The Needs Monitor GPT

by Fred Eberlein

It has been four months since my last blog on Jennifer Pahlka’s book, Recoding America. In the interim, I’ve been spending time in the amazing world of customized ChatGPT.

While I await Jennifer’s decision to join our board of advisors, my good friend and CTO collaborator, Egor Piskunov, and I have been building and testing the Needs Monitor GPT as defined in The 90-Degree Turn.

The citizen’s portal to government,

the government’s portal to citizens.

The Needs Monitor is being developed as a public portal for aligning individual needs with government resources. In the Needs Monitor, users register their issues — from petty local matters that have no personal impact or cost, like uncollected trash — to complex issues with a high personal impact, like financial planning.

Every issue registered in the Needs Monitor is tabulated, validated, and tracked. While most issues can be settled in hours, others are more complex and may require solicitations. Users — whether private individuals or government employees — can see an ongoing summation of concerns across the country and how those concerns are being addressed.

Through the Needs Monitor, citizens and government freely interact and collaborate to find and implement the best solutions to individual, community, and regional needs. For this reason, we refer to the Needs Monitor as the citizens’ portal to government and the government’s portal to citizens.  

Governments – and particularly the one headquartered in D.C. – contain oceans of data. Until GPT came along, these oceans were too vast to explore. But with GPT, we can harvest these data to benefit every citizen while simultaneously reforming government by identifying which parts of it are needed and which are not.

In the course of developing the Needs Monitor GPT, we came across some interesting vendors serving government with similarities to the Needs Monitor concept. CivicPlus, for example, offers a wide range of paid services designed to help government function better. I see them as a kind of government CRM solution.

Unlike CivicPlus, the Needs Monitor is free to users and singularly focused on streamlining government and getting needed things done at a reasonable cost.

The Needs Monitor can also be seen as a political movement that pivots government from an institutional mindset to an operational one. In the process, we transform government’s role in society and society’s role in government.

The Needs Monitor GPT alpha version is planned for release in early May, in advance of the Code for America Summit in Oakland where I hope to demo it. Wish me luck. It’s California or Bust!

Recoding America

Jennifer Pahlka is showing how government can change. Political leverage will accelerate that process.

Before and after releasing my short 126-page theory on reforming Washington, I searched for authors who might offer a like or competing perspective. I didn't find any, and that bothered me.

Was I doing as they say in Finland, aiming for the sky because it's hard to miss?  Theory is mist without something to bond to.

Thoughtful studies on government, like "The Government-Industrial Complex,” by NYU Professor Paul C. Light, have no place on Amazon alongside sensations like "The Democrat Party Hates America," by Mark Levine, "Government Gangsters," by Kash Patel, "Saving Democracy,” by David Pepper, or “101 Indisputable Facts Proving Donald Trump Is An Idiot” by Guy Fawkes.

We all get it. Drama is preferred to problem-solving. But what good is a book of arguments that offers no solutions? 

Recently, I found redemption in Jennifer Pahlka's 317-page "Recoding America: Why Government Is Failing in the Digital Age and How We Can Do Better."

Unlike my experience as a tech contractor to the Federal Government, haunted by Washington's wastefulness, Pahlka is haunted by the "government's struggle to participate in the digital revolution." Despite this, the themes in Pahlka's book intersect with the themes of age, complexity, size, and (fundraising-centric) politics examined in my book, The 90-Degree Turn.

While my look at government is broad and for the purpose of identifying a better governmental model for democracy, Pahlka's work is a deep dive into the digital world of government. This is her field of expertise and the source of ever-increasing government spending.

Pahlka observes the government's disproportionate ways and tendency to go all in. "The idea that some choices could be made, and in fact would very much need to be made, was unspeakable, perhaps unthinkable."

Agile software development is a familiar topic in government, but spoken and not practiced. Instead, Pahlka sees a world where the dreaded Waterfall method rules. An outdated lock-step approach to tech development, the Waterfall consistently fails in complex scenarios but invariably leads to greater spending.

We mustn’t forget, spending is Washington’s top priority and the reward for political donations that, remarkably, have risen at the same rate as the national debt since 2000, increasing over 500%.

Whether or not spending always finds its way to the right donor pockets is irrelevant. The habit of reckless spending is deeply ingrained in the way government works, originating in Congress.

In 2009, Pahlka started Code for America, whose mission reads, "We're people-centered problem solvers working to improve government in meaningful ways."

Brava! People solving problems for people is the essence of government. One would think all governments – federal, state, and local – operate with this in mind. Indeed, all will proclaim they do. But as Pahlka points out, the government's answer to most problems is to spend big, not to streamline.

 "A big part of what keeps government from transitioning to agile, user-centered development is that teams are often trying to practice it in a megafunding framework. They are doomed before they even start."

For one who had a ring-side seat during the rollout of the $1.7 billion HealthCare.gov website, Pahlka has witnessed megafunding up close.

While I used HealthCare.gov as a prime example for calculating the Federal Government's overhead costs in the 90-Degree Turn, Pahlka points out something I didn't know. The prime vendor of 34 vendors (and 60 contracts) for HealthCare.gov was CGI Federal. CGI was chosen not because of its skillset but because it had an "indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity" contract with the Federal Government.

Washington's outdated approach to serving the country had, once again, painted the taxpayer into a corner. The Affordable Care Act was passed with considerable fanfare, but the deadline for implementing its website did not afford the time required to shop responsibly.   

Like my experience selling to the Pentagon for Oracle, the fast and safe approach to any acquisition was to latch it onto an existing contract. The formal process could take years and result in a competitor getting the business. This was the dilemma faced by HealthCare.gov, where policy and implementation were grossly misaligned. A website that may not have been needed went full steam ahead.

Like Halliburton's cost-plus-fixed-fee contract in Iraq that bilked billions from taxpayers, CGI Federal found its windfall in HealthCare.gov.

In 2006, working with a team of four, I managed and funded the development of a HIPAA-compliant web service for pain management called ReliefInsite.com (sold to PatientsLikeMe in 2010). Our budget was half a million dollars. Based on this experience and after assessing the complexity of HealthCare.gov, and reading reports about it, I estimated that Healthcare.gov should not have cost more than $10 million. However, in the Waterfall, the original budget for building the HealthCare.gov website went from $97 million to $1.7 billion. CGI’s lobbying investments had paid a big dividend.

Today, I wonder if HealthCare.gov was needed at all. After nine years of operation, only 3.6 percent of the country utilizes it. A September 2022 report from the U.S. Census Bureau shows that out of 299 million health-insured Americans, only 10.9 million entered through the HealthCare.gov marketplace. In January, the Biden Administration reported this number has risen to 16.3 million, but still, that's only 5.4% of the country's insured.

As Palhka points out, choices are not part of the discussion in the Federal Government’s digital world of megafunding where the mentality is to build first and ask questions later. It’s Washington's everyday protocol where the tail wags the dog. Here, politics defeats pragmatism, and deficits are driven through the roof.

What does this tell us about the 9.8 million individuals (defense, civilian, and contractor) responsible for the upkeep of our democratic republic?

Pahlka recognizes the enormity of this task and shows her frustration and a degree of panic. She realizes that time is running out and that the government cannot continue to run as it has in the past. The organization founded by Pahlka, Code for America, has succeeded in creating a vibrant grassroots community for taking on government’s digital future.

A Missing Element

I applaud what Pahlka once called "civic hacking," the significant team Code for America has built, and the TakeAction initiative at the Recoding America website. But I see a missing element.

The missing element is the political leverage for advancing these initiatives and establishing a new digital development paradigm for government. As Pahlka writes: "It's not just one agency that has to adapt and learn but tens of thousands across federal, state, and local government."

Developing an ecosystem of skilled individuals and partners to address the government's digital needs is vital to the efficiency of government and the preservation of our democratic republic. But getting tens of thousands of agencies to benefit from these skills is nearly impossible without a fundamental change in how government operates. 

The bottom-up perspective afforded by the Needs Monitor would give Code for America and Recode America a jump on government's digital future. Enabling involvement in a project before it begins.

Designed as the citizen’s portal to government and the government’s portal to citizens – where the desires of citizens are matched with the resources of government – the Needs Monitor provides an avenue for engaging with government (local to federal) and end-users. It bridges gaps, aligns resources with needs, drastically reduces costs, and provides better outcomes.

This bottom-up approach is a means for pivoting government from yesteryear to tomorrow, from Waterfall to Agile and beyond.  As agencies learn of this model, it becomes easier to convert them when the benefits are not just technical but also political.

I hope Jennifer Pahlka reads this as an invitation to partner. No effort is more urgent than returning value to government and extending the life of our democratic republic. (jbfred@90degreeturn.com)

A soggy old legacy

This is what the American people want.” Do you ever hear politicians say this?

