Burrowing in at Farm Credit Administration

This announcement of the new PR man for the Farm Credit Administration hows how politics is played in DC. (Technically it's not burrowing, because the guy wasn't in government when appointed, but it's a cause where his "power" (or his "rabbi") has just enough clout left to get him a job. (That's being cynical, because Hastert resigned in Nov. 2007, over a year ago, but I'm feeling cynical as I write.)

Carrots, Sticks, and Rewarding Conservation

Here's an interesting piece, via grist, on the problems of using "carrots". I'd extend the problem to conservation measures on farms. If you have, as you do, a range of farmers, from those who are operating responsibly (i.e., taking measures to reduce erosion) to those who are not, issuing carrots poses big problems. Either you give carrots to everyone who meets a standard, thus not getting much bang for your buck because you aren't changing the behavior of the good farmers, or you give carrots only to those bad farmers who become good, which is unfair to those who have been good all the time.

See the Bible and the prodigal son for the resentments this can cause.

Are Farmers Rich?

All depends on your definition. If you look at Census data, there are about 1 million people employed in farming, forestry, and fishing with a median earning of %16,700, which is above the $11K for food service but below the rates for other occupations.

(It probably all is a matter of definitions, with Census and ERS definitions differing.)

Bureaucracy at DHS

The New Republic has an article by Jeffrey Rosen on DHS:

"Chertoff hasn't settled into an office partly because the six-year-old Department of Homeland Security (DHS) still has no permanent, consolidated headquarters. Instead, the unwieldy amalgam of 22 separate federal agencies operates out of 70 buildings at 40 different locations in the Washington area. And the lack of a real home is just the beginning of the department's bureaucratic problems. The most recent survey by the U.S. Office of Personnel Management on the job satisfaction of federal employees in 36 agencies ranked Homeland Security last or near last in every category. Meanwhile, officials from the Pentagon who have tried to do business with DHS complained to me of organizational chaos at the department. Homeland Security employees, they said, are often unaware of overlapping initiatives championed by their colleagues, and even by Chertoff himself."

Rosen's article is anti-DHS, but I think that's short-sighted. DHS has been established for years now, so it's not going to be easy to undo it (which might have been possible within 12-15 months after the event). And the quoted bit points to one of the problems of any reorganization: you have to worry about logistics. Where is the headquarters, who sits where, how does the paper flow, who handles budget allotments, who does payroll, etc. It takes years to get things running pretty smoothly. (Sometimes it never does--I saw one passing reference to General Motors during recent discussion of the bailout which suggested the reorganization which incorporated Buick into GM (back in the teens or 20's?) never did meld it into GM.

All of the above is not saying I agreed with how they reorganized, but that Secretary Napolitano and Obama should be careful in what they do. (And Obama should press the Dems in Congress to redo the committees overseeing DHS.)

No Cuts in Middle Managers?

That's the position as reported in Government Executive of something called the "Government Managers Coalition".

They've got some valid points in dissing Al Gore's initiative in the 1990's. The problem is reorganization from the top will be resisted. It's the old story--people like the way things have been.

What's This About--Enviros and USDA?

Beats me why Secretary Schafer would announce creation of a new USDA office about 32 days before he leaves office. Actually, it's the "intention to establish a new USDA Office of Ecosystem Services and Markets and the creation of a federal government-wide Conservation and Land Management Environmental Services Board to assist the Secretary of Agriculture in the development of new technical guidelines and science-based methods to assess environmental service benefits which will in turn promote markets for ecosystem services including carbon trading to mitigate climate change."

I guess my senility is advancing--I used to be good in deciphering bureaucratese. I think what it's saying is USDA is going to try to figure out when farmers can claim they created a carbon offset that can be traded. I wonder if Vilsack was consulted?

Merry Christmas to FSA

My condolences to current FSA employees in DC charged with implementing the farm bill. Looks to me as if, between Congress and your bosses, you got stuck with some lumps of coal for Christmas.

Chris Clayton at DTN/Progressive Farmer gripes at you for announcing the interim final rule for payment limitation (actively engaged and AGI) changes and ACRE implementation on Friday afternoon. Looking at the notices FSA just issued for 2009 DCP signup and advance payments, and on pay limit, I can only guess the amount of work put in already. And remembering the events in 1986/87 when the actively engaged rules were first attempted and the problems of training a new administration, I can only pity you. Enjoy your Christmas, because the next year is going to be grim.

Calories and Nicotine

I posted yesterday marveling at how far the country had come in 50 years, from ads on Christmas specials promoting cartons of cigarettes as stocking stuffers to now. Today the NYTimes has an article following up on the posting of calorie counts in restaurants and food vendors. It feels to me similar to the time when the Surgeon General's cancer warning was first printed on cigarette packs. While it took a while for cigarettes to become socially disapproved, it happened. I predict the same will happen for calories. Hope I'll be around 50 years from now to see it.

Vilsack and Conservation Subsidies

This Politico story says Vilsack and wife got $42,782 in farm subsidies in 2000-2006, linking to the EWG database. When you go there, you see they've got a Conservation Reserve Program contract, accounting for the payments. (Which is also described lower in the story.) So the question is, are those "subsidies"?

Merriam-Webster says: subsidy=" a grant or gift of money: as a: a sum of money formerly granted by the British Parliament to the crown and raised by special taxation b: money granted by one state to another c: a grant by a government to a private person or company to assist an enterprise deemed advantageous to the public."

So, researchers who get grants to study cancer cures are being "subsidized"? Or Pell grants are "subsidies"?

Technically, the Vilsacks have a contract, it's a quid pro quo. I suppose cancer researchers and Pell grantees also have conditions. I'm not sure what converts the Vilsack's contract into a "subsidy" when a cancer researcher is not normally seen as "subsidized". One might suppose the fact that there's no free market operating, but CRP contracts are competitive, as are NIH grants. (If I recall, there's a bid process where farmers offer land which is evaluated according to criteria as to the relative importance of taking it out of annual crop production.)

I think the bottom line is CRP payments have been tainted by the other payments FSA issues, many of which are more appropriately labeled "subsidies" (i.e., no competition) even though they all are contracts.

How Far We've Come--Tobacco

Listening to a 1956 Bing Crosby xmas special on Sirius/XM--sponsored by Chesterfield, with Bing et.al. pushing cartons of smokes for stocking stuffers just before launching into "Silent Night.."