The Perversity of Rules

One thing the Dems promised in 2006 was, if they gained the majority, they would reinstate the "pay-go" rules--the procedural rule saying that any law authorizing new expenditures must also include a means to pay for it (raising taxes or cutting other programs). All right-thinking good government types applauded this, and the Dems carried through on their promise.

So what's the problem? Well, as Dan Owen at Blog for Rural America explains, it creates an incentive to maintain old programs: "What's the response of those writing the farm bill? "We need to protect our commodity program baseline"." In other words, it's true enough that most crop farmers today are doing well, but if the ag committees cut direct payments in the new farm bill, that reduces the "baseline". A reduced baseline down the road means reduced ability to increase payments if that were needed. So, a good rule encourages a bad result--there's no such thing as a free lunch.

What the World Needs Now: Smarter Flies?

Actually, yes. According to this NYTimes article on animal learning, some scientists bred flies to be smarter. That's a revelation--flies do learn. And then they determined that smarter flies had shorter lives. The general argument is that while there are benefits to being able to learn, there are also costs. (As Robert Heinlein would say, there's no such thing as a free lunch.) It's not quite clear where the costs come from, though if the young have to learn by experience, they're more vulnerable than if they were hard-wired. And brains are costly in terms of energy. (That's why there are so few in evidence these days.)

Fresh Food, Local Food

The NYTimes has an article on NYC's loss of supermarkets, meaning more people have to drive (assuming they have a car in NYC) to buy fresh produce. Apparently rents are rising (presumably because of a still hot real estate market and the rejuvenation of the city) and the profit margins just aren't there. Supermarkets are facing competition from other outlets, which sell milk, beer, etc. Reading between the lines, produce must have especially low profit margins. Perhaps because of spoilage--how often do you see lots of produce in the supermarket that's past it? And that's with the advantage of loyalty cards, so they can tell that the Harshaws will buy 14 bananas a week with about 95 percent reliability. Or maybe it's the problem of establishing reliable supplies over the year. That says something about the problems faced by the locavore movement and organic farming.

Sodsaver Provision

I hadn't been following this. At gristmill a story on the "sodsaver" provision: "The House and Senate versions of the farm bill both contained this new provision, which would have prohibited crop insurance and non-insured disaster payments for production losses to producers in any state who plowed up native grasslands in order to plant crops. This would have also prevented these farmers from receiving regular disaster payments, because farmers must first have crop insurance in order to be eligible for disaster payments."

Apparently the conference committee is restricting it to the desert pothole area (i.e., the area of small lakes/marshes left behind when the glaciers retreated that are great for ducks, etc.) and making it optional by the governor. That's much to the regret of conservationists. What concerns a former bureaucrat is the possibility the law will mix apples and oranges. Mostly in the past, eligibility provisions have been either/or, land or person. A person who violated the sod/swampbuster provisions would be ineligible for all payments everywhere. Or, if the program provisions on a farm were violated, there might be no payments for that farm. But this sounds as if it might be a mixture--someone plows grassland in ND and in SD, for example. ND says okay, but SD says no. Result--person is ineligible on all his land in SD but not in ND. Very difficult to control, unless the IT systems FSA uses have gotten considerably more sophisticated.

It's also interesting--under sodbuster NRCS would have to have an approved plan for the farm to make the producer eligible. Sounds to me as if this "sodsaver" provision is a tacit admission that NRCS was unable/unwilling to administer the "sodbuster" provisions as originally intended. No real surprise--NRCS as a bureaucracy did not have the culture of policing regulations.

Inconsistency, Thy Name is Human

Some, often on the conservative side, argue that we shouldn't increase taxes or pass laws to fight global warming. The threat of warming is projected and not proven, the cost would be too great to act now, why suffer lower growth now to help future generations?

Some, often on the conservative side, argue we should increase taxes and change laws to fight the social security trust fund deficit. The threat of SS bankruptcy is proven by projections, the cost would be minimal if we act now, we must suffer now to help future generations.

