I'd Be Crying If I Weren't Laughing

I don't know what Yogi Berra would call it. In part, it's "deja vu all over again", but it's also the situation where you don't know whether to laugh or cry. What am I talking about:

1. Congress just passed a new farm bill. Although the changes in FSA programs for 2008 don't look too major, doing the ACRE program for 2009 will be. And handling the changes in payment limitation rules, particularly attribution to individuals, will be hard.
2. GAO just released a report on USDA's attempts to modernize their IT systems. Some excerpts:

"USDA never completed the MIDAS requirements development process because key program officials lost confidence that the process would be an effective solution to meet USDA's future business needs and consequently withdrew their support...

"According to USDA officials, as of October 2007, they had spent approximately $18 million to take steps towards achieving these objectives. For example, they had expanded telecommunication channels, acquired more sophisticated firewalls, and had a contractor prepare the first draft of process flow diagrams of selected program delivery processes....

"Until USDA addresses the inconsistent tracking of users’ reported problems and the lack of clearly defined roles and responsibilities, it may not be able to establish a solid foundation for achieving and sustaining stability in the farm program delivery systems. As a result, the department faces the risk that its stabilization plan will not ensure that it is able to successfully deliver benefits to farmers in the future...

Why am I crying and laughing? Well, when we first installed System-36's in the county offices, it was in the same general period as the implementation of the 1985 farm bill. By the 1990's, we were working on Info Share, a project to share information and computer systems among ASCS, SCS, FmHA, etc. (all obsolete acronyms now) and the new farm bill. By 1996, another new farm bill and a project to merge the IT and administrative ends of NRCS, FSA, and RD. (I retired toward the end of 1997.) And to modernize the IT.

Now, some 11 years later, USDA is still in the same situation vis a vis IT systems. They seem to have dropped the idea of cross-agency coordination, but they're no nearer having documentat6ion of their business processes and they're facing the criticism of GAO. And facing implementation of a new farm bill. Time for employees to take the buyout.

The only redeeming feature is that agriculture is in better shape today than in 1985/6, so USDA/FSA screwups won't hurt farmers as much as they might.

GAO, USDA, and Discrimination

Here's a link to the Post article on GAO testimony on a GAO report charging USDA continues to mishandle discrimination cases. Here's a link to the report.

A History of Forms

If I didn't have my own personal energy crisis, I might try writing a history of forms. "Forms" are critical to the bureaucrat, even if no one else cares. They go way back in history--some of the earliest forms of writing are, in effect, filled out forms. The Catholic Church had forms for indulgences, which spurred Luther to anger. In our own history, here's a link to forms relating to imports/exports for a specific vessel back in 1803. (It's part of a "Today's Document" release from the National Archives.)

Food, Fat, and Wiki-How

The slow food movement has hit wiki-how, as I learn this morning.

And the Washington Post has the second part of a five part series on obesity in America.

The Benefits of Advancing Technology

FSA has long used aerial photography as a way to measure acreages devoted to crops. To be accurate, the photography has to meet certain specifications and be adjusted to the topography. (This photography establishes field boundaries, not the crop planted.) Because it's been expensive, states have been flown in groups in different years, so the whole country is covered over the course of 5 or more years.

But this year it seems the effects of GPS and other technology have reduced costs and increased accuracy. From FSA's notice to its field offices:

"2008 marks a transition from annual acquisition of 2-meter imagery and a 5-year cycle for 1-meter base imagery to a new acquisition cycle. Annual 2-meter coverage has been discontinued, and the cycle for 1-meter base replacement imagery is moving from 5 years to 3 years. Consequently, all States in 2008:
• will be acquired in 1-meter resolution
• can be considered base replacement.
2008 recipients include States up for base replacement and States with existing partnership agreements in place. Because of the 2008 bids being significantly lower than estimated, 3 additional States are also being acquired without cost-share funds.

Interesting and Depressing Statistic

Here's a post (reached via Marginal Revolution) with some depressing statistics. Turns out non-college Republicans and Democrats are reasonably close on whether global warming exists and is caused by human activity. Or, if not reasonably, the difference is only 21 percentage points. But college educated Reps and Dems differ unreasonably, by 56 percentage points. In other words, the more education you have, the more you differ.

