Reducing Debt is Easier Accomplished than Argued

By Evan Carr

Gridlock

Fiscal cliffs and debt ceilings are hardly a surprise. It seems that we squeak by one only to be immediately confronted with the contentious politics of yet another debate. Uncertainty is incredibly disruptive for investors and households trying to plan for the future. Given reports for February indicating that consumer confidence and the housing market is up and jobless claims are down, we can only hope that the free market is beginning to ignore the political gridlock that threatens to prolong economic retraction. But it is unlikely.

Democrats and Republicans shoot back and forth, arguing vehemently for “more revenues” (read higher taxes) or “reduced spending” (read entitlement cuts). Yet both parties ignore the realities of these policies. Raising taxes during a recession is bad policy. Republicans are adamant that raising taxes during a recession will squeeze growth out of a struggling economy but there isn’t a shred of empirical evidence to back this up . The affects may actually be more psychological on the economy, affecting consumer confidence more so than established macro-economic policy (of which there is essentially none if you consider deficit spending Keynesians versus Austrian deregulationists). Still, raising taxes is bad for a fundamental reason. Raising taxes shirks responsibility for current spending habits. It says that are not willing to address the excessive bloat of our federal government.

Easy Money

Every president should have a short-hand list in the top drawer of the presidential desk in the oval office with a cool couple hundred billion dollars in cuts readily identified. It’s not rocket science. And whether you are President Obama, whose rhetoric is to raise taxes, or Speaker Boehner, who intends to slash and burn the budget at the expense of the poor, women, middle class and just about everyone, eliminating waste should be a no brainer. When the ideological divide is so large, why not start somewhere you can agree? Here’s a short list of smart cuts.

• Pay the correct amount. In 2011, the federal government wasted $64.6 billion of taxpayers’ money in improper payments: money paid in the wrong amount, to the wrong person, or for the wrong reason. 93 percent of these payments were in just 8 programs, including the Earned Income Tax Credit ($15.2 billion), and Unemployment Insurance ($13.7 billion).  Let’s assume we can only eliminated half of this fraud for a total of $32.3 billion per year. 
• Reduce Medicare fraud. Even if just 25 percent of the estimated $60 billion of Medicare fraud per year were eliminated, that would total $15 billion per year.   
• Keep projects on budget. The Government Accountability Office found that the Pentagon had cost overruns of $295 billion on 95 weapons systems. One has to wonder where that much money goes (it’s was a good day to be part of the military-industrial complex). Let’s assume just 10 percent of that waste could have been saved for $29.5 billion.
• End the War on Drugs, which has terrible social consequences and was estimated to cost $15 billion in 2010 alone. Dr. Jeffry Miron, a Harvard economist, has estimated combined savings of $10 billion to $14 billion. If just half of that sum were spent on treating the addict, not the criminal, the federal government could save $7 billion per year.
• Eliminate overlap. “A 2006 Defense Department study recommended a unified medical command, but nothing came of it. The idea could have saved taxpayers between $281 million and $460 million, the GAO said … Federal transportation issues now involve more than 6,000 workers at five agencies within the Transportation Department, running about 100 separate funding streams for highways, transit systems, rail and transportation safety (which costs) an estimated $58 billion annually … Through the years, several GAO reports have explored the issue of government redundancy, most recently reporting last month that nine federal agencies spend $18 billion a year on 47 separate job training programs. All but three of the programs overlap with others … the government used just 432 data centers in 1998, and consolidating the ones used today could save taxpayers up to $200 billion in the next decade ($20 billion per year)” (O’keefe 2011).  We’ll calculate the grand total at $90 billion per year give or take a billion or two. Let’s assume we can eliminate one-third of this for $30 billion per year. 
• End subsidies. This is a little more controversial and while any economist will tell you that subsidies amount to deadweight transfer for society, the government and Congress is determined to dole out massive amounts of cash to support industries and their favorite initiatives, which just so happen to be in their district. Eliminating subsidies, like the $83 billion bank subsidy, $24 billion in energy subsidies or $260 billion in agriculture subsidies between 1995 and 2010, would return markets to their competitive state. 
• Our Grand Total: $113.8 billion dollars, excluding subsidies, which is $28.8 billion more than sequestration’s $85 billion in painful, across the board cuts. 

The sequester is like using a wooden club. This approach is like using a scalpel. Which makes more sense? Now of course the above model is full of assumptions, albeit conservative and hopefully realistic estimates that only small portions of each identified waste could be eliminated, but its illustrative power is none the less effective. We do not have to aim right at the jugular as Republicans propose to achieve substantial savings. Significant services that people rely on can be spared, at least for now, while the annoying waste of bureaucracy, mismanagement and lack of oversight are addressed. There are plenty of other cuts or readjustments totaling billions upon billions, like adjusting the Home Mortgage Interest Deduction which typically benefits the wealthy ($30 billion in savings per year) or placing a 2 percent cap on tax expenditures ($200 billion in savings per year).

