How Politics Works--Give With One Hand and Take...

USDA this week announced a proposal to limit states ability to grant waivers of some SNAP provisions.

Some weeks ago HHS announced proposals to expand states ability to grant waivers of some ACA (Obamacare) provisions.
:
The lesson for today:  politics doesn't work the way idealistic theory says--structural provisions, like federalism, are used and manipulated to achieve political ends.

Did the Elite Used To Believe in Service?

The current assessments of George H.W. Bush's life often include a statement to the effect that in the past the elite, as exemplified by Bush,, used to believe in service to the nation, in noblesse oblige.  Such statements seem to be accepted unthinkingly, without question.

I'm not so sure there's that much difference between now and the past.  When you look at the business elite, the big shots with the big bucks, there seems to be a mixture of plutocracy and service. For every Rockefeller, Ford, and Carnegie Foundation created decades ago you can match similar efforts by Gates and Buffett.

Charlie Wilson famously said what's good for the U.S. is good for General Motors, and vice versa.  Our current elite knows better to say that, but I suspect they think it.  Wilson headed DOD under Ike.  Trump has had his own set of rich men, members of the elite albeit rather second level, serving in his administration.

My bottom line is that there's always been a mixture of motivations for public service: some people want new fields to explore (think Sen. Corker), some people want a career in politics moving in and out of government depending on which party is in control, some just fall into it.

[Update:  Erik Loomis at Lawyers, Guns, & Money visits the grave of Joseph Choate, touching on some of the good and bad aspects of the old-time elite beliefs.  Choate's brother founded the Choate private school, now Choate-Rosemary Hall, attended by many elite, including JFK. ]

Seeing Into the Future--Democratic House-Senate Split

Perry Bacon at Fivethirtyeight has a piece on the growth of the progressive wing of the House Democratic party.  While the Blue Dogs have revived a bit, the progressives were strengthened much more by the results of 2018.  This got me to thinking, always dangerous.

Pelosi will be the Speaker, and she'll have to work to keep her caucus united.  Meanwhile, over on the Senate side McConnell will lead a slightly stronger Republican party, which is also more conservative, losing Flake and what's his face from Nevada.  And Schumer's Democrats are facing a tough road in the 2020 elections.  He'll want to protect his incumbents and try to lay the groundwork to challenge the vulnerable Republicans in 2020.

All this reflects the increasing division of the country, as shown in our elections:  the red States went a little redder and the blue and purple areas went more blue, or in institutional terms, the Senate goes conservative and the House goes liberal.

So Pelosi, Schumer, and McConnell will be deeply challenged to get legislation passed, particularly the Dems.

55+ years ago a government professor of mine named Theodore J. Lowi theorized, perhaps not originally with him, that changes in parties didn't happen by the out-party changing their policies but by the in-party dividing and losing focus.  Not sure how that theory stands up to today's politics.

[updated to add second link]

Originalism and State Constitutions

Originalism a la Scalia is the conservative/libertarian philosophy of interpretation of the US Cnstitution.  It seems to have different flavors: interpret the words according to their meaning at the time of adoption; interpret them based on the intentions of the writers, etc.

As a liberal I don't buy it, but it does seem to be a more consistent doctrine than anything on the liberal side.  I suspect, though, that the doctrine gains support because of our glorification of the "Founding Fathers".  Americans like to believe they were wise lawgivers, like Moses coming down with the  Ten Commandments. 

In the recent election we voted on a couple amendments to the Virginia constitution. They were rather specific.  The language of one meant adding this provision:

(k) The General Assembly may by general law authorize the governing body of any county, city, or town to provide for a partial exemption from local real property taxation, within such restrictions and upon such conditions as may be prescribed, of improved real estate subject to recurrent flooding upon which flooding abatement, mitigation, or resiliency efforts have been undertaken.

That amendment isn't comparable to the amendments of the US Constitution. 

The VA site on the constitution observes:

Virginia signed its first constitution in 1776 upon the signing of the Declaration of Independence. Since that time, there have been frequent amendments and six major revisions to the constitution: 1830, 1851, 1864, 1870, 1902, and 1971. Our current constitution is an amended version of the 1971 constitution. These revisions to the Virginia constitution are representative of the political, social, regional, and racial climate of the times.