This does grave violence to my remaining goo-goo tendencies. Good government types, perhaps descended from the Progressives and Social Gospelers of 1900, believe in good, solid facts and, with a religious fervor, if one could only lift the cloud of error from people's eyes, everyone would believe the same, meaning there would be peace and love in the valley.

A Parallel Universe

Mother Jones interviews Ken Cook on the farm bill:

"MJ: So the president is threatening to veto the bill because it does too much to help the wealthy?

KC: Honest to god, he is. I've been describing it as a parallel universe."

BMI and Global Warming

The LATimes notes a letter published in Lancet, a medical journal, along the lines of my earlier post.:

"Now, in a letter published Friday in the medical journal Lancet, two scientists write that obese people are disproportionately responsible for high food prices and greenhouse gas emissions because they consume 18% more food energy due to their greater body mass -- and require increased quantities of fuel to transport themselves and the food they eat".

Of course the suggestion is as welcome as a suggestion that people should give up second homes, or any other measure of consumption, in aid of the greater good.

Smaller Markets--Good or Bad?

The LA Times has an article on Safeway's trying a new, smaller market design (along with Wal-mart and Tesco). It sounds as if they might be going for both the crunchies and the rushies-

"The new smaller stores are attempting to offer convenience by editing down the selection to fewer product choices in each category and making it easier for people to do their shopping and get out. The stores offer a large selection of prepared foods and meals that can be quickly assembled by time-pressed households.

"About 50% of the offerings are fresh produce, meats, cheese and prepared foods."

A Plague of Senility--P. Noonan?

A line from her column, as quoted in volokh.com by Orin Kerr: " Mr. Bush has squandered the hard-built paternity [patrimony] of 40 years."

I take this as comforting news that even a relative whippersnapper like Peggy Noonan (and a fine writer, if distressingly conservative) has her little senior moments.

Hate Them Blind Allies

David Brooks reports on an interview with Obama, in which he admires George H.W.Bush's diplomacy and cautions groups against the "blind ally" of terrorist activity. "Ally" is how it was printed in my NYTimes this morning--it's been corrected in the on-line version.

But the concept of a blind ally is intriguing. Less so is the idea that Brooks is getting old and prone to typpos--he should leave that to his seniors, like me.

Horses Are the Answer

So what's the question? Why we've gone to highly specialized agriculture over the last 60 years (according to ERS farms producing the most usually produce only one commodity)?

This study shows that a 3 and 4 year rotation using low inputs of synthetic fertilizer can beat the yields of a 2-year corn/soybean rotation. (Not organic, but low input.)

Great news, but what's the problem?

The problem is where's the market for the small grains and clover or alfalfa that are produced in the third and fourth year. In the good old days (and on Amish farms), the answer was horses--they'd eat the oats and hay. In the bad new days, no horses.

Pollan's Thesis Takes a Hit

One of Michael Pollan's arguments in "In Defense of Food" against what he calls nutritionism is that idea that, since the 1970's, our health has declined even as nutritionists have had more influence over what we eat. A report in Wednesday's Washington Post seems to counter that position:

The difference in death rates between highly educated and poorly educated people in the United States is very wide and growing wider, according to new research.

For Americans with less than a high school education, the risk of dying prematurely is on the increase -- rising most quickly for white women in that category. In contrast, the risk of premature death among college graduates is falling -- fastest of all for black men.

It's true that much of the decline is due to changes in life-style (i.e, no smoking) but it certainly doesn't support the idea the health of educated, monied people (the ones who buy Pollan's books) is declining. And here's the CBO's take on the issue

Locavore versus Organic Dairying

I found this quote from the U of Wisconsin organic farming site amusing:

"On average, Wisconsin’s organic dairies appear to be financially competitive with those in other states. Net returns on organic dairy farms in Wisconsin and Minnesota are similar. And—largely due to higher feed costs in New England—organic farms in the northeastern United States are, on average, not competitive with any type of Wisconsin dairy farm, despite higher organic milk prices in the northeast.

