Crystal Ball on USDA Organization

A commenter on this post asks whether I think the possible reorganization of USDA will eliminate FSA? Dragging out my crystal ball, I see into the future and provide this answer: "Darned if I know".

There seems to be an ebb and flow to these things. Back in the Ford administration there was a push to co-locate county offices which looked forward to some consolidation of administrative functions. Then Carter came in and priorities changed. Around 1984 they tried to consolidate state offices in the northeast, but Congress killed that one. Sec. Madigan started "Infoshare" and the consolidation of county offices in 1991. That effort evolved into the 1994 reorganization splitting FmHA and hiding Rural Electrification within RD, and then the aborted Glickman proposal for merged administrative support. The new millennium seems to have been relatively quiet, except for some more office closings.

I wonder how much NRCS and FSA customers use the Internet instead of county offices. I say this because I'm struck every day by how small the NY Times is when it lands on my doorstep. Newspapers seem to be losing more and more ground to the Internet. Retailers are also hurting now (it's been years since my wife or I were in a department store, though that is partially a reflection of how cheap we are, as well as our use of online shopping). Thinking abstractly, one would say there's fewer and fewer commercial farmers and more and more capability to do things online, so FSA is and should be on the way out.

On the other hand, government reacts slowly to changes and rural areas have lots more clout than the burbs and cities. And Congress seems determined to keep making the programs more and more complicated. ACRE, SURE, and direct attribution are good insurance against major changes in the number or organization of offices.

Old Aerial Photography

Here's an interesting article on efforts to retrieve the old aerial photography used in administering farm programs. The article refers to photos authorized in 1933, which surprises me but is possible. The project in Iowa is to try to identify possible "brownfields" for EPA, but they are historically important as well.

Bush Didn't Stop All Abortion Advice

My impression is that the Bush administration forbade government bureaucrats from discussing and recommending abortions. (On a playoff Sunday I'm not inclined to doublecheck my impression.) But apparently not, as this post from Extension Service shows. (Horses)

Pigford and Black Farmers

I'm not familiar with Colorlines but Jessica Hoffman has an article on black farmers and Pigford. It doesn't break new ground for those who have been following the subject. Via EWG Pipes

The Times They Are A'Changing: Cotton and Animals

Agweb.com carries a couple posts:

1 Cotton (a report on the Beltwide Cotton Conference):

"Now that grain has a solid footing in the old cotton strongholds, it could remain a factor at least for the near future. “Producers are telling me that farming grain is easy compared to cotton. There’s more time for family, for golf, for other things. We’re seeing a lot of grain bins built in the mid-South and they’re sure going to find ways to fill them,” says Tom Barber, Arkansas Extension cotton specialist."

2 Animals:

In 2008, there appeared to be an increase in well-funded animal rights activities directed at animal agriculture, according to the Animal Agriculture Alliance research.

In 2007, the latest reporting period available for review, charitable donations to animal rights groups rose 11% providing activist groups funds to develop activities such as California’s Proposition 2, undercover video operations, legislative initiatives and legal actions. Donations to the extremist People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) and its subsidiaries increased 11%.

Most Incredible Sentence of the Week

“The protocol is you’re not supposed to talk to the President directly,” Frank said. from Jeffrey Toobin's profile of Barney Frank in the New Yorker, talking about the famous meeting on the $700 billion bank bailout bill.

My first reaction is: WHAT?

My second reaction is: What?

My guess, after I calmed down, is that this isn't a standard rule of protocol for meetings with President Bush, but a one-time only rule for this meeting. It would allow Bush to understand where all the parties are coming from, without having to do something dangerous, like ask questions.

The Cost of Federalism

OMB released some performance reports. Here's an interesting factoid from the report on improper payments:

Breaking-out the 12 programs identified in Exhibit 4 based on whether they are administered by states or the Federal government, shows a distinct difference in their reported errors. The combined error rate for the five Federally-administered programs was 1.4 percent while the combined error rate for the seven State-administered programs was 3.5 percent. The lower error rate among Federally administered programs may be due to having standard eligibility rules across the program. State-administered programs must follow Federal eligibility regulations; however, each state can define additional (and unique) eligibility requirements. These unique state variances may increase the challenges of administering these programs and could contribute to the higher error rates.

In other words the Federal bureaucracy is more effective at preventing improper payments than the 50 State bureaucracies.

Who Is Right?

David Brooks in today's Times is ambivalent about Obama's plans, ending:" Maybe Obama can pull this off, but I have my worries. By this time next year, he’ll either be a great president or a broken one."

I have to agree--one danger Obama faces as a chief administrator is overestimating the capacity of the bureaucracies on which he has to rely. Coming from outside, he (and most other Dems) have attacked the Bush administration for bad decisions and politicizing the bureaucracy. It's logical to jump from that to the idea the bureaucracy is capable, except for its leadership. Government bureaucracy can be capable, but it works best if you ask it to do something it's done before. The completely new is very difficult for any human, much less bureaucrats.

Standards for "Sustainable Agriculture"

Interesting piece on the steps in the bureaucratic evolution of standards for "sustainable agriculture" here. It's moving along speedily (next committee meeting is May 2009).

Wikipedia has an article on it. I haven't digested the theological differences between sustainable and organic (reminds me of trying to figure out the differences between the Reformed Presbyterian (General Synod) of 1840-70, the Associate Reformed Presbyterians, and the others.) For any advocates of organic farming reading me, be advised that the Wikipedia article states organic is less productive than conventional farming, which of course is heresy. (I must be feeling like pulling wings off flies today.)

Most Discouraging Headline of the Day

Headline

Alzheimer's drugs double death risk in elderly

The details are a bit better. The drugs in question are anti-psychotic ones, those used to control outbursts, not those which show any promise of slowing the development of Alzheimers. Bottom line--if I'm raging against my fate, and making life miserable for others I don't mind a shorter lifespan.