Relationship of farm programs and foodstamps--Updated

Update: Senator Chambliss ensured that the Budget Resolution contained language permitting the Senate Ag Committee to cut across the board, food stamps and/or farm programs.--4/2/05

From 2/7/05:
NewDonkey.com discusses the possibility that the proposed change in payment limitation will result in a lowering of food stamp money.

"Sunday, February 06, 2005

Farm Subsidies and Food Stamps

The Bush budget will apparently include a 'cap' on the maximum values of farm subsidies that any one producer can harvest, an idea that will (rightly) get some progressive support. But the proposal will run directly into already-announced opposition in Congress, especially from Senate Appropriations Chairman Thad Cochran of MS, who is mobilizing the powerful farm lobby to defeat it.

And that's where food stamps come in: Congress organizes its budget and appropriations work by federal department, and by a department-oriented system of budget 'functions' that track the jurisdiction of congressional appropriations subcommittees. If the White House and the GOP congressional leadership can succeed in setting lower targets for USDA spending, then farm subsidies will be placed into a direct competition with food stamps for funding."

Comments:

The setup is the result of the need to get urban votes for farm programs, and vice versa. In a logical world, foodstamps wouldn't be in USDA any longer (they first started in the late 30's to get rid of surpluses, were killed during the war, then George McGovern (I'm pretty sure) pushed them in the late 50 and they got adopted more or less as a pilot project under Kennedy. They kept being expanded over the years as the farm bloc grew less powerful and needed urban votes more and more in order to pass farm programs. (The biggest deal was to make food stamps = money, instead of limiting them to surplus commodities.)

I think it's true that payment limitations, at least in their current form, were the result of Senator Schumer, then Congressman Schumer's work when he was on the House Ag committee. Again, the cotton and rice people in particular didn't like it, but it was his price for supporting the 1985 farm bill. (Whether or not he knew that cotton and rice interests had inserted a couple provisions that would water down the payment limitation provisions, like the entity rule, I don't know. )

Because I like to think well of people, I'd guess Bush and Bolten wouldn't mind a cut of food stamps but are simply operating within a historical structure.

Berger Files and UN Files, What's Interesting?

The New York Times has an article on Sandy Berger's guilty plea to destroying files from the National Archives. According to them:

On Sept. 2, 2003, in a daylong review of documents, Mr. Berger took a copy of a lengthy White House 'after-action' report that he had commissioned to assess the government's performance in responding to the so-called millennium terrorist threat before New Year's 2000, and he placed the document in his pocket, the associate said. A month later, in another Archives session, he removed four copies of other versions of the report, the associate said.

Mr. Berger's intent, the associate said, was to compare the different versions of the 2000 report side by side and trace changes.

'He was just too tired and wasn't able to focus enough, and he felt like he needed to look at the documents in his home or his office to line them up,' the associate said. 'He now admits that was a real mistake.'

Mr. Berger admits to compounding the mistake after removing the second set of documents on Oct. 2, 2003, the associate said. In comparing the versions at his office later that day, he realized that several were essentially the same, and he cut three copies into small pieces, the associate said. "

The Post has a similar article. Comparing this to the destruction of files at the UN (see here) two things stand out. In Berger's case, Archives was keeping multiple copies of the same document, presumably because each had annotations by a different official. "Trace changes" indicates to me that Richard Clarke was clearing his report in parallel, taking advantage of modern technology to provide each official his/her own copy, then making appropriate changes in the final report.

If that's true, there's a contrast with the UN case as I discussed the other day (note: of this I'm not sure, have not been able to successfully download the report) use technology to make multiple copies. But what's good for expediting bureaucratic action is bad for the Archives and for historians. Berger was apparently trying to act as a historian, reconstructing what happened when. In the UN case, using carbons, all versions of a document were in one place and one could easily track the changes. Thus if Berger's story, as told by associate, is true, he wouldn't have had to steal documents.

A final point. I would trust Richard Clarke to squawk if there had been anything explosive in the annotations--he's certainly not publicity shy, so his silence means to me that this is a mistake and a misdemeanor, but not a coverup.

My bottom line: Berger's offense is due to bigshotitis, the idea that rules don't apply to me. See Richard Nixon and Elliot Abrams, who lied to Congress and is now back in the NSC. Personally, I'd throw all bigshots in jail for 6 months, Martha Stewart can testify to it's being educational.

