The Nuances of the Budget Deficit: Debt Growth, GDP, and Inflation
Related Articles: Implications of Market Decline, Fed Independence, Tariffs Part 1, and Tariffs Part 2.
June 6, 2025 — A couple days ago, tech entrepreneur Elon Musk lambasted a major U.S. spending package – nicknamed the “One Big Beautiful Bill” – as a “disgusting abomination” that would “massively increase the already gigantic budget deficit to $2.5 trillion (!!!) and burden American citizens with crushingly unsustainable debt”. Musk warned that “this immense level of overspending will drive America into debt slavery”. Such fiery rhetoric highlights growing public concern over ballooning budget deficits and the national debt. But what do these terms really mean for the economy, and when does rising debt become a problem? This article explores the nuances of budget deficits – how they relate to economic growth, why the debt-to-GDP ratio matters, the consequences of a mounting debt burden, and potential solutions (like printing money) along with their risks.
The Budget Deficit and the National Debt: Basics
A budget deficit occurs when a government’s annual spending exceeds its revenue. In simple terms, the government is spending more money than it takes in from taxes and other income. Each year’s deficit adds to the national debt, which is the cumulative total of all past deficits (minus any surpluses). The U.S. national debt – the sum of current and past deficits – has surged in recent years, reaching roughly $36 trillion (about 98% of GDP as of the end of 2024). Deficits exploded during crises like the 2020 COVID-19 recession, when federal borrowing jumped to finance relief measures. For example, the U.S. budget deficit tripled from about $984 billion in 2019 to $3.13 trillion in 2020 during the pandemic shock. Although it fell back afterward, the deficit remained high at $1.83 trillion in FY2024, and it’s projected to rise again under current policies.
It’s important to distinguish between the deficit (a yearly flow) and the debt (the accumulated total). Government debt is essentially the sum of past deficits plus any interest owed on that debt. While borrowing can be a useful tool – allowing governments to fund investments or support the economy in downturns – persistent large deficits cause debt to pile up year after year. That’s why observers like Musk worry about an “already gigantic” debt load growing even larger. The key question is: at what point does this debt become unsustainable relative to the economy?
When Does the Debt-to-GDP Ratio Stabilize?
Economists often track the size of the debt by comparing it to the nation’s gross domestic product (GDP) – essentially, the size of the economy. This debt-to-GDP ratio is a critical indicator of fiscal health. A country with debt equal to 50% of its GDP is generally in a stronger position to handle that debt than one with debt at 150% of GDP, because the debt is smaller relative to the country’s income. In fact, U.S. fiscal reports define a sustainable policy as one where the debt-to-GDP ratio is stable or declining over time. Currently, the U.S. debt-to-GDP is around 98% and rising – a level not seen since the aftermath of World War II.
Whether the debt ratio stabilizes or keeps climbing depends on the relationship between debt growth and economic growth. Crucially, if debt (and thus deficits) grows slower than nominal GDP, then the debt-to-GDP ratio will eventually stabilize or even fall. The economy’s expansion helps “carry” the debt. For example, if the economy (nominal GDP) grows around 5% per year and the debt grows around 2% per year, the debt burden shrinks relative to GDP. Historical evidence bears this out: after World War II, the U.S. dramatically reduced its debt ratio from about 106% of GDP in 1946 to just 51% a decade later as the economy boomed and wartime deficits turned to peacetime surpluses.
On the other hand, if debt keeps growing faster than the economy, the debt ratio will rise without stopping. In this scenario, each year’s deficit adds debt faster than GDP can keep up, making the debt load progressively heavier. Unfortunately, current projections show the U.S. in precisely that situation. Absent policy changes, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and Treasury foresee debt rising faster than GDP for the foreseeable future, causing the debt-to-GDP ratio to climb above 100% in the next few years and to ~119% by 2033. Longer-run forecasts are even more sobering – if nothing is done, the debt ratio could exceed 200% of GDP by mid-century and continue climbing after that. In other words, on our present course the debt burden would grow indefinitely, which by definition is unsustainable. As a 2024 analysis put it, the U.S. debt ratio is currently projected to “rise indefinitely” unless fiscal gaps are closed.
