Watergare II--Disregard of Law

 Nearing the end of the Watergate book, which now recounts the briefing of the House Judiciary Committee by the special prosecutor and his staff, some 7500 pages of evidence.  

According to Graff, two things particularly struck the memebers:

• the misuse of national security to excuse and cover up misdeeds not related to national security (i.e., the attempts to have the CIA convince DOJ to limit its investigation, etc.)
• the lack of regard for the law and constitution.  Nixon never was concerned about what was legal, just what was practical and offered a way to get out of the mess.

I'm particularly struck by the second--it sounds exactly like TFG.  Or maybe not, in his egotism TFG claims superior knowledge of the constitution and the law, which Nixon didn't do. Afterwards Nixon would claim, IIRC, what TFG believes: "when the president does it it's legal".

I'm also struck by Chairman Rodino's concern for bipartisan votes in his committee, much more concern than the Democrats showed in their two impeachments.

ChatGPT and Congress

 Yesterday there was a report, which I may be garbling, that Google had given ChatGPT the same test questions they give to engineering job applicants, and the AI qualified as a level 3, apparently an entry level.  The starting salary for level 3 was given as about $180K, more than the starting salary for a new member of Congress, not to mention a member of considerable seniority. 

Not sure what that says about AI, Google, Congress, or the US. 

Failure To Commit, To Decide

 Ran across this tweet, which sounds interesting. 

Excited to share this new work with @beckyj1 in @ASR_Journal! We examine how local organizations sort people to ration scarce social benefits. We analyze the case of prioritization in the Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) Program (1/12)https://t.co/AAlR8Z8AdN

— Simone Zhang (@simonezhang) January 30, 2023

 

Drawing on >1000 local waitlist prioritization policies and interviews with local housing officials, we find many local housing agencies don’t set explicit priorities to determine who accesses a voucher sooner. This is especially true in rural, conservative communities. (4/12)

— Simone Zhang (@simonezhang) January 30, 2023

 My guess is part of this is the costs of deciding priorities.  It requires a conscious decision, which many people find difficult. Being in a rural area raises the odds that the potential decider knows some of the people who will be affected by her decision, and the people affected know who made the decision so there's the risk of emotional confrontations. 

It's also possible that there's no one decider, which raises the possibility of conflict among the deciders.  The outcome can be similar to Congress; which Congress can dodge the decision by kicking the issue to the bureaucracy, local deciders can dodge the decision by leaving it up to first-come, first served. Both tactics give the advantage to those who have the ability and expertise to navigate the bureaucracy.

Make the Ivory Castle Into a Museum

 Politico has a piece on the fight for space on the Mall for the various museums. Everyone wants recognition.  In the old days we had the Freer, then we added an Asian art museum and an African Art museum underground. But these days, following in the paths of the National Museum of the American Indian and the National Museum of African American Art and Culture Congress is now trying to add museums for Latinos/Hispanics and Women on the Mall, despite laws which would prohibit the proposed sites.  In my lifetime we've added memorials for the Vietnam war, the Korean war, and World War II as well. We've added monuments for Ike, FDR, and MLK on or near the Mall, as well as the Holocaust museum.

What's next?  The obvious one is a "National Museum of Asian and Pacific Islander X".  But how about honoring the brave veterans of our longest wars, if not the bloodiest?  I think the potential demand is infinite, and it's an easy way for Congress to please an interest group.

Given the unending demand, I suggest we start repurposing buildings on the Mall, starting with the Administration building for USDA. When I joined ASCS in 1968 Chet Adell used to call it the "ivory tower", an indication of his disdain for the decisions made there (he was a key figure in implementing them). It's the only bureaucratic HQ on the Mall--so tear it down and use the site for a couple of the new museums.  Once we've set that precedent, we can go onto repurposing other of the structures.  

Weaponized Globalization

 Here's the first of a thread in which Henry Farrell updates the thesis of a previous book in light of today's developments:

1. Six stories in the last few days about the weaponization of the world economy. It's very strange for @ANewman_forward and me to see the logic of our 2019 article (and forthcoming book - Underground Empire - Holt 2023) playing out. https://t.co/Z742KIljsl

— Henry Farrell (@henryfarrell) October 12, 2022

The thread is interesting. But I've a "but".  I remember back in the early Clinton administration when there was a big controversy over export controls on 486 chips (the hot PC cpu of the day). The Times made a big thing out of it, in my view misunderstanding  the problems of coordinating regulations between two cabinet departments.  Anyhow, Moore's law quickly made the 486 a dead issue.  It suggests to me that the "weaponization" which Farrel describes might be a bit more impressive on the surface, than it is when you get into the details. 

