Farm Program Payment Limitations--Failure

I haven't paid attention to the farm program payment limitation issue in recent months. Senator Grassley's effort to save money by tighter limitations on farm program payments has failed:

"Grassley said he had difficulty getting a budget savings score from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) from his language to further reduce and modify farm program payment caps because CBO had difficulty tracing gains from generic certificates, as well as separate entities. 'There is no real system in place to track these payments,' Grassley said, adding that he had 'a problem with that' because 'there is no system to show where taxpayer dollars go' even though 'that was mandated in the 2002 Farm Bill.' Grassley said that legislation requires USDA to develop a system of tracking farm subsidy payments to people who benefit from them so there is no excuse. 'I am sending a letter to USDA asking Secretary Johanns to enforce Section 1614 of the farm bill so we know exactly who is benefiting from farm program payments,' Grassley said.

Asked why his latest effort on pay caps was defeated, Grassley acknowledged that farmers are currently getting large Loan Deficiency Payments (LDPs). A Minnesota banker has calculated that it only takes around 800 acres of corn to reach the $75,000 LDP cap this year (but generic certificates would allow producers an effective end around the actual LDP pay cap, but Grassley's proposed language would have repealed the use of generic certificates)."

The implication of the last paragraph is that, because more politicians have more of their constituents who might be hit by tighter rules, rather than just the usual cotton and rice people, it's a tougher fight.

The Same Mom, On the Job or Off

Washington Post has an interesting article from a wife and mother who took a 3 month paid sabbatical and summarizes the experience thus:

The Same Mom, On the Job or Off: "I could no longer bemoan the perfect mothering, and the calm and organized household, that my kids would certainly have if only I were home with them. Because as I discovered, when I was home, I was more or less the mother that I am -- not much better, not much worse. And our household was, more or less, the household it's always been."

I'm struck by it because it fits with my retirement experience. A change of circumstance doesn't necessarily change one's life. You're the same person, your reactions and faults and virtues don't change much, and work expands to fit the time available. (That's Parkinson's Law, which the writer is much too young to recognize.)

Conservatives Dissolving the Social Compact?

Two prominent (conservatives, or maybe more accurately loudmouths) decided this week to read people out of the American community. First, Pat Robertson:

Heeere's Pat!: "On Thursday Mr. Robertson said on his daily television show, 'The 700 Club,' that because all eight Dover school board members up for reelection on Tuesday were voted out of office after trying to impose 'intelligent design' on high school students as an alternative to the theory of evolution, God is not going to show up if there's a disaster in Dover. They'd voted God out of the city, Mr. Robertson said."

Then Bill O'Reilly:

Bill O'Reilly takes aim at San Francisco - Radio - MSNBC.com: "'Listen, citizens of San Francisco, if you vote against military recruiting, you're not going to get another nickel in federal funds. Fine. You want to be your own country? Go right ahead,' O'Reilly said, according to a transcript and audio posted by liberal media watchdog group Media Matters for America, and by the San Francisco Chronicle."

"'And if al-Qaida comes in here and blows you up, we're not going to do anything about it. We're going to say, look, every other place in America is off limits to you, except San Francisco. You want to blow up the Coit Tower? Go ahead,' O'Reilly continued, referring to the 1933 San Francisco landmark that sits atop Telegraph Hill."

The urge to put those with whom you disagree outside the pale is common. It's how we get wars and oppression. I think in America it's more usual for the right to put their opponents outside of American society, the left tends to put their opponents as outside humanity (i.e., heartless plutocrats).
(See here for a dissection of the

Althouse and France--Diversity and Political System

Ann Althouse poses this question in referring to a NYTimes article: "Should France's policy of not taking account of race, ethnicity, and religion, in light of the recent rioting, make us look more favorably on our own attention to such things?"

I had a different question when I read the article--why the difference in the two democracies? The pattern in the US seems to be that political conflict tends to cause people to build coalitions of interest, trying to attract the last few votes to put them over the top. Perhaps that's at least a major reason why the US and France differ: they are a multiparty parliamentary system while the US is a two party system. In a multiparty system I guess maybe you appeal first to your base, and then negotiate with the leaders of the other parties to attain power.

I Accept Bribes/ Barbara Ehrenreich's Bait and Switch

Am I being bribed? I mentioned Barbara Ehrenreich's new book, "Bait and Switch" in an earlier blog and a representative of her publisher sent me a free copy.

Is it a bribe? I think there's enough moral fiber inherited from my Presbyterian minister forebears that I'd reject money, but free books are another thing entirely. I guess the logic is: read it, blog it, all publicity is good. If that's so, I'm corrupt, because I have read it and am now commenting on it. If you don't want to compromise your own integrity, browse another site.

