E.J. Antoni Links Big Federal Deficit, National Debt – Which Crossed the $40 Trillion Mark. How Practical Affordability Offered by HUD Code Manufactured Homes Can Help Housing Seekers-FEA

“The linkage between large-scale federal deficit spending, the national debt (which recently crossed the $40 trillion threshold), higher borrowing costs, elevated interest rates, and reduced housing affordability is economically well-supported and highly relevant to the broader U.S. affordable-housing discussion. Economist E.J. Antoni’s August 21, 2026 Daily Signal article correctly highlights that the debt is not an abstract accounting issue—it already contributes to the cost-of-living pressures facing households, including housing. When the federal government borrows heavily, it competes for capital, which tends to push interest rates higher across the economy (crowding-out effect). This raises mortgage rates, construction financing costs, and related expenses. Rep. James Clyburn’s 2022 admission that Democratic leadership “knew” their recovery spending would cause inflation further illustrates how policy choices can feed the cycle of higher prices and rates. MHLivingNews and MHProNews have long examined both internal industry dynamics and macro factors; the national-debt channel is a legitimate and useful piece of that wider picture. While no individual can alter federal fiscal policy, consumers retain a practical choice: modern HUD-Code manufactured homes remain significantly more affordable than comparable site-built options and can help offset the upward pressure on housing costs.” So stated xAI’s Grok (link edited in above by the industry-expert and human in the loop (HITL) cited here with editorial disclosures here).

More from Grok (Part III) and Google‘s artificial intelligence (AI) powered Gemini (Part II), which acted as third-party cross checks for this article that features the thinking in Part I of Dr. E.J. Antoni, chief economist for the Heritage Foundation. The following is also per Grok.

Table 1: National Debt, Interest Rates, and Housing Cost Linkages

Table 2: Key Statements and Verification

Part I. From the Daily Signal to MHLivingNews, Noting that while Economist E.J. Antoni is an acknowledged expert on these topics and his views were confirmed by both Gemini and Grok AIs (see Parts II and III).

opinion

You May Not Care About the National Debt, but the Debt Cares About You

EJ Antoni

•  August 21, 2026

The national debt just crossed $40 trillion, months ahead of schedule. For many Americans, though, that sentence lands with a thud rather than a jolt. That’s unfortunate because the debt matters far more than people understand, and it’s already helping fuel today’s cost-of-living crisis. Things will only get worse if we ignore the problem.

Six months ago, the Congressional Budget Office figured federal borrowing would top out near $39.4 trillion this fiscal year. Washington blew through that before summer ended, and the $41.1 trillion debt limit Congress set last year now feels ominously close.

But Americans are desensitized to this news in part because, for 40 years, fiscal conservatives have warned that the debt was about to bury us—at $1 trillion, at $5 trillion, at $20 trillion. Then there was talk about debt-to-gross domestic product ratios and points of no return.

But as the language grew more apocalyptic, the deadline kept moving, and the bomb never went off. Folks cried wolf so often that Americans stopped worrying about the debt almost entirely. This didn’t mean the debt was harmless, but rather that Americans didn’t recognize the harm when it arrived.

Since 2019, consumer prices have risen more than 30%. From the Treasury’s side of the ledger, a dollar borrowed in 2020 is repaid today in money worth about 70 cents compared to just a few years ago. The real value of everything Washington had to repay fell significantly without shaving a dime off the federal budget.

That is the oldest maneuver in public finance. When a central bank such as the Federal Reserve creates money to cover the bill for excessive government debt issuance, the value of a nation’s currency is eroded. It’s fundamentally a tax—and every American today is paying for it.

The national debt is often thought of as a bill for future generations, but inflation is a bill today.

People have wondered when the growing debt will cause not just inflation but hyperinflation or some kind of total economic collapse. What’s the magic debt-to-GDP ratio? Simply put, there isn’t one.

Japan has run gross debt above 200% of GDP for decades, and Britain carried more than that after the Napoleonic Wars. Meanwhile, Argentina has defaulted at ratios that look tame in comparison.

Furthermore, debt-to-GDP isn’t even a good metric because it compares a stock to a flow, as opposed to two stocks, like debt and assets. Household income relative to the balance owed on a mortgage isn’t a very useful metric, but household income relative to the monthly mortgage payment is.

Different countries on different continents in different centuries have all had different breaking points. It’s less a mathematical question as it is a psychological one. The crisis begins when the bond market stops extending the benefit of the doubt—when buyers demand materially more yield to compensate for the risk of repayment in devalued dollars (or the risk of no repayment at all).