Droppers, Walkers, and Pickers

For my many sins as a bureaucrat, I fully expect to be reincarnated as a lower form of life, perhaps an economist. Here's some meditations along the lines of the "broken window" thesis of James Q. Wilson:

My wife and I have lived in Reston, in the townhouse I bought in 1976. It's walking distance to the grocery store and I walked occasionally during my working years, more often now I'm retired. The neighborhood has had its problems over the years, as two of the section 8 subsidized housing projects in Reston were a ways down the street. ("Were" not because they've been destroyed, but Fairfax county has converted them somehow.)

Anyhow, with regard to trash on the ground, there are three categories of people:

1. Droppers, including people in cars, who drop trash
2. Walkers, including people in cars, who just pass by.
3. Pickers, excluding people in cars, who pick up trash.

The sources of trash tend to be fast food places and the grocery, particularly drink containers. There's got to be some math that would describe the possible balances among the people. If 1 percent of everyone who passes drops something, and 2 percent are pickers, the walkways will stay reasonably neat. But we have to account for feedback, if it's 2 percent droppers and 1 percent pickers, then some pickers may get discouraged and give up. There's feedback also for the droppers, the neater the place, presumably the less likely you are to drop something. That's perhaps because you feel a social norm in place, because there's the possibility of oppobrium being expressed, or because the first piece of litter does the most harm. (If you're a rebellious youth, trying to do damage, you get the most utility by writing graffiti on the Washington monument.)

We're Rich, Say George Will and Rep. Linder

Let me take a cheap shot at George Will's column today, boosting Rep. Linder (R-GA) flat tax plan.

"Linder says Americans spend 7 billion hours a year filling out IRS forms and at least that much calculating the tax implications of business decisions.... Linder says the director of the Congressional Budget Office told him it costs individuals and businesses about $500 billion to remit $2 trillion to Washington. "

Simple math says 7 billion hours into $500 billion is $70+ dollars an hour. If the average taxpayer works roughly 2000 hours a year, that's $140K yearly, which is rich by my standards. This is a cheap shot because such estimates are wild-ass guesses, initially, which get solidified into gospel as they move further away from their bureaucratic source. It would behoove Congresspeople and columnpeople occasionally to check whether their statistics match up with common sense.

On the more serious point, Will tries to appeal to the goo-goo in all of us by claiming the flat tax would do away with K street lobbyists. I doubt it, the money power always finds ways to tweak the system for its interests, whether it's in earmarking spending or the fine print of legislation. But there is a big issue for liberals: would we trade our (supposedly) "progressive" tax system for a flat tax if in return we got the safety net of the old Europe countries (universal health care, paid family leave, etc.)? At least today I think I would.

Shredding Documents at the UN, Does It Matter?

The answer: "it all depends".

Mr. Volcker, in the Lehrer interview last night referred to a "chron" file that was destroyed. I've no knowledge of the filing system they used at the UN, and have not read the report. But some filing basics, as done in my old agency in 1975 (figure the UN is 30 years behind times). Anything prepared for official signature in the office, whether in response to incoming correspondence or initiated within the office, had an original and multiple carbon copies prepared. (We moved to Xerox copies later.)

1 Writer drafted the document and his (remember, it's 1975) secretary typed it with the copies. Any incoming documents, attachments, etc. were stapled to the official yellow copy.
2 Writer reviewed, then initialed the official yellow copy.
3 Package went through clearance channels, with the officials initialing the yellow copy. If they didn't like it, it was sent back for rewrite and retyping. The original yellow carbon would be stapled behind the yellow carbon of the revised document.
4 The approving official signed the original. His secretary stamped his signature on all the copies and distributed them:

• original to addressee
• information copies to offices who needed to know that action had been taken and to the writer
  
• official yellow, green, and blue copies to official records. There, they would be filed as follows:
• official yellow (and attachments, etc.) in a file by subject (note that it should show all the changes made, the whole history of the document)
  
• blue in a file by addressee
• green in a file by date.

