An offspring of war is more debt. Rearmament is expensive. Yet today distraction is also useful—how can we worry about finances when war and peace command the headlines? Let me take a sideward glance.
As I began working in Washington in 1986, most perceived IBM as the irreversible leader in technology, and they were for a time. And then they weren’t.
Always just behind, pushing hard is the next generation of technology leaders. They were, in a word, much more entrepreneurial. Next up Microsoft and then Apple and now Nvidia. Of course, this short-handed summary does not capture the true dynamism of America’s technological strength or the compelling forces that propel it.
What forces propel the federal government which enjoys a monopoly of power? There is no next up. In my close-up experience, the fight is not to provide generational improvement in productivity; it is jockeying between politicos and bureaucrats while corporate America pays for protection for their industry or company.
Spending, of course, goes up and up. Why not, the pressure for “up” is a campaign feature for those who want to lead the monopoly. We have allowed a debt culture to grow and now predominate. Discipline is obsolete.
Historically as budgets got bigger and bigger and the corresponding deficits grew and grew, a few leaders began to push back. If that was of any comfort to us, we simply misjudged the force of big government and its corporate companions. And of course entitlements, most prominently Social Security and Medicare, had become super-natural forces—untouchable.
There was a companion problem; we had too much faith in the democratic process. The appetite for campaign spending and the parallel lust for bigger and bigger contributions had become a chronic disease by the beginning of the new century. Spending was increasingly transactional. The elected class signed on. Would-be Presidents promised transformation through new programs. Members of Congress did what they always do; made sure their constituents were taken care of.
So where were the entrepreneurs? Yes, political entrepreneurs pressing for innovation—more productive ways to achieve essential outcomes? I can recall an up-close look at one of those leaders.
My neighbor, then Senator Phil Gramm, was a hunting buddy of mine. He was the Phil Gramm of the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Balanced Budget Act of 1985. He was smart, determined, indefatigable, but ultimately beaten down. When his namesake legislation was enacted, the national debt was $1.8 trillion; today it is $38 Trillion. The reality: “budget discipline cannot be automated against sustained political incentives.”
Interestingly Elon Musk, certainly not a can kicker, was chosen by President Trump to head an initiative called Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). Together they called for deep cuts in spending. Musk, a notable juggler, couldn’t keep the DOGE ball in the air nor was he skilled in the political dimension of his work. It is rare to see an individual be as spotlighted as Musk has been in both success and failure.
Musk, at least in part, saw the challenge as a math problem. Cut here and there and wallah (by God) you are on the way to a solution. But, Musk is a soloist not an orchestral leader and the only thing that will work must have a powerful political dimension.
Senators Gramm, Rudman and Hollings were strong legislative figures. Few if any in today’s Senate have their insights or pugnacity. And our current President is not serious about the national debt. He plays the role of magician: “now you see it, now you don’t.”
Recently, President Trump declared “that as time goes by, I believe that tariffs, paid for by foreign countries, will, like in the past, substantially replace the modern-day system of income tax, taking a great financial burden off the people that I love.” I am sure “foreign countries” look forward to retiring our “financial burden”.
And, historically, tariffs account for 1 to 2% of our annual revenue; by contrast income taxes and payroll taxes together provide about 80%. Seriousness will require examination of value-added and wealth taxes. We will not cut our way to balance.
So what do we do? History’s narrative reveals Peter Peterson as a central actor. He founded the Peterson Foundation devoted to fiscal responsibility in 2008. Peterson was an upper-case member of the American establishment who believed America was headed for a financial waterfall.
The year his foundation began its work the national debt was $10 Trillion dollars; today it is approximately $38 Trillion. Importantly, funding it is more problematic.
My advice: turn from analysis and advocacy to action. Mount a campaign that is digitally ubiquitous and narratively visceral. Become entrepreneurial, not institutional. Work to amend the Constitution while informing the nation.
So, let me defend myself before the “fingers down” detritus begins to rain down. Will the campaign be successful; maybe, but it will be, as all such efforts are, a long shot. But I ask you to recall the Equal Rights Amendment campaign. The Amendment did not make it into the Constitution, but the campaign resulted in significant societal changes and dramatic progress for women in a variety of workplaces.
So to the number of organizations that specialize in research, analysis, and advocacy on our disastrous debt trajectory, I recommend action. Action and only action will compel the public to become serious. And, until the public forces action the politicians will dither or worse.
T
