The following transcript was generated using automated transcription software for the accessibility and convenience of our audience. While we strive for accuracy, the automated process may introduce errors, omissions, or misinterpretations. This transcript is intended as a helpful companion to the original audio and should not be considered a verbatim record. For the most accurate representation, please refer to the audio recording.
Michael Dunne: I'm Michael Dunne. It's funny about really large numbers: The more you think about their quantity, the more absurd they seem. For example, $1 million in $20 bills weighs over 100 pounds, and 1 billion seconds is almost 32 years. A trillion is almost impossible to imagine. But more than $1 trillion is what it would cost our nation if President Trump actually followed through with his pledge to grant every adult American $5,000 to vote Republican in the midterms.
Today on the show, you'll hear from a national organization, the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, about how this pledge could damage our economy, and about how politicians on both sides of the aisle are not taking our debt seriously enough. Then, at the end of the show, one of our reporters will get us up to speed on a proposed behavioral health facility in Springfield.
In our current era, life imitating art is standard. I remember an old "Saturday Night Live" skit in which the late Phil Hartman, playing billionaire Sam Walton, looked into a camera and pledged that if Americans voted against a tax on billionaires, he'd pay them $100,000 each. Of course, it was parody, but as we all know, President Trump just did something very similar, asking adults to vote Republican in the midterms in exchange for $5,000.
Today, an organization that advocates for responsible federal spending isn't laughing. We talk with its leader, Maya MacGuineas, president of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. Maya, thank you so much for taking the time to talk with us.
Maya MacGuineas: Thanks for having me.
Dunne: Let's start with the basics. Can you explain what your organization is and what it does?
MacGuineas: Sure. The nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget has a board of directors made up of people who have been in the trenches on budgeting and have run various agencies and budget committees. It's not an organization about politics; it's focused on fiscal responsibility. I should clarify that doesn't mean balancing the budget every single year, but looking at ways to control our national debt. Debt isn't always a bad thing; sometimes it makes sense to borrow. But this country has become dependent on borrowing, not just in emergencies, which makes sense, but also in good economic times or even inflationary times, which doesn't make sense. So we try to put some countervailing pressure on lawmakers to be more responsible in how they budget.
Dunne: What is our current budget deficit, how did we get here, and how economically precarious is this situation?
MacGuineas: Sure. We borrow about $2 trillion a year. Our budget is roughly $7.5 trillion, we take in about $5.5 trillion in taxes, and that leaves us with a $2 trillion gap we have to borrow. The government borrows by issuing Treasury bills, bonds and notes, which are bought by people who are saving money. They're great to have in a financial portfolio, but they're also a claim on the government's future assets: When the government borrows that money, it's committing to repay it in the future.
So we worry about the total debt, which is all of those deficits that have added up over time. Sometimes debt comes down when we run budget surpluses, but unfortunately that's not very often these days. We also worry about the huge interest payments we have to pay on that borrowing. Just like household borrowing, the federal government has to pay interest every year on what it's borrowed in the past. Right now we're borrowing $2 trillion; that's the deficit. Our interest payments are about $1 trillion a year, and that's one of the most worrisome indicators in this whole fiscal picture.
Dunne: A few days ago, the president issued a proclamation saying he'd pay every adult citizen $5,000 if Republicans remain in control of the House and Senate. If he actually did it, what would that do?
MacGuineas: I want to clarify that we're nonpartisan, and I'm a political independent, because I'm not going to sound very complimentary of this policy, and it's not politically motivated at all. This is a massive budget buster at a time when there's literally no justification for it. I want to say first that there is a real affordability problem. Many households across the country are struggling as inflation has pushed up costs and wages haven't kept up. Housing is very expensive right now, so it's important to think about ways to address affordability. But something like this, which felt like a spur-of-the-moment idea, and judging by the looks on some of his advisers' faces, may have been unplanned, would send $5,000 checks to everybody and blow up the budget deficit. That would cost over $1 trillion in a year, increasing our budget deficit, which is already at an unsustainable level and near record highs, the highest as a share of the economy it's ever been outside of an emergency. This would blow it up by 50%.
This is probably a good illustration, and both parties do this, of why fiscal irresponsibility is so tempting. Once politicians think about huge tax cuts, huge spending programs, or in this case, just giving people money, they realize there's a huge political appeal, and it's a lot harder to make the case for why this is actually so harmful for families. Because of all the damage it does to the economy and the country, it's really harmful. Everyone would actually be worse off over time if they got that $5,000, because of the damage it would do to the rest of the country.
Dunne: I know you're not here as a legal expert, but can he even do this? And if he can, where would the money come from?
