Sen. Roberts on Farm Bill

As chair of the House Ag committee, then-Rep. Pat Roberts (R-KS) pushed the "Freedom to Farm" component of the 1996 farm bill. It was sold as a transition to a free-market agriculture, with transitional fixed payments replacing the "deficiency payments" that were tied to market price levels. (You can tell from my tone, I wasn't impressed back then.)

The 2002 farm bill kept the "fixed" payments and reinstated "counter-cyclical" payments (albeit changing the basis for payment entirely to historical production).

This is what Sen. Roberts says now:

As a member of the Senate Agriculture Committee, I look forward to the upcoming debate over the future of American farm policy. Next year [sic--the good Senator seems to be a bit late in updating his web site], the 2002 Farm Security and Rural Investment Act (P.L. 107-171) will expire. I voted against the current farm bill when it was approved by Congress in 2002. At the time, I registered my concern that the bill was full of empty promises, would lower assistance to Kansas producers and would not work during times of crop loses and slightly higher prices. Unfortunately, many of my strongest reservations with this legislation have occurred.

Apollo 11 and Graphics

The National Archives puts up a daily document from the files. This one from last week brought back nostalgia, showing the primitive state of graphic equipment (actually probably a mixture of type and cut and paste, that's real "cut and paste", as in using scissors to piece together a flight plan for Apollo 11.

Farm Bill Commentary

Most commentary on the farm bill passing the House divides into two categories: inside baseball and the uninformed. That may be a bit harsh, but it reflects the reality--those who are affected by the provisions, as farmers, bureaucrats, and some commentators, have an incentive to spend the time to understand the subject; those without the incentive have to learn just enough to fake it.

An assemblage:

Iowa professor on payment limitation.

LA Times editorial

Wash Post editorial

Ag web summary
(note the spouse change on pay limit--perhaps what the Iowa prof is hot about--for laymen, the issue is whether a spouse has a separate limitation, i.e., is a separate "person" for payment limitation purposes--an issue of perpetual controversy.)

Paying the Dead

This article in the Post notes that USDA paid farmers' estates, often without checking for compliance with rules, or paid entities like partnerships that included estates as members. Compliance was checked in 60 percent of the cases, but not in 40 percent, meaning some gross mistakes.


Here's the GAO report highlights (why the Post didn't provide it, I'm not clear).

When you dig into the details, and I start remembering, I think I share some blame. In the old days, before computers in county offices, after all payments were issued for a year, we'd run a series of mainframe matches on the deficiency payment files and give county offices data on possible problems. I'm pretty sure at that time that we matched social security numbers against the Social Security Admin's death file (at least, a bell tinkles in the growing obscurity of my memory).

As we automated, we started building more and more checks into the county software and relying less and less on the after-the-fact checks. And, frankly, the after-the-fact checks became less of a priority, meaning the best people weren't given the job of designing and programing them. So I tend to think the match with SSA fell through the cracks. We didn't add it for the county software. We may have discussed it for the new database being designed for NRCS/FSA usage, but that took so long to develop that personnel changed and the idea was probably lost.

This illustrates one problem of massive databases, whether they're proposed for national security, immigration, or whatever--they need maintenance because time is an everflowing river. And if you don't imagine what may happen, like people dying, you can't design for it.

The French as Bureaucrats

Dirk Beauregard (a Brit who's lived 20 years in France) has a great post, not only for an insight into French culture, and history, but into the vices and virtues of bureaucrats.

Pity the Poor Bureaucrat

Assume for the moment that the payment limitation rules in the current House bill pass and become law. (See pages 15 on of the Managers amendment.) Why should we pity the bureaucrats who have to administer them?

• First of all, I don't think there's many people in DC in FSA who were there for the last major change of payment limitation in 1985--in 22 years most people have moved on.
  
• Second, the provisions of the bill are longer, and probably more complex, than the 1985 Act.
  
• Third, farmers have gotten used to much higher levels of payments than they were in 1985. It took a couple years for some farmers to figure out how much money they were leaving on the table beginning in 1983-5. If you see that you're leaving $10,000, then it starts making sense to call friends and strangers, anyone who may know what's going on and have an insight into what you should do or have the leverage to affect the way the rules are written.
  
• Fourth, we're in a more legalistic environment today than in 1985, both in terms of rulemaking and in the application of the rules to individual farmers.
  
