Belated House Action, H.R. 1590, Payment Limitation

Two months after S. 385 (see my analysis) was introduced to implement the Administration's proposals on changing payment limitations, two Representatives introduced the companion bill in the House:

"H. R. 1590

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

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

April 13, 2005

Mr. KIND (for himself and Mr. FLAKE) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Agriculture"

Why the delay? Perhaps because the Senate is likely to be the decisive arena for this issue. The Senators from the cotton/rice states can play a bigger role in the maneuvering than their counterparts in the House. (Thank the compromise in the Constitutional Convention between big states and small states.)

Historical Hanging Terraces

In looking again at S. 385, there's a hanging terrace there. (Hanging terrace is, if memory serves, a geologist's term for a terrace formed during the Ice Age along the shore of a lake, when the level of the lake lowered because more ice melted, it left it hanging there, a geologic marker of a past historical event). In this case, the terrace is the name of the Senate Committee--it's a remnant of two issues: the shuffling of the Forestry Service between USDA and Interior back in TR's day and the origin of FDA in USDA before it became independent then into HHS. Regardless of the bureaucratic reorganizations, the committee jealously retained jurisdiction. The same power politics goes on today, with the Department of Homeland Security and its committees, much to the disgust of the 9-11 commission.

"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"

Horse is to Carriage as Politician is to Bureaucrat

I like Tom Friedman, but I have to disagree with this portion of his column this week on the Bolton appointment (saying that Bolton might improve the UN bureaucracy, but wouldn't work well to create support for the US):

"In short, I don't much care how the U.N. works as a bureaucracy; I care about how often it can be enlisted to support, endorse and amplify U.S. power. That is what serves our national interest. "

What Tom misses is that a politician is nothing without a bureaucracy to lead, or rather, a politician without a bureaucracy to lead, or aspire to lead, is a demagogue. Consider Arafat, who never had an effective bureaucracy in the Palestinian Authority. In the long run, if the UN doesn't work, its moral authority vanishes, and the value of its support becomes nil. The UN doesn't have to be a world government, but it has to be effective at what it tries to do.

A bureaucracy, like a carriage, both empowers and constrains the politician. It permits the victorious politician to deliver on his promises, thus enforcing accountability. It keeps the politician from galloping cross country in pursuit of every will o'wisp, thereby promoting stability. So the politician needs the bureaucracy.

Likewise, the bureaucrat needs the politician. A problem with the UN is that it doesn't have enough politics and enough effective bureaucracy. Without campaigns and elections, the balance between the UN civil service and politicians is skewed, so the bureaucracy loses its power. To change metaphors, without the exercise of doing things, and of changing course at the direction of its political leaders, a bureaucracy becomes flabby and self-absorbed.

I've no affection for Bolton, but if his appointment would shoot down the black helicopter myths, I'd applaud it.

In Praise of Administrative Professionals

This week used to be Secretaries Week, which benefited the florists and restuarants of DC as each office unit took its secretary out to lunch and/or gave flowers. It's now been renamed Administrative Professionals Week. It's part of the inflation of titles and ranks that Paul Light highlights in government, though I suspect it's prevalent elsewhere. (How many vice presidents does a bank have, anyway?) Just a couple thoughts:

1 The impact of word processing, which meant that professional employees (in itself an example of title inflation--most such government employees are not professionals in the sense that 19th century doctors and lawyers aspired to) did their own typing and thereby reduced the number of clerk-typists and secretaries.

2 The importance of secretaries as an upward mobility route. While it's declined as more and more people go to college, it used to be a way for the smart and hard working to show their stuff and advance. (The 9-11 report observed that the FBI found many of its analysts in these fields, which unfortunately meant that analysts didn't have the prestige within the organization of the special agents.)

Bicycles and Slippery Slopes

What would we do without metaphors? Eugene Volokh has written a law article on "slippery slopes" and now Daniel Drezner mentions something that seems the mirror image: "bicycle theory". Here's Drezner's link

"The 'end of Europe' claim by Prodi is an extreme version of the 'bicycle theory' of international integration, which says that if there is any slowdown in integration, the process starts to wobble like a slow bicycle, eventually toppling under its own weight. This line was also used after the Maastricht accord was signed in the early nineties. I suspect that warnings like Prodi's will, if anything, further turn off people against what elites tell them about the European Union."