No matter the issue, it seems our elected officials are graced with incredible insight once in office. No polls or debates are needed because they know what the American people want. 

It’s the Dunning-Krueger of politics where a thimble-full of buzzwords is all there is to any subject. Our politicians aren’t stupid but rather playing along to the soggy old tune of Washington’s yesteryear.

When the U.S. Federal Government opened shop in 1789, more than 90% of the country’s population of 5.3 million were farmers. Many didn’t read or write and had never traveled more than 50 miles from their place of birth. In those ancient times, there was a clear need for educated individuals who could bridge the gap between what a rural constituency needed and what our newly formed Federal Government could deliver.

Given the advancements of over two centuries and the past fifty years in particular, it’s hard to justify the practices of the 18th century with the needs of the 21st century. This is particularly true when we consider the high cost and bottom-level efficiency of today’s Federal Government.

I’m not suggesting we do away with Congress but rather that we consider better candidates. Individuals who are goal-oriented, good at getting things done, and not necessarily strong on policy and politics of which the country has an overabundance.

Rather than being measured by what they know, future members of Congress should be judged by what they do.

Washington’s Big Bang moment

Since its modest beginning, the size and influence of the Federal Government grew. On balance, this was a good thing. But in the 1930’s Washington went into overdrive. America’s longest-serving President, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, faced two of the greatest crises in U.S. history when he took office on March 4, 1933: the Dust Bowl and the Great Depression. The Second World War would come later.

Roosevelt expanded Washington’s reach far beyond what it had been by introducing massive work projects that included, among other things, the creation of the Tennessee Valley Authority. Given that unemployment was 25% in 1933, one can understand Roosevelt’s reasoning. Also, having witnessed the suffering of millions, Roosevelt introduced Social Security to aid the elderly, disabled, and unemployed. He brought us the Security and Exchange Commission to regulate the stock market in the hope of avoiding another crash and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation to restore confidence in banking.

Roosevelt was the right person for the time and arguably one of the greatest presidents in U.S. history. However, it wasn’t what he accomplished in office but rather the New Deal revolution he unleashed that he’s most remembered.

Like the Big Bang that allegedly sparked the creation of the Universe, the New Deal revolution set the Federal Government into perpetual expansion. Eventually, Washington would find its way into every nook and cranny of the country. Wanting to solve every problem and willing to spend every penny to do so.

Roosevelt’s New Deal eventually twisted into an aberration of itself. No longer government for the people, but government for government. If communism fails by repression, democracy fails by overreach.

Almost fifty years after the New Deal, at his first inaugural address in 1981, President Ronald Reagan said, “Government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem.” 

Reagan was expressing his frustration with the aftermath of the New Deal revolution. Despite this, he accomplished little in changing government’s expansion. Reagan likely realized early in his administration that the New Deal revolution was unstoppable. So, rather than fixing Washington, he joined in. Expanding defense spending, cutting taxes, and adding to the debt.

When it comes to government, we take a lot for granted.

Unlike most aspects of our lives that change with economic and social conditions, government is often seen as a monument: fixed, immovable, and forever. Of course, this notion is wrong.

As its origins are well outside the lifespan of anyone alive today, it can be difficult to see government as a living thing that is vulnerable and not assured. Like the rest of the living world, government needs to evolve to survive and prosper. This can be done by abandoning yesteryear’s soggy legacy and growing a new spine to take on today‘s challenges.

While party politics exploits it, the true source of Washington’s dysfunction is the accumulation of 234 years of rules, regulation, procedures, and code that grind against the wheels of progress.

According to the Library of Congress, it’s “nearly impossible” to know how many laws govern the United States. In addition, the tax code has grown so big – now 9 feet long in hardcopy – that nobody understands it. These are just two examples of hundreds that illustrate Washington’s soggy old legacy.

Even those responsible for watching over Washington, like the Office of the Inspector General (OIG), play along. Not grading its performance on actual savings but rather on potential savings. Why? Because so few of its recommendations are ever implemented. The IG is forced to play with the numbers to justify its annual $500 million budget. A jobs program that pumps out recommendations by the boatload but without expectation of seeing any implemented.

Authoritarianism rules

Swift and unequivocal in decision-making, authoritarian governments are models of efficiency compared to democracies. For this reason, they are tempting in bad times and almost a must in times of chaos. The only problem is that with authoritarian government comes the corrosive element of certainty. Certainty eats into truth and eventually leaves us two choices: submission or madness.

Authoritarians will not wait for the U.S. and its democratic republic to navigate a better course. Just ask Donald Trump as he stands ready to solve all our problems. More than any other politician, he knows what the American people want. A true born authoritarian guaranteed to give the U.S. everything it deserves. A silly simple task for a man whose freedom to pretend has no limit.

AI is the springboard to government’s leapfrog.

Thomas Jefferson warned that it would be a mistake to carry forward yesterday’s practices to tomorrow’s government. Widely respected and revered, his words were widely ignored.

Now is likely our last chance to heed Jefferson’s advice. With internal threats to democracy brewing, we should recognize that logic and Washington are repelling forces. As with understanding countless laws and digesting a gargantuan tax code, the job of righting Washington is beyond the capacity of any one person.

The train to lean management left the Federal Government ages ago. But a new train is here and ready to be boarded. It’s called AI. Even in its current early form, AI puts forward better answers to today’s issues than any politician or head of state, and with considerably less drama. (See the Sample Chat Test below.)

With AI, tomorrow’s Washington will be less about jawboning and more about implementing solutions. Imagine a world where the nightly news on Washington needs no more than 30 minutes. How many hours would that save you? How many foolish arguments would it spare?

Most of today’s politicians would be uncomfortable with this charge. It deprives them of the limelight and forces them to hunker down and do the hard work of government. There are others – thousands in fact – who can step in. Most, however, are unable or unwilling to access Washington’s campaign-driven superhighway.

Election by lottery might be a better approach to tomorrow’s Federal Government. Certainly, it would open the door to talent nationwide, presumably with some conditions.

AI-driven democracy enables us to unravel years of overhead while aligning government resources with the country's needs. This is the task ahead. No room remains in the sandbox of yesteryear’s politics as we progress toward government that’s relevant and puts sound, effective, and economical solutions before all else. In a world of AI-driven government, doers will dominate talkers.

The need for elected officials that was obvious in 1789 is turned on its head in a world with AI. AI provides the United States and its democratic republic an opportunity to leapfrog its soggy old legacy and redefine how future democratic governments operate.

+++

Sample Chat Test. Take any issue from the national debt to climate change, social inequality, and political polarization, and Chat provides a better framework for action than any committee in Congress. This is not to say that AI will make decisions for government, at least not in the near term. But AI frames the political discussion while extracting relevant solutions from government’s vast and disorganized oceans of data.

If you remain skeptical, take any of the answers to the following queuer and drill down further. You will see, as I have, that the depth and clarity of Chat supersedes anything coming out of Washington today.

Question to Chat GPT-4. On the topic of the U.S. national debt, what steps are recommended by the AI Model for fixing it?

Answer from Chat GPT-4.

Increase Revenue:

1.         Tax Reform: Simplify the tax code and close loopholes that allow tax evasion. Some argue for progressive taxation, where higher incomes are taxed at higher rates.

2.         Broaden the Tax Base: Consider taxes that affect a larger number of people but at a lower rate, thus spreading the burden.

3.         Corporate Taxes: Review and revise corporate tax laws to ensure that companies pay their fair share.

Cut Spending:

1.         Review Entitlement Programs: Programs like Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid take up a significant portion of the federal budget. Streamlining these could result in savings, although this is politically sensitive.

2.         Military Spending: The U.S. spends more on defense than the next several countries combined. A review of military spending might find areas where costs can be reduced without compromising security.

3.         Waste and Inefficiency: Regular audits to eliminate waste, fraud, and abuse in all areas of government can save money.

Economic Growth:

1.         Invest in Infrastructure: Spending money now to update failing infrastructure could lead to economic gains in the future, increasing tax revenue.

2.         Education and Workforce Development: Investing in education and job training can create a more skilled workforce, leading to economic growth and increased tax revenue.

3.         Innovation and Research: Funding research can lead to new technologies and industries, promoting economic growth and providing new streams of revenue.

Borrowing and Monetary Policy:

1.         Interest Rates: The Federal Reserve could influence interest rates to manage the cost of borrowing.

2.         Debt Maturity: Extending the maturity of the national debt could lock in lower interest rates for a longer period.

Political Will:

1.         Bipartisan Cooperation: Any effective strategy will require broad political support, which necessitates compromise.

