Problems in Enforcing the $2.5 Million AGI

A commenter suggests:"Why not, as with deceased people, pass a data file over to IRS and let them tell us any ID that got a FSA payment that is over the AGI limit. That way FSA does not have the data but IRS can tell us potential issues with ID's that have earned too much money to be AGI eligible. This should become easier as we move to direct attribution."

Seems to be a good question, but there's a catch. (Rule number X, there's always a catch.) Once you die, your Social security number is no longer private (just ask the genealogists who look at the Social Security death index). So SSA has no problem telling FSA who is dead. By contrast, periodically IRS gets beaten about the head and body about its abuses of taxpayers and releases of their information. (I believe Senator Grassley may even have been on the Senate committee that did the last set of hearings in 1998 or so.) Indeed, before I left USDA the Republicans (probably) passed a law putting big obstacles in sharing data among agencies. That act has probably been modified since 9/11.

So, IRS is very very reluctant to bend the laws restricting access to individual earnings data. I haven't located the description of their system of records required under the Privacy Act, but presumably they'd have to modify it to authorize this processing. That's assuming President-elect Obama calls in an attorney and says it's got to be done. (Of course, then you'd have all the Republicans calling him down for doing something the Democrats complained about when Bush/Cheney did the same thing.)

PETA, Animal Agriculture, and Cruelty

Spokesmen for animal agriculture fight back, here and here.

And Charley Stenholm, mentioned as a possible secretary of agriculture, is very concerned: "He makes the point that this anti-livestock and anti-technology crusade sweeping the country is far more detrimental than some people perceive."

The $2.5 Million Story, Followup

And here's what the AP made of the GAO report on payments made to people earning over $2.5 mill. And here's the Des Moines Register.

Brings back memories of the stories before Congress made foreign aliens ineligible (mostly) for program payments (was that in 1985 or before?).

Just as a bonus I'll throw in a URL to a Reuters story (at EWG) about the job faced by Obama's USDA appointee.

Bush and Records

Interesting interview at NextGov over e-mail records here. One excerpt:

Fuchs: What happened when the Bush administration came in is that they scrapped the e-mail archiving system [established under the Clinton administration].... and they didn't replace it. They actually did develop a replacement in consultation with National Archives, but they made the decision not to install it. So, for the eight years of the Bush administration, there is no archive of the e-mails that were sent or received within the White House. . . .

Obama Uses Farm Program Payments as Example

From Obama's press conference today:

"Let me give you one example of what I’m talking about. There’s a report today that from 2003 to 2006, millionaire farmers received $49 million in crop subsidies even though they were earning more than the $2.5 million cutoff for such subsidies. If this is true, it is a prime example of the kind of waste I intend to end as President."

He's referring to a GAO report.

I'm rather impressed [I'm sure people are surprised] by the FSA response.

But that's a side issue, and I want to hit two points:

• Part of the problem is that FSA accepts certifications that a person's adjusted gross income is $2.5 million or less, without having routine access to the IRS data which would allow for checking the certifications. As FSA points out, in accepting the GAO recommendation, Congress needs to permit this if they want effective administration.
• Another part is that legal entities "farm" and get program payments. So if ABC corporation is half-owned by Joe Croesus and half by John Empty pockets, and Joe is over the $2.5 limit and John isn't, FSA is supposed to make payments to ABC corporation reduced by half (representing Joe's share). GAO claims (in their response to FSA's comments) that they accounted for this.

As a former FSA employee, I can only imagine the anger I would be feeling--GAO had access to IRS data, which was how they did the report, but refuse (i.e., is not legally permitted) to provide the data to FSA so FSA can efficiently correct the overpayments. Almost a Catch-22, and certainly dispiriting to someone who wants to enforce the law.

Finally, I suspect this is just the beginning of what's going to be a hot and hard time for USDA and FSA.

Old Roads

Just saw an ad for a Wrightstown/Chanceford toll road company, chartered 1871. And I ran across an old map (circa 1890 or so) which showed the bridge on which I had my first car accident (not my fault, I hasten to add) was then a toll bridge.

It's easy to fall into the trap of assuming things have been the way they are, that the government has always done the roads and bridges, but not so.

Rural Children and Marriages

Here's a study showing that times have changed--the percentage of rural children living in 2-parent households has dropped over the last years and is now slightly lower than that for metropolitan (non-rural children). Hat tip--Rural Information Center

Just as a guess, given that the percentage increased in central cities, I suspect much of the change reflects the impact of immigration.

Women, Politics, and Republicans

Maybe the Republicans are doomed to minority status. The Christian Science Monitor has an assessment of how women did in the 2008 elections (in brief, inched upwards). A couple factoids they don't connect, but I do:

Vermont and New Hampshire are two of the top three states in percentage of women in the state legislature (NH's senate is majority women). South Carolina has no women in its senate. No Republican Representatives in New England.

The Republicans, as befits the "conservative" party, is more resistant to social innovations, like women in politics. That's why Sarah Palin is so interesting.

Time for a Convoy System

The Post has an article on the pirate problem off Somalia.

I always loved military history, and the Horatio Hornblower novels. (Jack Aubrey was good, but Horatio was better.) That tells me the answer is the convoy system. That's always been the response to raiders, whether pirates and privateers in the 18th century or submarines in the 20th. As long as tankers and cargo ships sail independently, the advantage is on the pirate side. Start convoys and the advantage swings, particularly if you can put up air cover (as in unmanned drones).

Continuity or Change?

Does a reformer do better by doing a "big bang", lots of big change fast, or by persistence--grinding it out, 3 yards and a cloud of dust as they used to say about Woody Hayes at Ohio State? We've elected a President and the focus is on his first 100 days. Two pieces in the Post today argue, at least in the context of education, for persistence and continuity.

A teacher in Fairfax county recounts the broken promises of the 90's--he qualified for bonus pay after a long process, but the pay raises he was to receive soon evaporated under the pressure of tight budgets and the loss of the people who pushed the bonus pay initiative.

And a former superintendent of the Arlington schools argues, using examples from around the country, that worthwhile gains come from a marathoner, not a sprinter.

I've sympathy with both--I've seen an incoming administration discard the initiatives of the incumbents because of "not invented here" syndrome. But it's also true that bureaucrats, like me, are creatures of the rut. IMHO you need a mix of personalities with common goals--someone to stir the pot and someone to smooth hurt feelings--who can last for 10 years or so.