"If using pretend news is one of the ways these stations have chosen to save money, it's a false economy. If it represents a political decision to support President Bush, it will eventually backfire. This kind of practice cheapens the real commodity that television stations have to sell during their news hours: their credibility."See the related post on the controversy.
Wednesday, March 16, 2005
Should Media Accept Government Propaganda
The New York Times Editorial page puts blame on the stations who used the government video news releases without identifying them as from the government:
The Legislative Cycle--Payment Limitation-S 385
I screwed up. I'd been looking on Thomas for action on Bush's payment limitation proposals. Somehow I missed. Senate 385, which Senator Grassley introduced on Feb. 15.
Bill Summary & Status: "A bill to amend the Food Security Act of 1985 to restore integrity to and strengthen payment limitation rules for commodity payments and benefits. "I haven't digested it yet. Nor have I checked the House side.
Tuesday, March 15, 2005
The Legislative Cycle--Changing Two Entity Rule
So Bush proposes to change the two entity rule. How does he do that? There are at least three options:
1 Change "two" to "zero"--i.e., says that a person who receives payments individually can receive no payments through entities, while a person who has a 50 percent or smaller share of an entity can receive up to $250K
2 Change to provide that a person shall be combined with each entity in which he or she has at least a 10 percent share.
3 Change to "attribution". This is an approach we did a fair amount of work on in 1990 as the farm bill was under consideration.
Let me digress. What happens to the bureaucrats while Congress is considering legislation depends on the political situation, i.e., are the staffers on the Hill and the bigshots in the ivory tower (the USDA administration building--the assistant secretaries and above) talking to each other? If they are, ideas floated on the Hill will waft down Independence to 12th and Independence, then through the bureaucracy. The bureaucrats try to figure out what the draft means, what problems there might be, and what would need to be done to implement it. Usually there are significantly different approaches between House and Senate to worry about.
(My memory is that in 1995, with the farm bill, there was little communication, Newt having just taken over the House. Otherwise, there's usually good discussion.)
So in 1990 we were worrying about attribution, meaning roughly that the payments made to entities would be attributed back to the "warm bodies"/individuals according to their ownership share.
I'll be curious to see what approach is used this year (assuming Bush can push the proposal into legislative form).
1 Change "two" to "zero"--i.e., says that a person who receives payments individually can receive no payments through entities, while a person who has a 50 percent or smaller share of an entity can receive up to $250K
2 Change to provide that a person shall be combined with each entity in which he or she has at least a 10 percent share.
3 Change to "attribution". This is an approach we did a fair amount of work on in 1990 as the farm bill was under consideration.
Let me digress. What happens to the bureaucrats while Congress is considering legislation depends on the political situation, i.e., are the staffers on the Hill and the bigshots in the ivory tower (the USDA administration building--the assistant secretaries and above) talking to each other? If they are, ideas floated on the Hill will waft down Independence to 12th and Independence, then through the bureaucracy. The bureaucrats try to figure out what the draft means, what problems there might be, and what would need to be done to implement it. Usually there are significantly different approaches between House and Senate to worry about.
(My memory is that in 1995, with the farm bill, there was little communication, Newt having just taken over the House. Otherwise, there's usually good discussion.)
So in 1990 we were worrying about attribution, meaning roughly that the payments made to entities would be attributed back to the "warm bodies"/individuals according to their ownership share.
I'll be curious to see what approach is used this year (assuming Bush can push the proposal into legislative form).
The Legislative Cycle--Payment Limitation (Corps)
My last post ended with $500K left on the table, my new wife and I were two "persons", each with a $250K payment limitation. I go back to Sharpie Sam, who's advising me how to get around FSA's rules.
Under the old, "two entity" rules, my wife and I could have placed half the operation in an irrevocable trust, or a corporation, for benefit of our children to be. The corporation would have provided land and capital, and perhaps hired labor or management company to provide its share of those inputs. If we each owned fifty percent, the corporation might have been recognized as a separate "person" with its own $250K limit. To the extent the corporation shared in the risk of producing the crop, and received subsidy payments, the payments would count against its limit.
