Sol Linowitz

I prefer the Post obit of Sol Linowitz to the NYTimes. I never knew the man, but his death triggers these thoughts:

1 Egotistically, in 1964, with its endowment bulging from Kodak and Xerox stock, the University of Rochester was aspiring to become great. Unfortunately, their greatest grad student (me) busted out, an omen of what was to happen with Kodak and Xerox.

2. Clark Clifford in his memoir talked about one paper, absolutely vital in post war policy making, (may have been the Truman Doctrine speech) being walked around because there was only one copy. The Xerox machine and then client-server e-mail, like the IBM Profs that Ollie North ran afoul of, had a great impact on the operation of bureaucracy, both good and bad. (In Taubman's biography of Khrushchev, he observes that the USSR was run by a literal handful of man. I'd add, if he did not, run with carbon paper and no Xerox machines. The Xerox also must change the role of archivists and then historians (not that I'd know)--in the old days you could rely on an official record carbon copy, after Xerox such reliance is dubious.

3. What, if anything, should be the penalty for being wrong on great historical issues? I think it's clear that Carter and Linowitz were right on the Canal, Reagan and the right wing were wrong. (During the Clinton administration the wing nuts were still raising the spector of Hutchison Whampoa operating the Canal. Of course, then they were accusing Clinton of treason for allowing computer exports to China; I haven't seen anything in the Washington Times criticizing the approval of sales of IBM PC operation to China.) The problem is that inevitably one ignores the beam in one's own eye in glee over the mistakes of others.

4. The anecdote about Elihu Root shows the openness of the power elite. Root was a player in TR's time, his protege was Henry Stimson who was a player into FDR's cabinet, his legacy passed on to the Bundy's, McGeorge and William in the Best and Brightest.

Cuts in Farm Programs--Budget Resolution

Here is the order to the Senate Agriculture committee to cut spending (from the Budget reconciliation Joint Resolution). Note it's not specific how and Sen. Chambliss has been quoted as saying he'll spread the cuts across programs. That might tie back to something that Kevin Drum in Washington Monthly cited a while back--since food stamps are under the committee, they might be cut.

: "(1) COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, NUTRITION, AND FORESTRY- The Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry shall report changes in laws within its jurisdiction sufficient to reduce outlays by $171,000,000 in fiscal year 2006, and $2,814,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 2006 through 2010."

Should Government Do Propaganda/Education? (revised)

When David Bernstein, libertarian, on the Volokh Conspiracy and Richard Cohen, liberal, on the Washington Post agree, thoughtful people have to pay attention:

Bernstein opines :

"equally troubling in a somewhat different way are p.r. campaigns by government agencies that seek to build support for those agencies' 'missions.' Subsidizing, say, a pro-drug war point of view through a government p.r. campaign (hardly a partisan issue, as the overwhelming majority of both Republican and Democratic politicians favor it) is the economic equivalent of taxing the anti-drug war point of view. Americans wouldn't tolerate the latter, and we shouldn't tolerate the government using our tax money to encourage us to give it even more of our money (and freedom), meanwhile drowning out other voices with a tidal wave of statist shilling. I'm not even fond of the idea of the government using its money to, say, discourage drug use, as this is still an untoward interference in the marketplace of ideas, subject to all sorts of abuse (such as the 'food pyramid' dictated for years by agricultural interest groups). But it strikes me that that sort of government noodging is a less dangerous animal than the government using money allocated to implement programs to propagandize in favor of those programs."

Cohen says:

"Take, for instance, the government's smarmy practice of preparing video news releases and packaging them as actual television news. The New York Times recently detailed how government agencies prepare admiring reports on what they are doing and then send them off to local TV stations, which use them, sometimes pretending the reports are their own. Only a fool would expect the TV industry -- especially local TV news -- to grow up and embrace professional standards, but the government is a different story. It's ours. We fund it. It should not be using our money to propagandize us. "

My comments:

• If the purpose of government is to solve problems (per Pres. Bush), sometimes the solution is government education. USDA was formed to help farmers farm better, a mission which evolved into the Cooperative Extension Service. During the Dust Bowl days, the old Soil Conservation Service (now Natural Resources Conservation Service) was created to educate farmers in conservation. Closer to home, VDOT (Virginia Department of Transportation) is running ads urging sanity in driving.
  
• Many programs can be implemented only if the public is educated--for example if Bush's personal accounts ever get enacted, there will be a vast education effort.
  
• Can one draw the line between "propaganda" which is wrong and "education", between building support for the mission and fulfilling the mission? Bernstein's comments on anti-drug ads and the nutrition pyramid show it's more difficult than one might imagine. One man's propaganda is another's education.
  
• Advertising like the US Army's "Be all that you can be" has the effect of promoting the Army, while disregarding the feelings of the pacifists among us (not that many people care about the Amish and the Quakers). Not to mention that it grates on the nerves of at least one former draftee.
  
• We, the American people, don't know what we want. When Rep. Waxman asked GAO to look at the conflicting laws, it said that the Office of National Drug Control Policy didn't violate the law by preparing video news releases, it violated the law because the identification of the source was only on the case, not within the body of the release. OMB and the Justice Department seem to say ONDCP was okay.
  

Lost in much of the controversy is the press release. Press releases, both corporate and government, have always been written so a lazy reporter/editor could set the content in type and go. (I've a vague memory of some memoir or novel about the Army where the protagonist spent his time filling out blank releases saying "Pvt. Joe Blow, of Podunk, successfully completed basic training at the U.S.Army's Fort Dix. He is now a trained killer...." Anyone remember it?) There's little difference between a printed release and a video release. GAO says a statement at the end of the release is sufficient to make it legal, but that's very easily edited out.

I agree with GAO that the identification should be in the video, but this is a tempest in a teapod. The real fault lies with the news media. The government may have entrapped them into bad journalism, but I've no pity.

Geospatial (GIS)

GIS is important, but gets no ink. It's one place where our federalist governmental structure and generally weak government do us no favors. Many governments at all levels, as well as many private enterprises, are doing GIS. The result is much duplication of effort, anathema to a lazy bureaucrat, and waste of taxpayer money, anathema to a skinflint conservative. It wouldn't be so bad if GIS were a once and done effort. The worst part of the problem is that geographical data change. Whether its changes in administrative boundaries, changes in land (rivers change courses, earthquakes change elevations and locations), changes in ownership, even changes in biology. If each change has got to be updated to multiple GIS's, some won't get changed, so their data won't be as accurate as it's supposed to be, and others will get changed inconsistently.

Stay tuned for more harangues.

See this GAO report on the problems in the Bush administrations. See here for the government portal.

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:

"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.

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.

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).

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

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.

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 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.