No Federal Money for Tobacco, Except in Pandemic

 In 2004 when Congress provided for the ending of the tobacco program, they included a blanket provision that no CCC money could go to tobacco growers.

That was fine, except when things change.  It's 2020, an election year, and North Carolina is a battleground state, and tobacco is still important to the state, and the pandemic hit.  So USDA will provide up to $100 million to tobacco growers from the second pandemic law (CARES Act), but they'll do it bypassing CCC.   All this from here.

USDA ended most of its tobacco reporting shortly after the program was ended, but I did find it in the crop report--NC grows about half the US acreage--150,000 acres in 2018.  (Got there from a hit on a CDC publication. ) That's about a third of what we grew in 2000 and about a tenth of what China grows now.

I Feel Good

Didn't watch the debate last night, so didn't waste 90 minutes of my remaining lifespan. 

Our Schizoid History-I

 Someday I may write more on this, but here's a placeholder: Throughout our history white America has had a schizoid attitude towards slavery, possibly an attitude also found in England and elsewhere.

• on the one hand slavery is bad, the worst thing possible.  It's what Americans feared, or at least said they feared from British rule.  You can see it in the pamphlets leading up to the Revolution, and you can see it in our national anthem.  (Britain's "Rule Britannia" also claims "Britons will never be slaves" in its second line.)
• on the other hand, of course, slavery is legal in some places until 1865.

Fixing the Court

 A lot of discussion among Democrats over what to do about a Supreme Court with a 6-3 conservative majority.

I'd suggest one strategy not much discussed, which assumes Biden/Harris win and the Democrats gain a Senate majority:

• end the filibuster in the Senate (might be problematic, given their moderates who might be reluctant).
• spend time fixing the vulnerabilities in important legislation, like ACA and Clean Air, etc. 

My theory is this: over the last 4 years and more, conservatives have filed enough court cases and the Trump administration has changed enough administrative rules that good lawyers can identify the weak points.  Rather than rely on defending rules in the court, preempt the challenges by fixing them.  If the challenge is that the agency, EPA, etc., has exceeded its authority under the law, change the law to provide the authority.  If the challenge is that Congress has exceeded its authority under the Constitution, change the law to rest on a firmer basis.

What's iffy about this strategy is, of course: Roe v Wade. Although polls suggest a majority support its general outline, trying to legislate it would be like gun control.  The fierce minority would prevail over the majority.  I could suggest a compromise which appears reasonable to me, but it's a matter of principle for the opponents.  What would my hopeless compromise be?  Clinton used to say "legal, safe, and rare".  I'd think a compromise which added "early" to the formula should work, except it won't. If you had taxpayer funded abortions in the first trimester with over-the-counter of the "day-after" pill , then court-approved abortions for the next two with the basis being restricted (health and safety, rape, unusual circumstances), perhaps with a prescribed role for a voice for an advocate for the fetus, and taxpayer funding of pre-natal care for those who lose their case for abortion.

The details don't matter, because for people on both sides it's too basic an issue of rights to agree to a compromise.

My Dreams of a Self-Driving Car

 I've posted before about my hopes for a self-driving car, something which compensate for my declining physical abilities as I age. I didn't want to see the headline on this piece.

I repeat my previous suggestion of using an approach of developing a car which can memorize routes, given that many people like me do most of their driving over a limited selection of routes. Apparently from the article that's not the way companies are going--their loss.

On a personal note, I just completed my 3-year lease of a Prius with extensive safety features which saved me two or three times from likely accidents,

Do People Follow Instructions?

 Ever since I started with ASCS in its Directives Branch I've been interested in that question.  This election it is important because lots of voters will be voting by mail for the first time, and lots of county clerks will have to compose instructions and see their voters try and sometimes fail to follow them.

Anyone remember the "butterfly ballot" in Florida in 2000? I think the answer to the question is: "sometimes".  But it's often a problem to convey information from one mind to another, and often people doing something new try to figure it out themselves, only checking the manual when they screw up. 

The Power of the Past

This is a tweet from today. 