“Drop in the bucket” mentality

16 trillion dollars. That’s an unfathomable number. Just as we become desensitized to violence by exposure to it in our media, we are also desensitized to the immensity of numbers. Million. Billion. Trillion. This makes it a little easier to visualize. A common mentality holds that, “O, that program is just $100 million, that’s nothing when compared to the size of the total federal deficit.” And thus, the program does not get cut. Each drop in the bucket does in fact equal a bucket in sum. Earmarks and pork must go. Frivolous R&D must go. If the federal government cut just $2 billion of unnecessary funding to each state per year, that would total $1 trillion over a decade ($2 billion * 50 states * 10 years = $1 trillion). $1 trillion will support 2 million jobs for 10 years at $50,000 per year.

The only sacrosanct funding in the budget should be the funding that directly correlates with America’s prospects for the future. Education and research and development funding must not be cut blindly. Both have direct impact on the United States’ future as a globally competitive nation. Because many new technologies emerge out of public-private R&D partnerships, federal R&D expenditures must be examined line-by-line. There is undoubtedly billions of dollars in waste, that could be transferred over to projects that advance technologies and ideas (unpatented) that spillover into the stock of knowledge available to society as whole. This drives growth. Expanding the economy in the long run will reduce some, but not all, of the current fiscal pressure.

There is also an elephant in the room. Unfortunately, entitlement spending will have to be addressed. It is currently unsustainable. Every projection is sure of this. How we go about handling it is the subject of another post.

Politicians need the political will to address these wastes, even if it means bucking the special interests that feed their campaigns. Turning off the spigot that lavishes corporate America and Wall Street may not be easy, but neither is turning off the lights.

Evan Carr, a social entrepreneur, policy analyst and consultant, is the CEO/Founder of the New Logic Movement. 

Early Economics and Schumpeter: Implications for Current Policymaking

The discipline of economics has undergone few fundamental changes since its inception more than 200 years ago. No change is more controversial or revolutionary to the study of economic growth as the theory of innovation and its role as an important and overlooked dynamic. In the simplest terms, innovations are new discoveries which drive economic expansion. We are all familiar with the breakthrough innovations that have revolutionized humanity. As a force that spurs growth in employment and fosters the most efficient allocation of resources, innovation and entrepreneurship have been critical to American 20th century hegemony.

Only recently have some modern economists begun to champion the role of innovation in modern economics. It has largely been ignored since Adam Smith's The Wealth of Nations created the discipline. Marking the dawn of the classical era of economics, The Wealth of Nations defined economics in terms of individual self-interest and distribution. It viewed technology as an external, or exogenous factor affecting economic growth; this flaws of this assumption will become evident later. As a body of thought, the classical school emphasized the role of labor in determining prices (Ricardo), capitalism's ability to allocate resources efficiently but not distribute income fairly (John Stuart Mill) and technology as a tool used in the industries of capitalism to separate the workers from the means of the production (Marx). These early theorists laid the groundwork for the economists to come.

The trend of empiricism in the hard sciences around the turn of the 20th century influenced the succeeding economists who evolved into the Neo-classical school. As the rush to quantify the visible world aquiesced in the scientific community, less quantitative factors like innovation and entrepreneurship, both difficult to measure, were quickly swept aside. Alfred Marshall completed economic's transformation to an empirical science by combining Walras's Marginalist School which was focused on supply and demand, equilibrium and Newtonian mathematical equations with his own views on economies of scale, price elasticity of demand and consumer surplus to create an economic model that has dominated the mainstay of economist's attention since. The concrete economic indicators that resulted from this combination of theoretical and mathematical economics became particularly useful to politicians and policy makers who used the estimates to legitimize rule making, measure its efficiency and take pulse of the American economy.

The Keynesian policies that helped cure the ills of the Great Depression lent credence to this mathematical equilibrium-based model, so much so, that when Joseph Schumpeter dared to step out of the confines of this rigid model and suggest that internal, or endogenous (within the economy) technological innovation was the main driver of economic growth, he was largely ignored. Schumpeter's Theory of Creative Destruction, based on the Austrian "laissez-faire" economic model, postulated that news firm created new inventions that attracted buyers away from old industries (destroying them) towards new industires (innovation) creating more wealth and expanding the overall size of the economy. It wasn't until the oil shocks and stagflation of the 1970's that Schumpeter's ideas received any serious attention. In 1987, David Birch famously publicized that new employment was driven by small firms, not large corporations as Neo-classical theory posited. In 1987, Robert Solow channeled Schumpeter and received the Nobel Prize for his findings that productivity gains due to technological change are the main determinant of economic growth.