The addressee and date files (chronology) were finding aids. If you were trying to find something, you could search those files, retrieve the copy and find the subject category where you'd find the yellow copy. After a period of time, we'd destroy the addressee and date files, and move the official yellows off to the National Archives.

(The whole thing is comparable to today's PC's--the subject file equates to the system of folders and subfolders used in Windows. The date file equates to the history boxes that show the stuff you most recently worked on or URL's you accessed. )

So if Annan's chief of staff approved the destruction of blue/green files and the file systems were like my agency's, there should be no information lost, just ease of searching. ) Of course, the timing smells and the file system may have been something completely different. We'll see.

Three things are interesting:
1 The willingness of people to comment without knowing the system used
2 The fact there's no discussion of e-mail. I mean, I know the UN is not well run, but even Reagan and Ollie North got tripped up in 1987 over the IBM Profs internal e-mail system.
3 The problem historians will have in the future as filing systems dissolve under the impact of technology.

Sexy Work??

Ann Gerhart has an article : in the Post on the changing of the old Civil Service personnel system.

"Hundreds of thousands of federal workers made a deal when they signed up with Uncle Sam. Whether they were janitors pushing a broom or naval designers floating tiny model destroyers or econometricians micro-simulating Social Security scenarios, the deal was the same:

They would do good work, even rewarding, satisfying work. It wouldn't be sexy work, and it wouldn't make them rich. But what they would get was stability, the federal holidays, transit subsidies, Cadillac health care, the flextime allowing every other Friday off. The hours would be regular. The raises would come -- click, click, click up the general service scale. "

So what is "sexy work"? Working as an Enron energy trader exulting over screwing California grandmas? Working in legal/accounting firms to come up with tax evasion schemes to sell? Wheeling and dealing on Wall Street, taking large bonuses for doing mergers that don't work out (like DEC and Compaq), exercising stock options for mismanaging a company, working for the largest McMansion and biggest Hummer, the second house on the shore and the third apartment off the campus of your children's college?

Or is it researching public health crises for CDC, flying into space for NASA, designing ARPANET for DOD, fighting forest fires for the Forest Service, getting social security checks to the old?

There used to be the idea of "service", as in service to the community. And service is sexy, as when the bull services the cow.

The Legislative Cycle--S.385 Analysis

Here is the text of S. 385, from Thomas: My comments in bold.

109th CONGRESS 1st Session

S. 385

To amend the Food Security Act of 1985 to restore integrity to and strengthen payment limitation rules for commodity payments and benefits.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

February 15, 2005

Mr. GRASSLEY (for himself, Mr. DORGAN, Mr. HAGEL, and Mr. JOHNSON) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry

---

A BILL

To amend the Food Security Act of 1985 to restore integrity to and strengthen payment limitation rules for commodity payments and benefits. [You wish--I'm dubious.]

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Rural America Preservation Act'. [Almost always a name, often skewed to form a good acronym, as in the "Patriot Act".]

SEC. 2. PAYMENT LIMITATIONS.

Section 1001 of the Food Security of 1985 (7 U.S.C. 1308) is amended--[the permanent authority for limitations]

(1) in subsection (b)(1), by striking `$40,000' and inserting `$20,000';

(2) in subsection (c)(1), by striking `$65,000' and inserting `$30,000';

(3) in subsection (d), by striking `(d)' and all that follows through the end of paragraph (1) and inserting the following:

`(d) Limitations on Marketing Loan Gains, Loan Deficiency Payments, and Commodity Certificate Transactions-[big thing here is including certificates]

`(1) LOAN COMMODITIES- The total amount of the following gains and payments that a person may receive during any crop year may not exceed $75,000:

`(A)(i) Any gain realized by a producer from repaying a marketing assistance loan for 1 or more loan commodities under subtitle B of title I of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (7 U.S.C. 7931 et seq.) at a lower level than the original loan rate established for the loan commodity under that subtitle.

`(ii) In the case of settlement of a marketing assistance loan for 1 or more loan commodities under that subtitle by forfeiture, the amount by which the loan amount exceeds the repayment amount for the loan if the loan had been settled by repayment instead of forfeiture.

`(B) Any loan deficiency payments received for 1 or more loan commodities under that subtitle.

