The Pickle We Are In
The United States is no longer making budget decisions on a blank slate. The country is operating inside a mature system with large, ongoing commitments and persistent deficits. Federal spending is roughly $6.5 to $6.8 trillion per year (and rising as you read this), while revenues are about $4.5 to $4.8 trillion. The gap—on the order of $1.5 to $2 trillion annually—is not the result of a temporary crisis. It reflects the structure of the budget itself.
Most of that structure is already spoken for. Programs like Social Security and Medicare, along with interest on the debt, account for a large and growing share of federal spending and are built into law with automatic growth. Defense, by contrast, is technically discretionary and set through the annual budget process. In practice, it remains one of the core responsibilities of the federal government—national defense is not something states can provide—and it consistently represents a major, durable part of spending.
This situation changes what kinds of policy ideas are realistic. The debate is no longer about designing an ideal system. It is about managing the one that already exists. Let’s look at both sides to see why.
What Conservative Policy Gets Right—and Where It Runs Into Limits
Conservative fiscal thinking emphasizes smaller government, lower taxes, and shifting responsibility to states and individuals. Those ideas are effective at limiting the future growth of government.
Unfortunately, conservative thinking is less effective at addressing obligations that are already in place. For instance, even eliminating all non-defense discretionary spending—everything from education to transportation—would not come close to closing the deficit. That category is roughly $900 billion to $1 trillion per year. The deficit is larger than that. The core challenge is not marginal spending. It is the scale of existing commitments.
Similarly, lower taxes can support economic growth, and growth does help over time. But growth alone does not close a gap of this size, especially when major programs continue to expand with demographics and healthcare costs.
If we were a new country, conservative policy—alongside a reasonable social safety net—could have helped prevent this problem. It is not enough, on its own, to solve it now.
What Progressive Policy Gets Right—and Where It Runs Into Limits
Progressive policy focuses on expanding government programs and increasing taxes, particularly on higher-income households, to pay for those programs. It reflects a concern for inequality and a desire to maintain a strong social safety net. That concern aligns with the political reality throughout much of our nation. Programs like Social Security and Medicare are widely supported and difficult to cut.
The challenge is arithmetic. The top 10 percent of earners earn roughly 45 to 50 percent of national income and pay about 70 percent of federal income taxes. The top 1 percent alone pays around 40 percent of those taxes. These shares are already historically high. Increasing taxes on high earners can raise meaningful revenue. But even large increases are not enough, by themselves, to close a deficit approaching $2 trillion per year.
At the same time, expanding benefits without fully funding them adds to the gap. The result is more borrowing, which increases interest costs and compounds the problem.
Progressive policy identifies an expanding set of potential priorities within the system. It does not fully address the limits of what the federal government can take on, or how to pay for those commitments at the current scale.
The Constraint Both Sides Run Into
Each framework captures part of the problem. Conservatives emphasize limits and discipline. Progressives emphasize obligations and social commitments. The budget reflects both realities at once. The country has built a system that provides substantial benefits—especially in retirement and healthcare—and has not fully funded them. That mismatch shows up as persistent deficits and rising debt.
Interest on the debt is now one of the fastest-growing parts of the budget, exceeding $800 billion annually and projected to move toward $1 trillion soon. That is money that does not fund programs or services. It pays for past borrowing, and it continues to grow.
At this point, the range of workable options is narrower than the political debate suggests. Whether you lean conservative or progressive, if you are serious about a healthy future for America there is no escaping an honest look at the math and at the realistic options.
What an Honest Look at the Numbers Leads To
Once the budget is viewed as it actually exists, two conclusions follow.
First, the largest programs have to be part of the solution. Social Security and Medicare together account for roughly $2.5 to $3 trillion in annual spending and are projected to grow faster than the economy due to aging demographics and healthcare costs. There is no realistic path to stabilizing the budget that does not involve changes to how these programs evolve over time. That does not necessarily mean abrupt or across-the-board cuts. It can include adjustments to eligibility ages, benefit formulas, means testing, or slower long-term growth in spending. But leaving these programs entirely untouched is not compatible with closing the gap.
Second, additional revenue will almost certainly be required. That is politically uncomfortable because very few people, regardless of ideology, want to pay higher taxes themselves. Much of modern politics reflects the search for a solution where “someone else” bears the cost—whether through taxing only the wealthy, cutting only “waste,” or reducing programs that affect other groups. In practice, however, we will need some combination of broadening the tax base, which will likely require tradeoffs that extend beyond targeting a narrow slice of taxpayers. This reality is not pleasant, but it is part of the fiscal position the country now faces
The current debate often assumes a choice between two directions: smaller government with lower taxes, or larger government funded by higher taxes on the wealthy. The budget does not allow that clean separation. The system that exists today is enormous and complex, and much of it is politically and economically difficult to unwind quickly. At the same time, it is not funded at a level that keeps debt stable over time.
That leaves a narrower path: Reform the growth of major obligations, and increase revenue in ways that are broad enough to matter. This is not a matter of splitting the difference between two ideologies. It is a response to the structure already in place.
The Choice That Remains: From Ideology to a Realistic Look at the Math and the Trade Offs
The United States still has time to make these adjustments gradually. Debt levels are high, but markets continue to function, and the economy remains strong relative to many peers. That window does not stay open indefinitely. As debt grows, interest costs take up a larger share of the budget. That reduces flexibility and increases the risk that changes will need to be made more quickly and with less control.
An honest reading of the numbers does not point to a single policy or a simple fix. It does point to a clear direction. The system that has been built requires both reform and additional revenue to remain sustainable. Ignoring or, worse, vilifying one side or the other does not eliminate the need. It delays it—and makes the eventual adjustment more difficult.
Long Term America is here to take a stand towards a word that hasn’t been in favor for a while: compromise. It is the only way we are going to remain fiscally strong over the long term. We hope that voters and politicians are willing to do that, and we do not continue to be unreasonably stubborn and dig in our heals.