You honestly have to admire the confidence of Harvard business school grad students pic.twitter.com/HwfzTs0HpC

— Ronan (@rfitz77) September 25, 2020

 The Harvard business school students misjudged the power of the past.  IMHO the established retailers had power because they'd accumulated capital, both financial and real capital, plus the network capital of networks of suppliers and customers.  But while this present capital was enabling, it was also constricting.  In a situation where openness to the new and learning from experience was all-important, the pathways laid down in the past were no longer adequate; they were misleading.  It's called the "Innovator's Dilemma". 

The Right Question for President Trump

Lots of stuff going around on whether the losers will accept the results of the fall election.  I don't think the question to the president yesterday was well-phrased.  I think the right question for the president is whether he has designated his transition team. (He has, actually, designated Chris Liddell as you can see if you spend some time googling. But my real question is: does he know this, or has Meadows made the designation without telling Trump for fear he'll erupt. Based on everything which has come out about how the administration operates, I suspect that his staff keeps lots of stuff from him.)

[Updated: Politico just put out this piece on Liddell's work.]

The Hullabaloo Over SCOTUS

 Back in the 1960's the right was all "Impeach Earl Warren".  Part of the outrage as I remember it was over decisions on crime, part was one person, one vote, and a good part was forbidding the "Lord's Prayer" in schools. There were divisions on the Court, but they tended to be cross-cutting: Justice Black was strict constructionist on First Amendment rights, William Douglas was the epitome of the "living constitution", neither of which fit neatly into the divisions between Democrats and Republicans.

President Nixon started the process of replacing Warren (following a filibuster of Johnson's nominee for Chief of Abe Fortas) and converting SCOTUS to a Republican dominated branch of government.  Since then, in the 52 years, Republican presidents have named 14 justices, Democrats 4.  If things had worked fairly according to the amount of time each party had the presidency, the Dems would have had 7, and the Reps 11. 

Regardless, while there have been ups and downs and decisions I dislike, the country has survived.  We've made significant advances in social areas, and Roe v Wade has survived. 

I predict however the current episode works out, someone looking back 25 years from now will not see a major turning point in legal history with the filling of the current vacancy.  In the long run, the court follows the election returns and the direction of the country. 

The Banality of Evil--Soviet Style

 Just finished David Remnick's"Lenin's Tomb: The Last Days of the Soviet Union."  

It concludes with the trial of the survivors of the plotters of the coup which tried to oust Gorbachev and which was thwarted by Yeltsin and the Moscow people. The trial, plus the access to the archives which the prosecutors had, showed the plotters to be rather banal.  

I suspect this is often the case in history.  If you were the fly on the wall getting a real time read on the deliberations and decision making you'd be amazed at how haphazard and ordinary the proceedings were. This conviction of mine is related to my belief in "Murphy's Law". 

SBA Small Business Subcontracting

 SBA's Inspector General did a report, including this:

The audit also found a glitch in reporting large businesses working for small businesses on procurements. The report said there are no requirements or mechanisms to measure small business awards that are subcontracted to large businesses.

It's an instance ofthe "golden rule" in government--those who have the gold, rule.  Over the years I've become convinced that, at least in the American system of government, the elite, the wealthy, can and do over time figure out how to evade and/or take advantage of well-intentioned rules and programs.  This is an example:

 SBA is required by law to designate "small businesses" owned by women, minorities, and those with disabilities, and agencies are required to give preference in contracting to these small businesses.  So when a project is big, the small business bids and then subcontracts the work out to the big business.  That happened on several IT projects I was involved with during my career.  That's a legal way to take advantage of the rules.  Alaskan tribal enterprises are one category of such owners.

I'm not sure there's a solution. Part of the problem is that "do-gooders" (like me) get aroused around an issue and get enough power to pass a law/put a program in place, but we assume the law will be self-executing, will be implemented as intended, and other parties won't have the brains and money and incentive to act to manipulate the situation. 

SCOTUS and the Albright Rule

In a NSC discussion over whether and how to intervene in the Balkans during the Clinton administration Madeliene Albright said something like: "what are your great armed forces if you never use them"?  I'll transmute that into a rule, named after her:

"if you have the power, use it".

That rule may be applying in the case of the Supreme Court.  Leader McConnell had the power to freeze Obama's nomination of Judge Garland to the Court.  President Trump has the power to nominate a young conservative woman to the Court.  The Republicans may, or may not, have the power to confirm her.  

