We Should Have Gone Metric Like the Founding Father Wanted

Thomas Jefferson was a metric nut. Unfortunately the U.S. only adopted metrics for its money.  Just think of the lives and money we would have saved if we'd gone metric from the beginning.  For a start, that Mars explorer that failed because of software that operated in feet rather than meters (or vice versa) would have succeeded.  And Sen. Grassley says we've a similar problem in healthcare sofware.

(At some point in the past I remember we actually had a metric law and the bureaucracy was tasked with the job of getting ready to convert.  But the impetus behind it faded.  Once again short term gains and convenience trumped long term advantage.)

How Do Bureaucrats Interpret the Law--a Test Case

One of the great myths of the old civics texts was that Congress writes the laws, the President signs them, and the executive branch implements them.  Why a myth: because it implies everything is clear and straightforward.  (IMHO it's of a piece with the originalist interpretation of the Constitution.)  In fact Congress often writes laws which can be interpreted multiple ways.  Sometimes that's intentional: when you're trying to compromise to reach an agreement coming up with words which mean different things to different people is a common tactic.  Another tactic is to use fudge words like "appropriate" or "as applicable".It's called kicking the can down the road, leaving issues up to the bureaucracy to resolve.

All that is a lead-in to issues raised in FSA's implementation of the new biomass crop assistance program. It starts with this post critical of FSA at Sustainable Ag.  Essentially the criticism goes that FSA is issuing too much money to old users of biomass to the detriment of developing new uses of biomass and these procedures accord neither with the intent of Congress nor the letter of the law. (In passing I've noted criticisms coming from others, including the Hill as mentioned in the post, but I don't have those handy.)

It continues with a comment by Paul Harte (warning: I knew and worked with Paul back in the day) taking the author to task.  His position is the wording of the law requires the procedures FSA is using, OGC (Office of General Counsel) and OMB signed off on FSA's regs, and the manager's report doesn't support the critics.

And there's a response to Paul posted on Sustainable Ag.

I don't have the energy or the interest to get into the weeds and decide who's right.  But I will offer comments;

• you can usually find lawyers who will argue different interpretations of the same wording but my experience with USDA lawyers (OGC) is they're typical bureaucrats, not very adventurous in interpretation.  
• Paul is right in pointing out that OGC and OMB review (and OGC rewrites, and rewrites) regulations.  That doesn't mean their view is right, but it does mean FSA isn't being arbitrary.
• CBO and OMB have pictures in their head (in Lippmann's phrase) of how the program will operate but that doesn't mean the pictures match the way the bureaucrats and lawyers are going to interpret the language. And just because FSA, OGC, OMB and CBO are all part of the federal government doesn't mean they communicate welll, or at all, with each other.

So what happened in blowing a $70 million program up to $514 million.  There are logical possibilities:

• the critics are right, FSA blew it  The question would be why: did lobbyists for paper mills etc.wield improper influence or are the bureaucrats and lawyers just incompetent?  Those seem to be the alternatives.
• Paul is right, FSA is administering the law in accordance with the most reasonable interpretation of the wording.  Then the question would be why did the lobbyists for the sustainable ag people and the staff attorneys on the Hill fail to write the law better, or did the lobbyists for paper mills etc. stick an oar in?
• neither is right or both are right.  FSA, OGC, and OMB made their decisions without realizing the potential for paper mills, etc. to get money and so did not alert the Hill to ask for a technical correction to clarify the language.
• something entirely different.

(Paul by now is probably eligible to retire--I'm wondering what the USDA reaction to his comment will be.)

What Should Dems Do?

(About health care reform). Damned if I know.  Just two comments:

• it's a true fact, I believe, the House could decide to take up the Senate bill anytime between now and adjournment sine die.  So any decision now is not necessarily final.
• all the bluster by liberals on blogs like TPM Cafe about supporting primary opponents against such people as Barney Frank is only proof there's some idiots on the left to balance the idiots on the right. (I remember the problems pushing meaningful civil rights legislation in the 50's and early 60's.)
  