MacGuineas: Clearly this isn't something that can be done solely out of the White House. It would require an act of Congress, and he linked it politically: He said this would happen if Republicans win the midterms. I suppose he's convinced he can persuade his party to go along, and that might well happen, because we've seen a lot of fiscal irresponsibility from both parties going along with policies that aren't paid for. But this would blow up the deficit at a time when we're seeing grave concerns, particularly in the bond markets. Most listeners probably know interest rates are going up and yields on Treasuries are going up. That's in part due to concerns about how much the federal government is borrowing. When you have to borrow that much, you need to find people willing to lend you that money. When there aren't enough lenders at one interest rate, the government has to raise its interest rates to attract more of them. That's exactly what's happening here. If we suddenly had to borrow another trillion dollars, because none of this would be paid for, it's all going on the credit card, you'd see interest rates rise significantly further. I can pretty much guarantee that.
Dunne: As you mentioned, both sides of the political aisle are culpable in this situation. It seems like when a particular party is in power, it doesn't have the same fiscal discipline as when it's out of power criticizing the other side. Is this a strange political feedback loop we're unfortunately stuck in right now?
MacGuineas: That's a great point. People often ask which party is more responsible, Republicans or Democrats, and I don't love that question, because in my worldview, I wish we didn't even talk about policy that way. I wish we just talked about the policy itself. But your observation is correct: Whichever party is in power is the party of fiscal irresponsibility. For most political people, not for our organization, fiscal responsibility is really a defensive posture. It comes into play when they're trying to keep the other side from getting what it wants, whether tax cuts or spending increases; that's when they start to fret about government borrowing. But when they're in power, you don't see those concerns, and that's the problem. We have a process that allows for essentially infinite borrowing, and we have political incentives, because voters don't mind if somebody gives them a tax cut, a spending increase or a $5,000 check. We might know it's not good for us, but it's still appealing. So politicians have the incentive to do that, and the only real check is a political backstop against the other party's fiscal irresponsibility when that's politically successful.
Dunne: Can you take us back a bit? Has it always been this way? Give us a bit of a history lesson about how we got to this point, where the party in power forgets fiscal responsibility and the other party plays defense.
MacGuineas: It hasn't always been this way. Unfortunately, the situation has really deteriorated. It used to be that when deficits reached a certain point, and right now our deficit is 6% of GDP, which is well past that point, lawmakers would start to get concerned. They'd talk, they'd point fingers, but they'd end up hashing out a deal and putting measures in place to bring deficits back down. The last time that happened was at the end of the last century, under President Clinton working with Republican members of Congress. They struck bipartisan deals that not only brought the deficit down but created budget surpluses; the last surplus was in 2001.
That was probably when the real commitment to fiscal responsibility started to deteriorate. I think we felt so successful that we stopped worrying, and before long we were giving away those surpluses through tax cuts, a prescription drug benefit for seniors, and wars that weren't paid for. Suddenly the spending, borrowing and tax-cut cycle began, and it kept growing. Things are markedly worse now because, on top of breaking that unwritten commitment that deficits shouldn't grow too much, we have such high levels of polarization that the country is really suffering.
It's become an all-out fight between the two political parties; they cooperate on very little. They're always trying to beat the other side, telling themselves each election is existential, that they have to win, and once they do, they'll fix the problems. But when it comes to budget policy, that problem never gets fixed. I think the toxicity of our politics makes doing anything hard much more difficult. This is a moment when the country has a lot of hard things to figure out, and if we don't do it in a bipartisan way, without that kind of cooperation, I'm very concerned we won't succeed in overcoming this fiscal problem or several others we face right now.
Dunne: It sounds almost like brinkmanship. Would one party, or perhaps one president, have to be the one to say enough is enough and put policies in place? Is that where this needs to go?
MacGuineas: We absolutely need leadership. We've never had a successful debt deal when the president didn't lead, and we've never had one when both parties weren't recognizing the risks that come with this borrowing: the risks to the economy, to our national security, and to the next generation, which is already frustrated with the situation it's inheriting. So yes, I think we need political leadership. Unfortunately, this isn't the kind of issue that bubbles up from the grassroots. When people are struggling with the cost of health care, job insecurity, worrying about AI and saving for retirement, very few come out and say the fiscal problem is really bad and the only way to fix it is policy changes, meaning raising taxes and cutting spending. Very few voters ask for that, so this has to come from political leadership, and I think leaders need the cover of bipartisanship so they don't point fingers and try to score political points.
There's no sugarcoating this. It won't be simple, but it's doable and manageable, and the upside for this country is so huge. It's really make or break at this point: whether we change the path we're on, which will harm our economy, slow economic growth and cause incredible pain, including high interest rates and high inflation that we won't be able to control, or put a debt deal in place now and see much stronger economic growth going forward because of it.
Dunne: The obvious answer, I guess, is elections. But for people listening right now, how can an average citizen exert some kind of pressure to influence leadership at the top to make the necessary changes?