2.         Long-term Planning: Politicians often focus on short-term gains. A long-term focus is essential for effectively tackling the national debt.

the Needs Monitor Survey

I recently conducted a short (3-question) survey to measure interest in the Needs Monitor. If you're new to the Needs Monitor, read the following three bullets. Otherwise, drop down the page to the survey results.

What is the Needs Monitor?

The Needs Monitor is designed as a free citizen-to-government portal where citizen needs are reported, validated, and shared online and with government – local, state, and federal. In exchange, citizens learn where resources exist in government to help address their needs and who else (locally and nationally) shares their needs. Rather than politicians setting the agenda for the country, the country sets the agenda for politicians.

Why is it necessary?

The Needs Monitor is the first step in creating a bottom-up approach to the government that shapes and redefines government based on everyday needs, not governmental legacy, where budgets are renewed out of habit and not careful consideration.

People are government too.

Many have come to dislike, or even hate, government. Government is an easy target when things don't go our way. But government is people too. And between government people and citizen people, a lot can be accomplished.

This bonding will never happen when politicians are motivated to argue first and resolve last. In a world driven by campaign financing, arguments work better than solutions. Divisiveness pulls in donations; solving problems is boring and unfunded.

Given the unyielding influence of money, our politicians are more motivated to make a problem bigger than they are to fix it. (The same philosophy taught to future civil servants at American University in 1975. Party affiliation doesn't matter. This is a human problem; the bias of money and fame is impossible to ignore.

So, the Survey Says…

My thanks to SurveyMonkey. What a brilliant piece of tech. Within a day, I was able to collect feedback from 202 individuals.

What I appreciated most were the comments that indicate the Needs Monitor is understood. Only one person expressed confusion, but I was expecting many more.

Here are the comments from the Needs Monitor survey conducted on 31 August 2023, followed by my answers. 

1.   How accessible is it going to be? Needs change from week to week as well as the demands/resources. Where would they be able to stay updated?

The Needs Monitor will run 24x7x365 and function as a non-stop monitor of what's in the country's to-do hopper. From pending needs, to needs being acted on, to needs completed and being monitored.

2.   How descriptive would it be? For a city or more general areas?

Needs (and those submitting them) will be validated by zip code. If users want to go deeper, they can add street or community, but not address.

3.   Would people be able to see other peoples' reports and the subsequent responses?

Absolutely. The idea is to share needs and constructively join forces with others who share your need(s).

4.   Sounds good on paper but larger donors will get favor before we the people.

We are seeking sponsors but will otherwise be an independent and self-sufficient non-profit. Donations will be solicited but not in exchange for favors.

5.   It is unclear as to what you are selling or offering here. Is it an app? What specifically are we monitoring?

The Needs Monitor is free and will initially run as a web service before an app is developed.

6.   On the site should be a listing of levels of government and who handles what so we know of an issue we may think is local is actually controlled by state or federal.

Spot on! That's precisely what we hope to do.

7.   In Jacksonville we have a city help number, but it's more for info and doesn't do any tracking.

Yes. This is true for most of government. Great at pushing information but weak at taking it in. While the government's push mechanism can be very helpful, the input side is invariably that of politicians and not people.

8.   Was this survey done with serious intentions? The government has little regard for individuals

 Judging from the government's behavior, it's hard to disagree with this observation. But I see this as the result of money and politics, not the acts of civil servants or the average citizen. 

9.   Would make it easier to communicate

Yes, the Needs Monitor takes a lot of the hot air out of politics and enables the country to focus on the issues that matter.

10. typically when i have a need, (that involves the government), I contact the appropriate people and things happen. If not, I'll follow up with the particular department or person until I get my needs met.

This is the way it should be! Of course, it would be better if government acted without placing the need to follow up on individuals.

11. I think it sounds like a great way to get people more involved in reporting our needs to the government on every level (local, state & federal).

Yes, that's the idea. But in addition to reporting needs, we also track and monitor performance.

12. We need to make sure the info cant be corrupted to fit a politicians or administrations wants and needs.. they'll just hi jack the system and then it looks as thought we want what REALLY THEY want ,, not us. 

A valid concern. In the process of validating a need, we validate location using publicly available information and smart algorithms to prevent the Needs Monitor from being hijacked.

13. please l need a clean water  new plants

My guess is that you're not alone.

14. Who would be receiving the info?

Needs are validated, organized, shared (with government – local, state, federal), and, where appropriate, packaged into procurements that state and local governments can send to Washington. This model reverses the money flow – going from state/local to federal. Washington's bureaucracy is reshaped based on actual individual needs. Not only is this a better formula for aligning the country with the assets of government, but it also throws a wrench into fundraising-centric politics. Imagine what Congress might achieve if fundraising is taken off the table. There will always be wheeler dealers and lobbyists. It's okay for them to have their voice, just so long as it stands alongside the voice of the people.

For my video on the Needs Monitor model, click here.

15. Seems like it should be something everyone should want.

We'll see. Unless the Needs Monitor works and helps people, it will be just another web service. For this reason, we must build something that gets people excited and involved.

16. I'm sad to say, my second thought, after, "Wow! That's cool!" was I hope it's AI as people would screw it up!

AI makes the Needs Monitor possible. That said, AI must be programmed not to run amuck, either. In our model, Chat is used to qualify needs and connect needs with resources. 

17. This would be perfect since it is very hard to navigate through any gov website

The higher we go in government, the deeper the data we must digest. We recognize this and use AI to filter governments' mountain of data and narrow information down to what's most relevant and what matters to people and the country, and not necessarily to a House sub-committee.

18. i would report issues like:  Street Lights broken, Fence along freeway has been torn down, homeless mess left behind.

Absolutely. Anything you consider a need, problem, issue, etc., can be reported. While government (local, state, federal) may not be able to follow up on everything, you can identify others with the same needs through the Needs Monitor. Maybe you will organize a local volunteer group to address the homeless mess (and hopefully the homeless, too). Franklin initiated a model for volunteerism, a legacy worth renewing.

19. Would be nice to be able to communicate online vs a written letter

No arguing that. Digitized records securely managed can be organized, shared, and tracked. This opens the door to more efficient and effective government.

20. I think this would be a great way to report any changes in water.

Yes. And in the Needs Monitor, you will also see where else your issue is also being reported and where in government you can go for help. The Needs Monitor will also track the status of your reported need.

21. Our elected officials have usually been helpful when we needed help. Not sure a "needs monitor" would add value.

In functioning America, a Needs Monitor could be overkill. I wish we had more communities that don't need it. Maybe that should be our goal: to obsolete the need for a Needs Monitor.

22. I probably wouldn't pay for this since I would rarely use it. But it would make things much easier when I do have to track down who is in charge of what.

The Needs Monitor will be free of charge and operated by the non-profit The 90-Degree Turn. Funding will come via disclosed donations.

23. Too easy to troll. Really give people a direct access to government.

This is a legitimate concern; however, our validation process will make trolling difficult. One of our goals is to give people direct access to government and, when possible, names and phone numbers. Indeed, we want to cut through the bureaucracy and (nicely and politely) connect the country with the best government has to offer. 

If you’d like to take this short survey click here.

Don’t Look Up – APSA 2023

Not unlike a startup, promoting a political philosophy like the 90-Degree Turn requires turning over as many stones as possible. However, as stones are infinite, one must be selective.

Given that I have a degree in Political Science (and recently examined the Federal Government and the challenges it faces), I thought it logical to turn over the stone labeled American Political Science Association (APSA). When I did and realized APSA was having its annual meeting at the end of August, I grew excited.

On the event's website, 2023 APSA ANNUAL MEETING & EXHIBITION, I was amazed by the number of papers being presented. Such a repository would certainly include learned academics looking for answers to the national debt crisis and seeking government reform to prevent future debt. But my amazement quickly turned to disappointment when I couldn't find a single paper among thousands on the "U.S. national debt" or "government reform."

When I simplified my search to "debt," I received 33 hits, including "The Causes and Effects of China's Economic Statecraft." But nothing related to the U.S. debt. It would seem, for this American association, that the problem is over there, in China, and not here at home. When I simplified "government reform" to "reform," I received 266 hits, but nothing related to the U.S. government.

Don't Look Up might just be the APSA motto for 2023. Pressing issues central to preserving democracy fall outside the spectrum of burning hot topics like "The Politics of Bathroom Access, Exclusion, and Gender Identity in the States."

When bathroom access takes priority over national debt and government reform in an organization made up of the country's leading political scientists, something is off. Way off. Now, I understand how liberals become conservatives and reactionaries. Fox News would eat this up.

As science is the pursuit and application of knowledge, the APSA should change "Political Science" to "Political Studies" so as not to mislead anyone into thinking something of real benefit could be derived from having a degree in it.

