“There’s no free lunch,” my uncle used to say. Americans for the last four decades and more have convinced themselves that this economic truth can be disregarded. We can continue to borrow money semi-indefinitely. To my uncle, the phrase meant that you paid for what you bought as soon as you could.

Early on, the United States introduced the Western world to the concept that a culture of debt created investment liquidity and asset growth. It created capital flow. It allowed more people to have more of the things they wanted.

Not all of Alexander Hamilton’s contemporaries agreed. But our debt culture created national prosperity, world power and improved living conditions for most of the population. It made some people very rich and the middling population well off. Even for Hamilton, though, the underlying premise had been that the nation had to be on a path to debt repayment.

The “good faith and credit” of the American enterprise then and now backs its debt. For decades, investors have bought our treasury bonds because they had “full faith” the bonds would be honored. Our debt is now over $36 trillion, between $2.5 billion and $3 billion in interest each day. It will one day in the not-too-distant future reach the unsustainable.

Should we have any national debt? Of course. It’s a national asset. That notion was Hamilton’s gift to the nation. The premise until the early 20th century was that our borrowing would be modest and repayment mostly impersonal (taxes hidden in the price of items).

Americans have always hated to pay taxes. The maxim of the Rebellion was “no taxes without representation.” But what the colonists really meant was no taxes at all or as little as possible. But the economic reality was and still is that there is no free lunch. We know that. Our elected officials know that. But they also know that most Americans want the benefits and services they currently get from their government without additional taxes.

We get a lot for our tax payments, including Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, a supreme military, good roads, support for higher education and science, and especially a conscience that knows that one of our priorities is that we help people who need help.

The only way to reduce debt without cutting services and benefits is to raise revenue. What’s the matter with, say, a 3% increase on everybody’s income tax payment sequestered to pay down the debt gradually in what the British in the 18th century called a “sinking fund”? If I wanted to buy a house and I qualified for a loan, I’d pay it back little by little, over 15 or 30 years. If I were rich, I might pay up front entirely. Maybe I wouldn’t.

Perhaps if I invested that cash, the principle and interest over time would be more than the interest on the mortgage payments. But one way or another, I would be acting on the reality that there’s no free lunch. Why won’t our elected representatives do the same thing?

The people won’t like it, but they’re not stupid. If you explain to them why you’re increasing their taxes and what it will be used for, many will accept that we all have to pay for our national lunch. They may even respect your honesty and reelect you.