The Federal Debt Hurts Americans Right Now

Many posts have discussed federal deficits and the federal debt.

Martha Gimbel at The Atlantic:

What should matter is that the consequences of this debt are not off in the future, but already here. The government’s deficits have saddled many American families with higher costs, largely from rising interest rates. The Budget Lab, the policy research center at Yale where I am the executive director, recently estimated that congressional-spending decisions since 2015 have raised Treasury yields by almost a full percentage point, which affects what American households pay to borrow. For someone taking out a 30-year mortgage at last year’s median home price, this rise in long-term interest rates has increased their borrowing costs by about $2,500 a year, or roughly $76,000 over the life of the loan. (The Budget Lab has built a tool to help users calculate their own extra mortgage costs.)

The problem is not just for Americans who are lucky enough to buy a home. The bloated government budgets and waning federal revenues of the past decade are driving up costs across the board. Compared with a world in which these fiscal-policy changes did not take place, the annual borrowing costs on a typical auto loan are now up by about $120, and by about $770 on a typical small-business loan. Credit-card borrowing rates are also hovering near record highs.

Although affordability has become a watchword for politicians who understand that rising prices are hurting American families, lawmakers seem to have forgotten that reducing federal deficits would help bring down prices. In the 1990s, Congress and the White House prioritized bringing deficits down by both cutting spending and raising revenue—moves that lowered borrowing costs for American families by about 0.6 percentage points, according to Budget Lab calculations. But few lawmakers seem to be suggesting the spending cuts and tax increases necessary to lower costs now.

...

Politicians respond to electoral consequences. Right now there is nothing stopping them from doling out tax cuts and spending promises while also driving up interest rates. Voters may complain that their lives are becoming unaffordable, but hardly anyone seems to appreciate that federal deficits are partly to blame. If we want to see lawmakers actually address this problem, economists need to do a better job explaining the stakes. This means that instead of talking about the fact that our national debt could fill all 32 NFL stadiums with two tiers of construction pallets filled with $100 bills, we should be talking about how deficit spending is making it harder to pay our own bills.

Deleting Government Posts

"Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book has been rewritten, every picture has been repainted, every statue and street and building has been renamed, every date has been altered. And that process is continuing day by day and minute by minute."   -- George Orwell, 1984

A number of posts have discussed presidential documents, official data, and government websites.  The Trump administration has killed off or limited access to many such resources, including the CIA World Factbook and DOJ press releases about the January 6 insurrection.

Anna Lieb and Aaron Smith at Pew:

The State Department recently announced that it would delete its X posts from before January 2025 and archive them internally, rather than keeping them public. (We collected data from this account before those posts were removed.)

Pre-January 2025 posts have also been removed from the accounts operated by Customs and Border Protection (@CBP), the Justice Department (@TheJusticeDept), the U.S. Trade Representative (@USTradeRep) and the Department of Defense – which is also known by its secondary title, the Department of War (@DeptofWar). The department retains the DOD account despite changing its handle in 2025.

Two of these accounts – @StateDept and @DeptofWar – are among the top three government accounts on X by number of followers.

Renouncing US Citizenship

Many posts have discussed citizenship and expatriation.

Terry Ward at CNN:

Official government figures related to Americans renouncing citizenship are difficult to pin down.

A State Department spokesperson said in an email to CNN that it does not publish statistics on the number of US citizens who choose to renounce their citizenship, adding that the Treasury Department publishes a quarterly IRS report on expatriations. The IRS told CNN that it does not have compilations of the number of annual expatriations.

But according to Americans Overseas, a resource for US citizens living abroad that tallies the number of names reported within the quarterly IRS reports, 4,889 people are listed on the agency’s list for 2025, the highest number since 2020 when the figure spiked to 6,705. The organization said it is receiving significantly more inquiries about renunciation this year and is predicting a 15% increase in expatriations over last year, with numbers expected to remain elevated over the coming years.

Americans Overseas is currently advising roughly 40,000 US citizens, most with dual citizenship, in Europe and throughout the rest of the world who are either in the process of renouncing or inquiring about pursuing it, according to Daan Durlacher, co-founder of Americans Overseas.

Durlacher said he isn’t seeing all the names of clients he knows have renounced their US citizenship in the IRS reports, and he suggests that the figures are underreported. The IRS did not immediately respond to follow-up questions about the reports.

