We Re Going to Need a Bigger Budget
We re going to need a bigger boat—this famous line from “Jaws” perfectly captures what America needs for its fiscal future. Our nation’s approach to managing public finances bears a striking resemblance to the fictional seaside community depicted in the beloved summer film. This comparison extends beyond the surface-level similarity between a predatory shark and mounting national debt. Rather, the parallel lies in how Amity Island’s leadership responded to an emerging crisis mirrors our congressional handling of fiscal matters. We re going to need fundamental changes to our budget framework if we want to avoid disaster.
The movie’s setting, Amity Island, represents a charming Cape Cod destination whose prosperity depends heavily on visitors. When a ferocious shark begins attacking swimmers just before peak vacation season, local authorities face a critical decision. Police Chief Brody immediately identifies the threat and advocates closing beaches to protect residents. However, Mayor Vaughn prioritizes economic concerns over public safety, fearing that beach closures would devastate tourism revenue. We re going to need leaders willing to make difficult choices.
“The problem is obvious with the first discovery of human remains. Both the police and the coroner recognize the wounds of a shark attack.”
Through political pressure, Vaughn convinces the coroner to attribute the death to a boating accident rather than a shark attack. This denial of reality leads to additional casualties before the community finally acknowledges the true danger. Washington faces similar challenges today as we re going to need more transparency in our fiscal decision-making.
Our Real Fiscal Challenge
Washington’s equivalent of the shark isn’t the $41 trillion debt ceiling or the $32 trillion in publicly held debt—though both figures represent serious concerns. These numbers merely reflect symptoms of a deeper structural issue. The congressional budget process itself creates minimal constraints on legislative spending while simultaneously making meaningful reform more challenging than necessary. We re going to need to address these systemic problems head-on.
Historical data reveals this pattern clearly. Prior to World War I, America experienced budget shortfalls in only 34 percent of fiscal years. Following the war, that figure jumped to 79 percent. Since implementing the contemporary budget framework in 1974, deficits have occurred in 92 percent of all fiscal periods. The sole exception emerged between 1998 and 2001, when administrations under Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush achieved four consecutive years of budget surpluses. We re going to need to return to sustainable spending practices.
For decades, Congress has functioned largely without an effective budget mechanism. Only six of the past sixteen years saw the adoption of concurrent budget resolutions. Looking ahead to fiscal 2027, experts anticipate another year without formal budget agreement. Meanwhile, senior appropriators from both political parties reportedly gather behind closed doors with leadership to determine spending levels needed to secure votes for government operations.
The Reconciliation Misconception
Modern budget adoption often centers on reconciliation—a procedure allowing Congress to circumvent standard Senate rules. Theoretically, this process should align federal expenditures and revenues with budget targets to reduce deficits. In practice, reconciliation serves a completely different purpose. We re going to need to restore reconciliation to its original intent.
Instead of addressing fiscal balance, lawmakers primarily utilize reconciliation to overcome Senate filibuster requirements and advance legislation through simple majority votes. This pattern appears across numerous significant policy initiatives: the Bush administration’s 2001 and 2003 tax reductions, President Obama’s 2010 Affordable Care Act, the Trump tax cuts of 2017 and 2025, Democrats’ 2021 Inflation Reduction Act focused on green energy, and recent Department of Homeland Security appropriations.
The original connection between reconciliation and deficit reduction has essentially disappeared from congressional practice. We re going to need to realign this process with its fiscal goals.
Tiger Sharks and Great Whites
Back on Amity Island, beach closures remain delayed despite public attacks. Business owners convince local officials to implement partial solutions while maintaining open beaches. When authorities capture what they believe to be the threatening shark, politicians declare victory without verifying their success, ignoring scientist Matt Hooper’s warnings.
Our budget process follows an identical pattern. Periodic concerns about excessive spending generate temporary reform efforts. The 1985 Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Act introduced spending sequesters, while the 2011 Budget Control Act established caps on both defense and non-defense expenditures. These measures functioned like tiger sharks—superficially impressive but ultimately insufficient to address the underlying problem. We re going to need comprehensive solutions, not band-aids.
Lawmakers could legitimately claim progress occurred, yet the fundamental issue persisted. Since the 2008 Financial Crisis, Congress has abandoned the traditional Hamiltonian principle of curbing expenditures following major spending increases. The subsequent COVID-19 pandemic added enormous additional costs without corresponding revenue growth. We re going to need a bigger boat to carry our fiscal future through these turbulent waters.