It is sad that, in economics as in many other disciplines, intellectual rigidity has held back the potential for growth. From the earliest scientists who empiricized our world only to be persecuted for what we now know to be true to stem cell researchers whose incredible breakthroughs are hindered by religious dogma, rigidity in the scientific community all too often creates a consensus that ostracizes the radical, yet ultimately novel thinker for daring to think outside the box. The shift now underway towards endogenous growth theory is challenging the long-held and "traditional" view that technology is an unexplained technical progress. Rather, new thinkers are at the very beginning stages of building empirical, not just theoretical evidence to support the idea that innovation and entrepreneurship can be both measured, incentivized and supported.

We are now in a crucial time where out-of-the-box thinking, like that employed by innovators and pioneered by Schumpeter and Solow, may be the panacea to the global economic woes that trouble politicians and citizens alike. The fiscal situation in the developed countries of the world implores us to adopt new perspectives and wield new tactics in coaxing our economy to grow. Years of kicking the can down the road has led to gargantuan public debts that even the most extreme austerity measures and currency manipulation cannot fix. As a society we must embark with new momentum towards the future trusting that our commitment to the radical revolution of technology, society and business will foster an environment conducive to a long-term rise in gross domestic product.

In order to head towards this ideal point, we must shed partisanship in favor of common sense compromises. If the prescription is to simply raise taxes or cut spending then the result will surely be as narrow minded as the action. Instead, we must adopt thoughtful policies that increase the incentives individuals in our society have to invest in themselves, and thus in society in itself. Entrepreneurs must be supported by public policies that support their decision to take risks in order to reap the potential benefits of some previously unseen product, service or idea. Our youth must also find it prudent to seek an education that matches their eventual degrees and skill sets with the demands of the economy.

As each party digs in deeper for trench warfare, our nation's infrastructure is crumbling. Massive public projects, like Eisenhower's interstate highway system, were the breakthrough feats of modern government that provided employment and allowed the free flow of goods and people. America's once impressive system of roads, railways, water, electricity, waterways and airports is quickly decaying as major appropriations bills are stalled for political reasons. Talk of substantial public works projects is quickly labeled socialism and government grandeur yet are precisely what America needs to compete globally. As the US population expands and the economy operates at a quicker and more constant pace, we must double-down on our commitment to maintaining the public resources that enabled America's meteoric 20th century rise.

Even more startling is the dire state of public education. Despite devoted and talented educator's best efforts across the country, America's youth fall far behind the academic achievements of their overseas counterparts.  Many companies throughout the recession have complained that there is a lack of qualified candidates. Nearly everybody agrees that the current system of accountability-based education falls far short of the intentions found in the No Child Left Behind mandate but a lack of significant public attention pushes education to the back burner. Until our education woes are solved (another topic that will garner multiple posts and NLT publications), employers may struggle to find qualified employees in our mis-matched economy.

Innovation and entrepreneurship requires three basic resources to occur:

Public policies crafted specifically to encourage those who create something new whether it is tangible or intangible. Be it companies, products or ideas, public policy must reward those who make investments on the cutting edge because they drive the majority of the growth. Endogenous growth theory research indicates that new businesses, less than 5 years of age, as opposed to small businesses, create a majority of the jobs (a point that warrants its own entire post).
Wealth creators must have reliable systems of public infrastructure to support their activities. If goods and services cannot flow freely and reliably through the economy, future economic growth will stagnate alongside profits and employment.
Since most new start-ups fail (another topic deserving of its own entire blog post in the future), America must be able to educate its youth to be innovators or the capable employees for innovators. Supportive public policies and a well-maintained infrastructure will not guarantee growth if America does not possess the correct human capital.
Politicians in Washington must set aside their ideological differences and take action to support the entrepreneur. Through his or her ingenuity and creativity, massive amounts of intangible wealth can boost the gross domestic product for decades to come. In order to achieve this, we must abandon the policies of old, the Neo-classical equilibrium models, the monetarism and outrageous public spending. Instead, we must adopt a model that invests in infrastructure  education and governance to create favorable conditions for new start-ups to succeed. The future of America depends on it.

Much of this piece was inspired directly by the teachings and power-points of Dr. Don Hicks from the University of Texas at Dallas. He is a leader in the field of innovation and entrepreneurship.

The Causal Mechanisms of Terrorism

Following the last blog entry, the New Logic Think tank (NLT) is releasing its newest publication titled The Causal Mechanisms of Terror. Visit the link below to obtain a copy.