I have argued that the Federal Government operates with an overhead of 99.5%. This is reflected in the APSA database, where a preoccupation with the extraneous appears to deny attention to topics that matter. Not to a select few but to a country and the democratic world as a whole. Akin to our politicians in Washington, APSA prefers to study the obtuse soft periphery of government to the hardcore issues needed to sustain it.

On the topic of "campaign financing," I got 35 hits, but none related to the corrosive effects of campaign financing. And I found only one panel that mentions lobbying: "Lobbying and Campaign Contributions in the United States." But here, the focus is on participating, not fixing.

The APSA is reminiscent of the Office of the Inspector General, where success is not measured by actual results but rather by potential results. 

Like Washington, it seems the science of political science is stuck in neutral. Comfortably observing government as an astronomer might observe a distant star without hope or aspiration of changing a damn thing.

I have not given up and hope, eventually, to connect with individuals in academia with an interest in this topic. That said, from my initial assessment, it would seem this will be a steep climb that may offer no benefit other than having tried.

Milton & Me

… on Government Reform

William McGurn's April 3 article in the Wall Street Journal, "Milton Friedman's School Choice Revolution," chronicles the growing adoption of the education voucher system. Friedman first proposed the idea during a lecture in 1955 on "The Role of Government in Education." 

The school choice revolution envisioned by Friedman has been gaining momentum over the past few years as parents and students become increasingly disillusioned with the state of public education in the United States. Moreover, with many schools closed during the pandemic and parents struggling to balance work and childcare responsibilities, the need for alternative educational options has become even more pressing.

The voucher system proposed by Milton Friedman, which allows parents to use government-issued funds to pay for private or religious school tuition, has been one of the most popular solutions to the education crisis. Proponents argue that it increases competition between schools, improves the quality of education, and gives parents greater control over their child's education.

I was pointed to this article by my good friend, Pat Collins, who saw a parallel between the school choice revolution and the revolution in government described in The 90-Degree Turn. In the course of trying to sell a radical new approach to democratic government, it's comforting to be made aware of similar revolutions, particularly when from a Nobel Prize-winning economist.

The inefficiency and ineffectiveness that Friedman decried in the 1950s are now everywhere in government. The problems in education "developed gradually," Friedman notes. The same is true for the rest of Washington; it's the byproduct of the same-old, same-old, repeated year after year without question, debate, or discussion. Purpose and value have lost their way in the maze of big government, and Washington's mounting overhead is crushing the bottom line of America. 

For this reason, we should pivot Washington by aligning the country's needs with government resources using a Needs Monitor. Not just periodically but always. The hierarchy of government that has remained with us for over two hundred years has fossilized in the digital age. While industry bends and flexes to address today's needs, Washington is brittle and fractured. The same problems that Friedman saw in education during the 1950s are government-wide today. 

My argument that the Federal Government's overhead is 99.5% isn't a hunch but a calculation based on a close analysis of the healthcare.gov website. I am a proponent of the Affordable Care Act, but its objective of expanding access to healthcare failed when the tool for meeting that objective cost nearly 200 times what it should. From an initial budget of $93 million (already inflated ten x), the eventual bill to taxpayers was $1.7 billion, as reported by Daniel R. Levinson, Office of the Inspector General for Health and Human Services, in August 2014. This makes Healthcare.gov the most expensive website in the universe – not by percentage but orders of magnitude. 

The cost of the Healthcare.gov website is more straightforward to assess than most projects in Washington. However, from looking at other federal agencies – including Defense – I estimate that 99.5% overhead is about the average.

Even the government agency responsible for keeping our bureaucracy in line – the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) – is in on the game. So widely ignored are its recommendations that the OIG measures performance not by actual savings but by "potential savings." It's all proudly displayed on the homepage of Oversight.gov under the banner of the Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency (CIGIE). High-flying baloney in broad daylight from the team that's supposed to make government run better.  

One report I reference in my book is the Semiannual Report to Congress Office of Inspector General for the U.S. Department of Labor Volume 84 (April 1–September 30, 2020). A review of its appendix tells the story of Washington. Two ambiguously described accomplishments (under "Funds Put to a Better Use Implemented by DOL"), followed by page nine pages of "Unimplemented recommendations." 

Above all, Washington demonstrates its ability to pretend.

JB Fred Eberlein

Author of The 90-Degree Turn

ChatGPTS doesn't hijack democracy

ChatGPTS doesn't hijack democracy, it puts democracy in its place.

Recently, I read a New York Times guest essay, "How ChatGPT Hijacks Democracy" by data scientist Nathan E. Sanders and security technologist Brue Schneier. 

While I appreciate the threats highlighted by both experts, I found the article mostly irrelevant, particularly regarding the authors' obsession with lobbies. 

Yes, OpenAI's ChatGPT makes it possible to create targeted messages for the most venerable politicians that fire off at the optimal moment of vulnerability. But we can't blame ChatGPT for hijacking a democracy that has already been hijacked. 

ChatGPT can be used in harmful ways to enable lobbies to drain the pockets of America further. But who cares about adding another trillion to the national debt when we're already at $31 trillion? What's another three feet of water when you're already submerged? More concerning than the national debt is the system that created it. 

Contrary to Sanders and Schneier, I see great promise in ChatGPT as a means for putting the Federal Government to work. This work is not that of any civil servant or politician but rather the work of unlocking Government's ocean of data and the learnings that lie within. 

Unimplemented recommendations – about 99.5% of all Government reports – can now be synthesized and translated into explanations and action plans that we can all understand and build on.

Open to all, ChatGPT is the tip of the iceberg in returning value to Government. The internet revolution gave us access to information; ChatGPT gives us knowledge and a roadmap. It's unlike anything we've seen before. Some, myself included, see it as revolutionary, especially when we imagine its future.  

In addition to asking ChatGPT a range of questions, from legal precedents to the location of a bus stop, I was particularly interested in how ChatGPT would respond to queries about the Federal Government.  

As a knowledgeable actor, the "AI model," as it calls itself, isn't pushing answers but framing issues. For example, in response to my question: 

What are the most logical steps for addressing the U.S. $31 trillion debt?

The AI model replied: 

Addressing the U.S. national debt, which currently stands at approximately $31 trillion, is a complex issue that requires a multi-faceted approach. Some steps that could be taken to address the debt include: 

1. Reducing government spending: This could be done by cutting or eliminating certain programs, reducing the size of the federal workforce, and reforming entitlement programs such as Social Security and Medicare.Increasing government revenue: This could be done by increasing taxes, closing tax loopholes, or implementing a carbon tax.Improving economic growth: A strong and growing economy can help to increase government revenue and reduce the debt-to-GDP ratio. This could be achieved through policies that promote business development, job growth, and trade.Implementing a debt reduction plan: This could be done by setting a target for reducing the debt-to-GDP ratio over a certain period of time, and putting in place a plan to achieve that target.

2. Prioritizing the debt: It's important to prioritize the debt and focus on reducing the most expensive debt first, such as the debt held by the public, which is currently at around 78% of GDP.

3. Reducing the interest rate on debt: Lowering the interest rate on the debt would reduce the cost of servicing the debt and increase the effectiveness of other steps to reduce the debt.

4. Improving the efficiency and effectiveness of government spending: This could be done by implementing measures to reduce waste and improve the efficiency of government programs and services.

It's important to note that addressing the national debt will require difficult choices and trade-offs and will likely involve a combination of spending cuts and revenue increases. It will also demand a long-term commitment and cooperation from both political parties and the public.

A one-pager that summarizes the issue better than any politician can. Direct and straightforward, but with an understanding of the core issues and steps for addressing them. Who needs political rhetoric when the AI model offers better guidance? Instead, we humans should take this knowledge and run with it – focusing our discussion and debate on rational choices and away from the daily razzle-dazzle distraction of a broken political system hyped by media. 

Moore's law predicted it. It was just a matter of time. The human is now inferior to the machine at a level not previously witnessed. However, human thinking is not killed but advanced, not by answers but by dialogue. 

As dialogue is also the mission of my blog, I feel at home with ChatGPT. It provides a framework for meaningful debate and a path to common sense and civility lacking in today's political world. Another significant advantage is that ChatGPT is not the internet and is free of the non-stop brain rot of information overload that cripples today's world wide web. 

Working with ChatGPT is conversing with somebody who knows what they're talking about. For example, in follow-up to my question about the debt, I asked: 

Which of the approaches mentioned would be the easiest to implement? 

In reply, ChatGPT narrowed its earlier choices to the following and explains why. 

"reducing government spending by cutting or eliminating certain programs," reasoning that it may be "easier to implement than raising taxes or reforming entitlement programs, which can be politically sensitive issues."