“These numbers are not complete, and I don’t know why,” said Durlacher, a dual Dutch and US citizen who was born in the Netherlands to an American mother.


To renounce something means to give it up, usually by formal declaration. Indeed, renouncing US citizenship is both a formal and legal process that requires potentially arduous paperwork as well as appearing for an in-person oath in front of a consular officer at a US embassy or consulate office outside of the US, along with other requirements.

International Perspectives on How Democracy Is Working

Many.posts have dealt with international perspectives.

 Jonathan Schulman and Richard Wike at Pew:

Around seven-in-ten U.S. adults (69%) say they are dissatisfied with the way democracy is working in their country. This share is higher than in most other high-income countries surveyed by Pew Research Center this spring.

Poll on America at 250

 Many posts have discussed patriotism and American exceptionalism.

GARY FIELDS, LINLEY SANDERS and NICHOLAS RICCARDI at AP:

The survey from The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research highlights many Americans’ feeling of unease over the future of its representative government — particularly among young people. It presents a jarring contrast as communities around the country commemorate the nation’s 250th anniversary.

Only about one-quarter of Americans say the U.S. stands above all other countries in the world, the new poll found, while 44% say it’s one of the greatest countries in the world, along with some others. About 3 in 10 say there are better countries than the U.S., an increase from 19% in an AP-NORC poll conducted in June 2016.

Americans remain divided about whether diversity is an essential feature of the U.S.'s identity, and agreement about other aspects of the country’s underlying character appears to be eroding, the survey found. Americans are less likely to see a democratically elected government as “extremely” or “very” important to the United States’ identity as a nation than they were just a few years ago. About two-thirds of U.S. adults now say a democratically elected government is highly important to the U.S.’s identity as a nation, down from 80% in 2021.

...

Toung adults are much less likely than older Americans to believe the U.S. is special, compared with other nations, the poll found.

About 4 in 10, 44%, of U.S. adults under 30 say there are other countries better than the U.S., compared with 22% of U.S. adults ages 60 and older.

Fewer, too, see democracy as a key element of the U.S.’s identity. Only about half of Americans under 30 believe this, compared with 81% of those 60 and older.

Depletion Day

Many posts have discussed Social Security and Medicare.

Lorie Konish at CNBC:

A Social Security trust fund used to pay retirement benefits may run out in late 2032, three months earlier than what had been projected last June, according to the new Social Security Administration annual trustees report released Tuesday.

Social Security uses incoming revenue from payroll taxes to pay benefits. When benefit payments exceed payroll tax income, the program relies on the trust funds to help make up the shortfall.

The report said that if the fund is depleted as projected, Social Security will only be able to pay 78% of retirement benefits.

The new projected depletion date follows the enactment of President Donald Trump’s “big beautiful” tax law, which Social Security’s chief actuary said in an August letter would have “material effects” on the financial status of the trust funds because it impacts income taxation of Social Security benefits. At that point, they estimated late 2032 for the retirement fund depletion date, pushed up from the 2025 trustees report estimate of the first quarter of 2033.

The OASI trust fund — formally known as Old-Age and Survivors Insurance, or OASI — if combined with the disability insurance trust fund, may be able to pay full benefits until the third quarter of 2034, when 83% of benefits will be payable, according to the new report. That estimate is unchanged from the prior trustees report.

The actuary's letter explained:

Because the revenue from income taxation of Social Security benefits is directed to the Social Security and Medicare trust funds, implementation of the OBBBA will have material effects on the financial status of the Social Security trust funds.  

 

Hamilton and the Removal Power

Previous posts have discussed the appointment and removal of executive branch officials.

Gary Schmitt at AEI:

During the First Congress’s debate in which James Madison and others defended the ideas that the president had the constitutional power to remove department heads “at pleasure,” one of Madison’s opponents noted that, in Federalist #77, Alexander Hamilton had written that the Senate’s consent would be necessary not only for an official’s appointment but also “to displace” them. Madison and Hamilton, the two most influential expositors of the newly adopted constitution were seemingly at odds over how the government would remove senior administration figures.

Hamilton, alerted to the fact that his statement in Federalist #77 had been used to challenge Madison’s argument sent a note (see William Smith letter to Edward Rutledge, June 21, 1789) to a Madison ally in the House to let its members know that “upon more mature reflection,” he now agreed with Madison. The power to remove was the president’s alone as a constitutionally implied power of the office.

...