Tuesday, May 19, 2026, episode of the podcast The Excerpt: America’s debt has grown faster than the economy as a whole, and as interest payments rise, so does the cost of carrying the debt. This increased burden puts new pressure on federal finances and raises concerns about long-term sustainability. Mark Goldwein, senior policy director at the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, joins USA TODAY’s The Excerpt to explain how serious the risks are and what it means for future generations.
Press play in the player below to listen to the podcast and follow the transcript below. This transcript was automatically generated and edited in its current format for clarity. There may be some differences between audio and text.
Podcast: For true crime stories, in-depth interviews, and more USA TODAY podcasts, click here
Dana Taylor:
America’s debt has crossed an alarming threshold. It is now bigger than the economy itself. As interest grows, questions about what it means begin to take shape. As the cost of incurring debt increases, its impact becomes harder to ignore. So what should we do about the national debt, and how worried should we really be? Hello. Welcome to this excerpt from USA TODAY. I’m Dana Taylor. Today is Tuesday, May 19, 2026. Mark Goldwein, senior policy director at the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, joins me to talk about the impact of the scale of America’s borrowing and what it means for future generations. It’s great to talk to you, Mark.
Mark Goldwein:
Yes, thank you for joining me.
Dana Taylor:
Mark, for decades the national debt has been treated as a major political and economic threat. Today, that number has increased dramatically, but the political and public urgency feels diminished. Is this another example of politicians just wanting to solve a problem without doing the hard work of finding a way to solve it?
Mark Goldwein:
This is a great question. So I think there are a few things going on. First of all, as you mentioned, the debt is huge, but over the last 15 years, after the global financial crisis, the debt has increased quite significantly, but we didn’t expect it to have an immediate impact in terms of rising interest rates, inflation, etc. So I think the politicians got a little cocky and said, for lack of a better word, they can’t hurt themselves. Well, since then we’ve seen big inflation in 2021 and 2022. Much of that is due to budget deficits, and interest rates are now at new highs. Much of this is due to debt. So politicians should actually be really worried about this, but I think they’ve learned a little bit of the wrong lesson of the 2010s. That’s a little thing. The rest of this is exactly what you say.
Deficit reduction is difficult. That involves telling someone they need to pay more in taxes, receive less government services, or have their benefits reduced. Those are not popular positions. It’s much easier to rack our brains and get through the next election, leaving the next generation to be someone else’s problem.
Dana Taylor:
When economists worry that we have more debt than the economy, what are they actually worried about?
Mark Goldwein:
There’s no magic that happens when debt goes from 99% of GDP to 101% of GDP. But what this symbolizes is the debt that is trying to escape from us. Countries, especially wealthy countries, can borrow money. In fact, it’s often healthy to borrow money to cope with a recession, spread emergency costs over time, or make investments. The problem is when the amount you borrow is increasing faster than your ability to own it. And that is the basic measure of debt-to-GDP. This measures how large our debt is compared to our ability to hold it. And what we’re seeing is debt starting to run away from us. When debt exceeds 100% of the GDP threshold, the risk of a debt spiral increases. A debt spiral occurs when large amounts of debt drive up interest costs, interest costs drive up debt, and the cycle continues until debt increases rapidly.
Even before that spiral, debt can have all kinds of negative effects on the economy, and I’m happy to argue that, everything from higher inflation to higher interest rates to lower wage growth. But once you get stuck in that spiral, debt turns from a problem to an emergency.
Dana Taylor:
Mark, I’m wondering: Is there a point at which the national deficit starts to impact daily life here in America, or are we already past that point?
Mark Goldwein:
We are already at the stage where debt affects your life. In 2021, 2022, 2023, and even now, when we actually had that high inflation, it was partly caused by very high budget deficits. If you look at the 6.5% or 7% mortgage rate you’ll receive on your new home, that’s partly due to the high debt we carry. It’s hard to explain, but if you look at your wages, they’re a little lower than they would be if you had your debt under control. So Americans already feel in debt. Additionally, debt is a constraint on the federal government. The reason is that when you borrow money, you pay interest. And last year we spent $1 trillion on interest. We spent more on interest than we spent on the Pentagon.
We spent almost twice as much on interest as we spent on our children. And that interest crowds out our ability to make other investments, defend our country, and reduce our taxes. Specify the priority. You can’t do that if you’re using the money to pay off debt.