MacGuineas: It's old-fashioned, but it's a tool I regularly recommend: Call your member of Congress. They never hear from anyone who cares about the budget deficit, or who's worried that Social Security will be insolvent in just six years unless we make changes, which means we won't be able to pay benefits as promised. Instead of callers saying, "Give me a tax cut," or "Give me a spending program," or "Keep your hands off this program," if people called and said they're worried about the national debt and all this borrowing, and hoped lawmakers could work together on a plan to bring it to more manageable levels, that would get noticed. One out of 1,000 calls like that would stand out, because no one speaks to this issue, and lawmakers think nobody cares. Honestly, I'm a little frustrated hearing that from them; they should help people care by talking about it. This isn't a moment that requires huge political courage. Phone calls people make really do make a difference.
Dunne: My last question: Are there any signs of optimism you see regarding our out-of-control spending?
MacGuineas: It's interesting, because when you're an advocacy group, the worse things get, the more you think maybe this is rock bottom and maybe it'll be the wake-up call. It does feel like people are very concerned right now. We hit the $40 trillion mark for national debt just a few weeks ago; that's an astronomically large number. Interest rates are going up, yields on Treasuries are going up, and you can see that the Treasury secretary is concerned. People in the markets are concerned. If you turn on a business channel, there's a lot of talk and hand-wringing about Treasury auctions, and I'm hearing from people much more often now that this is a real problem.
So it's really bad; that's the bad news. We should be able to fix this without approaching crisis territory. But I think it's getting bad enough, and those interest rates and interest payments are one of the biggest things creating a wake-up call, that we're starting to see more political pressure and people talking about how we might fix it. So out of bad news, hopefully comes some good news.
Dunne: That's Maya MacGuineas, president of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. Maya, I really appreciate you coming on and talking with us.
MacGuineas: Thanks so much for having me.
Dunne: As we finish the show today, we're bringing in one of our reporters to update us on a proposed behavioral health center in Springfield: KLCC's Nathan Wilk. Nathan, it's always good to see you in the studio. Thanks for coming in.
Nathan Wilk: Thanks for having me.
Dunne: You've been following this story for quite some time: several plans for new behavioral health facilities in our community. Remind listeners what these centers would be and where they'd be located.
Wilk: Lane County and PeaceHealth want to build a behavioral health campus a little northwest of RiverBend, in the Springfield area just outside the city. Lane County would open the Lane Stabilization Center, which would provide 23-hour monitoring and mental health urgent care, and PeaceHealth would run a behavioral health hospital next to that facility called Timber Springs.
Dunne: Some movement happened recently. You covered a Springfield City Council action. What's going on there, and what needs to happen to move this project forward?
Wilk: The city of Springfield has to annex the land this property is on. Lane County purchased the land and sold a portion back to PeaceHealth, saying together they can afford the space. But right now, that land can't receive city services, like water hookups, so they went to the city of Springfield, which is reviewing annexation criteria. It's been a long process.
Last week, it appeared this annexation application might be rejected, because a majority of city councilors, in a straw vote, said they were leaning toward an interpretation of the annexation criteria that would exclude this type of campus from this industrial area. But on Monday, they appeared to soften that position, although it wasn't entirely clear. They moved forward, saying they'd discuss the other criteria and assume, for the sake of discussion, that the project meets the first set of criteria, then come back and discuss more. One city councilor said there's a way to get to a yes and a way to get to a no, so further discussion on annexation will continue at the Springfield City Council level.
Dunne: Does something have to happen at the county level? What have county commissioners said?
Wilk: The Lane County part is a county project, and the county has raised $44 million in funding so far, so commissioners are behind it. Many county commissioners spoke at a Tuesday morning meeting about how long these types of facilities have been needed in the community, and how important it is to get Springfield on board and give the city what it needs to move to the next step in the process.
Dunne: As I understand it, there's also a lawsuit in the mix regarding this.
Wilk: This gets a little technical, but there's a law the Oregon Legislature passed that allows these two facilities, when built together, to be "super-sited," essentially skipping some elements of the rezoning and land-use process to get the facility built faster. Some neighbors of the property, including Richardson Sports, are suing, alleging that the super-siting law is unconstitutional.
Dunne: What are the next steps? It sounds like there's general agreement that this is a good thing, but there are still obstacles to making it happen.
Wilk: City councilors will have to look at the remaining annexation criteria, and they've signaled there may be other issues around transportation within that criterion. The lawsuit is ongoing, and the people behind this project say that if they have to rezone, it will take a lot more time, and they're on a deadline related to PeaceHealth needing to open this facility by mid-2029.
Dunne: We know you'll stay on top of it. Nathan Wilk, reporter here at KLCC, thanks so much.
Wilk: Thanks for having me.
Dunne: That's the show for today. All episodes of "Oregon on the Record" are available as a podcast at klcc.org. Tomorrow on the show, the Trump administration wants to build more roads in national forests to expedite logging. We talk with the organization Defenders of Wildlife about why this could be catastrophic for our forests. I'm Michael Dunne, host of "Oregon on the Record." Thanks for listening.
