Our politicians have a problem. They like to spend money on things, but they don’t like to pay for those things. This is a bipartisan problem. We citizens also have a problem. We want things from the government, and we don’t want to pay for them either. We vote for representatives who are happy to go along with our wishes.
What is the evidence for my contention? One doesn’t need to look too far. Recently, the federal government reported that it ran a budget deficit of $2 trillion for fiscal year 2026 (October 1, 2025, to September 30, 2026). In fiscal year 2024, the government ran a budget deficit of $1.83 trillion, which, when adjusted for inflation, is pretty much the same amount. This is not just a recent problem. It has been 25 years since the federal government balanced its budget. This is a bipartisan problem.
As a result of our deficit spending, our national debt has risen to $40 trillion, which represents over 100 percent of our nation’s GDP, and over $115,000 for every man, woman, and child in the country. Interest payments on the debt are now over $1 trillion a year, more than spending on either Medicare or defense.
About 86 percent of the $40 trillion debt has been accumulated over the last 25 years. Fifty-two percent of this amount was accumulated under Democratic presidential administrations, and forty-eight percent under Republican administrations (of course, Congress and the President create budgets together). This is a bipartisan problem, and it’s getting worse. The recent deficit spending has happened during relatively good economic times in our country. Should we fall into a substantial recession, the current set of spending programs and revenue sources would result in much larger budget deficits.
What are the consequences of having programs and not paying for them? Recently, as the United States has grown our national debt to unprecedented levels, with no plan to stop doing this, lenders have started to become more cautious about lending money to our country. This is reflected in our nation’s bond markets, where our country’s debt instruments are bought and sold. Lenders now demand more interest to hold our debt. Interest rates have increased, making it more expensive to get a mortgage or take out a loan for a car or a college education. Persistent deficits also add to inflationary pressure, and inflation hits the poor among us the hardest.
Perhaps the most important consequence of the overspending is that a very large bill is being handed to future generations. When we think about loving our neighbor as ourselves, we can’t feel too good about the burden that we are placing on our neighbors in the future, to say nothing of our own children and grandchildren. Should we be surprised if young people are hopeless about the future? Their fiscal future isn’t bright.
The desire to spend money and not pay for things has extended right up to the current election. Let me provide two examples, one from each side of the political aisle.
On the Democratic side, many candidates back the idea of “Medicare for All.” On the face of it, providing everyone with health care coverage can sound like a good idea. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that this program could add about $2 trillion a year to federal spending. Yet there has been little discussion by Democrats of reducing other government spending or increasing taxes to pay for such an expanded program. Once the costs begin to be considered, the feasibility of this program certainly comes into question. Without a credible plan to pay, the default is to borrow and to leave the costs to future generations.
On the Republican side, President Trump recently made a proposal to pay all adult citizens $5,000 if his party won in the upcoming midterm elections. Getting $5,000 seems like a nice idea, but his pledge would cost around $1.25 trillion. No other programs would be cut, and no new taxes would be collected; he says tariffs will pay for it, while most analysts suggest otherwise. I suspect President Trump would be just fine with borrowing the money to finance this $5,000 payment, leaving the bill to be paid by future generations. Our desire to spend money on things and not pay for them is a bipartisan problem.
Given this pattern of overspending and the corresponding negative consequences, one would think that this problem would be one of the leading issues in the upcoming election. Not so. One might think that the media would be putting a substantial focus on these issues and highlighting the potential harm. Not so much. If ever there was an example of putting one’s head in the sand to ignore a problem, this is it. It seems very hard to make the argument that all of this deficit spending and accumulation of debt is good stewardship.
Why do we do this? Certainly, some may want additional spending programs to help others and to bring justice to our society. Others sincerely believe that lower taxes are the pathway to economic growth that will lead to better outcomes for all the members of society. We love to hear about what can be done for us and for others, but we don’t often ask about the costs. And there are costs.
We chafe against our God-given limits. We want to believe that there can be something for nothing, but as we know from our own lives, there is no such thing. This doesn’t mean we can’t do things, but we can’t continue to do things and hand the bill to future generations. This is the road to financial ruin, national instability, and social disharmony.
In Luke 14:28-30, Jesus tells the story of a builder.“Suppose one of you wants to build a tower. Won’t you first sit down and estimate the cost to see if you have enough money to complete it?For if you lay the foundation and are not able to finish it, everyone who sees it will ridicule you, saying, ‘This person began to build and wasn’t able to finish.’” (NIV) As a nation, we keep “building,” without enough money to pay for it.
I would like to propose a rule to rely on as a guideline for our future fiscal activity. The rule is “If it’s worth doing, it’s worth paying for.” I believe this rule fits the concept of economic stewardship very well. This rule demands that we take responsibility for our own fiscal situation, and that we count the cost of our economic actions. If we want our taxes to be cut, we need to cut some of the spending on the programs that benefit us. If we want to increase government spending on new programs, we need to find a way to pay for them. It is hard to agree on things in our current political climate, but surely we can agree on this.
I believe America is a great country, despite many obvious shortcomings. But with regard to this issue, we have failed. It hasn’t always been this way. From 1998 to 2001, our federal government ran a budget surplus. Amazingly, we paid for everything we spent for four straight years, and at the same time, reduced the debt held by the public. Forty years ago, in 1986, the Senate fell a single vote short of passing a balanced budget amendment. Every state but Vermont is required to balance its budget. Other countries do better than we do. We used to do better.
I think my rule makes a lot of sense, and it is quite simple in its formulation. If you don’t believe that this is a good rule, I would love to hear your argument that it is good stewardship to do things and have programs, and not to pay for them. What is the alternative that helps our nation flourish in the long run?
Perhaps there is a case to be made for some deficit spending in tough times, financed by surpluses accumulated in good times, while balancing overall spending over a longer period of time. Some households are able to pull this off. Our nation, however, hasn’t been able to make such a rule work. We should accumulate the surpluses first, and then use them as a rainy-day fund. The other way doesn’t work. Consider Joseph and his accumulation of grain in Egypt, which provided a literal lifeline when the time of famine came. This even provided support for his own family, who came to benefit from the surpluses of food that had been stored.
What are Christians to do? It is easy to ignore this situation and just hope that we don’t have to personally face the consequences. But we can do better. It starts here: whenever we hear a politician or a friend propose a new spending plan or a reduction in taxes, our first question, as in our personal lives, should be: “How are we going to pay for it?” Good stewardship requires a better answer than the ones we have been giving.