After the election the Democrats may or may not have the power to expand the Supreme Court to allow a President Biden to nominate a young liberal black woman and others to the Court and the Senate to confirm them.

It's a game of tit for tat (I initially spelled "tick for tack") with no logical ending except greater polarization.  

Personally I would oppose the steps, but I think analytically down the road some sort of new compromise would evolve.  It's the same sort of dynamic which has created a bipartisan caucus in the House of Representative pushing a compromise pandemic bill. They may fail; the caucus may split; but at some point the center will reassert itself.   

RBG RIP

 My wife and I were fans of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, at least in the sense we saw the documentary and then the biipic made of her life.  She preceded me at Cornell by a few years, so I had that thread connecting me to her.

As liberal Democrats we feel badly; as humans we mourn her exemplary life.

What happens with the Court and the 2020 election now?  Lots of speculation, most of which will be wrong.

CFAP II Coming, and Here

 From Progressive Farmer, a report from Trump's rally saying that CFAP II will be announced next week at $13 billion.

Just went to Facebook FSA employees group and found this was announced.  Don't know why the amount went up $1 billion in a day.

Divisions Among Black Farmer Organizations

 I have a Google Alert set up for "black farmers", dating back to the Pigford days. Today it showed two hits:

"National Black Farmers Association Announces Boycott of John Deere"

"Deere forms new coalition to assist Black farmers with property rights"

No text for either, so I'm left guessing at the story behind the scenes. 

I'll take this opportunity to note that the NBFA (headed by John Boyd) has seemed to be a lot more active in recent months than they were for a while.  

Crop Insurance Fraud

 Farm Journal's Agweb runs a piece on a big, perhaps the biggest, crop  insurance fraud. It goes back over a decade, and I didn't notice a current hook for telling the story now, but it is a big story.  

RMA has a page listing crop insurance fraud cases.

1970's Oil Shock

Noah Smith has a piece in Bloomberg, describing the 1970's rise in oil prices and attributing several structural changes in the economy to that cause.   This shows gas prices over the last 100 years.  In 1968 when I first began driving as a civilian prices were $.34 a gallon.  Sometimes you had gas price wars, which would drive the prices even lower. Stations might offer premiums, like steak knives, for filling a tank. (Back in the day, banks used to offer premiums to open savings accounts, since interest rates were capped--but that's another subject.) We're still using a couple knives I got back then.

By 1980 the prices had risen to $1.19--tripling in price. That's after embargoes and long gas lines as people panicked (rather like the toilet paper shortages this spring). 

Evaluation of MFP

 NYTimes has a piece tied to GAO's assessment of MFP in a report Monday.  The criticisms seem to focus on higher payments for Southern producers and for big producers.  

I'd note that the WTO just issued an opinion that Trump's tariffs on China were illegal. MFP was intended to counter the adverse effects of the Chinese tariffs which responded to Trump's tariffs.

Will I Accept a Trump Victory?

 There's some worrying that liberals would not accept another Trump victory.  I can only speak for myself, a diehard Democrat.

If a "Trump victory" means an outcome like 2016--a loss in the popular vote but a clear plurality in one or more states sufficient to mean an electoral college victory--yes, I'll "accept" it.  By which I mean I'll recognize him as the person elected to be president according to our constitution. It doesn't mean I won't be as active, or more active, in opposition as I have been.

If the election goes to Congress, I'm not giving a promise of acceptance, although to the extent I understand the 1876 resolution I'd likely acceptance such an outcome in 2020.

The Last Mile Problem for US Government

 I've used the idea of a "last mile" problem before, but didn't really describe it.  The "last mile" in the internet is linking a home to the internet.  It's relatively easy to run fiber cable around the land.  It's like our blood--the veins and arteries are easy, but the capillaries are where it gets complicated.  In my mind the American federal government has such a problem--it can't connect reliably with all its citizens in all aspects of society.

I just noticed another instance: Treasury Department has 9 million checks it hasn't gotten to citizens.

The problem is more than 9 million--these are people who are part of the economy--IRS knows who they are, as opposed to people who are "off the grid" entitely.

Gates on Foreign Policy

 Reading Robert Gates: Exercise of Power, American Failures, Success, and a New Path Forward in the Post-Cold War World.