Bottom line: It's difficult for bureaucrats to keep up with innovation; even more difficult for Congress to keep up.

Events Which Change Elections

NYTimes newsletter from Nate Cohn discussing election polls, also whether the Clinton indictment was a possible parallel to the impact of Dobbs on the campaign.

In comments there I suggested that Sputnik was in some ways comparable--a surprise event, raising the importance of a new issue, close enough to impact the 1958 elections in which Dems did very well --48 House and 15 Senate.

It helped that there was a recession in 58 and Ike was in his second term. It set the stage for JFK's pledge to get the nation moving and for the (false) concerns about "missile gap."

Runaway Administrative Agencies

 The title is a phrase from a libertarian team's take on how to improve our politics and government. It's mentioned in passing as self-evident truth, without any suggestions that I see to make Congress more effective. 

I take exception, of course.  I am, after all, a bureaucrat.

The problem is not runaway agencies, not usually, but the failure of Congress to act so they either:

1. pass laws which don't resolve issues but insteand  kick them over to the agencies.
2. fail to act, leaving a vacuum which the courts and agencies are forced to fill. 

Big Boom Versus Slow and Stealthy

 I think there's a spectrum of political change/reform, perhaps along more than one dimension, but at least one--scope.

For example, Biden's forgiveness of student loans is big in scope.  I'd guess it's one of the biggest changes in the student loan program in recent years.  (IIRC the Obama administration did some significant changes, moving more to a government-administered program.)

LBJ's Medicare/Medicaid program was very big in scope.  In the years since there have been smaller changes: the biggest I recall now is GWB's addition of Medicare option D--the drug coverage. Previously there was GHWB's catastrophic insurance, which got repealed rather quickly.

But it seems most changes in programs occur with smaller scope and less attention--the slow and steathy path. 

Should I Apologize?

 Reading comments in the FSA Employees Group in Facebook. One noted the proliferation of programs, arguing that Congress should restrain itself.  

One of the things I tried to do during my time on the program side was to make things more efficient, particularly on the software side.  I also got involved in crash efforts when Congress or the administration came up with new programs (1983 payment-in-kind and 1986 disaster I remember particularly). I think I was reasonably successful, so why might I need to apologize?

Isn't there a parable of the  beast of burden which is always able to handle the loads which it's given, until one day the master adds the last straw? (Can't find it in wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_that_broke_the_camel%27s_back, but it seems as if there should be one.)

My point: I was just part of a long tradition in AAA/ASCS/FSA of employees taking pride in implementing programs quickly, which created a reputation among policy makers, which led to more and more programs. 

To some extent this is democratic policy making--IRS, SBA, etc. had similar problems in responding to the economic impact of the pandemic. 

But the reality is if we had been screwing up programs in the 1980s and 90s, the employees today won't be overloaded. 

We Need More CoDels

 Politico has a post on the unseen advantages of "Codels"--Congressional delegations visiting foreign countries. Because there's lots of travel time, and less actual meeting time, a codel throws the members together in a non-political environment, allowing them to experience each other as humans, not stereotypes.

A codel also has the advantage of seeming to be work; it doesn't seem to be a vacation or a boondoggle (at least sometimes).  

So maybe some foundation should sponsor domestic codels.

What Really Matters to Congress: Policy or Offices?

 David Brooks on Newshour Friday said he'd learned, contrary to the assumptions of political scientists,  that people don't want power.  He was talking about Congress not being willing to write specific authorities in legislation, as SCOTUS in this week's decision, says they ought to, rather than relying on agencies like EPA to decide and act.

It sort of fits with something I learned from "The First Congress", a book by Fergus Bordewich on the wheelings and dealings during 1789-91.  I've learned the Bill of Rights was not the Congressional version of the Ten Commandments, words of wisdom widely debated and finally etched in stone.  Some legislators saw them as rather meaningless, sops thrown to the Anti-Federalists who'd extracted the promise of amendments as part of state ratification of the Constitution.

Much more important to Congress was the location of the national capital.  It took months of maneuvering and deliberations before the final compromise which settled it.   

That also fits with another action this week: Congress blew up efforts to rationalize and modernize the Veterans Administrations healthcare facilities.  That reminded me of a similar attempt back in the early 1980's to rationalize ASCS offices. It ended badly.

