The United States does not need to “pay off” the entire debt in the literal sense. Instead, a feasible goal is to stabilize the debt-to-GDP ratio. That means stopping debt from rising. Congress needs to create budgets that run small, sustained surpluses, while supporting economic growth with moderate inflation. This should slowly shrink the debt burden relative to the economy. In 2026, projections show primary deficits around 
The Problem and Potential Solutions Summarized
The money savings is in mandatory programs, not just in “waste, fraud, and abuse” spending. Social Security reforms can make a significant difference. While Social Security is a separately and independently funded program through its own trust,” called “off budget,” its net cash flows have a real impact. When revenues exceed benefits, the trust fund invests the surplus in Treasury securities. This intragovernmental borrowing reduces the need for the Treasury to issue new debt to fund other programs, effectively lowering the general fund deficit in those. When benefits exceed revenues, the trust fund must draw down reserves or borrow from the Treasury. This increases the Treasury’s borrowing needs, adding to the federal deficit and debt. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projects the Old Age and Survivors (OASI) Insurance trust fund will be exhausted in 2032 under current law, with benefits reduced unless changes are made. (Congressional Budget Office). The combined OASI/Disability Insurance trust funds are projected to deplete reserves in the mid-2030s (“Social Security: Examining Solvency and Impacts to the Federal Budget,” Testimony by Stephen C. Goss, Chief Actuary, Social Security Administration, House Budget Committee, June 13, 2024, Document Repository).
Social Security is the largest federal program, costing over $1.4 trillion in 2025, about 20% of total federal spending (Bipartisan Policy Center, April 3, 2026). When the trust fund runs a deficit, the federal government must borrow to cover benefits, which adds to the overall deficit and debt. In summary,while Social Security’s separate funding avoids immediate deficit accounting, its surpluses and deficits still influence the federal budget through intragovernmental borrowing and, when necessary, public debt issuance. As trust fund reserves decline, the program’s reliance on general fund support will increase, making it a significant factor in the federal budget’s long-term sustainability
Gradually raising the full retirement age and/or index benefits would reduce cash outflows. (Index benefits refer to the process of adjusting your past earnings to reflect changes in the general wage level over time, so your retirement or disability benefits keep pace with inflation and maintain their purchasing power.) Increasing the taxable earnings cap, so more high-income wage earners pay payroll tax, would increase the income side of the budget. Trimming benefits for high earners rather than across-the-board cuts would maintain the original intent of the social security program. These changes would do much to reduce long‑run deficits.
Medicare and health-care cost controls would lead to a reduction in deficit spending. Establishing higher Part B premiums for higher-income seniorscould be a first step. Tighter payment benchmarks for Medicare Advantage programs would decrease the payout to insurers. A more aggressive drug pricing and provider payment reform is also needed.
The unfortunate truth is that health programs are among the fastest-growing drivers of future debt. It is essential that Congress finds a way to change this trajectory. The ultimate cure for this problem is the establishment of Universal Health Care. A Yale University-led study estimates that adopting a Medicare for All style single-payer universal health care system could reduce U.S. health spending by over $1 trillion annually and save about 114,000 lives each year. (The study was published July 24, 2025, in the preprint server medRxiv and has not yet been peer-reviewed.) The findings are modeled on the transition from the current multi-payer system to a single-payer structure as proposed under the Medicare for All Act. The Yale study used 2024 National Health Expenditure data as its baseline and incorporated insurance coverage estimates from the American Community Survey and the Commonwealth Fund Biennial Health Insurance Survey.
There are other big expenditure areas that should be trimmed.Defense and non-defense discretionary spending can contribute to the solution. Politically modest caps and efficiency reforms are more realistic than deep cuts. Changes in military spending are painful, but not as painful as cuts in Social Security and Medicare. Yet these cuts are structurally sound. They do not crush the economy, and they directly address the programs pushing debt upward.
Revenue
On the revenue side, the most feasible path is broad-based, relatively low‑distortion taxes, not just “tax the rich” slogans. A low‑distortion tax is typically broad‑based, hard to avoid, and doesn’t push people to change their work, spending, or investment decisions. Economists often cite consumption taxes (like a value added tax), carbon taxes, and land value taxes as the lowest‑distortion options. Real changes have been proposed. Limit or cap itemized deductions (mortgage interest, state/local tax, etc.). Reduce special exclusions and preferences. These modest changes raise substantial revenue with fewer distortions than big rate jumps.