This Post review is pretty good.  Gates applauds Nixon and Reagan as having foreign policy agendas on entering office, and working effectively to implement them. He likes George HW Bush's response to the end of the Cold War, but criticizes Carter, Clinton, Obama, and Trump. He offers overviews of our history in dealing with various foreign affairs issues over the last 50 years, during much of which he was either at CIA, NSC, or DOD. Then he offers suggestions for better management.

His three big things are:

•  reviving, in my eyes, the Weinberger/Powell criteria for military engagement
• arguing for building up our non-military instruments of foreign policy--State, foreign aid, sanctions,education, etc.
• arguing for coordinated use of foreign policy instruments--he cites GWBush's Pepfar (aid to Africa for AIDS) as a model.

Two thoughts in response:

• for any organization there's a trade-off between specialization and coordination of effort. We had that in USDA, still do, and I don't think anyone has really solved the problem.  The National Security Council was supposed to be the solution originally, but Gates doesn't think much of  its modern incartnation.
• Gates in a sense is arguing for "defunding the military" as progressives are arguing for "defunding the police." In both cases the analysis is that using force is counter-productive and/or ineffective, and using available alternatives to force would work better. (This is my take, definitely not his.)

Just a note from history--in the1950's the UN was the hope of the left.  While Gates doesn't ignore the UN, it's obvious from his discussion how far its stature has fallen.

Ethnic Tensions

 Watched the older Ben Affleck movie, "The Town", last night.  A few subtle reminders of the group/ethnic tensions which were once a big feature of Boston life.  

Tribalism is everywhere humans are.  

9/11 is a good day to remember that. 

Sad Words on Records Management

 Federal Computer Week has a long discussion of the challenges records management faces in the current environment:“I love my records management staff,” one said. “They’re fantastic. But they are not database people. They are not technologists.”

I think the bottom line is that "records management" is not a sexy occupation, which means it can descend into a vicious circle: because it's not sexy it doesn't attract the best employees or employees who have experience in new processes and technology, management can ignore it for more crucial issues, employees can ignore records management problems and fail to understand the logic of the rules, and records management issues are ignored in developing new systems. Back in the day, my early days at ASCS, our business processes were pretty much standard across the country: electric typewriters and carbon paper, and information moved on mail carts and clearance folders.  No more.

That explains both Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server as well as various figures in the White House under the current administration.

The Lessons of Fairfax Scools

 As I understand it, the Fairfax school system had problems with remote learning back in the spring for two reasons--using older software (Blackboard, I believe) and running it on their own server instead of in the cloud.  The outcome was initially a fiasco, as the system couldn't handle the big load.

This problem, and my experience, suggests that the educators advising the Fairfax County School Board weren't paying enough attention to their infrastructure, likely because they regarded it as a distraction from the real job of educating students and running the system. 

As I used to say: "maintenance has no sex appeal".

Vertical Farming's Unnoted Advantage?

I'm guessing maybe vertical farming has an advantage I've not considered in the past.  I've mostly been skeptical of it and still am.  But...

One of the problems of growing produce is labor.  While farm labor isn't well paid, the harvesting of vegetables typically requires hand labor, which I think usually turns into seasonal labor (depending on the crop).  But I saw the other day a picture of a worker in a vertical farm growing lettuce.  He was wearing a white uniform, and standing by a tray of lettuce at shoulder height. I don't know whether it's standard for vertical farms to have their growing trays on a rotating drive arrangement, so that the work is always at eye level, but it makes sense they would.  It's a slight additional expense and a complication for maintenance but still.

So consider the labor advantages of such a system:

• no back-breaking labor, no bad weather of heat or rain, etc., clean.
• the job is not seasonal, it's year round, meaning the workers can be permanent.
• while the vertical farming factory is located in or near a city, with its higher living costs, the much bigger labor pool and the much better working conditions might well counterbalance the costs.

Just some guesses, but I'll be interested to see if I'm right or wrong.

