Revamping Bureaucracies

An earlier post and comments on the Farm Service Agency leads to broader consideration of how you revamp an old bureaucracy.

Via Kevin Drum (Washington Monthly) is a link to a proposed alternative to Rumsfeld's Quadrennial Defense Review. Rummy wants more special forces, but doesn't cut major weapons systems, even though there's no military threat to us in the world.

Meanwhile the State Department is revamping its overseas posts--from today's Post: U.S. to Shift Envoys to China, India: "China and India have emerged as the big winners -- and Russia and Germany as the top losers -- in the first round of a broad restructuring of U.S. diplomatic posts ordered by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice."

Oracle is firing 2,000 workers after its takeover of Siebel. (Seems like just yesterday they took over Peoplesoft--what happened to the monopoly concerns?)

The difference is that Oracle's workers have nowhere to go, while the DOD programs (and the FSA offices) are supported by Congress. And of course, there's no Representative from Russia to tell Secretary Rice to what to do. A Senator Helms can play hob with the way an administration wants to run foreign policy, but there's lots more freedom in managing posts in foreign countries.

Searching for the Right Parallels to Cartoons

I posted yesterday agreeing that a parallel to cartoons of Mohammed was the burning of the flag. I post today to disagree with Martin Peretz in The New Republic (registration required).

What the cartoons have revealed: "Muslims are just plain forbidden from depicting the prophet. So, let them not depict him. But Christians and Jews, Hindus and Buddhists are not prohibited, and I assume that the Danish cartoonists were not Muslims but Lutherans (an overwhelming majority of whom assert that they do not believe in God) or from that cool breed of Scandinavian rationalists. Another cartoon shows the prophet greeting some martyrs at the entrance to heaven, and he shouts to them, 'Stop, stop, we have run out of virgins.' When you compare the most offensive of these caricatures to the vile and inciting images of Jews routinely shown on government-owned television all over the Muslim world (forget about the ugly role of caricature in the long history of Christian anti-Semitism) you wonder what all the fuss is about. OK, Bill Clinton doesn't wonder. He's referred to them as 'these totally outrageous cartoons against Islam,' although I myself doubt whether he's ever bothered to look at them. Is he for free expression or for that sloppy multiculturalism that forbids you from raising anyone's hackles? This is the liberal's dilemma. By the way, a European-Arab website--in retaliation, I suppose--has just put out a cartoon showing Anne Frank and Hitler in bed."

I don't agree with his specifics. Offensive cartoons of Jews, whether of Anne Frank or whoever, are parallel to offensive cartoons of Muslims (or Lutherans [by the way, a Lutheran would believe in Christ and God]. Offensive cartoons of U.S. Presidents are parallel to offensive cartoons of Saddam Hussein or the ayatollah. An offensive cartoon of Moses or Abraham or God would parallel one of Mohammed.

I was brought up to be sensitive to others' feelings, but as a liberal I believe in equal opportunity for everyone to offend everyone.

Blogger Problems--Apologies for Duplication

Blogger was having some problems republishing its blogs. That appears to have resulted in two duplicate posts here but I'm not able to delete the duplicates. My apologies.

There also appears to be a problem in counting comments--there's a comment on the FSA post
but the count shows "zero".

Maybe it's time to look at Typepad??

Flags and Cartoons

A commenter at The Volokh Conspiracy raises the issue of how depicting Mohammed compares to burning the flag. Eugene has an interesting discussion, including:

"One can naturally come up with some distinctions — among other things, banning all depictions of Mohammed burdens a wider range of speech (e.g., pretty much any film biography of Mohammed) than banning flagburning would — but I think that on balance these distinctions are unpersuasive. If you want to credibly say to Muslims that they have to tolerate offense to their sacred symbols, you have to tolerate offense to your own sacred symbols, too."

I agree.

Heading in Opposite Directions

Two articles from today's Post suggest the complexity of housing issues. Meanwhile Safeway is having difficulty hiring Starbucks workers, advertising $11 an hour for them. At something over $20K a year, that that doesn't pay for housing in Fairfax:

Fairfax to Buy Affordable Apartment Complex in Reston: "Fairfax County agreed yesterday to purchase a complex of 180 apartments in Reston. With their relatively low rents, the units might otherwise have been converted to luxury condominiums, county officials said.

The county will pay the Mark Winkler Co. $49.5 million for the Crescent Apartments near Lake Anne, the largest outlay from an affordable housing fund approved by the Board of Supervisors last year. Monthly rents at the complex run an average of $1,023 for a one-bedroom apartment and $1,170 for two bedrooms. The current tenants, who represent Reston's mix of ethnic communities, earn incomes of $40,000 to $50,000 for a family of four."

Reality Thins Out An Urban Vision: "In Fairfax County's official vision for Tysons Corner, thousands of people live clustered around the Metro stops planned there -- riding the train or walking to work, leaving their cars at home and injecting new life into the austere glass and concrete hub.

