It’s time to start talking again about the deficit and not dismiss those fretting about the mounting federal debt, now approaching $34 trillion, as Chicken Littles.

The yearly deficit has topped $1 trillion — once a nearly unimaginable figure — now for several years running. It was $1.7 trillion in the fiscal year just concluded, and the financial world barely cocked an eyebrow. The federal government has no problem floating debt; the dollar remains strong.

This won’t last. Even America, as economically powerful as it is, can’t run on a credit card forever.

Without action, U.S. debt eventually will become unappealing to investors. The feds then will need to offer investors ever higher yields, exacerbating the situation.

Interest on the federal debt now accounts for about 10% of the budget. To put that in context, expenditures for all nondefense discretionary programs make up 15% of the budget.

On the present course, according to the U.S. Government Accountability Office, interest will eat up more than a quarter of the budget by 2051.

So, yes, federal spending is unsustainable.

We’ve seen seemingly intractable issues addressed in creative ways before. Some will recall how the U.S. had far too many military bases and needed to close many of them. Parochial action by lawmakers intent on preserving bases in their districts got in the way. Congress in 1990 established a commission to recommend closures and required legislators to vote them down to keep them from taking effect. It’s worked.

Many won’t remember, but the 1980s featured several deficit-reduction efforts involving budget hawks from both parties. There was 1985′s Gramm-Rudman-Hollings law, which sought to tamp down the large deficits during the Reagan era. That didn’t work, but Clinton-era tax increases combined with the economic boom of the 1990s produced budget surpluses.

Since the dawn of the 21st century, however, a combination of ill-advised tax cuts, wars and economic crises and pandering to big-spending progressive agendas have brought deficit spending back with a vengeance. The bipartisan rump groups of the ‘80s weren’t particularly successful, but that doesn’t mean such an effort couldn’t be now.

As was the case nearly four decades ago, lawmakers from both parties have to buy into the project in order for it to have any chance to succeed. Likewise, the president has to provide vocal support, spending political capital to give it momentum.

Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, federal insurance programs whose spending is on autopilot, will have to be part of any cuts, since together they account for 45% of federal outlays. Those safety-net programs have proven to be political “third rails,” so any trims to them likely would have to be needs-based.
In short, those who can sacrifice would have to be willing to do so, and the pain would have to be perceived as reasonably shared.

Failure isn’t an option. The true day of reckoning is a ways off. But facing it only gets more expensive, and requires more sacrifice, the longer the country waits.

Chicago Tribune/Tribune News Service

Editorial cartoon by Steve Kelley (Creators Syndicate)