The Return of Plain English Regulations

 Not sure what this tells me, except I'm old, as if the mirror doesn't remind me daily.

Back in my ASCS Directives Management days, my branch was responsible for processing ASCS and CCC regulations to the Office of Federal Regulations.  We had to ensure proper format, conformed (carbon) copies, official signatures, the correct set of documents (i.e., the regulation itself, the transmittal memo, and others). The regulation package would circulate among the offices in a special folder, with the routing sheet stapled to the front, ending up with the Administrator, ASCS or Executive VP, CCC as applicable.

Among the many goals of President Carter  were several aiming to improve the federal government (notably Senior Executive Service and the sunset law). Theoretically of similar importance was the "plain English" initiative.  Regulation writers got some classes in how to write, and agencies got instructions for their heads to certify that regulations were written in "plain English".  In reality, all that meant after the first few months was the addition of another document with multiple copies to be included in the regulation folder.  The document just read something like": "I certify the enclosed regulation is written in plain English".

I think the Reagan administration may have continued the requirement, at least for a whole, but it didn't last much longer than that.

But it's back!! Govtrack.us has an article with a title which tells us all: 

Providing Accountability Through Transparency Act would require 100-word plain English summaries of each new federal rule or regulation

 It's been introduced in both House and Senate, but no co-sponsors as yet.  Cynically I want to note that where Carter wanted the whole regulation to be in plain English, so far this effort is just to have a short summary in plain English, leaving the actual regulation to be inscrutable, or not, depending on the ability of the regulation writer and the environment in which she is working.

Jimmy Carter Reconsidered I

I'm reading "President Carter: the White House Years" by Stuart Eizenstat, who was Carter's main policy adviser in the White House.  So far about a quarter through.  It's well written, although it could use closer editing--in a couple places there's near repetition of content/points just pages apart.

That's not really important.  The big issue in the early days was energy, which Eizenstat claims Carter changed national energy policy drastically and permanently.  I'm not convinced yet, but I did run across this graph from AEI, which shows a dramatic drop in energy imports spanning 10 years from Carter's term through the end of Reagan's. 

I may post more later on Carter.

Saint Jimmy and Bad Barack

Barack Obama is taking some heat from the left for giving a speech for $400,000.  As usual I've mixed feelings:

On the one hand I wish the Obamas had followed the example of the Carters in sending their daughters to a public DC school.  They didn't.   I also wish the Obamas would follow the example of the Carters in "rarely" giving paid speeches.  They won't.

On the other hand where do you draw the line?  Is a $10,000 fee for a speech at an alumna mater okay while $400,000 would be wrong?  Or is the issue who the speech is to?  We don't want the Obamas talking to "bad" people but it's okay to talk to "good" people?  Won't "bad" people benefit more by listening to them?

On the third hand, I disdained Reagan's speeches in Japan.

My bottom line is while I wish we were a nation of saints, and I wish the president were the highest-paid, best compensated American executive, neither is true, so we live in the world we have.