Is USDA Listening? Twitter and Disaster

 I've previously suggested using pictures, either from digital cameras and/or cellphones, to enrich/replace the process of reporting crops and crop damage.  Based on this I suggest using Twitter as well: From a FCW post on use of social media by DHS:

DHS should look to the National Weather Service for an effective model. NWS has programmed its computers to automatically read any tweets with the hashtag #wxreport. Amateur weather watchers use that tag to report tornadoes and other extreme weather. Because Global Positioning System chips automatically report a smart phone’s location, NWS can pinpoint an event on a real-time basis and get critical situational awareness.

Crop insurance needs to know hail damage, in particular.

Ad Hoc Disaster Isn't Real Money

From Farm Policy, quoting Mr. Stallman of the Farm Bureau:

“Farmers are willing to rely instead on Congress passing temporary ‘ad hoc’ disaster bills, he said. Spending on such bills typically is added to the budget deficit rather than being taken from the farm bill.

The point being is the political debate is always about authorizations (the farm bill) and appropriations (or the omnibus appropriation or the continuing resolution), never about the contents of the actual deficit.  That permits smart legislators to play games with spending, because all the pundits just assume the deficit is the result of the policies which are debated.  

To Cheer You Up: Achenbach on the Disastrous Future

Just in case you need cheering up on this Monday morning, and it's not enough we've hit the debt ceiling, here's Mr. Achenbach on the future: disasters everywhere.

Predicting the Future, Achenbach Is Prescient

See his last paragraph quoted here.

The Question of the Day

From Joel Achenbach:

How do we become the organized people who are ready for the Big One when the ordinary tasks of daily life — the mundane stuff — the tedious grind of being a taxpaying citizen — are already overwhelming us?

Thoughts on Earthquakes and Government

Charles Kenny has a very good Foreign Policy article discussing the interrelationship of death rates, government regulation, enforcement and corruption, wealth, and cost-benefit ratios with respect to earthquakes. He notes 10 million children die before the age of 5 each year.

Scariest Paragraph Re: Boston and Earthquake

From  a Post article on earthquakes:

"We do tend to focus on the expected events. We're going to get blindsided by unusual events. . . . But uncommon events happen," Hough said. "The analog that's worrisome is Boston. Put a 6.1 [earthquake] under Boston. You have all that un-reinforced masonry."

NY Dairies Can't Win

Not only have corn prices gone through the roof, but the roof is falling, at least in Saratoga and Washington counties, NY on several farms.

A couple comments, which sound hard-hearted:

• I suspect many of the roofs which succumbed to the snow load were on buildings erected during the last half of the last century.  I doubt either the old-old-fashioned barn on my childhood farm, or the old-fashioned hip-roofed barn which was the standard when I was born would have suffered so.  Their roofs were steeper in pitch than the more modern barns I've seen.
• I'm not sure why FSA should be involved.  Surely the farmers were carrying insurance on buildings and herd.  If they had insurance and the insurance covered barn collapses because of snow, FSA should not be involved.

Schadenfreude on Disaster

I spent long enough in FSA working on disaster programs (not disastrous programs, though opinions may differ, but programs to aid farmers who suffered a disaster) to feel some schadenfreude (wicked enjoyment at the misfortunes of others) at reports such as this.

It's a true fact: any program, public or private, which puts money on the table is subject to scams and fraud.  Different programs have different vulnerabilities.  Whether it was the compensation for 9/11 victims and families, or Katrina, Pigford, or just a simple scheme to fake an accident, burn down one's factory building for the insurance, or claim a whiplash, you always have fraud.

Of course everyone knows we ourselves are innocent, so only a weak-minded blind bureaucrat would treat us as someone to be suspected, someone whose claims must be verified and whose word should not be taken at face value.

Unfair Description of Lincoln's Disaster Program?

Via Farm Policy, Dan Morgan writes about the budget impact of the disaster program using Section 32 funds that was pushed by Sen. Lincoln.  I'm querying this part:

"Nonetheless, farmers will be able to qualify for a check merely by certifying they had a 2009 loss of 5 percent on their rice, cotton, soybean or sweet potato crops last year. Those applying won’t need to supply new documentation to USDA, although their records could be subject to a spot check. Losses of 5 percent on a crop are within the range of normal year-to-year harvest variations, which is why previous disaster programs have generally required proof of losses of at least 20 percent."

I'm not sure the implication is right, though I can't find evidence to the contrary in a fast check of FSA. Usually a disaster program or crop insurance uses a yield, often known as an APH (standing for actual production history) which could be fairly representing an average of normal yields. But in the case of rice, cotton, and soybeans, it's possible the program uses the same yields as used for the big payment programs, which I think have been frozen for years, if not decades. Such yields, if I'm right, would represent much less than current normal production. 

[Note: just because I question the description, don't understand me to be defending the idea of the program. I'm not.]

Work for FSA--Michael Roberts Predicts Disaster

Roberts has a take on the corn situation, and observes it's likely the good weather we've had in the Corn Belt the last 15 years won't hold.  That means more disaster work for FSA.

She's Got It

No, it's not Ms. Hepburn but Sen. Lincoln, and it's not achieving the correct pronunciation for the "rain in spain" but getting an ad hoc disaster program out of the administration. 