It would be considered separate because no one had more than a 50 percent share. If it was owned 2/3 me, and 1/3 my wife, it would be considered to be an entity combined with me as one "person". Any payments made to the corporation would be charged against my limit.
The two entity rule allowed people to get very creative. For example, if you pull up the Environmental Working Group's database, in 2002 there were 14 owners of Perthshire Farms,* each with a 7.1 percent interest
There are 3 individuals, and 11 corporations, each of which is shown as owned by Perthshire FArms. (I'm not sure what's going on there--it's not clear to me how EWG set up the database to receive FSA data.) CBS did a report back in the early 90's on the problem of these "Mississippi Christmas trees".
So Bush is proposing to end the two entity rule.
*corrected
Under the old, "two entity" rules, my wife and I could have placed half the operation in an irrevocable trust, or a corporation, for benefit of our children to be. The corporation would have provided land and capital, and perhaps hired labor or management company to provide its share of those inputs. If we each owned fifty percent, the corporation might have been recognized as a separate "person" with its own $250K limit. To the extent the corporation shared in the risk of producing the crop, and received subsidy payments, the payments would count against its limit.
It would be considered separate because no one had more than a 50 percent share. If it was owned 2/3 me, and 1/3 my wife, it would be considered to be an entity combined with me as one "person". Any payments made to the corporation would be charged against my limit.
The two entity rule allowed people to get very creative. For example, if you pull up the Environmental Working Group's database, in 2002 there were 14 owners of Perthshire Farms,* each with a 7.1 percent interest
There are 3 individuals, and 11 corporations, each of which is shown as owned by Perthshire FArms. (I'm not sure what's going on there--it's not clear to me how EWG set up the database to receive FSA data.) CBS did a report back in the early 90's on the problem of these "Mississippi Christmas trees".
So Bush is proposing to end the two entity rule.
*corrected
The Legislative Cycle--Payment Limitation--sale
In the last post I discussed creating an entity, such as a corporation, to receive some of the farm payment that otherwise would be left on the table. One other alternative should be mentioned--selling off part of the operation. Assume that the million dollar farm contains owned land. Suppose I can only figure out how to work the rules so that I and my wife receive $750K, meaning $250K is left on the table. If I sell off a quarter of my operation to a new farmer, my asking price will reflect the fact that the new person is eligible for $250K in program payments.
This is the most direct example of the programs increasing the price of farm land. That's what many economists think is the biggest effect of the programs. High land prices mean that it's hard to break into farming, hence farmers are old, on average. The prices help the tax base of the communities where the farms are located. They also provide a cushion--one of the secrets of farming is that you live off your capital.
This is the most direct example of the programs increasing the price of farm land. That's what many economists think is the biggest effect of the programs. High land prices mean that it's hard to break into farming, hence farmers are old, on average. The prices help the tax base of the communities where the farms are located. They also provide a cushion--one of the secrets of farming is that you live off your capital.
Monday, March 14, 2005
Duration Weighted Records (corrected)
The Washington Post today focused on the manager of the new home town team--Frank Robinson. The issue being whether his players, 40 years younger than he, realize how great he was. Here's a quote:
The effect would be to give recognition to early greats and to those performances that really broke the bounds of probability. (Stephen Jay Gould might have liked to discuss this.) It should give more prominence to those who stood out from their peers and successors for a long time, someone like Robinson, who was 4th on the all time homer list for 30 years. It would also mean that supporters of Ruth and Maris would be rooting for someone to break Bonds record within the next 30 years.
*Correction: Found the sort of table I needed. Turns out Home Run Baker never held the season record. Before Ruth, Ned Williamson in 1884 hit 27 in a season and Roger Conner by 1895 had the career record. The true season figures would be Williamson 35 years, Ruth 42 years, Maris 37 years, McGuire 3, Bonds 4 and counting; for career, Connor, 26 years, Ruth 52 years, Aaron 30 years and counting.