"Improving the efficiency and effectiveness of government spending by implementing performance metrics, conducting regular audits, and streamlining operations may also be relatively easier to implement, as it does not require a significant change in policy or legislation."

Boarding on brilliant, the AI model teaches us to avoid politically sensitive issues or policy changes if we want to get things done. This is excellent work for an AI engine that's in its infancy. As its access to information grows, so will its unhuman-like insights. 

In its current form, ChatGPT does not think for us. ChatGPT can't debate an issue or make a decision. It can, however, navigate the oceans of government information and make sense of it. It doesn't solve Government's many problems, but it puts those problems into a model that makes debate and decision-making easier.

I'm reminded of a quote from Lydon Johnson. "You know, doing what is right is easy. The problem is knowing what is right." 

Getting to what is right remains our biggest challenge. We can make ChatGPT our compass, chartering a new course for the future of the United States and democratic republics around the world.

Holocaust 2.0

This topic is not typical of my blog, but something I feel compelled to write about.

For all my criticism of Washington spending, I have only praise for the support given Ukraine, particularly regarding the supply of world-class weapons that defend against Russia and bloody its nose.

While billions of trillions spent on defense is wasted and robbed, maybe this time the outcome will be worth it. This time the U.S. is on the good side of a bad thing.

Despite this, if we don't do more, our support for Ukraine will be for naught – and could even backfire. Nobody wins 75% of a war. Particularly when the opposing force is the mogul horde.

Putin's Russia has 100 million more people than Ukraine and can carry on recruitment drives for years to come. Ukraine is unable to do the same. As such, Putin will use all the time given him to chip away at Ukraine's infrastructure and morale. Moreover, Ukraine will be doomed if Putin succeeds in striking a deal with China.

Putin's initial attack to rid the Ukraine of Nazis was not met with the enthusiasm he had hoped. Perhaps the premise was wrong. Nevertheless, the rejection was an assault on Putin's dogma and his image of a great Russian empire that never existed. Since, the Russian President has been out for revenge – driven by a horde mentality that's his second nature. A vestige of Russia's medieval past, when the moguls took Moscow in the 13th century and held it for over 200 years. 

"One death is a tragedy; one million is a statistic," said Stalin.

Like his mad predecessor, Putin is now well into the statistics game. Human life – whether Ukrainian or Russian – is a number. There's no plan for salvation, and likely never was. The world's largest country, which occupies eleven percent of all landmasses and stretches across eleven time zones, needs yet more room. Not to improve anything but just to have it.

Win-win is not a strategy the mogul horde understands. For the horde, the options are two: to beat or be beaten. There's no middle ground. Furthermore, a loss is incomplete without misery and discomfort. The horde does just bomb living space but its infrastructure too.

If you're robbed on a street in Moscow, it's not just a matter of giving up your wallet. You can be assured a beating too. A proper horde mugging would be incomplete without it.

This is the mindset that we must address to end the war in Ukraine and Putin's slow-motion holocaust.

To be clear, the "mogul mindset" I refer to is specific to Putin and his true believers – a minority of Russians but still a lot. The rest, mostly the talented ones, are leaving or have already left. As with Orbán's Hungary, a loyal public is replacing an educated one. Both Putin and Orbán, as said by a former American leader, "love the poorly educated."

The random killing of innocent brothers and sisters, and their children, cannot be tolerated and must be stopped. Not just because it’s immoral and inhuman but because of how it's damaging the rest of the world.

It's time to focus on the endgame and to outflank Putin's mogul horde. He's looking for a long, winding off-ramp. We shouldn’t give him twenty feet.

As a horde leader, Putin is ready to be beaten, but only by force. Negotiations are his delay tactic and provide time to woo Iran and China into a great war against the west.

Not a moment too soon, President Biden met with China's Xi in November. By all indications, it was a good meeting. Most significantly, the President said in a press conference following the meeting that Secretary Blinken would be "following up on our discussions and continue keeping the lines of communication open between our two countries."

I trust Secretary Blinken is exploiting this move and doing everything he can to drive a wedge between Xi and Putin.

Nothing will bring the mogul horde to a more abrupt halt than the giant that borders it, China, and its supremely powerful President Xi. In Xi's company, the czar Putin is a puppy dog on a leash. No nation scares Putin more than China, and no leader more than Xi. Russia shares a 2,700 miles border with China. Russia's population is one-tenth of China's, and its military budget is one-fourth of China's. Worse is Putin's awareness that Russia and China have fought many times throughout history. Even during the height of Communism in 1969, a dispute over borders along the Ussuri River brought both to the brink of war.

As Putin tries to corner Xi, we must flank him. We must let up on China's human rights record and focus on future lives more than past ones. This doesn't mean abandoning human rights but rather finding diplomatic methods that produce more results than talking points.

We should also back off from all the saber-rattling over Taiwan. Maybe Speaker Pelosi had a reason for traveling to Taiwan in August last year that I'm unaware of; otherwise, I think the visit was a foolish choice. It risked alienating Xi and giving him reasons to work with Putin to weaken the west.

The deep economic ties between the U.S. and China, and the E.U. – that have concerned many over the years – can be hugely beneficial now. But the west needs to schmooze Xi, remind him how our futures are inextricably linked and show him the economic impact of Putin's war. Xi can get lots of cheap oil from Russia, but it won’t do much good without U.S. and European customers to buy Chinese goods and services. About half (41%) of China’s exports are to the U.S. and European countries, and only 4% to Russia.

In parallel with our efforts to persuade Xi to tell Putin to stop his war against Ukraine, we should be supplying the Ukrainians to the teeth with the best weapons the U.S. and western allies have to offer. Europe and NATO must acknowledge that the influx of millions of Ukrainians into member nations - and the burden that this places on these economies - is tantamount to an act of war by Russia against NATO.

Another argument for NATO's involvement is Putin's repeated references to nuclear weapons. I think the odds are very low, but still, Putin has given western leaders another reason for stepping up their actions.

Accordingly, it's time to enforce a no-fly zone and take the war to Putin. In addition, NATO should inform Putin that it will assist Ukraine in counterattacks on any locations in Russia that launch attacks on Ukraine. As Russia weakens, so will Xi’s support for Putin.

The mogul horde is ready for a good beating. Let us not disappoint.

From Damnation to Salvation

If the United States of America, and its democratic republic, are to survive, we must move from complaining about Washington to fixing it. 

It's easy to complain. We're very good at that. The harder thing is to dedicate more energy to solving a problem than debating it.  

We are what we do. By changing what we do, we change who we are. 

The same holds for the Federal Government. Its demise is not inevitable. 

On the book's last page, I mention putting the 90-Degree Turn theory into a working model. In pursuit of that goal, I have configured the logic for a central component of the theory, the Needs Monitor. 

Sometime during the first quarter of 2023, I plan to complete a specification for a working prototype of the Needs Monitor. It's the first step in pivoting Washington while aligning it with the needs of the country and cutting waste and redundancy.

We'll need funding. If you have any eccentric friends or uncles who don't mind taking on the impossible, please direct them to me: jbfred@90degreeturn.com.

On behalf of America’s future, I say thank you!

The Time to Cut-off Congress is Now or Never

In twelve years, we'll be celebrating the centennial of the Social Security Act.

While a milestone for some, 2035 (or earlier) will be the year when our decline accelerates.

Historians are reluctant to offer dates for their predictions. They like the certainty that comes from looking back. Me too, but I'm not a historian.

The social and political turbulence we've been experiencing for the past twenty years will be extreme in 2035, when social security payments are cut by one-fourth. This cut will push millions of Americans into poverty and trigger a tipping point for the country.

In The Changing World Order, Dalio explains how things accelerate downward near the end of great empires. For the great American empire, this acceleration begins on or about 2035 and will correspond with cuts in social security.

It's one thing to move from poverty to riches but going in the opposite direction is something no one will accept. Our ideology of greatness runs too deep to be denied; dissonance will take hold, and the predictably irrational will follow. Democracy will become wobbly and fragile things like the Bill of Rights will fracture. The creditworthiness of the United States and its Treasury bonds will take a turn for the worse. Losing reserve currency status for the dollar will follow. Interest rates will jump, and our interest payments on the debt will exceed $2 trillion annually when we can least afford it. According to Statista, in 2022, we paid over $700 billion in interest.

The opportunities for fixing social security have been many. But those opportunities have dwindled over the years due to a lack of action by Congress.

The Social Security and Medicare Boards of Trustees are responsible for managing social security funds and reporting recommendations to Congress. A visit to the Social Security's Office of the Chief Actuary website reveals the frustration those in the Federal Government are having with Congress too.