Of course, it doesn't mean that NE dairies will always be non-competitive, particularly if oil prices stay high, but it does indicate some of the complexities in the locavore movement.

Pricey Farm Programs

The U.S. has fallen way behind. With the weakening of the dollar, the Europeans farm programs are way ahead of ours. 34 billion euros works out to $55 billion a year or so at current exchange rates. And their tariffs add a whole lot more. See this letter from GBritain's Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Food, Farming and New Yorker

Bee Wilson in this week's New Yorker reviews several books on food supply:

"[Paul] Roberts’s book [The End of Food] is joined by “Stuffed and Starved: The Hidden Battle for the World Food System,” by Raj Patel (Melville House; $19.95); “Bottomfeeder: How to Eat Ethically in a World of Vanishing Seafood,” by Taras Grescoe (Bloomsbury; $24.99); and “In Defense of Food: An Eater’s Manifesto,” by Michael Pollan, the poet of the group (Penguin Press; $21.95).
All of these authors agree that the entire system of Western food production is in need of radical change, right down to the spinach."

It's not a pretty picture:

"Our current food predicament resembles a Malthusian scenario—misery and famine—but one largely created by overproduction rather than underproduction. Our ability to produce vastly too many calories for our basic needs has skewed the concept of demand, and generated a wildly dysfunctional market...."

"Roberts depicts the global food market as a lumbering beast, organized on such a monolithic scale that it cannot adapt to the consequences of its own distortions. In a flexible, responsive market, producers ought to be able to react to a surplus of one thing by switching to making another thing. Industrial agriculture doesn’t work like this...."

"The food economy has created a system in which some have no food options at all and some have too many options, albeit of a somewhat spurious kind. In the middle is a bottleneck—a relatively small number of wholesalers and buyers who largely determine what the starving farmers produce and what the stuffed consumers eat."

Needless to say, I don't agree.

Scotch-Irish and Elections

The conventional wisdom seems to be encapsulated in this post by Josh Marshall at Talking Point Memo--Sen. Clinton does well in Appalachia, which is a white, poor, underdeveloped portion of the country, settled by Scots-Irish, that was strongly anti-slavery and anti-black in ante-bellum America and retains those beliefs today.

But there's a paradox--when you go to this site, of the U.S.Census, you get a long comparison of Scotch-Irish (apparently the Census' preferred term) with U.S. statistics. There you find that those people who identify themselves as Scotch-Irish are older and white (so far fitting the conventional wisdom for Appalachia) but they're also significantly better educated and wealthier than the average for the country. (Like 20 percent wealthier and 30 percent better educated and more managerial/professional and less agriculture and mining.)

I don't know how one explains the paradox, except by saying those of us who left Appalachia did very very well, those of us who stayed did very very poorly.

"Rootless Americans"

I ran across that term in this post on The Edge of the American West: "Our natural condition, as Americans, is rootlessness — immigration, internal migration, the “melting pot”.

It may be true, but it's easy for academics to overemphasize. Academics are probably the most mobile workers in the country (except for the military) so it would be easy for them judge the world by themselves. In researching genealogy I've seen a lot of stability (except for my grandfather, the Presbyterian minister). And most movements seem to have been either in company with friends, relatives, co-religionists or to areas where the same were already located.

There's an interesting map I forgot to link to showing the counties where Sen. Clinton has done well--it also corresponds to a map of where the Scots-Irish settled 200 years ago.

