The Aug. 2 deadline for raising the federal debt ceiling is approaching fast, and spending cuts are the word of the day on Capitol Hill as politicians scramble to make deals -- and satisfy their constituents -- before casting their votes.

But cutting spending is exactly the wrong thing to do, according to a report by economist Robert Frank, the Henrietta Johnson Louis Professor of Management in the Samuel Curtis Johnson Graduate School of Management and professor of economics; Robert Hockett, professor of law at the Cornell Law School; and economist Laurence Seidman of the University of Delaware.

Instead, they say, the best way to reduce government debt is to invest now on the things we need most: improvements in infrastructure, education and other major priorities vital to maintaining U.S. leadership in the global market.

It's actually the perfect time for such wise, targeted investments, they say, and letting the opportunity slip away will actually create a vastly bigger national debt in the long run.

In a study commissioned by a private investor, Hockett, Frank and Seidman modeled two approaches for addressing some of the most critical public infrastructure needs, as cited by the American Society of Civil Engineers. The projects are all widely considered necessary and include improvements to roads, levees, drinking water, dams, aviation, rail, inland waterways, schools and public transportation.

In the first scenario, the government invests $125 billion per year (in 2005 dollars) on the projects for four years. In the second, the government also invests $500 billion, but distributes it differently: spending $200 billion in the first year, $150 billion in the second, $100 billion in the third and $50 billion in the fourth.

Using a modeling technique that considers employment rates, borrowing costs, changes to the federal deficit and other key factors, the researchers found that the second scenario -- a strong, targeted and front-loaded investment -- is the best way to reduce unemployment, lower the national debt and boost national income over the long term.

And it's the long term that matters for lowering the debt, said Hockett. "People think that the debt is a short-run, immediate problem. But it's not; it's a long-run problem," he said.

Using the model, developed by Yale economist Ray Fair, the authors found that the front-loaded investment strategy addresses the economy and the debt by lowering unemployment and boosting GDP in the short run and saving the government trillions -- far more than could be saved with discretionary spending cuts -- over the next decade.

For example, in a hypothetical base scenario plugged into the model, with no government investment in jobs, the unemployment rate in the next year would be about 7.4 percent. Then, with the first investment strategy, an investment of equal amounts over four years, the unemployment rate would drop to 6.6 percent. And with the second, front-loaded investment scenario, unemployment would be down to 6.2 percent.

Putting more people back to work has direct and indirect benefits, the authors argue, including increased tax revenue, a healthier, more confident and more engaged public, better family and community cohesion and lower crime rates.

And the benefits reach far beyond job creation, the authors say. For projects that need to be done soon anyway, investing now, when borrowing costs are at historic lows, would save billions in the long run. Delaying, on the other hand, would be akin to leaving money on the table -- essentially raising the ultimate price of each project.

The upfront cost difference between starting a project now and delaying just a few years can also be dramatic. Rehabilitating a heavily used 10-mile stretch of Interstate 80 in Nevada, for example, is projected to cost taxpayers $6 million now -- but because weather and traffic would cause further deterioration to the roadbed, the same job would cost $30 million if postponed for two years.

With dozens of projects likely to see similar cost escalations over the next few years, the authors say, acting now will do far more to lower the debt than any potential spending cut.

"You can't do that with cuts in domestic discretionary spending. That's not good economics," Frank said.

Delaying critical infrastructure projects has less quantifiable costs as well, from damage to vehicles caused by deteriorating roads to safety and security risks caused by aging bridges and other structures.

The report took a conservative approach for the sake of simplicity, Hockett said, considering just two small investment strategies that addressed a fraction of the most urgent public infrastructure needs. But boosting the investment would lead to far greater immediate benefits -- and ultimately to a much lower federal debt.

"The debate is proceeding in the wrong direction," Hockett said, "fixating solely on how much or how little to cut. The solution is to spend more, not less, in the short run -- precisely in order to save more in the long run."