Cutting the wrong costs can cost more
On background checks, trade adjustment assistance, and the utility in knowing when a second- or third-order effect can be well worth paying for
For a fleeting moment, it appeared that the Federal government was going to execute one of the most self-defeating moves possible by suspending the TSA PreCheck program as a means of economizing while the Department of Homeland Security is under a funding suspension. The TSA has reversed the plan and left PreCheck in place.
■ The old adage “It takes money to make money” has a corollary: Cutting the wrong costs can cost more. PreCheck is a great example of a program that makes economic sense: If we’re going to have the kind of security controls that have become the post-9/11 standard, then it makes sense to have an expedited process for particularly high-frequency travelers who know the specialized compliance rules and consent to advanced screening like background checks.
■ Getting those people out of the way quickly makes security screening faster for everyone. That, in turn, ought to reduce the total amount of labor-hours actually required to get the same quality of screening performed -- to say nothing of the value of giving people a better experience, on average, with their government. As a matter of principle, free people should be able to expect their encounters with government to be safe, respectful, and as unobtrusive as possible.
■ An extension of this logic deserves attention elsewhere. Sometimes, the government can save tax dollars (on balance) by spending strategically on high-impact measures.
■ Spending on auditing and oversight? Generally quite smart. Spending on preventative health measures? Often very high-return. Spending on educational and training measures that help people leverage their own efforts into higher earnings capacity? Often among the most important strategies for ensuring that the vast majority can enjoy the benefits of policies like free trade without irreparably harming a minority of workers.
■ Almost every choice has second- and third-order consequences that matter enough to deserve attention from the outset. It isn’t always obvious that spending money in column “A” will result in much larger savings in column “B”. But policy leaders can show themselves to be worthy of more or less trust by how well they take care to acknowledge and account for those consequences that lurk beneath the surface.