Profitability for Dairies

This study challenges claims that grazing is cheaper than feeding:

"The ERS-USDA data are inconsistent with conclusions highlighted in an article [link added]
appearing in the summer 2006 issue of The College of Agricultural and Life Sciences
Quarterly. The article, which discusses a report authored by Tom Kriegl and Ruth
McNair (K&M) entitled, “Pastures of Plenty”, states that managed grazing techniques, such as rotational grazing, result in lower costs of production per hundredweight for dairies. These conclusions are based on farm-level records data for the years of 2001 and 2002, while the ERS-USDA data in Table 1 are for 2000. These differences in the years when the analyses were performed could explain why there are some differences in the ways the costs for grazing operations compare to the costs of production for conventional dairy farms.
The major difference between the costs reported by ERS-USDA and those underlying the conclusions of the other study relates to labor. The ERS-USDA data include measures of labor costs but the other analysis of grazing dairies presents neither estimates of labor costs nor measures of the quantities of labor used on dairies. This lack of labor information in the K&M study is important because it means this study gives no evidence of whether in fact grazing results in lower total costs of production. In contrast, the ERSUSDA dairy data gives a more complete accounting of the costs of conventional and grass-based dairy systems which includes labor costs."

Apparently, I grew up on a continuous grazing dairy farm--i.e., the cows were on pasture all the time the grass was growing (though we did turn them into the hay fields after harvesting hay). A rotational grazing plan divides the pasture into paddocks and moves the cows among paddocks every 3 days. In the Wisconsin study, they had to get 30 percent of forage by this. (A reminder that cows in northern states must be fed hay and grain a good part of the year. Nothing like coming from 0 degrees into the barn.

I may have stumbled into a duel between rival economists (regression analyses at 10 paces) but it's a reminder of the complexity of an economic analysis.

Sneaky Congress and Public Info

Ken Cook reports those sneaky Congress people put a provision in the conference report trying to overrule the release of acreage report data from FSA.

The Young Are Smarter Than Us

From Slate, Emily Yoffe on procrastination:

At least my daughter has broken my family legacy. When she comes home, she does her homework and practices her piano. I never nag her. How does she do it? She said it was something she learned in the Sunshine class, when she was 4 years old. "The teachers would hand out snacks: five pieces of popcorn, five gummy bears, and five pretzels. Everyone ate what they liked first, then they weren't happy. But I liked the pretzels best, and I realized if I saved them for last, I'd get the taste of them in my mouth the longest. So now, if I can get my homework done, then I have the rest of my night to do whatever I want."

There it was—she didn't need online support, Post-it notes, or the unschedule. She figured it out in nursery school: Save the pretzels for last. Which reminds me that I'm kind of hungry, and it's time for a break. I'd like some pretzels, and I'd like them right now.

Dan Barber on Food--Meet Adam Smith

Dan Barber has a piece in the NYTimes Week in Review section on "Change We Can Stomach". Mr. Barber is a chef at two restaurants. As is often the case, I take exception (my snark in brackets):

"...small farms are the most productive on earth. A four-acre farm in the United States nets, on average, $1,400 per acre; a 1,364-acre farm nets $39 an acre. "[Snark--yes, and a 1-acre farm will probably do $5,000 and a half-acre farm will do $12,000. His argument fails because he's comparing apples and oranges. A 4-acre farm isn't growing field corn, it's growing truck crops. That said, while a smaller farm growing the same crops might be more profitable, I'd bet it would be because of greater intensity of inputs--i.e. more hours per acres.]

"To encourage small, diversified farms is not to make a nostalgic bid to revert to the agrarian ways of our ancestors. It is to look toward the future, leapfrogging past the age of heavy machinery and pollution, to farms that take advantage of the sun’s free energy and use the waste of one species as food for another." [Snark--Dan Barber, meet Adam Smith. Believe it or not, right after WWII we didn't have heavy machinery and pollution and we had farms that were diversified and used the waste of one species as food for another. I shoveled lots of that manure. The advantages of specialization work on the farm just as much as in the restaurant--a great chef can outcook my mother 7 days a week without breaking a sweat.]

"With a less energy-intensive food system in place, we will need more muscle power devoted to food production, and more people on the farm." [Absolutely, if you reduce the inputs of capital (i.e. equipment) and supplies (fertilizer, etc.), you have to increase the inputs of labor. That's called sweat equity. You get the sweat equity by importing migrant labor to whom low U.S. wages look high, or importing romantics for whom the sweat perfumes the country air.]