Don't Drive and Use Personal Electronics (While in a War Zone)

Tom Ricks has a post.  It's probably a good reminder that most of war is incredibly boring.

Brown for President

I want to be one of the first to plug our new Senator from Massachusetts as a candidate for President.  His background and experience will be almost as good as Obama's when he ran, he's as good looking and equally impressive in the pecs, has an attractive family with 2 daughters and a professional wife, and an unlikely personal narrative.

What more can America want?  Brown for President in 2012.

Lefties Originate in the Stars?

My father was left-handed, which meant when we went out to eat (about 3-4 times a year at most), he needed to be seated in the proper place so as not to bump others.  Maybe that made me more interested in the book: Right Hand, Left Hand which takes the apparently simple issue of handedness, and traces it into history (how did societies agree on driving on the right or left) and physics (how do we define handedness, well you need to define north and south, and then you get into stars and galaxies) and chemistry (right handed and left handed molecules--but on earth biology has its preference).  Now there's a theory to explain the preference, not that I understand it (the galaxy formed in circularly polarized light), but anyone interested can go there..

Haiti, a Language Island?

Tyler Cowen at Marginal Revolution has been blogging extensively about Haiti, including discussion of possible reasons why Haiti is so poor. 

I wonder if language contributes to it.  Here's my logic:

• Haiti is almost the only French-speaking nation in the Western Hemisphere.  (Martinique is a part of France, Quebec is a part of Canada.)
• Networks of communication and trade are very important in the development of economies. (Assumption)
• Communication is easier when there's a shared language and harder when there isn't one.
• So over the centuries Haitian people have been at a slight disadvantage in dealing with their potential trading partners in other areas, simply because of language. Over time, that disadvantage could add up.

Meanwhile, over the years the people of the Dominican Republic or the Caribbean nations had no communication difficulties with their neighbors, so they could make deals and share ideas.

German Health Care

Another chapter on health care from the T.R.Reid, this time on Germany.  Factoids:

• German doctors are also unionized
• Germany also uses smart cards for health care data
• Bismarck was the father of social insurance.
• So-called "civil society", the nongovernmental groups have always been big in German culture and society, and that's the way the insurance is worked, through your group affiliations.

The Persistence of Silos

Back in the day of ASCS and FmHA (i.e., pre 1994, Agricultural Stabilization and Stabilization Service and Farmers Home Administration), each agency had its own association of county employees.  Come the reorganization which merged the loan function with ASCS into FSA and one might expect a merger of the two associations in maybe 2 or 3 years. 

One might, but one would be disappointed. 

Going on 16 years later, the two associations aren't merged.  Not only that, but the NASCOE website doesn't   recognize the other. See National Association of Credit Specialists and the National Association of FSA County Office Employees. Oh, and there's also the National Association of Support Employees of the Farm Service Agency.

A Failure of Understanding?

In an oldish article on Grist, Debbie Barker writes:

It’s an industry-generated myth that ecologically-safe organic agriculture yields less than conventional agriculture. In fact, a comprehensive study comparing 293 crops from industrial and organic growers demonstrates that organic farm yields are roughly comparable to industrial farms in developed countries; and result in much higher yields in the developing world.

But this says

The performance of organic agriculture on production depends on the previous agricultural management system. An over-simplification of the impact of conversion to organic agriculture on yields indicates that:

• In industrial countries, organic systems decrease yields; the range depends on the intensity of external input use before conversion;
• In the so-called Green Revolution areas (irrigated lands), conversion to organic agriculture usually leads to almost identical yields;
• In traditional rain-fed agriculture (with low-input external inputs), organic agriculture has the potential to increase yields.

To be fair, the FAO says: organic agriculture has the potential to feed the world, under the right circumstances.

My point: "decrease yields" is not the same as "roughly comparable"