Dana Taylor:
Sticking to that, the US is borrowing on a scale that most countries cannot sustain. With debt increasing faster than GDP, is it still sustainable for us to continue to carry this much debt?
Mark Goldwein:
The United States is a very wealthy country with very strong institutions and great international power. Therefore, it can take on debt of 100% of GDP. Is it wise? Maybe not, but we can. I’m doing it now. The question is whether that debt is likely to continue increasing, and by how much. At some point, the market will take notice of our situation and decide that there is no way for us to fix things. At that point, panic may ensue. No, debt is not on a sustainable trajectory. We can maintain our current debt, but we are on an unsustainable path. And if we continue on this path, the only possible eventual outcome will be some form of financial crisis.
Dana Taylor:
Mark, is there an argument that the United States has an advantage by being able to borrow money the way it does now?
Mark Goldwein:
You see, just by paying more on your credit card, you can live a more luxurious lifestyle. Could the United States have also been able to live a more luxurious life through this borrowing? And, in fact, all baby boomers have enjoyed lower taxes. We have enjoyed more government services, higher benefits, social security, etc. So while it may feel pretty good in the short term, these short-term gains come at a significant cost in the long term. That means debt is slowly but surely eating away at wage growth. Slowly but surely interest payments are increasing and will eventually rectify. And the fix will either be significant spending cuts and tax increases that will affect generations to come, or some kind of financial crisis, whether it’s through inflation, bank failures, or debt defaults.
Therefore, we are effectively delaying the pain. Sure, it feels good to pay less tax. I like paying less taxes, I think everyone does. Having more services is good, but it comes at a huge cost, and those costs will be borne primarily by young people.
Dana Taylor:
In your estimation, what would prompt Congress to address this issue?
Mark Goldwein:
Therefore, within six and a half years, the Social Security Trust Fund is projected to be depleted. Around the same time, the Medicare Hospital Insurance Trust Fund is expected to run out of money. According to the law, if that happens, all Social Security recipients will have to cut their hair. Essentially, their profits are reduced by a factor of four. I think that will be a great motivation to take action. Politicians don’t want to see benefits cut by $18,000 for the typical married couple retiring in 2032, but that’s not going to happen. And that may motivate you to take action. The risk is that they may take further borrowing to cover this, but given what we have discussed above, the increased risk of a debt crisis, and rising interest rates, this will likely come at a significant cost.
Dana Taylor:
Mark, you’d be hard-pressed to find anyone, Republican or Democrat, who wouldn’t want to leave a better situation for posterity. Is there a consensus on how to stem the rise in national debt? What does crossing this threshold of debt exceeding GDP mean for young people?
Mark Goldwein:
So I think there are some things that we can agree on. We all know from history that capping spending on both the defense and non-defense sides helps slow debt growth. There is great interest in reducing medical costs. There is so much waste and abuse in our health care system and in the private sector, Medicare and Medicaid, that there is a real opportunity to reduce costs without cutting benefits. In fact, costs can be reduced in ways that save the federal government and beneficiaries money. And there is a lot of agreement on some ways to make that happen. And I think there’s an understanding that we need to solve Social Security. This across-the-board 24% benefit reduction must be avoided. And in reality, that will mean more income coming in, and it will mean changes to the benefit formula.
The problem is that we are now so polarized that it is always easier for politicians to promise to give things than to take them. And we’re not going to solve this problem until they change their mindset and understand the high cost of doing nothing.
Dana Taylor:
Finally, you serve on the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. Broadly speaking, what would that look like?
Mark Goldwein:
A responsible federal budget means the debt does not grow faster than the economy. We currently borrow $2 trillion a year. This is equivalent to 6% of GDP. We proposed a target of borrowing 3% of GDP annually. This is a target used in most European countries and much of Africa around the world. While it may not solve everything, it is enough to put us on a sustainable path. You can get there. We were there in 2015. That’s what we suggested as a starting point. Is it okay to have a balanced budget? You don’t actually need to balance your budget, although this allows you to have some breathing room in case emergencies or new needs arise. Responsible budgeting simply requires more closely aligning spending and revenue, and doing so in a way that prioritizes the most important spending and focuses on making the tax code as efficient and growth-aligned as possible.
Dana Taylor:
Thank you for joining us on The Excerpt Marc.
Mark Goldwein:
Thank you so much for having me.
Dana Taylor:
Thank you for your attention. I’m Dana Taylor, and today’s excerpt. Please like and subscribe. See you again tomorrow.