Why does this ratio matter? Because the larger the debt is relative to the economy, the harder it becomes to manage. A growing economy can support a higher absolute level of debt, but only up to a point. When debt grows unchecked, it can start to crowd out private investment and weigh on future growth. Moreover, a rising debt ratio is a signal that fiscal policy is on an unstable path, which can erode confidence over time. History offers warnings: excessive debt-to-GDP ratios have sometimes led to financial crises, where governments faced default or had to resort to painful measures like inflationary episodes to reduce the debt. In short, stabilizing the debt relative to GDP is critical for long-run economic stability.
The Consequences of a Growing Debt Burden
Why are economists and commentators so concerned when the debt trajectory points upward? One big reason: interest payments. As debt accumulates, the government must pay more and more interest to bondholders each year – and those interest costs can snowball, especially if interest rates increase. In the past couple of years, this issue has come to the forefront. The Federal Reserve raised interest rates sharply from 2022–2023, which, combined with a larger debt, caused U.S. interest costs to spike. In 2024, the U.S. government’s interest payment on the debt is about $892 billion – roughly 3.1% of GDP, a level not seen in decades. By 2025, net interest outlays are on track to reach their highest share of the economy since at least 1940. The CBO projects that interest costs will double over the next decade: nearly $1 trillion in annual interest by 2026, and around $1.8 trillion by 2035.
Soaring Interest Costs: Rapid debt growth coupled with higher rates means interest payments will consume a growing share of national income. By 2026, interest on the debt will represent 3.2% of GDP (eclipsing the previous record from 1991), and it could reach about 4.1% of GDP by 2035. In practical terms, the federal government would be spending a hefty portion of its budget just to service debt. In fact, halfway through FY2025, interest was the second-largest federal spending category, behind only Social Security, outpacing even defense or Medicare. Over the coming years, interest costs are expected to be the fastest-growing part of the federal budget.
Crowding Out and Less Fiscal Flexibility: Every dollar spent on interest is a dollar not spent on public programs or investments. As interest eats up more of the budget, it crowds out funding for other priorities like education, infrastructure, or research. Under current projections, interest payments will climb to about 22% of federal revenues by 2035 – meaning more than one out of five tax dollars collected would go straight to creditors. This leaves less room to respond to future emergencies or to invest in growth-enhancing initiatives. A rising debt burden can also push borrowing costs higher for everyone if investors demand higher interest rates on government bonds, trickling through to higher rates on business and consumer loans. In worst-case scenarios, unchecked debt raises the risk of a fiscal crisis – investors losing faith in the government’s solvency – though for a country like the U.S. with its own currency, the more immediate risk is inflation (as discussed below) rather than outright default. Still, credit rating agencies and financial leaders have warned that U.S. deficits and debt are a “growing problem” that could eventually threaten economic stability.
In summary, a growing debt isn’t just an abstract number – it carries real costs. High interest outlays mean the government must devote ever-larger portions of its budget to paying creditors, potentially at the expense of public services. Large debt also limits the government’s ability to respond to downturns (since it has less fiscal room to stimulate) and could dampen long-term growth by diverting capital away from productive investment. These concerns are why many economists argue that the U.S. needs to get its deficits under control to avoid leaving future generations with an untenable bill.
Countercyclical Deficit Spending: Using Deficits in Bad Times and Surpluses in Good Times
One core principle of sound fiscal policy is countercyclical deficit spending. This approach calls for the government to deliberately run higher budget deficits during economic downturns to stimulate demand, and then shift to lower deficits or even budget surpluses during periods of strong growth. By ramping up spending or cutting taxes in a recession, policymakers can help put idle resources back to work and jump-start the economy. Conversely, when the economy is booming (and inflationary pressures loom), the government is supposed to pare back spending or raise taxes, aiming to balance the budget or achieve a surplus. In theory, following this strategy over the course of the business cycle stabilizes economic swings and keeps the budget roughly balanced on average.
Crucially, exercising fiscal discipline during good times gives the government more room to maneuver during bad times. Keeping deficits low (or running surpluses) when the economy is healthy is akin to “saving for a rainy day” – it builds up financial reserves and creates fiscal space (or “dry powder”) that can be deployed in the next crisis. In practice, this means using boom periods to pay down debt and rebuild buffers, so that when a recession hits, there is ample capacity to increase spending or cut taxes without pushing the national debt to perilous levels. One problem with the Big Beautiful Bill is that the current economy is relatively stable and increasing the deficit at this time, ties the government’s hand to respond in a recession. If a country enters a downturn with already-high debt and deficits, its ability to stimulate the economy will be constrained. By contrast, a nation that kept its powder dry during the boom years will have more firepower available when stimulus is truly needed.