Establishing a value-added tax (VAT) or national consumption tax, paired with low‑income rebates, can increase income while taking the tax burden off low-income families. VAT is a consumption tax applied to goods and services at every stage of the supply chain, from production to final sale, based on the value added at each step. Unlike a sales tax, which is collected only at the point of final sale, VAT is collected incrementally, ensuring that tax is paid on the additional value created at each stage of production or development. It is an indirect tax, meaning consumers pay it as part of the price, while businesses act as intermediaries, collecting and remitting the tax to the government. This approach is economically efficient and widely used in other advanced economies. Such a change will be politically tough but powerful for long‑run deficit reduction.
Congress should consider a hard look at a carbon tax or similar “Pigouvian” taxes. A Pigouvian tax is a tax on market activity that generates negative impacts on third parties. These types of taxes would not only raise revenue but also address climate change issues and other negative consequences caused by producing saleable products.
Finally, there are payroll tax adjustments. As discussed previously, raising the Social Security payroll tax cap or rate modestly is directly tied to the programs driving long‑run deficits.
The key is mixing these so no single group bears all the pain, and the economy isn’t heavily distorted.
The most feasible political path
In practice, the most feasible way isn’t one silver bullet—it’s a negotiated bundle that combines moderate entitlement reforms, modest discretionary spending restraint, and new or broadened taxes (income, consumption, or payroll). The plan should gradually be phased in to protect current retirees and near‑retirees and give households and businesses time to adjust.
Analyses of such bundles show they can reduce deficits by several trillion dollars over a decade without shrinking the economy relative to current law—and in some designs, they actually raise GDP by mid‑century. That is a “feasible” bipartisan, multi‑solution package that stabilizes debt rather than trying to erase it.
What is likely not feasible or wise
Relying on faster growth alone has already been proven to be a false narrative. Hope, as outlined by Secretary of Treasury, Bissent, on August 21, is not a plan. Demographics and productivity trends make this unlikely to fix the problem. High inflation, if it continues, punishes savers, destabilizes markets, and raises future borrowing costs. It’s a hidden tax with big collateral damage. Default or forced restructuring would shatter global financial confidence in US Treasuries and trigger a systemic crisis. Technically “pays down” do make sense, but at enormous cost.
Final Thoughts on Fiscal Stability and America’s Future
Today, we stand at a critical point in the nation’s fiscal history. For decades, the United States has carried a rising national debt not because we lack strength, ingenuity, or resources, but because our commitments and our revenues have drifted out of alignment. The debt is not a crisis today—but it will become one if we continue on our current path. And the cost of waiting will be far greater than the cost of acting.
America needs to stabilize the debt-to-GDP ratio within a decade and begin reducing it thereafter—without harming economic growth, without sudden shocks to retirees, and without placing the burden on any single group of Americans.
Future change rests on three principles:
First, we must address the drivers of long‑run spending. Social Security and Medicare are pillars of American life, but they were designed for a demographic structure that no longer exists. Reforms need to be gradual, phased in over decades, and protect current retirees. Increase the full retirement age slowly, adjust benefits for the highest earners, and strengthen Medicare by reducing overpayments and improving cost efficiency. These are not cuts. They are course corrections that preserve these programs for future generations. An even better option may rest with the Yale Plan to nationalize health care, saving over $1 trillion annually.
Second, we must broaden our revenue base in a way that is fair, efficient, and growth‑friendly. Legislation must trim a number of tax preferences that disproportionately benefit upper‑income households, modestly adjusts the payroll tax cap, and introduces a small, rebated national consumption tax. These changes do not punish success; they simply ensure that our tax system reflects the modern economy and distributes responsibility more evenly.
Third, we must commit to disciplined but realistic budgeting. There must be firm but flexible caps on discretionary spending growth, ensuring that federal programs grow more slowly than the economy. It also requires periodic review of low‑impact programs so that taxpayer dollars are used where they matter most.
Taken together, these reforms shift our primary balance by roughly four percent of GDP over the next three decades. That is enough to halt the rise of the debt ratio, hold it steady, and then allow it to decline gradually as the economy grows. It is not flashy. It is not ideological. It is responsible.
Reform will require that all Americans contribute a little so that no Americans are forced to sacrifice a lot. It protects today’s retirees, strengthens tomorrow’s workers, and ensures that our children inherit a nation whose fiscal foundation is as strong as its democratic one.
We can debate the details, and we should. But we cannot debate math. And the math tells us that the longer we wait, the fewer options we will have.
The choices are still ours, and the future still within our control. I urge you to join me in supporting a fiscal stability act for the sake of our economy, our security, and the generations who will judge us by whether we choose courage over convenience.
Thoughts from the Middle by Bob Fischer 