A Politician Does Good for the World

Props to President Carter, for doing good:

Cases of Guinea worm disease — a horrifying infection that culminates in worms coming out of a victim's skin — have reached an all-time low worldwide, former U.S. President Jimmy Carter announced Friday.

The Ag Secretaries Speak

I caught part of a rerun of the panel of ex-Secretaries of USDA, sponsored by Farm Journal, on C-Span. Some thoughts:

• there's not much here to please the greens. As you might expect, I find confirmation here for my ideas--the limited power of USDA administrators to act as Michael Pollan or others would wish. Money, and therefore OMB, is the prime factor.
  
• these are politicans, not administrators. Instead of the President saying "do X", and their saying: "yes sir, right away". they are operators. There were discussions of allying with other Secretaries, with members of the President's staff, of Congress in order to get one's way. There were a couple instances of a Secretary (Block and Glickman) admitting they worked around OMB (meaning, at least in theory, the President).
• the political mindset showed in discussions of possible reorganization. Most seemed to accede with Yeutter that it's just too difficult, that it's better to try to get good people, that people make more of a difference than boxes on an organization chart. On that point, I disagree. As politicians, these Secretaries have a short term focus. As administrators, you should have a longer term focus. (In their defense, most of them had a deputy secretary who focused on day-to-day management and the nitty-gritty of organization.)

The discussion did cause me to wonder whether John Podesta is doing a boot camp for the new administration memebers, just to go through, for those without experience, the process of moving regulations, getting a budget approved, coordinating message management, working with the Hill, etc.

Prairie Potholes Vanishing

The receding glaciers of the ice age left behind blocks of ice (think icebergs in the ocean) which, when melted, formed prairie potholes in the Dakotas and MN. These depressions were wet, with the degree of water varying according to the weather from year to year. Dan Morgan writes in the Post that they're now being converted to cropland.

I'd debate the story title [Updated to clarify--Morgan points the finger at subsidized crop insurance, which is valid, but most people, as did I originally and as did all the comments at Volokh.com, will think first of direct payments], but more importantly I wonder about NRCS and the swampbuster provisions (which make people who drain wetlands ineligible for program benefits). If Morgan is right, either I misunderstand the current situation on wetlands or there's something else going on.

Nobel Don't Guarantee Good English

Via Greg Mankiw from an AP story:

Nobel economics prize winner Paul Krugman said Sunday that the beleaguered U.S. auto industry will likely disappear.

"It will do so because of the geographical forces that me [sic] and my colleagues have discussed," the Princeton University professor and New York Times columnist told reporters in Stockholm.

In Krugman's honor, I'm establishing a new label.

And a Merry Christmas to All

Erin's Christmas letter goes for the verities.

Transparency in FSA (Recommendations for FSA)

Obama's "Your Seat at the Table" is posting the documents they receive from groups who meet with the incoming team. Here's recommendations for FSA, vis a vis CRP. Basically, bigger and better CRP, go for "sodsaver" and improve conservation compliance are the big 3 recommendations from some conservation groups.

I find it interesting the groups are hesitant about the farm bill--they want a broader consensus about the risks and benefits of reopening the 2008 Farm bill. They also don't provide any tentative cost scoring, nor any ways of possibly getting the money under pay/go financing rules.

My sense is that they're talking a few billion dollars here.

Needed-- an Agricultural "Wire"

My wife and I have gotten into the HBO series "The Wire", set in drug-ridden Baltimore. We're midway through the second season, but from reading critics I understand Ed Burns and David Simon, the creators, each season focus their drama on the operations of one Baltimore institution. The second season is the Baltimore docks (containers). Some dock workers are involved in smuggling (drugs and prostitutes--which provides some drama), there's carry over from the first season's Westside drug gangs with Omar and Stringer Bell, there's father and son tensions. Along the way you get an understanding, which feels realistic, about how this section of the world operates. That's good, that's very good.

How does this tie to agriculture? At Down to Earth Sara mourned the growing disconnect between consumers and farmers. I'm not sure about the "growing" bit--the stereotype of the city slicker ignorant of the country and the country bumpkin who can outwit the city man has roots in the far past. But, after reading "Musings from a Stonehead", who was asked whether you couldn't have pork without killing the pig, anything that contributes to mutual understanding is good. (Even, as with The Wire, it involves lots of profanity and politically incorrect language.)

Some Days You Just Can't Win

USDA takes heat from commenters for being TOO green. (Proposing too restrictive rules on grazing days needed to qualify as "organic". I'm a bit bemused by those concerned when cows are out in the cold and rain. Granted, it lowers efficiency, but it's natural,
and isn't that what we're aiming at? And, as I used to tell my soft-hearted (non-farm reared wife) after all they have natural leather coats.)

Payment Limitation

Two DTN columns relating to payment limitation:

• Grassley wants tighter limits
• Chambliss' reelection means a vigorous opponent to changes.
  

Misleading Graphs

Having screwed up on turkey weights, I return to the fray with a graph from Sebastian Mallaby's oped in today's Post. He argues for government intervention in the short term, but for cutbacks and wiser spending in the long term. He has a graph showing the percentage government expenditures are of the total economy, going from 20 percent in 1947 to 33 percent today.

But during the Ford administration we first breached the 30 percent level (guessing, about 32 percent) and since Reagan we've been in the 30's (except 1999). So for 25 or more years the size of government hasn't increased. That's not the inference one would draw from his words.