And then there are the opponents, who tend to take the opposite side of each issue.

Slow Food, No; Slow Medicine, Yes

I eat. I've previously blogged about my skepticism of "slow food", "locavore", etc. Carbon taxes, which would raise the cost of transportation (and of production on industrial ag operations), are fine. But I don't like the romanticism surrounding the movement (don't like movements, mostly).

I live, for a while longer, but this article on "slow medicine" in the NY Times today makes me lean to approving it:

Grounded in research at the Dartmouth Medical School, slow medicine encourages physicians to put on the brakes when considering care that may have high risks and limited rewards for the elderly, and it educates patients and families how to push back against emergency room trips and hospitalizations designed for those with treatable illnesses, not the inevitable erosion of advanced age.

My sister and I used a hospice for my mother, who was old, had Alzheimer's, and was diagnosed with cancer of the pancreas. That example is one reason why I like "slow medicine", but her case also gives a caution. Mom broke her hip while she was in her late 80's, but she was able to recover quite well. It's easy to think about being close to the end of life, but more difficult to tell when one is there.

Senator Roberts Opines

Senator Pat Roberts is not one of my favorite people. Back in 1996 he was the father of "Freedom to Farm", the bait and switch deal. Sold by the Republicans as a way to phase out farm payments it got converted into the ongoing direct payment program in 2002. (No, I don't know he planned it that way, but any realistic observer of farm programs knew in 1996 it wasn't going to work the way he described it.)

Anyhow, now I've vented a bit, the High Plains Journal quotes him and Rep. Moran as having problems with the way the bill is going. Read it here.

One thing I'll point to, just in case any one from NASCOE reads this--the $50 fee for going to the county office. I understand the logic, but that would be a good way to move farmers from visiting the office to working on-line. :-) That's not what NASCOE would like, I guess.

Pay Limit--Confusing Reports

From the ARgus Leader in SD:

"The tentative deal would base farm program payment limitations on whether the recipients are farmers or non-farmers, Herseth Sandlin said. In 2009, landowners with adjusted gross incomes of more than $750,000 who are not farmers would be prohibited from receiving farm payments. The amount would fall to $650,000 in 2010 and to $500,000 in 2011, she said. The income cap for farmers would be $950,000.

Farmers making more than that could still benefit from farm programs but would lose 10 percent of their direct payments for every $100,000 in income over the $950,000 cap, Herseth Sandlin said.

The tentative deal would also prohibit the U.S. Department of Agriculture from closing Farm Service Agency offices for two years, she said.

"(However) nothing is really final until the end," she said."

Not sure what "a farmer" means in this context. This might mean a three tier system:

1. An owner of cash-rented land who doesn't share in the risk of the crop is neither actively engaged nor a farmer--no payments, period.
2. An owner of share-rented land is not a farmer but does share in the risk so can receive payments providing AGI is under the cap.
3. A tenant (by share or cash lease) is actively engaged in farming and a "farmer", so can receive payments but at declining rate if AGI is over the cap (which means no payment if AGI is $2 million or more).
   

As the senator says, we'll see.

Small Farm Provision

The House-Senate conferees on the farm bill are reported to be looking after the small farmer--they're prohibiting small farmers (less than 10 acres of ?) from getting payments. Not clear what the "?" means nor what "payments" means. I can hear the rhetoric now, particularly when people (like Ken Cook or Tom Philpott) search around and discover a very deserving, struggling small farmer.

(Not that I don't have some sympathy for the logic here.)

Uncle's Folly? Do College Freshmen Read?

Brad DeLong proposes to buy subscriptions for four periodicals for his nephew, who is off to college. I don't know whether to celebrate the idea that college freshmen still are familiar with printer's ink or the idea that uncles (and parents) are always out of touch with the real interests and concerns of the next generation.