"Truly great cooking — not faddish 1.5-pound rib-eye steaks with butter sauce, but food that has evolved from the world’s thriving peasant cuisines — is based on the correspondence of good farming to a healthy environment and good nutrition. It’s never been any other way, and we should be grateful. The future belongs to the gourmet." [Snark, Hell if it does, not at the prices you charge in your restaurants. Someone living on a 4-acre farm would never pass through the doorway of your restaurant and pay $78 for a dinner. That's over one percent of his net for the year.}

Body Mass--What Are the Tradeoffs

Interesting post by Stu Ellis at Farmgate on causes for food prices to increase.

I wonder--discussions of global food supply always pay attention to numbers of people, with some attention to the demand for better food when incomes increase. I wonder whether anyone has quantified the global human body-mass over time. I see the Latino construction workers laying the FIOS cable in my neighborhood and they're pretty uniformly small. (That's perhaps balanced out by how hard they work.) The Chinese in the 1970's were uniformly small, now they've got Yao Ming et. al. Diets make all the difference and allow differences in genetic endowments to be expressed.

Surely since WWII the average size of humans has increased significantly. If I remember, Gregory Clark's Farewell to Alms had some interesting data both on calories available to Westerners over the last 2-300 years and average height, but I don't think he had anything on waistline. Nor do I know how the reduction in physical labor and the increase in calories over the last 70 years fit together. Presumably the bigger the body, the more calories required to do x amount of work. So on a global basis, the per capita work has probably declined, and the per capita body has probably increased. Is it 6 of one, half dozen of the other? Inquiring minds want to know.

Whither Oil and the Dollar?

In the first place, if I knew I wouldn't be wasting my time blogging; I'd be relaxing at the English Country Home my wife wants which I could have bought from my profits.

But I've been skeptical that the current boom in farm crop prices can continue, remembering the lessons of the 1970's.

On the other hand, Kevin Drum (and Paul Krugman) think oil is permanently high. Kevin notes that the government bureaucrats have been predicting oil is at a peak for months. (I thought it'd peaked at $50.) And oil and food are linked, because both are traded in dollars. (And oil is a key input to food production.)

It seems every day you get different messages. Today I saw a post which agrees with my position (i.e., that now is most like the mid-70's) but unfortunately I didn't capture it, so you'll have to take my word for it. The common element of now and the 70's is the devaluation of the dollar--Nixon took the U.S. off the gold standard in 1971, I think it was, which made our grain cheap and the world took advantage. This decade the dollar has again gotten dramatically weaker. But here's the ERS study on the rising costs. The author doesn't totally agree with me, but close enough for government work.

(One factor not given much attention in the media is that we've had 2 years in a row of a global food production declines (i.e., bad weather):

"The result of adverse weather in 2007 was a second consecutive drop in
global average yields for grains and oilseeds. In historical perspective, two
sequential years of lower global yields occurred only three other times in the
last 37 years."

Bottom line, I'm still stubbornly holding to a prediction--oil prices and farm prices will both drop by at least 50 percent from current levels over the next years.

A Mother's Day Post

Over at Raising Country Kids, though it's a post by a mother, not to a mother.

Funniest Lines Today

Is from a NYTimes article on a possible defect in hip replacement parts made of ceramic--some users are reporting squeaks when they move:

"'“It can interrupt sex when my wife starts laughing,” said one man, who discussed the matter on the condition that he not be named.'"

A Law Requiring Local Food

A famous (I guess, I never heard of him, but I trust the BBC) British chef says so:

Celebrity chef Gordon Ramsay says British restaurants should be fined if they serve fruit and vegetables which are not in season. He told the BBC that fruit and vegetables should be locally-sourced and only on menus when in season. Mr Ramsay said he had already spoken to Prime Minister Gordon Brown about outlawing out-of-season produce.

This is called: "pass the ammunition" to your opponents. Via Ann Althouse.

A Presidential Veto of Farm Bill?