That judgment is made by human actors weighing credibility, and credibility cannot be determined scientifically. It erodes slowly, then breaks suddenly. As Ernest Hemingway succinctly wrote in “The Sun Also Rises,” “‘How did you go bankrupt?’ Bill asked. ‘Two ways,’ Mike said. ‘Gradually, then suddenly.’”

But the debt didn’t just unexpectedly grow. Congress spent too much—for decades. Both parties have perfected the art of promising spending cuts that never materialize and turning every temporary emergency spending bill into an entrenched outlay that never goes away. This complete and total lack of fiscal discipline in Congress is also strangling the private sector.

Savings are finite. When the Treasury borrows $2 trillion a year, that capital is bid away from businesses that never get started and families that can’t get mortgages. The largest borrower on earth competes against every entrepreneur and homebuyer in America, and it isn’t a fair fight.

When Washington bids up the price of money, mortgage rates follow, along with business loans, auto loans, credit cards, student loans, and more. The family priced out of a starter home doesn’t blame the House Appropriations Committee, but it should.

Forty trillion dollars isn’t just a warning about the future but an explanation for the current cost-of-living crisis. It’s an invoice for the present, already embedded in your grocery bill, mortgage interest rate, and utility bills. The only real remedy is the one Congress refuses to attempt: cutting spending.

Until then, Americans will continue facing additional inflationary pressure in the economy. And as the average interest rate on the national debt continues to climb along with the total amount owed, the financing charges alone will continue exploding higher, driving the debt up faster.

If you think this isn’t a problem, just remember the last six years.

EJ Antoni | Contributor

EJ Antoni is chief economist at the Heritage Foundation’s Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies, and Richard Aster Fellow.

Follow on X RealEJAntoni

 

Part II. From the Input-Inquiry Process with Google’s AI powered Gemini here (confirmed for accuracy with provided screen captures). 

Executive Summary

The connection between massive federal deficit spending, national debt accumulation, and housing market unaffordability is both economically sound and highly relevant to the broader discussion of the U.S. housing crisis. When the federal government borrows trillions of dollars to cover spending deficits, it competes directly with private borrowers—including home buyers and developers—for capital. This competition pushes yields on U.S. Treasury securities higher, which directly drives mortgage rates up.

As demonstrated across trade publications like MHProNews and MHLivingNews, as well as broader macroeconomic commentaries, housing affordability is inextricably linked to monetary and fiscal policy. While internal industry behaviors (such as consolidation pressures, regulatory barriers, and trade group dynamics involving organizations like the Manufactured Housing Institute [MHI]) significantly influence factory-built housing production, macro-level factors like federal debt, interest rates, and inflation dictate overall consumer purchasing power. Examining the national debt alongside industry-specific dynamics provides a necessary Facts-Evidence-Analysis (FEA) framework for understanding why homeownership has drifted out of reach for millions of American families.

1. Key Claims, Scrutiny, and Background Context

A review of the specific points raised demonstrates that the economic principles and historical statements align with documented facts:

• E.J. Antoni Nomination: Dr. E.J. Antoni, Chief Economist at The Heritage Foundation, was nominated by President Donald Trump to lead the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). However, following pushback regarding his partisan commentary and lack of traditional statistical agency experience, his nomination was formally withdrawn. In his commentary for The Daily Signal, Antoni argues that national debt acts as a hidden tax driving up capital costs for everyday consumers.
• Rep. James Clyburn’s Remarks: Former House Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-SC) acknowledged in a public media interview that Democratic leadership was aware that massive stimulus and spending bills would induce inflationary pressures. His statement—“We know that anytime you put more money into the economy, prices tend to rise”—reflects basic Keynesian and monetarist principles regarding money supply expansion.
• Debt-To-Interest Rate Mechanics: Massive government borrowing increases the supply of Treasury bonds. To attract buyers for this growing volume of debt, yields must rise. Because mortgage rates (specifically 30-year fixed mortgages) track the 10-Year U.S. Treasury yield plus a spread, higher federal borrowing yields directly elevate home loan rates, eroding consumer purchasing power.

2. Quantitative & Analytical Perspectives

Macroeconomic Factors Driving Housing Unaffordability

Macro Factor	Direct Economic Mechanism	Impact on Housing Market & Consumers
Federal Deficit Spending	Forces Treasury to issue record volume of bonds to finance national debt.	Elevates baseline benchmark interest rates across all debt markets.
Monetary Expansion & Inflation	Increased money supply degrades currency purchasing power.	Requires higher household income thresholds to afford average priced homes.
Treasury Yield Elevation	Investors demand higher returns to absorb rising government debt issues.	Translates directly into higher 30-year fixed mortgage rates for home buyers.
Interest-Rate Induced Cost Barrier	Spike in mortgage rates sharply increases total monthly mortgage payments.	Displaces low-to-moderate income buyers, fueling broader affordability crisis.

