, the Federal Reserve believes that interest rates at their current level are necessary to keep the economy growing while limiting the risk of inflation and managing the uncertainty around the Trump tariffs.
To get the nation’s fiscal house in order, every program must be on the table for discussion, including Social Security, which politicians remain reticent even to discuss, let alone touch.
Government spending comes in many shapes and flavors. Some can be viewed as investments that carry a positive return, hence effectively reducing the national debt. For example, the Vaccines for Children Program provides vaccines that prevent numerous childhood diseases. Studies have shown that every dollar spent on childhood immunization returns between $3.30 and $10.90 in benefits over a 30-year period, providing a 4 percent to 8 percent annual return on investment.
The same holds with investments by the National Science Foundation. Its $9 billion annual budget is less than one-sixth of 1 percent of the federal budget, yet new technologies and concepts that emerge from its investments return many times more than what was spent.
I know this from personal experience. I have received several NSF grants during my career, totaling just over $2.3 million. Two of these grants centered around aviation security, with the research output providing the technical foundations for risk-based security used to support the design of TSA PreCheck. Independent analysis has shown that the TSA Precheck program saves the government around $110 million annually, in perpetuity — a sizeable return on investment.
Cuts to USAID, AmeriCorps and Voice of America may not provide such direct positive returns. Yet these agencies build goodwill with the U.S. across the globe. For example, investments to halt the spread of infectious diseases globally, such as HIV, will further protect our shores and our citizens. Ends to such programs may save money in the short term but are certain to cost our country significantly over time.
Every government expenditure should be viewed as an investment. Some will have measurable returns, while others provide support to maintain a minimal standard of living for all. Some are easy to quantify, while others are more nuanced. Yet it should be the responsibility of elected representatives to use such information in determining how to invest and allocate government resources.
The “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” is not only irresponsible; it is an embarrassment. Rushing to get it signed by July 4 is symptomatic of the subterfuge that has become the hallmark of elected officials in power. If this is the best that our elected officials can do for the country, then we are in far worse condition than indicated by the $37 trillion national debt and the recent bond rating downgrade by Moody’s.
Getting our nation’s fiscal house in order should be a top priority for every person in Congress. The 2026 midterm elections are the best time to hold those running for election accountable and force them to take a position on the issue. If they then renege on their commitments, voters will have a chance in 2028 to show them that they noticed. Without such accountability, our elected officials will continue to bankrupt our nation, to everyone’s detriment, even if the government can never go bankrupt. Our citizens deserve better.
Sheldon H. Jacobson, Ph.D., is a computer science professor in the Grainger College of Engineering at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign. A data scientist, he uses his expertise in risk-based analytics to address problems in public policy.