The writers of the original constitution were some of the Founding Fathers--Madison, Jefferson, Wilson, so one would think that we should have revered their language just as we do the US constitution. But we didn't, nor have we done so with later revisions.  See this site for state constitutions.

So my question for the originalists--does/should the doctrine apply as well to state constitutions?

Irony Alert

Somewhere in my reading today I ran across a brief mention that Gens. Kelly and Mattis found themselves opposing Gen. McMaster on some issues--it seems the split was between those who tried to rein Trump in (Kelly-Mattis) versus McMaster who was more willing to go along.

I can't wait for McMaster's memoir.  If I recall his dissertation, converted into a well-regarded history called Dereliction of Duty, was critical of LBJ's Joint Chiefs for not being straight with him, for going along with his policies rather than resisting the expansion of the war without being open with the public.  So if today's item was correct, it might be that McMaster found it hard to play the role of adviser than he thought it was back in his academic and youthful days.  Wouldn't be the first, nor will it be the last, person to make the discovery.

[Update: it was a New Yorker piece:  "On one side were Mattis, Tillerson, and Kelly, each of whom in varying degrees sought to push back against the President; on the other was McMaster, who made his natural allies furious for what they saw as his habit of trying to accommodate the President’s demands, even if they were far-fetched. “General McMaster was trying to find a way to try to execute, not to tell him no,” the former government official told me."

Why the Change in 1842 to FY?

Here's a piece on a proposal to make the government's fiscal year jibe with the calendar, something which was last true before 1842.  I wonder why Congress made the change back then.  Were they having problems passing appropriations bills timely even then?

Janesville and Liberal Government

This book just won a prize for nonfiction writing.  If you don't want to read the whole thing, this New Yorker piece of last year will substitute.

I'm still reading it, but I want to note one failure of government: Obama came, promised help, his man visited, listened, did nothing before leaving for a better paid post.  It's an old lesson of bureaucracy--you need unrelenting pressure from the top to accomplish the difficult.  President Nixon, despite his flaws, knew this and his administration was successful in removing the WWI "tempos"

now the site of "Constitution Gardens". 

Much as I like Obama, and my regard for him as a person is only increased by comparison with his successor, I don't see him as a good manager of the bureaucracy.  (The most glaring failure was, of course, healthcare.gov.)

Liberals believe in the power of government to help, but Janesville is disappointing in that respect.  The conventional wisdom is that job retraining programs are a necessary part of global free trade and/or fighting recessions.  The results from Janesville don't support their efficacy.  The job retraining seems to have worked somewhat like farm programs, easing the transition from a good past to a dimmer future. 

Deep State? Shocking

I believe in the "deep state".

There's a poll out which shows support for a theory of the "deep state" is surprisingly high, surprising to some that is. 

Personally I think it's common sense, though I define "deep state" a little differently.  In my view there are a relatively small number (i.e. less than 1 percent of Americans) who routinely affect the way government operates in ways which aren't visible to Americans on a daily basis.  This would include all the riders and special provisions tucked into laws, particularly appropriations acts and omnibus or "must pass" legislation. It would include all the lobbyists, pollsters, and members of the "chattering class", as William Safire used to call them.  And of course it includes the bureaucrats and lawyers who are concerned with process and procedure, much to the dismay of some politicians.

In most cases the deep state is operating within the overall context set by the limits of public support.  An example on the liberal side--I could argue the "deep state" essentially legalized gay marriage. 

Blast from the Past: J.K. Galbraith

Paul Campos at Lawyers, Guns and Money posts about reading J.K. Galbraith's "The Affluent Society" (it's been 60 years since its publication).  That was a very influential book for liberals back in the days of the New Frontier.  But then came Michael Harrington and his "The Other America" which (re)discovered poverty.  Between the two, they shaped much of my thinking back then.

Our Democracy

From a Brad DeLong post:

• 178.4 million people are represented by the 48 senators who caucus with the Democrats.
• 144.1 million people are represented by the 52 senators who caucus with the Republicans.
• 65.9 million people voted for Hillary Rodham Clinton and Tim Kaine to be their president and vice president
• 63.0 million people voted for Donald Trump and Mike Pence to be their president and vice president.

Comments on Consolidating USDA Support Services

USDA has a request for comments on the Secretary's proposal to consolidate support services across agency lines. Comments are due before October 7.

I'm very sceptical of the OFR's request for comments process, particulary on clearing forms.  We'll see in this case if people like NASCOE etc. get comments in, or prefer to work with Congress.