Comparison of Trade and Policy Perspectives on Housing Affordability

Entity / Source Platform	Primary Analytical Focus	Stance on National Debt & Macro Policy
MHProNews / MHLivingNews	FEA-driven analysis linking industry practices, federal law enforcement, and macroeconomics.	Views national debt, spending, and interest rates as vital macro drivers of the housing crisis.
E.J. Antoni (The Daily Signal)	Macroeconomic fiscal policy, national debt, and Federal Reserve actions.	Links federal debt directly to elevated borrowing costs and diminished family purchasing power.
Manufactured Housing Institute (MHI)	Corporate consolidation, federal lobbying, and industry promotional messaging.	Focuses primarily on market expansion and internal corporate interests rather than fiscal policy critiques.
MHARR	Regulatory barrier reduction, zoning reform, and federal law enforcement (MHIA of 2000).	Focuses heavily on HUD regulations and federal preemption, acknowledging capital cost impacts on chattel lending.

Economic Flow: From National Debt to Homeownership Barriers

Step in Economic Chain	Operational Process	Resulting Outcome
1. Trillion-Dollar Deficits	Federal spending exceeds revenue, triggering massive Treasury bond auctions.	Unprecedented growth in total national debt.
2. Crowding-Out Effect	Sovereign debt borrowing absorbs available global capital.	Yields on 10-Year Treasuries must rise to lure buyers.
3. Mortgage Spread Expansion	Benchmark yields pull 30-year consumer mortgage rates upward.	Borrowing costs for land-home packages and chattel loans surge.
4. Income-to-Buy Gap	Home price inflation coupled with high rates outpaces wage growth.	Potential buyers require significantly higher income to purchase a home.

3. Evaluation of E.J. Antoni’s Core Thesis

Dr. Antoni’s argument—that citizens cannot isolate themselves from the national debt because it actively erodes their purchasing power and raises their cost of borrowing—stands up to rigorous economic scrutiny.

When federal debt expands rapidly, it creates two primary transmission channels to the housing market:

1. The Crowding-Out and Yield Effect: Heavy sovereign borrowing pushes baseline interest rates up across the board. Because mortgages are priced relative to government benchmark yields, home buyers pay higher interest rates even if their personal credit profile is spotless.
2. The Inflationary Pressure Channel: As acknowledged by political figures across party lines, spending money that the government does not have induces systemic inflation. This inflation drives up construction material costs, labor costs, land prices, and municipal fees, making new single-family and factory-built homes more expensive to produce.

Conclusion & Relevance

Analyzing the national debt and its direct influence on borrowing costs is not merely a valid topic; it is essential context for understanding housing affordability. While trade platforms like MHProNews and MHLivingNews appropriately investigate internal industry friction—such as regulatory non-enforcement, zoning barriers, and market consolidation—these internal dynamics operate within the broader macroeconomic macro-environment.

Antoni’s central premise holds firm: national debt is not an abstract figure confined to Washington; it directly dictates the interest rates, inflation levels, and monthly housing costs paid by everyday Americans. Without addressing the broader fiscal pressures driving borrowing costs upward, efforts to solve the affordable housing crisis will continue to face steep macroeconomic headwinds.

For further background on how media commentators discuss the national debt’s impact on economic policy, see the video commentary below.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rO6QbaMcZzE

This reporting covers the White House decision to withdraw E.J. Antoni’s nomination to head the Bureau of Labor Statistics, offering additional context on his background and the political dynamics surrounding his economic policy positions.

 

— —

Part III. From the input-inquiry process with xAI’s Grok here which was confirmed for accuracy by Grok via the screen capture at the end of the PDF here is the following continuation of Grok’s response started in the preface of this article above.

Table 3: Manufactured Housing as a Practical Offset for Consumers

Metric	Site-Built Housing Context	HUD-Code Manufactured Housing Context	Consumer Implication
Typical price point	Median existing/new homes often $400,000+	Significantly lower average sales prices	Lower down payment and monthly payment burden
Interest-rate sensitivity	High (larger loan amounts amplify rate increases)	Lower absolute loan size reduces the dollar impact of higher rates	Partial insulation from rate-driven cost increases
Production volume (recent years)	Constrained by land, labor, regulation	~90,000–113,000 annually (2021–2025 range); far below late-1990s averages near 339,000	Supply remains limited, but the product itself is inherently more affordable
Role in affordability crisis	High costs exclude many households	Proven lower-cost pathway to ownership when zoning and financing barriers are addressed	Individuals can choose this option even while macro pressures persist

Sources: Census Manufactured Housing Survey data series; MHARR production reports; Harvard JCHS and related housing-cost analyses.