So my bottom line: Congress doesn't do well on difficult policy questions; it's much more interested in offices and jobs and will never delegate authority to agencies to change them.

USDA and Rural Development

 Politico has a piece on USDA's challenges with rural development. Some excerpts:

“We were in the community earlier today of 130 people,” Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack said in an interview last month as he toured the Delta region of Mississippi. “The mayor had zero full-time employees. There is no way that community could ever qualify or ever know how to qualify. Those are the communities we need to help.” 

The Agriculture Department oversees the largest set of programs focused on rural communities — roughly 40 — but there are more than 400 programs operating across the federal government

The wide swath of programs and the influx of money from Congress is intensifying long-standing concerns about how well federal money to help rural communities is getting to its intended recipients. In response, the White House has tasked the Agriculture Department with coordinating a pilot program, the Rural Partners Network, to help ensure the funding reaches the poorest and most underserved communities in the country. It is launching in five states and with three Native American tribes this spring to start, with plans to expand to another five, as well as Native Alaskan communities, in August.

 Rural Development staffing, specifically, has decreased by a third over the last decade, while their portfolio of responsibilities has increased by 80 percent, according to Justin Maxson, deputy undersecretary for rural development. In addition, 47 percent of Rural Development staff are eligible to retire.

This is Not Invented Here run rampant. Why do we have so many rural development programs--because everyone, in Congress and think tanks, everyone, thinks they have a better idea than what exists. So instead of modifying and improving an existing program, the incentive is to add a brand spanking new program you can boast to your constituents about, hopefully get reelected. 

Ignore the fact that it will taken the bureaucracy time to get up to speed on the program, even with the dubious assumption that what you've written into law makes some sort of sense.  So over decades of Congress doing their NIH thing,  the poor bureaucrat has to try to understand 40 programs, most of which, like ships, have attracted barnacles of interpretation.  And remember, the more time spent in trying to understand 40 programs means less time getting out and explaining them to the part-time unpaid mayor of a town with no stoplight, and helping her complete the forms and follow the process, much less implement a successful grant in the way Congress envisioned, long ago and far away.

So after years of this, and multiple attempts to reform and restructure the bureaucracy we come up with a new idea.  We need a new bureaucracy--the old one is too old, tired, disillusioned, and waiting to retire.  So instead of fixing those problems we'll create a new structure, where we can start from scratch and do it right.  We'll call it a pilot program--if it works we can expand it. Will we, the sponsors be around years later to assess its results and kill it, fix it, or expand it? 

ROTFLMAO

 

The Commodity Credit Corporation Piggy Bank

 CCC was set up in the 1930's. One of the reasons was to handle the money for entitlement programs: farm programs which established payment rates for doing or not doing things without an appropriation, a cap.  

When I worked at ASCS there was still a sharp division between CCC and ASCS. CCC decisions were made by the CCC, composed of the administrators of affected agencies and the secretary's office.  There were a couple bureaucrats handling the development of "dockets" for the board, which recorded the rationale for the decision and included the regulations to be published in the Federal Register, Chapter 7, secs. 1400-1499. 

There were bureaucratic implications: if Congress passed a program with authority to use CCC facilities, it meant that the Printing and Distribution Branch could tap CCC funds to print forms and handbooks on an emergency basis and, I believe, bypass the Government Printing Office's time-consuming process. And the expenses weren't charged to ASCS administrative appropriation.

On the equipment side, similar logic applied.  If equipment could be tied to CCC operations, then it was charged to CCC and not ASCS.

As automation came along, first with programmable calculators and then System/36, etc. the IT types were able to use CCC money.

It was in the early 1990's I think that Congress, specifically House Appropriations, woke up to this loophole.  I know SCS people were jealous of ASCS ability to use CCC.  Did someone blow the whistle on ASCS?  Possibly. More likely the USDA IT office complained about ASCS/FSA bypassing them by using CCC. 

Meanwhile the different administrations have found the ability to tap CCC funds for various programs.  By now I've lost track of who has done what.  The most recent announcement is this, pilot projects for climate change.

Amazon Base Salary Twice That of Congress

The way I understand this, is that $350,000 is the top salary Amazon can offer to new hires.  That's twice the salary for a member of Congress.

 

Let's Index Congressional Salaries

 We've indexed a number of parameters in government.  One perennial problem is the salary of our representatives in Congress.  The "out" party can demagogue the issue against those in power who raised the salary, so salaries don't get raised.  And Congressional salaries tend to limit all other federal salaries (exceptions for special skills).

