A US Federal Budget Chartbook

For some people, their pulse beats faster when their favorite sports team wins, or their favorite musician drops a new album. For others, pulse and respiration accelerate when confronted with “Spending, Taxes, and Deficits: A Book of Charts.” If you (like me) are in this second category, Jessica Riedl has got your back (Brookings Institution, April 2026). This is a book with a lot of pictures and not too many words.
Here’s the basic picture. Federal debt as a share of GDP is near the highest level in US history, which happened after the US financed the fighting of World War II with borrowed money. National debt is now about $235,000 per US household. The pattern of the last two decades shows that we fought the Great Recession of 2008-09 and the pandemic recession of 2020 with borrowed money, too. Assuming no future giant recessions, wars, or pandemics, past tax cuts expiring when they are scheduled by law to do so, and interest rates not rising further, this is the path we’re on.
Those of you with long memories may recall that back in 2000, the US government actually had budget surpluses for a couple of years. What has changed since then? The short answer is tax cuts, higher spending on Social Security and Medicare, and higher spending on interest payments.
I sometimes talk to people who believe that the defense budget is the biggest part of federal spending. I heard someone refer to the “military-industrial complex” the other day, a phrase form President Eisenhower’s 1961 farewell address. If you hold this belief, time to update your priors. At the time of Eisenhower’s speech, defense was about half of all federal spending, while Social Security/Medicare and anti-poverty programs wer about 16% of federal spending. Those categories have now (roughly) switched places. Social Security/Medicare and antipoverty progrmas ar now 53% of total federal spending, while defense is about 13%.
One grim sign, when you are in debt, is the vicious circle where your interest payments are so high that you can’t reduce your current borrowing, and so you sinkhole of debt keeps getting deeper and deeper. On its current trajectory, interest payments in the US federal budget are headed down this path. The purple bars show the rise in federal interest costs since 2018; the green bars show the path the budget is currently on. On this path, about 30% of all federal revenues will be going to interest payments on past debt by 2036–and interest payments would be a higher cost than Social Security.
Reidl uses the charts to make a case that addressing the long-standing long-term insolvency of Social Security and Medicare would go a long way to addressing these issues. US politicians have been ducking this topic for decades, and continue to do so. Based on selection of charts and labels, Riedl is clearly less enthusiastic about tax increases, but in my own mind, going back in the direction of the tax burdens from back in 2000s can be a reasonable step as well. For example, I would favor moving the estate tax back toward its 2000 levels, and I’d at least be willing to talk about eliminating all income tax reductions–which at this point only apply to about 10% of all taxpayers who tend to have higher incomes. But Riedl offers the useful reminder that the more generous welfare states of Europe are not in fact financed by taxing high incomes and wealth at conspicuously above US levels, but instead by value-added taxes (think a national sales tax) and higher payroll taxes. In short, they provide additional middle-class benefits by taxing the middle class.

Facts Only

* Federal debt as a share of GDP is near the highest level in US history, occurring after financing World War II with borrowed money.
* National debt is approximately $235,000 per US household.
* The pattern over the last two decades shows that the Great Recession of 2008-2009 and the pandemic recession of 2020 were financed with borrowed money.
* Assuming no future giant recessions, wars, or pandemics, and scheduled tax cut expirations and stable interest rates, this is the projected path.
* Changes since 2000 involve tax cuts, higher spending on Social Security and Medicare, and higher interest payments.
* Defense spending was about half of all federal spending in 1961, while Social Security/Medicare and anti-poverty programs were about 16% then.
* Social Security/Medicare and anti-poverty programs now account for roughly 53% of total federal spending, compared to defense at about 13%.
* Interest payments on the US federal budget are projected to require about 30% of all federal revenues by 2036–and this cost would be higher than Social Security.

Executive Summary

The text presents an argument, supported by data visualizations from Jessica Riedl’s book, suggesting that current federal fiscal patterns are unsustainable due to high debt levels and interest payments. The author draws a parallel between the accelerated pace of national debt accumulation following historical events like World War II and the financing of recessions through borrowing. The argument highlights a shift in the allocation of federal spending; historically, defense spending was a larger proportion of the budget compared to social safety nets, but this dynamic has reversed, with social security and anti-poverty programs now accounting for a much larger share of federal expenditure. Furthermore, the trajectory of interest payments on federal debt is shown to create a vicious cycle where high interest costs impede debt reduction. The author suggests that addressing the long-term insolvency of Social Security and Medicare could help mitigate these fiscal issues, implicitly suggesting that alternative approaches to taxation, like those used in European welfare states (value-added taxes or payroll taxes), offer another route to financing social benefits without burdening middle-class incomes disproportionately.

Full Take

The central narrative operates by framing current fiscal realities as a structural trap created by historical borrowing patterns and spending priorities. The shift in budgetary weight from defense to social programs suggests a fundamental reordering of governmental priorities, which is then juxtaposed against the debt spiral driven by interest costs. The implication for cognitive sovereignty lies in recognizing that policy debates often prioritize short-term political goals (like tax cuts) over long-term structural solvency. The suggestion to revisit tax burdens or consider alternative financing mechanisms, like VATs, challenges the accepted monolithic view of how large nations must fund social stability, forcing a confrontation with established economic orthodoxies. The pattern detected is an attempt to shift focus from the *causes* of debt (borrowing) to the *consequences* of managing it (interest burden), while introducing alternative financing models as potentially superior solutions that challenge the current paradigm built around income taxation.
Bridge Questions: If restructuring federal spending priorities were enacted, what specific mechanisms would be required to prevent political actors from immediately reversing these changes? How do the established global precedents for wealth and income taxation compare critically against the domestic debt trajectory described? What assumptions about the necessity of the current Social Security and Medicare structures must be questioned in light of projected fiscal constraints?

Sentinel — Human

Confidence

The text reads like an essay or commentary blending personal reflection with expert analysis on fiscal policy, demonstrating a strong human argumentative voice built around established concepts.

Signals Detected

Sentence length variance is noticeable; the opening is punchy and highly subjective before shifting to dense factual claims.

The flow from a personal anecdote (pulse/recession analogy) directly into specific data points regarding federal debt and spending is coherent, suggesting an internal voice guiding the structure.

Specific references to external sources (Brookings Institution, Eisenhower's farewell address) are used to anchor arguments, which is typical of human analytical writing, though the sourcing detail for the charts themselves is absent.

The text relies on interpreting complex financial trajectories and synthesizing policy history (e.g., comparison to European welfare financing) rather than reporting raw, easily verifiable statistics.

Human Indicators

Presence of highly subjective framing ('If you (like me)...', 'In my own mind, I would favor...'), which introduces a distinct personal perspective.

The weaving together of high-level systemic critiques with specific policy references suggests an author synthesizing existing arguments rather than generating original data.