A Google search seems to link it to Fred Bergsten. The slippery slope is, in my telling, the idea that a small step forward will result in a long trip to an unwanted destination; the bicycle is the idea that an interruption to progress forward will result in a short trip to the ground.

Ideas, For What They're Worth--II

Continuing along the lines of feedback, I'd suggest highway radar/display signs that show the average speed of vehicles on the highway.

Rationale: in Lake Wobegon, everyone drives faster than the average. I think there's a perception bias. First, I'd assume that the distribution of vehicle speeds on a highway is a skewed normal distribution, that is, there are very few vehicles going at or below the speed limit, and significant numbers going well above the speed limit. The peak of the curve is somewhere above the limit.

Second, assume you merge onto the highway and drive at your normal speed, maybe 65 mph in a 55 mph zone. You're going to be passed by vehicles going 70, 80 and 90; you're going to pass vehicles going 55. I suspect the speeders are going to make the biggest impact on you. You may well believe that the average speed is 70. But that may not be true. A display setup would show the truth.

(This idea is a takeoff from some research that supposedly showed that college students believe binge drinking is more prevalent than it actually is, resulting in a greater tendency to drink. I say "supposedly" because I've also seen a challenge to the research and don't know for sure what the status is.)

Ideas, For What they're Worth-I

Like most people, I have these great ideas (I think so, at least) that never go anywhere. On the off chance that some Google will come across these pages, I'm going to write them up and post them.

My first one--the local HOV (high occupancy vehicle) lanes on Interstate 95 tend to attract criticism from people who are stuck in stop-and-go traffic in the regular lanes and look over to see cars whizzing by in the HOV. They protest--the lanes aren't being fully used, so why not open them to everyone?

Using the principle that feedback is often good, I'd suggest a traffic counter/display sign over each set of lanes. The count would be a running tally of the cars passing the point during the last hour, multiplied by an occupancy factor. For HOV-3, multiply each car times 3; for the regular lanes, multiply times 1. This means the signs would compare the effectiveness of the lanes in carrying people. Thus the signs would show whether or not the HOV lanes are working as they're supposed to.

Power Line

John Hinderacker at Power Line attacks a Democratic rally against privatizing Social Security on Capitol Hill. I quarrel with this:

"This really is demagoguery at its worst. Federal employees already have a private contribution plan."

The Federal system is essentially a 401K on top of Social Security, which is how it was sold to us back in the 1980's. The existence or non-existence of 401K's doesn't support the "carve-out" approach to private accounts.

x

Why a Compromise on Judicial Nominees Makes Cents

If the controversy over appellate court nominees is largely fueled by special cause lobbyists, then a compromise makes sense. From the point of the view of the interest groups, successful use of the nuclear option would remove controversies in the future. You'd only be able to lobby the Senate to get a majority, much harder than the current situation. That means you'd have less occasion to send junk mail to your supporters, rousing their fervor. The only downside to the compromise is the story of the boy who cried "wolf"; it would tend to undermine credibility. But damage to credibility can be repaired over time, so rationally, both sides should agree on a compromise in order to preserve the issue for future fund raising drives.

Reasons I'm a Liberal (Revised)

I'll add as I think of them. Here's a pretty good summary, albeit a bit bloodless.

1 I'm more concerned about incorporating the Golden Rule in our institutions than about erecting stone tablets of the Ten Commandments.

2 Like Julian Simon, I believe people are the greatest natural resource, so if we have to throw money at problems, let's aim towards the schools, not the military.

3 Like Madison, I believe diversity is essential to a republic's survival. The more people of diverse opinions and interests the better.

4 I believe in the power of people, working together, to accomplish good, whether the organization is a charity, a religion, a corporation, or a government. As Benjamin Franklin said: "we must all hang together or we will each hang separately", an organization accomplishes more than individuals.

5 I don't think it's soft-headed to understand a person before judging them.

6 I don't think it's soft-hearted to strive for everyone to be well, and well-fed, well-housed, well-educated, and at peace.