Trump on Improper Payments

Turns out Trump on improper payments is the same as Obama--from GovExec:

All of these ideas were also proposed by the Obama administration, representing bipartisan agreement on policy reforms.
Of the twelve policies aimed at curbing improper payments in the FY 2018 budget, four use the same language found in President Obama’s FY 2017 budget. The other eight have only small differences. The amount of projected savings also mirrors the FY 2017 budget, although with some differences. For example, the FY 2017 budget estimated that authorizing the Social Security Administration (SSA) to use “all collection tools to recover funds” would save $35 million, while the FY 2018 budget estimates $41 million. The savings projected under the FY 2018 budget are also much higher for Unemployment Insurance, as well as Medicare and Medicaid. However, the reasons for the higher projected savings are not clear.

Representing Acres, Not People

President Trump famously passes out maps of the US showing the counties he won and those Clinton won, the result being a very red US. Liberals like me carp that the map represents acres, not the people.  He also is proposing to change the air traffic control system to a nonprofit corporation.   That idea has run into the reservations of senators representing many of the acres shown on his map.  The problem being that the more sparsely settled areas of the country are also more dependent on air traffic (Alaska is perhaps the biggest for small planes).  So the senators fear the impact of this possible change.  And the senators are mostly Republican.

A case of principle (smaller government) conflicting with the real world, IMHO.

Government Reorg: Nixon and Taft

A nice recap of past efforts to reorganize the goverment here.at the Monkey Cage by Andrew Rudalevige

I've a particular fondness for the Nixon effort, but hadn't known about Taft's effort (William Howard, that is). Why fondness for Nixon, a man good liberals loved to hate?  May have written this before, but my boss at ASCS was able to get the Directives Branch into IBM MT/ST's (Magnetic Tape/Selectric Typewriters) fairly early.  Somehow the people at the White House learned about the capability, and we were drafted into typing and retyping a document for the proposal.  IIRC it was 100-200 pages, describing the reorganization of cabinet offices into four big departments.  Very hush-hush, and something of a let-down when it fizzled.  I wrote "we"--actually at the time we had two male typists, both good, but who soon left, one for the Army, the other for greener pastures.

Anyhow, the lessons of history do not portend great success for Mr. Kushner.

Tiger Teams and SWAT Teams

Jared Kushner is to be head of an Office of American Innovation.

In my RSS feed I've got a bunch of stories which came in the last few days on the general theme of government reorganization, etc.  I keep thinking I'll gather them all into one piece, but no, this is it.

Back in my Infoshare days the rather charismatic leader of the effort liked to talk about "Tiger Teams", and talented technologists, and other buzzwords of the day.  These days "SWAT Teams" are mentioned more often, but the function is the same: pie in the sky promises of a magic bullet (how many more cliches can I stuff into this post?)

My own feeling is people are bound by habits.  Some things can change habits, as WWII changed German and Japanese habits, or Katrina changed the New Orleans school system but mostly people are slow to change and are very inventive finding reasons why a particular change is ill-advised, or just plain wrong.  Now good P.R. can dress up results.  There's a NYTimes piece today which gives Al Gore's Reinventing Government effort some praise.  Me, I don't believe it, not fully  One of his biggies was reducing layers of supervision, which was mostly accomplished in ASCS by paper changes or ignoring the mandates.

So, as to Mr. Kushner, count me skeptical.

Chevron and Regulations

One of the big things about Judge Gorsuch as he tries to be confirmed by the Senate is his position on
Chevron, not the oil company but the Supreme Court case which determined how much deference, if any, should be given to an executive agency's interpretation of laws which resolve ambiguities in the language of the law. The majority opinion said courts should defer; Judge Gorsuch says "no deference" (very short summary there).

As a bureaucrat you know I come down on the deference side.  One of my reasons isn't much discussed: the reality of Congress and politicians.  For a given issue politicians have to come to some consensus, some resolution, else they'll get blasted as "do-nothing" by Harry Truman or the Dems in 2018.  But the reality is resolution is hard in a democracy--there's no magic sauce to make everyone happy.  The result is that Congress cobbles together something to show the voters.  That "something" is often a law which straddles both sides of the issue, or fuzzes the issue with vague language or lawyerisms such as "as appropriate", "reasonable", etc. etc.In other words, Congress often doesn't make decisions, it kicks them over to the poor bureaucrats in the agency who have to implement the law.

