I think the demographic situation is one difference. The population was younger in 1998-2001 than today, so less of the population was on Social Security/Medica

I think the demographic situation is one difference. The population was younger in 1998-2001 than today, so less of the population was on Social Security/Medicare than now. The article mentions that the increase in spending today is mainly due to Social Security, Medicare, and interest on the national debt. To illustrate my point, last year the budget was $6.75 trillion and the deficit was $1.83 trillion. Discretionary spending only made up $1.72 trillion of the budget. This means that if Congress decided the federal government shouldn't do anything and cut 100% of discretionary spending, we would still have a slight deficit. It's possible to increase taxes to counteract this, but last year the government only brought in $4.92 trillion so the increase would be significant (and therefore unpopular). If we wanted to continue the surplus, we'd also have to keep increasing taxes through the late 2040s as the proportion of the population on Social Security and Medicare continues to increase. Given that we haven't fixed things for the past 45 years when they would have been a lot easier to fix, I don't see the political will for both spending cuts and massive tax increases to materialize anytime soon.