"The last 11 Trustees Reports have indicated that Social Security's Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance (OASDI) Trust Fund reserves would become depleted between 2033 and 2035 … If no legislative change is enacted, scheduled tax revenues will be sufficient to pay only about three-fourths of the scheduled benefits after trust fund depletion." [bold added]

Eleven attempts and nothing was done!

Would members of Congress need eleven attempts from a bank, pharma, defense, or media lobbyist for a meeting?

Given that Social Security represents one-fifth of the entire U.S. budget and affects 49 million Americans, one would think our leaders in Congress would only need one Trustee report to act.

Now that eleven reports have gone unnoticed, what do you think the odds are of Congress jumping into action with the twelfth?

The Congressional playbook on trillions in savings mismanaged will be to increase the debt ceiling. The lazy way of avoiding hard work and difficult decisions that's been the standard since 2001, the last time the U.S. had a surplus. The Congressional playbook, however, is running out of plays,

According to the Trustees' 2022 report, “In 2021, Social Security's total cost exceeded total income, including interest on trust fund asset reserves, by $56 billion. The Trustees project that total cost will exceed total income in all future years.”

With more money running out of social security than into it, the noose on options is tightening, thanks to Congress's inaction.

Isn't this undeniable proof that Congress can no longer keep its Constitutional oath to provide for the common good? I write capable because I assume all members have the best intentions. It's just their lack of execution that's ungodly.

I am not advocating that we abolish Congress, but rather that we radically change Congress's role by removing it from its control over money and spending. This massive pivot could start by putting the OASDI Trust Fund under the control of state governments or an independent body chosen by state governments.

This is not the option I want for the U.S., but the one we must take. I would rather have a working and purposeful Congress, but this will not happen as long as Congress controls spending. It's the drug of a body that's long past due for rehab. With money out of the way, Congress will be motivated to serve the country first and lobbyists last.

Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, which defines the powers of Congress, begins with the words: "The Congress shall have…" not the words "The Congress must have…"

I am no constitutional scholar, but we don't need a Constitutional Amendment to separate Congress from spending. We just need the will to face reality and reform how Washington operates.

Considering the 2033-2035 window forecasted by the Social Security Board of Trustees and the time it will take to pivot Congress and the Federal Government, it's no exaggeration to say we don't have a day to waste.

MEDIA – The SPIN Doctors of Democracy

"If you take anything to an extreme, it becomes its opposite," my college philosophy professor often said.

Media's obsession with informing the American public is an example of this. Not free speech but an abuse of it. Media, and particularly political Media, doesn't educate us, it schools us. With non-stop news, we no longer need to think. Opinions are formed for us. We only need to tune in.

Like so much of Washington, Media doesn't serve the nation; it feasts on it. Once purposeful, Media has lost its way over the years. Going from credible to industrial. Churning out breaking news like never before. Keeping the nation on edge for the next bit of information that, at the end of the day, is of zero value to us personally. 

America is a nation hooked on the white noise of news that has no limits and few constraints. This condition is only made worse by election cycles that are the longest in the universe. Canada, the U.K., Australia, France, Japan, Singapore, and Mexico are in line with the rest of the democratic world, with an average campaign duration of 44 days. Many U.S. campaigns exceed this by a factor of ten, running for well over a year!

In the U.S., elections have gone from intermittent to constant. No longer do they serve the common good as much as the bank accounts of Media titans and the coffers of those running for election and re-election. This is not democracy at work but democracy in overload. Driven by money and, on balance, of negative value to the general public. What we might gain in knowledge from Media is negated by a constant sense of fear. 

We don't question the need to be the first to know. We act it out. When staring at our phone or the T.V. (that runs hours every day), we lose the moment. There's no now in our lives. No time to relax, reflect, look into your partner's eyes, have a conversation with your kids, or talk to a neighbor. We stop thinking because we have Media experts who do that for us. All we need to do is tune in and tune out. 

In Media, educating the public takes a backseat to provoking it. What better way to build and retain an audience. "Negativity and escape domain positivity and approach," by 2-3 times according to Nobel Prize economist Daniel Kahneman. I think Media knows this fact better than Kahneman and has mountains of data to prove it. They know an audience isn't as attentive to the topic of good news as it is to breaking news. 

Good news or education programs don't generate a fraction of the profit of breaking news, particularly when that breaking news is connected to one of the many names we've learned to hate.  

Around the clock, we're updated on what's happening in Washington, the latest vote count, and reminders of what's to come. Every bit of news seemingly as critical as the moon landing. Interpreted, reinterpreted, and repeated by a roundtable of media elites who school us in what we need to know. It's not really what we need to know but what Media says we need to know. 

Now that the 2022 elections are behind us, Media's profit-driven model of democracy demands we turn our attention to 2024. Now more than ever, they say, democracy is on the line. Indeed, Media pushes it there in partnership with a political system that's as money-dependent as Media.

Voter fatigue and disharmony is no obstacle to Media's revenue targets. Nor is it of concern to those who took a Constitutional oath to provide for the "general welfare" of the country.  

Getting politicians to talk is cheap and easy. Media doesn't have to pay them, yet politicians are always available for an interview to build their brand, raise money, and keep the country informed. 

Disguised as news to inform the American public, Media provides a free non-stop platform for politicians to raise billions of dollars to spend on Media ads. It's a vicious circle that grows bigger with each election. According to OpenSecrets, in 2020, over $14 billion was spent on political campaigns. (Most of this money going to ads.) This year, according to NPR, almost hit $17 billion was spent on political campaigns, despite it being a mid-term election year. Media pretends to scrutinize politicians, but actually, it dances with them.

Alongside big banks, big pharma, and big defense contractors, Media's partnership with politics is another cancer infecting the American nation. Media would be informing the country better if it returned to its boring past: 30 minutes of news in the morning, 30 minutes in the evening, and 30 minutes at night. Telling us what we need to know and then giving us the space to think about it and to form (or not form) opinions of our own.

Today, the best and brightest of America don't inform; they saturate. As a result, America's attention span is being put through a meat grinder. 

The habits of big business and Media are beyond our control, as is greed itself. However, we can control out-of-control spending, and its consequences, by removing Congress from its authority over spending and returning that responsibility to state government. Not a perfect solution, but perfect enough to break the bad habits of Congress and return it to its job of serving we the people.

Bankrolling Bad Actors

Imagine paying your rent, mortgage, or child's tuition and losing 42.4% on every transaction. How long would you tolerate that? Most of us would act on it immediately. But not Washington. No loss is too great to break its bipartisan addiction to the big spend.

According to an audit released September 30 by the Inspector General for the Department of Labor," $30.4 billion of the $71.7 billion" in pandemic relief was "paid improperly. "42.4% of payments went to the wrong people, and an estimated $9.9 billion (13.8%) went to fraudsters.”

While the FBI and police fight crime, Washington underwrites it. I am not reporting a conspiracy but rather the unintended consequences of dysfunctional government using broken systems to distribute mountains of money. Congress knows better but can't find the will to change.

Billions of dollars are spent by the Department of Labor (DOL) and its Employment and Training Administration (ETA) for programs like Pandemic Unemployment Assistance (PUA) and Federal Pandemic Unemployment Compensation (FPUC).

In its audits of four states (California, Georgia, Kentucky, and Michigan) conducted in 2021 and 2022, the Inspector General reports, "1 in 5 dollars initially paid in PUA benefits went to likely fraudsters." So, while 13.8% is estimated to go to fraudsters overall, Pandemic Unemployment Assistance is doing even worse, losing 20% to fraud.

Considering that a lot of this money ends up with drug cartels, terrorists, and foreign enemies, you would think that our elected officials would come up with a better way of distributing funds to citizens in need.

Unwittingly, taxpayers are helping build another fentanyl lab that makes the pills that will kill a family member someday.

Unwittingly, taxpayers support North Korea and its delusional leader in building a nuclear arsenal aimed at the west.

Unwittingly, taxpayers provide another revenue stream to Russia as it attempts to destroy Ukraine. (All while Washington spends billions in defense of Ukraine.)

The greatest threats to the U.S. - drug cartels, North Korea, and Russia – are allowed to grow stronger because of Washington's gross mismanagement of taxpayer dollars. The Federal Government is so committed to spending that even when its recklessness aids the enemy and hurts the country, it can't stop. This is the definition of addiction; it will ruin all of us if it's not broken.

Congress has been aware of this problem for years. In 2013, the Treasury reported shortcomings in its payment systems.

"The federal government currently operates under multiple financial systems and accounting practices, leading in some cases to challenges in communication and coordination."

Eight years later, in 2021, we learned what "challenges in communication" means to America's bottom line. In an Inspector General report for the Department of Labor, "Improper payments" for Unemployment Insurance were "10 percent for 14 of the last 17 years."

