Props to Fed Bureaucrats

Kevin Drum posts a chart comparing the accuracy in processing health care claims.  Which organization is best?

HHS--Medicare.

DOD and USDA

The Post this morning has an article on the completion of the reconstruction of the Pentagon. Took 17 years because they redid the structure without closing it down.  I mention this only because USDA's South Building is about 10 years older than the Pentagon and is also being renovated.  I don't know where they are with the project, but I did see the House ag appropriations process raided the USDA building fund for various favorite programs.  

Making Government More Efficient

Paul Light has another report out on how to make government more efficient.  IMHO it's a mixed bag.  One of Light's idee fixes is flattening the bureaucracy, cutting out all the deputy assistant under secretaries.  While that's valid, I'm reminded of Al Gore's similar efforts back in the 1990's.  He wanted to cut out layers of management, but what really happened was that "section chiefs" got called "team leaders" or some such nonsense.  That was a response to the reality that if you have 3 GS-13's supervised by a GS-14 who's in turn supervised by a GS-15, you can't simply fire the GS-14 and downgrade the GS-15.     I think many of Light's proposals suffer from a similar problem: they state a goal, but fall short on the nitty-gritty of how you reach it.

When in Washington, Redefine

When is an "earmark" not an earmark?

Answer: when it's a "programmatic request", also known as an earmark from the past which has now been incorporated into routines.

BTW, it should be noted the first time Congress decided to tap DOD funds for research was in 1992, I believe at the instance of Dems.

Mr. Pincus as always is good on the nitty-gritty.

[Updated: Project on Government has a post providing more detail.]

Walmart and Pigford

The Supreme Court decided a case involving Walmart yesterday.  Ann Althouse has a summary of the case which is clearer than what I've seen or heard elsewhere.

I thought of Pigford.  

I wonder if it would have been recognized as a class action lawsuit if the Walmart case had been decided before Pigford.  To me, though not a lawyer, the cases seem similar.  In both a national organization is being sued for discrimination. In both cases there's some decision making done at the national level and some at the local (regional or store for Walmart, state or county for FSA).

If Walmart had been decided first, USDA/FSA could have argued that there was no national discriminatory policy in effect, therefore there was no "class" to file a class-action suit.  That would have required the aggrieved parties to file suits at the state or county level.

Of course, Congress could have stepped in, I guess.  They stepped in to extend the statute of limitations because Pigford hadn't been filed timely so I guess they could have waived their wand and said that black farmers/potential farmers were a class.

Of course, if Walmart had been raised back in the early 90's, Sandra Day O'Connor would have been on the Court and so the verdict likely would have been 5-4 the other way.  Does the different result yesterday reflect 8 years of Republican Presidents or a change in the national climate of opinion, or maybe just chance? 

RMA Screws the Pooch

From Farm Policy today:

A program announcement from USDA’s Risk Management Agency (RMA) yesterday stated that, “RMA has released ‘Climate Change Impacts on Crop Insurance,’ a study completed in May 2010.
“This report was recommended by the General Accounting Office in its 2007 report, ‘Climate Change—Financial Risks to Federal and Private Insurers in Coming Decades Are Potentially Significant.’ The GAO recommended that RMA and the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s National Flood Insurance Program separately analyze their Agency’s potential long-term fiscal implications of climate change and report their findings to Congress.”
(FarmPolicy Note: The report does not appear to be available electronically- directions for obtaining a copy of the report can be found here).

I mean--you're announcing a study a year after it was completed and you don't have it available on line?  That's a violation of some law and/or executive order.  Of course, the fact they're studying climate change would also be illegal, if the *(*S*#E Republicans in the House of Representatives have their way.  See Chris Clayton.

The War Powers Act and Libya

Congress and the President are in a fight over the application of the War Powers Act to Libya.  A thought strayed through my increasingly empty mind the other day: I wonder if the flyers are getting combat pay.

This morning the paper reveals they aren't, they're getting "imminent danger pay", something of which I've never heard and something which apparently applies to military in Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and other places. It may oversimplify things, but until they get combat pay, I'm okay with not calling it "hostilities".  And meanwhile I suggest Congress look into the need for "imminent danger pay".  We haven't had many troops killed in Turkey in the last few years that I can remember.

A Second Look at Vertical Farms

Treehugger has devoted two posts to Gordon Graff's MA thesis designing what they call a "vertical farm."  Having been critical of past vertical farm enthusiasm, I have to admit this one looks more reasonable.  I'm mostly impressed by the fact there's no reliance on sunlight, but instead they rely on good old fluorescent bulbs, using a drum . Graff seems to have accounted for a lot of the costs and there's no claim for organic agriculture.    The biggest problem would be the economic justification: could a lettuce farm, that's what it grows, make as much money as uses of the same amount of capital applied to the same site?  (That's pointed out in the comments found on the second link.)

The Natural Limits on Prying

Kevin Drum has good fun mocking the rapidly expanding military use of drone aircraft as a jobs program (described in an article in today's Times).  But he's picking up on a ratio which I see differently: From his quote of the Times article:

The pressures on humans will only increase as the military moves from the limited “soda straw” views of today’s sensors to new “Gorgon Stare” technology that can capture live video of an entire city — but that requires 2,000 analysts to process the data feeds from a single drone, compared with 19 analysts per drone today.

In other words, for all the security cameras in public places, and all the surveiling which is being done, current technology requires human eyeballs and human social recognition skills to make sense of what is captured.  So if someone want to follow my life, it means a couple people working 8 hours a day to monitor it. 

My bottom line: just because data is accessible, as through a security camera, doesn't mean anyone has the incentive to watch and (mis)use the data, considering everything else they could do with their time.

France Versus UK

From Dirk Beauregarde, in the context of a planned road trip:

Looking at the map of Britain though, everything seems complicated. France is criss-crossed by a set of logically placed and well-built motorways. The British road system though has more than a passing resemblance to a diagram of the human nervous system. The French plan their transport links, the British just seem to make them up as they go along. Building of roads born of necessity, rather than some pile-driving, republican principal, to link every outpost civilisation in France with Paris.

Frankly, the British road network looks scary, and whereas in France, there is one road to one place, and all roads lead to Paris, British roads go everywhere and nowhere in particular. A sure fire formula, for getting hopelessly lost.