Economists, particularly conservatives, talk of "creative destruction" as characteristic of the free market system. Capitalism allocates money and labor to where they can be best used, which means cutting off inefficient units and encouraging efficient ones. When Ehrenreich and I were young, Ma Bell was the biggest company and Bethlehem Steel, New York Central, Westinghouse, and Univac were all big names in the economy. Telephone operators and secretaries were big occupations and blue collar manufacturing was unionized and paid well, while retailing was dominated by local stores and regional chains. Today those companies are gone; those occupations are gone or diminished. Instead we've Microsoft and Intel, Fed Ex, McDonalds, and Walmart and everyone is her or his own secretary and phone operator.

In evaluating such changes:

• Conservatives focus on the "creative" side, all the wonderful advances in living standards over the years and the elevation of people from poverty in the East Asian countries. They tend to use absolute standards, saying that anyone with a large screen TV and indoor plumbing can't be "poor". They look at all the Microsoft millionaires and say life is grand.
  
• Liberals tend to focus on the "destructive" side, all the psychic harm suffered by those not empowered by capitalism. They tend to relative standards, saying that anyone whose life is insecure is poor. They look at all the people who lost their jobs at Enron and ATT, who lost their guaranteed pensions, and who have no health insurance and say something must be done.
  

Ehrenreich is definitely liberal, as a matter of fact she's a member of Democratic Socialists of America, not that there's anything wrong with that. However she never admits her age (according to Wikipedia a tad younger than I--i.e., 64) in the book. (Why she would want to move from Charlottesville, a town rated the most livable in the country, she never says.)

Ehrenreich is an interesting writer and this is an interesting, though frustrating, book. She says her purpose was to look at the world of the middle-class, white collar America, having documented the struggles of the low wage employees (cleaners, Walmart sales, etc.) in her previous best seller, "Nickel and Dimed". Her strategy was to make up a fake resume as a PR freelancer and proceed through the world of job searchers documenting the weird flora and fauna she found there.

In short, she fails in her quest, but the journey is interesting. She gets some opportunities in sales, but fails to get the $50K job with health benefits she desired. She encounters both the jobless and those seeking to change jobs or occupations, but the more entertaining are the entrepreneurs (French for "shark") who navigate these waters. People losing jobs and seeking jobs create their own market, a market for tests and advice, counseling and contacts, support groups and mailing lists, all sorts of supposed solutions. The whole thing reminds me of the anthropologist who wrote on the function of "magic" in "primitive" societies. Another parallel is a book called "The Witch Doctors"which discussed the gurus who try to sell solutions to management (management is as gullible as some of the people Ehrenreich runs into). It seems any time people run into a risky situation with no clear solution, magic comes to the fore, whether it is the hapless white collar job seeker, or the corporate boss. (Ehrenreich recognizes that, if she were searching for real, rather than as a subject for a book, she would feel much more desperate and, perhaps, therefore more open to some of the nostrums being peddled.)

She has great fun in mocking the people she meets and refuses to take herself too seriously. I would have preferred more open discussion of the age issue. But admitting her age would have changed the subject to age discrimination, not her topic. As I said in my earlier blog, she criticizes advisors who say a job seeker should change herself to meet the company's needs instead of joining others to change the company. But that focus on the individual goes way back in America--Ben Franklin tried to make himself acceptable to the gentry of Philadelphia when he arrived there, he didn't organize the apprentices to go on strike.

The irony is that, despite herself, Ehrenreich's book shows the genius of capitalism. There's no doubt that she's a much better and more interesting writer pointing out the faults of American society than she would have been writing corporate press releases. So, the bottom line is that capitalism is making the best and highest use of her many talents.

Fearsome Government, Part II, France

The reporting on the riots in France is interesting, but lacking context. (That's always a safe sentence to lead with.)

France is different than the US, being a unitary, not federal state. The only politicians getting in news with respect to the riots are the mayors of Paris and other cities and the national government. No state governors to interpose their authority, to decide to request (or not request) national aid, federal troops, etc. Further, the national government could invoke a national policy of curfews with no question of its authority.

For those of us who remember the urban riots of the 60's, it's a vast difference. Once again, it points up the weakness of the U.S. national government compared to those of some other countries.