"'The farther you slip down [the list], the less you're going to be mentioned. People will forget all about you, period,' he says. 'Tell me how many people beyond the top 10 get mentioned? I remember when it was always the top four -- Aaron, Ruth, Mays and me [the order that existed, unchanged, for 30 years]. So, yeah, it does bother me. But there's nothing I can do about it. It's going to happen. I've joked that by the time I leave this earth, I may be 99th.'"Maybe we should have duration-weighted stats, that is figures that combine how good a player was and how long he was that good. For example, a duration-weighted table for most home runs in a season might take all the people who ever held the record (Home Run Baker*, Babe Ruth, Roger Maris, Mark McGuire, Barry Bonds), count the years each held the record and list them in that order. (Maris 37 years, Ruth 42 years (34 for the 60 homers, 8 based on his earlier years) , Bonds 2 years and counting, McGuire 3 years, Home Run Baker 5 years (maybe, my stat search was cursory)) For a more complete approach, take a table of the top 10 (or top 100 in the category (i.e., season homers) for each year 1900 on, assign 10 pts for first, 9 for second, etc., and multiply times the number of years at that point, then divide by the number of years x time.
The effect would be to give recognition to early greats and to those performances that really broke the bounds of probability. (Stephen Jay Gould might have liked to discuss this.) It should give more prominence to those who stood out from their peers and successors for a long time, someone like Robinson, who was 4th on the all time homer list for 30 years. It would also mean that supporters of Ruth and Maris would be rooting for someone to break Bonds record within the next 30 years.
*Correction: Found the sort of table I needed. Turns out Home Run Baker never held the season record. Before Ruth, Ned Williamson in 1884 hit 27 in a season and Roger Conner by 1895 had the career record. The true season figures would be Williamson 35 years, Ruth 42 years, Maris 37 years, McGuire 3, Bonds 4 and counting; for career, Connor, 26 years, Ruth 52 years, Aaron 30 years and counting.
Saturday, March 12, 2005
The Legislative Cycle--Payment Limitation III (Wives)
In my previous post I left off at defining a "person".
Assume that I'm one of Garrison Keillor's Norwegian bachelor farmers. My operation is big enough that I could get $1,000,000 worth of farm payments a crop year. By "operation" I mean I own the land and equipment, provide the operating capital, do all the managing, hire enough day labor to do the work, and take 100 percent of the risk of growing crops. That is, I'm the farmer everyone thinks of when you say "farmer" (except that I may have a bigger operation than one expects). There's no question I'm a "person"--so once Bush's proposal is enacted I can earn $250K, but that's it.
What does that mean? It means that $750K that I can't receive is "left on the table" as we say. It means that any sharp lawyer or experienced bureaucrat who can figure out the rules can earn easy money. (If a lawyer figures out how I can get another $250K a year, surely he could ask for a third. And yes, if lawyers chase ambulances, gin up class action lawsuits, and create tax shelters, they also get into payment limitations.)
So I go to Sharpie Sam for advice. He tells me that Ole Olesen died a year ago, leaving his 10 acre farm to his wife. It's a small operation, but if I marry her I can probably claim that she's a "person" too, thus getting another $250 K.
Note: my description is based on my memory of the rules as of the mid-90's, though there hasn't been much change since. Over the last 35 years the rule on wives has changed, from considering husband and wife as one person, to allowing them to be 2 persons if both had separate operations before marriage.
Assume that I'm one of Garrison Keillor's Norwegian bachelor farmers. My operation is big enough that I could get $1,000,000 worth of farm payments a crop year. By "operation" I mean I own the land and equipment, provide the operating capital, do all the managing, hire enough day labor to do the work, and take 100 percent of the risk of growing crops. That is, I'm the farmer everyone thinks of when you say "farmer" (except that I may have a bigger operation than one expects). There's no question I'm a "person"--so once Bush's proposal is enacted I can earn $250K, but that's it.