It's hard to believe that Congress – the body responsible under the Constitution to provide for the "general welfare" of the country – has done nothing to address this problem. Money lost is one thing, but when that money is funneled to bad actors, the impact is doubly bad.

America's ideology is not broken, but the system intended to support that ideology is. While Washington's massive bureaucracy presents one set of problems, the true source of our demise rests with the body responsible for spending – the U.S. Congress.

For over 200 years, Congress did a good job. But, unfortunately, for the past 20 years, Congress has failed miserably and at a significant cost to the country. In 20 years, the national debt has increased by 500 percent. From about $6 trillion in 1999 to over $30 trillion today, with an annual interest payment of over $500 billion that's growing by the minute.

We shouldn't do away with Congress, but we should remove Congress from its control over spending and return that responsibility to state governments. State governments may not be more efficient than Washington, but at least when a state loses money, the problem is localized and less likely to affect the country as a whole.

Not only will this approach allow the U.S. to manage its spending better, but it will also put a hole in fundraising-centric politics that's the source of our spending addiction.

The Rocket-man, Putin, pills, and a pile of cash.

A Theory Naked

The 90-Degree Turn is a theory in need of validation. In its current form, it's pure imagination.

I aim to transform that imagination into a prototype that can be shared and tested and ultimately released as a secure open-source platform for changing how our democratic republic operates.

While many have more experience than I in creating and launching web services, I did go through this trying exercise in 2005 when I founded a HIPAA-compliant pain tracking service known as ReliefInsite.com. Starting from a blank slate, we created a specification and hired the programming team to build it. I hope to do the same with the 90-Degree Turn, starting with the Needs Monitor.

Like ReliefInsite.com, the goal of the 90-Degree Turn is to relieve pain – not just today's pain, but the severe pain that lies ahead in the form of an oncoming train.

Ray Dalio's historical data (covered in my previous blog) makes clear that the United States of America is running out of time. The life expectancy of past empires – like the Dutch and British – was approximately 250 years. In 5 months, on March 4, 2023, the U.S. will be 234 years old.

More significant than age are the problems of debt, imbalanced wealth distribution, civil unrest, and geo-political overreach. The same evils that doomed the Dutch and British empires are knocking on the door of the American empire.

Like Dalio, I'm an optimist. The Dutch and the British didn't see what we see; their instruments were not as refined as ours. We have the insights and tools to do better and change course. Our better understanding of history, economics, and human nature should compel us to apply our learnings to right the ship of America.

Of course, the greatest challenge to any new system is end-user willingness to adopt it. The approaching tsunami of economic destruction should frighten us into action. In 2022, we see the crest of that tsunami as Social Security payments going out exceed revenues coming in.

We need levers to pry ourselves free from past practices that no longer work. The 90-Degree Turn is envisioned as such a lever. It enables us to act ourselves into a better way of thinking about Government.

A detailed specification has no place in a blog that's trying to build interest. An overview from 30,000 feet is a different story. The 90-Degree Turn architecture is that overview; it provides a frame of reference for the pivot envisioned in the theory.

ASSESS: Using the Needs Monitor, we assess requirements starting with individual households.

ORGANIZE: Needs are aggregated by town, city, county, and state and organized into proposals to the Federal Government. The procurement process is reversed. Funding is from the bottom up rather than from the top down.

IDENTIFY: Based on the Federal Government's response to locally initiated proposals, we see which agencies and departments of the Federal Government are needed and which are not. In "Buttom-up Separation," we differentiate between wheat and chaff.

STREAMLINE: Once we know which parts of Washington's bureaucracy are needed, we can reconfigure Washington to serve the country better and more efficiently.

VALUE: According to my estimates, based on a review of Federal Government initiatives and reports, for every dollar spent in Washington, all but half a penny is consumed by overhead. That's a value gap of 99.5%. I think we should reduce that gap to 20%. That would make the Federal Government about half as efficient as a public company. A giant leap forward for Washington, America, and democratic republics around the world!

Changing World Order

Ray Dalio's video, Principles for Dealing with the Changing World Order, has over 22 million views on YouTube. After watching it, I understand why.

Dalio is an American billionaire investor and hedge fund manager who founded Bridgewater Associates. According to Wikipedia, he is the second-wealthiest hedge fund manager next to George Soros.

In his video, which complements his book of the same name, Dalio does a deep dive into the economies of world empires going back 500 years. Creative and handsomely presented, his work is a pleasure to watch and rewatch. What makes it remarkable is Dalio's ability to translate history into data and show how it trends over time.

Examining eight metrics:

1. education

2. technological development

3. global markets competitiveness

4. economic output

5. share of world trade

6. military strength

7. financial centers

8. and world currency.

Dalio breaks down an empire's lifecycle into three stages:

1. the rise

2. the top

3. and the decline.

Why is this relevant to the 90-Degree Turn?

Looking at the Dutch, British, and U.S. empires, Dalio identifies 250 years as the typical lifecycle of dominant world powers. In the 90-Degree Turn, the U.S.'s old age of 233 years is cited as a core reason for the U.S.'s decline. Dalio seems to agree.

Age is just a number, but with this number comes the unwelcomed ills that have killed past empires. Debt, the wealth gap, and civil unrest that accelerated the decline of the Dutch empire in the 17th century, and the British empire in the 19th century, is being repeated in the U.S. today in the 21st.

Despite this dire outlook, Dalio doesn't go down the rathole of doom, gloom, and despair. Instead, he looks for answers. He doesn't just report his historical findings but unearths principles for measuring performance and adjusting course.

Based on five centuries of historical and economic data, Dalio sees a society's health as measured by:

1. leadership

2. education

3. character

4. rule of law

5. corruption

6. resource allocation efficiency

7. and openness to global thinking.

Seven characteristics are scaled from strong to weak, favorable to unfavorable, low to high, etc.

Seeing these as a means for measuring a society's health, Dalio doesn't believe decline is inevitable. Instead, he compares social health to physical fitness and notes that there's a lot we can do to improve and extend life.

"Events are in the saddle and ride mankind,” wrote Ralph Waldo Emerson.

But Emerson never qualified "events" as Dalio has. Now, as a result of Dalio’s work, we're exposed to new ways of seeing history and our country. And, we're given a lifeline for changing course. But a big question remains: Will we grab that lifeline or continue on our current path? Adhering to the status quo is our default setting until the light of an approaching train is detected.

History is inherently fuzzy – not always, but often. While we may enjoy reading, discussing, and debating it, very few have converted it into science, as Dalio has.

Lean management, change management, and landing a rocket, were all unknown until they were imagined, quantified, tested, and implemented. Finding new models to explain and expand the life of our democratic republic should be no different. Dalio provides us with a roadmap.

Our third president, Thomas Jefferson, encouraged an evolving government. In 1816, he wrote: "Laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind… as new discoveries are made, new truths disclosed… institutions must advance also, and keep pace with the times."

As a nation, the U.S. has evolved. However, our government systems remain stuck in the past. When we treat the constitution as "too sacred to be touched," as Jefferson wrote we undermine our ability to do better.

The democratic republic of the United States of America can endure, but it needs to find new models for governing the country. To achieve this, we must separate the principles of government from the mechanics of government. The Preamble to the Constitution doesn't go away, but our model for fulfilling its promise does.

Dalio provides a new perspective on government and society and a means for doing better. The key, he explains, is to see beyond our lifetime. This was the lesson he learned early in his career. It was the aha moment that propelled him to study the history of empires. He didn't know what he'd find but what he uncovered tells us a lot about the U.S. today and what can be done to put us on a better path.

After analyzing rising and declining empires, Dalio ends with two simple objectives:

1. earn more than you spend

2. treat each other well.

Everything else – from education to economic output – he explains, is a means for reaching these two goals. A clear and simple foundation for extending the life of a nation.

Ever the optimist, Dalio ends as though quoting Jefferson (or maybe Luke Skywalker). He says: "let the force of evolution be with you."

To that, I say: Bravo!

Footnote: As a theory, the 90-Degree Turn needs validation. Applying Dalio's seven social health measurements to the Needs Monitor is a concept I would like to mock up. In addition to Dalio, I would like to find other models for successful societies to apply to the 90-Degree Turn. If you know any, please bring them to my attention. Email me at: jbfred@90degreeturn.com. Thanks.

An unworkable thesis

I appreciate the interest created by my last blog, Where I went wrong. Confessions are better than excuses in finding answers.

In this blog, I will address the four vulnerabilities exposed by Steve Levine in Where I went wrong.

I’ve organized this blog by Point (Steve) and Reply (Me). It’s the Steve and Me show!