That's the promise from the Secretary of Agriculture Schafer and the topic of discussion on the various blogs here and here and here

Now in 1956 President Eisenhower vetoed a farm bill because it provided for high rigid price supports. (The report of the veto wasn't accessible, but the link has Sen. Knowland threatening the veto, which actually happened.) In 1973 Nixon threatened one, and Ford did veto in 1975 (an emergency increase in target prices and supports--he eventually acted administratively in 1976 after firing Earl Butz and seeing defeat looming in the elections). And way back in 1927 Silent Cal vetoed McNary-Haugen. The NY Times archive site is having problems this morning, but the results of the query "farm bill veto" is here.

The process is similar each time--a coalition in Congress (easier to assemble back in the 1920' s when we had more farmers) gets behind legislation to benefit farmers, they go a bridge too far, and the President slaps them down. Of course, often the President threatens a veto but doesn't carry through--I wonder if a political scientist has done a study of that. It's part of the pull and haul of democratic politics.

Initial Friday Cat Blogging

The first time I've added a photo to my blog. (Takes us old people time to get caught up with new-fangled ideas. Coffee is vital to me so I wear out coffee carafes. Carrie decided the box the latest one came in was just the right size for her:

How Slowly We (Govt) Adapt to Change

From the GAO on e-mail and official records (my comments in italics):

E-mail, because of its nature, presents challenges to records management.

• First, the information contained in e-mail records is not uniform: it may concern any subject or function and document various types of transactions. As a result, in many cases, decisions on which e-mail messages are records must be made individually. Why make decisions at all?
• Second, the transmission data associated with an e-mail record--including information about the senders and receivers of messages, the date and time the message was sent, and any attachments to the messages--may be crucial to understanding the context of the record. So keep the whole thing.
  
• Third, a given message may be part of an exchange of messages between two or more people within or outside an agency, or even of a string (sometimes branching) of many messages sent and received on a given topic. In such cases, agency staff need to decide which message or messages should be considered records and who is responsible for storing them in a recordkeeping system. Again, why decide anything--keep the whole sequence.
• Finally, the large number of federal e-mail users and high volume of e-mails increase the management challenge.
  

Preliminary results of GAO's ongoing review of e-mail records management at four agencies show that not all are meeting the challenges posed by e-mail records. Although the four agencies' e-mail records management policies addressed, with a few exceptions, the regulatory requirements, these requirements were not always met for the senior officials whose e-mail practices were reviewed. Each of the four agencies generally followed a print and file process to preserve e-mail records in paper-based recordkeeping systems, but for about half of the senior officials, e-mail records were not being appropriately identified and preserved in such systems. Print and file makes no sense--electronic is cheaper

Instead, e-mail messages were being retained in e-mail systems that lacked recordkeeping capabilities. (Among other things, a recordkeeping system allows related records to be grouped into classifications according to their business purposes.) Unless they have recordkeeping capabilities, e-mail systems may not permit easy and timely retrieval of groupings of related records or individual records. Gee--I think being able to do a Google search on a body of text is a whole lot better than relying on poorly paid clerks to perform groupings according to a subject scheme that is likely 20 years out of date.

Further, keeping large numbers of record and nonrecord messages in e-mail systems potentially increases the time and effort needed to search for information in response to a business need or an outside inquiry, such as a Freedom of Information Act request. Factors contributing to this practice were the lack of adequate staff support and the volume of e-mail received. In addition, agencies had not ensured that officials and their responsible staff received training in recordkeeping requirements for e-mail. If recordkeeping requirements are not followed, agencies cannot be assured that records, including information essential to protecting the rights of individuals and the federal government, is being adequately identified and preserved.

My comments, and perhaps the emotion, date from some years associated with records management. Records management was part of the rationalization of business (see Alfred Chandler's writings)--creating, processing and filing information. But it rests on the economic fact it was costly to generate a memo (or equivalent piece of paper). You had to have a specialized individual (called a clerk-typist or secretary). She (or sometimes he) had to be able to handle multiple carbon copies for the multiple files, including something called the "official record". The piece of paper had to be routed through levels of bureaucracy until it got to an approving official. Once signed, the copies would be distributed appropriately. But all that's so 20th century.

Food Expenditures

John Phipps links to the NYTimes graphic on living expenses (which I'd read on paper, but it's a whole lot neater on line) as a great example of presentation of complex data.