History shows that this countercyclical approach can work. During the 1940s, massive government spending for World War II helped lift the United States out of the Great Depression. This military buildup drove the federal budget deficit to roughly 27% of GDP by 1943 – an unprecedented fiscal expansion that pushed unemployment below 2%. Decades later, in 2008–09, the U.S. again turned to large deficit spending amid the Great Recession. Tax cuts and emergency relief programs swelled the deficit to about 13% of GDP in 2009, and this aggressive response is widely credited with preventing a far worse economic collapse.
The most recent example of countercyclical deficit spending came during the COVID-19 pandemic. Facing a sudden, severe downturn in 2020, Washington unleashed roughly $5 trillion in emergency relief – from stimulus checks to small-business loans – and in the process ran the largest federal deficits since World War II. The U.S. budget deficit soared to about 15% of GDP in 2020 as the government acted to prop up household incomes and prevent an outright economic freefall. Economists across the spectrum – from fiscal hawks to free spenders – largely agreed that a “go-big, go-fast” fiscal response was necessary to avert a depression. While this extraordinary intervention helped stabilize the economy, it also underscored why having fiscal “dry powder” available is so important: by maintaining low deficits in good times, the government had the capacity to respond decisively when crisis struck.
Can We Just Print Money to Pay Off Debt?
One proposed “solution” to high debt that often arises is printing money – essentially having the central bank create new money to finance government spending or pay off bonds. In theory, a country like the United States, which issues debt in its own currency, can always print more dollars to meet its obligations. Advocates of Modern Monetary Theory (MMT), for instance, note that a sovereign nation that controls its own currency cannot go bankrupt in the usual sense because it can always create money to service its debt. Indeed, during the COVID-19 crisis, the Federal Reserve bought trillions in government bonds, effectively financing deficits indirectly by expanding the money supply (a form of debt monetization).
However, “printing money” is not a free lunch. The major risk is inflation. Creating money out of thin air increases the money supply – and if too much money chases the same amount of goods and services, prices rise. History provides stark lessons: excessive money printing often leads to inflation or even hyperinflation, ultimately eroding the value of the currency. As one financial primer warns, “the excessive printing of money… may lead to inflation, hyperinflation, and then abandonment of the currency.” In extreme cases like Weimar Germany in the 1920s or Zimbabwe in the 2000s, governments that financed huge deficits by printing money saw prices skyrocket and their currencies collapse, destroying the economy along with it.
Even in the U.S., a large monetary expansion can stoke inflation. The burst of pandemic-related spending, combined with easy monetary policy, contributed to the highest U.S. inflation in 40 years by 2022. The Federal Reserve’s mandate is to maintain price stability, so it is generally reluctant to monetize debt except in extraordinary circumstances. Relying on the printing press to handle deficits would risk undermining that price stability. In essence, printing money to pay debt is just another form of taxation – an “inflation tax” that reduces the purchasing power of everyone’s savings. While moderate inflation can help reduce the real burden of debt (by making past debts worth less in today’s money), it’s a delicate balancing act. Too much inflation can hurt the economy and lead to a loss of confidence in the currency.
To be sure, the U.S. cannot “run out” of dollars the way a household can run out of money – it can always issue more. This means an outright default on U.S. Treasuries is highly unlikely as long as debts are in dollars. But debt monetization is limited by the tolerance for inflation. If investors and the public start expecting that debts will be routinely financed by money-printing, they will also expect higher inflation – leading to higher interest rates and potentially a self-fulfilling spiral of currency devaluation. Thus, “printing money” could lead to high inflation, which brings its own set of economic problems (and does not truly solve the issue of too much debt, it only masks it temporarily). The bottom line is that, while monetary policy can help in emergencies, long-term fiscal sustainability cannot rely on the printing press without risking serious inflationary consequences.
