The United States hasn’t run a surplus since 2001.
That wasn't a good thing, and it resulted in a serious recession that was only stopped by Bush injecting federal money into the economy. A surplus for the currency-issuing government means a deficit for the rest of us and should rarely happen, especially with a rising GDP.
The money created by Congress is the only net source of US dollars the private sector has that doesn't require taking on bank debt. It is the only source of money that can net retire that debt or be net saved (US Treasury bonds). This means that a growing economy and population will always need its government to run a deficit so that growth can be "funded".
To pay for all of congress’s policies, we simply ask the Federal Reserve to expand its balance sheet, which has grown from less than $800 billion in 2000 to over $9 trillion today.
In our economic reality in a wealthy sovereign nation that creates its currency by fiat Congress never has to think about how to "pay for" its spending. It only has to decide if its legislation is needed and if it can be resourced in the private sector without creating inflation.
The US dollar is self-funding when it is spent in the private sector. Neither taxation nor bond issues better enable spending by Congress, as there is no "infinity+1" in math to do so. Government is a service, not a business or a household that must "find" money before spending. Even states are only "users" of the dollars Congress can create at will.
It’s no coincidence the rich get richer as asset prices are inflated.
I'm certainly not attempting to say that Congress is managing our economy correctly. However, if one doesn't frame the conversation around economic reality it would be better to remain silent. It is more accurate to state that spending by Congress "funds" tax collections and Treasury debt than is the opposite.
Clinton managed a surplus budget because the economy was growing due to the dot-com bubble, but that growth couldn't net retire the debt that funded it and banks began to see defaults increase while people were having to take on second and third jobs to maintain interest payments. The only way an economy can "appear to grow" without federal spending in deficit is to continually "roll over" private debt with new debt.
This works until it doesn't. At the first hiccup in the business cycle, loans go into arrears and the economy stubs its toe. Before Raygun convinced the people that government is the problem, as you are reiterating, business downturns were handled by injecting new federal money via automatic stabilizers that supported critical supply chains until businesses readjusted and let its chaf go in the wind of the market.
Every administration since, and especially after the '08 great recession, has injected that money on the supply side and let the people drift on their own in the wind. This assurance that the investment class will always be bailed out has given us an overheated bull market that never has a reason to expect differently. This latest round of inflation is just more of the same protection of investors and corporate management, regardless of any damage done to the rest of us.