What does that mean? It means that $750K that I can't receive is "left on the table" as we say. It means that any sharp lawyer or experienced bureaucrat who can figure out the rules can earn easy money. (If a lawyer figures out how I can get another $250K a year, surely he could ask for a third. And yes, if lawyers chase ambulances, gin up class action lawsuits, and create tax shelters, they also get into payment limitations.)
So I go to Sharpie Sam for advice. He tells me that Ole Olesen died a year ago, leaving his 10 acre farm to his wife. It's a small operation, but if I marry her I can probably claim that she's a "person" too, thus getting another $250 K.
Note: my description is based on my memory of the rules as of the mid-90's, though there hasn't been much change since. Over the last 35 years the rule on wives has changed, from considering husband and wife as one person, to allowing them to be 2 persons if both had separate operations before marriage.
The Legislative Cycle--Payment Limitation--II
My previous post covered the creation of the idea of changing payment limitation rules and estimating the changes. At some point, perhaps, some of my former co-workers were consulted about the idea, or at least informed.
At this point the change has been included in presentations to OMB, approved, included in the budget, and now presented to Congress and the country. Now there become multiple threads to the story, with action occuring in the House Ag and Senate Ag committees, as well as in USDA with the attorneys in the Office of General Counsel and bureaucrats in FSA.
1 The most important is the political maneuvering over whether to support Bush's plan. The strength of the opposition on payment limitation appears to be in the Senate, because of the key positions of the senators from the south (bipartisan--Blanche Lincoln is part owner of a big rice plantation)
2 The lower-level action is among lawyers and bureaucrats. They have to draft legislative language changing the existing provisions of law. Current law dates back to 1985, although payment limitations have been in effect since 1970. 7 U.S.C. 1308 and 7 U.S.C. 1308-1 contain the existing law. This may be the point at which people start really to think through the idea. (Though it may have started earlier when the economists had to come up with a savings number.)
At this point the idea may be just: $250K per person, and no 2-entity rule (7 U.S.C. 1308-1(a)(1)). (I'll try to explain 2-entity rule as I go.) So the first crack at drafting might say just that:
"The total amount of the following gains and payments that a person may receive during a crop year may not exceed $250,000."
Note the draft has introduced complications--the $250K is a cap on payments from different programs, so there needs to be a list of what's included. Because current law provides individual limitations at lower levels for some of the programs, Congress will also have to decide whether to keep those limits. The second complication is the mention of "crop year"--that's a term that has to be defined. Fortunately it already is, based on past history. "Crop year" can lay a trap for the unwary and statistically naive. Bureaucracies also deal with calendar years and fiscal years and data can be reported based on any of them. The third complication is the definition of the term "person"--to which many more bytes will be devoted.
At this point the change has been included in presentations to OMB, approved, included in the budget, and now presented to Congress and the country. Now there become multiple threads to the story, with action occuring in the House Ag and Senate Ag committees, as well as in USDA with the attorneys in the Office of General Counsel and bureaucrats in FSA.
1 The most important is the political maneuvering over whether to support Bush's plan. The strength of the opposition on payment limitation appears to be in the Senate, because of the key positions of the senators from the south (bipartisan--Blanche Lincoln is part owner of a big rice plantation)
2 The lower-level action is among lawyers and bureaucrats. They have to draft legislative language changing the existing provisions of law. Current law dates back to 1985, although payment limitations have been in effect since 1970. 7 U.S.C. 1308 and 7 U.S.C. 1308-1 contain the existing law. This may be the point at which people start really to think through the idea. (Though it may have started earlier when the economists had to come up with a savings number.)
At this point the idea may be just: $250K per person, and no 2-entity rule (7 U.S.C. 1308-1(a)(1)). (I'll try to explain 2-entity rule as I go.) So the first crack at drafting might say just that:
"The total amount of the following gains and payments that a person may receive during a crop year may not exceed $250,000."
