What If We All Did a Little?
The federal debt debate usually turns into a fight.
Raise taxes.
Cut spending.
Cut benefits.
Tax somebody else.
Protect my group.
Make another group pay.
But what if we asked a different question?
What if improving America’s debt outlook didn’t require one group to make a huge sacrifice?
What if workers, businesses, and government all did a little?
This is not a formal budget proposal. It’s a thought experiment. The numbers are approximate. But I think the framing is worth exploring—because sometimes progress starts with a better question.
Start With the Problem
Current projections suggest the federal government could run a deficit around $1.9 trillion in 2026. In plain terms, that means the government is expected to spend significantly more than it collects.
Part of that gap is interest on the debt. But even before interest, the government is still spending more than it receives.
So let’s set a goal—not to “solve everything,” but to improve the trajectory.
What if we improved the federal budget by about $500 billion per year?
That wouldn’t balance the budget or erase the national debt. But $500 billion is large enough to matter.
And for this example, let’s include one more rule:
Current Social Security checks do not get cut.
That forces the thought experiment to focus on other levers.
Part One: Could We Produce One More Productive Hour?
The average private-sector workweek is about 34 hours. One additional hour is roughly a 3% increase.
Importantly, this isn’t a call for everyone to simply grind longer hours. That misses the point.
A more useful question is this:
Could America produce the equivalent of one more productive hour per worker each week?
Some improvement might come from more hours. But ideally, much of it would come from working smarter and producing more value per hour through things like:
- Better software and tools
- Training and upskilling
- More efficient processes
- Automation and artificial intelligence
- Modernized equipment and factories
- Reliable, affordable energy
- New businesses and innovation
If the economy produced roughly 3% more output, federal tax revenue could rise as well. As a simple illustration, that might mean something like:
About $160 billion of additional federal revenue each year
That is not a forecast. It’s an example of how productivity gains can influence tax receipts.
The bigger question is whether we can improve productivity without simply asking everyone to work harder. Over time, history suggests we can—when innovation is paired with smart investment and better execution.
Part Two: Could Government Find 3 or 4 Cents?
Workers and businesses shouldn’t be the only ones asked to contribute. Government should have a job, too.
Even if we protect current Social Security benefits and continue making interest payments, there are still trillions of dollars of other federal spending.
So here’s another question:
Could government find about $160 billion of savings?
That works out to roughly 3 to 4 cents of savings for every dollar spent outside Social Security and interest.
Is that easy? No. But it also doesn’t mean cutting every program by the same amount.
It could mean asking practical questions such as:
- Are two agencies doing similar work?
- Are contracts priced competitively?
- Can technology reduce administrative burden?
- Are there programs that are outdated or ineffective?
- Are legacy systems driving unnecessary cost?
- Can procurement and payment systems be improved?
The question becomes:
Could Washington operate roughly 3 cents more efficiently out of every non–Social Security, non-interest dollar it spends?
It’s not a small challenge—but it’s a reasonable question to ask.
Part Three: What About Fraud?
This may be the most surprising part of the math.
The U.S. Government Accountability Office has estimated that federal fraud losses could be somewhere between roughly:
$233 billion and $521 billion per year
That’s a wide range, and it includes pandemic-era years when fraud risk was unusually high. So it would be unrealistic to assume all of that can be recovered quickly.
But could we do materially better? That seems like a fair question.
Suppose Congress invested:
$20 billion per year in fraud prevention
Potential uses might include:
- Better identity verification
- Improved data sharing across agencies
- More robust payment controls
- Modernized computer systems
- Cybersecurity upgrades
- More investigators and audits
- Faster detection of suspicious claims
Then suppose the goal was to prevent or recover:
$200 billion per year
That’s a 10-to-1 target—not a promise, not a prediction, but a goal.
If it worked, the net improvement would be:
- $200 billion prevented or recovered
- minus $20 billion spent
- equals $180 billion net
Putting It Together
In this thought experiment:
Workers and businesses
Could we produce the equivalent of one more productive hour each week?
Possible budget improvement: ~$160 billion
Government
Could we save about 3–4 cents per dollar spent outside Social Security and interest?
Possible improvement: ~$160 billion
Fraud prevention
Could we invest $20 billion and target $200 billion in prevention/recovery?
Net improvement: ~$180 billion
Total: $160B + $160B + $180B ≈ $500 billion per year
Would That Solve the Debt Problem?
No—and we should be honest about that.
A $500 billion improvement does not erase a $1.9 trillion deficit. Difficult choices would remain: taxes, spending priorities, entitlement sustainability, interest costs, and growth.
But direction matters. And incremental improvement can reduce pressure over time.
Growth Matters Too
There’s also the denominator in the debt discussion: the size of the economy.
If businesses produce more goods and services, productivity rises, and incomes grow, the economy becomes larger. A larger economy can generate more revenue without necessarily raising tax rates—and it can make debt more manageable relative to GDP.
Growth doesn’t magically fix everything. But it can make hard problems more manageable.
Maybe We’re Asking the Wrong Question
Most political arguments start with: Who should pay?
Maybe a better question is:
What reasonable contribution can each of us make?
Can workers and businesses get a bit more productive?
Can government become a bit more efficient?
Can we get much better at stopping fraud?
Can we protect people who planned their retirement around Social Security while still being honest about the long-term math?
Big problems rarely have one answer. In financial planning, meaningful improvement usually comes from several reasonable decisions working together.
Maybe that’s the conversation worth having.
The figures in this article are approximate and are used to illustrate a thought experiment, not a formal budget forecast or policy recommendation. Actual federal revenue, spending, fraud prevention, economic growth, and deficit outcomes could differ materially.