What's interesting is looking at food expenditures, which are 15 percent of total. But when you mouse around the expenditures for various foods, it looks as if we're eating pretty sensibly at home. I mean snacks, misc. foods, and frozen foods together are about 1 percent of total or about 6.5 percent of food costs. That's not too bad. Vegans will have problems with all the money spent on meat (close to 2 percent). Fruits and vegetables seem to be about 1 percent of total. Dairy about 1 percent. Alcohol a little over 1 percent. Eating out about 6 percent. Coffee, tea, other drinks about 1 percent.

A little noted item--domestic service is .2 percent. Remember in the good old pre-WWI and WWII days, everyone (i.e., upper middle class and upper) had servants; now they have permanent press and fast foods.

Too Good for Your Own Good

Ah, for the days of planned obsolescence. My wife will mourn this loss of the unbreakable glass from France, as reported by Mr. Beauregard.

New Young "Farmer"

Back once again to the old question: "Who is a farmer"? Here's the blog post of a young idealist (as mentioned in the LA Times article) just starting out. She finds that FSA isn't of help.

FSA's definition is someone who is selling to a wholesale distributor and is growing on owned (albeit mortgaged) land. That's because the law authorizing loans to beginning farmers defines it that way, probably because back in the New Deal days (when the program originated) that was all we had. Now if Ms Bradbury contacted her representatives in Congress and one of them were on the appropriate committee and...and... and...20 years from now the law might be changed.

Bottomline: while the bureaucracy has its own impediments to change, our beloved founding fathers made sure the rules by which the bureaucracy operates would be slow to change.

Even Farmers Market Farmers Get Old

The LA Times has an article on the graying of farmers selling at farmers markets. An excerpt:

IN GENERAL, experts say, new farmers market growers tend to come from one of three groups: young idealists looking for a rural lifestyle, immigrants who use farmers markets to make money from small plots of land, and those like Coleman who inherit family farms.

Assuming that's right, it tells you few people go into farming to make money, even though money can be made, at least in good years like this one. Of course, that statement is also true of teachers and even public servants (as us bureaucrats like to be known).

Al Gore and Procurement Fraud

I blogged about a month ago on abuse of government credit cards and noted Al Gore's contribution. The Project on Government Oversight has this perfectly ironic note.

"One of the more ironic stories of purchase card abuse comes to us from Milwaukee, Wisconsin, where a U.S. Forest Service employee, Suzanne Poetz, has pleaded guilty to stealing $300,000 from her agency's program. As part of her plea, Poetz admitted to over 150 instances of theft. But the best part of all? In 1998, Poetz received a Hammer Award from Vice President Al Gore--for developing the Agriculture Department's purchase card program. (The Hammer Awards were given to federal employees whose work "resulted in a government that works better and costs less")."

All I need to see now is a story telling how someone, maybe a Republican congressman, who pushed for contracting out government services made money by taking bribes from such a contractor.

What Should They Fear?

Economists (if "they" = "political candidates).

So says Brad DeLong

Somehow, I'm not convinced that economists are fearsome. Truman supposedly wanted a "one-armed" economist, because his always said: "on the one hand...on the other hand".

Best Result of the Night

The report that the Indiana ID law denied the vote to some nuns (no picture ID, too infirm to file a provisional ballot and then get an ID). I wonder how our mostly Catholic Supreme Court is feeling now about their recent decision upholding the law. (If I recall, the decision rested mainly on the idea that no harm had been shown--no one had been denied the vote.)

[I'm waiting for this to be revealed as a belated April Fool joke.]

Clearance Process

This article says OMB is going to rely on automated matching of data to speed clearance process.
Here's a followup article

I have some doubts--the TSA watch list shows some of the problems of putting together databases. And genealogists run into the problem regularly--does record A refer to the same person as record B? I think a learning, evolutionary process could work. By which I mean, assign something like a credit rating to a person based on available data, track the person's history and adjust the rating accordingly. Unfortunately, that sort of thinking doesn't fit with the black and white, binary choice world of security clearances.

The Perversity of Rules