`(C) Any gain realized from the use of a commodity certificate issued by the Commodity Credit Corporation for 1 or more loan commodities, as determined by the Secretary, including the use of a certificate for the settlement of a marketing assistance loan made under that subtitle, with the gain reported annually to the Internal Revenue Service and to the taxpayer in the same manner as gains under subparagraphs (A) and (B).'; [ouch, presumably it wasn't reported to IRS before. I wonder how many paid taxes on it.]

(4) by adding at the end the following:

`(h) Single Farming Operation-

`(1) IN GENERAL- Notwithstanding subsections (b) through (d), subject to paragraph (2), if a person participates only in a single farming operation and receives, directly or indirectly, any payment or gain covered by this section through the farming operation, the total amount of payments or gains (as applicable) covered by this section that the person may receive during any crop year may be up to but not exceed twice the applicable dollar amounts specified in subsections (b), (c), and (d). [This removes the two entity rule. I read this as doubling the separate limitations for each category of programs/benefits. ]

`(2) INDIVIDUALS- The total amount of payments or gains (as applicable) covered by this section that an individual person may receive during any crop year may not exceed $250,000. [ "covered by this section" means that farmers can still get more money under disaster programs.

`(i) Spouse Equity- Notwithstanding subsections (b) through (d), except as provided in subsection (e)(2)(C)(i), if an individual and spouse are covered by subsection (e)(2)(C) and receive, directly or indirectly, any payment or gain covered by this section, the total amount of payments or gains (as applicable) covered by this section that the individual and spouse may jointly receive during any crop year may not exceed twice the applicable dollar amounts specified in subsections (b), (c), and (d). [I'd read this as limiting husband and wife to $250K.]

`(j) Regulations-

`(1) IN GENERAL- Not later than 270 days after the date of enactment of this subsection, the Secretary shall promulgate regulations-- [270 days--if the law is passed by July 1, then the final regs should be out by March 1, 2006 covering the 2006 crop year.]

`(A) to ensure that total payments and gains described in this section made to or through joint operations or multiple entities under the primary control of a person, in combination with the payments and gains received directly by the person, shall not exceed twice the applicable dollar amounts specified in subsections (b), (c), and (d); [Okay, what does "primary control" mean--see below]

`(B) in the case of a person that in the aggregate owns, conducts farming operations, or provides custom farming services on land with respect to which the aggregate payments exceed the applicable dollar amounts specified in subsections (b), (c), and (d), to attribute all payments and gains made on crops produced on the land to--

`(i) a person that rents land as lessee or lessor through a crop share lease and receives a share of the payments that is less than the usual and customary share of the crop received by the lessee or lessor, as determined by the Secretary;

`(ii) a person that provides custom farming services through arrangements under which--

`(I) all or part of the compensation for the services is at risk;

`(II) farm management services are provided by--

`(aa) the same person;

`(bb) an immediate family member; or

`(cc) an entity or individual that has a business relationship that is not an arm's length relationship, as determined by the Secretary; or

`(III) more than 2/3 of the farming operations are conducted as custom farming services provided by--

`(aa) the same person;

`(bb) an immediate family member; or

`(cc) an entity or individual that has a business relationship that is not an arm's length relationship, as determined by the Secretary; or

`(iii) a person under such other arrangements as the Secretary determines are established to transfer payments from persons that would otherwise exceed the applicable dollar amounts specified in subsections (b), (c), and (d); and

`(C) to ensure that payments attributed under this section to a person other than the direct recipient shall also count toward the limit of the direct recipient. [This is the messy part--will need further discussion. Basically it's trying to say, write your regs so the schemes used in the past won't work.]

`(2) PRIMARY CONTROL- The regulations under paragraph (1) shall define `primary control' to include a joint operation or multiple entity in which a person owns an interest that is equal to or greater than the interest of any other 1 or more persons that materially participate on a regular, substantial, and continuous basis in the management of the operation or entity.'. [Problem area--more discussion.]

SEC. 3. SCHEMES OR DEVICES.

Section 1001B of the Food Security Act of 1985 (7 U.S.C. 1308-2) is amended--

(1) by inserting `(a) In general- ' before `If'; and

(2) by adding at the end the following:

`(b) Fraud- If fraud is committed by a person in connection with a scheme or device to evade, or that has the purpose of evading, section 1001, 1001A, or 1001C, the person shall be ineligible to receive farm program payments (as described in subsections (b), (c), and (d) of section 1001 as being subject to limitation) applicable to the crop year for which the scheme or device is adopted and the succeeding 5 crop years.'. [Bumps up the penalty from 2 to 5 years.]

