America
 is cruising into an uncharted sea of federal debt, with a public 
seemingly untroubled by the stark numbers and a government seemingly 
incapable of turning them around.
In the presidential race, there’s not much partisan difference or advantage on this subject. Donald Trump
 and President Biden have overseen similar additions to the nation’s 
accumulated debt—in the range of $7 trillion in each case—during their 
terms. The national response to both has been, by and large, to look the
 other way.
History, however,
 offers some cautionary notes about the consequences of swimming in 
debt. Over the centuries and across the globe, nations and empires that 
blithely piled up debt have, sooner or later, met unhappy ends.
Historian Niall Ferguson
 recently invoked what he calls his own personal law of history: “Any 
great power that spends more on debt service (interest payments on the 
national debt) than on defense will not stay great for very long. True 
of Habsburg Spain, true of ancien régime
 France, true of the Ottoman Empire, true of the British Empire, this 
law is about to be put to the test by the U.S. beginning this very 
year.” Indeed, the Congressional Budget Office projects that, in part 
because of rising interest rates, the federal government will spend $892
 billion during the current fiscal year for interest payments on the 
accumulated national debt of $28 trillion—meaning that interest payments
 now surpass the amount spent on defense and nearly match spending on 
Medicare.
Washington has been adding to the national debt at an alarming pace. Not so long ago—beginning in the late 1990s—the federal government’s budget was actually in surplus, at least for a time. This year, it will be some $1.9 trillion in the red, the Congressional Budget Office forecast just this week.
Only a dozen years ago, the aggregate government debt amounted to about 70% of the nation’s gross domestic product. This year, it will be about equal to the entire gross domestic product (and by some measures higher when additional government accounts are included). By 2028, it is forecast to reach a record 106% of GDP, matching the record hit during the heavy spending to finance World War II. By 2034, barring changes in tax and spending policy, it is projected to hit 122% of GDP, the highest level ever recorded.
This red ink can have painful, if hidden, consequences. The CBO projects that the weight of the debt will reduce income growth by 12% over the next three decades, as debt payments crowd out other investments.
There is nothing inevitable about this path or its consequences. This year’s deficit actually would have been higher without the spending limits and policy changes put in place in the much-maligned Fiscal Responsibility Act the Biden administration pushed into law last year. More broadly, frequent past warnings about crises emerging from rising debts have proven unfounded. There’s even an economic theory—Modern Monetary Theory—that maintains that worries about the consequences of debt are misplaced, because countries that control their own currencies can always create more money and therefore never go broke or be forced to default.
Still,
 a look back at history is not reassuring. “Even if a country issues the
 leading reserve currency, even if a country is the dominant 
geopolitical power, that just doesn’t bail countries out,” says J.H. 
Cullum Clark, director of the Bush Institute-Southern Methodist 
University Economic Growth Initiative. “They do lose that status.”
Clark,
 who has written about history’s lessons on debt and international 
power, points to the Roman Empire as an early cautionary tale. After 
establishing their empire as the world’s most powerful, Rome’s leaders 
began spending lavishly on imperial administration and the army in the 
third century. Emperors financed the resulting debt by debasing the 
currency, which generated high inflation. That weakened the empire’s 
stability and defenses, leading to its demise in the fifth century.
After establishing a foothold in the New World, Spain financed its military adventures and globe-spanning empire with extensive borrowing from abroad and high taxation, eventually losing its status as Europe’s greatest power. In their look at the history of international financial crises, “This Time Is Different: Eight Centuries of Financial Folly,” economists Carmen Reinhart and Kenneth Rogoff note that Spain “managed to default seven times in the 19th century alone, after having defaulted six times in the preceding three centuries.”
France
 traveled much the same path and defaulted frequently on its debt. 
Ultimately, profligate borrowing and spending by the court at Versailles
 caught up with the royals, producing deindustrialization and fiscal 
crises that led to the revolution of 1789.
China’s Qing Dynasty went through a similar cycle and encountered a similar fate. It was a leading world economic power, but spending and foreign borrowing in the 19th century led to damaging underinvestment in the infrastructure needed to keep advancing.
Great
 Britain may offer the most compelling parallels. It oversaw the world’s
 most far-flung empire through the 18th and 19th centuries before war 
spending, including the fight against the American Revolution, produced 
high debt. It recovered but by the 20th century found that it could no 
longer afford the spending required to both maintain an army and navy to
 police the empire and to finance rapidly growing social programs. Debt 
began crowding out other investments, and economic weakness sapped the 
strength of the British pound. The pound ceased being the world’s 
leading reserve currency, and the British Empire soon declined.
Clark
 says that, in the current environment, the event triggering a debt 
crisis could be a downgrade of America’s credit rating or the refusal of
 international financiers to continue lending. The U.S. isn’t in that 
position yet. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen said in a recent CNBC 
interview that if debt could be “stabilized” at current levels, “we’re 
in a reasonable place.” But she also has warned that extending Trump-era
 tax cuts that are set to expire next year would drive up the nation’s 
debt as a share of its economy.
The good news is that there are examples of nations that have pulled back from a sea of debt to stabilize their finances and their place in the world. Britain managed that trick before falling backward, and Canada, Denmark, Sweden and Finland all have emerged from more recent debt crises to return to fiscal health.
In fact, the U.S. itself did so not so long ago. In the 1980s, there were serious concerns about rapidly rising debts. Amid those worries, Yale historian Paul Kennedy published a classic work on the historic relationship between economic strength and international power, “The Rise and Fall of Great Powers,” chronicling the fate of dominant nations that became overextended. He noted that, at the time, the U.S. was piling up debt in peacetime as no great power had since France in the 1780s.
But the American political system responded with policy changes that produced that brief period of surpluses in the 1990s, and subsequent bipartisan agreements helped subdue deficits. Today, though, Kennedy’s warning that by the 21st century “the compounding of national debt and interest payments…will cause quite unprecedented totals of money to be diverted in that direction” is coming true.
Some of the decline in American power that Kennedy warned about seems to have been avoided so far. Now, he told me in an interview, he has been “asking my economist friends about this conundrum…of a very, very large and in some ways overextended great power being able to keep issuing more and more its of currency-denominated bonds without there being, shall we say, punishment for it.” That punishment, he adds, still could come someday if Asian nations, particularly China, which today holds enormous quantities of U.S. Treasury bonds, “just decided for some reason of having a political quarrel with the U.S. to dump vast amounts of Treasurys,” setting off a fiscal and economic crisis.
For
 now, the debt is being driven upward by higher interest payments, plus 
the fact that the current tax code isn’t providing enough revenue to 
cover Social Security and Medicare. Those forces come at a time when 
neither party wants to touch those entitlement programs and when 
Republicans seek tax cuts and Democrats promise no tax increases for 
families making less than $400,000 a year. Both political parties are 
using the debt mostly as a rationale for doing things they would like to
 do anyway—some Republicans to oppose more aid for Ukraine, for example,
 and some Democrats to raise taxes on corporations and the wealthy.
The
 net effect is to downgrade discussion of deficits and debt on their own
 terms. Going beyond that would require a level of discipline and 
bipartisan resolve that, while found at times in the past, is sorely 
lacking in Washington today.
Gerald
 F. Seib was The Wall Street Journal’s executive Washington editor and 
Capital Journal columnist and currently serves as a visiting fellow at 
the Robert J. Dole Institute of Politics at the University of Kansas.
Copyright ©2024 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. 87990cbe856818d5eddac44c7b1cdeb8
Appeared in the June 22, 2024, print edition as 'Will Debt Sink the American Empire?'.