According to the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB), interest costs consumed a record 3.25% of GDP and roughly 19% of all federal revenue in fiscal year 2025. If Treasury yields remain elevated at current levels — roughly 55 basis points above Congressional Budget Office projections across the yield curve — interest costs would grow 2.5-fold, climbing from $880 billion today to $2.5 trillion by 2036. That would push debt interest’s share of federal revenue to almost 30% — nearly triple its historical average over the past half-century.

The numbers are staggering in their own right. But CRFB warns the real danger lies in the mechanics behind them. When the average interest rate on the national debt exceeds the economic growth rate — what economists call r>g — debt can begin rising rapidly and uncontrollably. Under the elevated-rate scenario, that gap would reach 75 basis points by 2036, making it increasingly difficult for even responsible fiscal policy to stop the spiral. The combination of high debt levels and a large gap between r and g can lead to a debt spiral — where rising interest costs boost debt, rising debt boosts interest rates, and rising rates boost interest costs further.

By 2027, under the high-rate scenario, interest costs would overtake Medicare spending to become the second-largest government program — eclipsed only by Social Security. By 2036, the government would be spending nearly as much on interest as on Social Security’s entire retirement program.

CRFB’s prescription is blunt: lawmakers must work to bring interest rates down and prevent high rates from crowding out other priorities or sparking a fiscal crisis. The most effective lever, the group argues, is deficit reduction — which can ease near-term inflationary pressure, take downward pressure off long-term yields by reducing economic crowding-out, and shrink the debt stock on which the government pays interest. “With debt approaching record levels,” CRFB writes, “there is little time to lose”.

Fortune

Interest on the national debt is eating a record 19% of f...

The 30-year Treasury yield just hit its highest point since before the Great Recession. A leading fiscal watchdog warns the timing could not be worse.

@Pete

we all realize the Democrats aren't going to do anything about the debt. the Republicans had an opportunity to do something but blew it and are just allowing more debt to be piled on.

what a shame...

he also called for...

During his 1992 independent presidential campaign, Ross Perot proposed a 50-cent-per-gallon increase in the federal gasoline tax as part of a aggressive economic strategy to completely eliminate the national budget deficit within five years.

Key Details of the Proposal

The Structure: The tax was designed to be phased in gradually at 10 cents per year over a five-year period.

Revenue Generation: At the time, each penny of the tax generated roughly $1 billion annually, meaning the completed 50-cent hike was projected to raise $158 billion over five years (and roughly $55 billion annually once fully implemented).

Intended Use: While the primary goal was federal deficit reduction, Perot also intended to earmark $40 billion of the proceeds to rebuild America's deteriorating infrastructure and help fund federal health insurance initiatives.

Political Impact and Controversy

Perot framed the tax as a necessary, "fair-share sacrifice" to protect future generations from a mountain of federal debt. However, the proposal became a major flashpoint in the 1992 debates:

The Criticism: Opponents and groups like Citizens for Tax Justice criticized the tax as highly regressive. They argued it disproportionately penalized lower-income families and rural Americans who had to drive long distances. President George H.W. Bush frequently attacked Perot on this point, calling the tax unfair to working people.

The Legacy: While Perot did not win, his emphasis on fiscal restraint forced both Bill Clinton and George H.W. Bush to address the deficit directly. Policy experts note that Perot's blunt framing of the national debt set the stage for the bipartisan budget deals that successfully balanced the federal budget later in the 1990s.

24 minutes ago, racer254 said:

If so, why are you against them? You have advocating for raising taxes, this should be right up your alley.

Absolutely the dumbest form of tax. Either way you claim to be anti-tax so the better question is why do you support them.

6 minutes ago, Crnr2Crnr said:

which class of Americans did his tariffs target the hardest?

The same people that would be hurt with what Perot was advocating for with the gas tax. Jesus, You seem to be for one and against the other. Drop the income tax and put a higher goods tax. That way you will get the taxes from people PURCHASING the goods, not people just driving for work.

Just now, Deephaven said:

Absolutely the dumbest form of tax. Either way you claim to be anti-tax so the better question is why do you support them.

Statements with no basis of fact. And what tax am I supporting....maybe start reading and understanding vs making blanket statements.

1 minute ago, racer254 said:

The same people that would be hurt with what Perot was advocating for with the gas tax. Jesus, You seem to be for one and against the other. Drop the income tax and put a higher goods tax. That way you will get the taxes from people PURCHASING the goods, not people just driving for work.

This statement completely negates this one

27 minutes ago, racer254 said:

BTW, tariffs are fees on other countries for the goods they want to sell to the United States. Why does this simple fact continue to be a misconception to the anti-tariff crowd?

So stupid. Keep letting your flock think for you

14 minutes ago, Deephaven said:

This statement completely negates this one

So stupid. Keep letting your flock think for you

Prove it. Again, blanket statements with no factual evidence to back it up.

11 minutes ago, racer254 said:

Prove it. Again, blanket statements with no factual evidence to back it up.

you'll never get anything more than that from him

1 hour ago, racer254 said:

Prove it. Again, blanket statements with no factual evidence to back it up.

