The 1 Percent Solution to Balancing the Federal Budget
By Randall Holcombe • Tuesday March 15, 2011 12:34 PM PDT • 3 Comments
This study by Jason Fichtner of the Mercatus Center at George Mason University offers a simple “1 Percent Solution” to balancing the federal budget. The 1 percent solution is to cut federal spending by one percent per year, and with the current revenue stream the federal budget can be balanced in about five years. Can this work?
I’ve done some back of the envelope calculations on this, and it looks like it comes pretty close: within a year or two anyway. Fichtner’s back of the envelope calculations appear in a graph on page 6 of his full study. He shows that even if we slow spending growth to increase only two percent a year the budget could be balanced by around 2020.
The 1 percent solution title is a bit of a gimmick in my view, because just a spending freeze would only put off budget balance by one year. Could a spending freeze, or even a small reduction in spending, actually be implemented?
The simple arithmetic in the 1 percent solution is correct, but it avoids the real issue, which is controlling entitlement spending. Fichtner says, “This paper does not provide a master plan identifying specific programmatic spending reductions in discretionary spending, such as defense and agriculture, nor in entitlement programs, such as Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. Entitlement spending on Medicare and Medicaid alone is estimated to continually increase as a share of the economy.” Therein lies the rub.
If we assume that total federal spending declines by one percent a year, then when we add up interest on the remaining federal debt plus the Obama administration’s projections for spending on Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and national defense, those categories alone add up to the total budget in 2019. Right now, budget items outside these categories comprise more than $1 trillion in annual expenditures.
There is no way the 1 percent solution can be implemented without cuts in planned expenditures in Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, and the 1 percent solution offers no guidance on how this can be done, as the study plainly states. So, yes, we could balance the budget in 5-7 years if we just cut federal spending by one percent a year, but no, we can’t do this without drastic reform of our entitlement programs.
The 1 percent solution is a good device for showing that if we just got spending under control, we could stop the massive deficits that eventually will bankrupt our nation. We don’t need more revenues, we just need to get spending under control. But, the 1 percent solution stops short of actually being a solution, because it doesn’t explain how the growth in entitlement spending can be slowed, which would be absolutely necessary for it to be implemented.
Tags: Budget and Tax Policy, Economics, Politics, Taxation ![]()



















I am puzzled that the article treats the Obama administrations’ “national defense” projections as untouchable. Surely, ignoring all the other fiscal terrors the USG confronts for the moment, it could save far more than 1% by bringing home all troops from, and closing all bases located, outside the United States. Even were it not to pursue this dramatic–but sensible–course of action, it could achieve dramatic cost savings by reducing military expenditures.
Gary Chartier | Mar 15, 2011 | Reply
I don’t see how cutting 1% a year could possibly do much good. I just don’t see it. Our federal government has nearly doubled in the last decade.
And then there’s the unfunded liabilities problem.
Medicare, Social Security and the empire all need to be scrapped entirely, or nearly entirely, for the US not to become completely buried under debt and/or inflation and taxes in the next couple of decades, but practically no one is willing to take on these sacred cows. They will all collapse, sooner or later. I prefer sooner, as it will be easier to deal with now than later.
The federal government has outgrown its welcome, as far as I’m concerned. I hope in the next generation or so, it no longer is considered “radical” to discuss its virtual abolition.
Anthony Gregory | Mar 15, 2011 | Reply
Randy,
I also do not buy the viability of this proposal and consider it naive at best. What is needed is an axing of the federal budget both regarding the major spending areas of entitlements and defense but also in agency after agency which should be ended or at least seriously de-funded.
Here is the budget cutting proposal we have assembled that would reduce federal spending by 2/3 and end up with a $1.3 trillion surplus for the current fiscal year. Will this be adopted? Of course not and won’t until a critical mass of the American public comes to realize that such wholesale reductions are not just possible but necessary and ideal.
David Theroux | Mar 15, 2011 | Reply