• Finally, 1985 was pre-Internet, which makes all the difference.

What will happen? On one side there's the problem of automating the rules (I start with that because it's closer to my heart--I always tried to steer clear of payment limitation). That's major--if FSA is to get payments made correctly based on the paperwork submitted, there will be some major changes to files and software.

On the other side, the rulemaking process will be under intense scrutiny from everyone--the Hill, the press, the farmers, and the interest groups suspicious that FSA will be too friendly to farmers. In the midst of this, the poor bureaucrat has to write regulations and directives, set up training sessions for field offices, provide good information to everyone. The likelihood is, based on 1985 experience, management will change its mind a few times, meaning that the poor bureaucrat will end up misinforming farmers, press, field offices and get everyone mad.

In 1985 there were fewer channels of communication that operated slower than today. Now we have the Internet, which has shown its ability to spread rumors and misinformation. So if everything runs merely twice as fast today, the poor bureaucrats in FSA have to be twice as good as their 1985 predecessors.

Pity, have pity.

A Look Back to 1985

Now that the House Ag committee has passed its version of a new farm bill, including changes in the payment limitation provisions that date back to 1985, it's interesting to look back to the reporting following that act. From the NYTimes archives, a long excerpt [from a 1986 article
link added]:

The law [1985 farm bill] set out to restore United States competitiveness in international commodities markets by lowering prices, while shielding farmers from the blow through higher income subsidy rates.

That means many producers who in past years have received less from the Government than the $50,000 limit now are approaching that ceiling, giving them an incentive to look for ways around it.

And large producers who have not bothered with Federal price support programs in the past now feel economically forced to participate.

''Their attitude is, $50,000 will buy you a cup of coffee,'' said John Gordley, former agriculture aide to the Senate majority leader, Bob Dole, Republican of Kansas. Mr. Gordon is now a private public relations consultant. Definition of 'Person' Studied

Larger farmers and their lawyers have studied every line of Agriculture Department rules regarding payment limits and found numerous ways to multiply their subsidies. Most focus on the definition of what constitutes a ''person.''

The rules say corporations, partnerships, trusts and other legal entities can qualify as ''persons,'' in addition to an individual farmer, as long as the entity has a legitimate interest in the land or crop, exercises management responsibility and is liable for costs and losses as well as being entitled to profits.

Thus one Arkansas farmer, the chairman of the local committee of the Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service, was able to get $150,000 from the Government in 1985 by spinning off two corporations from his original farm, one owned by himself and his brother, the other by the farmer and his mother.

The reorganization was approved by the local committee and at the state level. Investigators in the department's Office of Inspector General rejected the claim, saying it was merely a paper change and no real change in the farming operation had occurred, but not until the farmer had been overpaid $188,000 over two years.

Music Is Important, But This?

Via John Phipps, this factoid--DOD has more people in its bands than the State Department has in its Foreign Service.

Update on payment limitation:

The House Agriculture Committee on Wednesday adopted by a voice vote an amendment that would end the three-entity rule and establish a more restrictive means test for receiving farm program payments. The move is an apparent attempt to reach a compromise between those who want much more restrictive payment limits, as do many Midwestern and Coastal lawmakers, and those, like many Southern legislators, who want to preserve the status quo.

In addition to eliminating the three-entity rule, the amendment would prohibit payments to ag producers making more than $1 million in adjusted gross income annually. Farmers making between $500,000 and $1 million would be able to collect payments only if two-thirds or more of their income comes from farming and ranching investments. The current means test for farm program payments is $2.5 million.

Culture and Immigration

An odd confluence of articles this week in the Washington Post, and then a post by Marc Fisher on his blog:

Raw Fisher, reporting on an academic study showing race and class differences in attitudes towards immigration

An article on wedding styles among immigrants--some immigrants get married following the customs of their ancestral home and religion, but with modifications to adjust to the U.S. environment.

A Marc Fisher article, reporting on recent developments in the Virginia suburbs--first Prince William, then Loudon counties passed resolutions "cracking down" on illegal immigrants.

Finally, Marc held a discussion for local residents--open line. You'd think that the topic would be illegal immigration, but DC education probably attracted more attention. (The new head of DC schools is Korean-American.) That's probably because more Post readers fit the profile of those who are less concerned about illegal immigration--in other words, we aren't competing against them for jobs.