Time for Higher Real Estate Tax Rates

 Megan McArdle and this Post analysis both describe a booming real estate market in the suburbs, as the "professional" (AKA "upper middle class") take advantage of cheap money and flee the crowded cities. I can see that in my own neighborhood: in the last year or so there have been several townhouses change hands in my cluster.  These would likely be entry-level houses, currently selling in the $350K range.  By the old standards of 2.5 times yearly income that means household income of $140K--not likely. A two income family would, I'd assume, come close to $90-100 K (say two school teachers)

IMO the country needs some way to counter such trends. We don't need McMansions, we don't need everyone having their own private bathroom, we don't need 2.4 rooms per person,  2,700 square feet in a house, much less more than that.  I write this knowing my wife and I occupy a house with 2 baths, 2 half baths.  But it's less than 1500 square feet.  I didn't need that big of a house when I bought; we don't use the whole house now.

When I bought I found the biggest house I thought I could afford because I figured it was a good investment. I assume that parents would buy the biggest house they can afford in the best school district they can find for similar reasons: their kids are good investments; their house is a good investment, or so they think.

The only current way of countering ever more investment in housing is real estate taxes. 

A Vet, But No Hero

 Our illustrious president is alleged to have called people who served in the military "losers", etc.  It seems consistent with his public persona, although the Atlantic article didn't have named sources.

In reaction, some are calling military personnel "heroes".

I take exception: I'm a vet, but no damned hero.  I was drafted, I went, I served, I got out very happily--end of story for me.

Flak on Reopening USDA DC

USDA's DC area offices are working towards reopening, but catching flak from the employees according to this report.

Update on EU Agricultural Programs

 Been a long time since I posted on this subject. Here's a recent release--the study is critical of the EU programs:

The Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) is the EU's largest budget item, averaging EUR 54 billion annually. It is well known that over 80% of payments are going to only 20% of farmers, but to what extent these payments support policy goals is poorly understood, due to a lack of transparency and complex reporting.

"Our analysis shows that at least €24 billion per year goes to income support in the richest regions, while the poorest regions with the most farm jobs are being left further behind.

Rebanks and the American System--Corn Laws Redux

 James Rebanks had a best-selling book back in 2015--The Shepherd's Life, a memoir of raising sheep in northwestern England.  More recently, as described in his Twitter account, he's diversified his operation with pigs and cows, and put more emphasis on diversified farming and conservation.  And he has a new book, English Pastoral (currently only on sale in England).

It took me a little while, but my new book is now on sale (for pre orders)

It is about everything I care about and love and I hope you like it pic.twitter.com/kpg2u7JmZH

— James Rebanks (@herdyshepherd1) May 28, 2020

This week BBC America had a clip of him and his wife as they argued against the "American System" Their concern was the negotiations between the UK government and US over trade terms, as the UK leaves the EU.  If there are no trade barriers/tariffs on agricultural trade, they fear that UK agriculture will be overwhelmed.  (I sense a reprise of the repeal of the Corn Laws back in 1846.)  

Rebanks outlines the case for a protectionist stance towards agriculture in this March article. And it's based on his book tour (NYTimes piece) of Kentucky when selling his first book.

Am I Getting Conservative?

 I sometimes wonder.  It's too bad we didn't have blogs in the 60's and 70's so I could trace the changes in my opinions over the years.  As far as today's politicians go, I generally support the Klobuchars and Bidens of the world. 

I likely am more internationalist/globalist than they.  I remember the heyday of the UN, when it was still viewed by some as essential to world peace.  And I remember the decolonialization movement and our concern over getting adequate foreign aid to the third world.  Liberals mostly seem to have abandoned that focus, but the influence of my ancestral religion still runs strong--the "Great Mission" was to convert the world.

On some current issues:

• I believe in much higher taxes on everyone.  I still retain the bias of JKGalbraith's "The Affluent Society", which argued we underfunded public amenities in favor of private extravagance.  There's no need for 2-4,000 square foot homes. 
• I don't believe in reparations--I do believe in experimenting with social programs, including dispersed public housing (down with NIMBYs) and cash transfer programs. 
• I don't believe in defunding policy, though I would favor more social services, more rehabilitation programs in prison.
• I think there are many more important things people could focus on rather than taking down monuments and renaming landmarks, but different strokes as we used to say in the 60's.
• I do believe in nationalizing a lot of statistics and making reporting mandatory--crime and health come to mind.