AMT--How Soon We Forget

The Alternative Minimum Tax is an orphan these days, no friends at all. Allan Sloan in the Post is just the latest:

A Right and Wrong Way to Kill the AMT: "The hideously complex AMT was added to the tax code in 1969 to stop a few rich people from avoiding taxes entirely. But this year, it will afflict 3.6 million families, according to the Tax Policy Center, a joint venture of the Urban Institute and Brookings Institution. Next year, 18.9 million. In 2010, 30.9 million. That's not a handful of tax dodgers; it's the masses. "

But there was a reason for the AMT, based in bureaucratic facts. The truth is that no single scheme (nod to Brits) can enmesh reality. The mind of man the rulemaker cannot encompass all possibilities, so there are ways ("loopholes") to get around every tax law. Because there are, the rich have long evaded taxes. After all, they have every incentive to act "rationally" in an economic sense, to become "freeloaders". Every tax dollar they save is a net gain. All this leads to the situation where very rich people, wealthy either in terms of income or of assets, pay no taxes. A democratic country considers that to be wrong, particularly in a time when people are dying to protect the rich. (Isn't that what our troops are doing in Iraq--dying to benefit us, including the rich?) Hence the AMT in 1986. Hence the idea of doing away with the AMT strikes me as base and immoral.

Let me offer a counter suggestion: Many discussions of the AMT point out that it was never "indexed" for rising levels of income, which brings more and more people within its scope as time goes by. Given that fact, we could "fix" AMT by retroactive indexing--jigger its parameters to gradually reduce its scope over the next 10 years until it gets back to where it was in 1990. That would solve the "freeloader" problem. It would leave the Bush problem in plain view; the Bush problem being his erosion of the tax structure to the point where it doesn't support the government, certainly not Sen. Stevens' "Bridge to Nowhere".

What Fearsome Government?

Two items today that show the weakness of the government, ironically both from relatively conservative commentators:

One is Sebastian Mallaby, writing an op-ed in the Post on the problems of preparing for a flu pandemic:

A Double Dose of Failure: "Like Hurricane Katrina, the preparations for avian flu expose the weakness of American government. Pressing dilemmas get passed back and forth between executive and legislature, and between federal government and the states; lobbies get multiple chances to confuse and paralyze policy. Flood walls don't get built. Flu preparations don't get done. Government lets people down, and people don't trust government."

The other is Diane Ravitch, writing an op-ed in the Times on the problem of assessing students progress:

Every State Left Behind - New York Times: "WHILE in office, Presidents George H. W. Bush and Bill Clinton both called for national academic standards and national tests in the public schools. In both cases, the proposals were rejected by a Congress dominated by the opposing party. The current President Bush, with a friendly Congress in hand, did not pursue that goal because it is contrary to the Republican Party philosophy of localism. Instead he adopted a strategy of '50 states, 50 standards, 50 tests' - and the evidence is growing that this approach has not improved student achievement. Americans must recognize that we need national standards, national tests and a national curriculum."

(Incidentally, GAO just did a report on the problems the Department of Education is having in standardizing data elements across the country so they can pull educational data into a national system.)

Of course, the founding fathers didn't want the government too powerful. See Federalist 10. The problem is that, if we can agree on a goal, the government can work. See the military knock off opposing military. But if we don't agree, as Ravitch and Mallaby find, the government does not work well.

Is Rational Evaluation Possible?

Read a piece in the Times yesterday that confirmed my prejudices, but which I forgot to link to. It was on conglomerates, saying that academic research says that conglomerates don't do well because the management tended to allocate capital more evenly among subsidiaries than they should, based on potential returns on investment. In other words, instead of rationally assessing the situation, these ruthless economic men {sic} tried to avoid hurt feelings and conflict by spreading the money around.

Use that as background for the ongoing controversy over performance evaluation plans in the federal government (see here for Wash Post article today). Unions and employees fear that bosses will play favorites; the other reality is that they won't bite the bullet and reward performance adequately. In my experience, the second is the reason that the Carter civil service reforms failed. (There's a notable failure by the current administration to examine those lessons.) Favoritism played a factor in the special awards but spreading the money around was the rule in handling the within-grade increase money.

Meeting and Bureaucracies and Nazis (Wannsee)

Bureaucrats are supposed to love meetings. By this criteria, Simon Ramo, a major figure in aerospace who has written a book on meetings reviewed in the LA Times is no bureaucrat.

"During his 69 years in the aerospace industry, Simon Ramo figures he's attended more than 40,000 meetings — an average of two or three per workday.

About 30,000 of those meetings could have been shorter or not held at all, he laments."

By bureaucratic criteria, the Nazi's Wannsee meeting, which is dramatized in the HBO movie "Conspiracy", which we watched last night, was very effective. Of course in a tyranny a man like Heydrich (played by Kenneth Branagh) can bribe and threaten to get a bunch of bureaucrats to agree on a course. What was interesting, and effective, in the movie was the differing perspectives brought to the movie by the various participants (the lawyer (Colin Firth) who'd done the original Nazi race laws, with their careful and bureaucratic categorizing of Jews and near-Jews, was especially interesting. What was horrible was the duality: on the one hand watching the tactics and concerns of the bureaucrats; on the other remembering the reality behind the bureaucratic language--that all of this led to 6 million dead.