The national debt passed $40 trillion in August, roughly $117,000 for every U.S. resident. The Congressional Budget Office now projects a $2.1 trillion deficit for the fiscal year ending September 30, about 6% of GDP. With the midterm elections just over a month away, few candidates in either party are talking about it.
The scale is easy to state. In fiscal 2026, the government is spending about $7.4 trillion against $5.6 trillion in revenue, which means about $1.32 spent for every dollar collected. The debt stood at $5.7 trillion in January 2001, and it now equals about 125% of GDP, above the World War II peak of 106%. That gap between the scale of the problem and the volume of the debate is the story.
Voters are not the excuse. Pew found in May that 66% of Democrats and 62% of Republicans call the federal deficit a “very big problem.” Yet Gallup recently found that only 2% name it the country’s most important problem. A Peterson Foundation poll, run by a Democratic and a Republican firm in April, found 94% of voters favor candidates with a debt plan, though the sponsor advocates on this issue. Both findings can be true: concern is broad, but priority is thin, and politicians follow priority. As Brookings scholar Jessica Riedl put it, “Politicians no longer care about budget deficits because voters no longer care.”
I read the debt the way a controller reads a balance sheet, and the essential line is not the total but the interest. The CBO reports net interest of $963 billion through July, about $3.18 billion a day, up 14% from a year earlier. Interest will consume nearly 19% of federal revenue this year, a record, and the CBO projects 25% within a decade. Interest is a fixed charge. It competes with defense, Medicare, and every other promise candidates make.
It also reaches households. Mortgage rates track the 10-year Treasury yield, and the Peterson Foundation’s Brett Loper warns that higher federal borrowing costs push mortgage rates up. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent expanded bond buybacks in August to calm long-term rates, and yields dipped, then rose again. Investor Stanley Druckenmiller argued that a credible fiscal package would do far more than even a vastly larger buyback.
Now consider what each party offers.
Republicans say the problem is serious. Rep. Lloyd Smucker (R-PA) cited bond-market turmoil and called the path “simply unsustainable.” Yet the 2025 reconciliation law raised the debt limit by $5 trillion, and Republicans are weighing another increase through reconciliation in the post-election lame-duck session.
Democrats say the same, in a different key. Rep. Brendan Boyle (D-PA) wants the debt limit’s “weapon” permanently off the table, which would remove the one recurring moment when Congress must look at the total. When Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) was asked about solutions, his answer was to oppose the administration’s spending proposals. That is a vote, not a plan.
The calendar is unforgiving, and the lame duck will be crowded. Congress has until December 11 to finish spending bills under the stopgap it passed, and it may also face a debt-limit vote. The statutory limit is $41.1 trillion, leaving about $1.1 trillion of room, roughly six months of deficits at this year’s pace. Economist Lou Crandall projects the ceiling will be reached around February or March 2027. The Social Security and Medicare trust funds are projected to be depleted by 2034, with Social Security cuts possible as early as 2032, according to Roll Call’s summary of federal projections. The lone bipartisan gesture I found, a Sen. Bernie Moreno (R-OH)-Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) proposal on Social Security’s payroll tax cap, drew little traction.
Both parties are behaving rationally, which is the problem. Republicans protect tax cuts and defense, Democrats protect entitlements and domestic programs, and each blames the other’s priorities. Each side’s base gets what it wants, and the bill grows by about $3 billion a day.
What would a diligent voter ask for? Four items are feasible before Nov. 3.
First, name the number. Every candidate for Congress should say what deficit they would accept in five years, and which tax or spending lines would move to get there.
Second, put interest on the scorecard. A platform that ignores a $1 trillion line item is incomplete.
Third, ask for a CBO score. Promises are cheap until someone totals them.
AN ELON MUSK INSIDER SHARES WHAT HE FOUND IN WASHINGTON — AND IT SHOULD TERRIFY YOU
Fourth, demand a trade that each side’s own words invite. Democrats want the debt limit disarmed, and Republicans say the fiscal path is unsustainable. A pragmatic bargain would pair debt-limit reform with enforceable deficit targets. Neither party would win outright, and the taxpayer would.
The midterms are a rare moment when both parties need something from voters. Voters can ask for something in return. A debt that nobody campaigns on is still a debt, and interest does not wait for an election.
Jose E. Navarro, MBA, is a financial controller and founder of The Navarro Report, a public finance and government accountability publication based in San Diego, California.