Note the draft has introduced complications--the $250K is a cap on payments from different programs, so there needs to be a list of what's included. Because current law provides individual limitations at lower levels for some of the programs, Congress will also have to decide whether to keep those limits. The second complication is the mention of "crop year"--that's a term that has to be defined. Fortunately it already is, based on past history. "Crop year" can lay a trap for the unwary and statistically naive. Bureaucracies also deal with calendar years and fiscal years and data can be reported based on any of them. The third complication is the definition of the term "person"--to which many more bytes will be devoted.
Friday, March 11, 2005
The Legislative Cycle--Payment Limitation--I
President Bush has proposed, in his budget, to change the payment limitation rules applicable to farm programs. This is an area I used to know pretty well, so I thought I'd blog on the steps involved in getting the idea implemented.
My guess is that OMB and USDA officials got together to discuss possible ways to save money (i.e., OMB told USDA to cut X billion dollars over Y years and USDA scurried around to come up with ideas.) Once someone, probably at the assistant secretary level had come up with the idea of changing payment limitation rules, they probably talked to the FSA administrator who talked to his economists. They did their crystal ball work and came up with a savings estimate.
The savings estimate would be very soft. Conceptually this is like changing tax law--the changes change behavior. It's like figuring you'll save money by making your own coffee instead of buying Starbucks. After a year you may find you've drunk lots more coffee and had to see the doctor for jumpy nerves.
To see the official explanation of current payment limitation and eligibility rules, see the PDF document here
My guess is that OMB and USDA officials got together to discuss possible ways to save money (i.e., OMB told USDA to cut X billion dollars over Y years and USDA scurried around to come up with ideas.) Once someone, probably at the assistant secretary level had come up with the idea of changing payment limitation rules, they probably talked to the FSA administrator who talked to his economists. They did their crystal ball work and came up with a savings estimate.
The savings estimate would be very soft. Conceptually this is like changing tax law--the changes change behavior. It's like figuring you'll save money by making your own coffee instead of buying Starbucks. After a year you may find you've drunk lots more coffee and had to see the doctor for jumpy nerves.
To see the official explanation of current payment limitation and eligibility rules, see the PDF document here
Thursday, March 10, 2005
The New York Times > Health > When Torment Is Baby's Destiny, Euthanasia Is Defended
Humans are not the only tool making species, birds and primates make tools as well. We have brought the rule making instinct to a high peak of development. Today's Times describes physicians in the Netherlands who have developed guidelines for ending the lives of babies whose birth defects doom them to
My crack at wisdom would say something like--in these circumstances, you can't win. Some babies will be killed and be saved great pain. Some will be killed who might have survived through the pain and had a life. And sometimes the rule will be misapplied. It's not clear that having the rule will improve the results.
I don't know. Tomorrow I'll think something different.
"what is certain to be a brief life of grievous suffering....As a bureaucrat, I might be expected to welcome this. There's nothing like a well-designed rule to warm the cockles of one's heart (ed. --but bureaucrats don't have hearts). In this case I'm not sure. The assisted suicide law in Oregon seems to have worked okay, so is there anything wrong in principle with this effort? I'm reluctant to go along with it, but not sure whether it's the "yuck factor"--the desire to avoid contemplatin truly unpleasant circumstances--or wisdom.
The doctors, Eduard Verhagen and Pieter J. J. Sauer of the University Medical Center in Groningen, in an essay in today's New England Journal of Medicine, said they had developed guidelines, known as the Groningen protocol. The guidelines have been described in some news reports over the last several weeks, and the authors said they wrote their essay to address 'blood-chilling accounts and misunderstandings.'"
My crack at wisdom would say something like--in these circumstances, you can't win. Some babies will be killed and be saved great pain. Some will be killed who might have survived through the pain and had a life. And sometimes the rule will be misapplied. It's not clear that having the rule will improve the results.
I don't know. Tomorrow I'll think something different.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)