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.