Getting into the details of anything can be difficult and potentially dull. Nevertheless, moving from concept to real-world must be done to chart a path to better government. By addressing potential weaknesses we put meat on the bones of the 90-Degree Turn theory. For this reason, I greatly appreciate Steve’s critical feedback.

If you’re brave enough, read on.

Unworkable

Point 1. The “unworkable thesis – that a database of needs and resources can be used to rationally allocate resources to competing needs and somehow overcome the interference of self-serving political and special interests”

Reply: Difficult, perhaps, but not unworkable. If Amazon can measure the needs of consumers and match suppliers to those needs, it's well within our reach to do the same with government.

The Needs Monitor is not static but forward-looking. It reports on today's priorities and measures progress towards those priorities. In the Needs Monitor, every American can report their concerns, provide details about those concerns, and (if they want) offer solutions. A tremendous amount of know-how exists throughout the country – in and outside government. We want to tap into this know-how in the Needs Monitor. Creating not just a database of needs, but a database of solutions too.

Open-source, secure, and powered by AI (artificial intelligence), individual issues are organized in the Needs Monitor and grouped into specifications and proposals that are shared with Washington. Rather than the Federal Government issuing Requests for Proposals (RFPs) to the country, we flip this process around and have state and local governments issue RFPs to Washington that directly reflect the validated needs of its citizens.

In this way, we pivot Washington's bureaucracy by identifying which resources are most (and least) needed by the country. Then, based on the country's needs, Washington's massive bureaucracy (~ 10 million employees) is reshaped to address the current and future demands of the country, not yesteryear's political agenda.

In the pivot, we return control over funding to state and local governments and put a big hole in Washington’s fundraising-centric politics. Of course, self-serving political and special interests will always be a problem. However, by changing the dynamics of who controls money (from Washington to state and local government), we disrupt the influence of special interests and return power to the people locally where we live.

It will be hard, perhaps impossible, for lobbyists to penetrate every town hall in America. Walking the halls of Congress and the Pentagon is much easier. The old school approach will no longer work when Washington's control over spending is taken away.

In the 90-Degree Turn, Congress remains but its role pivots from spending to facilitating. In its new role, Congress will help connect federal resources with local needs while streamlining laws and tax code to fulfill those needs.

As the Needs Monitor reshapes the structure of the federal bureaucracy, Congress's role is reshaped to support local needs. New laws don't need to be created, but rather existing laws, and tax code, need to be simplified and made relevant to the desires defined by the people in the Needs Monitor.

Point 2. “Even the idea that some local or state individual or groups of individuals can correctly assess the needs of a community is almost untenable given the complexity of the infrastructure needed to create, operate, and maintain municipal property and services.

Reply: Within the context of today’s bureaucracy, Steve is right. We need to undo complexity at all levels of our democratic republic.

However, in the 90-Degree Turn, the individual (not individuals or groups) defines the needs of a community. It’s the role of local, state, and federal governments to act on those needs, not to define them.

As a nation, we know a lot more today than our counterparts from 1789. As such, we require fewer people to inform our thinking and more people to act on our needs.

In the 90-Degree Turn, politicians pivot from legislators to facilitators. In this capacity, their aim is to align government assets (federal or local) with the locally validated needs of their constituency. The purpose of politics (at least as a social science) is to make government better. Today, this purpose is negated by money and political ideology.

Politics (along with human bias) will never die, but this becomes less problematic when locally validated needs are defined down to the individual. If we want politicians to act on the needs of the country, we can make the Needs Monitor their compass. It can also serve as a benchmark for measuring performance.

The same technology that has driven the success of thousands of companies is applied in the 90-Degree Turn. Not as a government project that runs at 200 times cost but instead as a secure open-source platform available to all.

Point 3. “The disallocation of funds, personnel, and assets would create chaos and explosive anger among those disintermediated.”

Reply: I agree. This is likely to happen in a scenario where entire federal agencies are summarily closed. However, the potential for chaos and pain is mitigated by Bottom-up Separation where local needs intersect with the assets of Washington. In this process, funds, personnel, and assets pivot to where they’re needed and away from redundancy and waste.

Today’s management of funds, personnel, and assets by Washington has already created chaos and explosive anger. Staying the course is not likely to make matters better.

Point 4. Let us consider elemental infrastructure priorities that deserve funding at a fundamental level -- communications, law enforcement, fire-fighting, emergency medical services, sanitation services, water, electricity, and natural gas distribution grids. These are all resource-intensive and levered to a growing population. However, the most disruptive overarching component governing the allocation of funds are the respective unions that prioritize funds allocation to personnel over the creation, repair, replacement, and improvement of infrastructure. Requesting funds allocations from the federal government demands oversight and auditing -- but unfortunately most of these systems are defective by design.

Reply: There’s a lot to address in Steve’s point 4. I am no expert on Unions, but Unions are often cited as the source of political interference, overhead, and complexity. On the other hand, Unions would not exist if they didn’t address a need. In the process of pivoting the Federal Government and aligning it with the needs of the country, Unions might need to pivot too and redefine their purpose not just to members but to the country as well.

Tracking fund allocations is, without a doubt, one of the most essential functions of government. But, as Steve argues, I agree that these systems are defective by design. From my perspective, “by design” also means a political system that uses the complexity of government as camouflage for keeping the government big, complex, and ripe for corruption. In Washington, solutions don’t garner the hype and political donations that come with making problems bigger.

Congrats on making it to the end! If you have any feedback, comments, or criticisms please email me at jbfred@90degreeturn.com.

Where I Went Wrong

About a month before releasing The 90-Degree Turn, I sent an email blast to bloggers and podcasters. I was soliciting book reviews. The first and perhaps only reply that day came from Steve Levine, who writes a blog at onecitizenspeaking.com. Steve liked the synopsis and needed to see the entire book to write a review. So, I sent him my work in PDF and received a response a few days later.

It was early Saturday morning. As I brewed my first cup of coffee, I noticed an email from Steve on my iPhone and enthusiastically opened it.

After a short greeting, Steve wrote: "Sorry, but I will not be reviewing your book because it would be a negative review and I prefer not to write anything that might impact your sales."

While I appreciated Steve's concern for book sales, I was heartbroken. Rejected from the start. Not worthy of further consideration. Had I screwed up so badly?

After composing myself with a tall latte, I read the rest of Steve's email. It was bold but enlightening. Rather than telling me what I wanted to hear, Steve defined the landscape and obstacles the 90-Degree Turn needed to traverse. He didn't launch into a political rant but took on the theory and exposed its shortcomings.

Here are some of the key points he made:

1. … your book appears to present an unworkable thesis -- that a database of needs and resources can be used to rationally allocate resources to competing needs and somehow overcome the interference of self-serving political and special interests.

2. Even the idea that some local or state individual or groups of individuals can correctly assess the needs of a community is almost untenable given the complexity of the infrastructure needed to create, operate, and maintain municipal property and services.

3. The disallocation of funds, personnel, and assets would create chaos and explosive anger among those disintermediated.

4. Let us consider elemental infrastructure priorities that deserve funding at a fundamental level -- communications, law enforcement, fire-fighting, emergency medical services, sanitation services, water, electricity, and natural gas distribution grids. These are all resource-intensive and levered to a growing population. However, the most disruptive overarching component governing the allocation of funds are the respective unions that prioritize funds allocation to personnel over the creation, repair, replacement, and improvement of infrastructure. Requesting funds allocations from the federal government demands oversight and auditing -- but unfortunately most of these systems are defective by design.

As I read Steve's reply, I came to appreciate his objections. I realized that addressing each would help develop the 90-Degree Turn theory beyond the kernel of an idea that it currently is.

Steve provided a piece of the roadmap needed to progress beyond concept to the real world. For this, I am very grateful.

I replied to Steve, and a dialogue ensued. Our ideological divide is likely wide and deep, but we didn't go there. Instead, our focus remained on addressing the problem of the Federal Government as fellow citizens and not dueling doctrinaires. We exchanged several long emails over the next day and a half.

I considered Steve’s position unchanged, but a few hours after our exchange had finished he sent me his review. It was a complete surprise. Fair, balanced, and a big step in establishing common ground. True to his word, Steve published his review. It was the first of 25+ that have followed.

My interaction with Steve served as a catalyst for Dialogue. I thank Steve for that and hope he’ll join in a podcast.

Footnote: Rejection is a good thing, provided we understand why. From rejection, we learn how to do better. Everyone loves praise, but what good is it? Sure, it makes us feel good, but it's a sugar high. The greatest value often comes from those who have failed in the art of meaningless jabber. Paraphrasing Revelation 3:16, my college philosophy professor, Xavier Ryan, often said: "That which is lukewarm is what I vomit from my mouth." I've learned since that Xavier was right. Follow those who ask the hard questions. Hard is good in the mix of doing better.