IMHO the people who agree with Gorsuch are living in a dream, one where ambiguities in legislation are mistakes by Congress, mistakes which can easily be fixed if the Court, instead of going along with the agency's fix by regulation, kicks the problem back to Congress for an easy and expeditious fix. 

In my view ambiguities aren't mistakes, they are features of the democratic process of legislation.

Contra Free Market From Israel?

Conservatives tend to be more supportive of Israel these days.  The nation has long since put the kibbutz behind them and is now a booming economy, with particular expertise in IT, high tech and military equipment.  The World Bank has a piece on how that's happened, including this:

Hasson highlighted the key role played by public-private partnerships over the last 40 years. Those partnerships have resulted in the establishment of an innovation infrastructure — including educational and technical institutions, incubators and business accelerators —anchored within a dynamic national innovation ecosystem built around shared social goals.

Specifically, to reduce the risk for investors, the government has focused on funding technologies at various stages of innovation — from emerging entrepreneurs and start-ups to medium and large companies. Strengthened by that approach, the Israeli ecosystem is maturing: according to Hasson, mergers and acquisitions have increased and exit profits have almost tripled over the last three years, with more and more new projects being started by returning entrepreneurs.

"Deep State" and ICE

The NYTimes has two articles today:

• in one, they discuss the concept of the "deep state" (i.e., the various institutions of the government, sometimes found in opposition to the ruler, as in today's Egypt) and whether it applies to the case of Trump and the US government.  They conclude there's dangers there.
• in the other, Linda Greenhouse, former Supreme Court reporter for the Times, discusses the ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) union and its support of Trump, possibly leading to pushing the envelope on immigration raids.

Put them together and they reveal a truth about the US government not mentioned in either: it's a big complicated mess, not a monolith with one aim.  The bureaucrats in one agency do not agree with the bureaucrats in another agency.  The bureaucrats in EPA no doubt trend liberal, green types; the bureaucrats in ICE no doubt trend conservative, law and order types. Both are capable of dragging their feet and leaking like a sieve; both are equally capable of being eager beaver apple polishers over anxious to do what they believe the boss wants, even if she doesn't say so.

Back in the day liberals worried about the bureaucrats in the FBI and the CIA, fearing J. Edgar's secret files and attempts to blackmail.  Before the election the media (probably the Times) ran backgrounders on Comey's decisions on the Clinton emails--the theme was that Comey was being pushed from below to go hard on Clinton and was afraid of leaks if he didn't stay ahead of his field agents.  Now it seems likely that some of the leaks being reported about the Russian contacts are from FBI bureaucrats, whether the field agents or supervisors. 

We shouldn't oversimplify is what I'm saying.  Within agencies there are different cultures and perspectives, and within different cultures there are different personalities.  Combine those differences with a given political situation, put people in the command chain, and you've an unpredictable mess.  Although sometimes it's not hard to predict: tell the CEA staff to cook the books when making up the President's budget and someone may leak to the Wall Street Journal, and Matt Yglesias write about it in Vox.

[Updated--see this New Yorker piece on the Border Patrol's relationship with anti-immigrant groups.}

What Is To Be Done?

In the aftermath of the presidential election lots of people seem to be searching for ways to take effective action.  A few urls:

• Emily Ellsworth, a former staffer in a Congressman's office (actually "constituent service manager") first tweeted tips then collected them  on how to be effective in calling your representative.
• Congressional Management Foundation, a do-gooder outfit which tries to help members of Congress to have effective offices (good web sites, good response to constituents) switches sides and provides resources for citizens here.
• The Indivisible Movement has issued a guide, and also tries to coordinate and report local action.

Ethics Training for White House Staff

One little factoid caught my attention which now becomes relevant: on the Sunday after Trump's inauguration the White House staff spent the afternoon getting ethics training (and probably other routine training).  These sorts of required training sessions were, when I was employed, a pain in the rear.  After all, I was honest, didn't discriminate based on race or disability, sex or age, etc. etc.  I confess I sometimes failed to attend them, using some excuse or other.

I'm now wondering whether Kellyanne Conway, the gift who keeps on giving, attended the Sunday session or whether, like me, she thought herself too good for it, thus leading into her apparent violation of ethics standards?