New Orleans Factoids

From various news reports on the 5th anniversary of Katrina I assembled these factoids:

• there are 300 more restaurants than before, I'm not sure why.  There's more Hispanics in the area so presumably some new restaurants came about from that.  This also probably ties into the fact that entrepreneurship in the area is up.
• New Orleanians are now more likely to attend public meetings than other Americans.  Apparently because of the problems in getting aid, people have become skeptical of outside planners and therefore like to participate in meetings to give them a grilling.
• reconstruction in the lower Ninth ward has encountered problems because title to many homes are confused.  It seems the pattern was for someone to build or buy early in the 20th century, then to die intestate, thereby leaving the property to all the children.  Repeat this another time or too and titles become unclear.  It's the same sort of thing which has caused many Southern farmers, particularly blacks, to lose their land.
• there have been gains since Katrina, particularly in the public schools.

These fit some of my preconceptions: one of which is that the "cake of custom"  can become baked in place. Disasters, wars, epidemics can crumble the cake, creating new opportunities for some to change and grow.  Others, of course, are killed or harmed.

Blame It on the Hog Farmers

I was Googling to see if Sec. 32 had been amended recently and came across this 1999 Congressional Research Service report.  In that year the hog farmers got $145 million through a directive in a supplemental appropriation, perhaps being one of the early precedents for the proposed Lincoln/Emanuel disaster program this year.

The Post had an editorial today dissing the whole proposal.

Note: I still don't understand Sec. 32's relationship to the appropriation process so my prior comments may be wrong.

Always Nice to be Right

As I guessed in a previous post (and see  this), Sen. Lincoln and the Administration are looking at Section 32 funds for her special disaster program.  She provided this list  of past uses of the authority from Farm Policy.

I'm surprised by the number listed.  When I joined ASCS Sec. 32 funds had been used to buy up surpluses of potatoes, most notably, and use them for cattle feed and/or school lunches.  My impression was that it was method of dealing with surpluses of agricultural products which weren't storable, unlike the "basic crops", including wheat, corn and other feed grains, rice and cotton, and milk.  (Milk isn't storable, but cheese and butter are.) Apparently, though I've not bothered to follow up, there have been some changes over the years, particularly recently, which has expanded the use of the authority.

CCC has a history dating back to the Wilson administration, which I think but don't know gets the credit for using the corporation as a method of doing government business during WWI.  Subsequently Hoover came up with the Reconstruction Finance Corporation to handle depression-era projects, and the New Deal continued the RFC and created other corporations, including the CCC.

The corporation has some advantages over a regular agency: it can be much more flexible because you give it a charter and then leave the power up to its board of directors (CCC's board is basically agency heads plus secretary types).  You can give it an initial fund of money, then allow it to borrow from the Treasury.  That means Congress only gets to appropriate when the corporation runs out of borrowing authority.  And, I again think but am not sure, such repayments to the Treasury don't show up in the budget.

In addition to its borrowing authority, CCC also gets  a yearly cut of some customs money, under Sec. 32, which is probably also off budget.  And that's the money proposed to be used for Lincoln's disaster program.  (Personally, I think it's a stupid idea and hope the administration slow walks it until it's apparent that Lincoln is a lost cause.  Then they can give her a post somewhere.)

As an aside, back in the day ASCS used to tap CCC money for administrative expenses tied to carrying out CCC programs.  Over time we got too inventive  in using it for IT systems, so the Appropriations Committees cracked down.

Lincoln's Disaster Program (Cont)

Chris Clayton reports Vilsack says they're working on Lincoln's disaster program, but want it to reinforce crop insurance:..." if we were to do it, how would you do it in a way that would reinforce crop insurance and the SURE program?"

I think the answer is, you don't.  It's like saying, if we're going to somehow find the money so our teenager can replace his old car with a new Porsche, how do we do it in a way that would reinforce his good driving habits?

That Special Disaster Program

I suppose the funding for Rahm's special disaster program he promised Sen. Lincoln would come from Commodity Credit corporation through Section 32 funds.  Here's a Congressional Research Service report on the authority.  I don't remember FSA's using this for direct disaster payments to farmers, but it's possible.

Clayton Weighs in on the Emanuel Disaster Program, and Pigford

Chris Clayton relates the possible disaster program to make Lincoln happy to the failure to appropriate funds for the Pigford II case.

An Administrative Disaster Program?

That's what Sen. Lincoln claims the White House has offered, $1.5 billion of disaster aid done administratively, to get past the roadblocks to the legislative package for small business.  See this Farm Policy report. 

Having been in USDA in 1983 when Reagan's people pulled a land retirement program out of their hat without Congressional authority, I wouldn't bet against it.  On the other, damned if I can imagine how they'll do it.  The effect is psychological--it looks very doubtful Lincoln can win reelection, so the White House is showing they'll run risks to help their supporters.

Collision and Comprehensive From Different Insurance Companies?

Would it make sense for me to get my collision insurance from GEICO and my comprehensive liability insurance from Allstate?  (The companies agree it doesn't make sense for me to get my homeowners and auto insurance from different companies; they just disagree on which of them should provide both.)

That's the situation we have with crop insurance and disaster payment programs.  GAO recently released a report pointing out problems because of the different rules, in particular FSA gets reports of disaster damage long after the fact.  So they recommend:

To better ensure that payments under the Supplemental Revenue Assistance Payments Program compensate farmers who experienced eligible crop losses, we recommend that the Secretary of Agriculture implement procedures so that FSA county officials are notified at the time of crop insurance claims for disaster-related losses so those officials have an opportunity to verify that crop disaster payment applicants experienced losses because of an eligible cause.

I'm sorry, but this doesn't make much sense to me.  Data flowing the other way, from FSA to the insurance companies makes a little sense--you've got one source which theoretically can propagate the data to each company.  But having the data flow from the companies to FSA is problematic.

An addendum: this FSA notice shows the problems involved with having different shares reported to RMA and FSA.