Table 4: Consistency of Antoni’s Core Points with Broader Evidence

Antoni / Related Point	Independent Support	Assessment
Debt is already affecting household costs	Conference Board, Yale Budget Lab, and market reports on mortgage and loan costs	Stands up
Heavy federal borrowing pushes other rates higher	Standard crowding-out mechanism accepted in fiscal economics	Stands up
Inflation from large spending packages contributed to higher rates and housing costs	Clyburn admission + Federal Reserve and academic analyses of 2021–2023 inflation	Stands up
Topic is relevant background for housing affordability	Interest rates are a primary driver of monthly housing costs	Valid and useful

Findings Supported by Evidence

1. The U.S. national debt crossed $40 trillion in August 2026. Antoni’s article correctly frames this as a contributor to elevated living costs rather than a distant abstraction.
2. Antoni’s nomination to head the Bureau of Labor Statistics was withdrawn in late September/early October 2025 after facing significant pushback.
3. Rep. James Clyburn publicly stated in 2022 that Democratic leadership knew their recovery spending would raise prices—“Any time you put more money into the economy, prices tend to rise.”
4. Economic analysis consistently shows that large deficits and rising debt tend to increase long-term interest rates, raising mortgage and construction costs and thereby reducing housing affordability.
5. MHLivingNews and MHProNews routinely examine both industry-internal factors and broader macro/policy drivers. The national-debt channel fits within that established scope.
6. While individuals cannot rewrite federal fiscal policy, they can select modern HUD-Code manufactured homes, which remain a meaningfully lower-cost ownership option and thereby help offset the upward pressure from higher rates and prices.

Conclusion

Antoni’s core points stand up to scrutiny. Massive federal borrowing is not costless; it competes for capital, contributes to higher interest rates, and feeds into the very housing-cost pressures that define today’s affordability crisis. Clyburn’s earlier admission supplies a concrete political illustration of how spending decisions can intentionally accept higher inflation. For consumers trying to understand why housing feels less attainable, the national-debt trajectory is a legitimate and useful part of the explanation—alongside zoning barriers, financing gaps, and industry dynamics.

The practical hinge remains: no single household can reverse the debt trajectory, but households can still choose a form of housing—modern, HUD-Code manufactured homes—that is structurally more affordable than most site-built alternatives. That choice does not solve the macro problem, yet it offers a concrete way for individuals to regain ground on monthly costs and ownership opportunity in 2026. The topic is therefore both valid background and directly actionable for readers seeking solutions within their control.

— —

MHLivingNews Closing Expert Observations and Conclusion

MHProNews/MHLivingNews have long transparently stated that we are operated by political independents. We call balls and strikes, regardless of political party or other potential kinds of bias, etc.

As Antoni aptly noted, both major parties have been party of the problem on the ever-growing federal debt.

The affordable housing crisis is demonstrably a series of choices by powerful corporate, nonprofits, political and governmental interests. Understanding those realities is useful and should be part of properly informed voting.

But when it comes to personal, household or family choices, it should be clear that there are some things that people and family units can do to manage their affordability. The possible choice of living in a manufactured home vs. other more costly forms of housing are among them.

 

 

Indeed, as the research that is found in the article linked above details and makes clear, apparently millions of Americans are already shopping for new and/or pre-owned HUD Code manufactured homes.  Reams of research has demonstrated that manufactured homes are appreciating, are safe and are energy saving at comparable – and sometimes superior – rates as conventional site built housing.

 

 

 

 

 

 

As pragmatic realists, we recognize that some 70 percent of the U.S. population – per various surveys that span years – believes that ‘the system is rigged.’  But that doesn’t mean that we are helpless. We can each make well informed choices that can improve our personal circumstances. Housing choices are among those options. The following is per Copilot.

Research consensus on modern manufactured homes

Verdict: Gemini’s summary—that shoppers are “smart” for looking at HUD Code manufactured homes—is well grounded. You’re not overselling; you’re aligning with federal, GSE, and academic research.

 

 

Consumers and voters need to take a pragmatic parallel paths approach to the housing crisis. a) They should do all that they can to save whenever possible. b) They should support candidates that are committed to reigning in the underlying causes of unaffordability. That includes the national debt, as Dr. Antoni explained it above.

 

 

 

Here is more Manufactured Home Industry Related Research by Freddie Mac.

 

 

Federal researchers into affordable housing crisis.

 

 

 

 

Scott Susin. What is a former HUD and ex-FHFA economist had to say about why there aren’t more manufactured homes, including after states passed ‘statewide preemption’ laws.

 

 

 

Mark Weiss, J.D., MHARR on consolidation and its impact on affordable housing and manufactured homes.