SEC. 4. REGULATIONS.

(a) In General- The Secretary of Agriculture may promulgate such regulations as are necessary to implement this Act and the amendments made by this Act.

(b) Procedure- The promulgation of the regulations and administration of this Act and the amendments made by this Act shall be made without regard to--

(1) the notice and comment provisions of section 553 of title 5, United States Code;

(2) the Statement of Policy of the Secretary of Agriculture effective July 24, 1971 (36 Fed. Reg. 13804), relating to notices of proposed rulemaking and public participation in rulemaking; and

(3) chapter 35 of title 44, United States Code (commonly known as the `Paperwork Reduction Act').
[An instance where Congress has set requirements on the one hand but here, in the fine print where no one except those interested will notice, lifts the requirements.

(c) Congressional Review of Agency Rulemaking- In carrying out this section, the Secretary shall use the authority provided under section 808 of title 5, United States Code.

Tyler Cowen's Ethnic Food Guide (revised)

A guide to almost all the restaurants in the DC area. (Where does he get the time and money?)
--Revision------
Hmm--is ethnic food the reason we're so fat? There is a correlation between the variety of food in stores, and the variety of menus in restaurants, and the growth of the American waistline. In the past we may have gotten habituated to our diet (my mother, rest her soul, had a limited set of entrees which weren't very good) and become satiated quickly. But with the variety available to us, we don't become satiated. Another instance of the paradox of too much choice .

How Do We Bind Outselves for the Future?

The Schiavo cases turns up interesting points:

Robert P. George on Terri Schiavo on National Review: "it is a mistake to assume that people can make decisions in advance about whether to have themselves starved to death if they eventually find themselves disabled. That's why living wills have proven to be so often unreliable. One does not know how one will actually feel, or how one will feel about one's life and the prospect of death, or whether one will retain a desire to live despite a mental or physical disability, when one is not actually in that condition and when one is envisaging it from the perspective of more or less robust health."

Kausfiles cited this. Prof. George has a point, but it's true of many attempts to bind ourselves in the future. When Odysseus roped himself to the mast, he was making a commitment for the future. When Barry Bonds (presumably) took steroids, he was making a commitment, just like the bargain Faust made with the devil. Perhaps one of the marks of civilization, which may have evolved through religion, is our ability to conceive the future and to make commitments (the religious call them "covenants", the lawyers call them "contracts", the accountants talk of "current value"). In the discussion of Social Security on C-Span this morning, we're projecting the future not just 75 years, but forever. Did the Greeks or Shakespeare talk this way; the gods, honor, children, reputation were their visions of the future.


Certainly many minds change--GI's want out when they face going to Iraq, people want out of marriages, etc. etc. Prof. George is constucting a straw man, unlike a contract a living will can certainly be adjusted and updated along the way with no penalty.

What's the Argument for Death

Interesting point in the Slate Fray on Schiavo by Thrasymachus:

Slate Magazine: "Ah, but why wouldn't I want to be kept alive in that condition? Isn't that the fundamental question that divides the two camps on this issue? Put a certain way, Johnson's argument is the very soul of reason: If I ever end up in a persistent vegetative state, then either I'll end up unconscious and won't care a bit, or I'll have some rudimentary awareness and won't remember anything but being in a persistent vegetative state, and will therefore have no desire to die. So why not just keep me alive? What's the argument for death?

Part of the 'argument for death,' I suppose, is dignity. I don't want to end up lying slack in some bed, making random twitching expressions and having my friends and relations consider it a 'red-letter-day' when my glassy eyes appear (perhaps) to reflexively track a balloon. But again- why should my concern for my dignity now have any bearing on how I'm treated then, when I wouldn't care about it a bit? Isn't that just vanity?"

Other than vanity, which might also be called the "yuck" factor, there are better motives for accepting death in such instances: ending the ordeal for relatives and friends, allowing them to get on with life; ending the burden and expense for caregivers and the community; and finally, making a "good" ending.