I've a very simple suggestion to eliminate the problem:  we index the Congressional salaries.  My own preference would be to pay them 10 percent of the salary of the highest paid government official in their state.  In most cases this will be the coach of the college football team.  

The Nose of the Camel and Government Programs

 This Politico piece traces the history of the pension program for Civil War veterans (Union army) from very limited coverage to close to universal, ending with its last payment in 2020 to a widow. It argues that because the vets developed an effective lobby organization (Grand Army of the Republic) they were able to expand the program over the years.  It goes on to cite the 20th century's Social Security and Medicare programs as similar cases where a program limited initially was expanded subsequently. All of this is in service to an argument that possibly the programs included in Biden's "Build Back Better" might have a similar destiny.

I don't quarrel with the writer's logic and hope for the expansion of BBB programs.  I do offer the instance of USDA farm programs as another instance of the expansion of government programs, an instance which is even more noteworthy than his examples.

In the years since the Agricultural Adjustment Act was passed, programs have expanded to cover not only seven or eight field crops, but oilseeds, fruits and vegetables, specialty crops, aquaculture, apiculture, etc.  The only crops whose programs have been reduced as of now are tobacco, peanuts, and naval stores.

How the Sausage Is Made

 Does anyone remember the deals which Nebraska, Louisiana, and Arkansas got, IIRC, when the Dems tried to pass ACA? I don't remember whether the final legislation included the deals; I'm thinking not, but there was a lot of wheeling and dealing during the run up.  That's what I see today.

Nondelegation Doctrine

 Volkh Conspiracy has a guest poster writing on the "nondelegation doctrine", the idea that Congress should grant power to the executive only with strict guidelines.

For anyone interested but too lazy to go to the Reason magaizine, here's my comment:

1. “Major policy decisions”? Do we know what that means? There’s a standard of economic impact of $100 million for regulations–but that’s been unchanged since it was first adopted in the 1970s in relation to inflation concerns, not policy.

   Arguable the USDA/Trump decision to spend billions from the Commodity Credit Corporation was a major policy decision. But it wasn’t particularly controversial, because it was too esoteric and there were no significant opposing voices to make a fuss. https://www.forbes.com/sites/stuartanderson/2020/01/21/trump-tariff-aid-to-farmers-cost-more-than-us-nuclear-forces/?sh=4fe7a4966c50

   I suspect the operational definition is an issue about which there’s a big fight between the parties and/or interest groups. I think the reality is such issues don’t get resolved in legislation, just kicked down the road to the faceless bureaucrats who can be blamed if they screw up and/or offend people.

   Reply 

Prisoners Dilemma and the Democrats

 Some discussion this morning on the Democrats maneuvering in Congress led to this idea:

The Prisoner's Dilemma is a part of game theory where, per wikipedia: that shows why two completely rational individuals might not cooperate, even if it appears that it is in their best interests to do so. In the game, if both players trust each other they can end up with an outcome which is good for both, but if they only look to their own interests with no consideration of the other player they end up with the worst result.

I see Senators Manchin and Sinema (MS) as one player; the progressives as the other player.  MS want the infrastructure bill; the progressives want the Biden "Build Back Better" bill. If the two groups cooperate they can get both; if they don't they may get neither.  Partially this boils down to how much trust the two parties have in each other, but mainly it rests on whether there's a compromise on the size and contents and tax provisions of the BBB which both can live with. 

9/11 20 Years On.

 Just finished "Without Precedent: the Inside Story of the 9/11 Commission" by Tom Kean and Lee Hamilton.  Curiosity piqued by comparison with possible 1/6 commission and Ben Rhodes involvement.

It reads well as a straightforward narrative.  Some random thoughts:

• in 2004 we were still very worried about the threat of terrorism. Will historians conclude that we overreacted?  I think so--it was mostly a one-shot lucky blow.
• a couple times they note that in interviewing Afghanis the message was: "don't leave us again". In 2004 Afghanistan was looking okay, but it's rather sickening to read it now, when we're leaving in a hurry. A mistake on Biden's part, I think, though it could follow the course of Iraq--get in, get out, get asked back in.  
• on page 220 they observe that by 9/11 neither the NYC Fire Department nor the Police Department had demonstrated willingness to answer to an Incident Commander who was not a member of their own department.  I want to know if Bloomberg's reorganization of NYC government has fixed that problem.  I suspect not.
• on page 292 they decry the partisan atmosphere of DC then, the worse they'd seen in 30 years.  

I think they soft-pedal their failure to get Congress to reorganize their committee structure.