Toward a Sustainable Path
Musk’s critique of the “Big Beautiful” spending bill and the broader anxiety about rising deficits underscore a fundamental truth: if the government’s debt grows faster than its economy, the situation cannot continue forever. At some point, action is required to bring deficits in line with economic growth. Policymakers essentially have a few options to stabilize or reduce the debt-to-GDP ratio:
Reduce Budget Deficits – This can be done by cutting expenditures (for example, trimming government programs or entitlement costs) and/or raising revenues (through higher taxes or improved tax collection). The challenge is that such measures can be politically unpopular and must be significant to make a difference. The Center for American Progress estimated that closing the U.S. “fiscal gap” enough to stabilize the debt ratio would require roughly 2.1% of GDP in deficit reduction on average (about $500 billion per year currently). That could involve tough choices on spending and taxes. Delaying these adjustments only increases the required correction over time.
Grow the Economy Faster – Higher GDP growth boosts tax revenues and reduces the debt burden relative to GDP. Pro-growth policies (such as investments in infrastructure, education, technology, or labor force expansion) can help. If the economy can consistently outrun the growth of debt, the debt ratio will fall. For instance, some economists suggest measures like increasing immigration to expand the workforce and sustain stronger GDP growth, which “would help stabilize the debt-to-GDP ratio” over time. The catch is that boosting long-term growth is hard and usually slow – and it may not be enough by itself if deficits remain very large.
Allowing Inflation (Very Carefully) – As discussed, a bit of inflation can reduce the real value of debt. After World War II, for example, the U.S. benefited from a combination of economic growth and moderate inflation to erode debt as a share of GDP. However, deliberately aiming for higher inflation is a risky strategy. It can destabilize the economy and hurt consumers (e.g. via higher prices and interest rates). Policymakers prefer to keep inflation around a low and stable target (about 2% annually in the U.S.). Relying on inflation to fix the debt could easily backfire into an inflation problem without truly resolving the structural deficit issue.
Ultimately, there is no silver bullet. A sustainable fiscal path will likely require a mix of spending restraint, revenue increases, and policies to enhance growth – essentially making hard choices now to avoid harder ones later. The U.S. government has a strong incentive to get its fiscal house in order before interest costs and debt levels reach a point of no return. As the Treasury Financial Report bluntly states, current fiscal policy is not sustainable in the long run. However, if deficits can be brought under control such that they grow slower than nominal GDP, then the debt-to-GDP ratio will stop rising and eventually stabilize. In practical terms, this means bringing annual deficits down to a level that the economy can comfortably support.
The debate over big spending bills and budget priorities – exemplified by Musk’s high-profile criticism – will continue to rage. Yet behind the political sparring is a math problem that can’t be avoided forever. Running persistent trillion-dollar-plus deficits year after year will inexorably push debt higher relative to GDP. At some point, either by choice or by necessity, the U.S. will have to adjust course. The encouraging news is that if the deficit is managed such that it grows more slowly than the economy (or if the economy grows faster than the deficit), the nation’s debt burden can stabilize and even shrink over time. The flip side is also true: as long as the deficit grows faster than the economy, the debt burden will keep rising, compounding the challenges for future budgets.
In conclusion, the budget deficit dilemma comes down to balancing fiscal responsibility with economic needs. Borrowing in tough times or for productive investments can be beneficial, but endless borrowing with no plan for sustainability is a recipe for trouble. The U.S. is not in immediate danger of bankruptcy – it retains powerful tools like taxation and controlled money supply – but trends in debt and deficits warrant vigilance. Slowing the growth of debt relative to GDP is key to preventing the kind of “debt slavery” Musk cautioned against—despite the hyperbole. It will require political will and prudent policy to ensure that the debt-to-GDP ratio eventually stabilizes, rather than spiraling upward. In the long run, a stable or declining debt ratio will put the nation on firmer economic footing and reduce the burden on future generations. Achieving that may not be “beautiful” or easy, but it’s an important goal if America is to maintain fiscal health and economic stability in the decades to come.
Note: This is my own opinion and not the opinion of my employer, State Street, or any other organization. This is not a solicitation to buy or sell any stock. My team and I use a Large Language Model (LLM) aided workflow. This allows us to test 5-10 ideas and curate the best 2-4 a week for you to read. Rest easy that we fact check, edit, and reorganize the writing so that the output is more engaging, more reliable, and more informative than vanilla LLM output. We are always looking for feedback to improve this process.
Additionally, if you would like updates more frequently, follow me on x: https://x.com/cameronfen1. In addition, feel free to send me corrections, new ideas for articles, or anything else you think I would like: cameronfen at gmail dot com.