You did for me. Contradicted yourself. That is proof

2 hours ago, racer254 said:

The same people that would be hurt with what Perot was advocating for with the gas tax. Jesus, You seem to be for one and against the other. Drop the income tax and put a higher goods tax. That way you will get the taxes from people PURCHASING the goods, not people just driving for work.

on the gas tax? probably... but his 'shared sacrifice' math didn't lie. goods tax, much like his stupid tariffs hurts the lower and middle class the most. drop the income tax? who are you Steve Forbes with the flat tax which significantly favors the higher classes and again hurts the largest purchasing group being the middle class. why are you leaving all out his other proposals? it's because you don't want to pay for anything our elected officials have spent and continues to spend right?

forty trillion in the hole and head buried neck deep in the sand...

1 hour ago, Crnr2Crnr said:

on the gas tax? probably... but his 'shared sacrifice' math didn't lie. goods tax, much like his stupid tariffs hurts the lower and middle class the most. drop the income tax? who are you Steve Forbes with the flat tax which significantly favors the higher classes and again hurts the largest purchasing group being the middle class. why are you leaving all out his other proposals? it's because you don't want to pay for anything our elected officials have spent and continues to spend right?

forty trillion in the hole and head buried neck deep in the sand...

I didn't spend it and I sure as hell never gained from it for these social programs like passenger rail in California, Learing centers in MN, etc. I will be sure to cover my share of the military costs, but to hell with most of the other spending for public transportation, fancy bridges, bike paths, student loan forgiveness, PPP.

Edited May 30May 30 by racer254

1 minute ago, racer254 said:

I didn't spend it and I sure as hell never gained from it for these social programs like passenger rail in California, Learing centers in MN, etc. I will be sure to cover my share of the military costs, but to hell with most of the other spending for public transportation, fancy bridges etc.

when were you born... 2016?

we don't live in the United States of Racer254

sorry but we also don't get to dictate where our tax dollars go

again just looking back a bit in history... unfunded wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, unfunded housing crisis financial boondoggle, unfunded COVID and PPP spending, and now a little unfunded and unauthorized by Congress squirmish in Iran.

I didn't agree to any of that fucking shit either... but people do drive over bridges for years and years so I'd say that's my tax money being spent more wisely.

1 minute ago, Crnr2Crnr said:

when were you born... 2016?

we don't live in the United States of Racer254

sorry but we also don't get to dictate where our tax dollars go

again just looking back a bit in history... unfunded wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, unfunded housing crisis financial boondoggle, unfunded COVID and PPP spending, and now a little unfunded and unauthorized by Congress squirmish in Iran.

I didn't agree to any of that fucking shit either... but people do drive over bridges for years and years so I'd say that's my tax money being spent more wisely.

Did you vote for Scott Walker?

1 minute ago, racer254 said:

Did you vote for Scott Walker?

sure

next...

3 hours ago, Crnr2Crnr said:

sure

next...

Sure? How about a yes or no. How many times?

37 minutes ago, racer254 said:

Sure? How about a yes or no. How many times?

twice

next...

keep hunting for a gotcha putz

8 minutes ago, Crnr2Crnr said:

twice

next...

keep hunting for a gotcha putz

Twice, so didn't vote for him every time. Probably hated Act 10 And ACT10 saved Wisconsin a lot of taxpayer dollars. You voted for a judge that wanted to get rid of act 10 though. Like I said you are a hypocrite when it comes down to reducing deficits.

Edited May 30May 30 by racer254

Just now, racer254 said:

Twice, so didn't vote for him every time. Probably hated Act 10 And ACT10 saved Wisconsin a lot of taxpayer dollars.

Probably

he says...

yes, 2010 and 2014 and I didn't vote for WI governor at all in 2018 just to upset your labia

Just now, Crnr2Crnr said:

Probably

he says...

yes, 2010 and 2014 and I didn't vote for WI governor at all in 2018 just to upset your labia

So you skip important races. Or did you just say that because you voted for Evers. LOL

You vote republican unless they lose, then you say "I didn't vote for....."

Edited May 30May 30 by racer254

1 minute ago, racer254 said:

So you skip important races. Or did you just say that because you voted for Evers. LOL

if I voted for Evers I would say I voted for him

is your brain directly attached to your asshole?

Brain, lol.

I am not the one hoping for fiscal conservancy and voting against people that are doing exactly as you hope for.

1 minute ago, racer254 said:

I am not the one hoping for fiscal conservancy and voting against people that are doing exactly as you hope for.

you aren't voting at all for conservatives knucklehead

if you were they'd have been and would be tackling this issue

you're voting for the swamp

22 minutes ago, Crnr2Crnr said:

you aren't voting at all for conservatives knucklehead

if you were they'd have been and would be tackling this issue

you're voting for the swamp

You would say the same thing no matter who was in as POTUS. Did you think Kamala was going to be fiscal conservative? Who was the last person you voted for that you thought would be? I voted for Walker and he did exactly what I thought, and magically he lost to Evers because of it. People can't handle it.....or maybe the swamp can't and they cheat to remove the candidate.

1 minute ago, racer254 said:

You would say the same thing no matter who was in as POTUS. Did you think Kamala was going to be fiscal conservative? Who was the last person you voted for that you thought would be? I voted for Walker and he did exactly what I thought, and magically he lost to Evers because of it. People can't handle it.....or maybe the swamp can't and they cheat to remove the candidate.

give us a list of the swamp critters you're voting for this year!!!

5 minutes ago, Crnr2Crnr said:

give us a list of the swamp critters you're voting for this year!!!

Maybe you should be the one who lists your candidates. You are the one constantly complaining. In fact, do that! Let's see these fiscally conservatives you are voting for.....like the liberal judges you have in the past.