Click here to access New Logic Think tank's The Causal Mechanisms of Terrorism

We welcome any and all feedback on the topic. The NLT believes that an active dialogue about important issues like the incidence of terrorism is an important step in recognizing possible solutions for the future. This article is the first in a series of New Logic articles addressing challenging foreign policy obstacles facing governments circling the globe.

In addition to this release, look for an infographic on social security, an article on unmanned aerial vehicles, and a blog entry on the failed war on drugs in the coming weeks.

"The Causal Mechanisms of Terrorism": Coming Soon

Understanding Terrorism. Copyright 2013 New Logic Think tank

Terrorism is all about power. As Lenin said, "The task of the terrorist is to terrorize." It can manifest as an unthinkable act of violence. It can also manifest as the mere coercive influence that strikes fear into the afflicted's hearts and minds. Terrorism is the weapon of the weak, a last resort for those who cannot resolve to use the established societal methods of conflict resolution and arbitration. Terrorism is the weapon of those who perceive themselves as weak. Acts of terrorism are distinguished from other forms of violence in that they have both an intellectual author, a person who plans the whole thing, and an instrumental actor, a person who pulls the trigger.

Terrorism is a form of surrogate warfare, a statement, often political, that begs the question, who shall profit? What ideology or group stands to gain from inflicting fear upon others? Countries, not just localized groups, often resort to terrorism as a viable option in conducting warfare that provides the significant advantages of surprise and initiative. In an environment shrouded by secrecy, where accurate intelligence is hard to come by and enormous resources are spent infiltrating and detecting terrorist plots, the modern terrorist employs the newest technologies to their advantage in organizing, communicating and executing acts of terrorism.

Modern communication allows great distances to be spanned. This enables terrorist networks to become tremendously decentralized. For this reason, terrorist networks are best described as hydras. If you eliminate the head of the organization today, just like a hydra, two new heads will appear tomorrow. Eradicating terrorism is as futile as stopping death itself. While preventive efforts continue to increase in efficiency and scope, terrorist attacks continue to become more violent and deadly.

We must ask ourselves, those who fundamentally recognize terrorism as a societal plague, who exactly is a terrorist? Is the gunman who enters a school and murders little children a terrorist? What is terrorism? While many definitions exist, a simple reduction leaves us with this definition: terrorism is the intentional generation of massive fear by human beings for the purpose of securing or maintaining control over human beings. Did the gunman in a movie theater or elementary school cause massive fear? Yes. Did they commit their heinous acts with the intention of securing or maintaining control over human beings? We may never know. Are they domestic terrorists? Possibly. What about the groups in war-torn regions of the world like Africa, Central and South America and Southeast Asia? A classic aphorism which blurs the line of deciding who is or isn't a terrorist states that "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter."

Since it is not only difficult to define terrorism, but identify who its perpetrators are, our best attempt in minimizing the impact of terrorism, outside of current interdiction efforts, is to reduce ideological conflicts. By encouraging cross-cultural understanding and minimizing the impact of one country's foreign policy on a completely different culture, many of the radical beliefs held by groups hating cultures different than their own can be eliminated. This also highlights the importance, on the international stage, of how every event, conflict and turmoil is handled. If they are handled properly, with equitable result, then deep resentments can be minimized. If these events are not handled properly, deep resentments will breed long-lasting anger and hatred, the kind of emotions that simmer until they reach a palpable point among the victimized population which then resorts to terrorism as their only viable act of recourse.

The New Logic Committee on Security/Defense/Immigration, a working group of the New Logic Think tank, will soon be releasing a paper titled, "The Causal Mechanisms of Terrorism." While terrorism is such a fluid and difficult phenomenon to predict or even understand, the paper examines some of the common factors that underpin terror groups and the atrocities they commit. Ahead of this paper, the New Logic Think tank is releasing this infographic. Enjoy!

New Logic Think tank Release

Ahead of two upcoming publications, New Logic Thinktank is releasing its newest infographic!

Unmanned Aerial Vehicles. Copyright 2013 New Logic Think tank

The New Logic Committee on Unmanned Integration is finishing two upcoming publications.

Adopting a Schumpeterian framework, the first examines integration from a New Growth Theory perspective. It considers the disruptive role new unmanned technology will play in stimulating job loss and growth and identifies the environmental factors leading to unmanned knowledge spillovers and private-public collaboration.

The second piece examines the safety, security, privacy, and regulatory challenges facing civilian integration. With a 2014 deadline, the FAA must overcome enormous technical and theoretical obstacles to support growth of this multi-billion dollar industry.

Look for these publications soon!