But in the reality of developers' blueprints, a different Tysons is emerging -- one with a population smaller than what county leaders have in mind." [article explains that the zoning requires x million square feet of residential space, which the developer has decided to make into 2K condos instead of 1K. Rationale is that the bigger condos attract people willing to pop for upgrades (granite counter tops, etc.) that are more profitable.]

"Career Professional" or "Faceless Bureaucrat"?

A Republican Attorney General thinks highly of faceless government bureaucrats (whoops, career professionals) (Gonzales, from yesterday's Senate hearing):

"Second, the program is triggered only when a career professional at the NSA has reasonable grounds to believe that one of the parties to a communication is a member or agent of Al Qaida or an affiliated terrorist organization. As the president has said, if you're talking with Al Qaida, we want to know what you're saying."

Was Adam Smith Wrong?

Smith famously used the example of pin making to put over his argument that specialization of function improved efficiency. But Sunday's Times suggests this may be wrong, at least in some cases:

Carmakers' Big Idea: Think Small - New York Times: "THE contrast between old and new is even clearer in the way jobs are assigned to workers at the Dundee plant. During their shifts — 10 hours a day, four days a week — workers might be responsible for 18 to 20 spots on the assembly line, rather than be rigidly limited to one narrowly defined task. Indeed, each worker learns every job on the line, reflecting the plant's philosophy of 'anyone, anywhere, anything, anytime.'

The workers, who are U.A.W. members, had to go through a rigorous application and training process, and had to be accepted by plant managers rather than just being assigned by the union. Because they are using an entirely new approach, the managers accepted only two workers from other Chrysler factories. Others came from parts makers or other companies with U.A.W. workers. Despite the intensity, Jimmie Pierce, 36, says the job is a godsend to him. He recently lost his previous job when the Lear Corporation, a parts supplier, closed its plant in Romulus, Mich. In his 12 years there, he said, he stuck to his assigned tasks, even if a problem popped up. 'At Lear, someone else fixes it,' said Mr. Pierce, a second-generation autoworker. At his new job, where he supervises a team of workers, he said that 'you think of yourself more as part of a business.'"

Bush's Budget Proposal for Farm Service Agency

Budget of the United States Government, FY 2007:

"Improving the Effectiveness of Providing Support to Farmers

The Department's Farm Service Agency (FSA) administers farm programs and services through one of the Federal Government’s largest and most decentralized field office structures. This arrangement, which remains largely unchanged today, dates back to the 1930s when communication and transportation systems were limited by geographic boundaries. FSA currently has 2,351 county offices across the country, of which nearly 500 are within 20 miles of the next nearest office. Over 1,000 of these offices are staffed by three or fewer employees.

This outdated office structure is inefficient and must be streamlined to realign benefits and services with a rural America that has changed dramatically since the early part of the 20th Century. Today, the number of farmers has declined sharply and computers, modern telecommunications and transportation systems have increased farmers’ access to information and assistance without ever visiting a USDA field office.

To streamline operations, FSA must consolidate offices and invest in information technology tools to improve business operations and service delivery to farmers. Before investment in modern information technology is made, the agency will work with stakeholders to close and consolidate offices, where appropriate, and ensure that future investments are made prudently and in a manner that ensures taxpayers’ dollars are spent wisely. The Budget fully funds the agency’s staffing needs while targeting these resources to the agency’s more efficient offices, and includes funding to modernize FSA’s outdated computer systems."

The background is that the administration floated a proposal to close field offices last year which very quickly got shot down. They're now promising to work with Congress on the issue.

Now They Admit It

Virginia Democrats suffered from Gilmore's campaign to end the car tax (an annual tax based on value of your car) which was in 1997. He rode the issue to Richmond and the Reps rode it into control of the House of Delegates and Senate. Given the Clinton boom (might as well be partisan today) Gilmore had the surplus to start the process, even though it was obvious that he was digging a hole for the future. Mark Warner had to duck and dodge around the issue to get himself elected in 2001, but made a name by navigating through the Gilmore fiscal mess that resulted when the state went into a recession.

But now, that great organ of enlightened government, the Washington Times carries this piece: Officials sour on car-tax relief�

" 'Frankly, I wish it had never happened, even though I voted for it,' said Senate Majority Leader Walter A. Stosch, Henrico Republican. 'The car-tax program was a wonderful political decision but almost a nightmare for the state and for local governments.' "

Sad for Liberals

The NYTimes Business section today has a profile of the head of Brown University, Ruth Simmons--Doing It Right Matters .

I found this very sad:

"As an African-American, I was patronized pretty consistently by professors, so to finally have someone say to me, 'You know I think you are very smart but what you just said is dumb'... nobody had ever been honest with me before."

This might tie to David Brook's column today (Remaking the Epic of America) in which he sees a trend of popular sports movies with the gruff, tough coach and the working class team fighting against their adversary. Contrary to the 60's, the movies celebrate authority but like the 60's, they embrace equality--minorities and women. Uniformly the coaches are honest with their players. Perhaps that's one reason for their popularity.